¹ For summaries of the 1937 Neutrality Act, see articles by Buell, R. L. in Foreign Policy Reports, Oct. 1, 1937Google Scholar, and Garner, J. W. in Amer. Jour. of Internat. Law, July, 1937Google Scholar.

² H. R. 5432.

³ H. J. Res. 7.

⁴ See especially the Nye-Bone-Clark bill, S. J. Res. 106.

⁵ Cf. S. J. Res. 21; H. J. Res. 113; H. J. Res. 3; H. J. Res. 16.

⁶ S. J. Res. 67; H. J. Res. 226.

⁷ Cong. Rec., Vol. 84, p. 1903Google Scholar. All subsequent references to the Record are to Vol. 84 unless otherwise indicated.

⁸ The formula of President Roosevelt as announced in his message to Congress, Jan. 4, 1939.

⁹ See especially the testimony of Colonel Stimson, MrsWright, Louise, and ProfessorFenwick, . Neutrality, Peace Legislation, and Our Foreign Policy, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., Pts. I, III, V, VIGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ See, however, the strong action threatened by President Jackson when France attempted to dodge the obligations of the claims convention of 1831. Richardson, J. D., The Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 3, p. 97Google Scholar. For the Capper resolutions, see Borchard, and Lage, , Neutrality for the United States, p. 296Google Scholar.

¹¹ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Book III, Ch. 17, 3.

¹² On coöperative neutrality, see Jessup, P. C., Neutrality; Its History, Economics, and Law, Vol. 4, pp. 160 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹³ See H. R. 79; H. J. Res. 44; S. 203; and S. 1745.

¹⁴ For this view, see Borchard and Lage, op. cit.

¹⁵ Representatives Dondero, Plumley, Eaton, Allen, Wads worth, Faddis, Reed, Gifford, and Coffee, among others. Cong. Rec., pp. 11236–8, 11244, 11251, 11341, 11347, 11345, 11542, 11544.

¹⁶ Cong. Rec., p. 11578.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 11580.

¹⁸ The statement of Representative Hawks (Wis.) is typical: “Right or wrong, the folks back home want us to do something. There is not a man in this House who is in a position to ignore the demands of the people who sent him down here. If your folks want a neutrality act, it is not your business to tell them you are not going to give them one.” Ibid., p. 11593.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 11599.

²⁰ See the remarks of Professors Brown and Tobin, Quincy Howe, Dorothy Thompson, Bainbridge Colby, and W. R. Castle in American Neutrality Policy, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., and Senate Hearings cited above. See also Cong. Rec., pp. 11577 ff.

²¹ Cong. Rec., p. 11582.

²² On July 18, 1939, Ambassador Davies said on his return from Belgium: “If quickly we can repeal the embargo and go back to historic processes under which our foreign relations were conducted for 150 years, in accordance with international law, it would have a potent effect in now preventing a world war, in my opinion.” New York Times, July 19, 1939.

²³ S. J. Res. 97; H. R. 5575.

²⁴ New York Times, Mar. 26, 1939.

²⁵ Senate Hearings, Pt. VII, p. 212.

²⁶ “All other causes,” says the Senator, “are pure piffle.” Radio address, Mar. 19, 1939, over C.B.S.

²⁷ See his arguments for “cash and carry” in Senate Hearings, Pt. II.

²⁸ New York Times, Mar. 26, 1939.

²⁹ Ibid., July 1, 1939.

³⁰ Cf. the estimates of Case, W. W. in The Annalist, September 28, 1938Google Scholar; Foreign Policy Reports, April 15, 1939; and the figures in the New York Times, Mar. 4, 1939. This figure may be compared with the 11½ billions owed the United States when the war debts were funded.

³¹ Senate Hearings, p. 58. He was stating the position of Bernard Baruch.

³² In a note to Austria (1915), Secretary Lansing denied that “the advantages gained to a belligerent by its superiority on the sea should be equalized by the neutral powers.” Diplomatic Correspondence with Belligerent Governments Relating to Neutral Rights and Duties, No. 2, p. 194.

³³ Hague Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, 36 U. S. Statutes at Large, 2415. Cf. Secretary Bryan's note to Germany (1915): “Any change in its own law of neutrality during the progress of the war which would affect unequally the relations of the United States with the nations at war would be an unjustifiable departure from the principle of strict neutrality.” Diplomatic Correspondence with Belligerent Governments, No. 1, p. 73.

³⁴ New York Times, March 28, April 2, 1939, and House Hearings, pp. 221, 332, 535, for good examples.

³⁵ Tables in House Hearings, pp. 266, 363, 637–639.

³⁶ On April 8, 1939, the Chinese foreign minister stated that “China could win the war in a year if the United States would apply neutrality measures distinguishing between the aggressor and the victim.” New York Times, Apr. 9, 1939.

³⁷ S. J. Res. 123, Cong. Rec., p. 6759. See-also H. R. 5432, introduced on Mar. 29, 1939, and designed to embargo the exportation of essential war materials to Japan.

³⁸ State Department, Press Releases, June 3, 1939.

³⁹ H. J. Res. 306.

⁴⁰ Cong. Rec., p. 11879, Representative Crawford (Michigan) speaking.

⁴¹ Signed by Representatives Fish, Eaton, Tinkham, Rogers, Chiperfield, Corbett, Vorys, Stearns, and Schiffler. Ibid., p. 10392.

⁴² Ibid., p. 11254.

⁴³ Representative Dondero (Michigan) bemoaned the fact that “in nine pages it [the Bloom bill] mentions the President 31 times and Congress not once.” Ibid., p. 11236.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 11619.

⁴⁵ A state of war could be found either by the President or by a concurrent resolution of Congress. Ibid., p. 11601.

⁴⁶ The Export-Import Bank has extended commercial credits for five-year terms.

⁴⁷ Cong. Rec., p. 11620. Exceptions, together with the amount of credit involved, were to be made public every 90 days.

⁴⁸ Other amendments include: (1) Americans may travel on belligerent ships at their own risk, and (2) elimination of the provision prohibiting the arming of American merchant vessels. Ibid., pp. 11725–7, 11616.

⁴⁹ See Garner, J. W., “Executive Discretion in the Conduct of Foreign Relations,” Amer. Jour. of Internat. Law, 1937, pp. 289 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Green, J. F., in Foreign Policy Reports, Apr. 1, 1939Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Details of these incidents may be found in current numbers of Press Releases and New York Times.

⁵¹ Representative Fish, on June 27, said: “It is utterly impossible to sell arms, ammunition, and implements of war to any belligerent nations without being involved in war ourselves within a very short time.” Cong. Rec., p. 11227.

⁵² Ibid., p. 11252.

⁵³ Diplomatic Correspondence with Belligerent Governments, II, p. 94Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Dept. of State Bulletin, July 15, 1939, p. 43.

⁵⁵ Cong. Rec., p. 11601.

⁵⁶ International Conciliation, Dec. 1935, p. 600Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Cong. Rec., p. 11738.

⁵⁸ New York Times, Mar. 10, June 16, July 8, 1939.

⁵⁹ New York Times, Apr. 8, 1939. “Every man will have to speak for himself,” he said. “We could not get anywhere trying to reconcile all the divergent views.”

⁶⁰ The final House vote on the arms embargo showed 61 Democrats and 150 Republicans opposing the Administration, and only 7 Republicans and 165 Democrats voting for repeal. Cong. Rec., p. 11736; New York Times, July 2, 1939. The Senate committee vote showed 11 Democrats against 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, 1 Progressive, and 1 Farm Laborite.

⁶¹ New York Times, June 27, 1939. These incidents were frequently referred to in the House debates.

⁶² Press Releases, June 17, 1939.

⁶³ Editorial in New Republic, Aug. 2, 1939.

⁶⁴ On July 26, 1939, the President gave formal notice of the denunciation of the commercial treaty (1911) with Japan, presumably to pave the way for an embargo on essential war materials to Japan. Republicans and Democrats in Congress supported the move. Thus we see an apparent willingness to apply the principle of the Thomas amendment as against Japan.