765.84/3013
Memorandum by the Secretary of State
The British Ambassador called upon his own request for some further discussion of the subject matter of the last oral statement he made to me about the policy of this Government relative to shipments of oil and other essential war materials to belligerents. I had requested Mr. Dunn to hand the Ambassador my oral reply last evening to his oral statement of two days’ ago. My reply was as follows:
“Oral Conversation
“This Government from the beginning of the Ethiopian-Italian controversy undertook to pursue a course consistent with its mandatory Neutrality Act, with its obligations under the Kellogg Pact, and its genuine interest in peace in every part of the world. The primary purpose of the Neutrality Act is to keep this nation from being drawn into war, while a policy of long standing has been that this Government at all times seeks to aid in every practical way, short of any political or similar involvement or entanglement, both to preserve and to promote peace. Accordingly, from the outset of the Ethiopian-Italian controversy this Government in pursuing its policies just mentioned, undertook on its own initiative to follow its own separate and independent course, without any agreement or understanding with any other nation or groups of nations, relative to sanctions or other phases of the war. The successive acts and utterances on the part of this Government since the outbreak of hostilities are to be interpreted in the light of what I have thus far said. I need not repeat the numerous public statements from week to week of the President and myself in behalf of peace, and in opposition to war or to the encouragement of its prolongation.
“It is sufficient to say that in pursuance of its primary objectives, which I have pointed out, this Government has, in the present circumstances, step by step applied the very definite policies for which it stands to the war conditions as they have developed. The Neutrality Act which, as stated, was primarily designed to keep this country from being drawn into war, prescribed an embargo against the exportation of arms, ammunition and implements of war. Later, on November 15, when the Government discovered that certain important war materials, comprising five commodities, namely: oil, copper, trucks, tractors, [Page 873] scrap iron and scrap steel, were being shipped in abnormal quantities to belligerents for war purposes, I stated that abnormal exports of these commodities were contrary to the policy of this Government and the spirit of the neutrality act; that such shipments also constituted war trade and war profits, and tended to prolong the duration of the war. Ordinary trade between this country and the belligerents has continued, subject, of course, to the risk of the trader, but the Government definitely opposes to the extent of its influence the shipment in abnormal quantities of the above specified war materials.
“As to the probable attitude and action of Congress toward the abnormal exportation of such essential war materials as those referred to, when it convenes, those interested must use their own good judgment, based upon the wide range of information available relative to public sentiment in this country, and the numerous expressions of Senators and Congressmen on the subject.”
I reiterated to the Ambassador that this was really all I could say about the future course and attitude of this Government, except that it would continue to pursue its own separate, independent course in dealing with all phases of the present war and would refrain from the slightest agreements or understandings with other nations or groups of nations in that connection. I added that this Government had scrupulously pursued this course thus far, as he must know. I said further that this Government was moving in a given direction with the primary purpose, under the Neutrality Act, to keep out of war, and also with definite objects and purposes to manifest its due interest in peace and to perform its reasonable peace obligations under the Kellogg Pact and its interest in peace in every part of the world; that in pursuing this separate course it must formulate its own policies and plans and must refrain as stated from any agreements with other nations or groups and could not as also stated make predictions as to the future course, nature and duration, of its policies, but could only leave people here and abroad to forecast that as best they might be able from the very clear and definite and stable course this Government had thus far pursued since the beginning of the Ethiopian-Italian controversy. I added that this Government had planned and pursued every step and policy from its own standpoint and without any reference to the plans or policies of Geneva, or London, or Paris, or other capitals abroad, and that this course we must continue to pursue; that as to what Congress might or might not do with respect to enactment of a law extending the embargo to essential war materials with or without discretion of the President, or what it might do relative to other important phases of neutrality as the same would relate to the present war, I would not for a moment predict, but leave the matter for every person to forecast in the light of such information as he might have.
I then inquired as to the theory upon which 52 nations, with their own carefully defined program relating to the war situation and operating [Page 874] under the collective peace system originating since the World War and the very life of which depended on its success in this undertaking, should hesitate or halt and seek to make the impression that they would not even attempt to go further unless some important country outside of the League first gave them some assurance as to what its course and policy might be during coming months with respect to the shipment, especially in abnormal quantities, of oil and certain other essential war materials. The Ambassador did not disagree at all with the view implied by this inquiry. I said that of course I was only thus commenting for the purpose of illustrating our own separate situation.
The Ambassador after my brief comment about the state of public opinion in this country and about the pursuit of our own separate program in harmony with that public opinion, did not seem disposed to inquire further as to our plans and purposes in the future.