of peace? There is no place here for a discussion of the details of such a program, but it is not less essential-- indeed many think it the one effective method of preventing our involvement in a future war. If such a policy of neutrality, of effective isolation from a future war, as has been here outlined is to be enacted, is it not an indispensable concomitant of this policy that we accept the responsibility of our place and power? Must we not be equally concerned in creating an effective system of pacific settlement and mutual guarantee on a regional and world-wide basis?
The vital importance to the people of this country of the neutrality policy to be determined at the next session of Congress makes it desirable for all points of view in regard to that policy to be clearly stated.
In the current discussion of the issue, the choice is frequently made to appear to be between an elastic policy which would enable this government to cooperate with other nations in preventing war, and an inelastic policy which would isolate the United States from all international efforts for peace. Actually, however, the choice is between permissive legislation, giving the President power to declare an embargo on war supplies against either or both or neither side in an armed conflict, and mandatory legislation, automatically embargoing war supplies to belligerents. The prevention of all war is the end sought by the supporters of both types of legislation. The present embargo law is recognized by both as inadequate.
Mandatory legislation is supported by isolationists because of the protection it offers this country against____________________