should undoubtedly be borne equitably by all nations. But the creation of what could be regarded as an international "police" force calls for three things, provision for change, harmonizing the policies of all nations with current standards of international conduct, the organization of force on some basis other than the grouping of the armies of sovereign states each with its own special interests.
The second question raised is whether mandatory legislation would require the extension of embargoes to members of the League employing sanctions. Obviously it would not so long as they did not engage in military action. If they did, the embargo would apply. If this country then wished to support them in such action, it could do so thru a declaration of war by Congress, but it would not become a participant in the war by slipping into it thru trade arrangements in which the people and Congress had no part. At this point, it becomes clear that involved in this issue is the question of critical importance to democratic government--is the actual war- making power to be in the hands of the Executive or of Congress?
On these many grounds, adequate mandatory neutrality legislation has widespread and determined support as the most far-reaching contribution which the United States can make toward permanent world peace.
I suggest that, prior to a future war, at least at its very outset, the United States should endeavor to negotiate agreements with the belligerents, under which the United States should not challenge the right of the belligerent to restrict the flow of our neutral commerce____________________