CAN WE STAY OUT OF WAR?
By Philips Bradley This hook (New York W. W._ Norton, $2.75) is another instance of the deep interest the American people is taking in the chances of neutrality in a future War. It ia'nOtits closely argued as was the corresponding essay of Messrs. Dulles and Armstrong, but it is a very able argument for a positive neu- trality policy. In the dispute whether the President should have
d iscretiortar3-. or mandatory duties in connexion with the enforce- ment of neutrality Professor Bradley is, on the whole,- for mandatory legislation. This not merely becaUse.heis suspicious of discretion, but because he takes an optimistic 4iew of the willingness of the American people to jay the price Of peace. If it were, certain...OW policy ot.permitting.trade. directly 'or indirectly with the belligerenti or with one of them would :inevitably lead to war, there might l no risk of the selfish interests having their way and sending the bill for their profits in tothe United States'in the form of a war. But it will not be as simple as that and-it is-by no means certain that the interests involved . in trade . will be powerless or that the peace organisations will be able to defeat them. If Professor Bradley will ponder the fate of attempts to get America into the League and later into the World Court, he may be less optimistic about the whirle --question of positive American action for peace or real neutrality. One defect in his argument arises fr‘m his contempt for foreign trade.-- It is unlikely that -the Ainerican .farmer (exporting. cotton or cereals) or the American manufacturer will let profits slip 'past them .withOut_a light, nor will the workman be. content with a dole (as is here suggested), and the farmer and businessman are each,- -in-their own way, more powerful in- politics than objective national-book-keeping would account for. The diffi- culties of getting credit for...belligerents will be a more effective barrier-tounneutral- action than the most- rationWOrgument.
Previous page
