107
Press Releases, vol. XVIII, p. 578
The Secretary of
State to the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations (Pittman), United
States Senate
[WASHINGTON,] May 12, 1938.
MY DEAR SENATOR PITTMAN:
I have received your letter of May 3, 1938,
enclosing a copy of S. J. Resolution 288 "repealing the Joint Resolution
to prohibit the export of arms, ammunition and implements of war from the
United States to Spain, approved January 8, 1937, and conditionally raising the
embargo against the Government of Spain," and requesting my comment.
In recent years this Government has
consistently pursued a course calculated to prevent our becoming involved in
war situations. In August, 1936, shortly after the beginning of the civil
strife in Spain, it became evident that several of the great powers were
projecting themselves into the struggle through the furnishing of arms and war
materials and other aid to the contending sides, thus creating a real danger of
a spread of the conflict into a European war, with the possible involvement of
the United States. That there was such a real danger was realized by every
thoughtful observer the world over. Twenty-seven Governments of Europe took
special cognizance of that
[39] Doc. 93.
419
DOCUMENTS
fact in setting up a committee designed to carry out a concerted policy
of non-intervention in the conflict. In view of all these special and unusual
circumstances, this Government declared its policy of strict non-interference
in the struggle and at the same time announced that export of arms from the
United States to Spain would be contrary to such policy.
The fundamental reason for the enactment of
the Joint Resolution of January 8, 1937, was to implement this policy by
legislation. This Joint Resolution was passed in the Senate unanimously and in
the House of Representatives by a vote of 406 to 1.
In the form in which it is presented, the
proposed legislation, if enacted, would lift the embargo, which is now being
applied against both parties to the conflict in Spain, in respect to shipments
of arms to one party while leaving in effect the embargo in respect to
shipments to the other party. Even if the legislation applied to both parties,
its enactment would still subject us to unnecessary risks we have so far
avoided. We do not know what lies ahead in the Spanish situation. The original
danger still exists. In view of the continued danger of international conflict
arising from the circumstances of the struggle, any proposal which at this
juncture contemplates a reversal of our policy of strict non-interference which
we have thus far so scrupulously followed, and under the operation of which we
have kept out of involvements, would offer a real possibility of complications.
From the standpoint of the best interests of the United States in the
circumstances which now prevail, I would not feel justified in recommending
affirmative action on the Resolution under consideration.
Our first solicitude should be the peace and
welfare of this country, and the real test of the advisability of making any
changes in the statutes now in effect should be whether such changes would
further tend to keep us from becoming involved directly or indirectly in a
dangerous European situation.
Furthermore, if reconsideration is to be
given to a revision of our neutrality legislation, it would be more useful to
reconsider it in its broader aspects in the light of the practical experience
gained during the past two or three years, rather than to rewrite it piecemeal
in relation to a particular situation. It is evident that there is not
sufficient time to give study to such questions in the closing days of this
Congress.
Sincerely yours,
CORDELL HULL
420