The Pittsburgh Press (September 19, 1941)
MOVE TO KILL NEUTRALITY ACT EXPECTED SOON
…
Victory seen in Senate but House reaction is uncertain
…
Washington, Sept. 19 (UP) –
Informed Congressional sources today expected the administration to seek repeal of the Neutrality Act within the next two months.
They regarded such a move the logical final short-of-war step after Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox revelation that the United States Navy is now engaged in active convoy duty.
Non-interventionist Senators condemned the administration for the convoy move. Senator Pat McCarran (D-NV) said:
The time has come to stop this thing by legislative enactment forbidding convoys.
None came forward immediately with a specific countermove. An anti-convoy resolution by Senator Charles W. Tobey (R-NH) has been in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since April.
House vote uncertain
A private survey of Senate sentiment on neutrality repeal indicated that the administration would win, if the proposal came to a vote, with not more than 37 votes against it. House sentiment was more uncertain.
Senator Walter F. George (D-GA), discussing the Knox statement on convoys, said he did not assume that American vessels are convoying any ships into the combat zone set forth in presidential neutrality proclamations.
He said:
I think it is perfectly clear that we have no authority to convoy into these areas without changing oue Neutrality Law.
Senator George held that the Navy was entitled to convoy American ships wherever they had a legal right to do.
Dirksen switches
Administration leaders believed the strong support given by the American Legion to President Roosevelt’s foreign policy would have profound effect on Congressional sentiment. One of the resolutions adopted at its Milwaukee convention called for repeal of the so-called Neutrality Act.
Rep. Everett M. Dirksen (R-IL), an influential member of the minority, a war veteran and hitherto an opponent of Mr. Roosevelt’s foreign policy, advised to colleagues in a House speech to support the “settled policy of Congress.” Mr. Roosevelt’s policy of “patrolling and clearing the waters is now known to all the world,” Mr. Dirksen said, adding:
To disavow or oppose that policy now could only weaken the President’s position, impair our prestige and imperil the nation.
His statement followed that of another prominent member of the non-intervention group. Senator Arthur Capper (R-KS), who, while still opposed to any expeditionary force, asserted that since the President has acted:
Congress and the people of the United States must and will support that action.
Senator McCarran took the view that Mr. Knox’s order for convoys put the United States in war. He said:
Congress is not helpless and it will reflect the sentiment of the majority of the people if it has the opportunity.
Senator Robert M. La Follette (PR-WI) said:
I think the President himself analyzed this situation by saying that convoys mean shooting and shooting means war. This is another means of short-circuiting our chances of remaining at peace. If Congress does not act soon in some positive fashion to protect its rights, it will abdicate its constitutional duty.