MORRIS SHEPPARD, TEX., CHAIRMAN
J: HAMILTON LEWIS, ILL.
WARREN R. AUSTIN, Vr.
M. M. LOGAN, KY.
GERALD P. NYE, N. DAK.
ROBERT R. REYNOLDS, N. C.
H. STYLES BRIDGES, N. H.
ELBERT D. THOMAS, UTAH
HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., MASS.
SHERMAN MINTON, IND
EDWIN C. JOHNSON, COLO.
JOSH LEE, OKLA.
HARRY H. SCHWARTZ, WYO
ERNEST LUNDEEN, MINN.
GEORGE L. BERRY, TENN.
JOHN E. MILLER, ARK.
LISTER HILL, ALA.
VICTOR RUSSELL, CLERK
CECIL TOLBERT, ASST. CLERK
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS
Burlington,Vt.
Sept. 30, 1939
Mrs. C.G. Austin
South Main St.,
St.Albans,Vt.
Dear Mother:
Here is a copy of the letter which I told you
I would send you. We had so many letters
that we had to mineograph the reply.
I am going to have a copy of the Boston
Sunday Globe sent to you because it will con-
tain an editorial by me relating to the new
joint resolution.
I am going to Washington Sunday night end
shall phone you in any event before going and
I hope to get up to see you.
Affectionately,
Warren
WRA/S
Enc.
Send to Mother. I promised
it over phone.
WRA.
MORRIS SHEPPARD, TEX., CHAIRMAN
J. HAMILTON LEWIS, ILL.
WARREN R. AUSTIN, Vr.
M. M. LOGAN, KY.
GERALD P. NYE. N. DAK.
ROBERT R. REYNOLDS, N. C.
H. STYLES BRIDGES, N. H.
ELBERT D. THOMAS, UTAH
HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., MASS.
SHERMAN MINTON, IND.
EDWIN C. JOHNSON, COLO.
JOSH LEE, OKLA.
HARRY H. SCHWARTZ, WYO.
ERNEST LUNDEEN, MINN
GEORGE L. BERRY, TENN.
JOHN E. MILLER, ARK.
LISTER HILL, ALA.
VICTOR RUSSELL, CLERK
CECIL TOLBERT, ASST. CLERK
United States Senate
COMMTTTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS
September 21, 1939.
Dear Friend:
Replying to your welcome letter regarding our foreign policy:
The preservation of American security and peace is the immediate
objective. The means to be used is the question.
My judgement is that repeal of the embargo, leaving our Govern-
ment independent to take any action that may be adapted to known con¬
ditions in the future, would be the most neutral act of Government,
and, therefore, the least partial and the least provocative.
Retention of the embargo is not regarded as impartial:
It helps Germany;
It deprives Britain and France of a lawful advantage they possess
through geographical location and command of the seas. The distinction
between neutrality and qualified neutrality ought to be regarded when
taking our first step:
(a) Repeal of the embargo would place the Government in a truly
neutral attitude;
(b) Repeal of the embargo, accompained by re-enactment of the
cash and carry provision, would place the Government, as such, in an
attitude of semi-neutrality.
Only one step now should be taken. This is necessary for the
record. This step should be entirely neutral and impartial. There is
only one act within our contemplation which constitutes that step,
and that is repeal of the Embargo Act of 1937. There we should stop
for the present. There we would be under the rules of international
law. These rules forbid the Government participating for or against
eithsr side. These rules do not require the Government to prohibit
its internationals from commerce. Later, if the circumstances should
require some further act by the Government which is not wholly im-
-2-
partial such as reenacting the cash and carry provision covering
both munitions and contraband of war, the Government can take that
step deliberately and candidly admit the fact that its act is not
entirely impartial.
Therefore, I would prefer the first alternative.
However I seek information and guidance, and am particularly
concerned that Congress should act in accord with an enlightened
public opinion, because the vitality of our foreign policy depends
upon the support of the united people.
I have voluminous mail on this subject, for which I am grateful.
I shall try to answer each letter with a view to encouraging continued
interest and expression by the American people.
Finally, the country should feel reassured by the knowledge
that, regardless of preferences respecting methods, we have a united
Congress on the objective of peace.
Respectfully yours,
Warren R. Austin