¹ Reports in the New York Times of March to June, 1940.

² In a similar way, it was reported, the Navy Department postponed deliveries of Brewster fighting planes of an “experimental type” and that the Brewster Company sold them to Finland for use in the undeclared Russo-Finnish War. (New York Times, Dec. 19, 1939.)

³ Act of June 28, 1940, Pub. No. 671, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., Sec. 14(a), as follows: “Notwithstanding the provision of any other law, no military or naval weapon, ship, boat, aircraft, munitions, supplies, or equipment, to which the United States has title, in whole or in part, or which have been contracted for, shall hereafter be transferred, exchanged, sold, or otherwise disposed of in any manner whatsoever unless the Chief of Naval Operations in the case of naval material, and the Chief of Staff of the Army in the case of military material, shall first certify that such material is not essential to the defense of the United States.”

Sec. 14(b) requires that a copy of each contract, order, or agreement covering such disposition where the cost exceeds $2,000 shall be laid before Committees on Military and Naval Affairs of the Senate and House.

⁴ The provision of the Act of June 15,1917, in question provides: “During a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, it shall be unlawful to send out of the jurisdiction of the United States any vessel built, armed, or equipped as a vessel of war, or converted from a private vessel into a vessel of war, with any intent or under any agreement or contract, written or oral, that such vessel shall be delivered to a belligerent nation, or to an agent, officer or citizen of such nation, or with reasonable cause to believe that the said vessel shall or will be employed in the service of any such belligerent nation after its departure from the jurisdiction of the United States.” (U. S. Code, Title 18, Sec. 33.)

The violator “shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and, in addition, such vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, equipment, and her cargo shall be forfeited to the United States.” (Id., Sec. 36.)

⁵ State Department press statement, Sept. 7, 1939; this Journal, Supplement, p. 131.

⁶ New York Times, April 28, 1940.

It is reported the Allied Governments sought to purchase from the United States the Government-owned machinery for the manufacture of smokeless powder, ammonia and ammunition. It is said the United States insisted on retaining the title to the machinery while making it available to private manufacturers in order to expedite production of these materials for this country as well as for the Allies. (New York Times, June 12, 1940.)

According to the press, the Chief of the United States Air Corps has been anxious to obtain Rolls-Royce engines which are the exclusive property of the British Government. The Secretary of the Treasury recently announced that with the assistance of Ambassador Kennedy he had obtained the license from the British Government to manufacture them in the United States. The British Government will apparently share in the production under the arrangement which was announced as an “intergovernmental transaction.” The Secretary indicated that there would be Government loans to defense industries on an amortization basis. (New York Times, June 28, 1940.)

⁷ As early as May 16, 1940, in his message to Congress, the President said: “For the permanent record I ask the Congress not to take any action which would in any way hamper or delay the delivery of American-made planes to foreign nations which have ordered them or seek to purchase more planes. That from the point of view of our own national defense would be extremely shortsighted.”

In his speech of June 10, 1940, at the University of Virginia he said: “We will extend to the opponents of force the material resources of this nation.” It is clear in these speeches that the President was referring to the opponents of the Allied Governments.

In his cable of June 15, 1940, direct to Premier Reynaud, the President said: “The Government of the United States has made it possible for the Allied armies to obtain during the weeks that have just passed airplanes, artillery and munitions of many kinds, and that this Government so long as the Allied Governments continue to resist, will redouble its efforts in this direction.”

These declarations were hailed by the Allied Governments as assurances of aid and material support.

⁸ Quaestionum Juris Publici, I, 1, c. 9 (1737).

⁹ Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, L. 3, Sec. 104.

¹⁰ Moore, Dig. Int. Law, Vol. VII, p. 973 Google Scholar. Moore cites as instances of unneutral conduct involving a government: a resolution of cadets of a French military school expressing sympathy with Spain in its war with the United States, the loan by the United States to the French Government in 1798, the sale by a neutral government of a man-of-war to a belligerent, the sale to Russia of certain German liners which were alleged to be subsidized by their government as practically to form a part of her naval reserve, a commercial agent of the United States offering to obtain a loan for Buenos Ayres in its war with Spain, assistance to holders of bonds issued by Chile and Peru in aid of a war with Spain. (Id., p. 863 ff.)

Hyde, after citing these and other incidents, states that “the government of a neutral state is obliged to abstain from all participation in the conflict,” which rule extends to “all persons in the public service of the neutral,” including the civil and military branches, to “every possible field of activity” including the sale of wax material, the loaning of money or the extension of credit, and to “placing its various agencies at the disposal of a belligerent in such a way as to aid it directly or indirectly in the prosecution of the war” including all vehicles of transportation, governmental industrial plants, channels of communication. ( Hyde, , Int. Law, II, p. 698 Google Scholar.)

Among other authorities, see Wilson, , Int. Law, 9th ed., p. 328 Google Scholar; Cobbett, , Leading Cases on Int. Law, 4th ed., II, p. 402 Google Scholar; Oppenheim, , Int. Law, 3d ed., II, p. 480 Google Scholar; Wheaton, , Int. Law, 1904 ed., p. 671 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Oppenheim, , Int. Law, 3d ed., II, p. 481 Google Scholar; Scott, , The Hague Peace Conferences, II, p. 628 Google Scholar.

¹² See Lawrence, Preuss, “The Effect of Governmental Control on Neutral Duties,” Proc. Amer. Soc. Int. Law, 1937, p. 108 Google Scholar.

¹³ Two cases of earlier indirect sales of warships are given by Oppenheim, loc. cit., p. 481.

¹⁴ “Art. 8. A neutral Government is bound to employ the means at its disposal to prevent the fitting out or arming of any vessel within its jurisdiction which it has reason to believe is intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, against a Power with which that Government is at peace. It is also bound to display the same vigilance to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, which has been adapted entirely or partly within the said jurisdiction for use in war.”

¹⁵ See this Journal, Vol. 9 (1915), p. 177, for a learned discussion of the legal questions involved.