ARMS EMBARGO ARGUED BY DEBATING SOCIETY

Four members of the Union Debating Society took part in a debate in the Upper Common Room of the Union last night on the subject: "Resolved, That in the event of a foreign war on insurrection, an embargo should immediately go into ecect upon exportation of munitions of war".

Speaking for the affirmative, Phil C. Neal '40 stated that an arms embargo was the first step in a series of measures designed to insure American neutrality in case war should break out.

Tudor Gardiner '40, first speaker for the negative, said that an embargo and arms would be useless, and might in fact become harmful. 'Are we to tie the hands of a government hit by civil war?" he asked.

"The United States is aligning itself with Hitler and Germany in restricting the shipment of guns to the Spanish Loyalists," he said. "Instead of taking the particular circumstances of each case into consideration, we are forcing Congress to provide for a blanket embargo for all wars."

Benjamin F. Rogers, Jr. '40, second speaker for the affirmative, pointed out that "economic royalists" dragged us into the last war for the sake if illusory profits, by supplying the Allies with arms, munitions, supplies and money. "We are practically a self sufficient nation," he remarked, " and do not have to run the risk inherent in supplying instruments of war to belligerents."

Christian M. Lauritzen '40, last speaker for the negative said, "An embargo on munitions is totally inadequate, and is more likely to get us into war than keep us out."