THE FACTS OF THE MATTER

That undergraduates are "uninformed and greatly confused" about international problems is the accusation made by the editors of the Daily Californian. The current debate over the complicated Neutrality Act would rend to emphasize this failing. To pierce this alleged fog of undergraduate confusion is the avowed purpose of the following paragraphs.

The Congress which is currently meeting in Special Session may either: (a) retain the present Neutrality Act; (b) repeal it and substitute Senator Pittman's "Cash and Carry" plan; or (c) repeal it without making any further legislation. If the existing statue is retained, all shipments of arms, ammunition, and implements of war will be barred. It says nothing of the raw materials and semi-finished products which made up 85 percent of U. S. shipments to the Allies during World War I. Although the "Cash and Carry" proposal prevents American ships from carrying cargo to belligerents, the present law makes no such stipulation. In financial matters both acts are almost equally stringent save that the new bill will require title to be transferred on American soil.

There is, of course, the third possibility to be considered-that the Embargo will be abolished and no legislation enacted to take its place. In that case the United States would have to depend on International Law to protect its neutrality; what is International law has best been described by Charles A. Beard-"a veritable jumble of claims, assertions . . . and hot contentions." These then are the bare facts. In themselves they point in no definite direction, yet they must underlie any valid opinion on the neutrality issue.