eted
by exports to German customers.

The subject raised a stormy debate during a secret session of the
Senate. Senator Townsend, in an assault upon the embargo proposal,
took the view that the Administration wished to use the embargo to
force small neutral nations into the war as American allies.

"I am not willing," he said, "to vote for the very German methods we
have condemned. I understand that this provision is not to be used for
the protection of American produce or to protect the American supply,
but to coerce neutral countries. We stood for neutrality, and urged
the nations of the world to support neutrality. Now that we are
engaged in war we ought not to coerce other nations and force them to
enter the struggle."

The Administration found a supporter from an unexpected quarter--from
Senator Stone, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who
opposed the war and all its works. He thus defended the embargo:

"If we were still neutral I should join readily in opposing such
legislation. But we are now belligerent. If it is true that any
neutral country, contiguous to Germany, which is now our enemy, is
supplying Germany with food, munitions, and other materials out of its
own productions, and then comes to the United States to purchase here
and transport there a sufficient quantity to replenish its supply,
doesn't the senator think the United States is within its belligerent
rights to say that the United States doesn't consent?"

"It is true we are no longer neutral," insisted Mr. Townsend, "and we
don't intend that any other country shall remain neutral. We are in
trouble and want everybody else to be in trouble if we are strong
enough to put them in."

The admitted purpose of the embargo was to force neutral countries
contiguous to Germany to suspend trade with her as an enemy of the
United States. The sentiment of the Senate, barring the objections of
a few members like Senator Townsend, who protested against the
embargo's "injustice," was that the United States had full control
over its own trade, and, especially in time of war, could restrict it
as its foreign interests required. No international law was involved
in American legislation which determined the disposition of American
exports, even if that legislation had a direct bearing on the
prosecution of the war. The Administration refused to see any analogy
between this embargo policy and the questions raised by the blockade
controversy