Holcombe, Wild Are Favorable To Roosevelt's Peace Address

Declaring that it gave the country the "courageous leadership which the circumstances require," Arthur N. Holcombe '06, professor of Government, expressed his approval of Roosevelt's Chicago peace speech in an interview last night.

Agreeing with Holcombe on the speech in general but disagreeing with him as to what effect it may have on the neutrality legislation, Payson S. Wild, acting master of Winthrop House, called it "all right as far as it goes."

"Im glad he made the speech," Wilde declared, "and I don't mind the inconsistencies. It's a good thing something like that has been uttered."

Lead to Conference?

Both Holcombe and Wild felt that it might load to some sort of a conference as provided for under the Nine-Power treaty, which said that if the territorial integrity of China was to be threatened, then the signatory powers should convene.

"I think it is a trial balloon," Wild said, "to see how much effect the horrors of the Japanese situation have had upon the American public." He did not believe that the situation would lead to a modification of the Neutrality Bill, however, as "the President has tried in vain three times before to get a flexible bill through the Congress."

Holcombe disagreed on this point, as he said that "I should think the Congress might modify the act as even this short time has shown that it is not effective." He went on to point out that "our position in the world is such that whatever we do, or even if we do nothing, it will affect a foreign war" and there can be no true neutrality.

Must Go Further

Wild wanted to know what was behind the speech; it was a feeler, and as such a good thing, but only a "good thing if he will go further and explain what the consequences may be, for these may be revolutionary to his theory of neutrality.

"It doesn't mean, that if there is a conference, we will take any action," he said, "but the indication that we would even go into such a conference is a significant fact."