National Affairs: Britten to Britain

Every now and then, someone in Washington "speaks out of turn." Immediately, the rest of Washington is agog and remains so until it has decided whether the outspoken one is a fool, a publicity seeker, a self-important ass or a wise and forthright fellow.

It happened last week. Representative Fred Albert Britten of Illinois, chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the House, took it upon himself to cable Premier Stanley Baldwin of Great Britain and suggest that a select committee from the House of Commons meet with the Britten committee, "preferably in Canada after March 4," for "friendly discussion" about applying the much-vexed principle of seapower equality between the U. S. and Britain to all warships unaffected by the Washington treaty of 1922. When Secretary Kellogg heard about it he as good as called Mr. Britten a fool. "I refer you to the Constitution and the laws," he said. The Constitution, of course, vests the direction of U. S. foreign policy in the President. The Logan Act of 1799 makes it a criminal offense for any citizen without the Government's sanction to correspond with any foreign power with intent to influence either country's conduct "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States." Anticipating some such move as Mr. Britten's, the State Department has lately been circulating copies of the Logan Act in quarters where it might be necessary.

Mr. Britten's reply to Secretary Kellogg was: i) that he had not contravened the President's power over foreign policy, since he did not seek to change a U. S. policy but to further the policy of Anglo-American naval equality long-since laid down; 2) that the Constitution charges Congress to provide, maintain and regulate the Army & Navy, and 3) that he had not violated the Logan Act since the subject for discussion was neither a "dispute" nor a "controversy." "My proposal has to do with peace," Mr. Britten observed.

Many a political pundit, especially the editorial writers of Eastern newspapers, expressed horror at Mr. Britten's "amazing indiscretion." They tartly accused him of publicity-seeking. They said he was trying to show off because he had just become chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee. They reminded people that he was the Congressman who wangled the Army-Navy football game out of the East and onto Soldier Field, Chicago, two years ago—a "publicity stunt" if ever there was one. Moreover Mr. Britten had been notoriously a Big Navy man. His volte face could only be meant as a grandstand play. The political pundits on the sidelines blushed for their country.

To such criticism Mr. Britten might have replied that 1) he had long loomed as large on the Naval Affairs Committee as its last chairman, the late Representative Butler of Pennsylvania; 2) that publicity-seeking is not necessarily reprehensible, depending entirely on what you seek to promote, yourself or a good idea, and 3) that one is not necessarily a Big Navy man out of sheer blood-thirst, that Big Navy men might gladly become Little Navy men if all other Big Navy men would join them.