"There is only one high road to peace, and that is to develop a will for peace among the American people, and break down the war psychology."

This was the opinion of Hamilton Fish Jr., '10, senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed in a paper read yesterday to the Guardian Foreign Policy Conference in Winthrop House.

Mind Own Business

"The practical way to keep out of war," he declared, "is for the American people to stop pulling chestnuts out of the fire for other nations" and "mind our own business."

Fish was only one of a large group of notables who are attending or have submitted papers to the Conference. Others include Adolph A. Berle, Jr., Bruce Bliven, Edwin M. Borchard, Clyde Eagleton, Phillip Jessup, William Potter Lage '30, Nathaniel Peffer, David Sarnoff, and George Sylvester Viereck. Papers by Borchard, Eagleton, Lage, Peffer, Sarnoff, and Viereck were read yesterday in addition to Fish's.

Climax of the two-day session will come this afternoon at 3 o'clock when the Columbia Broadcasting System will carry the results of the Conference to the public. At this time speeches will be made by Nathaniel Peffer, professor at Columbia, Payson S. Wild, assistant professor of Government, William, Hancock '38, and Senator Ernest Lundeen, speaking from Washington.

Lowell Speaks

President Lowell will close the Conference with a talk at a dinner in the Harvard Club of Boston tonight.

Fish compared the policy espoused by President Roosevelt at Chicago to that of a Harvard undergraduate "who with a chip on his shoulder goes around looking for a fight." If we go around "passing out moral judgements," we will always manage like the undergrad- uate in getting into a fight.

Specifically, he advocated the use of the neutrality act in the Sino-Japanese war. "It makes no difference whether the law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is the law of the land and should be carried out."

Attacks Roosevelt

If the President "can single out what laws he should enforce and what he shouldn't then we have entered into a state of Fascism, that means the end of legislative and representative government."

Remarking that President Roosevelt's "unexpected disparagement of neutrality" and endorsement of sanctions "shocked the country," Edwin M. Borchard, professor at the Yale Law School, expressed roughly similar views.

Roosevelt's scheme to quarantine aggressors, according to Borchard's paper, embodies a collectivist principle which so far has resulted only in "failure and humiliation."

Neutrality Rules

He insisted that the surest way of "preserving one's country from the horrors of war, was simply observance of well-established rules of neutrality known to all the world." Such a policy would "limit the area and probably the duration" of wars, and would "promote sanity recovery, and reconstruction."

"Only in recent times," he said, "has it been supposed that neutrality was immoral or illegal, or that any good can be served by intervening in foreign wars."

The present neutrality act is based on the assumption "that our neutral trade and our neutrality got us into the last war," Borchard asserted. "But it was not trade that got us in. It was sheer unneutrality--the official favoring of on side against the other."

Others Kept Out

Other countries, which actually followed accepted neutral practice, had little difficulty in staying out of the late war and have enjoyed universal respect."

This atitude was summarized by Peffer, who declared that no legislation in itself could keep us out of war.

To assure peace "you must abandon policies that can be executed only by war.