Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at|http: //books .google .com/I
I
^a -S- ,•}■ b' ' iiiii "^ ', ">'V:-'3' ■(•■'-'//ho •*' \>
<0r
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY '
! \ -
* V •
BBFORB THB
COMMrTTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
SIXTY-SIXTH CONGKESS
FIRST SESSION
ON THE
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, SIGNED AT VERSAILLES
ON JUNE 28, 1919, AND SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE
ON JULY 10, 1919, BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
Printed lor the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
WASHINGTON
GOVBBNMBNT PRINTING OFFICB
1919
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
HENRY CABOT LODGE, MasaiuAiuMtts, Ouaman.
PORTER J. UcCUMBER, North Dakota.
WILLIAli E. BORAH, Idaho.
FRANK B. BRANDEQEE, OonneoUcat.
ALBERT B. FALL, New Mexico.
PHILANDER C. KNOX, Pennsylvaaia.
WARREN O. HARDING, Ohio.
HIRAH W.JOHNSON, California.
HARRY S. NEW, Indiana.
QEORGE H. MOSES, New Hampahire. «
CHABLBB F. RBDMONDf CUtk,
n
GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK, Nebraska.
JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, MigaiAsippi.
CLAUDE A. SWANSON, Virginia.
ATLEE POMERENB, Ohio.
MARCUS A. SMITH, Ariiona.
KEY PITTMAN, Nevada.
JOHN K. SHIELDS, Tennenee.
[o^'OlW^^
-J O^^^ri
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ai^AND Islands: Page.
Statement of Alexander J. Johnson 1041
Albania:
Statements of —
C . Telford Erickson 9 71
C. A. Chekrezi 1001
C. A. Dako 10«!>
Barucb, Bernard M.:
Statements of, on economic clauses 5, 38, 63
China:
Statements of —
Thomas F. F. Millard 430
John C. Ferguson 557, 583
Edward T.Williams.... 617
Lansing-Ishii agreement, with respect to 225
Announcement of Department of State concerning exchange of notes with
Japan, in regard to *. 226
Messiskge of the Preside^it concerning protest of American delegates to the
peace conference in regard to Shantung 262
Convention of March 6, 1898, between China and Germany with respect to
the lease of Kiaochow to Cermany 585
Agreement of March 21, 1900, between China and Germany with regard to
the Kiaochow-Chinan Railway Regulations 587
Convention of November 28, 1905, between China and Germany regarding
the withdrawal of German troops from Kiaochow and Kaomi 590
Agreement of July 24, 1911, between the provincial authorities of Shantung
and the Chino-German Mining Co., for delimiting mining areas in Shan-
tung 591
Official statement of the Chinese Government with regard to the Japanese
ultimatum of May 7, 1915 601
Opium traffic in Shantung —
Statements of-=-
E. T. Williams 647
E. E. Macklin 699
Memoranda on Shantung, filed by —
Sidney L. Gylick 765
Toyokichi lyenaga 1034
Frederick McCormick 1087
Czecho-Slovakia:
Statements of —
Edward Vaczy 105O
Ven 8 varc 1064
O. D. Koreff lf6S
Davis, Norman H.:
Statements of, on financial clauses. 75, 97
Egypt:
Statement of Joseph W. Fqjk 661
135546~>19 — 1 1
I
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Esthonia: '
Statements by — P«ge.
R. T. Caldwell 701
George Gordon Battle 703
G . A . Beall 707
FiuME. (See Italy.)
Greece:
Statements of —
William S. Felton 934
Prof. George M. Boiling 935
N.J, Caseavetee 941
Hungary:
Statements of —
Eugene Pivany 947
Dr. BelaSekely 961
Henry Baracs : 969
Brief of Hungarian American Feder.\tion 979
India:
Statement of Dudley Field Malone 750
Ireland:
Statements of —
Daniel F. Cohalan 757
Frank P. Walsh 794
Michael J. Ryan 854
Edward F. Dupne 860
W . W. McDowell 865
John Archdeacon Murphy - 867
Daniel C. 0' Flaherty 873
W. Bourke Cockran 879
Memorial of citizens of Irish origin in opposition to the league of nations. . 764
Declaration of Independence of 785
Correspondence between the American commissioners for Irish independ-
ence, the American peace commif sion, etc 800
Report of American Commission on Irish Independence relating to condi-
tions in Ireland ". 823
Report of interview in Paris between the President of the United States
and the American Commission on Irish Independence 835
Brief protesting against aiguments presented to the committee in behalf
of Ireland 903
Italy:
Statements of —
Fiorello H. La Guardia, Member of Congress 1109
Prof. Alexander Oldrini 1112
S, A. Cotillo.: 1118
Ernest Papich 1140
Marian Curry 1142
Dr. L. Vacarro 1143
W. H , Field 1148
Brief of Italo-American Irredentist iVssociation 1129
Japan:
Lansing-Ishii agreement - 225
Announcement by United States D( apartment of State regarding exchange
of notes with, concerning China (Isov. 2, 1917) 226
Message of the President regarding alleged secret treaty between Ger-
many and 252
Official statement of Chinese Government regarding ultimatum by 601
TABUS OF CX)NTBNT&. S
ft Juoo-Slavia:
SUtements of— P^«-
Etbin Karistan ; 1091
R. F.Hlacha 10«8
A. H. Skubic 1100
Frank Kerae 1105
Philip Godina 1108
Labor:
International conference on —
Statement of the Secretary of Labor 32
LANSiNO-lBHn agreement 225
Lansing, Robbrt. (See State, Secretary of.)
LaTyia:
Statements by —
R.T.Caldwell 701
George Gordon Battle 703
Rev. Carl Podin 709
Lb AGUE OF nations:
Statement of David Hunter Miller 379
Resolution submitted to American peace commissioners by the Secretary
of State, with respect to 251
American draft of a covenant for 254
First report of the commission on 264
Final report of the commission on 270
Proceedings of the Peace Commission on covenant for 280
Address of the President on, at the Peace Conference 280
* Membership of the commission on 309
Lithuania:
Statements by —
R.T.Caldwell 701
George Gordon Battle 703
John S. Lopatto 714
MiLLBB, David Huntbr:
Statement on the league of nations 379
Nborobs, rack bqualtty and protection of, etc.:
Statements of —
William Monroe Tr&:ter 679
Allen W. Whaley 682
Joseph H. Stewart 683
J. H^NeiU 684
J.T.Thomas 694
W. H. Jemagan 695
Charles S. \raiiaiiis 696
J. A. Lankford 698
Paucer, Bradley W.:
Statement of, on economic clauses 14
Peace Conference:
Membership of commissions of the 309
Persia:
Statement of Charles Wells Russell 1011
Allied treaty with Great Britain (Aug. 9, 1919) 1023
4 TABI£ OF CONTENTS.
President, the: Fage.
Measage to the Senate relating to alleged secret treaty between Germany
andJapan » 252
Meo^age to the Senate relating to the protest of American Peace Gommis-
sioners in regard to Shantung 252
Letter to the chairman of the committee replying to the committee's
request for various information concerning the treaty of peace 253
Address to the Peace Conference, on the league of nations 280
Proceedings of the conference with the committee at the White House — "499
Rbsponsibiuty fob the Wab. (See War.)
State, Secretary of:
Statement of 139, 215
Resolution on league of nations, submitted to American Peace Commission
by 251
Shantung. (See China.)
Ukrainia:
Statements by —
R.T. Caldwell : 701
Geoige Gordon Battle 703
LmilRevyuk 712
War:
Responsibility for the —
Report of the commission on 316
Memorandum by American commissioners on 375
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY-
THUBSDAY, JULY 81, 1919.
United States Senate,
CoBOflTTEE ON FOBEIGN RELATIONS,
Waahingtoriy D. C.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., piirsuant to the call of
the chairman, in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge presiding.
Present, Senators Lodge (chairman). McCumber, Fall, KnoX)
Harding, Johnson, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams, Swanson, Pomerene,
Smith, and Pittman.
STATEKEVT OF KB. BEBVABD K. BABVCE.
The Chairman. Mr. Baruch, what is your title — one of the advisers
of the American mission at the peace conference f
Mr. Babuch. Economic adviser.
The Chairman. I want to ask ^ou a question first that does not
come directly under your economic clauses, but one about which I
thought possibly you might know. Article 237 on page 253, says:
The succeesive installments, including the above sum. paid over b>[ Gennany in
satis&ction of the above claims will be divided by the Allied and Associated Govern-
ments in proportions w?nch have been determined upon by them in advance on a basis of
general equity and the rights of each.
Do you know if that determination has been reached, and if it has
been omitted in the document?
Mr. Babuch. I understood it had not been reached.
Senator McCumbeb. Then, it should read, "which shall have been
detelmined,'' rather than "which have been determined,'' should
it not ?
The Chaibman. The statement in article 237 is incorrect, of course ?
Mr. Babuch. Let me see how it reads in the French. The French
would mean "following the proportions determined by them in
advance."
The Chaibman. I did not compare it.
Mr. Babuch. It gives an incorrect translation. You see, it says
"d6termin6es par eux k I'avance.'' The translation is not exactly
correct.
The Chaibman. It says "seronts r^partis par les Gouvemments
allife et associ^s, suivant les proportions d6termin£es par eux It
Tavance et fondles sur T^quitfi et les droits de chacun." Apparently
the French is correct and ours is incorrect.
Senator Moses. What is your point with reference to that
translation 1
6 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANT.
TheCHAiBMAN. The French says *' shall be" and ours is "have
been."
Senator Moses. The French says "seront rfipartis" — will he
divided.
'Mr. Baruch. I think yon are referring to the one a little fiurther
down.
Senator Moses. There is onlv one place. I do not get your point.
Mr. Babuch. The point is "which have been determined." The
French means "determined by them in advance."
The Chairman. This says "which have been determined." That
does not give the sense of the French clause, certainly.
Senator Hitchcock. The English text should leave out the words
"which have been?"
Mr. Baruch. In proportions determined upon by them in advance.
Senator Moses. ''Which have been" should be omitted, then?
The Chairman. I do not think it is clear in either language.
Mr. Baruch. It does not seem to me that is a correct translation
of the French. I am not a French scholar, but that is the way it
seems to me.
The Chairman. On second thought, I think it is pretty nearly cor-
rect.
Senator Moses. It is the past participle.
Senator Swanson. It simply means that whatever distribution is
made, the Allies shall agree.
The Chairman. This sneaks of it as having been determined. It
says ''which shall have oeen determined." I think the French is
pretty nearly the same, on second thought.
Senator Knox. Mr. Baruch, you say that this distribution has
not been determined upon, so far as you know. Is that correct?
Mr. Baruch. Up to the time that I left it had not been, so far as I
know.
Senator Knox. Had there been any conversations on the subject —
anv effort to arrive at a basis ?
Mr. Baruch. There had been some discussion.
Senator Knox. Was there any tentative plan drawn up ?
Mr. Baruch. Not that I was aware of.
Senator Knox. Do you recall what proportion the United States
had in this distribution ?
Mr. Baruch. No, sir.
Senator Knox. Can you suggest approximately what proportion ?
The Question of the United States getting an interest in the rep-
aration nas not been decided. I believe it is a matter that is under
discussion.
Senator Knox. Between whom were these discussions held,
especially with reference to whether the United States should or
should not have anv proportion of the indemnity ?
Mr. Baruch. I tnink those matters would be a question for deter-
mination by the President, rather than anybody else — or for this
body.
Senator Knox. The President alone, or the President in conjunc-
tion with the Congress ?
Mr. Baruch. You would be a better judge of that than I, as to
what the procedure would be.
TBEATY OF FBACK WITH GERMAITT. 7
Senator Knox. You said a moment ago, as I understood you, that
the question as to whether the United States should participate in
this reparation had not been determined ?
Mr. jBabuch. So far as I understand.
Senator Knox. Was there any suggestion that the United States
should not participate ?
Mr. Baruch. That was a part of it — that we should not be paid
any reparation.
Senator Knox. I understood the President to say in his address
to the Senate on July 10 that we were not to have any share in the
reparation, and I wondered whether that fact had been determined,
or whether he was foreshadowing his own purposes with respect to
that!
Mr. Baruch. I understand that that has been the President's
view.
Mr. Knox. That is all, as far as I am concerned.
Senator Moses. Have the members of the Reparation Committee
been tentatively determined upon by the other powers so far as you
know?
Mr. Babuch. The membership ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Baruch. No.
Senator Moses. Who were the members of this group who held
the conversations with reference to reparation ?
Mr. Baruch. Did your question refer to the permanent Reparation
Commission 1
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Baruch. I understand it has not been appointed for the
permanent Reparation committee, but they desirea to have an ad
interim or nro visional commission.
Senator Moses. The President's letter would indicate that pro-
visional selections had been made by all the powers.
Mr. Baruch. That I am not aware of; I do not know whether
they have been selected, or who they were. In the newspaper
reports there were names mentioned, but I do not know how correct
they were.
Senator McCuhber. Was it your understanding of the President's
view that we should not have any reparation for the sinking of ships
before the war?
Mr. Baruch. That matter would not be covered by reparation.
That comes under the head of prewr.r claims and is not a war claim.
That is not a matter of reparation.
Senator E^ox. Pardon just one other question in connection with
the suggestion of our nonparticipation in the indemnitv. I under-
stood you to say that you thought that was a question for the Presi-
dent's determination.
Mr. Baruch. I would rather put it, *'for determination.'' I do
not know exactly who would determine it.
Senator Knox. On the question of our renouncement of our share
of the indemnity in the Boxer affair, at the time of the IJoxer out-
break, do you recall how that was determined, whether by the
President or by Congress ?
Mr. Baruch. No; I do not know.
The Chairman. The committee desire to have some explanation of
two paragraphs appearing on page 371 [reading]:
8 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
(1) As regards Powers adopting Section III and the Annex tJiereto, the said |Hx>oeed0
and cash assets shall be credited to the Power of which the owner is a national, through
the Clearing Office established thereunder; any credit balance in favour of Germany
resulting therefrom shall be dealt with as pro\aded in Article 243.
(2) As regards Powers not adopting Section III and the Annex thereto, the proceeds
of the property, rights and interests, and the cash assets, of the nationals of Allied or
Associated Powers held by Germany shall be paid immediately to the person entitled
thereto or to his Government; the proceeds of the property, nghts ana interests, and
the cash aiisets, of German nationals received by an Allied or Associated Power shall
be subject to disposal by such Power in accordance with its laws and regulations
and may be applied in payment of the claims and debts defined by this Article or
paragraph 4 oif the Annex hereto. Any property, rights and interests or proceeds
thereof or cash assets not used as above provided may be retained bv the said Allied
or Associated Power and if retained the cash value thereof shall be dealt with as
provided in Article 243.
It makes a different disposition. We should like to know about
that choice that was there given as to adopting section 3.
Senator Swanson. Suppose you put in article 243.
Mr. Baruch. That should be the distribution.
The Chairman. That simply arranges as to the distribution, but
what the Senator wanted to find out about, and what the conrmiittee
desired to find out about, was about this choice that was here given.
Mr. Baruch. I will be glad to answer that question, biit perhaps
the rest of the committee would like to know exactly how the eco-
nomic commission functioned. If you would, I would like to read
a little statement here. I think it mi^ht interest the committee to
learn somewhat how our committee functioned mechanically and
how we arrived at our decisions. It will only take two or three
minutes to read it, and then I will answer the question which was
asked. I think you can understand my answer better if I read this
first.
The Chairman. Certainly, read it.
Mr. Baruch. The clauses of the peace treaty dealing with econom-
ics, customs, enemy property and industrial property, were drawn
up by the economic commission, which was made up of representa-
tives of all of the larger powers, representatives of certam of the
smaller powers being associated with them from tim6 to time.
The work was divided among subcommissions, to consider the
various phases of the subject. These subcommissions considered,
for example, such matters as customs tariffs and navigation, com-
mercial treaties, prewar debts, prewar contracts, the disposal of
enemy property, mdustrial property (patents, copyrights, etc.).
In order to cover the field, we invited to Paris the following gen-
tlemen:
Dr. Frank Taussig, chairman of the United States Tariff Commis-
sion, to deal with the subjects of customs duties and the like sub-
jects. These he handled, together with Prof. A. A. Young, who was
already attached to the peace commission, and who had been making
a special study of these subjects before Dr. Taussig's arrival.
There was also associated with the advisory staff Mr. P. K. Niel-
sen, who was formerly one of the solicitors of the State Department.
Mr. J. E. Brown, who had made a study of patents, and who,
together with Mr. Pennie, one of the leading patent lawyers in Amer-
ica, looked after industrial property and patents.
We also had associated witn us Mr. Alex. Legge, formerly vice
chairman of the War Industries Board; Mr. L. L. Summers, who had
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 9
been technical advisor of the War Industries Board ; and Mr. Charles
H. MacDowell, head of the chemical section of the War Industries
Board; also Mr. Bradley Palmer, who had been one of the legal
advisors of the Alien Property Cuitodian; and Mr. Chandler Ander-
son, formerly counselor of the Department of State for a short
time.
We all met as a group from time to time, in order to compare
notes, and the entire economic clauses were gone over and subjected
to criticism by this group.
For the meetings of the international subcommissions each coimtry
selected its expert to sit upon the various matters. The chairmen
were of different nationalities; thus the chairman of the customs
commission was an American, of the commercial treaties commission
an Italian, of the property commission a Frenchman, and so on.
Covering a period of several weeks these subcommissions sat fre-
quently; toward the end the;ip^ sat almost continuously. American
experts upon these subcommissions made frequent reports to the
American members of the conmiission, and all were thus in close
touch with the prc^ess of the work.
In accordance with the plan adopted, these subcommissions,
when they arrived at a conclusion, presented such reports to the
nudn Economic Commission for approval, amendment or rejection.
In this way the points of each particular topic were reviewed again,
and as report after report of these subcommissions was adopted by
the main commission, the reports were carefully drawn together so
as to make a whole. The reports of the mam commission were
finally submitted to the Supreme Council for approval, substantially
in form as appears to-day m the treaty text.
The work of aU the men connected with these prolonged discus-
sions was done with the highest order of zeal, intelligence and effi-
ciency, and we can feel that the best interests of the United States
were looked after.
As an evidence of the way in which the work was prepared for
consideration by the American delegation, I will submit to you a
copy of draft oi economic clauses, privately printed, with comments
and explanations of the various American delegates.
On one side you will find an ex{)lanation of each clause, and on
Uie other the comment of the American delegate.
Further I will be glad to submit to you a concise statement of the
economic clauses made by the various expert advisers immediately
after the treaty was adopted, being explanatory of what they mean
and what effect they would have upon American interests.
Senator Moses. That summary is already prepared?
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
Senator Williams. What page ?
Mr. Baruch. I have not the same text that you have, Senator.
The CHAIRB1A.N. Paragraphs (1) and (2) giving the choice whether
the Powers would accept section 3.
Senator Williams. Page 371 of the text.
Mr. Baruch. That was m reference to the selection of the clearing-
house system, which was put forth primarily by England. The
American delegation did not feel that that was one that we should
adoptb
10 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Hitohcock. Please explain what the clearing-house sys-
tem was.
Mr. Barvch. The central part of the clearing-house arrangement
is that relating to prewar debts, and the procedure with reference to
prewar debts shows the nature of the scheme.
Each country begins by guaranteeing to the other the debts due
by its own citizens. Germany, for instance, guarantees that debts
due by Germans to Englishmen shall be paid. England, on the other
hand, guarantees that debts due by Englishmen to Germans shall
be paid. Various incidental provisions are made with regard to the
process of ascertaining and cneckine these debts, but they are not
important for the essentials of the scheme.
All these debts, when ascertained and checked, are reported to
certain clearing offices defined in the treaty. If it should appear
that Germany owes to England more than England owes to Germany,
as ascertained at the clearing offices, Germany pays the balance m
cash to England. If, on the other hand, it appears that England
owes a balance to Germany, the balance is not paid by England in
cash, but is set aside as a credit to Germany's account in connection
with reparations or other obligations which Germany must assume
under tne treaty. That refers to paragraph 243. Attention should
be called to this feature of the general process of settlement. Since
Germany has large obligations to meet, more particularly for repa-
rations, anything that is left to her credit is simply tumea into what
may be caued a ''pool," namely, the general accumulation of assets
andf resources which Germany must utilize in order to meet reparation
charges and the like.
The clearing-house settlement arrangement is further applied to
the liquidation of German property. England, for example, has
seized or sequestrated certain property situated in England and
belonging to German nationals. This property is held as a security
or pledge for repaying damages or sequestration losses incurred by
Englismnen who may naye hwi property situated in Germany. Any
balance left in England's hand after these property losses in Qermooiy
are met, is again regarded as a balance for the ''pool" or reparation
assets, is reported to the clearing house, and is available for repara-
tion purposes.
It IS a natural part of this arrangement that the German Govern-
ment itself undertakes to recompense its own nationals (Germans)
who may have debts due to them or may be the owners of property
taken over by the British Government — ^I simply use the British as
an example. The German nationals are not expected to suffer, but
their indemnification is left to their own Government.
Senator Williams. All this is credited to Germany as part of her
reparation ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
The whole arrangement did not seem to the United States repre-
sentatives a desirable one for this country, and from the start tney
stated that the United States would not enter on it. The treaty
provides (article 296, clause "e") that no country shall be bound
oy it unless affirmative notice of its acceptance is given, and our
expectation is that no such affirn^ative notice will be given by the
United States.
Senator Swanson. That is limited to prewar debts ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 11
Mr. Baruch. Yes; prewar debte.
Senator Swanson. Take the German property that there is in the
United States. Under section 3, how would that property be di»-
tributed ?
Mr. Baruch. German property that has been seized by the cus-
todian 1
Senator Swanson. Yes.
Mr. Baruch. That property is left in the hands of Congress, to
do with it as it wishes.
Senator Swanson. Under this treaty ?
Mr. Baruch. Absolutely.
Senator Swanson. Then the treaty does not make any disposition
of that property, I understand.
Mr. Baruch. No, sir. It leaves it in the hands of Congress to
dispose of. But, in addition, under that treaty it has been given
additional rights of use. It can be held as a set-off against American
property in Germany. It can be used for the payment of prewar
danns like the Lusitania, and other prewar claims.
Senator Swanson. Do you know the section of the treaty where
Ihnt is particularly provided for ?
Tbe Chairman. We will come to that later, when we take up the
alien property provisions.
I understima that you take advantage of the privilege granted in
paragraph (2) and do not ado^t paragraph (3) ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir; that is our recommendation.
The Chairman. Well, now, we might as well go to the alien prop-
erty division.
Senator Swanson. If we do not accept section 3, what is the method
of settling claims, with section 3 elimmated? We might as well get
that clear.
Mr. Baruch. Congress will have to make disposition and set up
machinery, as I imderstand it, to meet the situation.
Senator Swanson. The treaty does not set up any machinery
except under section 3.
Mr. Baruch. The machinery that would be set up affecting us
would be the mixed tribunal, and that was done in order to enable
American citizens, or to protect American citizens — that is not
exactlv the word, out you will get my meaning — against the neces-
sity of going into Germany to get jurisdiction tnere. It provides a
mixed tribunal to try the case.
Senator Swanson. And all this treaty does as to section 3 is to
create a mixed tribunal to fix the relative indebtedness of Grerman
and American citizens.
Mr. Baruch. Our courts are to settle all questions for Americans.
Senator Williams. We would have to institute something Uke
the Spanish Treatv Claims Commission, or some sort of organization.
Mr. Baruch. I believe that Mr. Palmer, who has given study to that
and who is familiar with it, is probably working on that.
Senatoi: Hitchcock. The national of every other country must
depend upon this international commission m order to secure his
daim agamst Germany.
Mr. Baruch. If his Government elects in the first instance.
Senator Hitchcock. Is each Grovemment free to elect ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes; either system.
12 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Senator Knox. Where do you find that, Mr. Baruch, in (he treaty;
what page and section ?
Senator Swanson. It is on page 351, subparagraph "e.'' Now, I
understand that if Germany has any claims against the United
States they must sue in our courts ?
Mr. Babuch. *A German citizen; yes.
Senator Swanson. Now, if a citizen of the United States has a
claim against a German in Grermany, Germany has agreed to create
a mixed commission to ascertain that indebtedness.
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
Senator Williams. Senator Knox, what you are inquiring for is
subparagraph "e'' on page 351.
Mr. Baruch. Does that answer your question. Senator?
Senator Knox. Yes- thank you.
Senator Fall. May I ask you a question ? Why do you think that
is a better proposition for the people of the United States to go to this
mixed arbitration tribunal rather than to a clearing house ?
Mr. Baruch. I can answer that question more concisely by iust
reading three paragraphs here from this print which I had hoped to
place in the hands of each member. It is an explanation of each one
of the economic clauses, and giving under the nead of each one the
reasons for the clause as it is.
Senator Fall. I will withdraw the question imtil we have those
data.
Mr. Baruch. You will find it quite clearly explained there.
Senator Pomerene. Those are the explanations made by our rep-
resentatives, of the text ?
Mr. Baruch. They were explanations made by our representatives,
giving our understanding of the clauses.
Senator Williams. Made by the subcommittees to the group ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Pomerene. In other words, they were reservations to the
treaty ?
Mr. Baruch. No.
Senator Moses. These explanations were made by the groups which
you have described as composed of various gentlemen gathered in
subsidiary bodies, who were dealing with the economic clauses of the
treaty in the first instance i They represent your own arguments i
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
Senator Moses. And after being put in this printed form they were
put in the hands of the five commissioners or plenipotentiaries, for
their information ?
Mr. Baruch. All the economic commissions, of the five countries,
came together, and then when we had agreed we reported to the com-
mission of four, and they accepted it; and then it was put in the
hands of our drafting commission. Does that answer your question 1
Senator Moses. Yes; except that it seems as if there was some
intermediate step left out as to how our plenipotentiaries got into
possession of it.
Mr. Baruoh. They were advised.
Senator Moses. In writing ?
Mr. Baruch. The minutes of each meeting were sent to them.
Senator Pomerene. Were these explanatory notes incorporated in
your minuted which you submitted to the commission ?
TBBATT OF PBACB WITH GEBMJLNY. 16
Mr. Barttch. So far as I know this is the only commission that
made its report in this way. We got this up for our own particular
benefit, so that we could digest the subject. You will notice that
the treaty is a very large volume; and we got this up as a ready ref-
erence more for our own selves than for anythii^g else.
Senator Williams. It is the explanation of your conduct — explains
the result you arrived at. Suppose you just read that to the com-
mittee.
Mr. Baruoh (reading):
Article A and R^ulation X provide for a Bystem under which clearing offices are
created, one between each allied State and Germany, for the settlement of debts.
In order to make the plan workable, it is provided that:
{a) Each State shall guarantee the payment of all debts owing by its nationals
to Dationals of the enemy State, except in cases of the insolvency of the debtor,
before the war:
(h) The proceeds of the sale of private enemy property in each State shall be used
by the said State to pav the debts of its own nationals ;
(c) Debtora and creditors in States formerly enemy are forbidden to settle their
debts with each other or to communicate with each other regarding them.
This plan may be desirable for Great Britain, but is extremely undesin^le, if not
actually impossible, for the United States. It is accordingly recommended that it
be not accepted by the United States.
1. Our Government should not accept the burden of Guaranteeing the private debts
owed by its citizens. This would be an obligation of unknown and probably very
great proportions.
2. The treaty should not compel the United States to use the private property of
Germans in our country for the payment of debts owed by other Germans to our
citizens. To do so might amount to confiscation.
Senator Fall. If we do not guarantee the debts due to our own
nationals as other nations propose to do, and do not use the excess
of the proceeds of sales of aUen property for the discharge of such
debts, we are the only nation that will leave our citizens entirely
unprotected, except as to their recourse against the nationals of the
other country through other tribunals.
Mr. Baruch. Congress has the power to do what it wishes.
Senator Fall. You mean to say that although you reconunend to
the contrary^ Congress coiild go ahead and pass laws providing for
ihe distribution of the procee<& of the sale of property in the hands
of the AUen Propertjr Custodian ?
Mr. Babuch. I said that those were the views as expressed by
myself. That is still my present view, land I will be glad to state
my reasons.
Might not Mr. Palmer make a statement in reference to this ?
Senator Swanson. Suppose you finish the reading of your own
statement.
Mr. Baruch (reading) :
Moreover, Congress has expresslv reserved to itself the power to decide what shall
become of the enemy property in the United States. On the other hand, there seems
no objection to the united States retaining tie enemy property, for the present, as a
hoBta^ or pledge to secure American rightSi and then deciding in its own way what is
the fair and proper course. To accept the clearing-houEe system would commit the
United States to a course which, it is nrmly believed, Congress will not wish to follow.
3. To forbid our citizens from adjusting their debts and accounts with fonner ene-
mies privately would be a wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable interference with
private affairs. It would be a most serious obstacle in the resumption of business and
commercial relations. Our financial houses and business firms had many complicated
accounts, and transactions which were suspended by war. These houses, and espe-
cially the bankers, must speedily adjust their financial accounts. Otherwise com-
merce can not be properly resumed. The clearing-house plan would compel all such
adjustments and ail payments to be made through governmental agencies.
^4 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAJSfY.
As regards other countries than the United States, the adoption of the clearingrbouse
plan bv some of them would be extremely detrimental to their own interests, and
might be ruinous to a nation whose balance of private debts was largely in favor of
Germany.
The principle is already accepted — ^Article A, clause *^e" — ^that any allied State
may exclude itself from the operation of the clearing-house plan.
Now, may Mr. Palmer make that statement?
The CHAiRBfAN. Certamly. *
Senator Fall. Before he makes that statement^ let me ask this:
How are we going to facilitate the resumption of business between
these individuals when we leave it up in the air and wait for Congress ?
Mr. Baruch. These individuals can privately proceed, just as they
are doing now.
Senator Fall. This will, then, facilitate rather than retard the
settlement of these private aff aii-s although, as you say, Congress yet
has the power to step in and settJe it.
Senator Fall. Do you desire to make that statement now, Mr.
Palmer ?
STATEMENT OF MR. B&ADLET W. PALMER.
Mr. Palmer. The entire subjoct is very complicated, difficult to
approach and to understand, and in order to answer the questions I
tnmk it would be desirable to read the explanatory statements
made by the American delegates to each of the sections, which are
interlocked. I did not intend to make a statement now, because I
wished to go into the subject fully and in detail. What I did wish
to call the committee's attention to at the outset is that the rights
and interests of the American nationals are fully protected; are
protected more than any other nation, or at least as much as any
other nation. There is no distinction between the two. It is a
complicated and difficult situation, and the clearing house system
is merely a method of procedure. The British Government and the
French Governinent devised that plan during the progress of the
war to meet a situation and condition that did not exist in the
United States, arising from this state of facts. The war struck
England and France suddenly, in the midst of all theu* involved
transactions with the enemy, and it threw their business affairs into
chaos. Never was there such a condition as that before. I do not
know the exact details, because they are very confidential, but I
understand that it was necessary for the British Government to step
in and put its guarantee back of a great many different classes of
private obligations, such as acceptances. Otherwise, the ^reat
conunercial nouses of Great B itam and of L#ondon would have
fone down as the result of that. The difference with us was that
efore we entered the war, war conditions had been going on for
two and a half years, and our business men had accommodated
themselves to war-like conditions, so that when we entered the war
the same condition did not exist and was not threatened, and it
was not necessary that our Grovornment should interfere in private
commercial transactions. The result was that England and France
studied what they should do to take caie of their citizens arter the
war ^as ovei, and they evolved a clearings system. The object of
that system was to enable tfaeii* merchants to adjust their lelations
piomptly after the war. Some tune during 191V, I think, the
TREATY. OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 16
British GrOTenunent here m Washington explained then system and
their theory to us — to the lepresen.atives; to different governmental
officials. We gave it a cursory examination, because live stiuck
right away what we consideied a fundamental ODstacle, the pioposi-
tion of the Government guaranteeing the piivate oMigations owed
by its citizens, and we nevei could get over that.
Senator Williams. You also struck the obstacle of forbidding a
inan*s settUng his own debts to the Germans ?
Mr. Palmer. That was a minor obstacle, although it was important.
We never couldget over that, and we had many discussions or talks
about that in Washington prior to the termination of the war.
' Then, when the peace treaty was proposed, this plan was suggested
as a pNortion of the peace treaty, and the American delegate on the
committee happenea to be informed of that because of these dis-
cijssions we had had in Washington, and the American delegate
said right away, '^Is it essential that the Government should guar-
antee tne private obligations?" And that was an essential part of
the plan. It could not be worked out without that. Neither could
it be worked out without forbidding communications between mer-
chants in both countries. Neither could it be worked out without
the obligation to take a German's property, or the proceeds of his
property, and use it to pay another man's debt in that country.
The Ainerican delegate did not think it was necessary for the
United States to get mto any such position as that, and therefore,
with full explanation, and with the full concurrence of the other
powers, we devised another system which enabled us to grant our
nationals the same protection, and in my judgment a very much
better protection, without involving the Government in the inter-
ference in private affairs.
That is a general statement. Before leaving that subject I would
like to make one other statement.
Senator Httchcock. Will you not state, just here, what is the
protection that the American creditor of a German debtor gets?
Mr. Palmer. An American creditor
Senator HncHcocK. Of a German debtor.
Mr. Palmeb (continuing). Having a claim against a German?
Senator HncHcocK. Yes; a prewar claim ?
Mr. Palmer. A right; yes. In the first place, privately he has
the right to go to a new tribunal in case oi a dispute as to debt.
The Government has a right to use any of the property or reso\u*ces
of the enemy property in this coimtry to pay tnat debt, if the Gov-
ernment so chooses. Now, there is the clear distinction. The right
is not given to an American citizen to come to this Government and
demand that his debt shall be paid by the Government, either out
of its own funds or out of the proceeds of enemy property which
the Alien Property Custodian has taken. That is not a right which
is eiven to a private American citizen. The Government has the
right to do that if it wishes to do so. In other words, the Govern-
ment stands in the position where it can protect its nationals by the
vse of tthese funds, or not, as it sees fit. There are many reasons
why it is desirable to leave that matter in that position. We do
not know what the condition of affairs is in Germany. We do not
know what has been done to our property. We do not know whether
the Germans will restore our property. We do not know whether
16 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the Qerman merchants, will pay their debts in a fair way or whether
obstacles wiD be put in the way of resuming and obtaining perperty
rishts and rights of contract by our nationals. If commorciaJ
rdations are resumed in the ordinary way, and no obstacles are
put in the way, perhaps the United States Government will say that
that is the best thing to do, to let the commercial relations resume
their regular course without interference or guaranty. But all the
time under the treaty it has the right ana power to protect its
nationals as fully as it likes.
Senator Htfchoock. Can the American Oovemment use the assets
of Grerman nationals in this country for the payment of debts due to
Americans, without at the same tune guaranteeing the payment of
debto of Germans or claims that Germans have against Americans ?
Mr. Palbier. Yes; if Congress so desires.
Senator Knox. As I understand you, then, the American creditor
practically has no rights.
Mr. Palmer. The American creditor is restored to the same rights
that he had, regardless of the war.
Senator Fall. Without the treaty ?
Mr. Palmer. Without the treaty. And, in addition to that, his
Government has the right to protect him fully, further, by applying
the property and credite in this country to the payment of his dam-
ages or debts.
Senator Knox. You mean the proceeds of alien property in this
coxmtry?
Mr. rALMER. Yes.
Senator Knox. And such aUen property as may be disposed of
from this time on ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Knox. But then, pending the action by Congress in
appropriating those proceeds, tne American creditor has noUiing, as
I understand you ; no provision is made for him under this treaty ?
Mr. Palmer. Well, Mr. Senator, his rights are not impaired at all.
He is restored to his same position that he had, regardless of the war,
and the United States Government has not guaranteed to pay his
debt, of course. The United States Government has not imposed
upon Germany the obUgation to pay his debt. He is restored to his
same claim against the same creditor in the same way as if there had
been no war.
He also has the additional protection of being allowed, if he likes,
to go to a new arbitral tribunal.
&Bnator Fall. That is oiUy when there is no dispute ?
Mr. Palmer. As to the amount, no. Further than that, if the
debt is not paid the United States Government has the right to
compensate him and pay him out of these proceeds.
Senator Swanson. That is what I was going to ask you. This
treaty provides that the Government can use the property of any
Germans in the hands of the AUen Property Customan to pay such
debts ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. That is in the treaty itself?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Knox. But in the meantime the American citizen simply
has the embarrassment of having a foreign debt or against whom there
is no forum in which he can enforce his claim? He can have the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 17
amount of his claim detennined in this forum but there is no way of
enforcing the claim ?
Mr. PAt^fER. Germany agrees to enforce the judgment in the new
forum; and he can sue in the Grerman courts, if he likes, or in the
^ American courts.
Senator Knox. How would he satisfy his judgment?
Mr. Palmer. He has the same contractual rights as he always had,
according to the nature of his debt and the nature of his claim.
Senator Swanson. Nothing in this treaty prohibits Congress, if it
80 desires, from assuming liability for these debts ?
Mr. Baruch. Nothing at all.
Senator Swanson. If the United States want to assimie the liability
for the debts of citizens of the United States, they can do it ?
Mr. Palmer. Certainly they can do it.
Senator Knox. Have you any idea of the relation between the
amount of the proceeds of the property held by the Alien Property
Custodian and tne amount of the debts held by citizens of the United
States against Germans ?
Mr. Palmer. No, Mr. Senator; we have not the faintest idea
about that. We have a rough idea of the value of the property
which has been taken. The State Department, I imderstand, have
asked for the deposit of claims, and they have an enormous amoimt
of claims; but what they are, and of what character they are, and
what ought to be done about them, is something that is a very large
question that has never been gone ijito at all.
Senator Knox. Would you be willing to risk a guess as to whether
there is practically enough German property to pay the American
claims from the proceeds of the German property in this coimtry ?
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Senator, I would say this, basing my remarks
not on hearsay but on what I call intuition. The German Govern^
ment has published from time to time the announcement that the
American properties are intact in Germany. Whether or not that
statement is true I do not know. It is not true as to some of the
other countries. But if Germany will restore the American property
in Germany as required by the treaty, then I should think tnat there
would he a very great balance of property in this country. There
must be, because tne German claims for debt can not amount to very
much, whatever they are.
Senator Knox. What disposition would be made of that balance ?
Could that be applied, under the terms of the treaty, to the payment
of debts of others of our cobelligerents ?
Mr. Palmer. No.
Senator Knox. That seems to be the scheme between all of the
nations that are parties to this treaty, except ours. For instance, if
a Turk owed an Englishman money, you could take the property of
a Turk in England to pay that debt, if there was a surplus over and
above the English debt.
Mr. Palmer. Perhaps I have not imderstood the question. Will
you ask it again? I want to explain what can be done with the
proceeds ?
Senator Knox. What I want to know is this: If there is a surplus
over and above what is necessary in this country to pay American
creditors, I want to know what becomes of that surplus?
135546—19 2
18 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Mr. Palmeb. I will answer that in this way, that under the clauses
of the treaty the disposition of the entire fund is in the hands of the
Congress. They can use the fund to pay the claims of American
citizens on account of their property in Germany, if they suffer loss
or damage. They can use it to pay debts of their citizens impaid by
Gennan nationals. They can use it to pay what we call the Iaisi-
tarda claims — claims on account of damages suffered by nationals of
the United States prior to our entry into the war. They can put
the balance into the reparation fund.
Senator Knox. But suppose we do not have any reparation.
Mr. Palmer. That goes mto the general reparation.
Senator Knox. Then that would be to pay England and France
and Italy ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes; the general reparation fimd, however it is
divided.
The Chairman. But we have no part in reparation funds, have we ?
Mr. Palmer. We are entitled to a share of the reparation, Mr.
Chairman, but as to the division of the reparation, that is something
that did not come within my province, and I know nothing whatever
about that.
There is one thing, however, that I do want to call attention to
now. The United States has the fullest power and authority to
return any of this property that they see fit. That was something
that I insisted upon, to have a fair understanding with the other
Governments, because we have a lot of classes of property that it is
certain we shall want to restore to the owners when Congress has
received information on those subjects to give it sufficient Imowledge
to enable it to deal with the entire subject understandably. It is
not necessary for us to turn the balance of the funds or any portion
of the funds into the reparation fund. That lies with Congress if
they desire to do so. The object of the American delegate, basing
himself on the provisions of the act of Congress which we have
always interpreted to mean that Congress reserved to itself the
disposition of the enemies' property that had been taken, was to
preserve that intact; in other words, to leave Congress the full,
absolute power to deal with the property as they saw fit; and that
is the effect of the treaty.
Senator Williams. Paragraph 4 of the annex t) article 297, with
reference to property, rights, and interests, reads as follows:
All property, rights, and interests of German nationals within the territory of any
allied or associated power and the net proceeds of their sale, liquidation or other
dealing therewith may be charged by that allied or associated power in the firet place
with payment of amounts due in respect of claims by the nationals of that allied or
associated power with regard to their property, rights, and interests, including com-
panies and associations in which they are interested, in German territory, or debts
owing to them by German nationals, and with payment of claims growing out of acts
committed by the German Government or by any German authonties since July 31,
1914, and before that allied or associated power entered into the war. The amount
of such claims may be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by Mr. Goetave Ador, if
he is willing, or if no such appointment is made by him, by an arbitrator appointed
by the mixed arbitral tribunal provided for in section 6. They may be charged
in the second place with payment of the amounts due in respect of claims by the
nationals of such allied or associated power with regard to their property, rights, and
interests in the territory of o^er enemy powers, in so far as those claims are otherwise
unsatiBfied.
\'
TBB4TY OF PSAOB WITH GBBMAKY. 19
The Chairman. That gives the widest latitude.
Senator Knox. Mr. PaJmer, can you tell us why all the acts of the
Alien Property Cust'Odiau are validated, thus cutting off access to the
courts as to the regularity of the proceedings, or the sufficiency of
the amounts realized from the sale of property?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, Mr. Senator. This is a treaty between the
United States and Germany, and it never seemed to anybody that
the action of the United States in fighting the war against Germany
should be open to criticism or upsetting by Germany.
Senator Knox. Suppose it could be demonstrated — I am only us-
ing this as an illustration, and I am sure there are no cases that are
at all like it, but suppose it coidd be demonstrated — that property
fairly worth $5,000,000 had been disposed of by the Alien Property
Custodian in a secret way for $1,000,000. Why should a transaction
of that kind be validated ?
Mr. Palmer, Mr. Senator, I am sure that such a possibility as that
'^' ; does not exist.
Senator Knox. I agree to that. I simply am using that as an
illustration.
Mr. Palmer. But if that situation did exist, I would say it was
something for our Government to handle, and that it should not be
open to the enemy.
Senator Knox. In other words, om* Government should take the
loss?
Mr. Palmer. No; the Alien Property Custodian was an officer of
the United States Government engaged in carrying out the provis-
ions of the trading with the ememy act, and for whatever he has done
he sboidd be responsible to our Uovemment, but not to Germany.
Now, as to the ooject of putting those clauses in the treaty, in the
first place, those particular clauses were not put there by the American
delegates, although if they had not been in there the American dele-
gates would have asked to have them put in. There was no possible
discussion by anybody as to the proprietv of clauses of that character.
Senator Pomerene. In other words, tlie United States as the prin-
cipal should settle with its own agents ?
Mr. Palmer. Surely. The practical effect of those clauses is this.
Whatever the Alien Property Custodian has done in the United
States under the trading with the enemv act is done. He takes
property and he gives receipts, and any claims that may arise from
nis actions are either relegated to the proceeds or the claims are cut
off. Congress has said in the trading with the enemy act that anv
enemy whose property has been taken, if he has any complaint, shall
come to Congress after the war; and Congress by that provision in our
judgment has retained the power, the jurisdiction, the discretion to
arrange matters with the former enemy. These clauses here amount
to nothing, except that they do cut off possible litigation by the enemy
respecting, we will say, the constitutionality of the ^radrng with the
enemy act, and things of that kind which might involve us in ex-
pensive, useless litigation for years. Aside from that I do not con-
sider that the clauses have much effect.
Senator Knox. Tell us what the owner of that $5,000,000 property
would do under the circumstances indicated in my question. What
are his rights ?
Mr. Palmeb. If he is an enemy, it is pretty hard to think that he
has any right, except to apply through diplomatic channels.
20 TREATY OF PBAOB WITH GBBMAITY.
Senator Knox. Of course, he has rights. If he is an aUen enemy
he has his rights. Private property is to be protected. That is a
rule of international law that there has not been any doubt about
for a hundred years.
Senator Fall. This whole treaty is providing for the regulation
of those very rights.
Senator Swanson. I understand your contention is that Congress
took charge of this property and Congress will settle the rights.
If the property was sacrificed improperly or improvidently, then
ConOTess wiU determine how it shall be settled.
Afr. Palmer. I think so.
Senator Knox. Then, have you no other answer to the Question I
propounded except that the alien enemy claimant has no rights under
the circumstances indicated in the question I asked a moment ago,
which I am sure you have in your mmd ?
Senator Williams. He has his rights under the treaty, whatever
'^'^f.^. The righU of the riien enemy who^ property h.e
been taken — is that what you want to know ?
Senator Knox. I want to know what rights the man in Germany
has who owned $5,000,000 of property in the United States, that was
either secretly or frauaulently or otherwise disposed of for $1,000,000.
What rights has he, if any ?
Mr. Palmer. He has the right to come to Congress for his claim,
as the trading with the enemy act provides. Mr. Senator, let me
answer vour question in this wav, in order that you can see how
the legal process has shaped itseli in our minds. The trading with
the enemy act authorized the Alien Property Custodian to take enemv
property in this country. Through the original act and the amend-
ment thereto the title to the property was vested in the custodian,
so that he was given all the rights of the absolute owner, to quote the
language of the amendment.
Senator Fall. He was a common-law trustee, was he not?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, tmder the original act; but the subsequent
amendment went further than that and vested in him the rights of
an absolute owner. Further than that, he was given the authority
to dispose of the property in certain ways. Now, I have always
thought, and I thiiik it is perfectly correct," that the title of the alien
enemy had passed out of hma, had become vested in the United States
or in the Alien Property Custodian, an officer of the Government. The
title has passed from the enemy.
Senator Knox. That is undoubtedly true. I am not questioning
that at all.
Mr. Pai^mek. Now, suppose that the custodian had kept the prop-
erty or turned it over to the United States Treasiuy as he was en-
titled to do under the act. Then, the entire property is gone and the
alien enemy woulcl come to Congress imder the trading with the enemy
act and make his claim. Congress reserving the right to take it up
for consideration.
Senator Knox, As to the regularity of the disposition or the ade-
quacy of the coinpensation ?
Mr. Palmer, liie trading-with-the-enemy act does not say any-
thing at all about that. It simply reserves to Congress the right to
receive claims bv the enemv after the war.
TBSATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 21
The Chaibman. Did not the trading- with- the-enemy act give any-
right to go into the courts on questions arising out of the dissolution
of companies, etc. ?
Mr. Palmee. Not to the enemv.
The Chairman. It gave no rigtt of any kind ?
Mr. Palmer. I think not, except what I have stated.
The Chairman. I have sent for the act. I would like to look at it.
Mr. Palmer. I have a copy of it here.
Senator Hitchcock. Senator Knox makes the point that under
international law the ali^n enemy has certain rights. If he has any
such right it can only be prosecuted through his own government.
Is that the fact under internatioiial law ^
Mr. Palmer. So I understand.
Senator Hitchcock. Now, if his own Government aOTces in this
treatv not to assert that right, as you have said it does, does not that
end tne question? If he can prosecute any right at all, it is through
his own Government, and his own Government agrees not to prose-
cute it. Does not that end the matter as far as we are concerned ?
Mr. Palmer. I consider that more a matter of words than of sub-
stance, because under our law of the United States the United States
Government had the war power to take and confiscate the private
property of the enemy if it so desired to do.
Now, what did Congress do ? Tliey took possession of the enemy
property, and they vested the title of it in their oflBcer, the Alien
rropert^ Custodian. That was the act that put the enemy out of the
ownersmp of the property. It did not make anv diflference what you
put in the treaty about that. It does not maKe that situation any
different. The United States had taken the title to the property.
Now, the alien enemv could not get that property back without com-
ing to Congress, and "Congress said in the trading with the enemy act:
If any alien enemy mak^ a claim, he can come to ub after the war.
I do not understand that the provisions of the treaty have changed
that at all. Germany and its nationals, as far as the title to that
Eroperty is concerned, have given up something that they did not
ave. The title had already passed to the United States Govern-
ment, and they could not get it back without an act of Congress.
Mr. Hitchcock. That is not the question Senator Knox is putting
to you. He put a hypothetical case, an impossible case, supposing
that property worth $5,000,000 had been in some way sacrificed for
$1,000,000.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. And he asked you then, whether under inter-
national law the owner of that property did not ha^e a claim that
mig:ht be prosecuted against the United States ?
Senator Knox. Oh, no.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. What was it ?
Senator Knox. I asked what his rights were. I did not allege
what his rights were.
Senator Sitchcock. You asserted by inference that he had a
ri^t.
• Senator Knox. In response to Mr. Palmer's statement that the
alien enemy had no rights I repUed that under international law
private property of the alien was always protected until after the
22 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEEMAlirT.
hostilities ceased, and then an accounting was made for it. That is
a rule of international law and has been for a hundred years. What
I want to get at, if you will permit me, is whether it would not hav^
been entirely feasible to have inserted in this treaty a provision that
the courts of lustice of the United States should be open to the alien
enemy after the war is over in order to challenge, not the title that
passed to the Alien Property Custodian but the methods by which he
disposed of it, if the claimant could make out a case of fraud or such
gross negUgence as to involve him in a serious loss, instead of passing
him over to the ranks of the Revolutionary and Mexican War claims,
with a technical claim against the United otates, which he could only
work out through Congress and the Committees on Claims. I asked
the question whether it would not have been entirely feasible to open
the courts of justice to him.
Mr. Palmer. The feasibility of such a svstem as that, with many
other considerations, came up to me, and t decided it; and I am glad
to explain the reasons why I decided against a clause of that sort. I
should have thought and 1 do think that a clause of that kind would
be contrary to the act of Congress under which we were acting.
Senator Knox. We can change an act of Congress by a treaty.
Mr. Palmer. We can change an act of Congress by a treaty, surely^
but it did not seem to be necessary to do that, because of the United
States desires to offer that opportunity to the former enemy, it can
do so, and I think it would be very much more appropriate for relief
of that character to come from Congress than from the treaty. At
any rate, that was the view of the representatives of the United
States.
Senator Swanson. I understand your negotiations have obtained
the acquiescence of the German Government in Congress disposing of
this alien enemy property as it sees proper?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Is that the result of your negotiations ?
Mr. Palmer. The treaty.
Senator Swanson. I mean, is that the result of the treaty, that
they will acquiesce in the disposition of alien property as Congress
may see proper ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Pomerene. Is not this the situation as to alien claims ? I
understand the rule to be with r^ard to alien property, in interna-
tional law, as stated by Senator Knox; but those who were framing
this treaty saw fit to insert in the treaty a provision ratifying the acts
of the Custodian of Alien Property. Whatever his rights may have
been imder the general principle of international law, they are more
clearly defined by the treaty itself, so that it rests with Congress under
this treaty and under the alien property act.
Mr. Palmer. That is correct.
Senator Pomerene. They can not only reimburse any alien but
they can give him a premium if they should desire.
Mr. Palmer. They can give him any process by the courts.
Senator Pomerene. Or create courts for him ?
Mr. Palmer. There is one thing that we ought ^
Senator Williams. Before you go further, I want to ask you this,
in order to get it clear in my mind: I understand that this in no wise
binds our people to what all of the other nationals of the allied and
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 23
associated powers are bound by, to wit, this clearing-house system,
but that our nationals are left free with German nationals to make
anv private settlement that they wish of their mutual claims.
Mr. Palmek. Yes, sir.
Senator Williams. For example, if a man had been having cotton
from Hamburg, Germany, and had been shipping it, and the ship was
on the high seas at the time we declared a state of war existing
between us and Germany, if those people did not want to wait for
Congress to settle it, if, say, the British Government had taken it and
sold it at Liverpool prices and paid the American shipper, these
people being old customers, they could settle the whole transaction
according to the ethics of it ^ they saw fit ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes; exactly.
Senator Williams. Moreover, if they chose, they could have a trial
case set to determine the amount, if there was a dispute about that.
There is nothing in the treaty to prevent that?
Mr. Palmer, No.
Senator Fall. Mr. Palmer, may I ask a Question or two ? Is there
anything in the treaty which gives any additional rights along the
line of guaranties of any *right such as Senator Williams has just
asked aoout? They would have these rights without any treaty
whatsoever, would they not ? Is there anything in the treaty giving
them those rights ?
Mr. Palmer. Their rights are unaffected, but they have an addi-
tional recourse to a new tribunal instead of going to the German
courts, and the United States Grovernment has the additional new
power to look out for their interests under the provisions in the
treaty.
Senator Fall. That new tribunal, however, gives them no new
security — in other words, does not enable them to collect the debt.
The tribunal fixes the amount in dispute.
Mr. Palmer. Security is given to the United States Government.
Senator Fall. Where ?
Mr. Palmer. In those provisions that were just read under the
operation of article 297, clause (h).
Senator Hitchcock. There is not any "h."
Senator Pomerene. Page 371.
Mr. Palmer. Clause (h), page 371, second paragraph, bottom of
the page.
Senator Fall. Clause (h), to which you have just referred, says:
Tbe net ptxx^eeds of sales of enemy property, rights, or interests wherever situated
earned out either hy virtue of war legislation, or by application of this article, and in
general all cash assets of enemies, shall be dealt with as follows:
(1) As regards powers adopting Section III and the annex thereto —
We do not adopt that ?
Mr. Palmer. No.
Senator Fall (continuing reading) :
The said proceeds and cash assets shall be credited to the power —
Not adopting Section III. That will be ourselves 1
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
Senator Fall (continuing reading) :
Any credit balance in favor of Germany resulting therefrom shall be dealt with a
proviiied in article 243.
24 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The next paragraph provides:
The proceeds of the property, rights and interests, and the cash assets, of the na-
associated power shall be subject to disposal by such power in accordance with its
laws and regulations.
Say, for instance; that we dispose of property here and we have
assets of $400,000,000 derived from the sale of property by the Alien
Property Cx^stodian, and in Germany assets of $300,000,000. That
leaves an excess of $100,000,000. Now, as I understand you, your
claim is that under that clause that excess of $100,000,000 may be
by Congress applied to the payment of* the debts of American na-
tionals who can not otherwise collect their debts in Germany. Is
that it?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Fall. Then, undoubtedly, the people of the United States
are very materially interested in seeing that the alien property brings
just as much as it possibly can bring in the market upon its dispo-
sition by the Alien jEVoporty Custodian. Otherwise, there would be
no excess which might be applied as payment of the debts of our
nationals. Now, taKe the Bosch Magneto case, for instance, that
you know about, of course, as you are attorney for the Alien Property
Custodian. There is a very serious controversy about that case.
The entire property was disposed of for somethmg like $4,000,000,
and it is clamied by the owner and others that the cash assets would
make the value of the property at the time it was disposed of — it was
disposed of after the armistice, I think — $6,000,000. I will call it
that in round numbers. It is claimed bv some of the accountants
that its value might be very much more than that. That matter is
now in controversy, through some sort of court proceedings. At any
rate it has been before a committee of the Senate upon several dif-
ferent occasions and was discussed at great length. Now grant, for
the sake of argument, that there was a discrepancy of $2,000,000;
that amount might very well have gone to the nationals for the pay-
ment of their debts.
Mr. Palmer. Surely it is a matter of interest between the Govern-
ment and the Alien Property Custodian.
Senator Fall. The Congress of the United States is the only tri-
bunal to which they can come. Suppose it is shown clearly to the
Congress of the Umted States that here is an American citizen who
has a $2,000,000 claim which he can not collect against Germany and
which Germany does not guarantee ; if there are funds in the hands
of the Alien Property Custodian, Congress can say to the Property
Custodian, or to some other official, '^Pay this man so as to discharge
his claim.'' If there is no such excess, how is he going about it to
get his claim paid ? Would he have to come to Congress for an ap-
propriation 01 $2,000,000 out of the Treasury? You can not set
aside a sale that has been made by the Alien Property Custodian.
This validates the sale.
Mr. Palmer. This validates it.
Senator Fall. But suppose it does not. He can not set it aside.
Mr. Palmer. In case of a fraud, any fraudulent transaction is void.
Senator Fall. What proceedings would you take ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 25
Mr. Palmer. In the case of a question of the character you raise,
those are matters between the United States Government and its
officers.
Senator Fall. I want to see if American citizens can be protected,
if I can.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I am not prepared to answer that question,
because it would depend on the cnaracter of the act, in what part of
the country, and under what State government it was passed, and a
whole lot of things. What I wanted to say was that the treaty has
not anything to do with that objection.
Senator Fall. I do not think it has, except that it validates the
acts of the Alien Property Custodian.
Senator Williams. Not as to American nationals.
Mr. Palmer. That is just the point. The German national never
had any rights, because the traaing with the enemy act has taken
them away in advance.
Senator Williams. Let me ask you Jthis question. If this man
was an American citizen, and coula show it, and had acted upon a
wrong impression that he was an alien enemy, he would have the
same rights in the courts of the United States that he always had?
Mr. Palmer. I understand so.
Senator Fall. I am not interested in the Bosch Magneto Co. I am
interested only in an American citizen collecting his money from a
German national.
ifr. Palmer. Mr. Senator, I can answer that only in a general
way. It is perfectly true that if the Alien Property Custodian has
not collected and realized as much money as ae could have from
tba enemy property in this country, the fund at the disposal of
Congress is not as much as it otherwise would be. That is true,
li on the other hand there has been nothing that has been wrongly
done by the Alien Property Custodian
Senator Fall. I did not mean to insinuate that, for a moment.
Mr. Palmer. That is a matter between the Government and its
own officers.
Senator Fall. In so far as I am concerned, I have been on the
committee investigating the acts of the Alien Property Custodian
for some time, and I am willing to say frankly that I nave discovered
nothing whatsoever that would reflect in any decree upon the manner
in whicn the present Attorney General of the Imited States adminis-
tered that property. But there may be cases in which his agents or
himself have acted in such an inefficient manner in securing the
'argest proceeds which they might, that while without anv moral
turpitude upon their part whatsoever, nevertheless the funds which
laay be at the disposal of Congress for the payment of claims to
American citizens might not be sufficient. Where would they go ?
Senator Smith of Arizona. Would they have to lose their property
or come to Congress ?
Senator Fall. If by the treaty the German Government had been
compelled to guarantee the debts of its citizens, then it would not
have been depleted by such claims, we will say, to the extent of
$300,000.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. Palmer, the fund which is secured by the
sale of aUen property under the administration of the Alien Property
26 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBICANT.
Custodian has certain liens placed upon it by this treaty* Is that
true?
Mr. Palmer. No; that is not true; there are no liens.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. What are the first claims on that fund t
Mr. Palmer. Congress has the fullest right to dispose of it in any
way it sees fit.
Senator HrrcHCOOK. Are there any claims prior to the payment of
claims by American nationals against German debtors ?
Mr. Palmer. Not imless Congress desires to so stipulate.
Senator HrrcHcocK. So that this fund is subject m its use to the
payment of American claims against German debtors, and not in
excess of the fund, but the whole fund?
Mr. Palmer. Yes; if you like. The American with a claim against
Germany has got something which he never had before.
Senator Williams. Germany undertakes to pay its own nationals ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. First, you obtain from Grermany an agreement
that will return all the property of American nationals ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. That is obtained ; and secondly, you obtain
from Germany an agreement that all the property oi the Germans
here in this country can be used to discharge any lurther debts that
the Grerman nationals owe the United States ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Third, you have given to Congress the right to
dispose of its alien property -absolutely without interference by the
German Government ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Swanson. And if Congress desires to create courts to deal
with this property, it has the power to do it; and there is nothing
in the treaty which precludes Congress from making a free disposition
of it?
Mr. Palmer. Absolutely. That is one of the reasons why the
American delegates would not consent to the enemy debt plan, be-
cause the enemy debt plan would have taken away the freedom of
disposition which Congress should enjoy.
Senator Williams. And which Congress had reserved to itself.
Mr. Palmer. Which Congress had reserved.
The Chairman. Mr. Palmer, do I understand you to say this treaty
does not validate the acts of the Alien Property Custodian so as to
put him entirely beyond the right of the courts so far as enemy
aliens are concerned ? ^
Mr. Palmer. Oh, no ; I said that the treaty does validate the act
as far as the enemy is concerned.
The Chairman. That is, no enemy alien can bring suit in any way.
Mr. Palmer. No.
The Chairman. Exactly. That is what I supposed. I know
nothing about the Bosch magneto case which has been mentioned by
the Senator from New Mexico. Suppose there was an American
stockholder, would he have any right under this treaty, which be-
comes the supreme law of the land, to go to the courts and get
proceedings ?
Mr. Palmer. The same right as before?
TBBATT OF PBAOE WITH GERBCAKT. 27
The Chaibman. No ; I am not asking whether he has the same right
as before. I want to biow whether he is cut off from any that he
previously had.
Mr. Palmer. No.
Senator Johnson. In answer to what the chairman said to the
Senator from Mississippi, and in answer to what has just now been
said to you, may I call Mr. Palmer's attention to paragraph 1 of the
Annex, pace 376 ? If I may read to vou a couple of sentences, I
would be glad to be instructed. It reads:
In accordance with the proviaions of article 297, paragraph (d), the validity of
vesting ordeiB and of orders for the winding up of businesses or companies, and of any
other orders, directions, decisions, or instructions of any court or any department uf
tile (xovemment of any of the high contracting parties made oi given, or purporting
to be made or given, in pursuance of war legislation with regard to enemy property,
rights, and interests is confirmed.
Now follow, please [reading] :
The ialeresta of all persons shall be r^arded as having been effectively desalt with
by any order, direction, decision, or instruction dealing with property in which they
may be interested, whether or not such interests are specificallv mentioned in the
order, direction, dedsion, or instruction. No question shall be raised as to the
regularity of a transfer of any property, rights, or interests dealt with in pursuance
of any such order, direction, decision, or instruction. Every action taken with regard
to ajiy property, business, or company, whether as regards its investigation, seques-
tration, compulsory administration, use, requisition, supervision, or winding up.
the sale or management of property, rights or interests, the collecticn or discharge oi
debts, the payment of costs, charges, or expenses, or any other matter whatsoever,
in pursuance of orders, directions, decisions, or instructions of any court or of any
department of the Government of any of the high contracting parties, made or given,
or purporting to be made or given, in pursuance of war legislation with reg[ard to
enemy property, riehts, or interests, is confirmed : Provided^ That the provisions of
this paragraph shall not be held to prejudice Uie titles to property heretofore acquired
in good £aittt and for value and in accordance with the laws of the country in which
the property is situated by nationals of the allied and associated powers.
Would you make, with that provision in view, the same answer
with regard to the minority American stockholder that you have
made to the Senator from Mississippi and the chairman ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir; the para^aph bemis by reference to article
297, para^aph (d). If you will look at that, you will find that the
clause is limited to enemy nationals in Germany. The exact treaty
is as follows:
(d) As between the allied and associated powers or their nationals on the one hand
and Gennany or her nationals on the other hand, all the exceptional war messuree,
or measures of transfer, or acts done or to be done in execution of such measures as
defined in paragraphs I and 3 of the annex hereto shall be considered as final and
binding upon aU persons except as regards the feservations laid down in the present
treaty.
Now, paragraph (1) of the annex which you read and referred to
there is simply an enlargement of that provision, and refers to it.
Senator Moses. What other provisions are laid down ?
Mr. Palmer. Some other reservations. I do not recall what
they are at present.
Senator Faix. Beading over that, I became convinced some time
ago that you were correct in your construction of this provision. I
say without any hesitation that you are correct. Then, if the
mmority stockholder was dissatisfiea with the amount derived from
the sale, what would be his reicourse !
28 TBEATY OF PBAOE WITH QEBMANY*
Mr. Palmer. He has the recourse that is dven to him under the
trading with the enemy act and the general laws of the land. It
depenas entirely upon the nature of the act, Mr. Senator, and the
only reply that I can make to it is that the treaty does not aflFect
his rights, whatever they are.
Senator Fall. I think you are correct ahout that, also. But a
minority stockholder in such a company, as was suggested hy the
question of the chairman — a large stockholder — ^mignt, of course,
pursue the proceeds, and would only have his proportional amount
of the proceeds represented by the average value of his stock, and
would not be entitled to upset the sale and have a resale unless
Congress gave affirmative relief by subsequent legislation.
Mr. Palmer. That depends again. It depends on the nature of
the transaction. If there is fraud
Senator Fall. I am not speaking of fraud.
Mr. Palmer. Or inadequacy of price, that is a question of pro-
cedure, a question of coiporation law of the State and of vanous
details, and it is impossible to answer intelligently a question of that
kind.
Senator Fall. You are familiar with the trading-with-the-enemy
act?
Mr. Palmer. The trading- with-the-enemy act as we have construed
it, and we think correctly, provides that no American citizen or any
neutral shall be deprived of his rights, and in enforcing the trading-
with-the-enemy act, of course, we tried as hard as possible not to
transgress anybody's rights; but all the courts are open at every
stage of the game, and they had additional rights given them by the
act itself.
Senator Fall. But having failed to avail himself of the provisions
of section 9 of the act by going into court to protect his rights, the
American citizen would then merely be left to appeal to Congress for
reimbursement of the amount that he had lost, ii he established that
he had lost anything, or proceed against the proceeds of the sale.
Mr. Palmer. He still has a right to make a claim up to nine months
after the war is ended.
Senator Fall. But not to set aside the sale.
Mr. Palmer. His right to set aside the sale had not been changed
in any way.
Senator Fall. But if the sale is made, you do not think that any
individual can set it aside ?
Mr. Palmer. I know they could if they have the proper cause.
Senator Johnson of California. I am unable to see that subdivision
(e) has the limited effect that you suggest upon the portion of the
Annex that I read to you. You will observe how much extended the
portion of the Annex that I read is beyond the matter to which you
allude. It says that the interests of all persons should be regarded as
having been effectively dealt with, and so on, and no question shall
be raised as to the regularity of the transfer of any property, etc.
Now, would not that be effective concerning the rights of the minority
stockholder such as was suggested by the chairman ?
Mr. Palmer. I do not think so at all. We had a discussion on
that very Question, and all the powers agreed that this treaty did
not affect tne rights of neutrals or nationals of our country. When
it came to that particular clause, in order to make it clear, we inserted
TBEIATY OF PEACE WITH GESMANY. 29
the sttitence which was read, and it is our interpretation and under-
standing that those confirmations and ratifications apply to alien
enemies.
S^ator Johnson of California. But you specifically state "the
interests of all persons/' and then you state again *' every action
taken"
Mr. Palmer. In accordance with the provisions of such and such
a clause.
Senator Johnson of California. That is your first sentence; quite
true.
Mr. Palmeb. But it gives the entire paragraph.
Senator Johnson. But your subsequent sentences are wholly
general in character.
The Chairman. '* All persons" means only alien enemies.
Senator Johnson. That is exactly the pomt.
The Chairman. Am I not right in that ?
Mr. Palmer. German nationals, it means.
The Chairman. *'A11 persons" means German nationals. It is
rather loosely drawn.
Mr. Baruch. It could not mean anything else.
Senator Johnson. I would not wish to disagree with you, Mr.
Palmer, concerning the construction of language with which you are
familiar, but is not that a strained construction, to say the least?
Mr. Palmer. It might be, without the connection.
Senator Williams. ** All persons," referring to section 297.
Senator Johnson. It does not say so.
Senator Williams. That is what it means, explanatory of sec-
tion 297. Read the first line.
Senator PoMERENE. Where is that? Give me the number and
the section.
Senator Williams (reading):
In accordance with the provisions of article 297.
It is on page 375.
The Chairman. Are there any futher questions that the com-
mittee desires to put to Mr. Palmer ?
Senator McCumber. I would like to ask one question. If we are
to avail ourselves of the rights and the benefits under this system of
t'oining other nations in the collection of debts, we will have to do it
)y an act of Congress within 40 days after the treaty has been
adopted. Is that your construction ?
Senator Williams. That is, adopting the clearing-house system ?
Mr. Palmer. If you want to adopt the clearing-house system, it
is necessary to give notice within a month, I think.
Senator Hitchcock. Thirty days.
Mr. Palmer. After the ratification.
Senator McCL^iBER. Who is to give notice ?
Mr. Palmer. The United States.
Senator McCijmber. How ?
Mr. Palmer. Why, I do not know. I suppose the President, or
the executive authority.
Senator McCumber. Do you not think that it will require an act
of Congress to determine whether we should come under that system,
rather than the mere declaration of the Presider^t ?
30 TREATY OF PBAGE WITH GBBMAKY*
Mr. Palmer. I do not think so.
Senator McCuMBER. You would not think it was simply discre-
tionary with the President or any other oflBicer as to whether we
should adopt that provision ? I just ask. I did not know but what
there might be some other portion of the treaty that bore on it.
Mr. Palmer. There is nothing else in the treaty on it, but I should
think that inasmuch as the President and the Senate have the power
to malEe the treaty, they would have the power to do that.
Senator Williams. And the American delegation was opposed to
the clearing-house system ?
Mr, Palmer. Absolutely.
The CHAiBBiAN. The hour of half past twelve having arrived, if I
may interrupt Mr. Palmer for that purpose, some of the Senators
have to go upon the floor and I thmk we shall have to take an
adjournment. I suppose that there are some further questions that
the members of the committee desire to ask Mr. Baruch and Mr.
Palmer.
Senator Fall. I think so.
The Chairbaan. I understand so, and I shall be glad to know
from the committee when they would like to have the witnesses
before them again.
Senator Johnson. I request an adjournment until 10.30 o'clock
to-morrow morning.
Senator Hitchcock. I want to suggest that the matter of interro-
gating witnesses be on some sort of system, either that the questions
be put in writing or asked in order, so that there will be less con-
fusion.
Senator Moses. Mav I ask that before the next meeting copies of
this document that Mr. Baruch has been referring to be ready and
put in the hands of the committee.
Senator Pomerene. Could we have those this afternoon ?
Mr. Baruch. We have only two copies, but they could be fur-
nished the members of the committee tnis afternoon.
The Chairman. If Mr. Baruch will give me a copy I will have it
printed for the committee.
Senator Pittman. Do I understand that this document of Mr.
Baruch's is to be printed as a part of his testimony ?
The Chairman. There were some other things that he had in
typewritten form that will go in his remarks.
Senator Pittman. I would like to ask Mr. Baruch if he would not
like to have this document printed as a part of his testimony.
Mr. Baruch. This really was not a completed document. It was
a transitory document, just explanatory ot the clauses.
The Chairman. I did not understand that Mr. Baruch wanted to
make the whole document a part of his testimony, but it does not
make any difference.
Senator Pittman, I was asking Mr. Baruch as to his desire.
Mr. Baruch. I have no desire in the matter. I think the parts
that were read should appear in the testimony. They are simply to
be used as a matter of reference for the Senators in order to see what
construction had been put on the clauses at that time.
The Chairman. We can have the testimony ready and in print
to-morrow.
(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned
until to-morrow, Friday, August 1, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
FBIDAY, AUaUST 1, 1919.
Unitisd States Senate,
Committee on Fobeion Relations,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjojim-
meat, in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Fall, Knox,
Harding, Johnson, New, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams, Swanson,
Pomerene, Smith, and Pittman.
The Chairman. The Secretary of Labor desires to address the
committee briefly in regard to a resolution introduced by Senator
Kenyon yesterday. If the committee desires, I will read the resolu-
tion [reading]:
[S. J. Bes. 80.]
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the President to convene the first meeting of the international
labor oonlBrenoe in Washington, and to appoint delegates thereto.
Whereas in the proposed treaty of peace which was executed by the representatives
of the allied and associated powers and Germany at Versailles on the 28th day of
June, 1919^ and which is now before the Senate of the United States for consideration,
provision is made for a general international labor conference for the purpose of
promoting improvements in the conditions of labor, and that the first meeting of
such conference shall take place in Washington in October, 1919; and
Whereas the representatives of the allied and associated powers, signatory to said
proposed treaty of peace, have requested the Government of the United States of
America to convene and make arrangements for the organization of the first meeting
of said conference: It is therefore
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled^ That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is,
authorize to convene and to make arrangements for the organization of such first
meeting of the said conference and to appoint delegates thereto: Provided ^ however ,
That nothing herein ^11 be held to authorize the President to appoint any del^ates
to represent the United States of America at the said meeting of such conference or to
authorize the United States of America to participate therein unless and until the
Senate shall have ratified the provisions of the said proposed treaty of peace with
reference to such general international labor conference.
Senators will probably remember that we passed as an amend-
ment to an appropriation bill a prohibition on the President to call
any conventions here without action by Congress.
Senator Williams. Hence the necessity of this bill.
The Chaibman. Hence the necessity of the bill. We will hear
the Secretary of Labor.
81
32 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
STATEMENT OF HOH. WILLIAM B. WILSON, SECBETABT OF
LABOB.
Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
as stated m the preamble, the proposed treaty of peace which the
committee has now under consideration provides for the calling of
an international labor conference, a conference that it is proposed
shall meet annually. In an annex to article 24, the place of meeting
is named as Washington, and the Government of the United States
is requested to convene the conference. As has been stated by
the chairman, the general deficiency bill of March 4, 1913, carried
this provision:
Hereafter the Executive shall not extend or accept any invitation to participate in
any international congress, conference, or like event, without first having the specific
authority of law to do so.
Consequently the Executive has no power to comply with the
request contained in the treaty now under consideration. I am.
advised that 22 nations have already signified their intention of
being represented at the labor conference, some of them nations
on the other side of the globe. The difficulties of transportation
and communication at the present time resulting from the war
make it important that if an invitation is to go out from this Grov-
emment it should go out at a very early date.
The House of Representatives, as I understand, is about to adjourn,
with the consent of the Senate, xmtil September 9. Unless action
can be secured before the adjournment of the House, it will make
a very brief time in which invitations can be extended and action
taken by other Governments in selecting their representatives to
attend the conference.
When I learned that the House was about to adjourn for a month,
I took the matter up with Members of the House, among them the
minority leader, Mr. Clark of Missouri, with a view to securing action
by the House before adjoummant. After consultation with his
associates, the majority leader and his associates came to the con-
clusion that it was a matter that primarily interested the Senate,
because the matter of the treaty of peace was involved in the propo-
sition, and that consequently it would be more or less indelicate
on the part of the House to take any action on the subject until
the Senate had expressed its view upon it. Consequently the
House has taken no steps to take any action on the proposition that
is now before you.
I look upon this particular phase of the proposed treaty as being
somewhat different from any other phase of the treaty. There is
not only the proposition to convene a labor conference annually,
but there is a request that this Government convene the first con-
ference. When any of the other nations, parties to the negotiations,
ratify the treaty, that carries with it a ratification of the request
to the Government of the United States to convene the labor con-
ference. If we ratify the treaty itself, then it becomes a treaty
obUgation on our part to convene the conference. If we fail to
ratify the treaty, it still stands as a request from other Governments
to our Government to convene this meeting, and in that respect I
look upon it as being entirely different from any of the other pro-
visions contained within the treaty.
TBBATT OF PEAOE WITH GEBMAKY. 38
There is an organizing committee at present working upon the data
for the subjects to be discussed at the proposed conferences. I
am advised that that committee is unable to proceed further with
.its work, that it is at a standstill and will continue at a standstill
until our Government has extended either formally or informally
the invitation mentioned in the treaty. Our Government is not
in a position to extend, either formallyor informally, an invitation
except by and with the authority of Congress.
That is the situation as it confronts us, and unless speedy action
can be secured from the Senate and from the House it will create a
condition where the time will be extremely brief, whether we ratify
the treaty or not, in which we can issue a call for this convention.
I may add that by the very terms of the treaty we would not be
entitled to representation in the conference, even though we called
it, unless the treaty is ratified: but we are requested to call it whether
we are represented in it or not. That is the situation as I under-
stand it, and I hope the committee may take prompt action in the
matter in order to relieve the situation.
The Chairman. I can only say that the committee will take it
up just as soon as they finish this hearing. I shall try and get a
meeting of the committee this afternoon to deal with it.
Secretary Wilson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Of course, Mr. Secretary, you realize that it has
to be done by unanimous consent of the Senate ?
Secretary "Wilson. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that unless there is
practically unanimous consent both in the Senate and in the House,
prompt action can not be had, and I think that prompt action is of
the essence of the situation at the present moment.
Senator Williams. It can not be considered, Mr. Secretary,
except by unanimous consent.
Secretary Wilson. That is practically the situation in the House
also.
STATEMEKT OF MB. BBADLET W. PAIKEB— Besnmed.
ffhe Chairman. Mr. Baruch and Mr. Palmer are both here, and if
any members of the committee desire to ask them any further ques-
tions, there is now an opportunity to do so.
Senator Williams. Mr. Palmer was on the stand yesterday when
we adjourned.
The Chairman. Mr. Palmer was on the stand when we adjourned
yesterday. Is it desired to ask him any fiu-ther questions t
Senator Moses. Some of us are under embarassment with reference
to questioning this witness further, inasmuch as the print of the
explanation which Mr. Baruch presented yesterday morning is not
yet ready«
The C&aibman. Mr. Baruch's pamphlet is not here. The Govern-
ment Printing Office was unable to get it to us in time. The testimony
taken at the nearing yesterday is printed.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, 1 must admit that we went so far
afield yesterdav that I did not understand thoroughly the explanation
made by Mr. r aimer in answer to the question propounded to him by
one of tne Senators touching upon the statement that he made that
Americans were, as I understood him, betterprotected in thecoUection
136646—10 3
84 TREATY OF PBAOE WITH GEBMAKT.
of their indebtedness than were the citizens of other nations if they
joined this clearing-house agreement. If Mr. PaUner would be kind
enough to proceed as briefly as possible in answer to that question^
I should be glad to hear him. I snould be glad to know where Ameri-
can nationtus have any advantage over the citizens of the other
nations, or where they stand upon an equal basis with the citizens
of the other nations, m the collection or settlement of their indebt-
edness.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that remark I made
was perhaps a little more general than I intended. What I intended
to say was that the citizens of the United States would be better pro-
tected if tiie United States did not adopt the clearing svstem than if
they did. I did not intend to differentiate between tne citizens of
the United States and those of any other nation as the remark would
indicate. That was not my view.
Senator Fall. That is Wnat I wanted to clear up.
Mr. Palmer. I am talking about the operation of the clearing sys-
tem. Under the clearing system the friendly power on the one side
and Germany on the other each undertakes to collect all the enemy
debts within its territory and apply it to the payment of the credit of
their own nationals. The result oi that operation in effect is that the
creditors of the friendly nation — I use that term instead of repeating
"allied or associated nations" — are limited to the proceeds oi enemy
credits and the proceeds of enemy property in their own country.
In case a country does not become a part of the clearing system,
the creditors of that country have the right to collect their debt from
the debtors in Germany, wmch would otherwise be collected and the
proceeds kept by the German Government; and in addition to that
their Government has at its disposal the entire fund of enemy property
in this country, by which it can, if it so desires, pay the uncollected
portion of its citizens' debt. That is a brief statement of the financial
difference between those two systems, and that is the foundation of
the remark that I made which was quoted by Uie Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Fall. I find some difficulty in explaining that, because
it is complicated, and it is not an easy conception to imderstand or to
explain; but I have a very clear understandmg of it, and if I have qpt
made it clear I should like to go further.
Senator Hitchcock. Let me ask you this question: If John Smith
in the United States has a claim of $5,000 against a German debtor,
how would he proceed under article 3 if the United States adopts that,
and also how would he proceed and how would he be protected if the
other option is elected i
Mr. rALMER. If John Smith, a creditor in the United States, has a
claim of $5,000 against a German debtor, if the United States does
not adopt section 3, John Smith has the same contractual rights that
he always had unimpaired, and pursuant thereto he has a right to
demand and collect his claim from the German debtor. He alio has
the right, in case of dispute of his claim
Senator Hitchcock. That would be in the German courts ?
Mr. Palmer. In the case of the dispute of his claim, instead of
going to a German court, he has the rignt to appeal to the new court
with a neutral president; and on top of that, suDJect to the action of
the United States Government, he would have the opportuinity to
ask the United States to pay nis debt out of the fimas which the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAlfrY. 35
United States has in its possession, derived from the enemy property
and the proceeds of enemy debts collected in this country.
Now 11 the United States adopts the clearing system, the same
creditor has no longer the right to collect his debt from the debtor in
Germany. His omj recourse is to the United States, and the United
States would be obliged to pay him from the funds which they had
received.
Senator Hitchcock. Where could he sue for the collection of his
debt?
Mr. Palmer. He could not sue.
Senator HrrcHCOOK. Where could he present his claim ?
Mr. Palmer. To the United States Gbvernment. The result is
l^at if the claims in the United States exceeded the amount of prop-
erty collected by the Government, the resulting claim would be against
the German Government only, which is not a very valuable asset at
the present time.
So that you will see that the possibility of collection by the Amer-
ican creditor is double under one system as against the other.
Senator Fall. Each nation here has exactly the same alternative
that is left to the United States ?
Mr. Palmer. OIl yes.
Senator Fall. Now under article 3, if we join the clearing-house
system, the German Government guarantees the debts of its nationals?
Mr. Palmer. It guarantees the debts of its nationals in this way
It ^ves as a credit to the other country the amount of the debt owed
by its nationals to the citizens of that coimtry. That is the book-
keeping transaction, which results in a balance one way or the other.
Senator Fall. I admit that whenever I run up agamst a proposi-
tion advanced by some auditor or bookkeeper, and it is a bookkeeping
proposition, then I am lostj I know nothmg about it. But I notice
the provision in the treaty itself is that eacSi of the high contracting
Sarties shall be respectively responsible for the payment of such
ebts of its nationals.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Fall. That may be just a bookkeeping entry, but the
question is whether it is worth anything.
Mr. Palmer. What I am sure of is that under the operation of the
clearing system that becomes a bookkeeping entry.
Now the condition which seemed to the American lawyers most
serious under this system arises from the operation of that clause,
because under it the United States Government would be obUged to
guarantee the payment of an enormous amount of obligations, some
of which are worthless, many of which can not be collected, and in-
cluding, as far as the lawyers could determine, a class of obligations
among which were our defaulted railroad bonds which became due
before the war or during the war.
Senator Fall. And State bonds ?
Mr. Palmer. No; not State bonds.
Senator Fall. Repudiated bonds 1
Mr. Palmer. Well, I don't know. I never thought of that.
Senator Fall. I thought possiblv you had thou^t of it.
Mr. Palmer. The result would be that the Umted States would
find itself guaranteeiiijg and paying to somebody the full par value of
private and semipubUc obligations, the actual value of which was a
36 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
very much less amount. What the effect would be on the German
creditor I do not know. If the system operated, the German creditor
inight get 100 cents on the dollar for a railroad bond for which our
citizens had taken stock. The American lawyers never could figure
that out, and we never could get a satisfactory answer from the other
powers as to how that woula operate, and that was the stumbling
olock. When we could not cross that block, the ridiculousness of the
United States guaranteeing all that vast mass of obligations in this
country was an obstacle which no American lawyer could ever get
across.
Apart from that, however, I have personally taken a great interest
in discussing the clearing system and ascertaining as far as I could
how the originators of the sjrstem expected it to work; because if it
was possible to devise a clearing system or rather a system of arrang-
ing mutually the debts between tnis country and Germany without
a Government guaranty and without preventing our merchants from
communicating and arranging their settlements in some way and
without some of the other features which would cramp the system,
it would be an advantageous thing.
In other words, if we could arrange with Germany a system to
clear our debts which have been himg up through, we will say, a
group of banks or some private institution, without involving the
obliigations or the friction of governmental interests, it would oe an
admirable thing to do. That is exactly the opportunity that is left
to us now, if we desire to do so.
Senator Knox. I want to ask you about this option. Do we have
to give notice to get into the clearing house, or give notice to stay
out?
Mr. Palmer. We have to give notice to get in.
Senator Knox. Now, do we? I thought that, at first; but look at
the text on page 351, at the bottom of me page. I will read enough
of it to get the substance of it. It says that ^^the provisions of this
article and of the annex hereto shall not apply * * * unless
* * * notice to that effect is given." Does not *' notice to that
effect'' mean notice that it shall not apply, rather than that it shall
Mr. Palher. I will answer that question in this way. When that
clause was originally drawn it was drawn to require notice to stay
out, and the United States representative objected to it very strongly,
and the word ''if " was changed to '*imless," in order to give it the
•effect which I say. In other words, the clause was remodeled for
the purpose of providing that in case any country desired to partici-
pate in this they must give notice. Otherwise they are left out.
Senator Knox. Does this language do so ?
Mr. Palmer. I think so.
Senator Knox. It says that the provisions of this article and of
the annex thereto shall not apply unless notice to that effect is given.
Mr. Palmer. To the effect that they shall apply.
Senator Knox. No; it says ''notice to that effect." What effect?
The effect is that it shall not apply. I assumed that what you say
you were trying to do was what nad been done, but this lanmiage is
really confusing. I do not know whether the French text nelps it
out any or not.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 37
Mr. Palmeb. The language says it shall not apply ''unless" —
unless what) Unless notice is given.
Senator Knox. Unless notice *'to that effect" is given.
Mr. Palb^er. Unless notice of some kind is given.
Senator Knox. Notice that it shall not apply, it seems to me to
mean. What I want to find out is whether we have got to give
notice to stay in or to give notice to get out. That may be clear to
other people, but it is not clear to me.
Senator Swanson. Your interpretation is that that means that it
shall not apply
Senator Knox. My interpretation is that it means that notice
shall be given that it shall not apply.
Senator Swanson. And you mterpret it that '*to that effect,"
means that it shall not apply ?
Senator Knox. That it snj
tall not apply; yes. You and I both
thought it was the other way yesterday when we talked about it,
that we would have to give notice to get m; that we are automatically
out unless we give notice to get in.
Senator Fall. Yes; we are automatically out unless we give notice
to get in, and I very much hope that we will not give any such notice,
and I would very much like an imperative provision that we shall
not give any sucn notice.
Mr. Palmer. This is clear, Senator, I think. It says "unless."
Unless what? Unless some notice is given. Therefore, the alter-
native is that if no notice is given it does not apply.
Senator Knox. It says ''notice to that effect." The effect of that
paragraph is that under certain circmnstances it shall not apply.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Senator Knox. Therefore, it does apply unless notice is given.
Mr. Palmer. No; it does not apply unless notice is given.
Senator Harding. The succeeding paragraph sajrs, on page 353:
"The allied and associated powers wno have adopted this article and
the annex." Does that contemplate notice?
Mr. Palmeb. If you do not give any notice yourself, it does not
apply. It says so.
Senator Pomerene. Yes.
Senator Pittman. Leaving out intervening words, does it not read
this way: "The provisions of this article and of the annex hereto
shall not apply unless notice to that effect is given"? That is the
language of this section ?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, sir.
Senator Knox. Unless notice to the effect that it shall not apply
is given.
Senator PrrxMAN. The first statement is that it shall not apply
unless notice is given to that effect.
Mr. Palmer. Senator, I think the words "notice to that effect"
should be interpreted for that purpose.
Senator Knox. I shoidd be very much disposed to defer it to the
interpretation that this committee would put upon it, but to my
mind it is very confusiiig here.
Senator McOtmber. The matter is also in the French text, and we
have here some very good French scholars, and I would like to ask
some of them for their interpretation to see how the French agrees.
The Chairman. It is very blind.
88 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, I have notlimg further that I wanted
to question Mr. Pahner about. I want, personally, to thank him
for his explanation of the matter I inquired about.
The Chairman. Does any other member of the committee desire
to ask Mr. Palmer any questions ?
Senator Moses. Mr. Chairman, referring to page 273 of the com-
mittee text, which is Annex 11, paragraph 15, following article 244,
I would like Mr. Palmer to explain the practical workmg out. Of
course, there are many things in connection with the Reparation
Commission which possibly these witnesses are not prepared to take up.
Mr. Palmer. Is that in the reparation clauses ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. I had nothing to do with that part of the treaty.
Senator Moses. Is Mr. Baruch familiar with that ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Moses. I will ask Mr. Baruch about that when he comes
on, then.
The Chairman. If there is nothing further that the members of the
committee desire to ask Mr. Palmer, the conamittee are much obliged
to him, and we will now hear Mr. Baruch.
STATEMENT OF MB. BEBHABD M. BABVCH— Besomed.
Senator Moses. Have you the text before you to which I have
referred, page 273 of our text?
Mr. Baruch. Will you give me the article ?
Senator Moses. It is Annex II, paragraph 15, following article 244
of the treaty, on page 273 of the committee print.
I would like to taiow exactly how that would work out, practically.
Mr. Baruch. It reads :
A certificate stating that it holds for the account of the said power honds of the
issues mentioned above.
Just let me go back to the beginning of this.
Senator Moses. Look at the bottom of page 268 and the top of
pa^e 269.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; I have it. This refers to the issue of so many
hundreds of millions of marks of gold bonds.
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Baruch. It says:
The commission will issue to each of the interested powers, in such form as the com»
mission shall &c:
(1) A certificate stating that it holds for the account of the said power honds of the
issues mentioned above, the said certificates, on the demand of the power concerned^
being divisible in a number of parts, not exceeding five, ♦ ♦ ♦.
Now, what is the question ?
Senator Moses. It also provides that certain warehouse certifi-
cates shall be divided in a certain manner.
Mr. Baruch. It says, '^certificates stating the goods delivered by
Germany on account of her reparation debt.'' For instance, if a
certain power should ask a certam amount of machinery, or
Senator Moses. Dyes tuffs?
Mr. Baruch. Or iyestuffs, or raw materials for the building of
roadways or of houses, she might be credited and receive a certificate
for that.
TREATT OF PEAG£ WITH GEBMAKY. 39
Senator Moses. And it says :
The said certificatee shall he registered, and upon notice to the commission may he
transferred hy indorsement.
That makes them securities for the market ?
Mr. Baruch. It was not intended that they should be reissued at
all, but ihey were to be held in the commission.
Senator Moses. Why, then, should the certificate be divided into
five parts ?
Mr. Baruch. I presume that what was wanted by the various
powers was to have something that they might get credit upon, but
still the bonds would never be issued out of the commission^ hands.
Senator Moses. You mean the bonds would not pass out of the
hands of the conmiission ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Moses. But the certificates which were the evidence of
ownership might pass out ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Moses. And these five parts into which they had been
divided, upon being indorsed by the government to which they
passed, might be sold 1
Mr. Baruch. Well, the disposition of those divided parts would
be entirely at the wish of the government that owned them.
Senator Moses. There are a hundred million marks gold ?
Mr. Baruch Twenty billions for cash, forty and forty billion; yes.
Senator Moses. In other words, $20,000,000,000, par value t
Mr. Baruch. Yes; about that.
Senator Moses. And you have no idea as to the gi-oss amount of the
certificates representing merchandise)
Mr. Baruch. WeD, you could not arrive at that, Senator, until a
demand was made by one of the interested powers, it might be
Italy, or Endand, or France, or Belgium, for certain materials, which
you will finn, under an annex here, that they have a certain length
of time to ask for.
Senator Moses. Yes; I am familiar with that. Would that amount
be likely to equal the amount of the bond issue ?
Mr. Baruch. No : I do not think so.
Senator Moses. As the effect of the indorsement ?
Mr. Baruch. I do not think so, because you could not possibly use
that amount of matenal.
Senator Moses. Would the effect of the indorsement and transfer
of these certi£cates be to add directly to the volume of securities in
the financial markets of the world ?
Mr. Baruch. That is a question I could not answer.
Senator Moses. The effect of it would be to place German bonds
indorsed by another government upon the market, would it nott
Mr. Baruch. I hardly think so, sir.
Senator Moses. That would be the case unless the governments
took theso certificates and held them.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; that is what they are going to do. As I under-
stand it, the bonds are not to get out of the nands of the commission.
Senator Moses. The bonds do not, that is true ; but the certificates
evidencing the ownership do.
40 TREATY OF PBAOB WITH GEBMAKY.
Mr. Baruch, I would like to reread this, Mr. Norman Davis
attended to the financial part of the reparation , and I had more to do
with the industrial part of it.
Senator Moses. If there is some other attach^ of the commission
who is more familiar with that than you are, I wiU not mquke of you.
but will wait for that other person. Wliom was it you mentioned i
Mr. Baruch. ifr. Norman Davis.
Senator Moses. I do not want to inquire of you on a matter with
which you are not thoroughly familiar.
Mr. j3aruch. If I may reread this, Senator, I can answer your
question.
Senator Moses. No; I just thought it would be more satisfactory
if we could talk with the member of the commission who dealt with it.
Senator Johnson of California. Nevertheless, Mr. Baruch, in that
paragraph (15), let me read the next to the last sentence. It reads:
The said certificates shall be registered, and upon notice to the commission may be
transferred by indorsement.
That contemplates, of course, does it not
Mr. Baruch. Yes: that would.
Senator Johnson of Calif drnia (continuing). That the certificates
should be marketable and have a regular place upon the market, and
be transferred not only from the governments or the commission, but
be transferred from private individuals who may acquire them?
Mr. Baruch. I just wanted to see to what issue of bonds this
referred.
Senator Johnson of California. I think you will find that on
pa^es 268 and 269.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; I am just going over that. There are three
issues to be taken up, a first, a second, and a third. I was wondering
what this appUed to. I know it was contemplated that these cer-
tificates should not be sold.
Senator £[nox. Still this section that Senator Johnson has just read
contemplates it.
Senator Johnson. Those are certificates relating to demands
which may be made by the various powers and not to the boAds.
Mr. Baruch. You see this certificate states that it is held for
such bonds. It is not a certificate for the bonds. It is
a certificate to the holder saying that it holds for England a certain
amount of bonds. It is not a certificate of the bonds.
Senator Moses. These certificates may be registerM, and upon
indorsement may be transferred.
Senator Fall. And sold '*when bonds are issued for sale on
negotiation.''
Sir. Baruch. I would not be certain about it — ^Mr. Davis can tell
you — ^but I think this was put in there for the purpose, perhaps, of
transferring from one power to the other, rather than with the idea
of their being put on the market. There was no contemplation of the
bonds being put on the market, because no one knew tne value that
the German securities would have; but rather, if England had a
debt against France or against Belgium or vice versa, that they
might transfer some of these bonds. I think it was more on that
account.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 41
Senator Knox. Here is a point that I want to know about. You have
read from the treaty the provision that these shall be divided up into
five parts. That, of course, means that the share of each nation
shall be designated. Is that correct t
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
Senator Ksox, Very well. Now suppose that we generously
forego and agree to the cancellation of such amounts as are awarded
to us, does that go to the amelioration of the burden of Germany or
the other four powers ?
Mr. Baruch. It would be toward the amelioration of the burden
of Germany, but the other four powers would get it, I think, for
themselves.
Senator Pittman. It says, *'not to exceed five parts.'' It means
tliat if the United States does not come in it will be divided into
four parts ?
Mr. Baruch. He is talking about the certificates being divided
into five parts, and not the amount of the issue of bonds.
Senator Knox. I want to know who gets the benefit of our gener-
osity if we forego this indemnity. Does it go to ease the burden of
Grermany or the other nations ?
Mr. Baruch. We think it will go to ease the burden of Germany^
because Germany can not pay the entire claim.
Senator Swansgn. That would depend on what disposition this
Government would make of its part.
Senator Harding. If they did that it would have to accept the
certificate and dispose of it on its own account.
Mr. Baruch. The amount is not fixed as a definite amount. The
general view is that there will not be enough to go around; that
Germany will not be able to pay it.
Senator Kngx. There would be a disposition on the part of the
reparation commission to increase the indemnity in spite of the fact
that the United States does not propose to take any share of it.
If we are going to be liberal here and forego to Germany the share
that we are entitled to, I want to see it worked out so that Germany
shall have the benefit of it.
Mr. Baruch. That would be a matter which your commission
would be able to decide. It would have the power to refund, I think.
Senator, for the fact is home in upon us everyday that Grermany will
be unable to meet the bill that will be put against her.
Senator Kngx. What is the object of puttmg it against her, then t
Mr. Baruch. That bill is going to be determined by the reparation
commission. We were un^le to determine the amount that she
could pay. So it was left to the reparation commission after investiga-
tion to decide; so that it would decide five bilUons first, and then
another amount, of ten bilUons and so on — a rather indefinite
amount. Nothmg definite has been decided.
Senator Kngx. Just one more question. So far as you know, is
there any disposition to impose upon Grermany, throu^ the instru-
mentality of the reparation commission, more than you think she
can pay f
Mr. Baruch. Personally, I think so.
Senator E[nox. You thmk there is such a disposition ?
Mr. Baruch. It is a disposition born of the fact that she actually
owes it. dermany actually owes more than she can pay.
42 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Senator Knox. It is hardly a good business policy to lay upon your
debtor more than he can pay. No good business man does that.
Mr. Babuch. The only remark I make about it is that you are
correct, and that was the disposition of the American delegation,
from the President down. Back of this is exactly the viewpoint of
the intelligent business men, and that is the view that we took.
Senator Johnson of California. Just one question. Has a treaty
been made that you gentlemen believe is incapable of being carried
out by Germany ?
Mr. Baeuch. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you not just say that she
would be unable to pav the amount of reparation ?
Mr. Baruch. I tmnk that the amount of reparation that is justly
due she is unable to pay, but the reparation commission will say how
much she can pay, and that will be the amount. For instance, if
the reparation commission fixed, say, fifty billions or one himdred
billions, that would be unworkable because she could not pay it.
You will find it is drawn up with extreme care. It was aone in
that way to avoid guessworfe. It was almost one of the first com-
missions appointed and it was still sitting when we left Paris. Great
care was taken to draw this so that it would work, and I think that
it will work. There is no question in mv mind that it wiU work.
Senator Johnson of Caliiomia. It will work providing that the bill
be scaled down *by the reparation commission ?
Mr. Bakuch. Provided they will scale it down to what Germany
can pay.
Senator Johnson of California. That is what you mean ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. So that on the figures as obtainable
and presentable now, the bill is one that you say vou do not think
Germany can pay, but you rely upon the fact tne good sense of
the reparation commission will scale the amount down to a point
cormnensurate with the ability of Germany.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; and witnin that power it has been left so that
it would work. It is workable; there is no question about that.
Senator Johnson of California. They have that power and the
contrary power as well ?
Mr. Baruch. Contrary power ? What do you mean ?
Senator Johnson of Caufomia. That is, the power to scale down
and the discretion to fix as well the amount that might not be scaled
down.
Mr. Baruch. To fix the amount. But, of course, if the amount
is fixed, personally I think that will be the most workable treatment,
to fix with Germany the amount which they themselves think they
could pay. Of course, no one would fix an amount against a debtor
that he aid not think the debtor could pay.
Senator Johnson of California. Was it not that very fact of the
fixing of the amount that was denied at the conference?
Mr. Baruch. I do not exactly understand your question, but I
will say this, that the American delegation contended continuously
for the fixing of a definite amount.
Senator «R)hnson of California. They were unsuccessful in that
contention ?
TBEATY OF FBACB WITH GEBSCANY. 43
Mr. Babuch. Yes; because you can see it would involve the
question of repairing farms, and losses to the civilian population,
and there would be no possibility of doin^ that within such a short
time after the sound of the cannon had died away, and to get any
adequate idea of what the bill should be. It was impossible to get
a bill for restoring the districts and the great factories that were
ruthlesslv destroyed in Serbia, Poland, and these other countries
except after a great length of time, in order to find out what the bill
would be. We could not say what the bill was; we could not deter-
mine it without an exammation; and Germany was not in a condition
to find out what she could pay. The only way we could examine
the question was to make a ^eee, or leave it open in the way we did.
Senator Johnson of CaliK)mia. You sought in the first instance
to have a specific amount fixed.
Mr. Babuch. We sought imtil the last day.
Senator Johnson of California. You deemed that essential in
order that there might be stability, and in order that you might have
a definite and fixed sum which Germany coiild look forward to as
the debtor nation and the Allies as the creditor nations.
Mr. Babuch. Undoubtedly, it would be better to let Germany
know what she had to pay, and to let the rest of the world know
what it was to expect. But we soon saw it would be impossible to
^et up her bill and to get the people to determine now what that
fixed sum would be.
Senator Johnson of California. Why until the last day did you
continue to ask for a fixed sum ?
Mr. Babuch. Well, we discussed the Question and tried to con-
vince the people who were most interested, and to get them to come
around to our viewpoint.
Senator Habding. Grermany preferred it too, did she not?
Mr. Babuch. We never had any discussion with her on that.
Senator Habdino. Did she make such representations in her
efforts to modify the treaty ?
Mr. Babuch. They complained about the indefiniteness of the
amount, but we never had any hearing with them because we had
no opportunity to get in touch with them to discuss this question.
Senator Habdino. Did I understand you to say that imder this
provision the American reparation commissioners would have the
authority to say whether the United States of America would sur-
render any share of the reparation i
Mr. Babuch. I think tnat has to come back to the United States
Government. I will have to go back and read that over. I tliink
the Governments themselves were to say whether they would relin-
quish any amount.
Senator Johnson of California. I think you are correct in that.
I think in some place the treaty provides for that sort of thing.
Mr. Babuch. Had I known that you would discuss this, I would
have read it over again to get myself oriented about the reparation
clause.
Mr. Johnson of California. One other question. The United
States expects none of these reparations. That is the theory upon
which you are acting, and I presume is the theory that will be finally
acted upon if it is the desire of you gentlemen, who are most familiar
44 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
with it. That being the case, what has the United States repre-
sentative on the reparation commission to do ?
Mr. Baruch. Senator Johnson, we are associated with these
other Govenmients in the war. We are imposing certain conditions
upon Germany, and the very thought which gave rise to Senator
ElUox's impression is that we are imposing those conditions on
Germany, and it is our duty and obligation to see that the spirit
of this reparation is carried out.
Senator Johnson of California. The theory, then, and the only
theorjr, upon which we take part in this work of the reparation
commission is to see that that idea is carried out?
Mr. Baruoh. No; not entirely; and I think, though I am not
entirely clear, that there are some reparational demands that will
be put in. I am not clear about that.
Senator Johnson of California. You mean by the United States ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes; some of them. I am not clear about it.
Senator Pomerene. Such as the Lusitaruia claims ?
Mr. Baruch. For the loss of ships. Hie iMsitanm and the Frye
cases were prewar claims, which we took occasion to protect in
dealing with enemy property. But even if we do not receive any,
I think, individually — I am not here to discuss policy, and this is
only my view — it seems to me that we had to become a party to
these obligations that we are forcing upon Grermany and that we
have been very insistent upon. Therefore I do not see how we
could escape being a party to see that this is carried out; and all the
nations of the world, England and the various countries, are looking
to the United States to help them in these decisions.
Senator Johnson of California. I want to get your viewpoint.
Our activities will be wholly altruistic ?
Mr. Baruch. I would say no to that, for this reason. The spirit
and the wisdom of the carrying out of this reparation commission
is a matter of dollars and cento in the United States of America,
because upon the wisdom of those decisions depend the financial
and the industrial conditions of the world for years to come, and
perhaps for many generations.
Senator Johnson of California. Then it is from the world stand-
point and for the stabilizing of the world?
Mr. Baruch. And from our own personal interests. Germany was
a very large customer of ours. And this reparation commission does
not deal alone with Germany, but with all the great central empires,
and there are some 130,000,000 to 150,000,000 people involved in this,
and it is a matter about which we are moved by great altruistic ideas
primarily, but it is also a matter of deep self-interest.
Senator Johnson of California. I am inquiring only to get your
view. I am not speaking in hostility to that view, or in criticism of it.
Mr. Baruch. I quite appreciate that.
Senator Johnson of Cahfomia. Now, we will be engaged for some
30 years or more, then, in this particular design that you suggest ?
Mr. Baruch, Not necessarily. Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. Not necessarily ?
Mr. Baruch. The probabilities are that it will be shorter than that
if we are wise.
Senator Johnson of California. If we are wise. You mean the
Reparation Commission ?
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 45
Mr. Babuch. I mean not the United States alone, but all the people
interested.
Senator Johnson of California. That is, if the other four powers
with whom we will act, and who will have the determination of the
matter, are wise?
Mr. Babuch. I do not think they have any more to say in the
determination — ^I think America wiD be the determining factor.
Senator Johnson of California. That is, our one vote will be the
determining factor ?
Mr. Babuch. I think the influence of the American representatives
will be greater, perhaps, than that of any other individuals.
Senator Johnson oi Califomia. Do you think that opinion justified
by what has transpired at the peace conference t
Mr. Babuch. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. And it is justified
'Mr. Babuch. I take it as a matter of fact as I have seen it with my
own eves, and from the facts that greeted me on all sides in the rela-
tion that Americans had with the various powers.
Senator Johnson of California. And in the terms of the treaty
that was made, you think the opinion you just gave is justified t
Mr. Babuch. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. And that the predominant factor
in fixing those terms was the United States ?
Mr. Babuch. Which terms ?
Senator Johnson of California. Generally speaking, the terms of
the treaty of peace.
Mr. Babuch. I think that in most instanbes we had a very great
voice in it.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. The ''predominant" voice? I
think that was your adjective.
Mr. Babuch. I was referring particularly at that time to the
reparation commission.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Not to territorial distribution ?
Mr. Babuch. I was not familiar with those.
Senator Johnson of California. Who drew up the economic provi-
sions ?
Mr. Babuch. In here?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Yes.
}iT. Babuch. They were drawn up by the economic commission,
of which myself and Mr. Lamont were American representatives.
I do not know whether you heard yesterday my effort to show you
the way it was worked and how these various decisions were arrived
at.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not a fact that the whole
economic section of the treaty was drawn up by England ?
Mr. Babuch. It is not, sir; unless you can call me an Englishman,
sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. I am not referring to specific
provisions, but generally speaking were the economic sections the
result of the work of the United States commissioners or of the
United States commission of which you are a member ?
Mr. Babuch. We had a most active part in it.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. I mean in the very phraseology
and the very drawing up.
46 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Barctch. The phi'aseology was drawn up in the subcommittees,
and then that was turned over to the draiting committee, which
drafted or redrafted in some way, but never changed what we
thought was the meaning of the clause.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall whether England
presented the economic section of the treaty ?
Mr.BARUCH.Everyonepresenteddifferent views. Wedid thatwhen
we had a drafting committee, of which I was the sole American member.
Everybody was, of course, asked to give their views.
Senator Johnson of California. But you are quite certain that the
economic, provisions contained in this treaty were not the result of
the work of the English commissioners or representatives?
Mr. Baruch. Of course they were not; there were suggestions by
them, of course. There were suggestions by everyone.
Senator Johnson of California. I did not mean wholly, in detail;
but largely? These economic provisions that are a part of this
treaty, are they not largely those that were drawn by the English
people ?
Air. Baruch. If joxx mean that they drew up these clauses, no.
We all had a hand m it, and the Americans had their seiy.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recollect having a draft
before you that was presented by the ^^nglish ?
Mr. "Baruch. Oh, yes; everyone prepared drafts — the Italians,
French, and English. Everyone prepared drafts.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall whether it was the
English draft on which you worked and of which this treaty is the
result ?
Mi*. Baruch. No; I do not recall that, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. Would you say that that was not
correct ?
Mr. Baruch. It may or may not be correct, but I do not see what
bearing it has on the case. Anyone was free to offer any suggestions,
and we were glad to have people come forward with constructive
suggestions, and we would take them or modify them as we saw fit.
Senator Johnson of California. This is a apart from the particular
inquiry here, but did you participate in the execution of the provi-
sion, of the Austrian treaty?
ifr. Baruch. Yes, sir; our various associates did.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you have a great participa-
tion in the economic provisions of the Austrian treaty than you did in
the treaty witn Germany ?
Mr. Baruch, I do not think so; no, sir. We had the same par-
ticipation.
Senator Pomerene. In order to make the record dear, when you
say ^* you,'' you mean the delegation here?
Senator Johnson of California. I mean Mr. Baruch m conjunction
with the American personnel.
Mr. Baruch. I presiune you mean the American representatives.
Senator Johnson of Camornia. Because of some ii^ormation that
has come to me, I ask you the direct question, not for the purpose of
questioning what you have said in that regard, but in order tnat we
may be penectly clear in the matter: Was it or was it not a fact that
the whole economic section of the treaty was substantially drawn up
by England and presented, and that the EngUsh draft was substan-
tially or largely accepted ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 47
Mr. Baruch. That I could not remember. I can only say this
Dr. Taussig. Not in the slightest.
Mr. Baruch. Dr. Taussig, who was there with us, says not in the
slightest. I do not know just exactly what the Senator has in his
mind, but I would like to say this, that every delegation was asked
to present views and suggestions, and if we liked them we took them,
but if we did not like them we did not take them.
Senator Johnson of California. When you say "we"
Mr. Baruch. I mean the American delegation. We took any-
body's su^estions, irrespective of whom they came from. We were
there for that purpose, and when they brought in these suggestions
they were taken before the various subcommittees, and if any sug-
gestion was approved, no matter from whom it came, it was
written up.
Senator Moses. And the decision was by a majority 1
Mr. Baruch. Our decisions were imanmious. We had to work
to a unanimous decision.
Senator Hitchcock. How many nations were represented ?
Mr. Baruch. Twenty-three. Inat may give you some idea of the
difficulties involved in every one of these questions.
Senator Knox. Did you have much trouble with Liberia?
Mr. Baruch. I did not see much of her.
Senator Moses. Have you the conunittee print before you, Mr.
Baruch?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Moses. Will you turn to page 271, to paragraph 13 of the
annex?
Mr. Baruch. Yes; as to reparations.
Senator Moses. As to voting. I wish to ask you particularly with
reference to subdivisions (a) and (/). The commission under this
paragraph would have to have a unanimous vote on the cancellation
of any portion of the debt or obligations of Germany. Do you think
that would be easily arrived at in its decision ?
Mr. Baruch. I do not think it would be easy, but it could be done.
Senator Moses. Do you think that an interpretation of the treaty
by imanimous vote as provided in subdivision (/) would be easy ?
Mr. Baruch. That is, of the provisions of this part ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Baruch. I think it can be done; yes.
Senator Moses. If that was done the question would never come
back to the United States, would it ?
Mr. Baruch. That is correct, sir.
Senator Fall. Then the commission would have the right to
cancel, without reference back to the United States, any portion of
the German debt, or the American portion of the debt ?
Mr. Baruch. There is here another clause regarding cancellation,
that I would like to find before I answer that question.
Senator Fai,l. Now, if the American representative on the com-
mission desired to secure or to grant to Germany a postponement,
either totallv or partially, beyond 1930, of any payment or settlement
falling due Between May 1, 1921, and the enS of 1926, the American
commissioner could not secure such action except by unanimous
vote?
48 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Mr. Baruch. That is right, sh*. That is clause (c) that you
refer to ?
Senator Fall. Yes. And then in clause (d) there is the same case;
so that with the American commissioner there, if we do not care for
any of this reparation at all, and we sit there simply to carry out,
you sav, the obligations which we have incurred by going into it at
all, stifl we woula have only one vioce, and it requires a unanimous
voice for the commission to grant any of these postponements.
Mr. Barucii. They can not do anything without us.
Senator Fall. No; and we can not do anything without them.
They might not want to postpone. They might want their money,
and we not want it. They can not get it.
Mr. Baruch. I do not think that it is fair to say that we arc not
getting anything. We are getting 130,000,000 of people on their feet,
people who have been accustomedto deal with us, ana helping to get a
reestablishment of the financial system of the world, which is im-
portant.
Senator Fall. Providing we can force our ideas on the commission.
But one of the commissioners can balk us on any step we take.
Mr. Barucu. It is always fair to assume that we could get some
arrangement.
Senator Knox. Who are these 130,000,000 people?
Mr. Baruch. There are more than 60,000,000 Germans and some
70,000,000 Austro-Hungarians.
Senator Knox. Do you think this treaty puts German v on hep
feet ?
Mr. Baruch. I do not think I said so. If I used that language, it
did not carry my thought.
Senator Knox. That is what you said.
Mr. Baruch. I think I may have given a wrong impression. What
I meant to say, Senator, was that the reestablishment of financial
conditions, anS therefore of the industrial conditions, will help to
get them reestablished and get on their feet.
Senator Knox. My recollection is that your exact answer was that
we got a great deal out of this treaty because that put 130,000,000
of people on their feet.
Mr. JBaruch. What I meant was that we got a great stake in the
reparation commission, even from a selfish view, because we are inter-
ested in seeing 130,000,000 people get themselves going again, and
we are interested in getting the reestablishment of mdustnal condi-
tions of the world. Do I make myself clear?
Senator Knox. Perfectly.
Senator Harding. I want to ask if the inference is that our
chief function on the reparation commission is one of a friendly and
helpful interest to Germany and the Central Powers for our selfish
interests rather than anything else ?
Mr. Baruch. No; I would not day so. Senator. I think it is a
necessary thing for America first.
Senator Harding. Why do you sav that it is to the interest of
America when the Central Powers are the most formidable commercial
rivals that we have?
Mr. Baruch. Can you imagine the world being prosperous while
130,000,000 millions of people right in the center of the industrial
TBEATY OF FfiiiCE WITH GSRMANY. 49
population are not prosperous ? Can you imagine prosperity without
the financial prosnerity of tiae Central Powers, with the mianoes of
Italy, France ana of Belgium and their industrial life, and to a
large extent England's, dependiaig on what they are going to receive
from those people t In tiiat way this reflects upon us. ft is a ^at
big partnership. We can not separate ourselves from it. It is of
vast consequenoe to America.
The Chairman. Mr. Baruch, I just want to ask a question about
your fibres. Are you quite correct about the population of Austria ?
Mr. Baruch. I think it is something like 70,000,000.
The Chaikman. At the bemining of the war it was said to be
about 52,000,000—9,000,000 Austrians, 14,000,000 Hungarians and
26,000,000 Slavs. Those were the figures given at that time, with
Germany about 70,000,000. That made about 120,000,000 alto-
gether.
Mr. Babuch. I thought Austria-Hungary was larger; 130,000,000
was the figure I had in mind. It may De 120,000,000. Bulgaria is
in there. That is another 15,000,000.
Senator Hitchcock. Our interest in the welfare of Europe, Mr.
Baruch, you estimate is because our chief exports go to Europe?
Europe is our large customer ?
Mr. Babuch. Sie is our large customer.
Senator Hitchcock. We have therefore that interest in the
restoration of order and of normal conditions in those countries
because our export trade depends to a large extent upon it ?
Mr. Babuch. Quite correct.
Senator Habding. Do I understand you. Senator, that you have
got away from your devotion to humanity and are now merely a
selfish commercialist ?
Senator Hitchcock. I mix the two together.
Mr. Babuch. I think the Senator will admit that himself.
The Chaibman. I must be on the floor when the Senate opens,
I do not want to interfere with the hearing, and I will ask Senator
McCumber now to take the chair. I ask uie committee to meet in
executive session in the committee room in the Capitol at 3 o'clock
so that we may dispose of the resolution of Senator Kenyon. I do
not want to stop the hearing now to take that up.
Senator Moses. There are others of us who nave to be on the
floor, Mr. Chairman, and I move that the committee stand in recess
until 3 o'clock, then to meet in executive session.
Senator McCumbeb. There have been quite a number of questions
asked, but I think we are not quite through with the witnesses. I
want to ask a few questions, perhaps three or four, of Mr. Baruch.
The Chaibman. I see no reason why those Senators who care to
stay should not continue the hearing.
Senator BInox. I have to be on the floor, and I have a few ques-
tions that I want to ask Mr. Baruch.
Senator Williams. I move that we take a recess.
Senator Pomebene. It is quite apparent that we can not finish
to-day with Mr. Baruch and with the other witnesses who are here.
A number of Senators want to be on the floor, and I think we ought to
adopt the motion made by the Senator from New Hampshire to take
a recess at this time.
13564e— 19 i
50 TBEAT7 OF FEAOE WITH GBBMAHY.
The Chairman. I only want it remembered that we are to meet at
3 o'clock this afternoon. These hearings will be continued to-morrow
morning at 10.30 o'clock.
Now, will the committee give me their attention for one minute ?
Mr. Taussig is here in regard to the customs provisions of the treaty.
I am not aware that any Senator has expressed a desire to ask ques-
tions on that subject, and it would be convenient to Prof. Taussig to
know whether tne committee desire to question him about the
ciistoms provisions. I have heard nothing said about it.
Senator Moses. Upon the examination of these witnesses on this
section may depend what we may wish to inquire about further. I
think it advisable to request Prof. Taussig to come again.
The Chairman. Then the committee stands adjourned to meet at
3 o'clock, in the room of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the
Capitol, and to continue the hearing here to-morrow at 10.30.
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, noon, the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Saturday, August 2, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
8ATT7BDAY, AUaUST 2, 1010.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
WasMngiim, D, C.
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present /Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Brandegee,
Knox, Johnson of Califorma, New, Moses, Swanson, Pomerene, Smith
of Arizona, and Pittman.
The Chairman. Prof. Taussig is anxious to go away, and Senator
McCumber desires to ask him some questions. We will allow Prof.
Taussig to take the stand fiist this morning.
STATEMEHT OF HB. F. W. TATJSSIO.
Senator McCumber. Prof. Taussig, there was, in some of the
questions asked yesterday, an assumption that the financial clauses
were the work rather of British delegates. I want to ask you whether
or not, under the terms of the treaty, there are not considerable
portions of the treaty that relate to matters that are of peculiar
mterest and particular interest to Great Britain and France only, in
which the Umted States has very slight, if any, direct interests, ana to
ask you also to what extent the American delegates took part in the
matter of formulating the financial provisions, and to what extent the
British delegates took part, and so lorth.
Mr. Taussig. You have in mind, Senator, the economic clauses as
well as the financial clauses ?
Senator McCumber. The economic clauses equally with the finan-
cial clauses. I should include them.
Mr. Taussig. Of course, there were some of the economic questions
with which the British and French were pecuharly concerned. The
arrangement in regard to prewar duties, for example, was one which
the British and the French put together and which the United States
from the start said that they would not enter into. Naturally the
drafting of the details of that was something in which the American
delegates took no part, since we would not enter into it anyhow.
Those clauses in their details occupy a considerable nimiber of page^i
in the treaty.
When it comes to the clauses in which the United States entered,
all nations took their part, and we took our hand in the drafting, as
other nations did, ana I do not think it can be said that there was a
predominance of any coimtry.
61
62 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator McCumber. There were certain interests, especially pre-
war interests, that were applicable only to Great Britain and France,
were there not ?
Mr. Taussig. The clearing-house system was peculiarly anplica-
ble to Great Britain and France, and, as was explained by Mr. Palmer
yesterday, from the first we did not expect to enter that.
Senator McCumber. Can you say that the financial or economic
provisions were peculiarly the presentation of any one nation
Mr. Taussig. It can not be so said.
Senator McCumber (continuing) . Outside of those in which Great
Britain and France alone were interested ?
Mr. Taussig. It can not be so said. Drafts were received from all
the coimtries — ^from the United States, from Great Britain, from
Italy, from Belgimn, from the Slavs — ana they were all considered in
formulating the claiises as finally presented to the supreme council.
Senator McCumber. And you did not follow one recommendation,
or the recommendation of one nation or its delegates, any more than
that of others ?
Mr. Taussig. No, sir.
Senator McCumber. Those are all the questions that I wanted to
ask.
Senator Pomerene. Prof. Taussig^ you have spoken of the clearing
house as applying to Great Britam, France, and Belgium, etc.,
and I have m mind what Mr. Palmer said bearing upon that subject,
which in substance was that that was a matter in which the United
States had no particular interest. Do you desire in any way to
qualify the statement of Mr. Palmer or to add anvthing to it?
Mr. Taussig. No, sir; not in the least. I only wanted to point
out that when it came to the drafting of the clauses of the treaty
we allowed — ^I will not say we allowed — ^we naturally accepted a
situation in which Great Britain and France, who wished to put that
arrangement into effect, imdertook the drafting of the clauses;
and it could be said in regard to those that the drafting was British
and French.
Senator Pomerene. Then, if I understand you correctly, any
statement to the effect that the British representatives dominated
the framing of these economic and financial provisions is purely
voluntary and without any foundation in fact ?
Mr. Taussig. I saw no indications of that — of any dominance of
any one country.
Senator Pomerene. Yes.
Mr. Taussig. I think it may be said that the United States in
some respects exercised a greater influence than other countries, in
that on occasions we were asked to act as arbitrators when there
were disputed questions.
Senator Pomerene. Do you care to suggest what those subjects
were ?
Mr. Taussig. Yes. For example, there was a question as to
certain remissions of duties by Germany, or retentions by Germany;
that Germany should not change her duties on certain products.
You will find that in the treaty in regard to Italian products. Other
countries wished the same advantages from Germany — France,
Belgium, Japan, Jugo-Slavia — and it was difficult to settle it; and
finiuly it was left to the American representative, and the subcom-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 5S
mittee said, "Whatever the American representative decides we
will accept^' ; and the matter was settled in that way.
The QiAmrifAN. If there are no further questions to ask Prof,
Taussig, we are very much obli^d to him.
Senator Pomerene. Mr. Chairman, I understood that Prof.
Taussig was to be called upon to explain the customs features.
The Chairman. No; he was kept here because Senator McCumber
wanted to ask him some questions. I do not know of any questions
on customs that are to be asked him.
Senator Pomerene. I do not know of any, but while the professor
is here I should like to ask him if there is any explanation of thesa
customs provisions which he would like to make to the committee.
Mr. Taussig. There is one point to which I think attention may
be drawn. Under the customs provisions Germany gives to the
Allies most-favored-nation treatment for a period, and the Allies do
not give Germany most-favored-nation treatment, and the unilateral
character of the arrangement has sometimes been criticized. That
5 revision was made in order' to make the competition between the
evastated regions, France and Belgium, for example, on even terms
with Germany during the five-year period. The French and Belgians
feared that diuing this period, while their industries were devastated
and broken down so that they could not compete with the Germans,
the Germans might make special arrangements with neutral countries
or with allied countries sucn as they have made in the past, by which
the Grermans would give favors, we will say to Sweden, and Sweden
would in return give favors to Germany, and that consequently
Germany would be enabled to get in her goods and get her trade
established during the period when the French and the Belgians were
incapacitated from carrying on their businesses; and in order to
Erevent Germany from making special arran^ments for getting in
er trade, this stipulation was put in, that durmg five years Germany
should follow the most-favored-nation policy as to the Allies, whicn
would prevent her from making special arrangements for getting her
goods mto these other countries while France and Belgium were
devastated. That is the explanation of this most favored nation
arrangement for five years, and for the obligation imposed upon
Germany. That is not always understood, why it was that (Jermany
was to give most favored nation treatment to the Allies, and the
Allies were not during this five-year period to give it to Germany.
The Chairman. If there are no further questions to be asked of
Prof. Taussig, we wiQ excuse him, and we are much obliged to him.
STATEHEHT OF HB. BEBH ABD M. BABTJOH— Besomed.
The Chairman. Several members of the cwnmittee have expressed
a desire to ask Mr. Barueh certain questions.
Senator Moses. Mr. Baruch, are you familiar with the operations
of the central Rhine commission mentioned in the treaty in article 65 ?
Mr. Baruch. No.
Senator Moses. Then you can not shed any light upon the question
asked yesterday with reierence to the appointment of an American
member on that commission ?
Mr. Bartjch. No.
Senator Pomerene. On what page is that ?
54 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
Senator Moses. On page 101 and page 103 you will find a reference
to the central Khine commission.
Mr. Baruoh. What did you say about appointments ?
Senator Moses. The central Rhine commission, as I have always
understood, was an international body established by convention
prior to the war, and had fimctions then. Now, according to the
dispatches from Pans, which appeared in the morning paper yester-
day, that commission is functionmg with an American representative
on it. I was wondering whether you knew anything about it.
Mr. Barugh. I am not qualified to give any explanation upon
that, Senator.
Seaiator McCuhber. Mr. Baruch, I should like to ask you a ques-
tion or two. It was at least suggested in some of the answers of
yesterday that it would be extremeR' difficult for Germany to respond
to the damages assessed by the allied powers against her. Let me
ask you first if there is not a provision in the treaty that Germany
shall at least be required to pay as heavy a tax as the other nations ?
Mr. Baruoh. Yes ; that is correct.
Senator McCumber. And she probably could pav as heavy a tax
as other nations engaged in this war, comd she not^
Mr. Barugh. Yes.
Senator MgCumber. Now I call your attention to the fact that
in the year 1919. ending June 30, the per capita tax in Great Britain
was $86.13, while the per capita tax in Germany was only S22.88,
or only about one-fourth as much as in Great Britain.
Senator Pomerene. Will you please give those figures again,
Senator ?
Senator MgCumber. In Great Britain the per capita tax for the
year ending June 30, 1919, was $86.13, while that of Germany was
$22.88, or about one-fourth the per capita tax of the people of Great
Britain; and the per capita tax of the United States was $39.13,
or nearly double the per capita tax of Germany. Now with the
German industries in such a position that they can bo immediately
put in operation the moment that she gets over her Bolshevik fever,
IS she not in a pretty fair condition to pay such additional tax,
equivalent to that of other nations, 'and thereby take care of this
sum of about $24,000,000,000 that is assessed against her?
Mr. Barugh. 1 will answer that question in a moment. First
I wish to say that the impression that $24,000,000,000 is the total
sum is incorrect, because that is only the first issue of securities.
But if you will notice, if goes on 'to sav *' shall forthwith issue any
further obligations** so that the $24,000,000,000 is not the limit of
what Germany may be assessed to pay, but the amount is unlimited.
Senator MgCumber. That is a sort of indemnity; and then she is to
pav reparations in addition.
Mr. Barugh. No; the whole matter is all reparation, but the $5,000,-
000,000 bonds and the two succeeding amounts of $10,000,000,000
each are amounts that will be issued imder certain conditions; but
thev can issue f\u*ther amounts if it is found that she is able to pay
and. that the bill calls for the amount. So the $24,000,000,000 is not
the limit of what can be called for under the clauses of the reparation.
Then, no doubt your figures as to taxes are correct* but Germany did
not pay the coste of the war in the same manner, lor instance, as did
England and the United States. If my memory serves me correctly,
TREATY OF FEAOE WITH QEBMANY. 55
Germany paid only about 9 per cent of the cost of the war by taxation.
Most of iier costs of the war were paid through issues of seciuities.
Senator McOumbeb. She paid only 9 per cent by taxation.
Mr. Babugh. Yes. That accounts for her small amount of taxes.
The other nations paid yarying percentiles. The United States
stands, I belieye, at the head of the list in the amoimt of money that
we haye actually paid, by taxation, to defraj the costs of the war.
The CHAmMAN. The United States has raised much more by taxa-
tion in proportion to the total expenditure, than luiy other coimtry ?
Mr. Babugh. Yes. I would not be certain about the figures, but
the amoimt raised by taxation by the United States is somewhere
between 35 and 40 per cent of her total expense. Those figures may
be wrong, but we stand at the top of the list on the amoimt of the
cost which we haye paid by taxation.
Senator MgCumbeb. It is higher than England. England had paid
about 28 per cent and we stand a good deal higher than that.
Mr. Babuoh. I belieye that is correct, Senator. Now, as to the
ability of Germany to increase those taxes, there is no doubt that she
can do so; but I would like to call your attention to this fact, that
although her planta in themselyes, the physical plants, are intact, and
ahe saw to it through a systematic and wanton destruction of her
neighbors that they would be so — she not alone destroyed those plants
but took things out of the Belgian and French and Italian plants and
increased her own facilities in uiat way — she is not in a position to take
adyantage of that unless the reparation conmiission permits her to do
80 through the purchase of raw material. She has got to haye raw
material, cotton, copper, wool, jute, and so on, to put into her fac-
tories, in order to enable them to haye something to manufacture.
Senator MoCumbeb. But the authority is yeeted in the commis-
sion to do that.
Mr. Babugh. If she had a world market, and was not restricted as
to the amount of money she could spend for these things, your state-
ment would be absolutely correct. I haye answerea the question
indirectly. She can not go ahead and do what it appears she can do
unless the reparation commission permits her to do so.
Senator MgCuhbeb. And if the reparation commission act with
judraient, they will permit her to do so ?
!&. Babugh. As an act of good judgment, they will.
Senator MgCuhbeb. And we must assiune that they will do that.
Now I a^ain call your attention to the fact that in the matter of
determining whether Germany can pay a greater assessment of taxes,
the debt oi Germany is to her own nationals for the most part, ana
under the treaty this debt must be subrogated to the interest of the
assessment made by the Allies against Grermany.
Mr. Babugh. Quite correct.
Senator MgCuhbeb. So at present she will not haye to look after
that debt unless it be for the purpose of strengthenii^ her own credit
m order to raise money; and secondly, that while the United Kingdom
at the date I haye mentioned, Jime 30, 1919, had an estimated nat-
ional wealth of about $85,000,000,000, Germany had $78,000,000,000,
or nearly as much, while her taxation was only about one-fourth as
much. Therefore, with a wealth neariy equal to that of Great
Britain, including Ireland — the United ^ngoom — do you not think
that without destroying her industries she could reach an amount of
56 TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GERMANY.
taxation eqtdyalent to what is imposed upon the British subjects and
thereby meet these obligations, with the proper assistance given by
the reparation commission ?
Mr. Baruoh. 1 do not think she can, for this reason, Senator, that
England has a free supply of raw materials. Germany has lost a
large percent^e of her coal. She has certain obligations undw the
treaty for the delivery of coal. If I mistake not she has lost something
like 70 per cent of her iron ore.
. Senator McCumbeb. Can that be remedied to any extent by the
reparation commission ?
Mr. Baritoh. No, sir; because she has got to go out into the open
market and buy in competition. The delivery of her coal can be
ameliorated to tne extent that it must not interfere with the economic
and industrial life of Germany.
Senator MoCumber. Yes; out let me ask you right there, is not
the coal condition in Great Britain practically as bad as it is in Ger-
many to-day or nearly so ? Are not conditions extremely bad ?
Mr. Baruch. I should say they are very grave.
Senator MoCumber. I wish you would explain to the committee
what you mean by '^very grave."
Mr. Baruch. Well, I would not want to qualify as an expert upon
this subject, but the production of coal in England has been very
seriously hampered from various causes with wiich you gentlemen
are familiar, and that has resulted in very high prices for coal. The
production has decreased and the costs have gone up, and it is of
very serious moment to England, because coaL of course, is one of
the bases of manufacturing, and the cheap production of coal is one
of the great causes of England's supremacy both in her manufac-
turing and in her bimkering of ships all over the world ; and of course
it is a matter of very serious moment to England that she should be
able to continue to have a large and constant and cheap source of
supply of coal; and from the present appearances it looks as though
this was very seriously menaced.
Senator Johnson of California. That arises out of internal differ-
ences, does it not ?
Mr. Baruoh. Yes. I did not want to convey any other impres-
sion.
Senator Johnson of California. It is not because she has not suffi-
cient supply or because that supply can not be mined, but it is be-
cause of ainerences that e^dst.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; internal social and labor conditions.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly.
Mr. Baruoh. There has been considerable talk regarding the
lessening of her co^ mines, but that may be only gossip and rumor,
because those things always appear.
Senator Johnson of Cahforma. As I gather, the supply exists and
is easy to be had, but the internal differences which exist have re-
sulted in recent investigations, and these differences, and the ques-
tion of the nationalization of coal mines which is now being discussed,
are the reasons for the existing situation, are they not ?
Mr. Baruoh. Precisely.
Senator MoCumber. But nevertheless the condition is there ?
Mr, Baruoh. Oh, yes.
Senator MoCumber. And it is a serious condition.
Mr. Baruoh. A very serious one.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAISrY. 57
Senator MgCumbeb. Ab a matter of fact, do you not think that
the United States will be equally interested in bringing about a
condition in which all the industries of Europe can be again put into
operation, for our own financial gain }
Mr. Babuch. Unquestionably so.
Senator MgCumbeb. For instance, Great Britain up to the time of
the war bought from the United States about one-half of all of our
exports. She was our jgreatest customer. Our trade with Great
Britain was more than double, otir trade with Germany prior to the
war, on an average.
Senator Johnson of California. Did the Senator mention textiles ?
Senator MgCumbeb. No; I say our conmiercial trade with Great
Britain was about double otir trade with Germany, and the balance
of trade in oiu" favc^, of course, was about double. Take the year
ending June 30, 1914. We sold to Great Britain nearly $600,000,000
worth of goods and bought back from Great Britain less than S300,-
000,000, giving .us over $300,500,000 in our favor.
Mr. Babuch. That was in 1914?
Senator MgCumbeb. In 1914; while to Germany we sold S344,-
000,000 and purchased $189,000,000, leaving but $154,000,000 in
our favor. Now, inasmuch as Great Britain as well as Germany is a
heavy purchaser of our goods — and Italy likewise — shoidd not otir
policy oe to assist all those nations to be put on their feet as soon as
possi Die ?
Mr. Babuoh. Unquestionably.
Senator MgCumbeb. And that assistance shotdd not be given any
more to one nation of the Old World than another ?
Mr. Babugh. I think they all ought to be assisted, but I think
good judgment should be used in the way they should be assisted,
and to whom assistance should be ^ven.
Senator MgCumbeb. But our alhes at least have an equal claim
with our enemies upon our generosity ?
Mr. Babuch. Oh, imguestionably.
Senator Johnson of California. Does that apply to China ?
Senator MgCumbeb. I think so.
Mr. Babugh. I think so.
Senator Swanson. To g;et my own mind clear. There is nothing
in this treaty that prohibits the nationals of Grermany individually
from buying aU the raw material that they see proper, in order to
develop then* own factories, is there ?
- Mr. jBabugh. Yes; there is.
Senator Swanson. Do you mean that an individual factory in
Germany can not make purchases of raw materials except througli
the reparation commission ?
Mr. Babugh. No, sir; they can not.
Senator Swanson. Where is that clause ?
Mr. Babugh. Article 235. Mr. Norman Davis is more familiar
with that than I am, but article 235 provides that —
Out of this sum the expenses of the annies of occupation subsequent to the armistice
of November 11, 1918, shall first be met, and such supplies of food and raw materials
as may be judced by the governments of the principal allied and associated powers
to be efsential to enable Germany to meet her obligations for reparation may also,
with the approval of the said governments, be paid for out of the above sum.
Senator Swanson. That refers to the first $5,000,000,000 ?
Mr. Babuoh. Yes.
58 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Senator Swanson. That is applicable to the reparation fund, is it not t
Mr. Baruch. Yes* but out of that the amount of cash that Ger-
many could pay in tne first few years is limited, and in order to give
her an opportunity to buy raw materials they said she shall have so
much out of this as is necessary to buy them. Now, a man can not
go and buy copper or jute or some other raw material and send credit
out of the country unless the reparation commission let him do so,
because it might affect the payment of this first S5,000,000,000 in
cash.
Senator Swanson. Do you mean that individuals can not do it ?
Mr, Baruch. They can not if it conflicts with the first cash pay-
ment.
Senator Swanson. I do not catch that. I had an idea that there
was a reparation commission provided, but that a concern in Ger-
many could buy raw material if it had the money or credit individu-
ally, and then, in addition to that, that the reparation commission
could make loans to enable them to get raw material if they could not
get it on their own individual credit.
Mr. Baruch. No, sir; no plans for the reparation commission to
make loans.
Senator Swanson. I wanted to get my mind clear on that.
^fr. Baruch. It says here —
And such supplies of food and raw materials as may be judged by the governments
of the principal allied and associated powers to be essential to enable Germany to
meet her obligations for reparation may also, with the approval of the said govern-
ments, be paid for out of the above sum.
.That is the reason why it is necessary for us to have a man to
represent us on that commission.
Senator Swanson. It says —
Out of this sum the expenses of the armies of occupation subsequent to the armistice
of November 11, 1918, shall first be met.
That is the reparation sum ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Further it says:
And such supplies of food and raw materials as may be judc^ by the Governments
of the principal allied and associated powers to be essential to enable Germany to
meet her obligations for reparation may also, with the approval of the said Governments,
be paid for out of the above sum.
Mr. Baruch. If she can put up more than $5,000,000,000 then there
will be cash available to individuals.
Senator Swanson. What I want to get clear in my mind is this: '
Hare is a manufacturing concern in Germany that has money or
credit, and it wants copper or it wants cotton. It can buy it mdi-
vidually without asking any credit from the reparation commission,
without borrowing any of tnis money. Can that concern come here
and buy cotton or ouy copper, or must it get it through the reparation
commission ?
Mr. Baruch. Not through it, but the reparation conmiission must
be satisfied that it is going to get this sum of money. Germany
has no right to go outside and get these materials for cash unless
""the reparation commission are satisfied that Germany is going to pay
them this first cash sum of $5,000,000,000. If they are satisned tnat
Germany can pay that first cash sum, that will permit them to let
TKBATY OF FBAGE WITH QBBMANY. 59
these men go out and buy their cotton or copper — so much as is
neceesary ; out it has got to be done under the reparation commission.
Senator Swanson. JDo you think that is provided for under section
235?
Mr. Babuch. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. And it is wholly discretionary
whether it be allowed, or in what proportion it shall be allowea.
That is discretionary with the reparation commission.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; otherwise, you see, the individuals might,
through some excuse or other, send out every doUar of gold and
credit and securities that there was in Germany.
Senator Swanson. After they put the taxes as high as they were
in Great Britain, and c^ter the taxes have been paid, then if a concern
has something left after paying its taxes it can not, as I understand
from you, use any surplus f^ter paying its taxes to purchase any raw
xnaterials anywhere in the world without the consent of the reparation
commission.
Mr. Baruch. That is partly correct, and I will tell you why. If a
man had the right to use his money and send it out of the country, they
might leave absolutely nothing but a shell in Germany. The Gferman
Government themselves are going to set up machinery to see that all
the money that can be taxed does not escape. Otherwise, if there
was no overseer of this thing, every dollar of gold, every bit of securi-
ties, everything that would have any cash value, could be shipped out
of Germany and there would not be anything left there to be taxed or
for the Alhes to get their reparation from.
Senator Swanson. If they bought property, if the money was
exchanged for goods that were brought into Germanv, the property
could M taxed Dv the Government when it came back, could it not ?
Mr. Baruch. x es; that is right. The way this will work out will
be that the very trade you speak of will go on continuously, and it will
have to be done imder the general eye of this machinery of the repara-
tion commission, and that is one of the reasons why it is necessary for
us to be represented on that commission, and why some provisional
arrangement should be set up so that Germany can start now.
Senator Swanson. I had obtained the idea, that the nationals of
Germany after they paid their taxes could use any balance they had
for the purchase oi raw material, and in addition to that, out of the
sum given to the reparation commission, they could also get credit
to help them get raw material. That is the idea I got from reading
this. But you say that is mistaken, and that they can not buy any
raw material except through the reparation commission.
Mr. Baruch. Efxcept with the assent of the reparation commis-
sion. But the reparation commission will not stop the buying of raw
materials. TheGermansand the Allies will discuss this matter audit
will probably workout in this way. They willsay, " You can proceed to
use all you want for raw materials," when they see that the property
so purchased will come back into Germany and be just as taxable
ana be more valuable than the credit they send out. It will work
out just the way you say it will practically. But the reparation com-
mission is set up over the whole machinery to see that cash payments
are made.
Senator Johnson of California. Unless you have already done so,
will you explain article 236, which says :
Gennany further agrees to the direct application of here conomic resources to
lepuation as specifiea in Annexes III, lY, V, and VI, relating, respectively, to
60 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
merchant ahipping, to physical restoration, to coal and derivatives of coal, and to
dyestuffs and other chemical products.
Just what is meant by that section, and iiist what is its effect?
Mr. Baruoh. Germany agrees to the direct application of her
economic resources, that is production and manufacturing, to repara-
tion as specified in Article III. Now if you will tTUn to Article III
and the following Articles IV, V, and Vl, you will find that those
refer to certain manufactured goods and raw materials, to replace-
ments of machinery in factories, and to certain coal which it was in-
sisted Germany shoidd eive to those countries whose coal mines had
been ruthlessly and deliberately destroyed, and to certain contractual
relations which existed before the war and which were insisted upon
for a certain term of years, so that Germany could not stop the
coal that she had previously sold; and to the sale of certain dye-
stuffs and chemical products that the Allies wanted to have an
opportimity to use in the manufacture of their textiles. And there
were some particular medicines that the Allies were very insistent
upon, as being very necessary for the human race to get.
Senator Knox. Were those hydrocarbon products i
Mr. Baruch. I do not know whether they call them by that name,
but there was one particular medicine.
Senator Johnson of California. Derivatives of coal, dyestuffs, and
other chemical products. Does that mean that Germany's economic
resources and industrial resources shall be applied as the reparation
commission may in the future direct?
Mr. Baruch. No; it applies to the production of those things.
They can go ahead and produce them, but the Allies are entitled to
certain options and purchases. You will find that, outside of coal,
the other provisions are of short duration, and the provision as to
coal lasts only ten years.
Senator Johnson of California. The direction or application of
them is within the discretion of the reparation commission?
Mr. Baruch. Yes; they have certam options, and the reason the
powers were given to the reparation commission was because it was
the purpose not to interfere with industrial and economic condi-
tions
Senator Johnson of California. One reading of the treaty, or such
reading as we are able to give it in the limited time at our disposal,
will enable none except the most brilliant intellect — ^which I do not
possess — to ^asp all of the features of the treaty; but as I read it, I
see substantially a supergovemment imposed upon the economic
resources and industries of Grermany in order to aetermine that she
shall comply with what the Allies have required.
Mr. Baruch. That is quite correct; not only to see that she can
comply, but that she does comply. To see that she can comply
is a very important part of it.
Senator Johnson of California. The question whether she can
comply is within the jurisdiction of this supergovernment. They
determine that as well as determining the fact that she must comply.
Mr. Baruch. After giving Germany a hearing and taking all the
evidence. There could not be anybody else who could decide it.
Senator New. They determine that she can and then determine
that she must. Hiat is the point you make ?
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
TBiBAXT OF PBACE WITH OEBMAITY. 61
Senator Johnson of California. You will observe that article 237
contemplates that —
The Buccessive installmentSj including the above sum, paid over by Gennany
in satis&ction of the above claims, will l^ divided by the allied and associated Gov-
emments in proportions which have been determined upon by them in advance on
a baede of general equity and of the rights of each.
As I infer from what you said in jrour previous testimony, those
proportions have not jret been detennined upon.
Mr. Baruoh. That is my understanding. That is correct.
Senator Johnson of California. And that determination will be
made ultimatelv by the allied and associated Governments; and then
the division will be made in the proportions that they determine ?
Mr. Babugh. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. There is one of the things that
some of us were talking of yesterday that I want to explain to you,
so that you may make it clear to us.
The aUied and associated Governments determine, now, that
a certain sum shall be paid to Germany. I am spealang roughly,
now, without reference to technical provisions of the treaty.
Mr. Babuch. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. We say, in our altruistic position,
that the division of this siun which is to come to the United States
we do not desire; but all of the Governments have determined that
a certain simi shall come, which sum includes that to which we might
be entitled, but which ultimately, for ourselves, we remit. May not
the reparation commission levy that sum, notwithstanding our re-
mission, upon Germany and that part of the sum which would have
come to us be divided, then, among others ?
Mr. Babuch. I should think that would be a part of the deter-
mination at the time they fixed the sum. That could be determined
at the time they fixed the sum.
Senator Johnson of California. And then eliminate entirely the
ri^t of the United States to any part of the sum ?
Mr. Babuch. That might be a part of the negotiation. It woidd
be impossible for me to say what would be done, but that might be
a part of the negotiation. They might say, ^^Well, we will remit
this,'' or, ^*We wfll make the sxun less by that which is being elimi-
nated." You see, it might be a part of the negotiation. Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. But, the siun having been deter-
mined as one which Germany is able to pay, is it not likely, then, that
the full sum will bo levied ?
Mr. Babuch. Yes, that is so ; but as a part of the reasons for mak-
ing a certain fixed sum that is reasonable, we might say that we will
not ta^ke a share of what is a reasonable sum. I do not say we would.
Senator Moses. Would article 234 have any bearing on that?
Mr. Babuch. That might be so. You mean the last sentence ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Babuch. This commission has the right to fix a certain sum.
The commission has plenary powers, if that is the right adjective.
They can fix X billions dollars. They have that right.
Senator Knox. Will you pardon me a moment, for a question ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Senator Knox. Suppose you determined, after consideration, that
the maximum sum that Germany should pay would be $25,000,000,000
and suppose you determined that the share of the United States was
62 TBEATY OF FBAGB WITH QEBMAl!r7.
$5,000,000,000, and suppose you were informed the United States did
not propose to demana her $5,000,000,000 of the fixed sum that
Germany was to pay, would you fix the sum that Germany was to
pay to the other powers at $20,000,000,000, or would you still fix it
at $25,000,000,000 because she was able to pay $25,000,000,000 ?
Mr. Baruoh. Just offhand, I would suppose that that would be a
mattsr for the determination of our Government.
Senator Knox. But how? It is a matter for the determination of
the commission.
Mr. Baruch. But I presume he would be instructed by our Govern-
ment, and would follow out the wishes of our Government with respect
to that.
Senator Knox. But our Government could not control the decision
of the commission. If it was known that our Government was not
going to make any exaction on them, Senator Johnson's point was,
would Germany get any credit for that. In other words, would she
be assessed $5,000,000,000 less than the extreme amount she could
pay, or would she still be assessed all she could pay, for the benefit of
those Governments who were willing to take it J
Senator Pomebene. Would she get the benefit of any concession we
make?
Senator Knox. That is it.
Mr. Baruch. I understand the question. I was wondering how
that would work out under this reparation commission. I ^ould
think that the American member, before he made that decision,
would find out the wishes of his Government.
Senator Knox. Does not the decision have to be unanimous?
Mr. Baruch. Yes; but if any reasonable man was on that commis-
sion he would find out what the wishes of his Government would be,
before deciding.
Senator McCumber. Is there any way of finding out the wishes of
the Grovemment in regard to the cancellation, except by an act of
Congress ? Does not the Government act through Congress ?
A&. Baruch. Yes; it can not be canceled except by the authority
of the Grovemment.
Senator McCumber. Then, if it can be canceled only by the
authority of the Government, the Grovemment must act through ite
Confess, canceling the debt.
AC. Baruch. Yes; I suppose that would be so.
Senator McCumber. Then, if the Government cancels the debt by
an act of Congress, under section 234 is there not complete authority
in the commission to remit that portion coming to the United States,
and to collect only, in the instance of the case cited by the Senator
from Pennsylvania, four-fifths of it ?
Mr. Baruch. They would collect only the balance then.
Senator Swanson. Senator Knox, do you not think that section
237, if you read it carefully, makes it plain ? It seems to me that
the division of the reparation is fixed by the commission. It says:
^*will be divided by the allied and associated Governments in pro-
portions which have been determined upon by them in advance.*'
The Chairman. Not ''shall be," but ''have been."
Senator Swanson. It says "have been"; but the French says the
other.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Knox. In the sense of "have been/' yes.
TREATY OF PBAGE WITH 0EEMA17Y. 6B
Senator Swanson. Whether it says '^shall be" or '^have been"
by the respective Grovemments, is there not an agreement how it
shall be divided ? After the amount is fixed we enter into a treaty
as to the division of it by the respective Governments.
Senator Knox. If -the American commissioner is a hi^h-class
and just man, as I assume he will be, he ought to see that wnen the
maxmium amoimt that Germany can pay is fixed, it is fixed upon the
theory that our (Government is going to collect its share, so that we
majr do the generous thing by Germany if we decide to do it.
Senator Swanson. It seems to me that section 237 says that
after they have fixed the installments, the allied and associated
Governments are to reach an agreement as to the division of it.
Senator Knox. What I am afraid of is that, the general impres-
sion having gotten out that we do not intend to demand our share,
that we intend to remit it, the amount that Germany is to pay will
be fixed with that in view, and that the other powers will get the
benefit of our remission, instead of Germany gettmg it.
Senator Swanson. But it seems to me that under section 237 our
Grovemment is to agree as to our part of it, and that it will have to
come back
The CHAntHAN. Is Mr. Dulles to have the opportunity to cancel
the money debt due to the United States ?
Mr. Babuch. I do not think so, Senator. I did not know that that
was determined upon.
Senator Moses. You will find a further provision saying that that
can not be done except by the express autnority of tiie Government.
The Chaibman. Tiien we come back to Senator McCimiber's
question; that it requires an act of Congress.
Senator Swanson. Yes.
Senator Knox. The Boxer fund was disposed of by an act of
CoDjEirees.
T^e Chairman. Certainly; I introduced the act myself.
Mr. Babuch. It can not "be canceled except by authority of an act
of Congress.
Senator Knox. The question asked by the chairman about Mr.
Dulles reminds me that you said yesterday that this reparation com-
mission was the first eommission appointed , and that it was still in
operation when you left Paris. Wno are the members of that com-
mission ?
Mr. Babuch. Mr. Davis, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. Baruch.
Senator Knox. The reparation commission ?
Mr. Babuch. What I understand you mean by the reparation com-'
mission is the representatives of .^jnerica on the reparation com-
mission, the commission' that discussed all these questions; or do
you mean the reparation commission as set up in the treaty ?
Senator Ksox. Yes.
Mr. Babuch. There is none now, but there is a reparation com-
mission I speak of that was created under the treat^ but -not yet
set up and they are trying to establish an ad interim or provi-
sional body to discuss with the Germans certain matters which have
to be discussed with them in order to permit the Germans to reestab-
lish themselves in trade.
Senator Knox. On piuge 42 of the print of your testimonjr of
yesterday, here, you saiait was almost the first of the commissions
appointed and was still sitting when you left Paris.
64 TREATY OF PEAOB WITH GERMASTT.
Mr. Babuch. I was talking of the reparation commission of the
American peace commission. I read that over, myself, and I knew
what I meant, but I did not know but that I had left it a little hazy
in your mind.
Senator Knox. I am glad to have you correct it, so that there will
be no misunderstandingabout it.
Mr. Babuch. Yes. What we called the reparation commission in
Paris was this commission that was dealing with reparation questions;
just like we called the commission that was dealmg with economic
questions, in that way, the economic commission.
Senator Knox. You mean the commission on helping to formulate
the reparation clauses ?
Mr. Babuch. Yes ; and part of the reparation clauses is the creation
of an international reparation commission.
Senator Moses. You served on both the economic conunission and
the reparation commission ? *
Mr. Babuch. Yes. We divided up our work. For instance, Mr.
McCormick had charge of what we caU the categories, determining the
categories under which reparation could be claimed — ^under which
damages could be claimed. Mr. Davis had to do with the financial
clauses and I had to do with the securities. We had to subdivide our
work, but we met as a general commission.
Senator Knox. Mr. Lament was in that?
Mr. Babuch. Mr. Lamont came as one of the assistants of the
Tieasury, and he stayed with the division on reparation, and he had a
great deal to do with the formulation of it. oo that, as I said, thev
are more familiar with these financial clauses than I am, and I think
if vou want any further light than I am able to give you, you might
call Mr. Davis or Mr. Lamont.
Senator Knox. There is one matter I am quite anxious to get some
information about, but perhaps it does not come within the sphere
of vour activities over there.
I notice in the treaty that Memel, Schleswig, and Danzig are ceded
to the allied and associated powers. That includes us. There is an
absolute cession of the soverei^ty of that portion of the German
territory. Then there is a distmct provision in article 254 that the
cessionary powers aeree to pay a portion of the German debts. Does
that fix an absolute liabihty upon us to pay a portion of the German
Government's debts?
Mr. Babuch. May I see that? What article is that, Senator?
Senator Moses. It is article 254.
Senator Kj^ox. It is on page 308.
Mr. Babuch. Those are financial questions, are they not ? That
means the powers to which the German territory is ceded. If it was
ceded to Poland, for instance
Senator EInox. But in this case that I mention, Memel, Danzig,
and Schleswig are ceded to the allied and associated powers. That
includes ourselves.
The Chaibman. The principal aUied and associated powers.
Senator Knox. Yes; the principal allied and associated powers.
}J!x. Babuch. As I understand that lan^ua^e/' the powers to which
German territory is ceded,'' that means that if Danzig was set up as a
separate city, or the territory was ceded to Poland, that that city or
independent citj or independent country would be the one that waa
responsible for it.
TREATY OF PBACE WITH QJSRMAHY. 65
Senator Enox. Yes; but article 254 makes the cessionary powers
responsible for it. That includes the United States.
Mr. Babuch. That was not contemplated in that.
Senator E^nox. I have gone through this treaty with great care
to discover whether there is anything in the treaty which allows us
to pass that liability over to whomsoever we may mtimately cede the
territory. I should assume that that would be the plan tnat would
be adopted, but I do not see anything in the treaty that would
justify it. Here is the absolute provision that " the powers to which
German territoiy is ceded shall, subject to the qualifications made in
article 255, imdertake to pay/' and that is a qualification only in
respect to what Akace-Lorrame and Poland shall imdertake to pay.
The Chairbian. Does not that applv to the overseas territories ?
Senator Knox. No; I do not think the overseas territories are
charged with any portion of the German debt.
The Chairman. No; I think not. It gives Alsace-Lorraine an
absolute exception.
Senator Knox. Yes; Alsace-Lorraine is excepted. Owing to the
pecuhar conditions under which that territory was acquired, Alsace-
Lorraine is relieved of any portion of the German debt. But Memel,
Schleswig, and Danzig are expressly made subject — the cession is
expressly made subject — to the payment of their share of the German
debt.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Knox. And that payment is to be made by the cessionaries,
and we are one of the cessionaries.
Now, I want to know whether there is anything in this treaty or
any power in any commission in this treaty to justify us in passing,
or allow us to pass, that proportion of the debt on to the coimtry or
the city that ultimately gets the sovereignty of this territory. I can
not find anything of that kind here.
Mr. Baruch. 1 am quite sure there is nothing in this treaty that
contemplates the United States assuming any obligation of that sort.
Senator Knox. Of course, if you are going to dispose of the plain
provisions of the treaty, and brush them aside
Mr. Baruch. I would suggest that you ask one of the men about
that who is more familiar than I am with it.
Senator Knox. Yes; that is the reason I asked you.
Mr. Baruch. Or that you ask the State Department. But I am
quite certain that nothing of that kind is or was contemplated.
Senator Knox. It is not only contemplated, but it is provided for.
Mr. Baruch. Well, it was not provided. They were pretty
clever men who drew this up. I was not amongst them, so that I
can say that.
Senator Knox. There is great difference of opinion about some
portions of it.
Senator McCumber. The construction, it seems to me, Senator,
might be based upon this fact. You are speaking of the word
"ceded." The construction might be based upon whether or not it
is ceded in fact and becomes a part of the territory. None of these
teiritories are now owned by the United States or will be owned by
the United States, imder the treaty as I would constiue it.
13554e— 19 6
66 TREATY OF FBACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Knox. If you go back to page 147, article 99, and just take
the case of Meme] as an iflustration. The title to Memel is renounced
in fa vol of the principal allied and associated powers.
Mr. Baruch. What page is that on ?
Senator Moses. It is on pa^e 147.
The Chairman. All the rights and powers are renounced in favor
of the principal allied and associated powers.
Senator Knox. The same language is used in regard to Danzig and
Schleswig.
Senator McCxtmber. And yet, taking the treaty as a whole, we
could hafdly claim that we have title to those countries.
The Chairman. If we have not title, nobody has.
Senator McCumber. No.
Senator Knox. 1 could not imagine a more complete cession of
sovereignty than that.
Mr. Saruch (reading) :
Germany undertakes to accept the settlement made by the principal allied and
associated powers in regard to these territories.
Senatoi Knox. What relevancv would that have ?
Mr. Baruch. If, by chancjB, tnere was any obligation, Germany
accepts the settlement. If it should go to Meme!, that is a free
city, and it would be ceded to Memel.
Senator Knox. But Germany is out of it. The instant she signs
this treaty and ratifies it she is out of it, because it contains the cession
to the amed and associated powers, and Germany has nothing more
to do with Danz^ and Schleswig.
Mr. Baruch. i do not know, out it would seem to me that Ger-
many would have to accept the settlement the allied and associated
powers decided upon in regard to Memel.
Senator Knox. The allied and associated powers decided upon
complete cession. That is the settlement in regard to those three
territories. In the cases of those three territories the decision was
an absolute cession to the aUied and associated powers, without
quaUfications.
Mr. Baruch. And Germany agrees to accept the settlement.
Senator Knox. No; but we agree to pay a part of Germany^s
debts.
Mr. Baruch. We agree to that for the power to which it is finally
ceded. I do not thinK there could possibly be any construction — of
course I would not want to contend with a man Uke yourself, who is
more familiar with it, but to me, as a layman, it does not appear that
there could possibly be any justice in your contention, i do not
know that I am expert enough to argue on that subject.
Senator Knox. Take the case you put. Germany agrees to accept
any settlement made by the principal allied and associated powers, m
regard to Memel, Danzig, and Scnleswig. What is the settlement
provided by the treaty? It is the complete cession to the allied and
associated powers, subject and according to article 254, which pro-
vides for the payment of a portion of the German debts.
Mr. Baruch. Yes; but tne allied and associated powers settle it
upon Memel, and therefore the obligation goes to Memel, which gets
the ceded territorj^ to pay.
Senator Ejnox. That is what it ought to say, but that is what it
does not say.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
6T
Mr. Baruch. That is what it would appear to me to say; but I
would prefer that you ask men more familiar with it than I am.
Senator Knox. ^Who would be likely to throw the greatest light
on that subject ?
Mr. Baruch. It would be Mr. Davis or Mr. Lamont; or I will
furnish to you the name of the man who wrote these particiilar clauses.
Senator Branpeoee. I would like to ask Mr. Baruch a question.
Before doing so I would like to ask Senator McCumber whether this
little tabulation which he has here has been inserted in the record ?
Senator McCumber. No.
Senator Brandeqee. It is very short, and I will ask the stenog-
rapher to put this in the record. This paper brought before the com-
mittee by Senator McCumber appears to nave been prepared hj the
legislative reference service of the Library of Congress, and is entitled
** Relative rates of taxation for certain countries.
(Senator Brandegee here read the table referred to, which ia
printed in the record, as follows:)
Relative rates of taxation for certain countries.
Country.
Cnit(d Kingdom
Germany
Uoi ted States...,
Estimated pre-
war Dational
wealth.'
$83 000,000,000
78,000,000,000
220,000,000,000
Taxation for
1918.
<|3 816,000,000
•1,750,000,000
M, 370, 000, 000
Per cent ol
prewar
national
wealth.
4.5
2.2
1.9
Per capita
tax.
186.13
22.88
39. la
I A VI re, Leonard P. The War with Geimany, 1919, p. 148.
> To Mar. 31, 1919. (Fiscal year endiog Mar. 31, 1919. This gives rate November, 1918.) Commerce Re-
poru, Apr. 30, 1919, p. 610.
» Current Opinion, January, 1919, p. 63, nuoling Ixmdon EccDf^mist. (Estimate )
* Business i igest and Investment Weekly, Feb. 18, 1919, p. 239.
For United States estimated oolleclions of 1918. revenue laws are given.
Senator Brandegee. Now, Mr. Baruch, I understood you to say
that Germany had paid only 9 per cent of her war debt — only raised
9 per cent of her war debt — by taxation.
Mr. Baruch. Those are the figures that have been prevalent.
Senator McCumber. Does that mean war debt or war expenses ?
Mr. Baruch. Those are expenses of the war.
Senator Brandegee. That is what I mean.
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. That means, then, that 91 per cent of the
war expense of Germany has been financed by the issuance of Gov-
ernment securities ?
Mr. Baruch. These figiu'es are the ones that I believe are correct^
but we have had no way of checking it up from Germany.
Senator Brandegee. I am not, of course, asking you to be exactly
accurate, but substantially.
Mr. Baruch. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Now, if the estimated national wealth of
Germany was $78,000,000,000, and that of Great Britain was
$85,000,000,000, and the tax imposed upon Germany was 2.2 per
cent and upon Great Britain 4.5 per cent, I wanted to ask you, first,,
did Germany pay the interest on this 91 per cent of securities issued
for the expenses of the war.
68 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Baruch. There was no default on her bonds, so that she must
have paid it.
Senator Brandeoee. So that 2.2 per cent in tax on the national
wealth of Germany in 1918 paid the interest on the entire expenses
of the war to Germany ?
Mr. Baruch. That would not necessarily follow, Senator, because
she might not have raised enough money in that way for that purpose.
She might have raised it out of the sale of bonds.
The Chairman. She might have borrowed the money to pay it.
Senator Braxdegee. What I am trying to find out is whether
Germany, out of the avails of the imposition of a 2.2 per cent tax rate,
was able to pay the interest on her debt incurred in behalf of the
expenses of tne war or not.
Mr. Baruch. We can figure that out from what figures you have
here.
Senator Brandegee. No; I mean as a fact.
Mr. Baruch. What?
Senator Brandegee. I mean as a matter of fact, do you know
whether in that way they paid the interest on all the obligations they
incurred for the expenses of the war ?
Mr. Baruch. I imagine they must have, because there was no
default in payment of interest on their bonds. They musthave paid it.
Senator Brandegee. All right. Then, by the imposition of one-
half of the taxation rate upon the Germans which is paid now by the
citizens and the United Kingdom, they are able to pay all the interest
on their obligations incurred on account of the war. Now, if that is
so and their per capita tax is only one-fourth of that of Great Britain,
and their estimated national wealth is $78,000,000,000 while that of
Great Britain is only .$85,000,000,000, why is it that they can not pay
more in the way of reparation ?
Mr. Baruch. More than what?
Senator Brandegee. More than the treaty provides.
Mr. Baruch. The treaty does not provide any definite amount,
Senator.
Senator Brandegee. I thought it did.
Mr. Baruch. No, sir. The treaty does not provide for any
amount, because the reparation commission wants to have an oppor-
tunity to study this before deciding upon it. Probably the questions
that arose in vour minds are the ones that arose in the minds of the
ones who made this.
Senator Brandegee. Why is it, if the facts and figures that I have
just read are correct, that the Germans are in such a bad way as
compared with the inhabitants of the United Kingdom ?
Mr. Baruch. I think I can explain that to you, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. I wish you would.
Mr. Baruch. Practically every bit of private property owned by
the German nationals that is in allied or associated countries has been
seized and is going to be used for a specific purpose. Germany is
^oing to lose that. She loses a million and a half ol spindles in Alsace-
Lorraine, 70 per cent of her iron, 30 per cent of her coal, all of her great
contracts for bauxite in France, and for phosphate in Algeria and the
Pacific Islands; and all the raw material and similar contracts have
been lost. I do not think the world realizes what a severe and harsh-
though eminently just treaty has been put upon Germany. They do
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 69
not realize the conditions that Germany has been put in. So it was
impossible to determine, on prewar conditions, what Germany could
pay, because we did not know what the conditions, will be after the
war and the peace treaty. Does that answer your question ?
Senator Brandeoee. Yes. I did not know to what extent Ger-
many was crippled. I heard what you said, and it bears on the
question.
Mr. Baruch. She loses valuable zinc concentrates in Australia^
which ^ave her practically domination of the zinc trade of the world.
I could put in a long list which would show you generally how much
crippled Germany has been made by this treaty in the very clauses
that are spread out before you, and it was that that I had in mind.
Perhaps it may have been unduly impressed upon me. I had that in
mind when I made the statement that she would be unable to pay
the sums of money that woidd probably be assessed against her under
these cat^^ories.
Senator McCumber. As bearing upon that same subject, I think
another little table which I have prepared ought to go into the
record at this time, showing each of these three countries and the
per capita debt on June 30, 1918, which I obtained from the Statistical
Abstract for 19 IS.
The United States, exclusive of the Philippines, has a public debt
of $17,005,431,000. The debt per capita was $159.45.
Tiie United Kingdom, exclusive of colonies, had a public debt of
$36,391,132,000, with a per capita debt of 8789.58.
Germany, exclusive of colonies, had a debt of $34,807,337,000, with
a per capita debt of $514.81.
Thus it will be seen that our per capita debt was practically one-
fifth of that of Great Britain, and that Great Britain's was 50 per cent
greater than that of Germany, and that while Germany paid most
of the expenses of the war through borrowings rather than heavy
taxes upon her people, yet at the same time she has but $34,807,337,000
of indebtedness against her.
Senator Pomerenb. Do those figures include not only the national
debt, but State and municipal debts as well ?
Senator McCumber. No ; I do not so understand.
The Chairman. These are national debts.
Senator Pomerene. What was the date of the figures that you
just gave ?
Senator McCumber. June 30, 1918. That was just a Uttle before
the close of the war.
Senator Pomerene. I had in mind 1914.
Senator McCumber. I thought it was proper to put that in as
bearing upon the burden of Germany.
Mr. Baruch. I do not know whether I made it clear, and I would
like to have the opportimity of making a statement in reference to
the terms of this treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. I am very anxious to hear you.
You were indulging in general terms, and I thought you might elabo-
rate. I thought it womd be interesting.
Mr. Baruch. The terms are harsh and severe, but I think are
very just, and I would go on record as saying that this commission is
workable. It is a workable arrangement.
70 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you express that with some
doubt ?
Mr. Baruch. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. There is much of it left to the
future, however, is there not ?
Mr. Baruch. I have no fear of the future.
Senator Johnson of California. Not of the future of our Nation.
Mr. Baruch. No; because I could name hundreds of men in
America — thousands of them — that would carry out that.
The Chairman. Carry out what?
Mr. Baruch. That would make this a workable treaty, that could
sit on this commission and make it work. I am talking about the
reparation commission.
The Chairman. You would have no difficulty in filling the places.
You need not assure us of that.
Mr. Baruch. I thought the Senator was disposed to doubt as to
the reparation commission working.
Senator Johnson of California. Not a bit. I have some serious
doubts about our work in connection with it, but 1 was not express-
ing any doubt at all; but I was in hopes you would elaborate the
theme which you were discussiag with Senator Brandegee. You
said the treaty is very severe and harsh, but just. Now, I would
like you in general terms to eo on and elaborate what you were
speaking about. Let us take the coal situation, for instance. How
much coal did you take from Germany ?
Mr. Baruch. We took enough to make up all the losses that she
caused the Belgian and French mines.
Senator Johnson of California. But how much in proportion ?
Mr. Baruch. Let us say there are 26,000,000 tons. U is about 30
per cent, but that would include the SUesian fields, of which she will
get her proportionate share that she has been accustomed to have.
Senator Johnson of California. And your answer is, I take it,
that you take enough to make up for her wanton destruction ?
Mr. Baruch. Provided it does not interfere with her economic life.
Senator Johnson of California. That is all you take — enough to
make up for her wanton destruction.
Mr. Baruch. And to make it sure that Germany will continue to
sell the coal that had formerly been under contract, for instance, to
France for a number of years.
Senator Johnson of Oalifornia. Has that anything to do with the
<|uestion of destruction ?
Mr. Baruch. I think so, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it likewise in respect to the coal
that is directed to be delivered to Italy?
Mr. Baruch. Yes ; a protection to Italy for coal that she has to
have.
Senator Johnson of California. The point of it is that you said
very weU and eloquently that you took from Germany enough coal
to make up for her wanton destruction. Does Italian coal come
within that?
Mr. Baruch. I think I added — ^if I did not, I should like to — and
to prevent the disturbance of the whole coal situation in Europe
which resulted from that, and so as to give to France and to Belgium
and these other countries the same amount of coal that thev had
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 71
gotten in peace conditions, so as not to put Germany in the position
of taking this coal away and delivering it to anjone that she cared to.
She mi^t ruin Belgian, Italian, and French industries in that way.
Senator Johnson of California. Unless you compelled her to give
them a certain amount of coal.
Mr. Babuch. Under this she is not to be compelled to deliver coal
if it is to interfere with her economic and industrial life.
Senator Johnson of California. That which is taken from her, does
that interfere with her industrial life ?
Mr. Baruch. If it does, they will not take any.
Senator Johnson of California. Does it i Pardon me. Are there
any specific amounts to be delivered, any minimums?
Mr. Babuch. Let me turn to the clause and read it to you. It is
on page 291.
Senator Johnson of California. You are familiar with the coal
situation, are you ?
Mr. Babuch. I am familiar with this part of the treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. It is page 295, Annex V.
Mr. Babuch. The last clause in Annex V is the one that we want
to look at, the very last clause.
Senator McCumbeb. It is on page 295.
Mr. Babuch. The last clause of the annex, paragraph 10, reads:
If the commiBBion ahaU detennine that the full exercise of the foregoing options
would interfere unduly with the industrial requirements of Germany, the commission
is authorized to postpone or to cancel deliveries, and in so doing to settle all questions
of priority ; but the coal to replace coad from destroyed mines shall receive priority
over other deliveries.
I wrote that clause myself, Senator.
Senator Johnson of C&aifomia. That is, the last sentence you just
read?
Mr. Babuch. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. So that it is left with the commis-
sion to determine whether the options interfere and whether they
shall be fulfilled.
Mr. Babuch. Yes, sir. The intent of this was that Grermany should
pay what she ought to pay and could pay, and to give her an oppor-
tunity to pay it, without any undue interference in the working out
of payments.
Senator Johnson of California. Wherein is the severity and harsh-
ness of that 1
Mr. Babuch. WeU, that is not so, taken by itself. I refer not to
one particular thing, but to the general thing. If you take into con-
sideration that she is obliged to pay all that she can pay, and in addi-
tion that she has lost her colonies and her territories contiguous to
her, that the property of her citizens has been taken from her, that
these contracts tnat sne had have been broken, that these vast inter-
laced commercial relations all over the world of a financial and com-
mercial nature which she had established for many years have been
destroyed and taken awa^ and abrogated, and all raw materials and
supphes have been cut off, and that the great commercial houses that
gathered together the raw materials and sent them into Germany and
brought them back in manufactured articles are taken away from her,
I think my adjectives are quite correct. Also her merchant marine
has been taken.
72 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. I am not questioning your adjec-
tives at all; I am simply endeavoring to have you elaborate the sub-
ject. That is the reason I asked you about the coal, because I
thought that that was one part of the general statement that you
made as to the severity and narshness of the terms. I thought you
minimized the coal question, so I was asking you the question, where-
in was the severity and the harshness.
Mr. Baruch. I am very glad to elaborate as fully as I can. I do
not question the justice of it.
Senator McCumber. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Moses. Will you turn to page 273 of the committee print,
para'graph 15, the last two lines in paragraph 15. That is a little
vague in mv mind.
Senator PoMERENE. What line?
Senator Moses. The last two lines in paragraph 15 on page 273
[reading] :
When bonds are issued for sale or negotiation, and when goods are delivered by th
commlBsion, certificates to an equivalent value must be withdrawn.
The last two lines apparentl}^ contemplate an ultimate sale of tha
bonds to individuals.
Mr. Baruch. You mean those two sentences [reading] :
The said certificate shall be registered, and upon notice to the commission, may be
transferred by indorsement.
Senator Moses. And then [reading]:
When bonds are issued for sale or negotiation
Mr. Baruch. Of course — explaining the last sentence first — the
certificates which have been issued against bonds which have been
sold will naturally be destroyed.
Senator Moses. You mean warehouse certificates?
Mr. Baruch. That would apply to both, Senator. If they were
withdrawn, the certificates issued against them would be destroyed.
Senator Moses. Would you control the sale of goods against
which warehouse certificates are issued ?
Mr. Baruch. I presume so, Senator. I would like to read that
again before replying.
Senator Moses, i said yesterday that possibly Mr. Davis knows
about this better than you. If so, I will not pursue this inquiry.
I thought that, in anticipation of his coming, your view would be of
value.
Mr. Baruch. I could answer the first part of your question, but
if you are going to have him down here to deal with the financial
clauses, it might be just as well to wait for him.
Senator Moses. What I was tr^dng to get at is who would control
the sale of these goods which are deliverea and against which certifi-
cates are issued, and who will determine the time when bonds shall
be issued for sale or negotiation, certificates having been previously
issued against both.
Mr. Baruch. The reparation commission determines all of these
things, and they can make their rules and regulations. It is a very
broad power. I dp not know that that particular phase has beem
determmed. They have the right to determine,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 7S
Senator Moses. That is to say, up to 1951, the commission can
prevent the passing of bonds into the hands of the purchaser if it
so chooses.
Mr. Baruch. Up to 1951, I presume so, but I would like to read
over this clause before I answer that question definitely. I think
that would lie with the reparation commission. Now, do you desire
Mr. Davis to come down here ?
Senator McCumber. I think some of the Senators desire him.
Senator Moses. I think somebody who is familiar with the financial
clauses should come.
Senator McCumber. And do you desire to have Mr. Lamont?
Senator Moses. Except for the personal pleasure of meeting my
old classmate, I do not particularly care for Mr. Lamont or for
Mr. Davis, but I would lite to have" some one here who is familiar
with the financial clauses, especially with reference to the powers
of the reparation commission.
Mr. Baruch. You do not think that is sufficiently stated.
Senator Moses. I think that there is some disparity of interpre-
tation, certainly in the minds of some members of the committee,
as to just what the powers of the commission may be. There is no
question in the minds of any of the committee, I think, as to the
wide extent of the powers of the reparation commission.
Mr. Baruch. I trust not.
Senator Knox. I move that we adjourn until Monday at 10.30.
Senator McCumber. Are there any further questions that you
desire to ask, Mr. Baruch ?
Mr. Baruch. May I ask whether you will want me any further ?
Senator McCumber. I will ask the other members to say whether
there is any desire to hold Mr. Baruch.
Senator "Moses. I think it will be desirable not to dismiss any
witness, but I would not want to keep Mr. Baruch in the city. H!e
may be recalled.
JJr. Baruch. It will give me great pleasure to come back.
Senator McCumber. Certainly, you can go to New York. We
have not yet adjourned. I would like to see first as to the time. I
desire to say that the chairman, just before leaving, said that he
would like to rush this matter along as rapidly as possible, indicating
that he would like to have a session this afternoon if it could be had.
Senator Swanson. What witnesses have you for this afternoon ?
Senator Moses. We have finished with Prof. Taussig.
Senator Swanson. I do not think we could do any work.
(Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
Monday, August 5, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
^*^
MONDAY, AXraXTST 4, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washingiorij I). C.
The committee met at 10.30 oVlock a. m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge presiding.
Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumbor, Brandegee, Knox,
Johnson of California, New, Moses, Williams, Swanson, and ronierene.
The Chairman. The committee wUl come to order. Mr. Davis,
wiU you be kind enough to give your full name to the stenographer.
STATEMENT OF MB. NOBHAN H. DAVIS.
Mr. Davis. My full name is Norman H. Davis.
The Chairman. And what is your business in this country?
Mr. Davis. I was finance commissioner to Europe.
The CHAinaiAN. Yes; finance commissioner to Europe.
Mr. Davis. And was financial adviser to the Peace Commission.
The Chairman. And what is your business here?
Mr. Davis. I have no business here now. I have given up every-
thing, for the last two years, since we were in the war. I am a
banker by profession, but I retired from all my banking connections.
The Chairman. What banks were you connected with ?
Mr. Davis. I was president of the Trust Co. of Cuba, in Havana,
Cuba, and I have been a stockholder in several other banks in this
country — interested in that way.
The Chairman. The members of the committee desire to ask you
some questions in regard to the work in Paris. I was not here when
you were called. I nad to be on the floor of the Senate. Some of
the Senators who were here desire to ask you questions. Senator
Moses, will you proceed ?
Senator I^Ioses. The financial commission to Paris comprised how
manv members ?
Mr. Davis. There were two members from each Government —
from each of the big powers.
Senator Moses. Wno was your colleague ?
Mr. Davis. Thomas Lamont.
Senator MosEs. He especially represented the Treasury Department?
Ml-. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. You also represented the Treasury Department?
Mr. Davis. Yes; as Finance Commission to Europe, I repre-
sented the Treasury Department, and Lamont represented them also
in connection with the peace, but I had the other Treasury work
besides.
75
76 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Were there two financial delegates there from each
of the idlied and associated powers ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. And you all got together"?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. To the number of fifty-odd?
Mr. Davis. Oh, no; just
Senator Moses. Of tne principal allied and associated powers?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Namelv, 10?
Mr. Davis. Yes; but tne others had representatives. But they
met only occasionally, because the work was divided among suli-
committees and, as a rule, the principal allied and associated f)Owers
acted practically as the executive committee, and then would call in
the other delegates and so over matters after they had been settled
or agreed upon among themselves.
Senator Moses. Was any record kept of the meetings of the com-
mission ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Of each session ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Were they reported stenographically ?
Mr. Davis. Yes: well, not always stenographically, because we
kept the minutes in French and English, and they would have to be
revised because there were a lot of discussions sometimes that were
not necessary to put in the minutes; but the substance of the agree-
ments arrived at was put down in the minutes and agreed upon.
Senator Mosks. Those were made up in substance and were
initialed at the close of each session ?
Mr. Davis. No; they were not initialed at the close of each session.
They were written up and presented to the members, and at the next
meeting they were approved or disapproved — approved with what-
ever alterations were necessary.
Senator Moses. Did those minutes go to our plenipotentiaries for
their guidance ? ^ ^ ^
Mr. Davis. Oh, ves.
vSenator Moses. Were copies kept by each of our financial commis-
sioners ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. You have j'our copies ?
Mr. Davis. I have not got them yet. They were in w-th all my
files, which are being sent over, but they have not arriv ed yet. I
kept the complete minutes.
Senator Moses. Then they will be available for the use of this
committee ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. I assume that the peace financial commissioners
for the countries other than the principal allied and associated powers
sat with the 10 when the matters connected with theh* own countries
were under consideration ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; after we had come to some tentative decision on
something that did conceni them we called them in.
Senator Moses. After having decided you called them in and com-
municated to them your decision ?
TREATY OF PBACE WITH OEBMANT. 77
Mr. Davis. No: we did not do that. It would have been impos-
sible to carry on the work if you had had all the delegates sitting tnere
all the time!
Senator Moses. Yes; I understand that.
Mr. Davis. Oh, no; that was not the spirit of it, at all.
Senator Moses. Did these 10 frame the articles in the treaty con-
tained in Part VIII, which you will find on page 249 of the print you
have before you of the treaty ?
Mr. Davis. No ; that is reparation.
Senator Moses. Who framed those sections ?
Mr. Davis, The reparation sections were framed by the reparation
conamission.
Senator Moses. Who were they ?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Baruch, Mr. McCormick, and myself.
Senator Moses. You were a member of the reparation commission,
and of what other ?
Mr. Davis. Of the financial commission.
Senator Moses. Then you are familiar with these articles in Part
VIII?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Did the Belgian finance commissioners sit with you
in reaching the determination contained in article 232 ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Just why was it left to the reparation commission
to determine the amount of money that Belgium had borrowed from
the allied and associated Governments which Germany should repay ?
Mr. Davis. I do not recall specifically why the reparation commis-
sion was to do that. Thev had to name some one to do it, because
so far as the advances made by the Government of the United States
were concerned, we have obngations of the Belgian Government.
There is no discretion about that. But as to the advances made by
England and France to Belgium, they were on open account, and
there were questions about which there may be considerable discus-
sion, and they had to designate some one who Would finally arrive at
those figures m case there was any discussion over it.
Senator Moses. What was the reason why the bonds to be issued
by the German Government in payment of that item of reparation
were to be handed to the reparation commission rather than to the
Belgian Government ? That provision is on the top of page 251 :
Such bonds shall be handed over to the reparation commission, which has authority
to take and acknowledge receipt thereof on behalf of Belgium.
Mr. Davis. Well, that was because everything is to be handed
to the reparation commission— everything tnat (rermany pays.
Senator Moses. I understand that.
Mr. Davis. And this was just following the general rule.
Senator Moses. And just what will the reparation commission do
with those bonds ?
Mr. Davis. If England, France, and the United States agree to
accept these German bonos in payment of the Belgian indebtedness
to tnem prior to the armistice, they will be turned over to them
proportionately. That is one other reason why they were to be
delivered to the reparation commission.
78 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
Senator Moses. Was not that proposal advanced, that we should
take the Qerman bonds in settlement of the obligations of our loans
to the Allies ? Was not that a definite proposal ?
Mr. Davis. Prom the Allies ?
Senator Moses. Was it not definitely proposed that the Allies
should accept, in lieu of the obligations which we now have from
certain of the allied Governments in Europe — that in lieu of those
obligations we should accept German bonds ?
Afr. Davis. No; that was only specifically made in the case of
Belgium.
Senator Moses. And was that proposal declined ?
Mp. Davis. Do you mean in the case of Belgium ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Davis. No; it was not declined. We simply told them that
we had no authority to act on that.
Senator Moses. And it was left open ?
Mr. Davis. It was left open for Congress to decide.
Senator Moses. For legislation ?
Mi. Davis. Yes ; in fact, the President said that he would pro-
f)ose to Congress that we accept German obligations in respect of th&
oans to Belgium up until the armistice — that he could simply recom-
mend that to Congress.
Senator Knox. How much had we loaned to Belgium up to that
time ?
Mr. Davis. We had loaned them, as I recall, between $300,000,000
and $400,000,000. It was about $300,000,000. I can get that
exactly.
Senator Knox. I do not care for that.
Senator Moses. The reparation commission will fix the total sum
of reparation due from Germany ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. They will do that sometime prior to May, 1921 ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. And notify the German Government ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Pomerene. May I interrupt the examination for &
moment ?
Senator Moses. Certainly.
Senator Pomerene. As 1 understand you, the offer on our part was
an agreement to make that recommendation to the Congress ?
Mr. Davis. That is all.
Senator Pomerene. But it was left to the Congress to determine
whether or not that shall be done ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. We told them specifically that neither
the President nor any of us had any authority whatever to agree
otherwise.
Senator Moses. Was it well understood in Paris that the United
States would keep no portion of this reparation payment 1
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Moses. What was the understanding?
Mr. Davis. I do not know what the general opinion of different
people was, but the United States Government representatives did
not say they would not keep any of the reparation, and we did not
say they would. TTiat was another matter that we felt we had no
right to determine.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 79
Senator Moses. I tinderstood your colleague, Mr. Baruch, to have
said that it was understood that the United States was to have no
share in it.
Mr. Davis. By whom did he sav it was understood ? Where is Mr.
Baruch's testimony ? I should like to see that.
Senator Moses. I think he said that in response to one of Senator
Knox's questions.
Senator Ej^ox. He practically said that. I called his attention to
the fact that the President had said so in his speech of July 10.
Mr. Davis. Did the President say that ?
Senator Knox. Yes.
Senator Moses. You will find that at the bottom of page 6, an
interrogatory by Senator Knox, beginning about the middle of the
page; and further down, at about the middle of page 7, you wiU find
a very clear intimation at least from Mr. Baruch that the United
States was to have no share in the reparation.
Senator Kjjox. The whole tenor of the testiomny indicated that
that was his opinion.
Mr. Davis. AU I can say is, there was no official declaration of
that kind.
Senator Knox. Mr. Baruch said that, too.
Mr. Davis. Of course, I will say this, that we were in a different
position from any of the other Governments negotiating the peace.
Our material interests — that is, our direct material interests — ^were
90 infinitesimal that we were not there trading for something. We
were endeavoring all the time to look at this from the standpoint of
the welfare of uie whole world, and indirectly the welfare of the
United States, and there were no specific material interests that we
were endeavoring to obtain.
Senator Johnson of California. You were the only ones who had
that viewpoint, however, were you not ?
Mr. Davis. Well
Senator McjCumber. Did the President indicate to your commis-
sion, or the subcommittee of which you were a member, that it was
his intention to recommend that Congress remit anything to Germany?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator McCumber. Of the debt due us ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator McCtimber. Was there any intimation of that in any way,
so far as you know ?
Mr. Davis. No. I have heard some discussions there. Some
people expressed the opinion that it would probably be good
pohcj for the United States not to file claims for reparation; but it
was just a general discussion at various times.
Senator McCumber. Do you mean reparation or indemnity ?
Mr. Davis. Indemnity.
Senator McCumber. ilather than reparation ?
Mr. Davis. As a matter of fact we did not often use the word
"indemnity." It was usually '* reparation."
The Chairman. ''Indemnity" was usually applied to prewar
losses, was it not ?
Mr. Davis. Yes. That did not come under this.
The Chairman. I understand that.
80 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Mr. Davis. I guess that probably would be a fair distinction to
make.
Senator Moses. Then it is your understanding that we were to
have some share in the reparation ?
Mr. Davis. It was my understanding that we would have a per-
fect right to file claims under the various categories, just as any
other country does, and that it is for our Government to decide
whether or not it desires to do so, and that that has not been decided.
Senator Moses. But it is very clear that the other four Govern-
ments will take reparation in full ?
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes.
Senator Moses. Mr. Baruch intimated in picturesque language
the other day that ^'X'* billions of dollars reparation would be de-
manded from Germany ; and the question arose in the minds of some
Senators, if the United States waived its right of reparation, whether
the amount to be exacted from Germany would be X minus Y,
Y representing the amount which the United States would be en-
titled to receive. Have you any information about that ?
Mr. Davis. That would iust depend entirely on how you worked it
out at the time. It could be settled on that basis, or it could be
settled on another basis.
Senator Moses. The theon' of the reparation is that they would
fix the total amount which Germany can pay.
Mr. Davis. No; the reparation commission first is to determine by
1921 from its various reports and investigations how much Germany
owes under the various categories of damage. That mi&;ht, for
instance, be $40,000,000,000, and that is what Germany is ooligated
to pay. Then the reparation commission, however, can afterward,
by unanimous vote, reduce that amount in accordance with what they
tnink Germany can pay. In other words, the amount of Germany's
bill may be considered as in excess of Germany's capacitv to pay,
and as the reparation commission did not decide just what (jermany^s
bill should be, it was necessary to set up this commission and give it
more latitude, in order to regulate Germany's actual liability with
her capacity.
Senator Johxson of California. The theory being that the repara-
tion commission will take all the traffic will bear ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; that is it.
Senator Moses. On page 61 of Mr. Baruch's testimony you will
see Mr. Baruch says:
This commiasion has the right to fix a certain sum. The commission has plenary
powers, if that is the right adjective. They can fix "X " billion dollars. They have
that right.
The Chairman. On what page is that ?
Senator Moses. Page 61, part 3, about the middle of the page.
Mr. Davis. I do not see any difference between us. That is just
A different way of expressing it.
Senator Moses. That is not the point I was getting at. X being
the total sum which Germany is to be called upon to pay, and Y
representing the sum which the United States might claim, if we
waive our rights to the payment of Y, will the total indemnity to be
paid by Germany be X minus Y, or will X, undiminished by Y, be
dividea among tne others ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 81
Mr. Dayis. I should say that will be regulated by the conditions
under which the United States ai^rees to remit its claims; that is, the
United States could fix the conditions.
Senator Moses. Just as we did with the Boxer indemnity ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Senator Moses. If you will now turn to page 273 of the printed
text of the treaty
Senator McCumber. May I ask a question upon this same subject?
Senator Moses. Certainly.
Senator McCumber. Then, of course, Mr. Davis, your understand-
ing is that if the United States remits whatever is due from Germany
to the United States, Germany will not be compelled to pay that sum
to the other allies ?
Mr. Davis. The United States, in my judgment, in remitting, could
dictate the conditions on which it will remit.
Senator McCumber. Certainly.
Senator Moses. Would the other four powers be necessarily
obliged to accept our conditions 1
Mr. Davis. I should think so; because otherwise, if we want to
remit it to Germany, we can collect it and then give it back to
Germany.
Senator Moses. That would be a rather cumbersome process,
however.
Mr. Davis. Yes. That is the reason I think there would be no
trouble about having an agreement about it.
Senator Moses. On page 273 of the printed text of the treaty,
article 15, will you please explain how that wiU work out?
Mr. Davis. That is the certificate of ownership. There was quite
a lot of discussion in the committee. The American delegation felt
that while oiu* material interest in what is collected from Germany,
is insignificant; our interest in the financial situation of the world
is very great, and we felt that it would be very inadvisable to have
the obligations of a big country floated throughout the world unless
they were good and could be met, and that it would cause a critical
financial situation if they were floated before they could be met, and
so we put in the reparation chapter the condition that the bonds
which Uermany delivers are to be deUvered to the reparation commis-
sion and are only to be distributed by the reparation commission upon
A unanimous vote; and I assume that
Senator Moses. May I interrupt you there to ask you in what por-
tion of the treaty that occurs — ^where it provides that they may be
distributed by unanimous consent ?
Mr. Davis. I wiU find it for you.
Senator Johnson of California. It may be the provision at the
bottom of page 271.
Mr. Davis. It is on page 271. It says:
On the following questions unanimity is necessary.
Senator Moses. Under section (b) ?
Mr. Davis. Yes (reading) :
Questions of determining the amount and conditions of bonds or other obligation^
to he issued by the German Government and of fixing the time and manner for selling?
negotiating, or distributing such bonds.
135546—19 6
82 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Those questions require a unanimous vote.
Senator Moses. Then the conmussion, haying determined that the
bonds shall be distributed, shall issue those certificates ?
Mr. Davis. Not at all.
Senator Moses. What will they do ?
Mr. Davis. They may issue these participating certificates before
they decide upon the ^stribution. If they are going to distribute
the bonds, there is no necessity for issuing these participation receipts.
Senator Moses. Then they will issue these certificates as agamst
the bonds which the Commission have in their possession ?
Mr. Davis. Not as against the bonds, no, but simply as evidences
of ownership in bonds which are held by the reparation commission,
the final disposition of which has not been determined by the repara-
tion commission.
Senator Moses. Do you mean that the distribution might be dif«
f erent from theparticipation in ownership ?
Mr. Davis. Tney might decide never to distribute those bonds at
all, and thev will not decide to distribute them until they are unani-
mously of tne opinion that Germany can pay the interest and sinking
fund on those bonds.
Senator Moses. Then why issue the certificates of participating
ownership ?
Mr. Davis. Because these are held practically in trust, and the
powers interested are entitled to have some evidence that they have
an interest in them. Some of the Governments were objecting to
the reparation commission withholding those bonds; and tney
said, * 'We will need credit, and if we have something to show for them
we might be able to exchange among the various Governments, to
offset these against some other claim ; or we might be able to use
those with banks for temporary advances."
Senator Moses. That is under the provision that the certificates
may be registered and transferred by indorsement?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. In other words, while the Reparation Commission
will hold the bonds, nevertheless in fact the bonds will go on the
market.
Mr. Davis. Not at all, because we assume that, for instance, they
would be in very large blocks. Suppose Germany delivers $15,000,-
000,000 of bonds.
Senator Moses. She will deliver $24,000,000,000, I believe.
Mr. Davis. Well, not yet. We do not know whether she will
or not.
Senator Moses. She may.
Mr. Davis. Yes; and she may deliver more than that. I do not
beheve she will, myself. But all that Germany delivers now will be,
approximately, $15,000,000,000 in bonds. Now let us take the case
01 France. Suppose the participation of France wiU be approxi-
mately 50 per cent. That would be $7,500,000,000. Then France,
if she wanted to, could have five certificates of $1,500,000,000 each;
and if there is anybody who is sucker enough to buy that certificate
outright — one of them — ^I do not think it is up to the Reparation
Commission to look after him. We wanted to avoid their getting
these out into the hands of the public, and that is what we have done
in this case.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 88
Senator Moses. I do not see how you have accomplished that,
because while there may not be a sucker who would give $1,500,000,-
000 for one of those certificates, there might be some speculator who
would be willing to give $900,000,000 ancTtake those bonds at 60 and
then issue subdivisions of the participation.
Mr. Davis. Well, but do you tnink a responsible government
would sell its bonds to a speculator on those conditions ?
Senator Moses. I have been repeatedly told that the reason why
we should go into this reparation commission and why we shojdd do
all these tmngs was because we have got to furnish money to keep
these people going, and we have got to stabilize all their finances, and
industrv, and agricultiu*e, and everything else ; and I do not see how
it is gofng to be done, when we get all tm-ough with it, unless we are
f;oing to furnish some money; and I do not think we are going to
urnish money unless we get some kind of collateral, and it might be
done by a group of bankers, or it might be done by legislation whereby
we would take those participating certificates.
Mr. Davis. I do not think they can use those German bonds now
as coUateral very effectively, because they are in such large units that
it is impossible.
Senator Moses. That would not prevent an underwriting syndicate
issuing certificates in smaller sums.
Mr. Davis. That is true, but they would be issuing something
which is undeterminate,and issuing against something that may never
be delivered.
Senator Moses. In the first place, here is an oblis;ation of the
German Government, namely, tnese certificates. In the first place,
the German Government issues its bonds which 0:0 into the hands of
the reparation commission. They are the underlying security as an
obligation of the German Government, whatever that underlying
securitv may be good for.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Then the reparation commission issues its certifi-
cates to the effect that it holds these bonds for the benefit, let us say,
of the French Government. The French Government takes those
certificates in five portions, which it is to indorse.
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Moses. Not more than five portions.
Mr. Davis. Not more than five portions and the reparation com-
mission will determine that. It says the reparation commission
mav. It does not sav it will.
Senator Moses. In article 15, on page 273, it says:
The commission will issue to each of the interested powers, in such form as the
commission shall fix
Mr. Davis. Yes; "in such form as the commission shall fix.^'
Senator Moses. Yes; but that means the wording of it, does it
not — the form ?
Mr. Davis. Well, yes; hut our records will show very distinctlv
that these certificates are not to be used in any way to go into the
hands of the public.
Senator Moses. They go into the hands of the Governments.
Mr. Davis. Well, but the reparation commission, in fixing the
form, if there is any fear of that— I do not think there is at all — can
put in there that debentures can not be issued against it.
84 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Moses. The language of the treaty, on page 273, does not
indicate it. It says that they shall issue —
a certificate stating that it holds for the account of the said power bonds of the issues
mentioned above, the said certificate, on the demand of the power concerned, being
divisible in a number of parts not exceeding five.
Now, it savs they will issue, it says what they shall consist of, and
that on the demand of the power it is divisible.
Mr. Davis. Into five.
Senator Moses. They get their certificate of one-fifth and hold it
as a sovereign power. They indorse it, that it is the obligation of
another Government, do they not? In other words, it is the note
of the German Government indorsed bv the French Government ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. And the underwriting sjmdicate takes it at a de-
preciation from par. There is nothing preventing the underwriting
syndicate from issuing debentures and putting them on the market.
Mr. Davis. What would you do? 1 do not think there is any
danger of it at aU myself, but how would you avoid it ?
Senator Moses. I do not know that it can be avoided, but what I
am trying to get at is that it is inconceivable to my mind that a
bankrupt country or a country hard pressed for funds is going to
hold their certificates of ownership in these bonds and not raise
money on them when money is the thing thev need; and what I
wanted to find out is just what took place in the commission in its
discussion with reference to these points, as to whether it was intended
that the bonds should be held in the treasuries of the Allied Govern-
ments or whether they were going to seep out to the public.
Mr. Davis. It was distinctly understood that they should not
seep out to the public. That was our principal contention. They
first contended that the bonds should be delivered to the Governments
themselves. The Governments said, **When these bonds are deliv-
ered to the reparation commission, we want our share of the bonds ^';
but our contention was that this was a matter that concerned the
whole world, and that one power that got those bonds might be hard
pressed and might want to dispose of them, and they might cause
a great deal of trouble; and then we, as I say, agreed that those
bonds should be held and distributed only when the reparation com-
mission unanimously decided that it was ad\usable to do so, and that
it was safe to do so, and then they said, ^^ Well, but we might be able
sometime to borrow some money. We realize that we should not
go to the public, but we would like to have something so that we can
go to our own banks and get something against these. We would
Eke to have that right." We explained to them that under the con-
ditions it would not be a verv attractive security and that w^as the
reason it was limited to such farge units and with the distinct under-
standing that it was not to get out to the public, because that is the
reason we objected to the distribution of the bonds. I am sure our
records will be very clear on that, Senator.
Senator Moses. There are some Governments who possibly could
not maintain those things. Now, the Serbian Government, for
instance, will have a far smaller gross amount of these bonds than
any other. It is absolutely inconceivable to my mind, from observa-
tion of the Serbian Government at close range and at long distance,
that they are going to hold those bonds and that they are not going
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 85
to get money on them, and the chances are that they will have to
sell them to an underwriting syndicate that will take them at a
great depreciation.
The Chairman. Do they not issue certificates also for goods,
things exported, which should be credited to Germany ?
Mr. Davis. That is a clause that was put in here because it was
contemplated that the reparation commission might take over cer-
tain properties or certain materials, in which case the Government
said that they would like to have a certificate showing that the
reparation commission had it, and that their indivisible interest was
so much
The Chairman. It is credited to the commission t
Mr. Davis. And all the proceeds actually credited.
The Chairman. The proceeds are credited?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman. There is no restriction on those certificates, is
there ? Those can be sold ?
Mr. Davis. No; there is no restriction on those; but I do not be-
lieve myself that there will be any of them sold, or very few.
The Chairman. I thought the product of certain of those sales was
looked on as one of the things that were to be credited to Germany's
reparation fund ?
Mr. Davis. This will be credited to the reparation fund.
The Chairman. You do not think anything will be derived from
those ?
Mr. Davis. Not very much.
The Chair3«can. Those certificates can be put on the market.
Mr. Davis. No; not under the same conditions
The Chairman. You mean to say that the treaty requires the
commission to hold them?
Mr. Davis. That is true. They probably could be put on the
market. It is a different kind of certificate. They are not bonds,
and I see no objection to their being sold.
Senator Brandeqee. What will be the total amount of tliose
certificates ?
Mr. Davis. I say I do not believe they will amount to much.
Mr. Brandagee. What do you mean by *'much?*^
Mr. Davis. It would not surprise me i they did not amount to
anything at all. I do not see now they coidd possibly amount to
over a billion dollars.
Senator Brandeoee. You think they are not going to turn over
goods ?
Mr. Davis. No; I do not.
Senator Brandegee. You spoke of your records showing clearly
the intention of the parties in relation to the disposition of those
bonds. Where are your records?
Mr. Davis. They are with the peace commission at Paris.
Senator Brandegee. In Europe?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Why are they not brought to this country
now that the treaty is being considered here ?
Mr. Davls. They probably are. My records are coming over. I
have had them shipped. They just have not arrived yet.
86 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
SenRtor Brandegee. Did each committee keep a separate record?
Mr. Davis. Each advisory committee kept copies of its records.
Senator Brandegee. What does the record consist of?
Mr. Davis. Just regular agreed minutes.
Senator Brandegee. Is it a stenographic record of the conversa-
tions that took place?
Mr. Davis. No; not necessarily. Sometimes there are conversa-
tions, but as a rule the minutes simply represent the conclusions that
were finally arrived at, and if there is a difference of opinion, why,
then, it represents those differences of opinion.
Senator Brandegee. Who had the decision as to what should go
into the record?
Mr. Davis. The various members. You see they had official
secretaries of the various committees and commissions.
Senator Brandegee. I am speaking about your committee.
Mr. Davis. Well, after we agreed upon something, then the minutes
were sent to us, after that meeting, and we went over it, and if it
was not in accordance with our views, each delegation had a right to
make a protest and clear that uj).
Senator Brandegee. Who said what the minutes should consist
of ? Did the secretary make the minutes according as he thought
they ought to be ?
TAt, Davis. He made the minutes as he thought they ought to be,
and afterwards they were approved by the commission.
Senator Brandegee. Submitted to the members of the commission ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. It is simply a skeleton of results?
Mr. Davis. That is all.
Senator Brandegee. It does not contain any of the arguments or
reasons ?
Mr. Davis. Sometimes it did ; if they were considered of importance
they were put in.
Senator Brandegee. Was this considered of importance — the ques-
tion of the disposition of these bonds ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Will the record in that instance show what
the argument was, or what the conversation was, between the dif-
ferent members ?
Mr. Davis. I do not know. It will not show all of the conversa-
tion, but it will show the policies and views.
Senator Brndegee. Will it show the reasons why you arrived at
a certain decision ?
Mr. Davis. I think so; yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Tne reason I ask that is because not only
in your cases, but in the case of other witnesses, when we ask what
a certain article or phrase in the treaty means they say, **Why, it
is my understanding that it means thus and so.'' But the treaty
will nave to be interpreted, if there is a dispute 5 or 10 years hence,
by somebody. I saw the other day in one of the public prints an
article stating that there was to be a commission created to interpret
the treaty wnere its terms are in dispute. Have you seen any-
thing like that ?
Mr. Davis. I have noticed something about it.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know anything about the facts ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERICAKT. 87
Mr. Davis, No.
Senator Brandegee. If there is no such commission appointed,
how are disputes between the different signatories to the treaty to
be settled ?
Mr. Davis. In the reparation chapter of the treaty it is provided
that the reparation commission shall settle disputes if there are any.
Senator Brandegee. That is, decide their own case ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; that is, they are to agree upon an interpretation.
Senator Williams. Decide upon the meaning of what they them-
selves have said ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. In other instances, who is to settle disputes
that may arise as to the terms of the treaty ?
Mr. Davis. I do not remember any specific instances other than
the one I have referred to. I imagine tney will be settled just like
most disputes are settled.
Senator Brandegee. By war ?
Mr. Davis. No; I hope not. That is what we are trying to
prevent.
Senator Brandegee. How are most disputes settled ?
\fr. Davis. Most disputes, I have foimd, with what experience I
have had since we got into the war, are settled by the people getting
around the table, tdking it over and coming to a common agreement.
Senator Brandegee. Suppose they can not come to a common
agreement, how is the dispute to be settled ?
Mr. Davis. That I could not tell, and I do not suppose anybody
else could.
Senator Brandegee. How many members of the league are there
going to be, provided we go in ?
Mr. Davis. I do not remember the exact number.
Senator Brandegee. Some 42, are there not ?
\fr. Davis. Something Uke that, I did not have very much to do
with the league of nations part of the treaty, so I do not pose as an
expert.
Senator McCumber. There are 32 provided in the original and 13
more have been invited ?
Mr. Davis. Something Uke that.
Stfiator Wn-LiAMS. It is provided in the treaty itself that the
league of nations shall settle questions of interpretation of treaties
between parties.
Mr. Davis. I beUeve it is, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. The lea^e itself is to be the final arbiter,
then ? Does that require a imammous judgment ?
Mr. Davis. It requires a imanimous judgment on most questions.
Now, of that I am not sure. The covenant certainly ought to tell.
Senator Williams. In some cases the treaty says that a majority
shall suffice.
Mr. Davis. Yes; some a majority and some a imanimous vote.
Senator McCumber. You say that the league miist settle it. The
league is simply the name that is given to this organization of govern-
ments. It is really settled by the coimcil ?
Mr. Davis. That is ri^ht.
Senator McCumber. And the council consists of nine members t
lir. Davis. Yes.
88 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator McCumber. And on all votes, with the exception of
matters in dispute, it must be imanimous, and in matters of dispute
it wUl be unanimous with the exception of the disputants ?
Mr. Davis. Yes. It is quite remarkable the way you can get a
imanimous agreement with a lot of governments sitting arouna the
table.
Senator Knox. Big governments have a lot of influence over Uttle
ones.
Mr. Davis. Yes; and little ones have a lot of influence over big
ones.
Senator Brandegee. How long did it take you to come to a iman-
imous agreement about this treaty?
Mr. Davis. About six months — ^five or six months.
Senator Brandegee. Surprising how easy it was to do it, was it
not?
Mr. Davis. No; it was not easy, because there were so many
questions to come to a imanimoiis agreement about. But it did not
take so long to come to an agreement on a specific question, but there
were so many questions to take up that it took a long time.
The Chairman. Mr. Davis, you said, what is clear in the treaty,,
that the reparation commission would decide these questions arising
under clauses in the treaty. But the reparation commission to be
appointed under the treaty was not identical with your body that
prepared those clauses ?
Mr. Davis. No; not at all. No; the reparation commission to be
appointed imder the treaty is composed of one representative from
each of the five powers, and then one from Belgium and one from
Serbia.
Senator Moses. On page 267 of the print which you have, Mr.
Davis, paragraph (6), does that empower the reparation commission
to supersede the German Reichstag in writing taxation measures for
Germany?
Mr. Davis. No, as a matter of fact, in the exchange of notes with
Germany, after the first conditions of peace were presented, we
specifically informed Germany that it was not intended that the
powers of the reparation commission should extend to mterfering
m the internal affairs of Germany, and my own opinion is that this
clause was unnecessary but some of the Governments were very
anxious to have it put m.
Senator Moses. What Governments ?
IVb. Davis. England and France especially wanted it, and Italy.
The three of them wanted it.
Senator Moses. The exchange of notes constituted an effective
reservation in the treaty ?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Well, it was more a question of the spirit than
anything else, but a protocol was finally drafted, which is very
short — i have forgotten how many articles — which defines that, and
there were probably four or five questions that arose, and one of them
was the specific q^uestion, as I recall it, that the reparation commission
was not to exercise administrative influence or power over Grermany^
or interfere with her internal affairs.
Senator Brandegee. What could be the object of this language?
Mr, Davis. I think it is poUtical.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6ERMANT. 8&
Senator Bbandeoee. No; wait a minute. Take this same para^
graph (6) on page 267. [Reading:]
The commission shall examine the German system of taxation, first, to the end that
the sums lor reparation which Germany is required to pay shall become a charge upon
ail her revenues prior to that for the service or discharge of any domestic loan, and
secondly, so as to satisfy itself that, in general, the German scheme of taxation is fully
as heavy proportionately as that oi any of the powers represented on the commission.
Now supposing they find that the German scheme of taxation
is not proportionately as heavy as that of the other powers repre-
sented on the commission. Are they to do nothing about it ?
Mr. Davis. Well, my judgment is that tbey can do absolutely
nothing about it imtil uermany has failed to comply with her obUga-
tions up to that moment, ana unless the reparation commission is
convinced that an increase in Germany's tax would increase her
capacity to comply with her obligations, and it is not xmtil
oenator Bbandegee. Suppose they are convinced of those things.
Then what ?
Mr. Davis. They have a right to tell Germany that she should
increase her tax. She has to comply with the reparation obUgation-
Senator Beandegee. Then why aid you not answer Senator Moses
in the afiOrmative instead of the negative ?
Mr. Davis. I will tell you why. To begin with, if Germany was
imable to comply with her reparation obligations, and was taxed
maybe 50 per cent of those of England: you might, for instance^
increase them equal to England's, and by so doing you would really
decrease her capacity to pay instead of increasing it.
Senator Brandegee. That was not Senator Moses's Question. He
asked you, if I understood him correctly, whether under this para-
graph (6) it would overreach the right of the German Reichstag to
fix their rate of taxation, and you said it would not. Now, if tnej
can order them to raise their rate of taxation and also increase their
capacity to pay, then it seems to me you ought to say that it does
overreach.
Mr. Davis. I can not say so, because I do not believe it does. I
probably have not expressed myself clearly.
Senator Bbandegee. Well, if it does not, I do not see the use of
putting it in.
Mr. Davis. As I said, I think it really is an article that is unneces-
sary, but some of the Governments wanted this in very badly, and we
agreed to it.
Senator McCumber. Suppose that Germany should levy a tax^
one-half of the tax that is imposed upon the subjects of Great Britain,
and that 50 per cent of said tax would not be sufficient to meet her
obligations. Then the commission would have a right to insist that
she meet her obligations, if she had to raise her tax equivalent to that
of Great Britain.
Mr. Davis. Yes, provided that the raising of the tax would enable
her to do so.
Senator Williams. Would bring a greater net revenue ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Williams. Let me ask you a question there. Under the
Articles of CJonfederacy, before we went into this Federal Union, the
Congress of the Confederacy had no right to levy taxes on a State,
90 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6ERMAKT.
but they did have a right to call upon the States to increase their
levies and come up to their quotas as they had undertaken to pay
them.
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Williams. And they had the power to coerce the State
to do it. That was under the Articles of Confederacy, which was a
sort of American league of nations.
Senator Kkox. It turned out to be a failiire.
Senator Williams. It turned out to bo a failure in every respect
except the first original object, which was to keep peace among the
colonies. It did turn out to be a failure as a government, and we
had to organize instead of a league of States a State league, or a
Federal (Government, the old German difference btween a staats-
bund
Mr-. Davis. Germany ^s reparation is really to be payable in foreign
currency, and a decrease in her tax may increase ner capacity to
obtain foreign currency.
Senator Moses, But that is to be paid at a stabilized rate of
exchange.
Mr. Davis. How can you convert local currency into foreign cur-
rency ? There is only one way on earth, and that is by exports.
Senator Moses. But you can stablize the rate of exchange. You
know how many marks she has.
Mr. Davis. How will jou do that ?
Senator Moses. It is in the treaty.
Mr. Davis. They have established a gold parity, but they can not
possibly maintain that gold parity unless they can get foreign cur-
rencies with which to do so. It is perfectly conceiveable that Ger-
many might have a big surplus income which is payable in German
marks, and the Germany currency might show sucn a depreciation
in respect to foreign currencies tnat she could not use that surplus
at all. If that condition existed, what would be the use of increasing
her taxes further ?
Senator Moses. Is it the opinion of the reparation commission
that Germany could meet the conditions of the treaty ?
Mr. Davis. I think they can meet it the way it is, because it is
elastic. It is to be regulated in accordance with her capacity. I do
not think Germany could meet the maximum that is laid down here.
American delegates were in favor of fixing a definite amotmt now,
but there ore many reasons that make that practically impossible
at this moment.
Senator Moses. Such as what ?
Mr. Davis. For instance, the reparation commission was sub-
divided into three other committees or commissions and one of these
commissions was to endeavor to arrive at an agreement as to what
Germany could reasonably be expected to pay — her capacity to pay.
There was quite a considerable difference of opinion as to what fcrer-
many could pay within a period of 30 years, or one generation, but
it soon became apparent that Germany's bill would be greater than
her capacity to pay, I mean on a reasonable estimate at this time.
But as she did owe so much more, the governments who are greatly
concerned said, *'It is probable that she can not pay everything that
she owes, but we want to get all we can out of her, and we want at
least to make her pay all she can, and we would like to have that open.
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 91
We do not propose to collect — we can not collect — ^more than Ger-
many can pay." That is the reason this elasticity is given to the
reparation chapter and to the powers of the reparation commission.
Senator Johnson of California, To take the utmost she can pay
during the next veneration ?
Mr. Davis. That is it. My own judgment is that within six
months they will come to a definite agreement as to what Germany
shall pay.
Senator Williams. That they will be able to state a definite
amount ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. I think they are going to find that those
governments do need something as a basis of credit. Under the present
arrangement the German bonas that would be delivered under this
treaty would not be sufiiciently attractive because of this indefinite,
ness. At present, the more Germany works and the more she saves,
the more she hai3 got to pay, but even then she might not be able
to pay the full amount, and 1 do not believe that investors would be
interested in German obligations, and the banks would not buy them,
until they know definitely what is going to be the final policy of the
reparation commission and the various governments in relation
thereto, and just what Germany is goin^ to be called upon to pay;
and then, after that amount is fixed and agreed upon, ii they tnink
that Germany can pay, why then those woiud be attractive securities
and would serve as a basis of credit to rehabilitate Europe.
Senator Brandegee. You say that that will be within six months ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; that was in the interchange of notes. For political
and other reasons it was impossible to agree to a definite, fixed
amoimt now.
Senator Brandegee. I auite understand that.
Mr. Davis. We had to leave it indefinite; but in the notes ex-
changed with Germany we finally stated, '*Now, we will
be glad to give you facility to study the damage you have done and
make propositions within four months either to repair a part of this
damage, or to pay for the damage, and to issue obligations for the
balance, and in order to come to a definite agreement we will endeavor
to arrive at an agreement, fixing a definite amount, two months
thereafter."
Senator Knox. Between whom were those notes exchanged ?
Mr. Davis. Between the allied and associated peace conference and
the German plenipotentiaries.
Senator Knox. Where are those notes?
Mr. Davis. They were published, Senator.
Senator Knox. Are they here in our State Department?
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes; I think so. Substantially what they agreed.
Senator, is in the protocol to the treaty.
Senator Johnson of California, 'that was submitted by the
President ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; but there is quite a lot of correspondence.
Senator Johnson of California. I mean the substance of it.
Mr. Davis, The substance is in the protocol.
Senator Johnson of California. There is extensive correspondence ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That which was furnished to the
Senate by the President constitutes the substance, you say ?
92 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. Yes. I am satisfied that all of the eoveraments con-
cerned, especially those most greatly concerned, will soon realize that
it is very important to fix a definite amount and settle this definitely,
80 that Germany and the world knows what is to be done.
Senator Moses. Particularlv in Mr. Baruch's testimony, he says
that Gre-many can not pay. tie says on page 41 :
Because Germany can not pay the entire claim.
Further down on the same page he says [reading] :
The general view is that there will not be enough to go around ; that Germany will
not be able to pay it.
And then again he says:
Germany will be unable to meet the bill that will be put against her.
And he says further:
Germany actually owes more than she can pay.
Mr. Davis. I agree with what Mr. Baruch says, but there are other
people that hold different views, Senator. I quite agree with his
view9, but there are people who hold other views. There were some
representatives who thought that Germany could pay 9 1 00,000,000,000,
which is more than Germany's national wealth. There was quite a
difference of opinion, but I think that as a rule decidedly a very large
majority of economists and financiers agreed substantially that Ger-
many can not pay what her bill will amount to.
Senator Moses. And Mr. Baruch said that up to the verv last dav
the American commissioners sought to have a definite amount fixed.
Mr. Davis. We did.
Senator Moses. But he gave no explanation as to why the Ameri-
can commissioners yielded that point. What was the real reason?
Mr. Davis. Because it was not our party as much as it was
that of the other Governments'.
Senator Moses. Upon the theory that we are not to participate in
the reparation ?
Mr. Davis. I mean our participation is so infinitesimal, that it is
not a vital question.
Senator Moses. Then, why take one-fifth of the responsibility ?
Mr. Davis, The results of it concerns the United States very
much because the financial stabilitjr of the world concerns the United
States even from a selfish standpoint,.
Senator Moses. We are one of the four permanent voting mem-
bers of the reparation commission ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Just why was that unique piece of mechanism set
up in that way ?
Mr. Davis. WeU, England, France, Italy, and Belgium have more
material interest in what Germany pavs than any other Grovemment,
verv much more. They were the only ones that had verv much to
collect from Grermany.
Senator Moses. Serbia?
Mr. Davis. Serbia's bill is really more against Bulgaria.
Senator Whxiams. And Austria.
Mr. Davis. And Hungary and Austria. Those were the principal
countries concerned. l%at is the reason.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 93
Senator Moses. Then, why was not Belgium made a member ?
Mr. Davis. Belgimn is made a member.
Senator Moses. As far as her interest is concerned.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. We are made a permanent voting member ?
Mr. Davis. Germany was made lointly and severally liable for the
damage done by her associates and allies, and Germany theoretically
is liable for all the damage that Bulgaria and Austria-Hmigary did
to Serbia and Roumania, but it is hoped that they will collect most
of their share from Bulgaria and Hungary.
Senator Williams. Whatever they do collect will go as a credit ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Senator Moses. You seem to be missing the point. We would
have an infinitesimal share in the reparation, but we are one of the
four permanent voting members. Belgium has a larger share in
the reparation, but is a member only as her interests are concerned.
Whv the distinction ?
Mr, Davis. Well, Belgium is of course a small power and does
not have the world interests that a larger power has, but it was felt
that Belgium's rights must be protected, and therefore that she
should participate in voting on matters that concerned Belgium.
But the larger powers are really more concerned with conditions
throughout the world than a small power, because they can suffer
more and they have more interests.
Senator Moses. The assumption being that every vote taken by
the reparation commission is one that wffl interest us ?
Mr. Davis. Yes ; the other powers were very anxious to have the
United States come into the reparation commission.
Senator Moses. I have no doubt of that.
Mr. Davis. Because they thought that our material and moral
influence would be valuable.
Senator Pomerene. May I suggest this, too, that while we may
not have a very large part of the funds that are paid in reparation,
we have a very positive interest in the financial condition of those
nations which will receive this money, because they owe us about
$10,000,000,000?
Mr. Davis. I see every reason why we should go on the commis-
sion myself, and I see no reason, practically, why we should not,
because, as I say, while the other countries, England, France, Italy,
and Belgium, expect to collect very much more from Germany and
have a much larger claim than the United States — our claim is very
small, even if we put it in — ^yet it would seem that we are vitally
interested in the financial conditions of the world and of these coun-
tries. We are the creditors of the world.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know what portion of the records of
the peace commission has arrived in this country?
Mr. Davis. No; I do not.
Senator Brandegee. It has been a month since the President
arrived here, and I wondered whether they were going to keep the
records over there or send them here.
Mr. Davis. I have not heard as to that.
Senator Williams. He ought to have brought them in his valise.
Senator Brandeoee. No; but in a month I thought they might
have been brought over.
94 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAJS^Y.
Senator Williams. There are many of them commg every day.
Senator Brandegee. ITiat is what I am trying to find out. 1 did
not know whether they were coming or not.
Senator Moses. In naming fifteen biUions as the amount of bonds
to be issued, you had reference to the provisions at the bottom of.
page 267 and on page 269 of the committee print, did you not, para-
graphs 1 and 2 ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. Fifteen biUions surely will be issued ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. And possibly ten billions more ?
Mr. Davis. Well, possibly. I hope that the financial condition of
Germany will be so good that those can be deUvered; but it entirely
depends on that, because those $10,000,000,000 imder (3) are not
to be delivered imtil the reparation commission are unanimously of
the opinion that Germany can meet the interest and sinking fund on
these obligations.
Senator Pomerene. May I ask a question there ?
Senator Moses. Oh, yes.
Senator Pomerene. In view of certain suggestions which have
been made, perhaps outside of the committee, I will ask you this
question: You have caUed attention to the manner in which these
bonds are to be trusteed, the manner in which the certificates are to
be issued to the several parties. Is there anj^thing in this treaty
which makes the commissioners or the State or tne Government
which they represent individually or collectively liable for the redemp-
tion of either these bonds or the certificate ?
Mr. Davis. No; there is not.
The Chairman. Does any other member of the committee desire
to ask any questions?
Senator Swanson. Mr. Davis, let me ask you a question on some-
thing that we were discussing with Mr. Baruch.
After this treaty is ratified, how will the trade relations between
Germany and the United States and other allied countries be resumed ?
To what extent will the reparation commission have control of that?
Mr. Davis. Theoretically they can come and trade. Anyone who
has got the money to buy something — any German who has the
money to buy something — can come and get it. From a practical
standpoint it will probaoly be rather difficult, for the first two years,
without the permission of the reparation commission. If you can
conceive of this reparation chapter as something that we were dis-
cussing pro and con for several months, you will understand that
people's views changed, more and more as thev got into the facts.
It was first thought that Germany could pay So, 000,000,000
within the first two years, I personally, always contended that it
w^ould be impossible, or that if she did, she would not be able to
pay anything else, because it would leave her so weak: it would
just take all her capital they had: and that instead of Germany
paying 85,000,000,000 the first two years, I thought those Govern-
ments would have to help Germany; either land ner money, or let
her keep some capital which she had ; and that unless Germany could
get food and raw materials, they would not be able to do anything.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 95
So that, in substance, my interpretation of that first payment of
85,000,000,000 is that Germany snail pay to the reparation commis-
sion $5,000,000,000, less what she may require in food and raw ma-
terials dming those first two years, which may perhaps mean that
Germany can pay only $2,000,000,000; because, in addition to that,
she has to pay the armies of occupation; and the United States will
have a rather large bill there.
Senator Swanson. Let me ask you this question, for the under-
standing of the treaty. If a German factory or manufacturing
establishment had the money, and desired to purchase raw material
in this country, lumber or cotton, or elsewhere rubber, could she
do it without the consent of the reparation commission ?
Mr. Davis. My judgment is, yes.
Senator Swanson. Sir. Barucn had an idea that she could not.
ilr. Davis. Here is the point. Germany can not export securities
or gold dining the first two years without the consent of the reparation
commission. For instance, during the armistice period Germany
could not export gold without the consent of the supreme economic
council, which was the body that controlled such matters.
Senator Swanson. Nothmg would prevent a foreign concern from
extending credit to a German manufacturing establishment for raw
materials ?
Mr. Davis. No. It might be possible, however, that anyone ex-
tending credit, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, would Uke
to have the approval of the reparation commission.
Senator Ej«jox. Are not the French selling to the Germans now ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; and I think that if any -timerican wants to sell
anything to a German, he will sell it to him and ship it to him.
Senator Williams. You do not mean if it involves the export of
gold or securities from Germany ?
Mr. Davis. No. If it does, it can not be done.
Senator Williams. But if it involved some credit that a German
bank could arrange with a bank in New Orleans which did not involve
the export of gold or seciuities from Germany, then no consent of
anvboay would be necessary?
Mr. Davis. My opinion is that it would not require the consent
of anybody.
Senator Knox. That is, to-day, if the United States Steel Corpora-
tion wanted to sell to a German railroad 20,000 tons of steel rails,
they could do it and give them credit for it ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Williams. Or if a New Orleans bank wanted to extend a
credit to a Hamburg bank and the Hamburg bank wanted to buy
cotton, that could be done ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Williams. It is only where gold or securities come into
consideration that that becomes operative ?
Mr. Davis. That is perfectly true. It is I think, however, that a
banking institution or an exporting house would like to know just
what the reparation commission's pddcy is going to be before extend-
ing^ any very large line of credit. They might want to know that.
Senator Williams. Undoubtedly, because any very large line of
credit would have to be based, ultimately, upon gold or securities.
96 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Swanson. But there is nothing in the treaty to prohibit
anything except the export of gold and securities ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Knox. That might involve the policy of whether the
reparation commission were going to permit the export of gold or
securities in connection with that transaction.
Senator Williams. In a transaction such as I have indicated in
cotton, or in a steel products transaction such as Senator Knox indi-
catedy a good deal of this payment would be made through clearing-
house balances, would it not — clearances of one sort or another —
without resulting in the shipment of gold or securities ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Willia:vis. Germany will be wanting to buy steel from us,
and we will be wanting to buy a good deal from Germany, too, pretty
soon.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Knox. Is there any limitation upon the importation of
gold into Germany ?
Mr. Davis. No, sir.
Senator Knox. So that if we wanted to buy now, and pay in gold,
we could do it?
Mr, Davis. Yes.
Senator Williams. Yes ; and that very gold might later be treated,
as a part of a balance of trade settled by the reparation commission,
as bem^ in an exceptional attitude ?
Mr. Davis. Germany will want to withdraw the gold if she can.
The Chairman. Aj*e there any further questions to be asked Mr.
Davis. If not, Mr. Davis, we will excuse you.
Senator Knox. Senator Johnson indicated that he would like to
have Mr. Davis return to-morrow. He was compelled to leave, and
he wanted to ask him some Questions.
The Chairman. Very well; thou Mr. Davis will come back to-
morrow.
The committee has said hitherto that they would like to hear the
Secretary of State, and I think we can finish with Mr. Davis to-morrow
and I could ask Mr. Lansing to come.
Senator Moses. To come on the following day, do you mean, Mr.
Chairman ?
The Chairman. No; to come to-morrow. I do not know how long
Senator Johnson desires to examine Mr. Davis. I will take the
Eleasure of the committee on that. Shall I ask the Secretary of
tate to appear the day aiter to-morrow?
Senator Swansox. 1 think it would be better. We sit only an
hour and a half each morning.
The Chairmax. Very well ; then I will ask the Secretary to come
on Wednesday.
There is no other witness to be heard this morning, that I am aware
of. The committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow morning
at half past 10, and I will ask you to be here then, Mr. Davis, if you
ean.
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m. the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Tuesday, August 5, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.
.V
TUSSDAT, AUGXrST 5, 1010.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washingtorif D, C,
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, in room 426, Senate QfRce Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge, presiding.
Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCimiber, Brandegee, Fall,
Knox, Hardinsr, Johnson of California, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams,
Swanson, Smith, and Pittman.
STATEMENT OF HB. VOBMAS H. DAVIS— Continued.
The Chairman. We will continue with Mr. Davis.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. Davis, you were a member of
two commissions, as I xmderstood you, Finance and Reparation ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did each commission have separate
experts?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Sometiines they duplicated. Sometimes some
of the same people were on both commissions, but they were separate
bodies.
Senator Johnson of California. Did any of those experts resign at
any time ?
Mr. Davis. One of the British representatives resigned along at the
last, who represented the British treasury. He resigned because of
iU health.
■
Senator Johnson of California. Did the American experts resign ?
Mr. Davis. Not on any of the committees that I was on.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall that any resigned at
all?
Mr. Davis. I recall that Mr. Bullitt, who was attached in some way
to the peace delegation, resigned.
Senator Johnson of California. Did any of the experts resign that
vou recall ?
Mr. Davis. No.
The Chairman. Was Mr. Bullitt the one who went to Russia?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator McCumbeb. Who went with Mr. Bullitt to Russia ? There
was some one else went with him.
The Chairman. Lincoln Steflfens,
Mr. Davis. I am not oositive, but I think it was Lincoln Steflfens.
Senator Johnson of (Jalifomia. They went there representing the
United States }
136546—19 7 fl7
98 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMANT.
Mr. Davis. Senator, I never did quite understand just in what
capacity they went there, but apparently for the United States.
Senator Johnson of California. YThen you reached Paris and were
engaged in that work, Mr. Bullitt was a regular official attached to
the American Commission in some capacity, was he not ?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Bullitt was, I understand, in some way connected
with the State Department and was with the State Department staff
there, and I did not come in contact with him at all, so I do not
know just what he did.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you have any fundamental
theory or any basis upon which you began your work in relation to
renarations ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; you mean as to arriving at Germany's capacity
to pay?
senator Johnson of California. Well, in arriving at the modus
operandi ultimately of the collection of the debt^ and the like ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; we started out with a practical definition as to
what Germany was liable for, which was defined in the interchange
of notes between the President and the German Government and
between the PresiiSent and the allied powers.
Senator Johnson of California. Those notes to which you refer
were written when — after the armistice or before the armistice ?
Mr. Davis. Leading up to the signing of the armistice.
Senator Johnson of (Jalifornia. And the armistice gave you the
fotmdation, then^ upon which to work?
Mr. Davqs. We felt that an agreement was made.
Senator Johnson of California. And that that agreement had been
that Germany should pay all of the damage that had been caused bv
her?
Mr. Davis. All of the damage to civilians and their property.
Senator Johnson of California. That alone ?
Mr. Davis. I forget the exact wording. It was first defined in
certain of the fourteen points, in the interchange of notes by the
President with the Germans and the Allies, the Allies desired to clear
this matter up definitely, and they repUed that they would hke to
understand just what this damage referred to; that is, if it were all
damage caused on the ocean, from the air, and on the land, and the
President repUed yes, and then that was presented to the Germans,
and they said, '*0n those conditions we are prepared to sign the
armistice. "
Senator Johnson of California. Were these notes published at the
time?
Mr, Davis. Oh, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And these were notes that were
subsequent to the fourteen points and prior to the armistice ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Senator Johnson of California. Were they the notes upon which
the armistice was based ?
Mr. Davis. That was our understanding.
Senator Johnson of California. You started, then, so far as the
American Commission was concerned, with a basis for computation
and a basis for reparation provisions ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
TBBATT OP PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 99
Senator Johnson of California. And that basis was what, if you
will please repeat it t
Mr. Davis. That Grermany should repair the damage caused to the
civilians and their property wherever found.
Senator Johnson of Cfalifomia. Was that basis adhered to through-
out.
Mr. Davis. We understand that it was.
Senator Johnson of California. And so far as the provisions of the
treaty are concerned, is that basis adhered to ?
Mr. Davis. I think so, Senator. There were naturally some differ-
ences of opinion as to what would be included in that, but I think
it was.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, that basis, you took it from
the very banning, without a real computation, would equal an
amount greater than Germany could pav ?
Mr. Davis. Well, we had experts working for several months com-
puting damages under the various categories which came within that
so-caUed agreement leading up to the armistice, and all of the Gov-
ernments were filing statements of their specific damages, and our ex-
perts and their experts were going over these, comparing them with their
own information, and we ^ot at a comparatively reasonable estimate
as to what the damage under the various categories would amount to.
Senator Johnson of California. These experts began that work
after you had gone to Paris ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Now that estimate that you thus
reached was conceived to be a reasonable estimate of the amount that
ou^ht to be paid upon the basis you have suggested ?
Mr. Davis. We felt that that was a reasonable estimate of what
Germany was Uable for. Then the other question arose as to whether
or not Germany could pay that amoimt.
Senator Johnson of California. And the conclusion reached on the
latter subject was that she could not pay that amount ?
Mr. Davis. That was our conclusion. Senator. Some people still
hold that she can.
Senator Johnson of California. It is a part of the treaty, is it not ?
You have inserted it as a provision that it is recognized that Germany
is unable to pay the full debt that is due from her ?
Mr. Davis. No, I do not so understand that. My interpretation
of the first article in the reparation chapter is that Germany is mor-
ally responsible for having caused all of the damage, all the war costs
and everything else, but realizing her inabihty to make good, to
restore all of that damage, the allied and associated governments
had confined themselves U> requiring Germany to pay to the utmost
of her capacity the damages under the specific categories attached.
Senator Knox. Can you tell how mucn the war cost the world ?
lifr. Davis. Oh, that is very difficult. Of course. Senator, that
depends very much on how you figure that. If you mean the eco-
nomic loss, it is one thing. If you mean actual expenditures
Senator Knox. I mean actual expenditures.
Mr. Davis. The actual expenditures were probably between
$200,000,000,000 and $250,000,000,000.
Senator Habdino. Does that include property destroyed by the
war?
100 . TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. No, I am just referring to expenditures by the various
Grovernments concerned.
Senator Hitchcock. Do you include what the German Govern-
ment would have to expend now in reimbursing ?
Mr. Davis. No, I mean the expenditures for conducting the war.
Senator McCumber. Is that on the part of the AlUes Sone, or on
both sides ?
Mr. Davis. That would include everything, the Germans and
everybody.
Senator Swansok. I have seen a statement made by some statis-
ticians that the bonded indebtedness would amount to about
$190,000,000,000 when the armies were disbanded, and that the
residue, between that and $250,000,000,000 would be represented by
the taxes that were collected in that time.
Mr. Davis. I think $190,000,000,000 is rather excessive, Senator.
Aslreckll, England's bonded indebtedness will be about 10,000,000,000
pounds, or we will say, $50,000,000,000, and the United States
$30,000,000,000. That would be $80,000,000,000. Ours probably
will not go quite so high, say, $25,000,000,000. That w^ill make
$75,000,000,000 for England and the United States; France, $25,-
000,000,000, would be $100,000,000,000, and Germany about $35,-
000,000,000, or a total of $135,000,000,000. Italy increased her
bonded indebtedness to about $12,500,000,000 during the war, and
Austria increased hers about $12,500,000,000.
Senator Williams. Does that computation take in Turkey and
Bulgaria ?
A&. Davis. No, but they were very small. I should say both those
Governments combined would not increase the figure over $5,000,-
000,000. Certainly $150,000,000,000 of bonded indebtedness would
about cover it.
Senator Swanson. I think that estimate was for the time when
the armies were disbanding and peace declared.
Mr. Davis. I am calculating up to the present.
Senator Johnson of California. With tne estimates made by your
experts of the total damage, what was the reason why you did not
in the treaty fix the total amount to be paid by Germany? Prob-
ably you stated that yesterday, but possibily I nave forgotten it.
Mr. Davis. I should say principally. Senator, because, according
to the judgment of most of us at any rate, Germany could not pay
anything Rke the full amount of the damage for which she was
liable; and because the amount which she could pay was smaller
than the full bill, we were principally anxious to have Germany
sign a note for the full amount, and tnen determine later on what
reductions should be made on that.
Senator Johnson of California. And so you consider the treaty to
be the signing of a note for the full amount, with the power in the
Reparations Commission to make deductions subsequently, which
shall be determined. Now your Reparation Commission consists in
reality of the Big Five ?
Mr. Davis. Not the Big Five. It is really the Big Four and
Belgium.
Senator Johnson of California. The Big Pour and Belgium. I
think we have one-fifth of the voting power.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 101
Senator Johnson of California. And in some instances, where
Bekium is not concerned, as I recall the treaty, probably one-fourth
of tne voting power.
Mr. Davis. No ; where Belgium is not concerned some one else sits
in Belgium's place.
Senator Johnson of California. So that in any event we will never
have more than one-fifth of the voting power.
Mr. Davis. No; but we provided that that one-fifth would be a
very powerful vote, because in most important matters a unanimous
vote is required.
Senator Johnson of California. Yesterday you said what I think
is quite the fact in all of our experience, that when men sit by them-
selves around a table it is not difficult to reach a imanimous con-
chision. That is correct, isn't it?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And that is your experience in
practice ?
Mr. Davis. It takes time. It can not alwajrs be done. Sometimes
there may be such conflicting conditions that it may take some time,
and you may have to go at it ^adually to accomphsh it.
Senator Johnson of California. But ultimately
Mr. Davis. Ultimately, I think it can be done.
Senator Johnson of California. So that now we have Germany
si^in^ a note admittedly for more than she can pay. We can start
with that premise, can we not?
Mr. Davis. Well, it is no more than some of the interested parties
think she can pay?
Senator Johnson of California. I am, of course, taking the view
that you gentlemen took.
Mr. Davis. The American view is that, absolutely.
Senator Johnson of California. I take our American view in
preference to any other.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And you gentlemen have reached
the conclusion that it was a note for a greater sum than Germany
was able to pay?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Yon look forward, however, finally
to the reparation commission, composed as you have indicated,
scaling that down so that she can pay. The scaling down would
depend upon obtaining the imanimous consent of the reparation com-
mission hereafter, would it not?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And without that unanimous con-
sent the world is confronted to-day with a bill that has been placed
against Grermahy greater than it is possible for her to pay, and imder
the terms of this treaty she may be required in various fashions, as
t^ey are indicated, to attempt to pay that bill.
Mr. Davis. I think not. In the first place, Germany delivers
bonds for only $15,000,000,000, except the small extra amount that
she will deliver for Belgium, which probably would run it up to
$16,000,000,000, and Germany can not be called upon to deliver any
more bonds without the unanimous consent of the reparation com-
mission. In other words, we insisted that Germany must not be
102 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
put in the position of having obligations, bonds outstanding, which
might be in excess of what she comd reasonably be expected to pay,
ana we avoid that danger in that waj.
Senator Johnson of Calif ornia. With the debt hanging over her?
Mr. Davis. Yes; it is a book account, that is true; tnere is that
book account.
Senator Johnson of California. Is there any mode by which that
book account may be collected or enforced ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. To what extent, then, may the
reparation commission enforce its coUection hereafter ?
Mr. Davis. My interpretation is that the reparation commission
can not enforce the collection of anything beyond the bonds which
they have in their possession or that have been delivered to them.
Senator Johnson of California. Is that your reading of the
treaty ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And is that your reading concerning
tlie taxation clause, the industrial clauses, and the like ?
Mi. Davis. Yes; it is.
Senator Johnson of California. And in i espect to shipping and the
various things that Germany is to deliver, is that your reading of the
treaty ?
Ml'. Davis. That will all be credited.
Senator Johnson of California. I imderstand that, that that will
all be credited, but the point is, has not the reparation commission
the power — ^whether it will exercise it or not is a diflFerent proposi-
tion— to endeavor to collect this bill that Germany now owes ?
Mr. Davis. I do not understand that they can do anything toward
collecting anything except the bonds that they have, tnat have been
delivered to them.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you interpret the treaty to
mean that the reparation commission can do anything concerning
the compelling the performance of the terms of the treaty by Ger-
many except the collection of the bonds ?
Mr. Davis. From a practical standpoint and from a reading of the
treaty I do not see how they can do anything else.
Senator Johnson of California. I am very glad to have your con-
struction of it because, as I understand the terms, I had quite a dif-
ferent view.
Senator Harding. Right there, then, what is the object in giving
to the reparation commission the power to see that the German rate
of taxation is made equivalent to that of any other power engaged
in the war ?
Mr. Davis. Senator, as I stated yesterday, I do not think that was
a necessary clause to put in the treaty. Some of the other powers
wanted it in the treaty, partly for political reasons, and we could see
no objection to it, and we agreed to its going in; but, as I explained
yesterday, the German rate of taxation may or may not have any
relation to Germany^s capacity to pay in foreign currency, because
her taxes will be coUecteci in German currency.
Senator Harding. If you have covered that already, I am sorry to
have taken the time to-dav.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 103
Senator McCumber. Is not the effect of that agreement simply
this: That the reparation commission will not release any part of the
sum which Germany agrees to pay if the taxation in Germany is not
as heavy as it is in the other countries ? In other words, if her taxa-
tion is less than that of ^the countries to which she owes the debt,
those countries will insist that she shall pay, if it requires a taxation
equal to their own, and that they will not release any part of it until
her taxation cx)mes up to the taxation of the other countries.
Mr. Davis. That is, provided they are of the opinion that an in-
crease in her taxes will increase her power to comply with her obli-
gations.
Senator McCumber. Yes ; I understand, but that is the purpose of it ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And if they find that she cq,n not even pay
the taxation equivalent to what is paid in France or in Great Britain,
they may still lelieve her from a portion of the debt, provided the
effect of increasing her taxation would be to destroy her ability to pay.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. In other words, if they expect to collect
from Grermany they have got to treat that situation in an intelligent
manner, or they will destrov Germany's capacity to pay.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly, and you look to see the
reparation commission treat it in an intelligent manner, so that
they will take up to Germany's capacity and no more ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. But there is the power to do more,
is there not t
Mr. Davis. Yes; they have the power. That is, they have the
power to take measures or fail to take measures which would not be
intelligent and constructive.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly ; so that with your bill
that Germany has signed in blank, your reparation commission have
the discretion to do as they see fit. We assume that the reparation
commission will act intelligently, of course, and not press the debtor
to the wall, but the reparation commission has the power to do
otherwise.
Mr. Davis. I do not see how the reparation chapter of the treaty
can be construed beyond the fact that the reparation commission
can only enforce compliance on the part of Germany in respect to the
bonds which have been delivered to the reparation commission.
Senator Johnson of California. How do you look for the enforce-
ment of the sums that will be fixed otherwise — ^for reparation in those
siimsl
Mr. Davis. That is left rather vague, and I do not see how it can
be enforced.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you mean that if the repara-
tion commission, outside of these bonds, determine that Germany
shall pay a certain sum, there is no means of enforcement of it ?
Mr. Davis. No; but I say the reparation commission must first
determine that Germany shall deliver additional bonds, and that that
requires a unanimous vote.
Senator Jo£p(SON of California. All right, but under the bill which
has been admitted by Grermany and is now indefinite in amount, if
they require that a certain sum shall be delivered in bonds, Germany
must deliver them.
104 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. Oh, decidedly.
Senator Johnson of Caliiornia. Certainly, and the reparation
commission has the power to determine the amoimt of those bonds up
to the amount of the bill.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely.
Senator Johnson of California. And require Germany to pay
them?
Mr. Davis. Yes, indeed.
Senator Johnson of California. Now the reparation commission ,
if you will recall, has no power of cancellation.
Mr. Davis. Except by unanimous vote.
Senator Johnson of California. They have even got to go back to
their Governments, have they not ? Do you not recdl that provision ?
Mr. Davis. \t does say that the Governments, acting through the
reparation commission, as I recall the wording
Senator Johnson of California. I am not attempting to state with
any degree of accuracy my recollection of the treaty, but as I recall
it, oefore cancellation or modification in reality, the reparation com-
mission must have the consent of the Governments concerned.
Senator Fall. I have the provision here.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you read it ?
Senator Fall. This is the way it reads:
Annex 2 to article 1^44, pflra^raph l.i, sul secticn (a): Questicnp involvirp the
Bovereignty of any of the allied and associated powers, or the cancellaticn of the
whole or any part of the debt or obligaticrs cf Geni.any, shall he by unanimcus vote.
In case of any difference of opinicn smcng the delegates, which can not be solved
bv reference to their Governments, upon the question whether a given rase is one
which requires a unanimous vote fcr its decision f r not, 8U( h difference shall be referred
to the immediate arbitration of some impartial person to be agreed upon by their
Governments, whose award the allied and associated Governments agree to accept.
Senator Johnson of California. That is the provision.
Senator MoCumber. I think the provision that the Senator from
California [Mr. Johnson] refers to is article 234, found on page 251.
Senator Johnson of California. I recalled the provision, but it was
not of sufficient importance to bother with it.
Senator McCumber. Giving the right to cancel or not to cancel any
part, except with specific authority of the Governments represented
on the commission.
Senator Johnson of California. I thank the Senator. That was
what I referred to —
Except with the specific authority of the several Governments represented upon
the commission.
Mr. Davis. The last sentence in article 233 also bears on the same
question:
If, however, within the period mentioned, Germany fails to discharge her obligations,
any balance remaining unpaid may, within the discretion of the commission, be post-
poned for settlement in sulisequent years, or may be handled otherwise in such manner
as the allied and associated Governments, acting in accordance with the procedure
laid down in this part of the present treaty, shalfdetermine.
Senator Johnson of California. I am trying, you know, to form a
picture if I can
Mr. Davis. Yes, I know. I am interested, because we went through
all of that.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 105
Senator Johnson of Califoniia. I think I understand now much
more clearly than I did before, that we have a bill against Germany
that from the the standpoint of the American delegation is greater
than Germany can pay; that it is now within the jurisdiction of the
reparation commission, that that reparation commission has the
power to do as it sees fit, but we will rely on its intelligence and its
wise discretion to see that it will take from Germany only such sums
as Germany is able to pay.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Not simply our judgment, but it is stated in
article 232, if Germanv is incapable of paying the whole amount.
Senator Johnson of California. But m speaking to Mr. Davis con-
cerning that particidar provision he said that did not really have
reference to the total bill that we are now speaking of, Senator.
Mr. Davis. Article 231 refers more to the moral responsibility.
Senator Johnson of California. That was the distinction he was
drawing, I think, probably before the Senator from Nebraska came
in; but I quite agree with you. As I said to Mr. Davis in the begin-
ning of the examination to-day, I thought that provision of the
treaty showed that the treaty itself recognized the very fact of which
we are speaking.
Senator HrrcHcocK.^ I think it does.
Mr. Davis. It does. *
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Mr. Davis. But it is not only a question of Germany's capacity
to pay. It is also a question of how much the principal interested
allied powers can afford to have Germany pay. Assuming that Ger-
many could pay the total amount of her damage that will be assessed
in the various categories, let us assume that that would be $40,-
000,000,000. Germany certainly could only pay that by developing
a higher state of efficiency than they have ever had anjrwhere in the
world before, and by restricting her imports to absolute essentials,
whicli woidd exclude importations from France, especially, and would
exclude many importations from England; and she would have to
increase her exports very much to France and England and would
have to find markets in other parts of the world ; and in my judg-
ment, if Germany could pay $40,000,000,000, by the time she has
Kaid $10,000,000,000 or $15,000,000,000 of it those Governments will
e wanting her to quit.
Senator Hitchcock. Is there some restriction placed on Germany
in this treaty as to her legislating against imports ?
Mr. Davis. For the first five years there is a clause against the
restriction of imports from Alsace-Lorraine and from those segre-
gated portions oi Germany ; and then for a certain period she shall
not pass discriminatory legislation against imports from the allied
powers.
Senator McCumbeb. In other words, that she shall give each power
the rights of the other powers ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator McCumber. The most favored-nation treatment?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. But if Germany is to make a very serious and
radical effort to pay her debts rapidly she must in some way restric
her imports ?
106 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. She must go on a war basis and stay
there.
Senator Hitchcock. And that will hurt her neighboring countries ?
Mr. Davis. Decidedly. It is bound to, because the consumption
power of the world is not going to increase so rapidly that Germany
could do this without takmg trade away from the other countries.
Even before the war, in the height of her prosperity, Germany's
actual commercial trade balance, that is her exports, amounted to
$300,000,000 less than her imports. She covered that deficit by
profits and other incomes, from her insurance companies and her
mercantile marine, and from her investments abroad, and from re-
mittances of Germans living abroad, which were estimated to run up
to about $800,000,000 a year, which left Germany with a surplus
of about $500,000,000 a year, most of which they invested in foreign
countries.
Senator Johnson of California. I think, perhaps, you misstated
that. You mean that her imports were greater than her exports?
Mr. Davis. That is right. I thought 1 said that. I said that her
exports were $300,000,000 less than ner imports.
Senator JoHNdON of California. Unless tne reparation commission
should agree on the amount due, it is a workable treaty ?
Mr. Davis. You can not answer that yes or no, Senator. That
goes back to the same point. Once that it was impossible to agree
upon a fixed and a reasonable amount which Germany shall be com-
pelled to pay, it became necessary to give more elasticity, more
power, to the reparation commission to regulate the amount that
would be collected in accordnace with Germany's capacity to pay and
in accordance with what they could afford to have Germany pay.
But in order to avoid any abuse, or forcing a large coimtry of that
kind to practically repudiate or forego the payment of obligations
outstandm^, we limited the amount which Germany should be
actually called upon to take care of at present to 15,000,000,000 in
bonds which are to be delivered, and that she shall never be called
upon to deliver any more bonds until the reparation commission are
unanimously of the opinion that she can take care of them.
Now, I can not conceive of an American representative on that
reparation commission a^eeing to have Germany deliver more
bonds unless she is in a position to take care of them, because that is
a matter that would concern the United States very much.
Senator Johnson of California. Is that not a matter that would
concern Great Britain and France also ?
Mr. Davis. I think so; very decidedly.
Senator McCumber. Therefore, would not the same rules and
reasons govern them that would govern the American delegates ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. Suppose they threw this large country
into international bankruptcy. The financial situation that would
result would cost the world more, really, than what they expect to
collect from Germany, and it would cost them more than anyone else.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there a specific sum fixed,
I mean not definitely, but agreed upon as the amount that Germany
ought to pay ?
Mr. Davis. No; we could not agree upon that, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. In round numbers, what did your
experts agree upon ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKY. 107
Mr. Davis. Do you think it is advisable to state that? We have
got to have negotiations afterwards with the Germans. I have no
objection to it, out I am thinking about the advisabiUty of stating it
publicly, because they are to
Senator Moses. Is that contained in the memoranda to which you
referred yesterday?
Mr. Davis. I am not positive.
Senator Johnson of California. I do not want to ask anything
that ought not to be asked in that regard.
Senator Moses. Is there any way we could get that — in executive
session?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Moses. I do not want to ask for it publicly, if you think it
ouffht not to be so stated.
Mr. Davis, I would be glad to go into details with you.
Senator Moses. Will you state that in executive session before the
committee?
Mr. Davis. Yes; I will be glad to.
Senator Johnson of California. You drew a distinction between
the fixed amount and a reasonable amount, did you not ?
Mr. Davis. What I meant by that was that the amount should be
a reasonable amount, that is an amount which Germany could be
reasonably expected to pay. No one can tell, of course, just what
they cotdd pay within one generation.
Senator Johnson of California. What do vou estimate the wealth
of Germany to be? I understood you yesterday to say about 100
billions.
Mr. Davis. No; before the war I estimated Germany s national
wealth at S75,000,000,000.
Senator Johnson of California. When you say $76,000,000,000,
what do you put in that? Do you mean within the confines of the
European Empire ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; that means her colonies, too.
Senator Johnson of California. Her colonies, too ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Her wealth now you estimate to
be what ?
Mr. Davis. That depends upon whether you estimate it upon the
inflated currency or on the gold basis. Values have increased so that
probably Germany's national wealth, according to the present prices,
mi^ht probably be, I should say would be, $100,000,000,000, less the
value of such deductions as may be made, and her colonies less the
value of such deductions as Alsace-Lorraine and her colonies. Her
colonies were not worth much.
Senator Johnson of California. The reason of my question was to
begin after your deductions. The Saar Valley you estimated at
what?
Mr. Davis. We estimated it at about $200,000,000.
Senator Johnson of California. And Alsace-Lorraine ?
Mr. Davis. It is rather difficult. We did not get a specific esti-
mate of Alsace-Lorraine, but the principal values, of course, are the
ores there.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
&fr. Davis. But it was estimated at between 5 and 10 billions.
108 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. The amount that was taken from
her in territory or in value would be about what ?
Mr. Davis. My guess would be $15,000,000,000.
Senator Johnson of California. What would be the effect upon her
of what has been taken from her, on her industries ?
Mr. Davis. It will hamper her industries to a certain extent.
Senator Johnson of California. To a large or a small extent, or
are vou unable to estimate ?
Mr. Davis. I am unable to estimate that; but she will still have
access to the ores from Alsace-Lorraine, because France is dependent
on Germany for certain ores, and they will have to have an inter-
change of ores. They will not be deprived of that.
Senator Knox. If she gives 15 billions in bonds and 15 billions of
territory, then she is giving 30 billions as the result of the war, is she
not?
Mr. Davis. Practically; yes, sir.
Senator Knox. She is getting no credit for the value of her colonies
or for Alsace-Lorraine — those are taken from her — plus this 15
billions of bonds ?
Mr. Davis. Practically so. There are some credits.
Senator Hitchcock. How do you estimate her colonies as being of
so little value ?
Mr. Davis. I say I judged — ^my estimate was made — that the
territory taken from her would be about $15,000,000,000.
Senator Hitchcock. Were not her colonies worth anvthing ?
Mr. Davis. As I sav, they were not worth very mucn.
Senator Johnson of California. When you speak of the Saar Val-
ley, do you mean all the uses of the Saar Valley for 15 years? Was
that it ?
Mr. Davis. That is what it was estimated at.
Senator Johnson of California. Not the actual capital value ?
Mr. Davis. The actual mines and the properties that were taken
over.
Senator Johnson of California. They came to what ?
Mr. Davis. $200,000,000 at an ^timate. That has not been fixed
yet. The reparation commission is to fix that finally, but that is
the estimate that was fixed at the time, approximately $200,000,000.
Senator Harding. The use of that valley enters into the reparation
payment ?
Mr. Davis. That is credited to Germany's bill.
Senator Hitchcock. Did you make any estimate of what the Ger-
man Government would save on account of the reduction of the army
and navy expenditures as compared with prior to the war ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; from $400,000,000 to $500,000,000 a year.
Senator Hitchcock. Are you estimating her prewar expenditures
in that ?
Mr. Davis. Her prewar expense was about $400,000,000 a vear;
and of course, theoretically, tnose materials and the labor would be
devoted to industries, which would also increase her industrial
output.
Senator Johnson of California. Did the American delegation take
any particular position concerning the Saar Valley ?
TB£ATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 109
Mr. Davis. I was not on that commission, Senator, but the
American delegation felt that it should be returned to Germany
within, say, 15 years, or that the people would have a right to return
to Germany.
Senator Johnson of California. Do I understand from that, that
the provision for a plebiscite met the views of the American dele-
tion in this treaty ?
Mr. Davis. That is my impression ; but, as I say, I was not on
that commission.
Senator Johnson of California. So it would be futile to ask you
concerning the details of that ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; it would.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know why it was that the
reparation of Russia was reserved by the treaty ?
Mr. Davis. There were several reasons. Russia had made a
tremendous contribution toward winning this war before she went
out of it, and it was felt that she had lost a great deal in the way
of property and many lives, and it was felt that the door should
not be closed entirely to Rusisa, once that her people have organized
a government which can speak for them.
Senator Johnson of California. If finally a government shall be
organized that will be recognized by the Allies, was it designed, as
expressed by the commission, that Russia should be given repara-
tion, too?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That reparation would be very
considerable, would it not?
Mr. Davis. Yes; it would.
Senator Johnson of California. So that that is another indeter-
minate sum that the reparation commission must consider ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; but that would merely change the percentage of
the division. It would not mean that any additional amounts
would be collected from Germany, because Germany, irrespective of
what the reparation commission may want to ao, can not pay
more. It is impossible to collect from Germany more than she
can pay.
Senator Harding. How could you do that, when the treaty pro-
vides that the reparation fund shall be divided into five parts ?
Mr. Davis. I do not think it says five parts.
Senator Hitchcock. Each nation shall have certificates which
can be divided into five parts.
Mr. Davis. It is divided amon^ the allied and associated powers
in proportion to the ratio that shall be determined.
Senator Moses. Russia is not one of them, according to the
treaty, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. But the general opinion was that the principal allied
and associated powers would allow Russia to participate m this of
their own free will and accord. They feel that they have no right
to exclude Russia ; and France, especially, has many investments in
Russia, and I believe that they would not object to Russia partici-
pating, although it would reduce France's percentage of participation.
The Chairman. Does not Russia get considerable reparation by
having repudiated all her bonds ?
Mr. Davis. They do not seem to have made very much by that
yet; Senator.
110 TREATY OF PEACB WITH GERMANY.
The Chairman. They have saved the interest.
Mr. Davis. It may be accumulating. I doubt if any Russian
Government will ever be recognized by the principal powers of the
world unless it assumes those obligations which have apparently
been repudiated.
Senator Knox. Internal as well as external, you mean?
Mr. Davis. Thev would not be so much concerned with the in-
ternal. I do not know, Senator, about that.
Senator Knox. Have they repudiated their internal obligaticms?
Mr. Davis. I am not positive.
Senator Hitchcock. No; 1 think not. Russia has not repudiated
her internal obligations.
Senator Knox. It depends altogether on what you call *' Russia.^
This Bolshevik government has.
Senator Hitchcock. I think they made some exception when they
made their proclamation, in favor of their internal obligations, cer-
tainly during certain periods.
The Chairman. They have repudiated the exterior debts, have
they not?
Mr. Davis. They have— especially Trotski — signified their willing-
ness to recognize their obligations.
Senator Williams. But they do not pay.
Mr. Davis. No ; they do not pay.
Senator Williams. They did that when they wanted to negotiate.
Senator Hitchcock. Have you any idea wh^ it was provided that
each of these certificates should be divided mto five parts? Why
was the number five selected ?
Mr. Davis. We rather favored, at first, having only one certificate
issued to each Government, really a trust certificate showing its
ownership in an undivided amount of bonds; but some of the coun-
tries, espei ially France, rather wanted those in smaller denominations,
thinking that they might be able to use them, either to offset some
other debt or to pledge them at their bank for additional credits,
and so we finallv agreed that they should have as many as five
( ertificates, but that those should be in such large units that it would
avoid any danger of having them get into the hands of the public;
because there are two ways of looking at that. In the first place, as-
sume that certificates were endorsed by a re^^ponsible government like
France or England, who would have the largest units, and then
assuming that they might be sold to a syndicate as Senator Moses
thought might happen, then if that syndicate should issue debenture,
against that certificate, there would not be the danger attached to it,
because there would be an additional security back of it, by the
endorsement of the French Government, and it would not increase
the amount of securities fioating in the world, or that would otherwise
have been issued, because they would be used to take up some other
obligations, or to take the place of obligations which would otherwise
have been issued to meet their requirements; and assuming that one
of the Governments might be a bankrupt Government, and that it
should sell its certificates to speculators, it is rather difficult to con-
ceive it as a fact that investors would purchase debentures issued
against an ownership certificate representing bonds which the rep-
aration commission had felt were not safe enough to distribute. I
can not imagine any intelligent investor purchasing a debenture of
that kind.
TBBATY OF FBACS WITH GERMANY. Ill
Senator Hitchcock. Do I understand you to say that the amount
of these bonds represented by these certificates in the aggregate is
$15,000,000,000?
Mr. Davis. Yes ; that is the amount of the original
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Deposit?
Mr. Davis. Deposit, except the additional amount which will be
issued to Belgium, which would possibly not exceed $900,000,000 or
a billion.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not a fact that Europeans have
been fed up upon the idea of a tremendous bill, and that is the reason
that the thing is there left indefinite ?
Mr. Davis. Their people have expected a great dejl.
Senator Johnson of California. That is the reason you speak of
the reason for certain indefinite provisions of the treaty being political ?
Mr. Davis. Well, I hardly know how to answer that, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. You used that term several times
yesterday,
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. What did you mean when you used
that term "politicar*?
Mr. Davis. I mean that the people in Europe are still shell shocked.
Senator Johnson of California. I think you can include us, too.
Mr. Davis. And they have been carrying tremendous burdens, and
they have expected to get a certain relief from those burdens, and they
were in different ways led to believe that Germany would assume a
great portion of those; and they were even led to believe that they
would collect from Germany even more than the amounlf of Germany's
bill which will be defined under the categories ; and it will ta ke some
time, probably, for them to realize, how much Germany can pay and
how much they really can afford to have Germany pay.
Senator Johnson of California. And for that reason, for the reason
that you state, the matter was left in indefinite shape ?
Mr. Davis. That was probably one of the reasons why we could
not come to a satisfactory agreement for fixing a definite amount.
Senator Haeding. Now, getting back for a moment to the question
which I asked you in rather unhappy language: Referring to article
237, in which it is provided that these payments by Germany shall
be divided by the allied afld associated powers into portions which
have been determined upon by them in advance, has there been any
determined amount for Russia ?
Mr. Davis. No ; there has not been for anybody yet.
Senator Harding. What does it mean, then, when it says ''have
been determined. upon " ?
Mr. Davis. That seems to be a rather unfortunate wording.
Senator Brandeoee. It means ** which shall have been determined
upon," does it not?
Mr. Davis. Yes; that is what it does mean, as I recall now.
Senator Wiluams. It speaks of the date of the ratification of the
treaty.
Senator Harding. That is not clear to me. It says, ''which have
been determined upon."
Senator Moses. *'Seront repartis" is the French future.
112 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAJNY.
Mr. Davis. It means ''which shall have been deternxined upon/'
but this practically means not to divide it until you do determine
what the division shall be and that has not been determined and
will have to be determined yet.
The Chairman. As a matter of fact, it has not been determined.
Senator Moses. We seem to get that from every witness.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. How long do you think it will take
to determine what each country clainas ?
Mr. Davis. The first claims, tentative claims, of the various Gov-
ernments I believe have all been filed now, but they are subject to
revision. It was estimated that it would probably take two years to
agree upon the final amount of the claims of tlie respective Gov-
ernments.
Senator Johnson of California. TTie determination to be made, of
course
Mr. Davis. By the Reparation Commission.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; and there is no appeal from
their decision ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Johnson of California. They determine just exactly what
■hall be levied upon German v in the future, and then levy it?
Mt. Davis. Well, within those specified categories.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; of course.
Mr. Davis. And Germany has an opportunity to be heard on that.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Senator Pittman. You stated, in answer to Senator Johnson, that
one of the reasons was a so-called poUtical reason. What were the
other arguments raised by the other powers against fixing a definite
amoimt T
Mr. Davis. Some of them argued that no one could tell now what
Germany would be able to pay in 30 years.
Senator Pittman. Is that true ?
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes; that is true. No one can tell exactly what
they can pay. it depends on so very many things. It depends
upon their labor conditions, upon their markets, upon their industrial
efficiency, and upon the financial situation throughout the world, and
many other factors.
Senator Pittman. If you had fixed an amount it would have had
to be an arbitrary amount ?
Mr. Davis. It would have had to be.
Senator PrrrMAN. And well within the powers of Germany to pay?
Mr. Davis. Within the reasonably estimated powers.
Senator Pittman. It would probably have been much less than
she could pay ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; there was some danger of that.
Senator Moses. Who estimated the American claims that were
filed ?
Mr. Davis. Mr. Vance McCormick represented us on the subcom-
mittee of the reparation commission which had charge of ascertaining
the claims of the various Governments under the various categories.
Senator Jonhson of California. Does the treaty leave Germany in
a position to indulge in any commerce — I do not mean internal ?
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes; I think so.
TIUBATY OF PEACB WITH GERMAIN Y. 113
Senator Johnson of California. Is there any sufficient number of
ships bv which she could ?
Mr. Davis. Germany will not have many ships. She will be prac-
tically in the same position that the United States was in before the
war; she will have to hire her ships, unless the allied and associated
powers decide that it is advisable to let her retain enough of her ships
to meet her own requirements until she can build others to replace
them.
Senator Johnson of California. Has not the reparation commission
control over her commerce ?
Mr. Davis. For the first three years they have control oyer her
shipbuLlding output, up to a certam amount.
senator Johnson of California. They have substantial control over
Tier industrial life and her commerce, too, have they not ?
Mr. Davis. They will have considerable control for the first two
years. After that I think that we will have no control whatever to
speak of, provided Germany is in good faith endeavoring to comply
with her obligations, except that others will have a call on a certain
amount of Germany's coal.
Senator Johnson of California. France alone ?
Mr. Davis. Well, that principallv goes to France.
Senator Johnson of California. Does it not go to Belgium largely
alsot
Mr. Davis. A very small quantity of it. Mostly it goes to France,
I think. I was not on the economic commission, but that is substan-
tially correct.
Senator Johnson of California. I do not want to trouble you about
those things that you are not thoroughly familiar with.
Senator MOSES. Annex III, page 277, reads as follows:
The German Grovemment, on behalf of theniBelves and bo as to bind all other persons
interested, cede to the allied and associated Governments the property in all the
German merchant ships which are of 1,600 tons gross and upward.
Mr. Davis. I say thev do. But it is possible that the allied and
associated powers will d.etermme that it is advisable to let Germany
retain, under some kind of conditions, say one-third of her mercan-
tile marine to meet her requirements.
Senator Moses. Do you regard that Question as likely to arise ?
Mr. Davis. I say that whue under tnis Annex III, paragraph 1,
the allied and associated powers take over all the German ships with
the exception of those under 1,600 tons, after that Germany will
either have to go into court and charter ships, as the United States
did before the war, or the allied and associated powers mav decide
that it is good business, as I think it will be myself, to let Oermanv
detain, say, one-third of those ships or those contracts to meet their
requirements.
Senator Moses. That involves a modification of the treaty, does
it not?
Mr. Davis. Not necessarily ; it does not involve a modification of
the treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. In respect to shipping, does it not ?
Mr. Davis. No, sir; the allied and associated powers can take
those ships over and then recharter them to Germany on such a
basis that Germanv could run them with her own crows and pay in
her own currency.
135646—19 8
114 TRBATT OF PBAGB WITH GBBMAmr.
Senator Johnson of California. I do not mean that; but I thought
you said the reparation conunission could permit her to have a
certain number of ships.
Mr. Davis. If I did^ that was a mistake.
Senator Johnson of California. I probably misunderstood you.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. Davis, what factors were taken into
account in estimating Germany's ability to pay ? Can you give
them briefly ?
Mr. Davis. The first definite thing we had to go on is what Ger-
many could have paid before the war when she had all of her capital
intact. Assuming that she maintained the same efficiency and the
same industrial output as before the war, Germany could pay at least
$500,000,000 a year; and by cutting off her navy and army I figure
that she could*^ have increased that probabl}' by $400,000,000 or
$500,000,000 a year, assuming that she could have found a market
for her excess output. But Germany has been deprived, or has
spent a great deal of her foreign investments — disposed of them —
and she will not have that income of $500,000,000 a year from her
mercantile marine and her investments abroad. Tliat will be con-
siderably reduced.
Senator Hitchcock. Did you, for instance, take into account the
ability of her national government to levy taxes ? Is there a limit to
that, which was ascertained in any way ?
Mr. Davis. No ; because that really nas very little relation to her
capacity to pay in foreign currency.
Senator Hitchcock. Was any attempt made as to the amount of
taxation the national goverament would be compelled to levy ?
Mr. Davis. Germany paid her war expenses practically from the
flotation of loans, instead of from taxation. They increased their
taxes practically nothing during the war.
Senator Hitchcock. And issued additional currency ?
Mr. Davis. Issued additional currency and bonds: and in order
now to cover the interest and sinking fund on those bonds and to
meet their increased expenditure, Germany will undoubtedly be com-
pelled to increase her taxation very greatly, and probably it will reach
75 per cent of what the taxes are in France to-day, at least that much,
and probably 100 per cent of the taxes in France, and I think it wiU
probably be more, assuming that she does not levy a capital tax,
which sne is proposing to do.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. I have seen the statement that Germany's
national taxation would have to be approximately six times as much
as it was prior to the war.
Mr. Davis. Yes, I think it will; but it was onlv about 9 per cent —
it was very small in proportion to her requirements during the war.
Senator HrrcHCocK. Is it expected that Germany w^ill make an
effort to keep iip the interest on her domestic bonds ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. It is expected that she will do that ?
Mr. Davis. There is one school in Germany which seems to favor
levying a capital tax of 30 per cent right away.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. All payable in one year ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, payable in rather short installments.
Senator Knox. That would be payable in their securities.
Mr. Davis. Yes, that just simply reduces their internal obligation.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 115
Senator Knox. By a repudiation of a third of the debt?
Mr. Davis. That is just a nice way of repudiating it.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Then what would she do with regard to her
expanded currency ?
Mr. Davis. That is one of her great problems. There are two wajs
in which she might do that, of course. Germany could levy a special
tax payable in currency and then just as soon as she collects that tax
cancel that currency. " That is probably the only practical way in
which she can decrease that tremendous inflation.
Senator Hitchcogk. I saw a statement that whereas she had some-
thing more than $600,000,000 in her Reichsbank, more than half of
it bad disappeared since the armistice.
Mr. Davis. Yes, that was to pay for food. We got a good deal of
that.
Senator Hitchcock. Is she £;oing to be able to keep any gold at all ?
Mr. Davis. I think she will be able to keep the balance of her
gold.
Senator Harding. I note that the treaty takes all of the German
merchant marine above 1,600 gross tons, and one-half of the shipping
of between 1,000 and 1,600 tons, and one-quarter of the vessels of
less capacity, and then demands of Germany the buUding of 1,000,000
tons of shipping in the next five years.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Habdino. That, of course, runs into the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Habdino. Does that become a credit on the $1 5,000,000,000
about which you have been talking ?
Mr- Davis. Yes.
Senator Swanson. I understood you to say that the taxes in
Germany were estimated to be about six times what they were
before the war — that that would be necessary.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Swanson. You said the taxes were 9 per cent before the
war. Do you mean upon aggregate earnings
Mr. Davis. I meant 9 per cent of their governmental require-
ments— their expenditures during the war.
Senator Swanson. Do you mean that her taxes amounted to
about 90 per cent of her aggregate increase in wealth ?
Mr. Davis. No; I understand that 9 per cent of her war cost was
paid by taxation.
Senator Swanson. That was during the war ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; and that she paid 91 per cent of the cost of the
war from additional currency ana loans.
Senator Swanson. What was her rate of taxation on her earning
capacity before the war ?
Mr. Davis. I can't tell you that, Senator. I have forgotten.
I have that somewhere.
Senator Williams. Of course Germany could get gold by making
Eart or all of her taxes payable in gold, just as the United States
)r vears after the CivU War made her customs dues all payable in
gold.
Mr. Davis. She might collect her customs dues in gold.
Senator Williams. Yes.
116 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. Theoretically, yes; but I think Germany has scraped
up every piece of gold she can find in that part of the world, and I
do not know where thepeople would get the gold with which to pay.
Senator Wh-liams. Tney would have to buy it, just as our people
did when they paid customs dues for years after the war. Part of
the time they had to pay 25 or 35 per cent premium to get the gold,
but they had to pay it.
Senator Hitchcock. We could do that because we were exporting
great excesses, but Germany has no excess exports.
Senator Williams. She will have as soon as she gets back into the
trade of the world.
Senator Hitchcock. If she gets gold she has got to get it from other
countries though.
Senator Johnson of California. Were the reparation clauses the
result of compromises among the representatives of the different
governments ?
Mr. Davis. They were a compromise. That is, they did not
represent the complete vievra of any one government.
Senator Moses. I understood you to say that the ships which
Germany is to deliver are to be credited against the $15,000,000,000
in bonds i
Mr. Davis. They go into the reparation.
Senator Moses. Or are they to be credited against the total sum
of damages ?
Mr. Davis. Of course theoretically they are to be credited against
the total amount of her reparation bill, but they go to the reparation
commission, and the reparation commission has to take what comes
to it and apply it first to the payment of the interest and sinkmg fund
on the bonds in its possession.
Senator Moses. Do vou know, and if so, are you at libertv to state,
the amount of claims filed by Mr. Vance McCormick and Col. House
on behalf of the United States ?
Mr. Davis. They have not filed a claim yet. An estimate of what
our damage would amount to has been filed.
Senator Moses. It amounts to the same thing, does it not?
^fr. Davis. No, a very different thmg. In other words, an esti-
mate was made as to what our claims would amount to if we filed
them, and what the claims of each government would amount to
under the specific categories, but some of these will be challenged by
some of the governments, because they may not be in entire accord
with the categories.
Senator Moses. Do you know and do you feel at liberty to state
the amount of estimated claims filed by Mr. McCormick and Col.
House ?
Mr. Davis. We did not file any claim at all. The estimate as I
recall
Senator Moses. Let us not have any mistake about terminology.
I mean the amount of the estimate of our damage, if that is the correct
phrase.
Mr. Davis. That would be a correct phrase. I do not recall defi-
nitely, and I should prefer not to give any figure on that.
wSenator Moses. Is that in anv of the minutes of the commission t
Mr. Davis. Oh, yes; that will be in subcommitte No. 1 of the
reparation commission.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMANT. 117
■
Senator Moses. Can you tell us what minutes we should ask for in
order to be fully informed ? There are the minutes of the economic
commission
Mr. Davis. The minutes of the economic commission.
Senator Moses. Did they have any subcommittees ?
Mr. DA\^s. No, I believe not. I was not on that commission, but
I think it did not have any subcommittees. Of course the results of
the decisions of those committees are in the peace treaty.
Senator Moses. Oh, no, because our estimated damage is not in
there.
Mr. Davis. But they have provided here that we can file our claims.
You mean our estimate of damage is not in the treaty ?
Senator Moses. That is what 1 mean.
Mr, Davis. That is true. That is not in here. Mr. McCormick can
give you that.
Senator Knox. Is he in this country now ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Did Germany make counter propositions with refer-
ence to the pavment of a fixed sum ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. What was that amount ?
Mr. Davis. Germany proposed to pay 100,000,000,000 marks.
Senator Fall. How much would that amount to in dollars?
B4r. Davis. It would amount to approximately $24,000,000,000,
but there were many ifs.and many deductions about that. Germany
said ''We will pay 100,000,000,000 marks,'' but that was a total
sum including interest which they would pay over a period of 30 or 35
years; which, capitalized, would probablv amount to $10,000,000,000
or $12,000,000,000. Then they said, ''This is also on condition that
such and such deductions are made." They were even to be credited
with the war material which we took from her, and I estimated that
this so-called offer of Germany of 100,000,000,000 marks amounted
to about $7,500,000,000 or $8,000,000,000 capitalized.
Senator Fall. When you began to consider this proposition of
reparation you had one of two alternatives, had you not? In the
first place you had to treat Germanv as a ^oing business concern in
dealing witn her from a business and financial standpoint.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Then, in estimating the amount of reparation which
she could pay — not the amount which was claimed from her but
how much she could pay — you had also to take into considertaion
the question as to wnether she should be made to pay it, which
would mean practically the liquidation of Germany as a business
concern, or whether she should be allowed to pay some of the damage
and to continue as a going business concern. Those were the alter-
native propositions i
Mr. Davis. Yes, we had to look at it from all those angles. Some
people thought we should be able to take everything Germany had,
ana then coflect a ^eat deal more from her afterward.
Senator Fall. If you were to take everything she had, you could,
of course, have cashed her in for more than $15,000,000,000, possibly.
Mr. Davis. I doubt that. If you had taken everything she had
which you could get away with, 1 doubt it.
118 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Fall. Then, in taking $15,000,000,000 you did take every-
tliing that she could pay ?
Mr. Davis. I do not understand you.
Senator Fall. If you could not have stopped her practically as a
^oing concern and cashed her in for more than $15,000,000,000, then
in your estimate of $15,000,000,000 you did go to the limit of her
ability to pay.
Mr. Davis. I may seem to be a little slow but I do not quite under-
stand you.
Senator Fall. Then I will put it in another way. You and the
delegates representing the different governments had different views
as to how much Germany could pay and how she should pay?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. The Ignited States not being interested largely in
reparations, was interested in keeping Germany as a going concern
with whom she could continue to do business.
Mr. Davis. Decidedly.
Senator Fall. Great Fritain was a great commercial competitor
of Germany, was she not ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. She was just about a« much interested in keeping
Germany to the lowest limit as a competitor as she was in deriving
immediate advantage from reparation, was she not?
Mr. Davis. My imjjression was that the majority of the British
delegation felt that it would be very much better for England com-
mercially to have Germany continue as a going concern, because
Germany is a market for i>ritish products.
Senator Fall. That is, you mean Germany herself, Germany in
Europe is a market for British products ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Now you spoke of the German colonies being
worthless to Germany as a government in so far as Germany getting
any returns from them ?
Mr. Davis. I think they were worth very little to the German
nationals as a commercial outlet.
Senator Fall. Will they be worth any more to (ireat Britain ?
Mr. Davis. I think not.
Senator Fall. You think they will be practically worthless ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Then you think all the billions of dollars that Great
Britain has spent in Africa are a worthless investment?
Mr. Davis. Not at all, but 1 think the British possessions in
Africa are much more valuable than the German territory.
Senator Fall. Germany has spent very large amounts of money
in her African colonies, has she not?
Mr. Davis. I do not know just how much she has spent there.
Senator Fall. You were speaking of German investments abroad.
Did you investigate her investments on this hemisf>here ?
Mr. Davis. We did, to the best of our abilities.
Senator Fall. Of course you had information from the custodian
of her investments in the United States ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Did you ascertain approximately the investments
held by German nationals, and directly or indirectly through Ger-
man nationals by the German Grovemment in Brazil ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 119
Mr. Davis. Yes: but I have forgotten the exact amount. As T
recall, their investments in Brazil were something like about
S500,000,000.
Senator Fall. And in Chile ?
Mr. Davis. In Chile they were smaller. T think our estimate of
Germany's total investments in South America was $1,000,000,000.
Senator Knox. Did that include Mexico?
Mr. Davis. No; I said South America. That did not include
Mexico. In Mexico T believe her investments were about
$250,000,000.
Senator Brandegee. Do all those estimates appear in the notes of
your commission ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; in some of our records.
Senator Fall. Was the German Government, through its finan-
cial agents, interested largely in those investments ?
Mr. Davis. As nearly as we could gather, the German Government
was not directly interested — that is, it had no monetary interest.
Senator Fall. It did not finance them ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Fall. Several of the German banks supported by the Ger-
man Government or in which the German Government was inter-
ested did have an interest in those investments ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Do you know who owned the manganese deposits
in Brazil ?
Mr. Davis. No* I do not.
Senator Fall. You do not know whether they are in the hands of
Germany or not ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Fall. You do not know whether German citizens contin-
ued during this war and up until the time of the armistice to make
investments in mines, gold, oil, iron, and manganese?
Mr. Davis. I do not; but from my general raiowledge I should say
they did it very little, if at all.
^nator Fall. That is during the latter part of the war, or during
the war?
Mr. Davis. Certainly very little after we came into the war.
Senator Swanson. There has been some discussion in the commit-
tee and also in the hearings regarding the obligation that the United
States will assume under article 254, which provides for the appor-
tionment of the public debt of Germany, especially with reference to
the city of Danzig and Memel. What is your idea as to the obliga-
tions assumed by us and the other allied powers under that section ?
Mr. Davis. I understand that refers to the powers which finally
take over this German territory. Now, as to Danzig, and as
I recall Memel and Schleswig, Germany renounced its rights to those
territories.
Senator Knox. No; the language is ** ceded'' to the principal
allied and associated powers.
Mr. Davis. Well, let us see. This says specifically in the case of
Memel:
Germany renounces in favor of the principal allied and associated powers all ri^ts
and title over the territories includeci between the Baltic, the northeastern frontier
of East Pniada as defined in article 28 of Part II (Boundaries of Germany) of the
present treaty, and the former frontier between Germany and Russia.
120 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Germany undertaked to accept the settlement made by the principal allied and
associated powers in regard to these territories, particularly in so far as concerns the
nationality of the inhabitants.
That is article 99.
Senator Knox. I was mistaken. It says '* renounce" instead of
"cede."
Mr. Davis. It seems to me that clearly indicates that the allied and
associated powers are not to take this property definitely from
themselves, and under article 107, in regara to Danzig, it says:
All property situated within the territory of the free city of Danzig belonging U>
the German Empire or to any German State shall pass to the principal allies and asBO-
ciated powers for transfer to the free city of Danzig or to the rolish State as they may
consider equitable.
Article 108:
The proportion and nature of the financial liabilities of Germany and of Prussia to
be borne bv the free city of Danzig shall be fixed in accordance with article 254 of
Part IX (Financial clauses) of the present treaty.
All other questions which may arise from the ceasion of the territory referred to in
article 100 shall be settled by further agreement.
That very clearly indicates that the debt is to be borne by Danzig^
and not b}r the allied and associated powers.
Now article 254
Senator Knox. That is where it uses the word '* ceded. ^'
Mr, Davis. Article 254 agrees with those. At any rate it will be
finally ceded. Of course this is a legal question, and I am not a
lawyer; but my interpretation of this is that the allied and associated
powers are practically given a power of attorney by Germany to
dispose of this property finally to some one else, out they say that
their power is limited to the transfer, to the city of Danzig and to
Poland, as they may determine. Now article 257 says:
In the case of the former German territories, including colonies, protectomtee, or
dependencies, administered by a mandatory —
If this goes to the city of Danzig, it would be a mandatory that
would take charge of it —
Under article 22 of Part I (League of Nations) of the present treaty, neither the
territory nor the mandatory power shall be charged with any portion of the debt of
the German Empire or States.
In other words, if that goes to the free city of Danzig there is
no financial responsibility, but if it goes to Poland there would be
financial responsibility, and it would only be transferred to Poland
in case the Polish Government assumes its responsibility for its pro-
portionate share of the German prewar debt.
Senator Knox. Now it is all very interesting to gather up thice
or four different sections and from those sections propound a theory
that disposes of the plain language of the treaty; but the plain lan-
guage 01 article 254, which purports to indicate the terms and basis
upon which this territory is ceded, says:
The powers to which German territory is ceded shall, subject to the qualifications
made in article 255, undertake to pay —
And those qualifications have reference only to Poland and Alsace-
Lorraine.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Knox. That is, the powers to which the territory is ceded .
shall imdertake to pay t
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY. 121
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Knox. Now there is nothing more clear in all kinds of
law than that there^ is a difference between accepting a transfer of
property that is subject to a debt, in which case tne transferee is not
liable, bke, for instance, purchasing a piece of property subject to a
mortgage. You are not personally responsible for that mortgage;
but if you personally undertake to pay the mortgage, if there is a
covenant in the deed that requires you to pay tne mortgage, you
can not get rid of that covenant by a transfer to somebody else, like
you could if you only took it subject to the debt.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Knox. So that whatever the purpose may have been, there
is not a particle of doubt in my mind that article 254 makes the
allied and associated powers personally liable for the portion of the
debt of Germany that applies to Danzig and Schleswig and Memeh
Senator Hitghoock. But those are not ceded to us. They are
ceded to Danzig and to the local nations there. They are renounced
to us but not ceded to us.
Mr. Davis. It would be presumptuous for me to undertake to argue
a legal question, not being a lawyer.
Senator Knox. But Germany renounces, and that is the same
thing.
Mr. Davis. That is very clear but I do not like to argue a legal
question.
Senator Knox. I do not think it is reallv a very practical question,
for this reason: I have no doubt that tne territory is worth more
than the proportion of the debt.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Knox. And of course when we do turn it over to the free
city of Danzig, and they ultimately get this property, we wiU make
thorn assume that portion of the debt ?
Senator Swanson. But, Senator, must not this article be read in
connection with the other articles he has enumerated, and must they
not all be ronstrUed together, being part of the same instrument i
Senator EInox. If I were presenting this to a court I would not.
make that concession.
Senator Hitchcock. You do not find anywhere that they are
ceded to France, Great Britain, and the United States ?
benator Knox. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. I would like to see where it is.
Mr. Davis. In article 107, where they renounce in favor of the-
allies and associated powers for the purpose of being transferred by
them, or to be ceded b^ them reall^y^ to Danzig and roland. I think
it is very clear that it is not a cession to them of ownership, because
if it were they would not have to say here what they propose to do
with it. If it is a transfer of sovereignty and territory, tnat settles
it right there.
Senator Knox. That is the highest expression of ownership.
Senator Wujliams. It is under certain conditions, which are pre-
scribed in the instrument.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Swanson. You are satisfied that under article 254 in
connection with the other articles we assume no liability in connec-
tion with this debt?
122 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Just one question in conclusion.
In order to make this a workable treaty it will be necessary for the
reparation commission within a reasonable period to fix a definite
amount ?
Mr. Davis. I think it will work very much more satisfactorily if
they do that immediately, or in the near future, because I think in
that case the obligation issued by Germany in a definite amount
could serve as a basis of credit lor the financial rehabilitation of
Europe.
Senator Johnson of California. The fact of the matter is, that is
necessary, is it not, in your opinion, in order to make a workable
treaty ?
Mr. Davis. I think it will work if that is not done, but I do not
think the other countries will get the benefit out of it that they
would if a definite amount is fixed.
Senator Johnson of California. And if they do not fix a definite
amount, is it not likely to result in chaos ana a financial crash?
Mr. Davis. No ; but there will always be a shadow over the financial
situation of Europe until the policy of the reparation commission is
settled and they know exactly what they have got to do.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you think that ought to be
done at the earliest possible moment ?
Mr. Davis. I think it is advisable to do so, but I do not think it
is necessary to do so to make this treaty workable.
Senator Swanson. In that connection, will you be kind enough to
state to the committee what is the financial situation in Europe that
makes it necessary for this reparation commission and treaty to be-
come operative within a reasonable time ?
Mr. Davis. Europe, of course, is in a rather difficult situation now.
The laborers for four or five years have been withdrawn from their
ordinary pursuits of life and the employers of labor have had their
initiative taken away from them, tne Government having had to
take over everything and control it in order to win the war. Certain
countries are short of raw materials. But their difficulty there at
present is more due to a state of mind than anything else. With us
the war terminated apparently with the siting of the armistice. It
did not terminate in Europe upon the signmg of the armistice. The
people ^re very restless. There is not a sufficient confidence in credit
to-day, and this war will not be terminated in the minds of Europe
until this treaty is really ratified. They are expecting a great deal
from it. They really are expecting a great deal from the league of
nations, and it is really a psychological treatment that they need as
much as anything else, and my opinion is that while the ratification
of the treaty will not solve all of the European problems, it will con-
tribute very much toward correcting this state of mind.
Senator Williams. It will make a whole lot of people think they
are solved.
Mr. Davis. It will have a wonderful effect in that respect, and I
think if it is not ratified it wiU have a serious financial ana industrial
result.
Senator Fall. When will this reparation commission cease to
function ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 123
Mr. Davis. That is not definitely settled, Senator, for there is a
provision made — I mean tentatively, in the interchange of notes
with Germany — that if Germany would make a proposition within
four months they would endeavor to come to a definite agreement
with Germany within two months thereafter, and it is probable that
in this agreement thay may provide for a practical elimination of
the reparation commission if they agree upon a definite, reasonable
amount. There is practically nothmg else to be done except for
Giermany to issue these bonds.
Senator Fall. That was a concession made by Clemenceau to the
counterproposal of Brockdorff-Rantzau, in which he expressed his
opposition to some of the points made.
^Ir. Davis. They are all anxious to do this. The British and
French realize the financial importance of it.
Senator Fall. So far as the provisions of this treaty are concerned,
this commission will continue to function as a governing board for
an indefinite period of time unless something Uke that is arrived at.
There is another question I want to ask with reference to the sur-
render of these ships. You said that any nation might recharter to
Germany some portion of its marine which it took over.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Could either nation recharter its proportionate
number of ships without the consent of the others f
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. For instance, could the United States recharter
its shii)s for trade between the United States and Germany, the ships
which it received from Germany, for German- American trade, without
the consent of the other nations or the reparation commission ?
Mr. Davis. Absolutely; and they can charter additional ships.
Senator Fall. For their own trade ?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Or for any use they want to make of them.
Senator Johnson of California. You said in answer to Senator
Swanson — and I go into the question only because you mentioned
it yourself — that they were expecting a good deal in Europe from
the league of nations. Who ? Who are expecting a great oeal ?
Mr. Davis. The people.
Senator Johnson of Cahfomia. What people ?
Mr. Davis. Of those countries.
Senator Johnson of. California. You mean the French people ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And is that the reason for asking a
special aUiance with France ?
Mr. Davis. No. My impression is now — I may not be competent
to pass upon it, because the President
Senator Johnson of California. I refrained from asking the ques-
tion because I did not want to involve you in a discussion of the
league of nations^ but you mentioned it. That is the only reason I
mentioned it to vou.
Mr. Davis. The French people themselves, I think, were not so
much concerned about an alhance with the United States as the
French leaders were. My impression was 'that they wanted this
alliance to become effective pending the period in which the league
of nations begins to function satisf actoiily.
124 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Nelson. When waa it you left France ?
Mr, Davis. I left France when the President did, the 28th of June.
Senator Johnson of Galifomia. Are you not aware that there has
been a great change in the sentiment of the French people with
respect to the league of nations ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether there has
been any change of sentiment in England respecting iti
Mr. Davis. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe
that there has been.
Senator Johnson of Califoi-nia. Did you know that when there was
mention of it by Lloyd-George in Parliament there was laughter all
around?
Mr. Davis. No ; is that true ?
Senator Johnson of California. I have seen it in the press dis-
patches. Half the benches laughed and half applauded.
Senator Hitchcx>ck. And yet it has been denounced as a British
lei^ue.
Senator Johnson of California. One voice denounced it as a British
league.
Ssnator Knox. They could appreciate a joke even if it was on
themselves.
Senator Harding. Which is rather unusual.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly.
Senator Hitchcock. Laughter would indicate that it is not a
British lea^e.
Senator Johnson of California. On the contrary, the joke was on
us and they had the laugh.
The CHAfRMAN. Lloyd-George, in his speech, asked them to take it
seriously.
Mr. Davis. They approved the treaty by a large majority and
the league of nations is an integral part of tne treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. Did Lloyd-George saj that he had
increased by 800,000 square miles the extent of English territory?
I do not care to get into a discussion of the subject, but you volun-
teered the opinion.
Mr. Davis. I was answering Senator Swanson's question in accord-
ance with my own judgment.
Senator Johnson of California. But vou know an alliance has
been asked from us, and I thought I would call your attention to that
as indicating that probably there was not now the same situation
existing there that mav have been in the early days of the treaty-
negotiation. That is all.
Senator Brandeoee. Mr. Davis, I imderstood you to say in reply
to Senator Johnson that the people over there want the league of
nations; that all the peoples want it. Do you consider yourself
competent to express an opinion about all the peoples?
Mr. Davis. Not at all. I said that that was my impression, that
the great majority of the people wanted it, and were expecting a
great deal from it.
Senator Brandeoee. How did you, sitting simply as a financial
expert in Paris, get an impression which is worth anything as to the
opinion of the majority of all the nations in Europe?
Mr. Davis. Well, oi course, if you are a financial expert it does
not necessarily exclude you from taking note of other things.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 12t6
Senator Branbeoee. But it confines you to one place.
Mr. Davis. I was not in Paris all the time.
Senator Brandeoee. I will take your own word for it, do you
consider yourself competent now to inform this committee that all
the peoples of Europe are in favor of the league of nations now?
Mr. Ijavis. I can certainly say that I took a great deal of interest
in studying the state of mind of the people in Europe, and I was on
the supreme economic council whicn had to deal with all those
transitory questions during the armistice.
Senator BRA>fDEGEE. IRw many people are there in Europe?
Senator Fall. I would like to let nim answer the question.
Senator Hitchcock. I think, Mr. Chairman, the witness ought to
be given a chance, and not be cross-examined as a criminal.
Senator Brandegee. I am not interested in what the Senator from
Nebraska thinks.
The Chairman. Come to order. The Senator has the right to
cross-examine the witness.
Senator Williams. And the witness has a right to answer.
The Chairman. Yes; I thought he had.
Senator Brandeoee. I want to know what opportunity the
witness had to ascertain the opinion of the majority oi the nations of
Europe.
Senator Fall. And he was answering that (question when cut oflF.
Jfr. Davis. I was trying to answer and trying to tell you what I
foimd. As I stated, I was on the supreme economic council which
had charge of all transitory measures during the armistice period;
that is, all the questions relating to food, finances, blockade, raw
materials, and shipping. Under this there was the relief oiganization
of which Mr. Hoover was the head, and he also sat on the supreme
economic council. He had his representatives throughout Europe in
charge of the distribution of relief. They had excellent opportunities
to come in contact with the people and to gause their views, and the
unanimous report from all of those several hunc&ed men going through
the whole of Europe was to that effect. I also read the continental
papers to the extent that I could, and I talked with the representa-
tives of various governments. I talked to some of them that came
from all parts of Europe to Paris, and, as I say, nojb onlv, in my
judgment, are the people expecting a ^eat deal from the league of
nations but they are probably expecting that it will relieve every-
thing. They may be expecting more than the league of nations will
be able to accomplish. That 1 do not attempt to pass upon. But
I have no doubt that the great majority, from all tne information I
could gather, I am decidemv of the opinion that the great majority
of the people, the masses oi Europe, are in favor of it.
The Chairman. You include, of course, Germany and Russia?
Mr. Davis. I do. Well, Russia it was rather difficult, Mr. Chair-
man, to get accurate information from.
The C&airman. I wanted to know whether you included the
Russians or whether Russia has a general idea of relief ?
Mr. Davis. That I could not say.
Senator Williams. The Russians have not any ideas on any
sub 1 ec t now^ .
The Chairman. They have 180,000,000 people.
126 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you think the great majority of the
people in Italy now favor the league ?
Mr. Davis. What has happened in Italy lately I do not know,
but I have no doubt they were all decidedly in favor of it. I see
nothing to lead me to believe that they have changed at all.
Senator Brandeoee. Now, supposing that the United States
should not ratify this treaty at all, the work of the reparation com-
mission would go on, would it not, the other nations having ratified
it? If Great Britain and France and Italy and Germany ratify
the treaty, the reparation commission will be set up, will it not?
Mr. Davis. I assume that it would.
Senator Brandeoee. And the work would go on ?
Mr. Davis. It would probably go on, but very unsatisfactorily,
I think, so far as the United States is concerned. We would have
nobody there to protect our interests.
Senator Brandeoee. Certainly not, but you say we are making no
claim for any reparation.
Mr. Davis. No; I did not say that.
Senator Brandeoee. What did you say ?
Mr. Davis. My own personal idea is that we should make a claim.
Senator Brandeoee. Then what is our interest in it, if we do not
make a claim ?
Mr. Davis. Our interest Ls in the general financial condition of the
world and having markets for our products.
Senator Brandeoee. In Annex ll, paragraph 2, on page 263, it
provides as follows:
Each governmeiit represented on the commifeion shall have the right to withdraw
therefrom upon 12 months^ notice filed with the comnuBsion and confirmed in the
course of the sixth montli after the date of the original notice.
That contemplates that any government can get out that wants
to, does it not ?
Mr. Davis. That was put in specifically for the United States, in
case we got through with the work and it was felt there was no longer
any reason for our staying on that conmiission, so that we would have
the right to withdraw if we wanted to.
Senator Brandeoee. That means that the work of the commission
would go on after the United States got through ?
Mr. Davis. Not necessarily so. I mean, you might necessarily
have a right to do something that would give you a great deal of
trouble if you were to do it.
Senator Brandeoee. The man who put this in, who fixed it that
way, evidently did not contemplate the abolition of the reparation
commission if we withdrew.
Mr. Davis. I was one of the men who put this in, and the reason
I put it in was because I thought there might be men in the United
States who would object to the United States staying on a commission
for an indefinite period in Europe, and after we got through with this
preliminafy work and the principal work had been done, the United
States could, if the Government thought it advisable to do so, with-
draw from this commission.
Senator Brandeoee. Having contemplated this, now if we exer-
cise that right and withdraw from the commission, it is perfectly
evident, is it not, that those powers upon the reparation commission
which is to give them reparation and divide up tne amount of money
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 12
n
which is to be paid by Germany, can perform their functions whether
we are there or not ?
Mr. Davis. I think thev can perform their fmictions.
Senator Brandeoee. x es.
Mr. Davis. But I do not think it would work as satisfactorily.
Senator Brandeoee. It might not work as satisfactorily to us or
to them, but this clearly contemplates that we can get out if we
want to.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. And then the thing goes on. It is not
smashed up. They apportion the amount of reparation among them-
selves.
Mr. Davis. I would not say that. It contemplates that we can
get out if we want to.
Senator Brandeoee. You say you were one of those that put this
in. You did not do it with tne idea that it would break up the
reparation commission if we did jget out ?
Senator Williams. And you did not contemplate getting out until
you had done your work ?
Mr. Davis. !No, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. This is my witness, Mr. Williams, if you
please. You can have him after I get through.
Now, supposing it should seem wise to the Senate, before ratifying
the treaty of peace with Germany, to strike out the covenant oi the
league oi nations. We would be at peace with Germany, Europe
would go on with the reparation commission and with the provisions
of the treaty. Do you think Europe would abandon itself to chaos *
or anarchy if we should adopt that course ?
Mr. Davis. I think it would have a terrible effect on Europe. I do.
Senator Brandeoee. After a few days, after their hurt had had a
chance to heal up, they would get along some way, would they not ?
Mr. Davis. They probably would get along. They got along with
the French Revolution.
Senator Brandeoee. Exactly.
Mr. Davis. Until it was finally over; and they would probably get
along, but they would probably get along very badly, in my judg-
ment.
Senator Brandeoee. They always have gotten alonp They never
have had, in the settlement or European wars heretofore, any covenant
of a league of nations, have they ?
Mr. Davis. No.
Senator Brandeoee. And Europe has been fighting since the dawn
of time, has it not ?
Mr. Davis. Apparently^ so.
Senator Brandeoee. They have apparentlj^ recovered from all
their wars without dragging us into them ?
Mr. Davis. They have not always recovered very well from all
their wars.
Senator Brandeoee. They are still on the map ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. That is all.
Senator Hitchcock. They did not get along without us in 1917 ?
Mr. Davis. No, sir.
128 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKT.
Senator Hitchcock. They could not have got along without ns.
We saved them.
Mr. Davis. Yes,
Senator Brandeqee. After saving a drowning man we are not
obliged to take him with us all through life thereafter ?
mr. Davis. No; but after you save a drowning man I do not believe
in turning around and shooting him.
Senator Hitchcock. I imderstood the Senator was through with
the witness.
Senator Brandeqee. I was, but that question was suggested by
your examination.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. You are through with him now ?
Senator Brandeoee. Yes; I resign the witness.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Then he is my witness ?
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Senator Williams. This witness belongs to himself. He does not
belong to any of you. Just remember that, Mr. Davis.
Senator HrrcHcocK. You stated that in your capacity over there
you had ^eat opportunity not only to come in contact with people
of all nations, but that you came into contact with other memoers of
the commission who themselves were in contact with a great many
more.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. And it was the result of that opportunity
that you had, first and second hand, that led you to come to the
conclusion that there was a wide spread longing in Europe for the
lea^e of nations, and belief in its ultimate beneficial results ?
Mr. Davis. That is true. As a matter of fact I came to the con-
clusion rather reluctantly. I was not in favor of a league of nations
when I first went to Paris, but the more I studied the situation and
the neossity in negotiating this treaty of setting up some kind of
machinery to hold us together, the more I became convinced of the
absolute necessity of a league of nations.
Senator Knox. And the farther you got away from America i
Mr. Davis. Naturally, I had to be away from American in order to
sit in Paris ; and of course we were not in contact with American
opinion as vou were here in this country.
Senator Harding. As a matter of fact, they set up the machine
first, did they not ?
Mr. Davis. They set up the machine first. Well, not entirely first.
There were many, many questions settled before the league of nations
covenant was settled, and as a matter of fact, in attempting to settle
many of these other questions the necessity of the league of nations
became more apparent, and that is when they went at the organiza-
tion or the diafting of a covenant for the league of nations. For
instance, you make a settlement of a territorial boundary. Without
the league of nations the incentive is to settle that along strategic —
along the old principle of strategic — ^boundaries, and if you have not
got the league of nations or seomthing to take its place, you could
only come to an agreement on the question of a strategic boundarv
rather than on the basis of boundaries regulated in accordance with
nationalities.
Senator Hitchcock. When you come to regulations of the league
of nations, you come there to matters of justice, and ethnograpnic
TREATY OF PBACE WITH QEBMANT. 129
considerations, such matters as will redound to the interests of peace
and not to the victory of one nation or another ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Harding. What was that term you used ?
Senator Knox. Is that the way that you settled Shantxmg ?
Mr. Davis. I did not have anything to do with Shantung.
Senator Knox. Do you think that is the way the settlement was
made with regard to Snantung 1
lifr. Davis. I think the President can better explain Shantung than
mvself.
Senator Knox. Yes, but I do not think that Shantung can be very
satisfactorily explained through the league of nations.
Senator Harding. I want to ask Mr. Davis a question that has a
bearing only on the mind of Europe. Were there serious proposals
at any time that the United States should share the biu'dens of the
war from the beginning ?
Mr. Davis. There was talk, Senator, about that, but no real serious
Eroposals were ever made to that effect. Some one was always bob-
ing up unth some Utopian scheme of that kind ; but that was a matter
that we simply never discussed, and that we refused to discuss.
Senator Williams. Mr. Davis, my friend Senator Brandegee, asked
you if these people in Europe would get along some way or other even
if we let them alone. Russia is getting along some way or other now,
is she not 1
Mr. Davis. Yes; exactly. * '
Senator Williams. And in reference to this crime of yom* having
expressed an opinion of the league of nations, in addition to the sug-
gestions you have ^ven to the committee do you not think it is an
additional justification that any man has a right to form an opinion
upon any public or international question ?
Mr. Davis. Well, that is a question.
Senator Williams. Especially in answer to a question ?
Senator Hitchcock. How long were you over there ?
Mr. Davis. I have been in Europe practically — well, I went over
first last July. I went first to Spain to n^otiate a credit in Spain for
our Government, and then I went back to Paris and was there a
while — ^had to arrange some matters with the French treasury — and
then I spent about seven weeks in London arranging other matters
with the British treasury, and then I went back to Spain for a week
and a half, and went back the latter part of November.
The Chairman. You stated that the league was very useful for the
purpose of fixing boundaries. I have not had time to run through
them all here, although I have been through them all, but I observe
that it is always the principal alUed and associated powers that fix
the boundaries.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman. I mean, for instance, take Austria; the frontier was
fixed in the treaty between that power and the principal allied and
associated powers. It is the same with regard to Czechoslovakia.
It is the same for Ciermny, except for the Saar Basin, as I remember.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman. The five principal allied and associated powers
have the power in this treaty^ have they not 1
Mr. Davis. I understand, Mr. Chairman^
135546—10 9
130 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
The Chairman. You said that it was to be done by the league of
nations.
Mr. Davis. I understand that those boundaries were fixed in
accordance with the principles which had been enunciated
The Chairman. That is not the (question. You said that thoy
were to be fixed by the league of nations.
Mr. Davis. No: I beg your pardon.
The Chairman. The^treaty'^says that is to be done by the five
allied and associated powers.
Mr. Davis. I either misstated this, or you misunderstood me.
The Chairman. I understood you to say that without the lec^.**'
of nations they would be fixed imder the old plan of strategic boun-
dariesy but that imder the lea^e of nations the boundaries could be
fixed on racial and other considerations. If you will read the treaty
with a little more care, I think you will find that they are fixed by the
principal aUied and associated powere.
Mr. Davis. I think you will find that that is wliat I did say, Mr
Chairman, if you will read back.
Senator Moses. He certainly said they were going to be fixed on
the basis of ethnographic and some racial lines.
The Chairman. The treaty does not say anything about that. It
is always the principal allied and associated powers.
Senator Hitchoook. He did not state anything contrary to that.
The Chairbcan. I think he did. He never mentioned at all the
five principal allied and associated powers.
Senator Hitchcook. He said that the league of nations contem-
plated
The Chairman. If we summon here a gentleman as an expert on
the treatj^, and if he makes an error of that sort, I think it is just as
well that it should be corrected.
Senator Hitchgock. I am perfectly willing that it should be cor*
rected. We have the stenographic notes, which will show what he
did say.
The Chairman. If everybody at tliis table imagines that he said
that we were not to have strategic boundaries, but that boundaries
were to be fixed under the league of nations, according to some prin-
ccple, it is very strange if everybody is mistaken. I heard it ancJ
every^body else heard it.
Senator Williams. He said that
The Chairman. He said that was one of the thhigs that the league
of nations w^as to deal with, the settlement of boimdaries.
Senator Williams. He said that under the league of nations they
could be fixed in certain ways.
The Chairman. But the league of nations has nothing to do with
the fixing of boundaries.
Senator Moses. Can we get back to the (juestion ?
The Chairman. I want to see that right from the stenographer's
notes.
Senator Moses. Coming to the lines that have already been fixed
or are in process of fixation, I want U) ask if the northern boimdary of
Italy has not been fixed upon strategic lines; I want to ask if the
boundary line whi<h is run near or through the lake of Ochrida has
been fixed on racial Unes; I want to ask ii the boundaries of Silesia.
Bessiirabia, the Dobruja, the Banat, of Northern Epiitis, of Albania,
TBBATT OF PBAGB WITH QERMAKT. 131
of Thrace, are being fixed on a racial basis ? As to any one of these,
I would like to have the witness answer yes or no— whether or not
they are being fixed on a racial basis.
Mr. Davis. In the first place, I did not say that any boundaries
had been fixed on a racial basis. I said that by the utilization of the
lea^e of nations it made it possible to eliminate the old svstem of
fixing boundaries from a strategical standpoint, and it made it pos-
sible to arrarge them in accordance with the nationalities. Of course,
the league ofnations can not arrange any boundaries now, because
it is not yet in existence.
The Chairman. But how can it do it when the boundaries are all
left to the principal allied and Has<:)( iated powers ? You are saying
over egeLin just what you said before.
Senator Harding. Mr. Chairman, I think I can clear this. This is
what I think the witness wants us to understand, that it was possible
to fix these lines as they are fixed because the league of nations, if
adopted, steps in and maintains
Senator Williams. Defends.
Senator Hardino (continuing). The boundaries.
The Chairman. It may be that the lea^e will maintain them
after they have been fixed by somebody else, but the witness did
not say that.
Senator Johnson of California. Is that your view ? I just simply
want to get whether that is Mr. Davis's view. Is that your view ?
Mr. Davis. My view is that it does make it possible to carry that
out, and if xnistakes are made in these boundaries now, that the
lea^e of nations can later on recognize that.
^nator Moses. Is not the league to protect and preserve the
int^rity of the territories ?
w. Davis. I was trying to explain to yoii m^^ personal opinion.
That was where we got started off on some of this. I do not pretend
to be an expert on the league of nations or on the question of nation-
aiities or" boundaries, but I think that if the league of nations should
afterwards decide that it was advisable to modify a boundaiy and then
that boundarjr were modified, that would not oe an act oi war.
Senator Moses. But it would not be preserving territorial integrity ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; and I can conceive of tneir modifying some
bondaries that have been made wrong.
Senator Knox. Suppose a nation did not want the boundary
changed ?
Mr. Davis. If it was a party to the league of nations, would it
riot have to abide by it ?
Senator Knox. Your idea is that the league of nations will recast
l)oundaries of nations ?
Mr. Davis. I do not think it can recast the boundaries of nations;
no.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you not say that it there was a mistake
in establishing boundaries the league of nations can hereafter
correct it?
Mr. Davis. I think that is a matter that can be brought before
the league of nations, if there has been a mistake, and if there has
been a mistake probably all parties concerned will agree to a recti-
fication; and that this is one means by which you can draw them
together for that purpose.
182 TREATY OF PBACB WITH OZTMAVrt^
Senator Braxdegee. Do ^ou not know that article 10 binds the
members of the league of nations to maintain the territorial integrity
of the States as established ?
Senator Hftchcock. No ; it does not.
Mr. Davis. I did not so understand it.
Senator Brandegee. At this point I will ask that article 10 be
inserted in this record.
The Chairman. Let article 10 be printed at this point.
(The article referred to is here printed in full as follows:)'
Art. 10. The members of the lea^e undertake to respect and preserve as f^gunst
external aggression the territorial integrity aiid existing political independence of
all members of the league. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat
or dan^r of such aggression the council shall adviise upon the means by wl^ch this
obligation shall be fulfilled.
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Davis, I want to ask you a question
on boundaries. I read as follows from article 88, on page 125 of
the committee print of the treaty, as follows:
In the portion of Upper Silesia included within the boundaries described below,
the inhabitants will be called upon to indicate bv a vote whether they wish to be
attached to Germany or to Poland: Starting from {he northern point of the salient of
the old province of Austrian Silesia situated about 8 kilometers east of Neuotadt, the
former frontier between Germany and Austria to its junction with the boundary
between the Kreise of Leobschutz and Ratibor; thence m a northerly direction to a
E[)int about 2 kilometers southeast of Katscher; the boimdary between the kreise of
eobschutz and Ratibor.
There is a whole page laying out a boundary just as if it was a
boundary laid out in a deed of real estate.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman. Of course, it is an agreement in the treaty with
Germany.
Mr. Davis. Yes, but
The Chairman. One minute. Is it not an agreement in the
treaty with Germany? Are not all the boundaries in this treaty
agreed to by the signers ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The CHAmMAN. Has the league the power to change those bound-
aries after this treaty has been agreed to ?
Mr. Davis. If the parties concerned would agree to a change, I
think so.
The Chairman. I am very glad to find that there is something in
the league of nations that I did not think was there.
Senator Harding. You do think, then, that the league becomes a
supergo vemment ?
Mr. Davis. No; I would prefer not to express my opinion as to
the actual league itself, because I had nothing to do with the forma-
tion of the league, and there are others who know more about it than
I do.
Senator B^nox. Can you reconunend to us a first-class expert on
the league, that we can call?
Mr. Bavis. I should think, the President.
Senator Knox. We tried him once, at a dinner, and wo did not get
the information.
Senator PrrxMAN. But you did not try him when he offered to
come before this committee.
XKBATT OF PB4GS WITH GERMANY. 133
The Chaibman. He did not offer to come before the committee.
He sent a telephone message that he would be glad to see the com-
mittee at the White House if they wanted to come.
Senator PrrrMAN. In his message he said that he would be glad
to give the conmiittee any information.
Tne CHAmMAN. Yes; and we have asked for information after
information, one paper after another, and have not received one.
Senator PrrrMAX. In his message he offered to come before the
committee.
Senator Brandeoee. He can come, any time he wants to.
Senator Pittman. The question was undoubtedly considered by
the chairman and otiiers, and they never saw fit to invite him.
The Chairman. I do not think that a committee of Congress has
anv right to summon the President of the United States.
^nator Hitchcock. We are not called here to debate all that.
The Chairman. No; but it was brought in, and we might as well
have it.
Saiator SwANSON. I understood that as a financial expert, having
been in Europe a year, you are satisfied that the financial condition
of Europe would be improved by a prompt ratification of this treaty ?
Mr. Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Moses. As a financial expert, and having been in America
since you came over with the President, are you of the opinion that
there are any conditions in this country which require all of our
attention at the present minute t
Mr. Davis. Yes; but I also am of opinion that the conditions in
other parts of the world affect the conditions in the United States,
and that the solution of some of oiur problems may be made by a
solution of some of the problems in otner parts of the world. You
can not be prosperous in one part of the world imless another large
portion of tne world is prosperous.
Senator Moses. And if we send much more food to Europe we will
reduce the high cost of living here ?
Mr. Davts. I thmk that the sending of food to Europe will not
necessarily increase the cost of living here, and I think it can be
handled in such a way that it will not.
Senator Moses. There is a law of supply and demand.
Mr. Davis. That is true; but the law of supply and demand has
been rather upset during the war, and we have not got back to
entirely normal conditions.
Senator Moses. True; but if we materially reduce our supply here,
we necessarily increase prices, regardless of anything else.
Mr. Davis. But what we ship is a surplus that we do not need in
tlus country. We are not going to ship something that we need:
but if we have got sufficient to supply our own requirements and still
have left a surplus for Europe, there is no reason why the supply and
demand in our coimtry should not reduce the prices.
Senator Fall. Mr. Davis, how about the protection of racial and
idigious minorities in these new countries in Europe ? Who is going
to extend that ptotection t
Mr. Davis. That I could not tell, Senator.
Senator Fall. You know that the treaty for the protection of
racial and religious minorities is not to be made with the league or
134 TRBATY OF PBACB WITH GERMAlfrY.
I
4mder the league of nations' domination, but it will be made with
the five principal allied and associated powers, however, do you not ?
Mr. Davis, l am not thoroughly conversant with that.
Senator Fall. Well, that is a fact, Do you know Mr. Arthur
Henderson or not ?
Mr. Davis. No; I do not.
Senator Fall. You know who he is ?
Ifr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Is he in favor of this league and the tmaty as it
stands ?
Mr. Davis. I am not sure of that.
Senator Fall. He is the leader of the labor party, is he not, in
Great Britain ?
Mr. Davis. He is one of the leaders; but he lost his leadership
when be went into Parliament, did he not ?
Senator Fall. He got out of the Cabinet because he did not like
the way Lloyd-George is running things.
Mr. Davis. That is a peculiar thing in England; as soon a« a labor
leader gets into the Cabinet he ceases to be a labor leader.
Senator Fall. Do you know Mr. McDonald ?
Mr. Davis. T know who he is.
Senator Fall. Ts he in favor of the league of nations i
Mr. Davis. T can not tell you tJiat.
Senator Fall. He has just expressed himself about it, as has also
Mr. Arthur Henderson, at the Amsterdam meeting.
Ifr. Davis. I did not read that; just the headlines, i did not read
that speech.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether the labor party of Great
Britain favors the league of nations and this peace treaty as it stands ?
Mr. Davis. Just before I left Paris the labor party expressed
approval, at a conference in England, of the league of nations.
Senator Fall. Are you sure of that, now, or was it an approval
of the labor provisions in the league of nations ?
Mr. Davis. No; I should not care to contradict you on that,
but I am positive in the opinion that they did officially approve
of a league of nations.
Senator Fall. I am making no assertion, so that any answer that
you make can not be a contradiction. I am simplj^ asking for
mformation, in good faith.
Mi\ Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether the French socialist party
is in favor of the league of nations ?
Senator Williams. Everybody knows they are opposed to it.
Senator Fall. They represent a very large portion of the people of
France.
Senator Williams. A very small minority.
Mr. Davis. If they represented the majority, I should think they
would be in control of the Government.
Senator Fall. They have been, and if I know anything about the
conditions in France they will be, in a few days. However, that is
simply a guess of mine.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether Hungary is in favor of this
treaty and the leagrue of nations?
TBBATY OF FEAGB WITH OEBMANY. 135
Mr. x^ATis. It is hard to tell now what Hungary wantb.
Senator Fall. You know that Gwmany is not, do you not?
Mr. Davis. No; I do not. I think Germany is in favor of the
le^ne of nations, and that they are very anxious for it.
Senator Fall. And that they are in favor of this treaty as it is
drawn?
Mr. Davis. Well, now, I would not say.
Senator Williams. No.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether Turkey is in favor of the
league of nations and the treaty?
Mr. Davis. Of course, in writing the treaty it was not the purpose
to tiy to write something that would entirely suit the enemy.
Senator Fall. I imderstand that. That is exactly mv idea. But
YOU have made the assertion here that from your knowledge, spend-
ing your time in Europe and meeting these people in France — and
that you are not confined to France but that you have been in Great
Britain and other foreign countries — the great mass of the people
the maiority of the people, of Europe, are in favor of this treaty.
Mr. Davis. Yes: that is true.
Senator Fall. I am just asking you the usual questions which
would be asked, to see whether your information is correct, so that
we can make up our minds.
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether the people of Little Russia
and the Ukraine are in favor of the league of nations and of the
treaty?
Mr. Davis. As I have just said, it is rather difficuH to get accurate
information as to Russia.
Senat<N^ Fall. Do you know whether the Italian socialists are in
favor of it ?
Mr. Davis. The Socialist Party in Italy probably is not, but I
think the majority of the people are.
Senator Fall. Do you Imow whether the Norwegian Grovemment —
the people of Norway — are in favor of it?
Mr. Davis. I have talked to several representative Norw^ans —
10 or 15 of them from Norway — and they told me that they were;
that the people were.
Senator Fall. Could you give me the names of any of those
people? I would like to have the opportunity to get any of them
that are on this side.
Mr. Davis. I do not recollect the names of any of them now. One
of them was the head of the State Bank and another was one of the
principal flipping men.
Senator Fall. How about the people of Sweden ?
Mr. Davis. The people of Sweden feel the same way there, I am
told, l^e head of their State Bank there told me so. You see, the
neutrals all sent delegations and committees to Paris to take up
questions with us.
Senator Fall. They have not expressed their desire yet to join
the league ?
Mr. Davis. The Government, officially, has not.
Senator Fall. They have been invited. Have they indicated
their intention of joining?
Mr. Davis. I do not mow.
186 TRBAT7 OF PEACK WITH GEBIIAKY.
Senator Fall. Neither Norway nor Sweden ?
Mr. Davis. That I can not say.
Senator Fall. The Socialist rarty is very strong in those two
countries ?
Mr. Davis. They are not a majority.
Senator Fall. They are not ?
Mr. Davis. I understand they are not.
Senator Fall. Do you know what the Norwegian Parliament is ?
Mr. Davis. No: I do not.
Senator Pall. Do you know who controls it ?
Mr. Davis. No: I do not.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether Denmark is in favor of this
treaty or not?
Senator Williams. In favor of what, the league or the treaty f
Senator Fall. Both.
Mr. Davis. No; I do not. I talked several times with the head of
the State Bank of Denmark, who told me that Denmark was very
much in favor of the league of nations, and that while they thought
the treaty was rather hara on Germany, they thought that, all in all^
it was satisfactory.
: Senator Fall. As a matter of fact, Denmark repudiated that por-
tion of the treaty in relation to the territorv which was to be turned
over by Germany to Denmark, did she not?
Mr. Davis. It was because they did not get it just the way they
wanted it.
Senator Fall. Yes; because they got more than they wanted?
Mr. Davis. I say because they aid not get it just as they wanted
it, and they did not want to have any trouble with Germany.
Senator *^ox. I notice these people you speak of all seem to be
at the heads of banks.
Mr. Davis. Yes; they were from neutral countries.
Senator Knox. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and J. P. Morgan & Co. are ii^
favor of it too, are they not ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. You speak about the State banks of Denmark
and Norway ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. That is a bank that corresponds to our Fed-
eral reserve ?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. A Government institution ?
A&. Davis. A Government institution.
Senator Fall. How about the people and the Government of Hol-
land as to this league and treaty — ^are they in favor of it ?
Mr. Davis. I do not know.
Senator Fall. They have been invited to join, have they not ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; I believe they have.
Senator Fall. Have they indicated any intention to do so ?
Jfr. Davis. I do xiot know.
Senator Hitchcock. They are supposed to have a vote on it in
Switzerland, are they not?
Mr. Davis. I think so, but I am not positive. Mr. Chairman, I
did not say that I knew the opinion of Europe. I said that I had
had considerable opportunity of gauging the opinion of Europe, and
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 137
that I had come to a definite opinion as to what it was. I did not
say
Senator Branbeoee. You said your information was obtained,
among other ways, from reports coming from Mr. Hoover^s agents ?
Mr. Davis. Among others.
Senator Brandeoee. And those whose opinions you have given
were bankers whom you have met around and who have tola you
they were in favor of it. How could they have known what the
opinion of all their nations was ?
Mr. Davis. Bankers usually endeavor to gauge the opinion of
people in their countries.
Senator Brandeoee. You are a banker. Would yoii be able to
state authoritatively that a majority of the people of America are in
favor of it ? '
Mr. Davis. I would not hesitate to say that in my opinion the
majority of all the people of the United States were m favor of it,
but I have not been in America now for some time.
Senator Brandeoee. The President does not hesitate to say so,
either, but a good many of us doubt it.
Mr. Davis. Yes; it is difficult to get people to agree.
Senator Brandeoee. My opinion is tnat the poeple ought to have
a mht to express their opinion and not have it reported by a lot of
bankers.
Senator Williams. I would like to see a referendum. I would like
to see that taken.
Seiuttor HiTOHCOOK. A number of these banking institutions that
you refer to are Government banks ?
Mr. Davis. They are Government banks.
Senator Hitchcock. Similar to our Federal reserve banks, or pos-
sibly to our Treasury ?
Mr. Davis. Yes; absolutely. But I was not confined to bankers.
I saw more of those.
Senator Hitchcock. You mentioned those particularly because you
are a financial expert and you were coming m contact with the rep-
resentatives of financial institutions t
Mr. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman. If there is no further business, the committee will
stand adjourned imtil to-morrow at half past 10, when the Secretary
of State will be here.
(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Wednesday, August 6, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
WBDNB8DAY, AVQVBT 6, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Wa^hingtony D. C.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjourn-
ment, in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Brandegee,
Fall, Knox, Harding, eK)hnson, New, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams,
Swanson, Pomerene, Smith, and Pittman.
8TATEKEVT OF EOV. BOBEBT LAVSIirGt SEOBETABT OF STATE.
The Chairman. Mr. Lansing, I desire to ask you a few questions
about a matter which has not been discussed by the committee yet.
That is in relation to the expenses of the league, the provision for the
payment of the expenses. Article 6 says :
The expenses of the secretariat shall be borne by the members of the leaf^e in
accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of
the Universal Postal Union.
That is a clause simply arranging for the apportionment ?
Mr. Lansing. Yes.
The Chairman. I suppose those expenses will include salaries of
officers and staff, and equipment, and rental and maintenance of
offices of the organization, and, generally, the expenses to carry on
the activities involved in the work of the permanent committees on
armament and mandates under articles 9 and 22, and in forinulating
the plans of the international tribunal. I am just taking this from
the treaty. I should say there would be large expenses. Article
24 says:
There shall be placed under the direction of the lea^e all international bureaus
already established by general treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All
such international bureaus and all commissions for the regulation of matters of inter-
national interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under the direction of the
league.
I need not go into details. That involves a great many more
heavy expenses.
Article 399 says:*
All the other expenses of the international labor office and of the meetings of the
conference or governing body shall be paid to the director by the secretary general
of the league of nations out of the general funds of the league.
' The director—
That is, the director of labor —
shall be responsible to the secretary general of the league for the proper expenditure
of all moneys paid to him in pursuance of this article.
1S9
140 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBIHUNY.
Now, I have been unable to find any provision for what is styled
here the general funds of the league, and I shoiild like to know if you
can tell us how those funds are to be provided and how those expenses
are to be met ? We are told how they shall be apportioned but not
how they shall be met.
Mr. Lansing. I assume — and it must be an assumption, since there
is nothing definite about it in the treaty — that there will be a budget
prepared and the apportionment made accordingly, and it wiU all
enter into one general fund which will be distributed under the
direction of the council.
The Chairman. The labor provision seems to assiune the existence
of a general fund in the possession of the league.
Secretary Lansing. I suppose it means the general fund of the
league, which would be the fund raised bj'' that apportionment, based
upon a budget.
The Chairman. Who establishes the amoimt of that fund ?
Secretary Lansing. I should assume that it would have to be
established by the council in the first instance and probably a sub-
mission to the assembly afterwards.
The Chairman. Our share then is assessed upon us by the league?
Secretary Lansing. Assessed upon us, of course, subject to the
proper appropriations, as is always so in the event of an international
fund.
The Chairman. Well, of course, the Congress has to appropriate the
money, but is anything left to the Congress as to the amount ?
Secretary Lansing. 1 should assume so. They might refuse to
pass the amount.
The Chairman. They might refuse to agree then to the assessments
made by the league organization ?
Secretary Lansing. So far as it concerns the United States, I pre-
sume they have got entire control over the appropriations of the
Government.
The Chairman. There seems to be no special provision in the treaty
for this matter of finance. There must be a large sum raised. That is
obvious.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The CHAmMAN. The point I was anxious to get at was whether we
were bound to take that budget as it stood, or whether Congress still
had the power to say what appropriations should be made.
Secretary Lansing. I tbink it is no more so than in the case of the
Pan American Union and other international bodies which are sup-
ported by contributions from the various member Governments.
Senator Hitchcock. As it is now, every year your department
makes a recommendation to Congress of items to be appropriated for
the various international commissions that are in existence, and thea
it is for Congress to decide whether it will appropriate tne money-
asked for.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; my recollection is that we have 19 such
international commissions. , .
Senator Hitchcock. And you assume that this will probably be
provided for in the same way. That is, the council of the league would
request each nation to furnish so much on a certain basis of proportion,
and then you would recommend it to Congress, and it will be' for
Congress to say whether the appropriation should be made or not.
TREATY: OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 141
Secretary Lansing. Exactly.
The Chairman. Well, there is no obligation then under the league
on any power to appropriate this money ?
SeCTetary Lansing. -So more than any international agreement
imposes a certain moral obUgation.
The Chairman. Yes; I know the distinction that is attempted to
be drawn, but I regard a moral obligation as just as binding as a legal
obligation.
Senator Swanson. This action of the council and assembly would
have to be unanimous, would it not ?
Secretary Lansing. I have no recollection that there is any excep-
tion made m that particular case.
Senator Swanson. And there being no exception made, the budget
would have to have the approval of the representative of the United
States t
The Chairman. I had only one or two other questions. What I
wanted to get at really was that this assessment is made by the coimcil
of the league ?
Secretary Lansing. You can term it an assessment. I thought it
was an apportionment. I thought that was the term used.
The Chairman. That is the apportionment of the total, the pro-
e)rtion that we should pay. That is according to the International
niversal Postal Union apporticBi&ient; but who fixes the total
amooBt that is to be taken from the different coim tries t
Secretary Lansing. I assume that as it is left indefinite, it falls on
the assembly, ultimately.
The Chairman. It falls on the assembly to decide how much each
eountiy should pay?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; how much they ought to pay; and for
tiiat purpose the general fund of the league of nations was established.
The C^iRMAN. And those general funds are imder the control of
the secretariat i
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator MgCumber. Why did ^ou say the secretariat rather than
the council i Under what provision of the league of nations is there
anything about this particular matter being a matter for the assembly
rather than for the council ?
Secretary Lansing. My recollection is that the items with which
the coimcil have particularly to do are set forth, whUe those in
connection with the assembly are not set forth.
Senator McCumber. And vou assume, therefore, that those which
are not set forth as those wnich the council has special jurisdiction
of, must necessarily fall under the jurisdiction of the assembly?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; but of course the introduction would be
by the council. It would be passed by the council and then by the
assembly.
The (^AIRMAN. I have a series of questions I wimt to ask the
Secretary, but I am perfectly willing to wait. I have one or two
more questions that I would like to ask him.
' Senator McCumber. That is all I want to ask.
The Chairman. As to these, bureaus which all pass under the
control of the league, they include the 19 bureaus and commission
you were lapeaking of, do they not ?
142 IXBJLTS OF FEAGB WITH QBR1£ANY.
Secretary Lansinq. Not all, no ; because many of those are merely
bilateral in character. I assume that it does not refer to those, but
to general international bureaus.
The Chaibman. Can you refer me to the provision in the treaty
that makes a distinction of that kind ?
Secretary Lansino. No» sir.
The Chairman. The article says:
, There sh^ll be placed under the direction of .the le^ue all international bureaus
alread y edtahliBhed by general treaties if the parties to sucn treaties consent. All such
international bureaus and all commissions for the regulation of matters of intomational
interest hereafter constituted shall be placed \mder the direction of the league.
That would include the Pan American, would it not?
Secretary Lansino. I should doubt it. That is not a general
international treaty. That is a special treaty covering the Western
Hemisphere.
The Chairman. Well, but this says* 'all."
Secretary Lansino. No; it says ''all general.**
The Chairman. 'All general?'*
Secretary Lansino. Yes.
The Chairman. That is special, is it ?
Secretary Lansino. I should say it was special international.
The Chairman. What is the basis of the mstinction ?
Secretary Lansino. Because it is limited in the character of the
membership. ;
The Chairman. Then *' general** means only those that cover tiie
whole world ?
Secretary Lansino. Substantially that.
The Chairman. Well, then, there are none.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, many.
The Chairman. That cover all the world, to which all the powers
of the world are parties ?
Secretar3r I^ansing. Not necessarily all the powers of the world,
but all that desire to enter.
The Chairman. Then, as I understand it, a general treaty is one
that includes — that is open to —all the powers of the world ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chairman. How about Tiie Hague convention 1
Secretary Lansing. I assume that that would be a general (con-
vention.
Tne Chairman. Those are general^
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The ('HAIRMAN. But the Pan American is not general because it i»
confined to a hemisphere i
Secretary Lansing. Exactly; any more than the johit high com-
mission between this (»oim try and Canada.
The Chairman. The language of the treaty is extremely broad.
It does not drtiw that distinction, I think.
Secretary Lansing. Well
The Chairman. Except that it says "general,*' and that dis-
tinction, I confess, I was not familiar with. I thought that a general
agreement was one that applied to all the world, of which the whole
world took notice.
Senator Hitchcock. The chairman will notice, too, that the parties,
to the treaties must first consent, in order to have it come under the
control of the league.
TREATY OF PEAGB WITH GEBMAKT. 143'
The Chairman. I have not got it before me.
Senator Hitchcock. That is the language.
Secretary Lansing. It is limited. It is not general.
Senator Knox. I assume that consent provision would refer to
those treaties already made and not to the future.
Secretary Lansing. That would be to a limited extent, except
those that came in.
The Chairman. The league would take them all, everywhere?
Secmtary Lansing. It would be a mere transference frbih one bill
to another.
The Chairbian. Yes. Now, on another matter: The President
stated at the meeting at the White House of the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee of the House of Representatives and the Foreign Relations
CJonmiittee of the Senate last March, that four plans were presented
at the peace conference for a lea^e: The Italian plan, an American
plan, a French plan, and a Britisn plan, and that the American plan
was not the one used for the purpose of ouilding the league, and tnere
have b^en several recjuests and there has been a j^ood deal of desire
to see that American plan. Do you know whetner that .p}ai) is in
existence?
Secretary Lansing. I do not, sir.
The Chairman. There is no copy in the department?
Seoretary Lansing. There are no copies, to my knowledge, in th^
department.
The Chathman. Do you know who drafted the plan?
Secretary Lansing. I do not. I should sav, the President.
The Chaibman. Then that draft of that plan is practically unob-
tainable.
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know, sir.
The Chairman. That is all. Oh, yes: may I ask if you ever saw
it yourself ? ' ' J
Sedretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chairman. Was it presented by our delegates ?
Secretary- I^ansing. No, sir. It may have been presented to the
commission on the league of nations. It was not presented to the
conference.
The Chaitoian. Did you ever pre|)are a draft youi'sclf ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
The Chairman. That is all I have to ask now.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, you say vou saw this plan. Could
vou tell us the difference between the plan which the Americans
presented and the one which was finally ado|)ted ?
Secretary Lansing. No: 1 do not think 1 could, because they were
along the same general line.
Senator Borah. Do you remember any (listinu:uishing features
between them ? *
Secretary Lansing. No: I can not recall now. it was very early
in the proceedings, and the American ]>lan was not pressed.
Senator Borah. No print of it that you know of was over made (
Secretary Lansing. 1 do not think It was ever printed.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you in regard to
another feature of this matter we have been tallying about, the
American plan, if no one else wanted to ask any ciu^'stions about
that. •
144 TREATY OF P£AGB WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandeoee. Right in that line, before we leave it, Senator
Borah, if it will not interrupt you. I will not interrupt if you prefer
to go ahead with what you had in mind.
iSenator Borah. No; go ahead.
Senator Brandeoee (continuing). But inasmuch as we were talk-
ing about that plan, I imderstooa the President to say last March
at the meeting to which Senator Lodge has referred that these four
plans were discussed before the conference.
Secretary Lansing. Not before the conference.
Semator Brandeoee. And that he said that the American plan
was put aside or laid aside — and the British plan was adopted — or
the Gen. Smuts's plan — ^with some modifications. I had assumed
that he meant that, there being four plans, they had been before the
conference.
Secretary Lansing. No; they never were read before the confer-
ence.
Senator Brandeoee. They were not read before the conference?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Brandeoee. Now, what plans were considered by our
conunission ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know. I was not a member.
Senator Brandeoee. You say you did not draft a plan ? Did you
not suggest a plan, or lay somethmg before our conunission, whether
you drated it not, in the way of a plan ?
Secretary Lansing. Not of a general plan ; no.
Senator Brandeoee. What did you lay before the commission in
the way of suggestions ?
Secretary Lansing. I laid before it a general resolution.
Senator Brandeoee. What was the nature of that?
Secretary Lansing. It covered the general principles on which
the league was to be organized. It was very bnef.
Senator Brandeoee. Have you that document in existence now ?
Secretary Lansing. I presume I have.
Senator Brandeoee. Could it be produced here ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. I should like to have it. What was done
with that by our commission ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. It was not favorably considered, was it?
Of course it was not adopted.
Secretary Lansing. No; there was no action taken.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know who drew the plan that Mr.
Wilson calls the American plan ?
Secretary Lansing. No; 1 do not.
Senator Brandeoee. I imderstood you to say that you assumed
that he drafted it himself.
Secretary Lansing. I did assume so.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you never hear that it was drafted by
■ two New York lawyers for him, and taken over there by him ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I think that is not true.
Senator Brandeoee. And that that plan was destroyed, it was so
absurd ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I never heard any such thing.
XSBATY OF PEACE WITH OEBBIANY. 145
Senator Brandeoee. And that the other plan was eot up, after-
wards— the one that Afr. Wilson calls the American plan — bv other
people ? '
Secretaiy Lansing. I saw the American plan about two days after
we landed.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you study it thoroughly or just glance
over it ?
Secretary Lansing. The President read it.
Senator Brandegee. How did it impress you ? I mean, do vidu
think the present plan is a better plan than the one that the President
calls the American plan ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not quite catch that.
Senator Brandegee. I do not want you to danm the American
plan with faint praise, but I want to know what is your opinion as to
the respective merits of the two.
Secretary Lansing. I think it is a decided improvement.
Senator Brandegee. This is a better one ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. But you do not know who drew the American
plan?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator Brandegee. I have here the New York Sun of yesterday,
August 6, I9I9, and in the first column on the editorial page there is
an editorial entitled *'The Facts — President Wilson, give us the
facts. ^' I do not ask that the whole editorial be printed in the
record, but there is one particular paragraph that interested me.
I do not see the little extract that I expected to find. I find that
I have here Wednesday's Times insteaa of yesterday's, which is
what I sent for. Anyway, the gist of that was that it was a dispatch
from Paris, quoted from tiie New York Times, stating substantially
that Clemenceau had laid before the committees on treaties of the
French Senate and the French Chamber of Deputies a cable from
President Wilson requesting him not to make public any of the notes
or documents in relation to this treaty. Do you know whether or
not such a cable was sent by President Wilson f
Secretary Lansing. No; that was not it, at all.
Senator Brandegee. What was not it?
Secretary Lansing. I say, that is not a true statement of the facts,
at all.
Senator Brandegee. Will you be kind enough to state what the
fact was, if you can recomize the situation from what I have stated t
Secretary Lansing, liie Senate Chamber in Paris asked Mr.
Clemenceau io lay before it the minutes of the proceedinjgs of the
commission on the lea^e of nations, and Mr. Clemenceau said that as
that was a matter which pertained to other Governments as well as
France, he must make inquiry as to whether it was advisable, and he
did. He incjuired, I think oi me in the first instance, and I said that
my impression was, in view of the great freedom of debate in the
commission, that it would be imwise to lay the minutes before the
Senate, as it might cause irritation, but that I would commuxdcate
with the President in regard to it, which I did, and the President
agreed as to that answer.
Senator Brandegee. Who sent the cable to Clemenceau, you or
the President 1
135546—19 ^10
146 TREATY OF PSAGB WITH GEBMAiNY.
Secretary Lansing. I think it was cabled to the peace commission.
Senator Brandegee. I mean, by whom was it sent?
Secretary Lansing. Bythe Presidfent.
Senator Brandegee. when do you expect that all the records per-
taining to the peace conference will have arrived in this country ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, I do not know. It will be some time yet.
They have to be kept there on account of the other treaties that are
being discussed at tne present time.
Senator Pomerene. With other powers, you mean ?
Secretary Lansing. With other powers.
Senator Bbandegee. Then it is uncertain whether we can have
access to documents that we would like to see, or not, is it not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes. Of course, if they related to certain
matters, we would have to get the permission of the other govern-
ments to submit them.
Senator Brandegee. The witness who was here yesterday, Mr.
Davis, stated that his records — ^he was on the financial commission,
I think
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. He stated that his records were arriving
everv day, and he was goin^ to produce some here. Can he not
do that without getting permission from the other governments ?
Secretary Lansing. 1 nave no doubt, so far as reports are con-
cerned?
Senator Pomerene. Let me suggest that as I understand Mr. Davis,
not yesterday, but in what he said the day before, told us that he
kept, as the other members of the reparation commission kept,
copies, and it was these copies to which ne referred. That was my
imderstanding about it.
Senator Brandegee. I know; but if he could not produce the
originals, of course he could not produce copies, either, without the
consent of the other members of the commission, if that is a rule of
the commission. It is the information he is to give us, no matter
whether it is the first, second, or third copy. If it was impossible
for him to produce the originals, he could not produce copies. That
is all that I had.
Senator Harding. I want to ask the Secretary, in view of the
character of the league covenant, and all that it seeks to do in open
relationship, can vou tell me what character of discussion was going
on there that makes it inadvisable to let the various nations under-
stand ?
Secretary Lansing. No, I can not tell you, because as I say I was
not a member of that commission, and I have never looked at their
minutes, and in fact, know nothing about their records. I made that
as a general remark applying to everything.
Senator Borah. Where is Col. House now ?
Secretary Lansing. I suppose he is in England.
Senator jSorah. Does he expect to return to this country soon ?
Secretary Lansing. Not to my knowledge. I have had no com-
munication with him.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, if this subject has been ended, I
desire to ask in regard to another feature of the proceedings at Ver-
sailles, and to go oack a little. If I remember correctly, what was
TBBATY OF FBAGB WITH GERMANY. 147
known as the Lansmg*Ishii agreement was made about November 2,
1917?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. At the tune that that agreement was entered
into, what knowledge, if any, did the State Department have with
reference to the secret agreements between Great Britain and Japan,
France and Japan, Russia and Japan, and Italy and Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. I should have to look the matter up before I
could give you a definite answer in regard to that.
Senator Borah. Then you Ukely would be able to state, after
investigating the matter, just what information was in the State
Department at that time ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. I presume that you had full information with
reference to what was known as the 21 demands at that time, had
you not!
Secretary Lansing. Yes,
Senator Borah. If it is permissible to so state, did the discussion
turn upon those 21 demanos ? Did it enter into the discussion at all
with reference to your agreement which you entered into ?
Secretary Lansing. Never.
Senator Borah. In view of those 21 demands, what construction
did you place upon tibie question of Japan's special interest in Qiina ?
Secretary Lansing. Only the special interest that comes from being
contiguous to another country whose peace and prosperity were
involved.
Senator Borah. No different special interest from that which we
have in Canada ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. Or which we have in Mexico ?
Secretarv Lansing. Exactly.
Senator I^rah. It was at no time understood by the State Departs
ment that the Lansing-Isbii agreement was in anv sense an indorse-
ment of the program which Japan had apparently initiated at that
time under her 21 demands ?
Secretary Lansing. Absolutely not. We were opposed to the 21
demands.
Senator Borah. And I presume you coxild also state that it was
in no sense an indorsement of anything which has since developed
under the secret agreements?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, no; nothing. *
Senator Borah. If you had known of those secret agreements,
would you likely have entered into that agreement with Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Fomerene. Senator, in order to make the record entirely
clear, you mean the secret agreements between Japan, Great Britain,
France and Italy t
Senator Borah. Yes: I mentioned that just a moment ago.
Senator Pomerbne. I had overlooked that.
Senator Harding. The Senator also mentioned Russia.
Senator Borah. Whatever may be the construction of the Lansing-
Ishii agreement in Japan or China, it should not from the standpoint
of the State Department be construed in America as indorsing any-
thing in the nature of the program which Japan has under the secret
agreement ?
148 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMAKY.
Secretary Lansing. You are quite correct about that. I think I
can say, although I would like to refresh my memory, and would be
subject to correction later, that one of the very reasons why that
Lansins-Ishii agreement was entered into was on account of the 21
demanas and the attitude that Japan was taking toward China^ in
order to secure from Jaj^an a redeclaration of the open-door pobcy,
which she did in that agreement.
Senator Borah. It would seem then that if the secret agreements
had been known to the State Department at that time, the State
Department would likely have written that Lansing-Ishii agreement
in different terms, would it not ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I do not know. No; I do not see why
we should.
Senator Borah. It is a fact that at that time Japan had a secret
agreement with those other countries, by which it was understood
and agreed that certain territorial interests and certain rights in
China should be riven her at the close of the war. Now are you not
familiar with the fact that as soon as the Lansing-Ishii agreement was
made, it was construed in Japan and China, both by the press and
semiofficially, to be a tacit indorsement of Japan's program m China t
Secretary Lansing. In regard to those secret agreements, do you
refer to them ?
Senator Borah. Yes; and the 21 demands.
Secretary Lansing. I know it was in Japan. I never knew that
it was in China.
Senator Borah. Did not China issue a statement or a protest, or
something in the nature of a protest against the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment, and was not that brougnt to the attention of the State Depart-
ment here in Washington ?
Secretary Lansing. I will have to refresh my memory on that.
Senator Borah. I think you will find, Mr. Snecretary, that that is
true. Now are vou able to state when the secret agreements to
which I have referred were first brought to the knowedge of the
President, or those two, the secret agreements with Great Britain
and Italy?
Secretary Lansing. No; that is a thing I would have to refresh
my memory about.
Senator Borah. Are you able to state whether or not it was
before you went to Versailles?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Borah. It was before?
Secretary Lansing. That is, so far as Great Britain is concerned
I do not tmnk I knew of any secret agreements with France or Italy.
Senator Borah. May I suggest, then, Mr. Secretary, that you ascer-
tain for the committee as soon as you can conveniently, just when you
learned of these secret agreements ? If it has not already occurrea to
you, I think you will recall, probably, that these secret agreements
were published first by the Kussian Government, so far as the world
was concerned. I do not know how long before that the Department
of State had knowledge of them; but so far as the world had any
knowledge of them, as I recall, the first knowledge came from Mr.
Trotski.
Mr. Secretary, with reference to the settlement of what is known as
the Shantung affair, did you take part in the discussion by which that
affair was finally adjusted ?
TBBAT7 OP PEAGB WITH GERMANY. 149
Secretary Lansing. No.
Seoator &orah. Did you file any statement in regard to it ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. Did any one of the American commission file any
statement ?
Secretary Lansing. Gen. Bliss wrote a letter, but it was prior to
any settlement.
Senator Borah. Is that letter available?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know. It was written to the
President.
Senator Borah. Who signed the letter?
Secretary Lansing. Oen. Bliss.
Senator Borah. Did the letter purport to be written on the part of
anyone other than himself ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes ; on the part of Mr. White and myself.
Senator jBorah. Can you recall m a general way the contents of
the letter?
Secretwy Lansing. I should not want to, as it was a letter between
Gen. Bliss and the President.
Senator Borah. Is there any copy of it in the State Department ?
Secretary Lansing. There may oe. I am not sure.
Senator "dorah. Is it available for the committee?
Secretary Lansing. No; not from me. It is a private communica-
tion from Gen. Bliss to the President.
Senator Borah. Was it in the nature of a protest against what is
known as the settlement of the Shantung affair ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. YPliat was the nature of it, then ?
Secretary Lansing. The President had conferred with the com-
missioners in my office in connection with the Japanese situation, and
after we had expressed our general views in regard to the matter the
President wanted to know if we would communicate them in writing.
Gen. Bliss prepared a letter and showed it to Mr. White and mysen,
and we saia that we concurred in it, and there was no reason why we
should write separate letters, as we had nothing to add to it. That
was some days oef ore the Shantimg settlement. It was a matter of
advice, as to our advice to the President.
Senator Borah. Did the advice correspond with what was after-
wards accomplished ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. Why is not that letter available ?
Secretary Lansing. jTou must ask the President that. He has
the letter.
Senator Borah. Oh, he has it, has he ?
Secretary Lansing. It was sent to him. I assume that he has it.
Senator JBorah. Did you see a memorandum which was filed by
the experts who were advising the commission with reference to far-
eastern affairs, concerning the attempt of the Japanese delegates to
control the Chinese settlement and to intimidate the Chinese repre-
sentatives with reference to Shantung ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I would not say that I saw such a memo-
randum exactly as you describe it, because we had numerous memo-
randa on the subject.
150 TREATY OF PBAGB WITH GEBMANT.
Ssnator Borah. Was there a memorandum which partook in its
feneral nature of a description or an account of the action of the
apanese delegates toward the Chinese delegates with reference to
Shantung ?
S3cretary Lansing. I have no recollection of such a memorandum.
Sanator 'Borah. You recollect nothing of that nature?
S2cretary Lansing. No; I do not.
Senator Harding. Senator, may I ftsk a question right there?
Ssnator Borah. Yes.
Senator Harding. Do you recall, Mr. Secretary, how long a time
iiit r/ened between the reaching of the Shantung decision and the
making public of that decision ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I am afraid I do not, Mr. Senator.
Senator Harding. Was there an unusual lapse of time between
the Shantung agreement and the bulletin to the pubUc of the agree-
ment ?
Secretary Lansing. No, because my recoDection is — and, of course,
this is purely recollection — that the decision was reached about May
1 ; that having been reached by the council of the heads of States,
it was sent to the drafting committee to be incorporated in the
treaty, and that on the 7th of May the treaty was deliyered to the
Germans.
Senator Williams. So that it was about a week?
Secretary I^nsing. About a week from the time the council de-
cided it, I should say. Of course, it is pretty hard to carry dates of
that sort in your mind with accuracy.
Senator Harding. ITiere was a longer lapse of time between
reaching the Shantung decision and makmg it public than related to
most other agreements, was there. not?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, no, a shorter time.
Senator IELlrding. You are quite certain about that?
Secretary Lansinff. Qui e certain about it.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, one question which I omitted to
ask you in regard to the Lansing-Ishii agreement. I wish you would
state somewhat at length or fiuly the construction which the State
Department placed and now places upon the Lansing-Ishii agreement
with reference to the phrase ''special interest in China."
Secretary Lansing. I would prefer to be allowed to make a full
statement in regard to that later.
Senator Borah. Very well. That is satisfactory. At the time
that China broke off her diplomatic relations with Germany were
any assurances given to China, either directly or indirectly tnrough
the American minister at Pekin, with reference to the United States
taking an interest in Chinese affairs at Versailles and seeing that her
rights were protected ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not recall, sir.
Senator "boRAH. The record of that would be in the State Depart-
ment if any such instructions were sent ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator jBob AH. I wish you would make a note of that, and also
make a note of the fact as to whether or not that assurance was re-
stated at the time that China actually declared war against Germany.
Those are all the questions I desire to ask until we get these other
facts.
TREATY OF FEACB WITH GERMANY. 151
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, a question in conneetion with
JapaD. Has there ever been any note or intimation— I will not
undertake to describe the form — ^has there been any note or intimation
of any sort from Japan that she would regard any attempt on the
part of the United States or its nationals to lend money to China as
interfering with Japan there, tending to create disturbance, and that
it might be brought up under article 15 of the league?
Secretary Lansing. I never heard of such a thing.
The Chairman. No such suggestion was ever miule ?
Secretary Lansing. Never to my knowledge.
The Chairman. I think it woula be as well, as it was up here and
Senator Brandegee did not have the paper which he now has, to
quote the dispatch which was taken from the New York Times, which
says:
Paris, August 1. — Among the documents received bv the conference commiaBion is
a note from I^conier Clemenceaa, tranflmitting a dispatch from President Wilson asking
Clemenceau to postpone the publication of the notes of the peace-conference
deliberations.
Senator Knox. It is true, it it not, Mr. Secretary, that under the
demands that were made upon China by Japan in 1915, called com-
monly the 21 demands, one of the demands was that if China needed
money for the building of railroads and the development of her
resources, she must first apply to Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Knox. AIis:ht not that raise a question that would go to
the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. You know she modified those 21 demands?
Senator Knox. Did she modif j^ that particular one ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; that is my recollection. I should like to
make full report on the 21 demands.
Senator Knox. There was only one other question I wanted to ask
{rou about the Lansing-Ishii agreement. I have not looked at it
ately, but as I recollect it the claim of Japan in that agreement,
wfaicn you acknowledge, is for a special interest throughout China
entirely.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Knox. Covering the whole of China.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Knox. Had not her previous claims of special interest been
limited to Manchuria ?
Secretary Lansing. This made no distinction, except that it
was stated that it was on account of the contiguity of territory, and
that would naturally apply t6 Manchuria.
Senator Knox. My recollection is that as far back as 1912 Japan
formulated and presented a claim of special interest, practically in
the language of me Lansing-Ishii a^eement, except that she Umited
her special interest to Mandiuria. She did not present it as to other
portions of continental China. Have you any recollection about
that?
Secretary Lansing. Noj I have not.
Senator Nsw. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question or
two, following up Senator Borah's line of inquiry.
The CffAntMAN. Senator New, Mr. Secretary.
152 TBBATY OF PEACB WITH GEBMAKT,
Senator New. Mr. Secretary, do you know when China learned
of the secret agreements between Great Britain, Russia, France,
Italy, and Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator New. Or any of them ?
Secretary Lansing. I never heard.
Senator New. Did China at any time make any appeal to the
United States with reference to the protection of her territorial
interests at the time of the peace conference, asldng for the good
offices of the United States ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think there was anything formal.
Of course China's delegates saw the delegates of the United States
and discussed the matter with them.
Senator New. There was a discussion ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator New. And it was in the nature of an informal appeal,
was it?
Secretary Lansing. I do not want to call it an appeal. It was a
discussion of the question, just in the same way that the Japanese
delegates discussed the question.
Senator New. How did the United States meet that appeal ?
Secretary Lansing. The United States could act only as a body,
or in the person of the President. I do not know how the President
met it. All I know is the informal nature of the conferences between
delegates of the American commission and of the Chinese commission
whicn took place.
Senator New. Did the United States seek to influence CSiina to
enter the war on the side of the AUies ?
Secretary Lansing. I would like to make a report on that too. I
can not recall just exactly what the course was, and I am afraid that
I might make a statement that would not be in exact accordance
with the facts.
Senator New. I wish you would, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Harding. We did ask all neutral nations to break relations
with Germany, did we not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Harding. When we broke relations with her ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator New. You do not know, then, whether the President or
the American envoys at any time sought to obtain from Japan a
guarantee to restore to China the Province of Shantung ?
Secretary Lansing. I know there was such an effort made.
Senator New. There was such an effort made ?
Secretarv Lansing. Yes.
Senator N ew. Are you at liberty to state the character and condi-
tions of it ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I am not, because it was made entirely by
the President.
Senator New. But it was made ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. I did not quite understand what the effort was
to which Senator New referred.
Senator New. An effort to obtain from Japan a guaranty to re-
turn to China the Shantimg Province and territory that was held by
Germany prior to the war.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 155
Senatxn* Williams. An effort by the United States, do you mean t
Senator New. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. And the answer was that the President had
made such an effort.
Secretary Lansing. Yes. I do not wish to convey by that word
''effort" tne idea that there was a failure to do so.
Senator New. I understand; but it is understood that you will
endeavor to enlarge upon that a little 'i
Secretary Lansing. No; I can not do that. That is a matter with
which the President alone had to do.
Senator Haeding. Do you mean to say, Mr. Secretary, that the
effort was not a failure i
Secretary Lansing. I said I could not pass upon that on accoimt
of its bemg a matter entirely with the President, but I did not wish to
convey the impression that might be gathered from the word '* effort."
Senator New. You do know that, as a matter of fact, up to this.
time no such guaranty has been given ? That is correct, is it not ?
Secretary IIinsing. Well, there is a statement in the morning
papers, that is all.
Senator New. That informal statement of Uchida ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator moses. There were two statements in the morning paper
as I read them, one from the leader of the opposition in the Japanese
Diety which was exactly opposite to the Uchida statement.
Seieretary Lansing. One is the statement of the Japanese Govern-
ment and the other is not.
Senator Moses. Unless the opposition becomes the majority.
Secretary Lansing. Ultimately, not now.
Senator New. Now, Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask a question
along a somewhat different line. It is now an admitted fact that
there were secret engagements between some of our alUes of which
the United States was ignorant. Do you know — are there to your
knowledge — ^any other secret agreements between Great Britain,
France, and Japan regarding Asia ?
Secretarv Lapsing. Regarding Asia?
Senator New. Are there any agreements between them the details
of which are not known to the United States ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so. I do not know.
Senator "New. Have you reason to believe that there are no such
agreements ?
Secretary Lansing. I have reason to believe that there are none.
Senator New. Would you mind stating what those. reasons are?
Have you any assurance that there are no such i^reements ?
* Secretary Lansing. I have no assurance except the fact that in
oomiection with the matter of financing China we are worldng in
entire harmony with Great Britain and france.
Senator New. Then if it should develop hereafter that there are
such agreements you would consider that you had been misled.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. Do you mean by that secret agreements made
before we entered into the war or afterwards }
154 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator New. Either before or afterwards, if there are any as^ree-
ments between the other nations, our allies, of which we have been
kept in ignorance.
Senator Williams. That is the reason I asked the question, because
you used the word allies.
Senator New. Allied or associated powers. In the event that such
private agreements do exist, the United States not being a party to
them, would they not in effect bind the contracting Governments to
stand together in their interpretation of them ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, that is a rather hypothetical question.
That goes into the conscience of nations, and it is rather philosophical.
Senator New. Now, Mr. Secretary, in the event that their interpre-
tations of those agreements are contrary to the interests of the Umted
States, what recourse would this Government have )
Secretary Lansing. I should have to know something about the
nature of the agreement before I could determine what recourse we
could have.
Senator New. With reference to the open-door policy in Asia, and
the Asiatic trade, Asiatic conditions generally.
Secretary Lansing. Well, 1 have oeen assured that the British
Government is strongly in favor of the- continuance of the policy
of the open door and opposed to spheres of influence, and that is by
Mr. Baltour.
Senator Borah. How do you reconcile that with the action of the
British Government entering into secret agreements which would give
cTapanese spheres of influence in affairs in China?
Secretary Lansing. Not more than Germany did.
Senator Borah. But we are not following Gorman precedents.
Secretary Lansing. It was prior to our being in the war.
Senator "Borah. These same ag^reements were entered into with
Japan for the very purpose of giving her spheres of influence in
China, and Great Britain not only entered into that secret agreement
but she has exerted her influence to maintain and support it.
Secretary Lansing. Great Gritain has a habit of keeping her treaty
obligations.
Senator Borah. Yes; so 1 have heard.
Secretary Lansing. They were under {peculiar conditions at the
beginning of the war, in endeavoring to get Japan into the war in
oraer that Japan might control the Pacinc and the Indian Ocean,
and prevent German raiders.
Senator Knox. Was not Japan bound to come in under the
Japanese-British alliance ?
Secretarv Lansing. Yes.
Senator ICnox. Was any special effort required to get her to keep
her agreement ?
Secretarv Lansing. That 1 could not sav.
Senator Knox. There ought not to have been, ought there 2
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so.
Senator McCumber. I would like to ask the Secretary a question
if he is through on that subject. If I imderstood you correctly you
preferred to make a full statement as to the Lansing-Ishii under-
standing.
Secretary Lansing. Yes, sir.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKY. 155
Senator McCumbeb. Are you prepared to do that now as to what
it meant and the extent of it?
Secretary Lansing. I should like to make that at a future time.
Senator McCumbeb. That is the only question I want to ask now
before we leave. I want to ask some questions about the labor pro-
vision, but as that is in the latter portion of the treaty, we may cover
that later.
Senator Bobah. I want to ask a question in connection with this
same subject matter, with reference to the phrase '* regional under-
standing/' in article 21. Would that phrase cover the secret agree-
ment or these special agreements between Japan and Great Britain ?
Are not those regional understandings ?
SecretaryliANsiNO. Well, I confess I do not know.
Senator Hitchcock. Do you consider those secret treaties in effect
nowt
Secretary Lansing. I suppose they are.
Senator HrroHCOCK. Would they be in the event of the adoption
of the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I think that would dispose of them.
Senator Hitchcoce:. They would be abrogated by that ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Abrogated then upon the ratification of this
treaty by Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator McCuMBER. Provided they are in conflict with it.
Senator Hitchcock. They are specifically denounced.
Senator McCumbeb. To tne extent that they are in conflict with it.
Senator New. Are you through^ Senator Hitchcock?
Senator Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator New. Mr. Secretary ^ on that same line, just one question.
As article 21 of the league covenant reaiis, the implication is that
there are so-called regional understandings other tnan the Monroe
doctrine. That is the implication. Can you tell us what some of
these regional understanding are?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; Aforocco, Egypt, certain portions of East
Africa.
Senator Knox. Liberia ?
Secretary Lansing. Liberia is another.
Senator New. Would it not be well in order to arrive at a complete
understanding and to avoid future disagreements, to set fortn all
the regional understandings that are to be hereafter observed ?
Secretary Lansing. You mean in the league ?
Senator New. Yes. The Monroe doctrine is specifically named as
a regional understanding.
Secretary Lansing. It might have been well. That is a matter of
opinion, that is all.
Senator New. Well, are we to understand, Mr. Secretary, that in
joining the league with that article phrased as it is that we accept
that definition of the Monroe doctrine ?
Secretary Lansing. What definition do you mean?
Senator New. As a regional imderstanding, that we accept that
definition of it, that it is a regional understanding.
Secretary Lansing. Yes, I should think so. i es, it is a regional
understanding. It is a phrase that I was not familiar with until it
appeared in the covenant.
156 TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator New. Who originated that phrase?
Secretary Lansing. T have not the slightest idea.
Senator New. I think we are all alike on that. None of us ever
heard of it.
Senator Borah. The public press attributed it to Col. House.
Senator McCumber. it is an understanding that covers a certain
region ?
SecretaiT Lansing. That is it.
Senator McCumber. There is no objection to calling the Monroe
doctrine a regional understanding if it covers the Western Hemisphere.
The Chairman. With whom is the understanding ?
Senator McCumber. I would like to have an answer to my
question.
Secretary Lansing. Will you please repeat it ?
Senator ^cCumber. I stated that if the Monroe doctrine is a doc^
trine covering certain regions of the earth, that is the Western Hemi-
sphere, what objection is there to calline it a regional doctrine i
The Chairman. A regional understanding.
Senator McCumber. Well, a regional unaerstanding.
The Chairman. With whom is the understanding?
Secretary Lansing. It does go perhaps to make an understanding.
Senator McCumber. If the rest of the world agrees to it there is an
understanding.
The Chairman. They have not, yet.
Senator McCumber. This treaty is supposed that they do acquiesce
in it.
The Chairman. Then, it is to be a regional understanding. It
will not be until the treaty is agreed to.
Senator Williams. Call it by that name in order to keep it from
being the Monroe doctrine.
Secretary Lansing. I do not believe I can debate that.
Senator McCumber. My question is, What is the objection to using
the term region t
Secretary Lansing. I am not objecting.
Senator New. I do not know that it is so much an objection as it
is to ask for information.
Senator McCumber. We do not have to draw very heavily on our
understanding to know what regional means.
Senator Pomerene. Nor what the Monroe doctrine means.
Senator Borah. But it would require a good deal of fancy to make
the Monroe doctrine to conform with that. i
The Chairman. In speaking about England's dealings with Japan,
you said that England had a habit of carrying out her treaties. Was
it carrying out her treaty when she said to her ambassador at Tokyo,
I thinK it was — the letter has been published — when he gave out the
statement to Great Britain about Japan's demand for the control of
the German rights in Canton, that ot course it was understood that
England would have all the islands south of the Equator? Was that
carrying out and fulfilling England's treaty obligations ?
Secretary Lansing. With whom, Germany ?
The Chairbcan. No; was it a treaty obligation before)
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so; no; only she captured the
islands; that is all.
The Chairman. Has England caotured those islands ?
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 157
Secretary Lansing. She captured the 'islands south of the Equator.
The Chairman. She captured Samoa.
Secretary Lansing. She took some of the others too.
The Chairman. Did Japan have some ?
Secretary Lansing. That is purely a matter of recollection ; but
I think subsequently they were turned over to Japan to hold in order
to release the British Navy to eo to the seat of war.
The Chairman. I thought those islands were taken by the Aus-
tralian ships.
Secretary Lansing. Australian. I include those in the British.
Senator jBorah. Mr. Secretary, were you chairman of the com-
mission to try the Kaiser ?
Secretary LlAnsino. Yes; not to try the Kaiser.
Senator Borah. To prepare for his trial?
Secretary Lansing. The commission known as the commission
on responsibilities.
Senator Borah. What did that haye to do with the trial of the
Kaiser?
Secretary Lansing. It had to do in this, that there was a ques-
tion of responsibility as to the authors of the war and responsibility
for yiolations of the laws and customs of war. The coxomission
inyestigated the matter and reached the unanimous decision that;
while it was most reprehensible and there was unquestionable guilt
of indiyiduals as to haying caused the war, there was no l^al process
by which they could be tried for such an offense.
Senator Borah. Then the trial of the Kaiser is not to take place ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not say that.
Senator Borah. Do you know of any legal process by which he
could be tried ?
Secretary Lansing. No; no legal process; no.
. Senator Borah. We are not going to take part in any process
Uiat is not legal ?
Secretary Lansing. It is practically an inyestigation as to his
guilt and determination as to what penalty, if any, should be imposed
upon him, purely on the grounds of policy.
Senator Knox. Coidd they not pimish him without trying him,
just as they did Napoleon ?
Secretary Lansing. Exactly. This is a matter of international
policy as to what should be done.
Senator Knox. Is it not a breach of all precedent and an unheard
of thing to try a ruler for a political offense of that character.
Secretary Lansing. There is o^ly one case that I know of, and
that is the case of Mary Queen of Scots. She was tried by a foreign
authority. She was executed by a foreign authority, and as a
matter of policy her son ruled oyer her executioners and hung the
judges that were aliye at the time.
^nator Knox. It was not very popular eyen at that time, or
since?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Pomerene. Capt. Henry Wirz was court-martialed and
executed by the United States because of conduct in excess of what
was recc^nized by the tules of warfare. Under that same principle
the Kaiser could be tried.
Secretary Lansing. It is a different thing.
158 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Williams. On what principle ' of law was Napoleon
Bonaparte tried ?.
Secretary Lansino. None. It was a matter of policy.
Senator Williams. Just as it is here. They sent Napoleon to
Elba^ and afterwards to St. Helena, but there tv'as no law by which he
could be tried ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Knox. That is what they ought to do now as to making:
up this neutral court.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you a question 9
Secretary Lansing. May I just complete tne answer ?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Secretary Lansing. Senator Williams, I am perfectly willing to
submit the report to this committee. I am perfectly willing to sub-
mit the report of the commission on responsibDities, and the rteert^-
tions that were made by the American delegates.
The Chairman. Merely a historical point. Napoleon Bonaparte
was a prisoner of war, was he not?
Senator Harding. The Secretary interests me. You say, ''the
reservations that were made by the American delegates.^'
The Chairman. Can I not ask this question?
Senator Harding. Certainly; I thought you had.
The Chairman. I had not gotten the answer. I asked you simply
if it is not true that Napoleon Bonaparte went on board the BdUro-
phon and surrendered himself as a prisoner to the British ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Celairman. And he remained a prisoner of war?
Secretary Lansing. Yes,
The Chairman. The Kaiser has never done that, has he?
SecretaryliANSiNG. No.
Senator Williams. But Great Britain did not sentence and did
not punish him; the Vienna Congress did that.
Senator MgCumber. Mr. Secretary, there is a provision in the
treaty itself whereby any officer gudty of anj^ conduct against the
rules of war may be extradited and may be tried by a court-martial,,
is there not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator MgCumber. The Kaiser was an officer, was he not, in the
German Armv ?
Secretary Lansing. Well
Senator MgCumber. He was an officer in the German Army; and
if he was an officer, wherein is he not responsible, while the officers
under him, who received their commands through him, are respon-
sible? I mean, under the provisions of the treaty which Germany
makes herself i
Secretary Lansing. That was the report of the Commission, with
which the United States disagreed; and I am perfectly willing, as I
say, to submit the report of that Commission and the memorandum
of the United States setting forth its reservations.
The Chairman. Our delegates disagreed to it, did they not ?
Secretary Lansing. We disagreed to that featiu*e.
Senator MoCumber. But the Commission found that they had the
authority under that part of the treaty ?
TREATY OF FBAGB WITH OBRMANY. 159
Secretary Lansing. In regard to violations of the laws and cus-
toms of war. The fact is, under that provision it seemed to me there
was grave doubt as to wlxether they could establish the guilt of the
Ejuser; and to let him get off scot free would have been a great
calamity to the world.
Senator McCumbek. Well, of course if they could not establish
his guilt under that -provision, he would be acquitted ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. Mr. Lansing, you have spoken of a conference held
in your office of the five American plenipotentiaries with reference
to the Shantung matter. Were such conferences of the plenipoten-
tiaries frequent?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. Were minutes made ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; none at all.
Senator Moses. No proces verbaux ?
Secretary Lansing, rio ; they were entirely informal.
Senator Moses. How many treaties were signed at Versailles on
the 28th of Jime ?
Secretary Lansing. Three, I think.
Senator Moses. The treaty with Germany, the treaty of alliance
and the treaty with Poland ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. And there are still three more to be signed ?
Secretary Lansing. Three more — ^four, probably, Austria, Hungary,
Bulgaria, and Turkey.
Senator Moses. WiU there be separate treaties of peace with
Austria and with Hungary ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; they are separate and distinct States at
the present time.
Senator Moses. Just what was the line of reasoning which led to
the conclusion that the United States should become signatory to the
treaties with Turkey and Bulgaria, against whom we had not de-
clared war ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know that I can state it. I put the
question up to the President and asked him his views, and that was
his answer — that he desired us to take part in the negotiations, and
if we did take part we would have to sign the treaty.
Senator Moses. Woidd you think the Senate would be justified in
disregarding those treaties, if they are laid before us, on the ground
that we had not declared war agamst those countries?
Secretary Lansing. You can always make a treaty with a nation,
whether you are at peace or have been at war. «M
Senator Moses, les, certain kinds of treaties; but can you make
treaties which are the settlement of acts of war to which we were not a
party?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know that there is any limitation. I
do not know that there is any case that covers it. Of course there
were many that took part in the negotiations and adhered to the
treaty that were not parties to the war.
Senator Moses. Yes, but they were not signatories.
Secretary Lansing. I think they were.
Senator Moses. Jn other words, the treaty describes two grouDs,'as
the principal allied and associated powers, and then the alliea and
160 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
associated powers. That woiild assume, would it not, that they
were
The Chairman. I thought the signers had all been belligerents.
It is so stated in the treaty.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I think that is correct.
Senator Moses. I think you will find that they were all belligerents.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I think they were.
Senator Moses. Mr. Lansing, you said there were two replies made
to the French prime minister with reference to his request about
submitting the minutes to the French committee.
Secretary Lansing. Just a moment; I will finish up this other
matter first. The President of the Republic of Ecuador was one of
the signatories.
Senator Moses. Ecuador was never a belligerent ?
Secretary Lansing. Never a belligerent; a£ao the President of the
Hepublic of Peru.
Senator Borah. He is belligerent all the time. [Laughter.]
Secretary Lansing. Well, this is a different president.
Senator McCumber. Had they severed diplomatic relations ?
Secretary Lansing. The President of the KepubUc of Uruguay
Senator McCumber. Had those parties severed diplomatic rela-
tions with Germany ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator McCumber. But they had not become actual belligerents 9
Secretary Lansing. No; in the same way that we had with
Turkey.
Senator Moses. But Costa Rica, which had declared war, was not
permitted to sign 1
Secretary Lansing. She had no member in that conference.
Senator Moses. Could you enlighten the committee as to why she
was not permitted to sit ?
Secretary Lansing. I think that no government was permitted to
sit as to which there had not been general recognition by all the
nations.
Senator Moses. All the nations at the table?
Secretary IjAnsing. Yes. Mexico did not sit.
Senator Moses. With reference to the reply sent to the French
prime minister when he asked about submitting the minutes of cer-
tain commissions to the French committee, you replied that you
thought it was inadvisable to submit them on account of the irrita-
tion that might be produced.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. And the language of the press dispatch which the
chairman caused to be read into tne record was that the President
had replied that he wished the submission of those minutes post-
poned. Are we to assume that this committee may not have those
minutes complete before we take action on the treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. You mean the minutes of the commission on
the league of nations ?
Senator Moses. All the commissions. I imderstood from Mr.
Davis and Mr. Baruch, in their testimony, that there were numerous
proc69 verbaux made up of the meetings of all the commissions and
even of the subcommittees.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 161
Senator Moses. Some of which, at least, are of prime importance,
as it seems to me, as we study the treaty; and I was wondering from
the tenor of your replies this moriiing whether we were estopped from
having those.
Secretary Lansing. Well, I should doubt very much the propriety
of it, unless the other governments gave their consent.
Senator Moses. But this is the aay of **open covenants, openly
arrived at," Mr. Lansing.
Senator Harding. That is like the passing of '* dollar diplomacy."
Senator Pomerene. Bear in mind tne irritation it would be to cer-
tain Senators if they did not ^et it.
Secretary Lansing. Then it is a question of irritation between
Senators or Governments, is it ?
Senator Pomerene. Both are to be considered.
Senator Moses. Mr. Lansing, there once was a maxim of the
American diplomatic service that there were no secrets between a
diplomatic representative and his Government; and I am assuming
that in the present instance the Foreign Kelations Committee of the
Senate and the Senate itself are a portion of the Government in its
treaty-making fimctions, and that the old maxim of their being no
secrets between a diplomatic representative and his Government
should be maintained with us.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; but you notice it is limited to govern-
ments and their diplomatic agents.
Senator Moses. Well, the plenipotentiaries at Paris were diplo-
matic agents of the Government?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. And I assume that the Senate, in its treaty-making
function, is at the present minute the Government.
Secretarv Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. So I hope the old maxim that used to apply when
I knew more about the service than I do to-day still applies.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. Secretary, I presume after
the selection of the members of the peace conference there were many
consultations and conferences among you; were there not?
Secretary Lansing. Where do you mean ?
Senator Johnson of California. At any place prior to the actual
work at Paris.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And was there any agreement
among you as to the policy which should be pursued by the United
States commissioners at Paris ? I am not asking you as to what that
policy was, but whether or not there was an agreement as to the policy
to be pursued.
Secretary Lansing. What do you mean by '* policy *' ?
Senator Johnson of California. Was any basis or any foundation
upon which subsequently the work should be done at Paris agreed
upon?
Secretary Lansing. No; the organization at Paris for working was
very largely, as was to be expected, in the hands of the French
Government.
135546—19 ^11
162 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any definite policy,
then, in the aspect to which I have just alluded, agreed upon oy the
American commissioners prior to the actual beginnmg of the sessions
at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Only as to our own work.
Senator Johnson of California. That is what I mean.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, ves.
Senator Johnson of California. But as to your own attitude, there
was an agreement as to policy, was there not ?
Secretary Lansing. Generally: yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you have a foundation or a
basis upon which it was agreed you would act in the proceedings at
Paris?
Secretary Lansing. I must confess that I do not quite understand
your question.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you have 14 points that you
were going to take as the basis for your activities in the peace con-
ference at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Had it been agreed among the
American delegates that those 1 4 points should be the mode and the
measure of the peace ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think it was discussed.
Senator Johnson of California. It was not discussed at all ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any aCTcement as to
any particular policy that should be pursued, of did you wait until
you reached Paris and then expect to be guided by the circumstances
and the exigencies as they arose ?
Secretary Lansing. We followed the armistice in that particular.
Senator Johnson of California. And was there anything in dis-
cussion concerning the 14 points that ori^inajily had been laid down
as to insistence on those points by the American delegates prior to
your activities beginning at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Ido not recall any such; possibly.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Was there any a^eement or any
imderstanding among the peace delegates prior to sitting at Paris as
to the draft of a league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. Prior to the meeting of the conference ?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Yes, sir.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Was the draft agreed upon by the
American delegates prior to the meeting of the conference at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. No; not absolutely, because what we had was
the American plan.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. That is what I mean. Had you
agreed upon an American plan ?
Secretary Lansing. Not definitely, I do not think.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Tentatively ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, possibly. It' was largely, of course, in
the hands of the President, under whose instructions we were and
who gave oral instructions to his representatives.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. But I assume, of course, that you
saw that plan ?
TREATY OF PEACE -W^ITH GERMANY. 163
Secretary Lansing. I did.
Senator Johnson of California. You read it?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Generally speaking, you recall
what was in it; do you not ? I am not examining you now as to what
was in it, but do you not generally recall what was in it ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I have rather a hazy idea, because it was
not followed up.
Senator Johnson of California. What do you mean by "It was not
followed up" ?
Secretary Lansing. Because it at once went into open consulta-
tion, and there was a redraft made. I think the President has sent
all those to the Senate; has he not ?
Senator Johnson of California. If he has, I did not know it.
The Chairman. Thev have not been received.
Secretary Lansing, llave not they ?
Senator IJghnson of California. We did ask for them, but I did not
know that they had been received.
The Chairman. We asked for them three weeks ago, but they have
not been received.
Senator Johnson of California. I might cease this particular sort of
inquiry if you can state whether you know whether or not they
win be submitted to the Senate.
Secretary Lansing. They will be; those that were taken up and
given consideration by the commission.
Senator Johnson of California. By the American commission ?
Secretary Lansing. No; by the commission on the league of
nations.
Senator Johnson of California. You said, in answer to a question
that was asked you, that you yourself had submitted the general
outline of what should be considered by a league of nations. Was
that correct ?
Secretary Lansing. What I submitted was a proposed resolution
for the conference.
Senator Johnson of California. Well, of course you preserved a
copy of that resolution, did you not ?
Secretary Lansing, i es.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. And that resolution now is in the
archives of the State Department ?
Secretary Lansing. I doubt that, but then I probably have a copy
of it.
Senator Johnson of California. You have a copy of it; so that if it
should be determined that it ought to be produced by you, it could be
produced ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you recall now what was in
that particular document ?
Secretary Lansing. Only in a general way. I would not want to
attempt to recite it.
Senator Johnson of California. Can vou recall now what was the
basis of any draft that was agreed upon by the American commission-
ers prior to the meetingin Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, let me explain. We reached Paris on
December 13. The conference did not meet imtil the 12th of Janu-
ary. We had practically a month of conference.
164 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. And during that month you were
conferring, not only upon the specific points of the treaty of peace,
but conferring, as well, upon the specific points of the league of
nations, were you not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; we were advising the President, who was
the authority.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly. But the President sat
with you as one of the plenipotentiaries there, and all of you sat
together — ^the President and au of those whom he had appointed ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And discussed both the league of
nations and the treaty of peace i
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, if I were to read to you what
purports to be article 10 of the American draft, would you recognize
it, GO you think ?
Secretary Lansing. I possibly might. I could not tell.
Senator Johnson of California. Permit me to read, then, what has
been published as article 10 in its original form
Senator Williams. What original form do you mean, now — the
draft of Mr. Lansing ?
Senator Johnson of California. No; the ori^al American draft.
Mr. Lansingsays — ^perhaps you did not hear him
Senator Williams. Yes. He said it had been redrafted later.
Senator Johnson of California. He says that he presented a reso-
lution himself.
Senator Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. But that there was a draft — ^if I
am in error, he will correct me — an American draft.
Senator Williams. .Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. I am reading what purports to be
article 10 of that American draft now.
Secretary Lansing. I suggested this resolution to the President —
that is all — as a method of procedtire.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir.
Senator HrroHCOCK. Will you let me interrupt a moment. Senator 1
I want to make this clear. Mr. Lansing, you were not a member of
the commission of 14 nations that considered the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at all.
Senator Hitchcock. That work was done by the President and
Col. House?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. So that aside from yoxir first discussion with
the President, you were not familiar during those long struggles and
discussions witn the details?
Secretary Lansing. Not at all.
Senator Johnson of California. Oh, but I understood you to say
that there was a consultation and conference prior to the meeting of
the Paris conference — the official conference.
Secretary Lansing. Yes: undoubtedly.
Senator Johnson of Calilomia. And during that month the league
of nations was disctissed repeatedly; was it not?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; and it was discussed with the delegates
of other coimtries, too.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 16^
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly; and discussed in detail t
Secretary Lansing. Yes; but the American commissioners did not
hold th^e discussions as a commission. They were discussed by
the President and Col. House, who were going to take part in the
commission's work.
Senator Johnson of California. And you were a part of the dis-
cussions, were you not, prior to the conference?
Secretary Lansing. Not with fore^ representatives.
Senator Johnson of California. No, no; but with the President
and Col. House and with the other members of our peace conference?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Certainly.
Senator Swanson. Before you leave that, Mr. Secretary, you say
you presented a resolution. By whom was that resolution to be
passed — by the conference ?
Secretary Lansing. It was to be passed by the conference.
Senator Swanson. That was a resolution that the President
should offer in the conference ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. You suggested it to the President as what
you thought would be probably the American suggestion to the con-
ference ? Is that about the idea ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, it was really preliminary to the drafting
of a covenant.
Senator Williams. Yes; I imderstand. It contained your ideas
of what ought to be in the covenant — ^your ideas ?
Secret^rv Lansing. In general terms; yes.
Senator Harding. With Senator Johnson's permission I want to
ask you a question, Mr. Secretary. You said there were conferences
and exchanges of opinion on the part of the American commissioners
as to the course to ptu^ue. Would you mind saying whether it was
decided that the league of nations should be negotiated as the founda-
tion upon which to build the peace treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know that that was discussed. I
have no recollection of any such thing.
Senator Harding. There never was any understanding that the
league of nations should be assented to first ?
Secretary Lansing. Not to my recollection was any such thing
proposed.
Senator Harding. That is all.
Senator Johnson of California. I now read to you what jpurports
to be article 10 in its original form in the American draft of the
league of nations, which was published by Mr. Hamilton Holt, vice
president of the League to Enforce Peace and editor of the Inde-
pendent. I read from the copy in the New Republic, on page 5^
of its last issue:
The contracting powers unite in guaranteeing to each other political independence-
and territorial integrity against external aggression; but it is unaerstood between them
that such territorial readjustments^ if any, as may in the future become necessary by
reason of chimges in racial conditions and aspirations or present social and' political
relationships pursuant to the principle of self-determination, and also such territorial
readjustments as may, in the judgment of three-fourths of the delegates, be demanded
by the welfare and manifest interests of the people concerned, may be effected if
agreeable to those people and to the States from which the territory is separated or
166 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
to which it is added, and that territorial changes may in equity involve material com*
pensation. The contractin^i; powers accept without reservation the principle that the
peace of the world is superior in importance to every question whatever of political
jurisdiction or boundary.
Do you recognize that ?
Secretary Lansin,g. I can not tell you; no. I would not like to
commit myself because I am not sure at all.
Senator Johnson of California. Are you familiar with Article X
of the present covenant ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whose particular
article that was, or who originated it ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether it was an
article that originated with the American commissioners ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Are yoi; familiar with the fact that
the plan that was finally accepted was the plan of Gen. Smuts ?
Secretary Lansing. I thint it was, with certain modifications.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know what those modifi-
cations were ?
Secretary Lansing. I could not tell, except by comparing Gen.
Smuts' plan.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you in your mind now any
modifications which you may suggest that were made ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I have not.
Senator Johnson of California. None at all. Did you have part
subsequently, as one of the commissioners, in the adoption finally of
the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; except in so far as we received the various
drafts for consideration and comment.
Senator Johnson of California. Who received the various drafts?
Secretary Lansing. The American commissioners.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you mean those of other
nations ?
Secretary Lansing. I said *'the American commissioners."
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, I know; but what I meant
was, did you receive the drafts of .the other nations, or just
Secretary Lansing. Oh, no ; the drafts of the commission.
Senator Johnson of California. Of what commission ?
Secretary Lansing. The commission on the league of nations.
Senator Johnson of California. Were those received before the
meeting of the Paris conference, during the month that you were in
Paris before the meeting ?
Secretary Lansing. The commission was not appointed until the
12th of January.
Senator Johnson of California. That is, it was not appointed by
the peace conference ?
Secretarv Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. But you had been meeting for a
month prior to that in Paris with the American commissioners ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, lust again, if you please.
Pardon me for the insistence, because I think we may be at cross-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 167
purposes in the matter. What drafts do you refer to now that were
submitted to the American conmiissioners ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you exactly. Of course, we had
an American draft, and then subsequently there was a preliminary
draft that was the basis, I think, of the discussions in the commission
on the league of nations. How that was drafted I do not know; and
then the commission on the league of nations made corrections and
redrafted it, and that went on several times, I think.
Senator Johnson of California. In your origiual suggestions as to
what should be included in the league of nations did you have any-
thing in respect to any matter such as Article 10 ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. What was your conclusion in that
regard ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, you see at that time the President had
indicated very clearly his views as to what should be contained as to
the matter of guaranties, and so I naturally included that in the
resolution that 1 proposed, basing it very largely on the form that
the Panama Treaty took.
Senator Johnson of California. Your resolution, then, was sub-
sequent to the agreement on the form — the agreement that had been
reached by the commission ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes. It was after the commission on the
league of nations had met.
Senator Johnson of California. So your resolution was designed
merely to carry out what had been aCTeed upon ?
Secretary Lansing. Not entirely that; no.
Senator Johnson of California. Well, what else ?
Secretary Lansing. It was merelv a declaration of principle by
which the conference would practically indicate its will for the purpose
of guiding the commission on the league of nations in its deliberations,
which were not completed at that time. It was toward the end of
January that I made the suggestion.
Senator Johnson of Caliiornia. It was not with the design of
indicating what the league of nations should contain; because that
was in what had been siibmitted to you. Is that correct ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes ; I think that is correct.
Senator Johnson of Cfdif ornia. Now, you undertook your duties in
connection with the general treaty. Was not the President engaged
in those duties as weu ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not understand you.
Senator Johnson of California. You said awhile ago that the com-
mittee on the league of nations from America consisted of Col. House
and the President.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. You, I assume, were engaged with
your work upon the treaty during that period — the treaty of peace,
generally, rather than the league of nations. Is that correct ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; and with the commission on responsibili-
ties, which sat for two months.
Senator Johnson of California. Did the President sit with you in
those matters at all ?
Secretary Lansing. In the commission on the league of nations ?
Senator Johnson of California. No.
168 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEEMAISTY.
Secretary Lansing. I mean, the commission on responsibilities ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. Noj he had nothing to do with it.
Senator Johnson of California. When you began your duties, then,
with the general peace commission in the manner which you have
indicated, did you commence with a definite plan as to how to arrive
at peace or as to what the treaty should contain?
Secretary Lansing. Well, yes; I had a general idea as to what I
thought the treaty should contain.
Senator Johnson of California. Had there been, in what had
transpired prior to that time, any definite basis for the idea that then
you had ? were you reljdng upon the 14 points, or upon the armistice
a^eement, or upon any particular written matter that had been sub-
nutted to the world prior to that time ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you working to any specific,
definite end in the peace treaty that had been declared prior to that
time?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That specific, definite end related to
specific, definite terms ?
Secretary Lansing. In certain cases.
Senator Johnson of California. And they had been embraced in
what had been declared to the world before that time ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I do not know that they were declared
in definite terms in the matter of detail. General principles were
declared. They were common-sense principles which anybody would
follow.
Senator Johnson of California. And it was merely a matter of com-
mon sense and general principles upon which you acted ?
' Secretary Lansing. And an avoidance of policy and expediency.
Senator Johnson of California. I beg paroon; 1 did not catch tnat»
Secretary Lansing. And an avoidance of the motives of policy and
expediency instead of principle.
Senator Johnson of California. So that jour treaty was founded
upon general common sense and the avoidance of policy and ex-
pediency ?
Secretary Lansing. Embodied in the 14 points, of course.
Senator Johnson of California. Well, that is what I am getting at;
and I am trying to ascertain whether you were starting with the 14
points as a basis.
Secretary Lansing. I consider those as common sense.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you starting with the 14
points as the basis of your peace?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you carry it out ?
Secretary Lansing. .1 think so.
Senator Johnson of California. And does the peace treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. As far as possible. Of course you understand,
Mr. Senator, if you have been in any negotiations of this kind — I can
appeal to Senator Knox, who knows that it is absolutely impossible
to get 23 nations to carry out the exact wishes of one.
Senator Johnson of California. I am not questioning that.
Secretary Lansing. Well, it sounds so.
TREATY OF PEACE -WITH GEBMAIinr. 169
Senator Johnson of California. I am seeking information upon the
subject. Did you, in your opinion, carry out m the peace treaty the
14 points, substantially?
Secretary Lansing. I think we did, substantially.
Senator Johnson of California. Whto vou say " substantially," you
mean substantially you carried out eacn particular point embraced
within the 14 points?
Secretary Lansing. Well, the treaty was not arranged along the
line of the 14 points.
Senator Johnson of California. I realize that, but I am getting
your view concerning it now.
Secretary Lansing. I think it was.
Senator Johnson of California. So that you carried out substan-
tially each of the 14 points?
Secretary Lansing. I think substantially they were carried out.
Senator JopNSON of California. Were there any resignations of ex-
perts during any of theperiod over there ?
Secretary Lansing. There were.
Senator Johnson of California. Who resided ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not recall. I think two men resigned.
Senator Johnson of Calif omia. Can you state who they were ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I can not. I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know the reasons for their
resignations ?
Siecretary Lansing. No * I can not recall that.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not any
of the experts at any time made protests concerning any of the
actions or any of the agreements that were made ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, frequently, as a matter of difference of
opinion.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Oh, I assume that.
Secretary Lansing. And then lack of knowledge as to the diffi-
culties in certain cases.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. You say '^lack of knowledge of the
difficulties. " Anything beyond that ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think of anything.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. On the Shantung question, to be
perfectly blunt in the matter, was the resignation based on the plain
moral issue ?
Secretary Lansing. Who resigned ? "
Senator Johnson of Califomia. I do not know; I am asking you if
anybody did.
Secretary Lansing. I do not know that any one resigned on that.
I never heard of it.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Were there any protests concerning
it by any of vour experts ?
Secretary Lansing. None.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. None at all ?
Secretary Lansing. Do you mean a written protest ?
Senator Johnson of California. No; verbal or written.
Secretary Lansing. Why, certainly.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Did not some of them protest upon
plain moral grounds against the Shantung decision?
170 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Secretary Lansing. Certainly.
Senator Johnson of California. Many of them ; did they not ?
Secretary Lansing. There were not very many — two.
Senator Johnson of California. Well, practically all there were pro-
tested; did they not?
Secretary Lansing. Two.
Senator Johnson of California. Who were they ?
Secretary Lansing. Prof. E. T. Williams and Capt. Hornbeck.
Senator Johnson of California. Did not Prof. Williams, in the
plainest language, protest against the Shantung decision on moral
grounds, because he said the moral Question had not been met ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall it in that form at all.
Senator Johnson of California. You recall his protest against it ?
Secretary Lansing. Certainly.
Senator Johnson of Calif orma. Did the captain protest as well ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think he did. I know his views,
though. His views were adverse.
Senator Johnson of California. His views were adverse ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of Cdif ornia. Did Williams resign ?
Secretary Lansing. He resigned, but he resigned before any
decision had been reached, or anything like it.
Senator Johnson of California. Did he resign on account of the
Shantung matter ?
Secretary Lansing, No.
Senator Jo jnson of California. Did the captain continue or did he
resign ?
Secretary Lansing. I left him in Paris.
Senator Joinsov of California, He is still in Paris. Did you have
anything to do with the selection of Mr. BuUit to go to Russia ?
Secretary Lansing. Only formally, that is all.
Senator JoiNsox of Caliiornia. Was he selected to go to Russia?
S3cretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Jo:inson of California. Officially?
Secretary Lansing. Officially.
Senator Jo inson of California. Who selected him ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you that, except — well, he was
appointed bv the commission.
Senator tiOiiNSON of California. Was it not on the President's
suggestion ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Was anybody selected to go to
Russia with Mr. BuUit ?
Secretary Lansing. That I can not tell you. He may have been
asked to take one or two men with him, because we were afraid to
have anybodv go in there that would not be to an extent immune
from attack by the Bolsheviks. That is the only way we could get
information.
Senator Johnson of California. Did BuUit submit a written report
subsequently ?
Secretary Lansing. He did.
Senator Johnson of California. Is that in the State Department
archives ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think it is.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 171
Senator Johnson of California. Where it is, if you please ?
Secretary Lansing. I think it is in Paris.
Senator Johnson of California. Is there any copy of it extant here t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Who has charge of the report over
there, Mr. Secretary, please ?
Secretary Lansing. Over
Senator Johnson of Calif omia. In Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Mr. Polk would have, probably. It might be
in the Russian branch of the service.
Senator Johnson of Calif omia. Did Bullit resign afterwards?
Secretary Lansing. He did. He resigned on account of our atti-
tude toward the
Senator Williams. How is that?
Secretary Lansing. Bullit resinied on accoimt of our failure to
take up certain — ^he resigned, reafiy, without specifying the grounds,
because he did not hke the treaty at all.
Senator Johnson of California. Dining your negotiations at Paris
as one of the peace commissioners, what mode was adopted for the
preservation of what you were doing ?
Secretary Lansing. We had a secretariat.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. And were the proceedings steno-
graphically reported ?
Secretary Lansing. Of the commission, or what ?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Of the actual peace commission.
Secretary Lansing. The American commission ?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. No; I was speaking of the general
commission.
Secretary Lansing. Of the conference? Oh, yes.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. There was a stenographer ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Johnson of Caiuornia. And the proceedings, aU the pro-
ceedings, were stenographically reported ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Were copies of those proceedings
supplied then to the different commissioners?
Secretary Lansing. I think only proces verbaux.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. At the end of each day's session?
Secretary Lansing. Well, the conference did not sit continuously,
you know.
Senator Johnson of California. I mean, at the end of each session
rather than each day.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. So that in your possession, I assume
you have those proces verbaux ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Covering the entire period ?
Secretary JuAnsing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. Who has the transcribed steno-
graphic notes of the proceedi^s?
Secretarv Lansing. It is difficult to sav. You see, I think there
were two stenographic reports, and yet I am not entirely sure about
that — one French, and tne other English — and in certain cases, in
dealing with the Austrians, it was translated into Italian also; so
172 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
there were three reports, and where those stenographic reports are
I do not know. What we got was the printed proces verbanx after
the conference.
Senator Johnson of California. At the conclusion of each session
I presume in some fashion they were marked so as to indicate their
official character ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes. They were in print. They were in
printed form.
Senator Johnson of California. They were in printed form. Are-
those in your pssession now ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know, but I could find out easily.
Senator Johnson of California. I was asked to ask you how many
sessions of the conference were held ?
Secretary Lansing. That I can not tell.
Senator Johnson of California. There is, however, in existence, of
course, an absolute and an accurate record of everything that was
done by the peace conference ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Is there as well in existence an
accurate record of all that was done concerning the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know. I have never seen that.
Senator Johnson of California. What was it that you wired to or
that you assisted in preparing a wire for — I do not just grasp which it
was — to Clemenceau concerning the proceedings upon the league of
nations ?
Secretary Lansing. It was the proc6s verbal.
Senator Johnson of California. The procfe verbal ?
Secretary Lansing. Of the commission.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you deem that the proc6s
verbal — ^which, I take it, is a recapitulation or a rfeumfi of the pro-
ceedings of the particular session, 1 am correct in that, am I not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Officially gotten up by your
representatives ?
Secretary Lansing. By the secretary of the commission on the
league of nations.
Senator Johnson of California, Exactly. It was in relation to
the process verbal that Clemenceau was wired that it should not be
given to the French Senate ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And do you take the same attitude
regarding this committee and this Senate regarding the proces verbal
of the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. I should; yes.
Senator Johnson of California. On the theory that it would be
irritating ?
Secretary Lansing. It might be.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you mean to other nations ?
Secretary Lansing. To other nations; not to this Nation at all.
Senator Johnson of California. And because it might be irritating,,
therefore, your position is that this Senate and our people ought not
to be permitted to have the detail of the proceedings ?
Secretary Lansing. Of the arguments — that is what it is. It is
debate.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 173
Senator Johnson of California. Is the proces verbal the arguments ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. A mere rfisumfi, though ?
Secretary Lansing. The debate.
Senator Johnson of California. But it is a brief account; it is not
an extended account of the debates, is it?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, sometimes quite extensive; much more
full than our minutes are in such cases.
Senator Johnson of California. Would you object to this com-
mittee having them in executive session ?
Secretary Lansing. Personally, I have no objection at all. I do
not know anything about them. I have never seen them.
Senator Johnson of California. If vou do not know anything
about them, and have never seen tnem, why should you wire
Glemenceau ?
Secretary Lansing. On the general principle.
Senator Johnson of California. Just what general principle.
Secretary Lansing. On the general priuciple that I woula not sub-
mit the proces verbaux of a commission without the consent of all
the other governments that were parties.
Senator Johnson of California. Without knowing anything about
them, without knowing whether they would be irritating, on the
general prLuciple that tney might be irritating
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California (continuing). You would not permit
them to be seen ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; because if you open the door once I
know it will make trouble.
Senator Johnson of California. Would that be your attitude now,
without an^ knowledge of the situation at all, on the theory that it
mieht be irritatiag; that in executive session you would not desire
Secretary Lansing. That would be, until I was shown it was the
other way.
Senator Johnson of California. Where are those proces verbaux
at the present time ?
Secretary Lansing. I have not the sUghtest idea. I have never
seen them.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you any continuous r6sum6
or recapitulation other than that in the proceedmgs upon the league
of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. Just a moment. What was that question ?
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. Other than the proces verbal, have
you any account, any r6sum6, any recapitulation, other than the
proceedings of the conference on the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I have not even that.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you any other r6sum6 or any
other recapitulation than the proces verbal of the proceedings of the
peace conference ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I do not think there were any others. I
do not know about the minutes, the stenographic minutes. I can not
tell you whether I have those or not.
Senator Johnson of California. I asked you the question because
I did not know but what, for your own personal use or for the use of
the American commission, there might have been, other than that, a
separate and distinct account.
174 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Secretary Lansing. I have no doubt there was, but I have never
used it.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. You have never used it ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I have never used it.
Senator Johnson of California. You were asked by Senator Hitch-
cock about the secret treaties, and I wanted to make it plain in that
regard. Is it not a fact that since the completion or this treaty
Britain has announced that she recognizes the treaties she has made
in the past, and will stand by those treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That is quite true, is it not?
Secretary Lansing. I think it is true.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not a fact that that announce-
ment of hers applies to the league of nations, and did it not specifi-
cally apply, in the announcement, to the league of nations as well as
generally ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not understand your question.
Senator Johnson of California. I mean this, that the treaties that
are in existence now by which Britain considers herself bound,
whether there be a league of nations or no league of nations — ^Britain
considers herself bound by those treaties. That is true, is it not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. I am glad I asked you, because I
think there was some misapprehension m regard to that — it night
have been wholly mine — that these treaties would have been abro-
gated by the league of nations.
Senator Hitohoook. Let me insert in the record what I waa
referring to. It is article 20. [Reading:]
The members of the league severally agree that this covenant is accept^ as abro-
gating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with tiie
terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any
engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof. In case any member of the league
shall, before becoming a member of the lea^ie, have undertaken any obligations
inconsistent with the terms of this covenant, it shall be the duty of such member to
tike immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
Senator Brandegee. There could not be anv inconsistency, because
in terms they say, in article 21, ''treaties of arbitration or regional
understandings."
Senator Johnson of California. I did not want to amie the ques-
tion with you at all, but that very point, as I recall the Bntish
announcement, was taken up, and Great Britain contended that there
was nothing inconsistent in ner duties — ^just as all treaties are assumed
by those wno make them to be treaties of peace, treaties to prevent
war, not offensive treaties at all in their cnaracter. Whether they
are offensive or defensive in character, the nations making them
assume that they are wholly defensive, and Britain, as she says, haa
observed these treaties and will observe them in the future, notwith-
standing any league of nations.
Senator Williams. In other words, she says that she has not any
treaties which are inconsistent.
Senator Johnson of California. Exactly.
Senator Williams. And if that was so, we have no quarrel with
her.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, exactly.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 175
Senator Hitchcock. That is a matter that would come on China's
OTesentation, and will come before the league of nations on what
China has said she will bring before the league of nations at the
proper time.
The Chairman. I think that had better be stated correctly.
China said that she would be willing to sign if she could bring it
before the league of nations and was not precluded from doing so.
Senator Hitchcock. China will present
The Chairman*. I am talking about what China did: and she was
not aUowed to sign, even with that reservation.
Senator Hitchcock. The representatives of China have said that
they proposed to bring it before the league of nations, and that they
have a case in court.
Senator Borah. It will not stay in court very long. [Laughter.]
Senator Hitchcock. I wanted to ask a question in connection with
the question Senator Johnson asked.
Senator Johnson of California. I have a long list here, and we
inijght as well adjoiun here for luncheon.
Senator Hitchcock. He alluded to this expert here, who is said to
have resigned on account of the Shantung agreement.
Secretary Lansing. What expert was tnat ?
Senator Hitchcock. Did he resign ?
Secretary Lansing. No, he did not — ^not on that account.
Senator Hitchcock. What expert was referred to there ?
Secretary Lansing. Bullit, I tnink.
Senator Hitchcock. Senator Johnson was insisting upon having
it read that way, " becaiise he considered the Shantung convention
immoral"
Senator Johnson of California. No, I have no such intention, and
had no such intention. I had no desien of that kind.
Senator Hitchcock. I will alter it, then.
Senator Johnson of California. I think you ought to.
Senator BLnrcHCOCK. I will say, when the Senator from Califomia
was questioning the witness.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. That is the better way to put it.
Senator Hitchcock. He stated that one of the experts had re-
signed because he considered the Shantung convention immoral. I
want to ask if that expert was engaged as an expert on morals.
Senator Williams. No ; there is only one, that is here.
Senator Borah. There is only one expert there on morals.
Senator Hitchcock. That expert was not there on morals ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. I just want to ask the Secretary one question. If
we desired to have the discussions which went on somewnere in Paris
with reference to article 21, the views expressed at the time when they
were arriving at the understanding as to what regional xmderstana-
ings mean, etc., what would we can for ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know. I do not think they had
stenograpmc reports.
Seaiator Borah. Then there must have been some person whom we
could call before this body who would know about it ?
Secretary Lansing. Col. House.
Senator Borah. How soon do you expect Col, House in this
country ? (^
176 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANY.
Secretary Lansing. I have not any idea.
Senator Borah. Is there any way oy which we could communicate
with hun and find out?
Secretary Lansing. I suppose so.
Senator Williams. Wire him.
Secretary Lansing. Wire him.
Senator Borah. Where could we wire him ?
Secretary Lansing. You could reach him through the American
embassy in London.
Senator Knox. In London. Mr. Chairman, in. view of the fact
that the Senator from California has indicated that he has quite a
number of questions to ask, and that we can not complete the exami-
nation in one session, I move that we adjourn until 2 o'clock.
Senator Swanson. Or half past 2.
Senator Borah. Before we do that let me ask the Secretary this :
Could you secure this other information by 2 o'clock, Mr. Secretary ?
Secretary Lansing. I doubt it.
Senator Borah. Very well.
The Chairman. The Secretary can return to-morrow.
Senator Knox. Some one has suggested that half past 2 would be
a more convenient hour than 2.
Senator Swan SON. Yes; I think so.
Senator Knox. I will modify my motion, then.
The Chairman. The niotion is that the committee adjourn until
halfpast 2 o'clock. Without objection, that will be done.
(Tnereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjom^ed until
2.30 o'clock p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The committee met at 2.30 p. m., pursuant to the taking of the
recess.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT LANSING, SECRETARY OF
STATE — Continued.
The Chairman. The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. McCumber)
is obliged to leave early this afternoon, and would like to ask the
Secretary some questions before he goes.
Senator McCumber. Mr. Secretary, can you give us the history,
the genesis, of this chapter upon the labor provisions ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir; I can not.
Senator McCumber. You have read it over carefully, I presume?
Secretary Lansing. I have read it; yes.
Senator McCumber. And are acquainted with aD of its provisions 1
Secretary Lansing. I was at one time. I can not say that I am
at the present moment.
Senator McCumber. Do you know who drafted the provisions ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator McCumber. Nor how they were drafted ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I do not.
Senator McCumber. Or how accepted ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OiERMANY. 177
Secretary Lansing. No. My recollection is that there were two
American representatives on the commission, Mr. Gompers and I
think 'Mr. Shotwell.
Senator MoCumber. Mr. Secretary, in order that you may better
understand the import of my questions, and answer accordingly, I
wish to say that wnile I can see the prop|riety of one nation talking
to another nation through a council in which each is represented, and
submitting its differences where the council represents not a bankers'
association, or a mercantile association, or any other individual
association, I can scarcely see the propriety of a great nation being
called to the bar of condemnation by any particular class or any
association. I wish first to call your attention to article 411, on
J>age 505, of the general treaty, the last paragraph before 412, which
ast paragraph reads as follows:
When any matter arising out of articles 410 or 411 ia bein^ considered bv the govern-
ing body, me Government in question shall, if not already represented thereon, be
entitled to send a representative to take part in the proceedings of the governing body
while the matter is under consideration. Adequate notice of the date on which the
matter will be considered shall be given to the Government in question.
The matter referred to is the matter of a complaint by one nation
against another that it has failed to keep its compact with reference
to labor. Under that provision we speak of this governing body here
as something superior to the government itself, and say that the
government may, with the good grace of the governing bodv, be
entitled to a representative to be heard before this World Liabor
Union. Do you consider that as a proper position for a great nation
to occupy before any class of society or any private organization ?
Secretary Lansing. It never was called to my attention before,
and I would not want to pass judgment on it without considering
just the meaning of it. I could not give snap judgment on it.
Senator McCumbeb. Let me carry you a step further then. On
page 507, the first paragraph, which relates to article 412, provides
that each of the members agrees to nominate within six months of
the dat« on which the present treaty comes into force, three persons
of industrial experience and so forth. They are to represent the
several Governments. On page 507 it says:
The qualifications of the persons so nominated shall be subject to scrutiny by the
governing body, which may by two-thirds of the votes cast by the representatives
present refuse to accept the nomination of any person whose Qualifications do not in
its opinion comply with the requirements of the present article.
Under that provision if this Government sends a representative
selected by this Government, this World Labor Union can say to the
United States, " We refuse to recognize the delegate whom you have
sent to us, because we doubt whether his views comport with ours
upon certain things in the treaty." Is not that the true meaning
of it?
Secretary Lansing. So far as the commission of inquiry is con-
cerned, I snould say yes.
Senator McCumbeb. And this commission can veto the action of
the Government in sending the delegate whom it sends, if it sees fit ?
The Chaibman. Does that apply to Government delegates, or
only the other two ?
Secretary Lansing. It relates entirely to a commission of inq^uiry,
and all that is agreed is that each of the members agrees to nommate
135546—19 ^12
178 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
within six months of the date on which the present treaty comes into
force, three persons of industrial experience, of whom one shall be a
representative of employers, one a representative worker and one a
!>erson of independent standing, who shall together form a panel
rom which the members of tne conunission of inquiry shall be
drawn.
Senator McCumber. Yes. Do you not think in a case of that kind
that the Government should have a right to determine whom it
should send, and that that representative should not be subject to
repudiation by this general governing body? Is not that putting
the Government in a rather aoject position f
Secretary Lansing. Well, I am not at all sure. I do not know.
As I say, I am not familiar with this question. I would have to think
this over before answering your question.
Senator McCumber. Then let us take article 414 again.
Secretary Lansing. Does this still relate to the labor organization ?
Senator McCumber. Yes; on the same page, 507:
When the comniUBion of inquiry has fully considered the complaint, it shall prepare
a report embodying its findings on all questions of fact relevant to determinme the
ssue between the parties and contaimng such recommendations as it may think
proper as to the steps which should be taken to meet the complaint and the time
witnin which they snould be taken.
It shall also indicate in this report the measures, if any, of an economic character
against a defaulting Government which it considers to be appropriate, and which it
considers other Governments would be justified in adopting.
Do you understand that to mean that this governing body, after
listening to the report of the conmiission^ jasLY determine that a
boycott should be levied against the Umted States if it failed to
put its laborers, for instance, upon the same basis as the laborers of
Germany or Great Britain or Norway or Sweden or any other
country ?
Secretary Lansing. Of course, it does not say any such thing.
All it says is that they are to report.
Senator McCumber. No ; but it says further that they may report
the measures, if any, of an economic character against a defaulting
Government which it considers to be appropriate, and which it con-
siders other Governments would be justified in adopting. Of course,
they only report.
Secretary Lansing. That is all.
Senator McCumber. But do you think it an appropriate thing for
a great Government to put itself in a position in which it should sub-
ject itself in honor or in any other way to be hauled up before a com-
mission of this kind to answer as to what it should do with ref eirence
to it's own labor ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think there is anything out of the
way about that at all.
Senator McCumber. You would see nothing out of the way ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Harding. The Senator from North Dakota will observe
that if the Government does not see fit to accept the recommendation,
then it is determined by the league of nations.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. That is the principle on which the league of
nations is built, all the way through.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAJs^Y. 179^
Senator McCumbeb. Now, please turn to article 419, on page 509:
*'In the event of any member failing to carry out within the time
specified the reconmiendations, if any, contained in the report of the
commission of inq^uiry, or in the decision of the permanent court of
international justice, as the case may be, any other member may
take against that member the measures of an economic character
indicated in the report of the conmiission or in the decision of tiie
court as appropriate to the case."
I suppose for the same reason you would see no objection to that
provision ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I think the objection would be that it
restricts the member to taking only such measures.
Senator McCumber. Your idea is then
Secretary Lansing. They cotild take those naeasures in any event*
Senator McCumber. Your idea is then, that if this governing body
of the labor organization should make these recommendations, etc.,,
that the Government shotild occupy exactly the same position that
it woTild occupy if the recommendations came from the council
which speaks for the independent nation and does not speak simply
for members of professions, or commerce, or anything inferior to
the nation itself.
Secretary Lansing. I have yet to see anything in here that is
compulsory upon a member.
Senator McCumber. There is nothing that compels the Govern-
ment unless there is more or less of a moral obligation. Do you think
there is no moral obligation when you have signed the treaty to com-
Ely with these requirements and to respond to an accusation that you
ave broken your pledge with these unions, etc. ?
Secretary LiANSING. It does not seem to me that the gathering of
the public opinion of the world and determining what that is in con-
nection with any labor question is a matter tnat imposes a moral
obligation.
Senator McCumber. Do you not think there is something more
than gathering the opinion of the world when an article like 419
declares that in the event of any member failing to carry out within
the time specified the recommendations, if any, contained in the
report of the commission of inquiry, or in the decision of the perma-
nent court of international justice, as the case may be, any other
member may take against that member the measures of an economic
character indicated in the report of the commission or in the decision
of the court as approrpriate to the case ? There is a little more there,,
is there not, than gathering the opinion of other nations on these
economic problems?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; possibly.
Senator McCumber. Now, connecting this up with the balance of
the treaty and the league of nations, suppose, for instance, that Great
Britain or France should come to the conclusion, or rather the
delegates from those two countries who are represented in this gov-
erning body should come to the conclusion, that the United States
has not fulnlled its obligations relative to any treaty or agreement it
had made with reference to labor with any one of these nations, that
Great Britain or France should levy a boycott against the United
States?
180 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAlSrY.
Secretary, Lansing. That they should, or that they could t
Senator McCumber. They could do it under that provision, could
thev not ?
Secretary Lansing. Could — ^not should.
Senator McCumber. Would that be a cause for war ?
Secretary Lansing. That always depends on the government that
feels itself aggrieved, as to whether it is a cause of war. That is a
very wide expression. •
Senator McCumber. If the United States as one of the members of
league of nations desired to fulfill its obligations which it thought it
was in duty boxmd to fulfill, and Great Britain or PYance should lay
a boycott against the United States because the United States declined
to put its labor on an equal footing with that of Great Britain or
France, would you consider that we would have cause of complaint
against Great Britain, and that it was one of the things that was
liable to disturb the peace of the world ?
Secretary Lansing. Why, if it operated in the way you suppose, in
a hypothetical way, it might disturb the peace of the world, 1 should
think; yes.
Senator McCumber. Then, where would it go for final decision ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know.
Senator McCumber. Would it go to the council, or would it go
to this governing body? Which would have jurisdiction of the
subject ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know. You will have to give me
time to stuch'' it. You are asking some very complex questions.
Senator MIcCumber. I admit it. That is all.
Senator Fall. May I ask a question on that line which possibly
will resolve to some extent the complexity ? Is it not a fact that if
we agree to this treaty, and such a government should use any
economic means, by embargo or otherwise against us, that we by
the agreement to the treaty would be prevented from using any
reprisals at all against that government, and that having agreed to
the treaty, if we did use such reprisals or any other means to offset
the action of the government using the economic measures against
us, we ourselves would be guilty of an act of war under the terms
generally of the treaty ?
Secretarj^ Lansing. What articles do you refer to ?
Senator Fall. All of them.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, well; I can not tell. Eighty thousand
words, you know, are too many.
Senator Fall. I supposed you were familiar with the provisions.
Do you mean to say, Mr. Secretary, that you do not understand that
by article 419, if we disobey the orders of this governing body, the
one government being authorized by. ourselves to use tnese means
against us, that we are precluded from using any means in self
defense against that government ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I do not say that.
Senator Fall. You do not consider it in that way ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator JFall. That is all.
Senator Johnson of California. You, Mr. Secretary, were a sig-
natory not only to the general peace treaty but to tlie treaty of al-
liance with France, were you not ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY^ 181
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. When was the first suggestion made
of the treaty of alliance with France ?
Secretary Lansing. Some time in April.
Senator Johnson of California. Wnen was it agreed to? I do
not mean when was it consummated by the signatures, but was it
agreed to in April?
Secretary Lansing. I think it must have been, but I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you a party to the original
conversations concerning it ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. You were not brought in until
subsequently ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I was not broiight in before it was pro-
posed.
Senator Johnson- of California. In April were you a party to the
conversations ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Then, you know whether or not it
was agreed to in April?
Secretary Lansing. Noj you misunderstood me, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. Pardon me ?
Secretary Lansing. The President conferred with me about it in
April before he submitted it to Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd-
George.
Senator Johnson of California. Whose suggestion was it ?
Secretary Lansing. The President's. I do not know whether it
was his original suggestion, but that was the first I heard of it, was
from the President.
Senator Johnson of California. The first you heard of it was the
President's suggestion to you ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And you think that the imderstand-
in^ was accomplished and consimmiated in April ?
secretary Lansing. I am quite sure that it was.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. In sitting in the peace conference
you sat there upon the treaty. There was a subcommittee, as I think
you have stated, consisting of Col. House and the President, so far as
we are concerned, deaUng with the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; they made the report.
Senator Johnson of California. It was discussed there, was it not ?
Secretary Lansing. In a measure.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you a party to the discussion ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I took no part in it.
Senator Johnson of California. You took no part in it at all?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Does the French alliance contra-
vene article 20 of the league of nations covenant, in your opinion ?
Secretary Lansing. No; it is supplementary to it.
Senator Johnson of California. Additional to it ?
Se<Tetary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Could any offensive and defensive
alliance under article 20 of the league of nations be made, in your
opinion ?
182 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Secretary Lansing. I will have to look at that.
Senator New. Page 35.
Secretary Lansing. No ; I do not think it affects it.
^ Senator Johnson of California. That is, any offensive and defen-
sive alliance might be made that would be within the purview of the
league of nations.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. This morning in answering me you
said that one of the ideas — I do not quote you verbatim, and correct
me please, if I misquote you, as I have no such intention, of course —
one of the ideas that you had in offering this treatv was that expe-
diency should not rule principle. That is substantially your language,
I think.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did that prevail in the Shantung
decision ?
Secretary Lansing. Not entirely; no.
Senator Johnson of California. In your opinion it did not t
Secretary Lansing. In my opinion it did not.
Senator Johnson of California. And in the opinion of the other
American representatives whom you named, Gen. Bliss, yourself , and
Mr. White, tnat was the opinion was it not ?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. Was the Shantung decision made
in order to have the Japanese signatures to the league of nations?
Secretary Lansing. That I can not say.
Senator Johnson of California. In your opinion was it ?
Secretary Lansing. I would not want to say that, because I really
have not the facts on which to form an opinion along that line.
Senator Johnson of California. Would the Japanese signatures
to the league of nations have been obtained if you nad not made the
Shantung agreement?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. You do ?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. So that even though Shantung had
not been deUvered to Japan, the league of nations would not nave
been injured ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so.
Senator Johnson of California. And you would have had the same
signatories that you have now ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; one more, China.
Senator Johnson of California.- One more, China. So that the
result of the Shantung decision was simply to lose China's signature
rather than to gain Japan's ?
Secretary Lansing. That is my personal view, but I may be wrong
about it.
Senator Johnson of California. Why did you yield on a question
on which you thought you ought not to yield and that you thought
was a principle ?
Secretary Lansing. Because naturally we were subject to the
direction of the President of the United States.
Senator Johnson of California. And it was solelv because you felt
that you were subject to the decision of the Ptesident of the United
States that you yielded ?
TREATY OF PEAOE WITH QEBMAKY. 183
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. The decision is his ?
Secretary Lansing. Necessarily.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state the reason that he
gave for making the decision t
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall that he stated any.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you on any occasion hear
reasons given by the President for malang the Shantung decision
in contravention of the views expressed by the rest of you 1
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall any.
Senator Johnson of California. Was Col. House in like mind with
you in respect to the Shantung matter ?
Secretary Lansing. I never discussed it with Col. House.
Senator Johnson of California. Did any of the American repre-
sentatives discuss it with Col. House, so far as you recall ?
Secretary Lansing. So far as I recall, no.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know at all his opinion
upon the subject?
Secretary Lansing. No, I do not. I never discussed it with him.
Senator JTohnson of California. Why ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, it never came up in our conversation.
The matter was ended.
Senator Johnson of California. It was a matter, at the time you
addressed your note to the President, that you felt was of great
importance, did you not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And it was a matter upon which
you three gentlemen felt so keenly that you addressed your note to
the President?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. On what theory did you not con-
sult the other member of the delegation ?
Secretary Lansing. He was not present at our meeting when we
discussed it.
Senator Hitchcock. Senator, has not the witness already stated
that the reason why he wrote that note was because the President
requested him to put in writing something that he had said in con-
versation? It was the request of the President that led to that note.
Secretary Lansing. That is it. I stated that.
Senator Johnson of California. Then you had expressed verbally,
the three of you, yoiu* opinion to the President, when you wrote the
opinion ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; and Col. House was there.
Senator Johnson of California. Did Col. House express any
opinion ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I think not. I do not recall.
Senator Johnson of California. But the opinions that you ex-
pressed were substantially what you put into that note ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; substantially.
Senator Johnson of California. This morning you said that this
treaty had substantially carried out the 14 points. I begin with
point No. 1. [Reading:]
Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private
intemati(nud undetvtandinga of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly
and in the public view.
184 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEKMAKY.
That was impossible of fulfillment at the Paris conference, was
it not?
Secretary Lansing. Of course, no negotiation can go on between
nations that is done in public at public hearings. That is quite out of
the question. That is the meaning.
Senator Johnson of California, x ou did not carry that out at the
Paris peace conference?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; its meaning.
Senator Johnson of California. It was carried out at the Paris peace
conference ?
Secretary Lansing. I should consider it was.
Senator Johnson of California. The second one [reading]:
Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in
peace and in war, except as tne seas may be closed in whole or in part by international
action for the enforcement of international covenants.
Was that carried out?
Secretary Lansing. There was nothing done with it.
Senator Johnson of California. Nothing at all ? Why ?
Secretary Lansing. It never was raised.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not a fact that England would
not permit it to be done ?
Secretary Lansing. It never was raised.
Senator Johnson of California. Did she not, before you met, say
she would not permit the question of the freedom of the seas to be
discussed ?
Senator Bbandegee. Said she would not allow it to be considered.
Secretary Lansing. That was not made except by men On the
stump.
Senator Johnson of California. In England ?
Secretary Lansing. In England.
Senator Johnson of California. Not oJOBicially ?
Secretary Lansing. Not officially.
Senator Borah. It was made by the premier.
Secretary Lansing. He made it on the stump. It was before the
election. [Laughter.]
Senator Johnson of California. All right. Why was it not con-
sidered then at the Paris peace conference ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know, sir.
Senator "dobah. That was one election pledge that was carried out.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson of California. Three. [Reading:]
The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an
equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and aaso-
elating themselves for its maintenance.
Was that carried out ?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. Wherein ?
Secretary Lansing. Where has it not been ? That is the point.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you say that that has been in
every respect ?
Secretary Lansing. So far as I can recall.
Senator Johnson of California. Four. [Reading:]
Adequate guaranties given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to
the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAlinr. 186
t
Secretary Lansing. That has been, so far as possible.
Senator Johnson of California. Where is that done?
Secretaiy Lansing. In the league of nations provision for dis-
armament.
Senator Johnson of California. But there is not any provision
except what is optional with any particidar nation in relation to
disarmament.
Secretary Lansing. It is not entirely optional.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not ?
Secretary Lansing. Let us look at it.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you state from memory what
is provided in the league of nations on disarmament ?
Secretary Lansing. From memory? I prefer to look.
Senator Johnson of California. Are you under the impression,
Mr. Secretarv, that the league of nations does disarm all nations ?
Secretary Lansing. It has that intention.
Senator Johnson of California. It has that intention, but it does
not do the act, does it?
Secretary Lansing. Not directly.
^nator Johnson of California. Are you not familiar with the
fact that it leaves it optional with every nation whether or not there
shall be ultimate disarmament?
Secretaiy Lansing. No; I am not, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. If you want to examine those
provisions, Mr. Secretary
Senator Harding. Page 23, Mr. Secretary .
Senator Bobah. Article 8.
Secretary Lansing (reading) :
The members of the league recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the
reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national Bsdety
and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.
The council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each
State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the
several Governments.
Senator Johnson of California. In your opinion, that causes the
various Governments to disarm, does it ?
Secretary Lansing. It' is only the moral obligation that has been
arged here frequently.
Senator Johnson of California. It is optional with each Govern-
ment whether it does disarm, is it not?
Secretary Lansing. Always so. That is true in practically the
entire covenant.
Senator Johnson of California. You do not accomplish disarma-
ment by the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, probably not in exact terms.
Senator Knox. Do you mean to say that there is complete liberty
of action in respect to all f eatiu-es of the covenent ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I say practically this, that every nation
ultimately has the veto.
Senator Knox. Then, it has that liberty of action?
Secretary Lansing. It has. There is no more modification of our
sovereignty than there was in the case of the Panama treaty.
186 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
*
Senator jInox. What was guaranteed there?
Secretary Lansing. The sovereignty of Panama.
Senator Johnson of California. Five. [Reading:]
A free, open-minded , and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims,
based upion a strict observance of the principle that in determininff all such auestions
of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must nave equal weight
with the equitable claims of the Government whose title is to be determined.
Was that carried out in the peace treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. It has not been, entirely, yet.
Senator Johnson of California. You hope tnat it will be, eventu-
aUy?
Secretary Lansing. I do.
Senator Johnson of California. Carried out voluntarily by what
machinery of the peace treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. Possibly under a system of mandates.
Senator Johnson of California. Under a system of mandates ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. By the way, are there any manda-
tories undertaken by the United States ?
Secretary Lansing. I think not. .
Senator Johnson of California. Any suggestion for mandatories ?
Secretary Lansing. Manv.
Senator Johnson of California. Any now that are in contemplation
that the United States should undertake ?
Secretary Lansing. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Johnson of California. Any that the United States has
tentatively agreed to ?
Secretary Lansing. None.
Senator Johnson of California. But at any rate at the peace con-
ference this fifth point was carried out only in prospective
Secretary Lansing. It could not be.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. By virtue of what might be done
ultimately under mandatories ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Six. [Reading:]
The evacuation of all Russian territory —
I will not read the sixth clause unless you wish it read. There was
nothing done respecting Russia at the peace conference definitively I
Secretary Lansing. No; there could not be.
Senator Johnson of California. Seventh, which relates to Belgium,
and I assume is entirely carried out by the peace treaty.
The eighth relates to the French territory. [Reading:]
All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Nine. [Reading:]
A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable
lines of nationality.
Was that done ?
Secretary Lansing. It has not been settled yet.
Senator Johnson of California. It is still in process of settlement ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes. It does not come under the German
treaty.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 187
Senator Johnson of California. Ten. [Reading:]
The peoples of Austria-Hungarv, whose place among the nations we wish to see
safeguard ea and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous
development.
Has that been done I
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. In all eleven. [Reading:]
Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories re-
stored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and tne relations of the
several Balkan States to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically
established lines of all^^iance and nationality; and international guaranties of the
Solitical and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan
tatee should be entered into.
Was that done ?
Secretary Lansing. Not yet. The treaties have not been made
covering that.
Senator Johnson of California. Twelve relates to the Turkish
Empire, the Ottoman Empires, which I presume are in process of
adjustment, and have not been made as yet by the German treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. Not vet^
Senator Johnson of California. Thirteen. [Reading:]
An independent Polish State should be erected which should include the territories
inhabited oy indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and
secure acce^ to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and terri-
torial integrity should be guaranteed oy international covenant.
Has that been accomplished ?
Secretary Lansing, i es.
Senator Johnson of California. XIV relates to the association in a
league of nations. So that you feel that your answer this morning,
that substantially all of the 14 points haye been carried out; is
correct, do you?
Secretary Lansing. I do, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. The Shantung decision, was that
within any of the 14 points!
Secretary Lansing. Well, I do not recall what one.
Senator Johnson of California. It was rather contrary to some,
was it not t
Secretary Lansing. I do not know which one you refer to. Which
point do you refer to ?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Well, there is one concerning racial
characteristics, and the like, that I thought it might be contrary to.
Secretary Lansing. I thought that was especially in relation to
Austria-Hungary.
Senator Johnson of California. And one in relation to Italy, too.
There was another point about self->determination; that might cover
that.
Secretary Lansing. In the 14 points?
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. It was in a subsequent address
containing four additional points, if you recall, called general state-
ment. It hardly would come under the consummation of self-
determination, would it ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I should think not.
188 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The Chairman. If the Senator from California will allow me to
interrupt. We have four points laid down at Mount Vernon the 4th
of July, 1918, and the second one is:
The settlement of every question, whether of tenitoryj of sovereignty, of economic
arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the basis of the free acceptance of
that settlement by tne people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the
material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a dif-
ferent settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.
That seems to me, perhaps, to cover the Shantung case.
Senator Johnson oi California. Yes* I presume that I am not
incorrect in saying that that violates tne Shantung decision, violates
the provision that has been read, does it not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. When the American delegates went
to Paris, did they have any particular or specific ideas in reference to
reparations ?
Senator Borah. Senator Johnson, before you take that up, will
you permit me to ask a question ?
Senator Johnson of California. Surely.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, after the decision in the Shantung
aflfair, after this adjustment finally found itself in the treaty, I have
been informed that either the President or some representative of the
President notified the Chinese delegates as to the settlement that had
to be made. Do you know who it was that notified them, whether
it was the President or some other person ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. Or whether some other individual.
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you that.
Senator Borah. Do you know anything about the communication
which was carried to them, the message which was taken to them,,
and the explanation which was given to them ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I knew something about it, but I can not
recall what.
Senator Borah. Before you return to the stand, if you have any
information in the State Department or any memorandum of your
own by which you could give me the information as to who carried
that message, whether it was the President or some one for him, I
would be glad to have it.
Secretary Lansing. I can assure you now that I have no such
memorandum.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall that a message waa
taken to them t
Secretary Lansing. There was some communication taken to them.
Li what form it was given I am not at all sure.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not the
Chinese were denied the right of attaching their signature to the
treaty, with a protest ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know. I heard so.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not they
were denied the right of signature to the treaty with a reservation *
Secretary Lansing. That would be the same thing.
Senator Johnson of California. By whose authority was that done ?
Secretary Lansing. It would naturally be done oy the heads of
the States.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 189
Senator Johnson of California. Only by the heads of States i
Secretary Lansing. Of the council.
Senator Johnson of California. Not by the general peace confer-
ence?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Knox. Was anybody allowed to sign with protest ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; there was no one.
Senator ^nox. Did not Smuts make a protest ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; but he signed the treaty without it.
Senator Knox. Without the protest ?
Secretary IjANsing. Yes, sir.
Senator roifEBENB. That is, without incorporating it as a part of
his signature ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Knox. But he did it at the time of affixing his signature,
did he not ?
Secretary Lansing. It was issued later.
Senator Johnson of California. Cotild jow tell me whether or not
in the American draft of the league of nations a central international
police power was proposed ?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know. In the American draft ?
Senator .Iohnson of California. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. I do not know, but my recollection is there
was not, but I wotild not want to commit myself on the subject.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether there was
an international police power under an international management
and control, xmder which each nation should contribute its propor-
tionate share of naval armament, etc., whether that was a part of
the American proposid?
Secretary Lansing. I do not, but my impression would be that
there was not.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall any discussion upon
that particular subject?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I do not.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you recall whether or not
England objected to any such provision and said that she would not
permit it?
Secretary Lansing. No; I do not know. I never had any discus-
sion with the British on the subject.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you discuss personally with
any of the foreign commissioners the various provisions of the league
of nations?
Secretary Lansing. I did not but once, that was very early in the
proceedings, and it was very general.
Senator Johnson of Caufomia. And subsequently to that time
you did not at all ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at all, not after the commission was
organized.
Senator Johnson of California. There was a very dramatic dis-
Satch that came over to this country at the time of the Shantung
ecision which stated, as I recall it, substantially that the question
arose and then the Japanese commissioners said that the matter had
been determined, and upon the President's inquiry as to how it had
been determined, it developed then for the first time that the secret
190 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
treaties existed between Japan and the British, Japan and France,
and Japan and Italy, concerning the disposition of Shantung. Is
that an accurate statement ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know. I never heard of it except
in the newspapers.
Senator Johnson of California. You probably saw that item that
was cabled across as one of the dramatic incidents of the peace
conference ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of California. When that occurred you were not
present ?
Secretary Lansing. I was not present and knew nothing of it.
Senator Johnson of California. Were not the secret treaties a
matter of discussion constantly at the peace conference.
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you familiar with the
treaties that had been made after the commencement of the war
concerning the disposition of territory by the different belligerents ?
Secretary Lansing. I was more familiar with the London agk*ee-
ment, that affected the Italian boundaries, than any other.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you familiar with any
other agreements between
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you know that any such
existed ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you not read of them at the
time of the Russian revolution ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I knew about the British and the Japan-
ese treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; but did you not read of other
treaties as well?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you not ever know of such
treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know now of any such
treaties as to territorial disposition except those that you have
mentioned ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Do jou know whether or not any
treaties were made with reference to Syria, Mesopotamia, and the like 1
Secretary Lansing. No; I have read of it since.
Senator Johnson of California. Since you came home ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Before you came home you never
heard of it at all ?
Secretary Lansing. I may have heard of it at Paris, but whether
there was discussion of it, I have no recollection.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not the
territorial disposition made under the treaties and those that are
being made, are being made in accordance with the secret treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. You mean in Turkey ?
Senator Johnson of California. Those in regard to Mesopotanaia,
Syria, and Turkey; yes.
TBEATY OF PEACB WITH GERMANY. 191
Secretary Laxsiko. I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. You do not know whether there
were any treaties made during the war or not ?
Secretary Lansing. No; because I never paid any attention to
that.
Senator Johnson of California. But you did in the Shantung
decision ?
Secretary Lansing. I mean outside of that.
Senator Johnson of California. Outside of that? I think I can
refredi your recollection, perhaps. Do you not recaU the publica-
tion, even in this country, of the treaties for the disposition of terri-
torv that were made among the belligerents dining the war ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I wish to be a little more definite.
To what belligerents do you refer? What territory ?
Senator Johnson of California. France, England, and Italy.
Secretary Lansing. I do not know. I knew about the London
agreement.
Senator Johnson of California. You knew about the pact of
London ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know what that disposed
of?
Secretary Lansing. That disposed of the territories along the
Adriatic in northern Italy.
Senator Johnson of California. Did it dispose of any territories in
Turkey, Syria, or Mesopotamia ?
Secretary Lansing. I think not.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not any
of the treaties did dispose of any of the territories in those coimtries ?
Secretary Lansing. I have heard that there were certain treaties,
but I have never seen them and do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. You said that you had heard of
those only since you have returned.
Secretary Lansing. I only say that I may have heard of them in
Paris, but I paid no attention to the matter of considering the Otto-
man questions.
Senator Johnson of California. Well was the pact of liOndon recog-
nized at the peace conference ?
Secretary Lansing. No, you can not say that it was.
Senator Johnson of California. You mean by that that it was not
wholly recognized ?
Secretary Lansing. No, it was not wholly recognized.
Senator Johnson of California. Was it not generally recognized ?
Secretary Lansing. It was recognized in the north, but not on the
Adriatic.
Senator Johnson of California. That is because that particular
matter is not yet settled ?
Secretary Liansing. It is not yet settled.
Senator Johnson of California. But so far as there has been a con-
summation, the pact of London was recognized ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether upon any
previously executed treaty the territorial dispositions are now being
made in the peace conference ?
192 TBBATY OF PEAOB WITH GEBMAKY.
SecretaryLANSiNG. No.
Senator Williams. Mr. Lansing, this treaty between Great Britain
and Japan and the treaty between France and Japan, and Italy and
Japan, these treaties were all entered into before or after Japan had
conquered the part of Shantung which she did conquer from Germany i
Secretary Lansing. Mr. Senator, I never have seen the text of any
one of those treaties, and I am not at all sure when they were entered
into.
Senator Williams. As a matter of fact Japan did reconquer from
Germany the part of Shantung which Germany had held ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes.
Senator Williams. Now you do not know whether her agreement
with Great Britain and France antedated that conquest or postdated
it.
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you.
Senator Bobah. I was going to give him the dates. They were
made in March and February, 1917.
Senator Williams. Which ones ?
Senator Borah. The secret treaties.
Secretary Lansing. They were made in' 1916, not 1917.
Senator Borah. I think you are mistaken.
Senator Wiluams. If they were made in 1917, they were made
after Japan had conquered the country.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. Senator Johnson was questioning you about
Mesopotamia, The Mesopotamian question as well as the Syrian
and Armenian questions will have to be settled in the treaty with
Turkey?
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes.
Senator Williams. But that treaty has not been negotiated ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. Not at all.
Senator Williams. And whatever treaty is effected by the allied
and associated powers, or rather the allied powers, that treaty of
peace with Turkey will settle those questions!
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes.
Senator Williams. Is there any reason why the United States
should be a party to a treaty of peace with Turkey ? We never had
any war with Turkey, did we '«
SecretaryLANSiNG. I answered that earlier.
Senator Williams. Did you? Very well, I beg your pardon.
Secretary Lansing. The thought of the President had been that
we should be a signatory to the treaty in that we took part in the
negotiations with them.
Senator Williams. Yes; I understand that. There was no reason
why we should establish peace with Turlcey, not having had war
with her ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, no; al)solutely not.
Senator Williams. And therefore we are not necessarily parties
to that treaty. Now, I want to ask you another question. This
treaty between Italy on the one hand and Great Britain and France
upon the other as to the Dalmatian coast, that part of Italv Irre-
denta, as it was claimed, in which they agreed that it should go to
Italy at the end of the war — did that treaty include the town of
Fiume ?
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GEBMAKT. 193
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Williams. Italy, then, in contending for the town of
Fiume, is contending not only for all the so-called secret treaty
arrangements made with her, but is contending for more ?
Secretarv IjANSing. Yes. Of course I confess I do not quite
understand the line of these questions, because T do not see what
they have to do with the treaty of peace with Germany.
Senator Williams. The line "of the questions is to attack the treaty
and the lea^e of nations.
Secretary Lansing. T know, but I am simply trying to answer
what will be useful in connection with the German treaty.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, I think you will find that those
special agreements, secret agreements, were made on the following
dates: The British agreement February 16, 1917; the French agree-
ment March 3, 1917; the Russian agreement February 20, 1917; the
Italian agreement March 7, 1917.
Senator Williams. And all of that was after Japan had conquered
the German possessions in Shantimg.
Senator Borah. And just before Ishii came over here to get his
agreement with this coimtry.
Secretary Lansing. No; Ishii
Senator Borah. No; it was in November, 1917.
Secret arvLiANSiNG. 1917.
Senator Williams. That what took place — oh, that Ishii made his
agreement I
Senator Borah. Yes.
Senator Williams. I was not tidking about the Ishii agreement.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Does the fact that is apparently
established now, that these secret treaties were made before your
agreement with Ishii, bring to your mind any of the particular
conditions ?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I would have to refresh my memory on
that.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. You do not recaU that you had
in mind these treaties at all ?
Secretary Lansing. I did not know about these treaties at that
time.
Senator Johnson of California. You did not know about these
treaties at the time of the Lansing-Ishii agreement, as it is called t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. You said ^ou did not understand
the exact line of the questions that I was aslang. I do not wish to be
repetitive or insistent, but I ask you a^ain, do you not remember the
publication even in this coimtry of tne treaties for the disposition
of territory, after the war and in the peace, of the various belligerents 1
Secretary Lansing. No, sir; I confess I do not. When were they
published ?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. They were published — ^I got my
copies in the New York Evening Post.
Secretary Lansing. At what time t
Senator JoEmsoN of Califomia. Oh, it was a long time ago; I can
not tell you how long ago; long before the armistice, you know,
during the war.
Secretary Lansing. Well, possibly that is so.
136516—19 ^13
194 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator Johnson of California. During the war they were fu^t
published ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I do not remember at all.
Sentor roMERSNE. May I ask, for my own information, are you
referring now to the publication of these treaties as made by the
Russian Government ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; I think Kerensky published
them first, and then thw appeared in the New York Evening Post.
Senator Pomerene. I remember seeing them there.
Senator Johnson of California. I can not ask you anything about
that because you say you do not know anything about those secret
treaties, but if it was demonstrated as a fact that the territorial
administrations were made and were being made in Paris according
to those secret treaties — ^but I will no ask you anvthing about those
secret treaties because you are not familiar with them. I make that
explanation because you said you did not understand the trend of the
questions I asked.
Secretary Lansing. You mean in connection with the German
treaty?
Senator Johnson of California. Not only in connection with the
German treaty, but in connection with the treaties that are bein^ made
now. However, I pass that because of your unf amUiarity with the
various treaties.
Now, did the American commissioner have any particular theory
concerning reparations under the German treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. That question also I would like to know what
you mean by. We had the general theory in regard to reparations
that Germany could never pay for the damage that she had caused,
and that she should pay just so far as she was able. That was the
whole policv of our conunission.
Senator Johnson of California. To determine how much she could
pay, and assess it against her }
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you do it ?
Secretary Lansing. So far as possible.
Senator Johnson of California. How did you do it ?
Secretary Lansing. How do you mean ?
Senator Johnson of California. How did you assess what she should
pay?
Secretary Lansing. We have not assessed what she should pay.
Senator Johnson of California. That is what I asked you.
Secretary Lansing. It could not be done.
Senator Johnson of California. It could not be done ?
Secretary Lansing. It could not be done.
Senator Johnson of California. It has not been done.
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it a possibility that it shall be
done?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Through the reparation commis-
sion ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. When that has determined the
axnoimt to be assessed ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 195
Senator Johnson of California. Which is left indefinite at the
present time ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, because they can not tell. They dis-
cussed that.
Senator Johnson of California. And it is left to the Reparation
Conunission to assess such sum as they may deem appropriate ?
Secretary Lansing. No; it is based on the ability of Germany to
pay, and the relative
Senator Williams. Claims ?
Secretary Lansing. On the relative division that should be made
according to the character of damages done.
Senator Johnson of California. The division is a secondary problem
that I am coming to in just a minute.
Secretary Lansing, i es.
Senator Johnson of California. But it is left to the Reparation
Commission to fix the amount ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Solely with regard to the ability of
Germany to pay ?
Secretary Lansing. Exactly.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, do you know how the Repa-
ration Commission arrive at their decision t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether they have to
florrive at that unanimously ?«
Secretary Lansing. I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. You do not know?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. You are a port of the treaty
making, and of this particular treaty ?
Secretajy Lansing. Exactly^ but I could not pick up all these
various matters and details. It is physically impossible.
Senator Williams. He could not carry it all in his head if he were
Solomon.
Senator Johnson of California. I am not asserting, that he is
Solomon, or that he can carry it in his head.
Secretary Lansing. It is very much easier to ask questions that
jou have prepared in advance than it is to answer questions prepared
in advance and asked you when you do not know what is going to be
asked you; I asked at the committee to know what I was to be
questioned about. They said they did not know, so that I had to
come up here without any preparation.
Senator Johnson of Caliiomia. If I had known that you had made
a request of that Idnd I would have been very glad to have put them
in writing and fimiished you a copy.
Secretary Lansing. I would have been glad to have it.
Senator Johnson of California. If you would prefer, I will let this
thing pass for the moment.
S^retary Lansing. No; I am perfectly willing, if it is satisfactory
to you i
Senator Johnson of California. It is perfectly satisfactory to me,
but I do not want to be at all disagreeable to you ia the examination*
Secretary Lansing. I appreciate your courtesy.
196 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBRMAKY.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, if you tell me you are not
familiar with the reparation part of this treaty I will not trouble you
on it; I will not bother you about it.
Secretary Lansing. No; I am not. In many ways it was a very
complicated affair, and it was worked over for months, and worked
out oy men who were more or less experts in the matters of finance
and economics. It id largely an industrial and financial question,
and I am in no way an expert myself on it. I would not knoiie"
whether it was worked out properly or not.
Senator Johnson of Caliiomia. 1 intended to ask you a series of
questions as to its workability and whether or not it could be carried
out, but I will refrain from domg so, under your statement, on account
of your lack of knowledge on it.
Secretary Lansing. les. It is a matter of expert knowledge.
Senator Johnson of California. You do know, as a matter of policy,
whether the United States intends to take any part of the reparation ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know whether that has been deter-
mined. I never have heard it discussed.
Senator Johnson of California. You say you have never heard it
discussed ?
Secretary Lansing. We have never discussed that, to my knowl-
edge.
Senator Johnson of California. I understood from some witness's
testimony here that it had been determined, and tentatively deter-
mined by the President, that we would have no part in the reparation.
Secretary Lansing. You see. naturally, the experts in a matter of
this sort would go directly to tne heads of the States, because that is
where the determination lay, in the determination of items of that sort
in the treaty.
Senator Fall. I might suggest to the gentleman from California^
and to the Secretary also, tiiat the President of the United States sent
a written request to this committee the other day that they might
advise him and help him in the appointment of a commissioner on this
reparation board.
Senator Swanson. I understood Senator Johnson's question to be
whether we will have any part of the reparation, and not whether we
will take part in its admmistration.
Senator Johnson of Calif omia. Yes; that is correct. If there has
been a misunderstanding, I will ask the question again, whether or
not it was tentatively or otherwise understood or agreed that we
were to have no part in the reparation; not in the reparation com-
mission, but in the reparation ultimately paid.
Secretary Lansing. I do not think there has been any definite
agreement as to that. Personally, I am in favor of not taking any.
Tnat is mypersonal view.
Senator Williams. What is that ?
Secretary Lansing. Personally, I am opposed to taking any repara-
tion.
Senator HrrcHcooK. You mean so far as the Government is
concerned.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Hitchcock. You do not mean so far as private individuals
are concerned ?
Secretary Lansing. No; they must all be paid.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANT. 197
Senator Hitchcock. There are $100,000,000 of shipping losses
during the war, and they have got to be paid.
Secretary Lansing, Yes.
Senator HrrcHcocK. And they are reparations.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
. Senator Johnson of California. Do you happen to know whether
that is the President's personal opinion ?
Secretary Lansing. I understand that it is so.
Senator Johnson of California. I understood that from his speech
of July 4, that that was his position.
Senator Williams. I want to ask you a question on anothei:
phase of the matter. Discussion came up the other day as to how far
the league of nations would affect the question of boundaries, and the
assertion was made by the witness then before us to the effect that
certain boundaries that were not laid out on strategical lines, but
were laid out on other lines, of nationality or race, could not be
supported except with the league of nations; which led to some
acrimonious debate around the table. Have you ever read that
page or two of the treaty containing the boundaries between Poland
and Germany ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. I have, at one time.
Senator Williams. Now, I want to ask vou this question. Could
that boundary be maintained by Poland for six months, or for any
great length of time, without a league of nations and its moral
force behmd Poland ?
Secretary Lansing. Not unless Germany was disarmed and
Poland was armed.
Senator Williams. And kept disarmed ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. If you follow out the line, that boundary is
not at all strategi6al, is it ?
Secretary Lansing. No; it is not.
Senator Williams. There are no natural objects that make it
strong! It is just the line that they tried to get the majority of
Poles on one side of, and the majority of Germans on the other?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. And now and then they could not succeed,
because the line could not be made too zigzaggy ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
. Senator Williams. Are there not other boundaries of which the
same thing could be said, of bi^ nations?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; it is quite true in several instances that
the boundaries are not strategic in any way. And I think this
should be said, that in certain cases the ethnological line has given
place to the economic line. My own theory is that the economic
fine is frequently more important than the ethnographic line.
Senator Williams. It might be, in a particular place.
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes.
Senator Williams. Is not this true, that they tried to be guided
by racial and national lines so far as they coida, but now and then
they would strike a place where the economic question made it
absolutely necessary to overlook the other, in a small territory ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
198 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator vVilliams. For instance — the country around Fiume, the
population is largely Italian, and the thing wmch led them to dis-
regard the racial Question there was the economic question of trans-
portation and traae?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. I beg you to follow me in asking
you this question:
On the 28th of June, 1919, there waB read into the record a cable-
gram from the President, addressed to his fellow-countrymen,
annoimcin^ the signing of the peace treaty, and speaking of the league
of nations ne said:
It associates the free governments of the world in a permanent league in which
they are pledged to use their united power to maintain peace by maintaining right
and justice.
Further that the member governments ^'undertake to be responsible
to the opinion of mankind in the execution of their task by accepting
the direction of the lea^ie of nations."
In the President's address to the Senate, on July 10, again speaking
of the league of nations, he said:
It provided a means of common counsel which all were pledged to accept; a commoii
authority whose decisions would be recognized as decisions which all must respect.
On the 9th of May, 1919, Secretary Tumulty gave out the following
message from President Wilson^ referring to the Franco-American
treaty:
I have promised to propose to the Senate a supplement in which we shall agree,
subject to the approval of the council of the league of nations, to come immediately
to the assistance of France in case of unprovoked attack by Grermany, thus merely
hastening the action to which we should be bound by the covenant of the league of
nations.
In his message to the Senate, dated July 29, 1919, transmitting the
Franco-American treaty, the President says:
The covenant of the league of nations provides for military action for the protection
of its members only upon advice of the council of the league. Advice given, it is to
be presumed, only upon deliberation and acted upon by each of the governments of
the member states only after its own judgment justifies such action.
The (][uestion I desire to ask you is this: Which one of these state-
ments is correct? Are we bound by the common authority of the
league, as stated in the President's address of July 10? Would we
be bound by the covenant of the league to go to the relief of France, '
as stated in the Tumulty message of May 9, or would we be free to
accept the advice of the league only if our own judgment justified
such action, as stated in the President's message of July 29 ?
Can you follow me ?
Secretary Lansing. I can, and I do.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you answer me ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I am not going to answer — I am not going
to interpret the President's language for nim.
Senator Johnson of California. AH right, sir.
Senator Knox. No; but it seems to me that calls for an interpre-
tation of the treaty.
Secretary Lansing. I know, that is quite true ; if not from anything
that the President has said. If you ask me for an interpretation of it,
that is a different thing.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 199
Senator Knox. Speaking from the language of the treaty itself ,
is it a matter in which we have perfect freedom of action under
article 10?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Knox. You think so.
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes.
Senator Knox. You think that we may do just as we please with-
out violating our honor or agreement on any recommendation made
in the council of the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Knox. That is mighty important.
Secretary Lansing. I think we have got, certainly, that legal right.
Senator Knox. I asked you about the moral ri^ht.
Secretary Lansing. No, you did not mention that.
Senator Knox. Yes, I said without violating our honor; with
honor.
Secretary Lansing. With honor ?
Senator Knox. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. I presmne in honor we would have to follow
out the general purposes of that article.
Senator Knox. In other words if the council of the league of
nations directed us to resort to arms aeainst China in order to pre-
vent her from regaining her rights in Shantimg, we would be boimd
to do it?
Secretary Lansing. If Congress approved.
Senator Knox. No, I am not talkme about Congress, I am talking
about the obligations we have assmned under the treaty.
Secretary Lansing. I do not think that is an absolute obligation.
Senator KNOX. It is one thing or the other, Mr. Secretary. We
either have liberty of action, or we are bound by our agreement, and
there has been a sreat deal of difference of opinion in the discussion
in the Senate on uiat subject, and apparently among the Democratic
Members of the Senate some are convinced that we are absolutely
bound by the decision of the council. Others say, just as this last
expression of the President indicates, that it is up to us to decide,
after the recommendations have been made.
Secretary Lansing. Is it not very much like the Panama Treaty ?
Senator Knox. I do not think there is a particle of analogy between
the Panama treaty and that, because in Panama we were defending
our own property. We have a zone in Panama, and we have built
the jgreatest engineering enterprise in the world, and the peace of the
environment is essential to the operation of that property. We are
merely defending our own down there. I do not see any analogy
between this and the Panama treaty.
Secretary Lansing. It is more essential, then, that there should be
peace in Panama than that there should be peace in all the world I
Senator Knox. No; not at all. That is a non sequitur. It is in
my mind that wherever we have tremendous property interests at
stake we should see that there is peace in that neighborhood.
Secretary Lansing. And therefore the change of sovereignty would
affect our mhts there ?
Senator l&ox. Would affect our rights.
Seoretaary Lansing. How could that be, under that law t
^
200 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Knox. The change of sovereignty would affect our rights
in this sense, that as long as our zone and our great property is sur-
rounded by a friendly nation we are at peace. That is a matter of
great concern to us; but the difference between that and guaranteeing
tne territorial int^rity and the political independence of a remote
nation is just as great as the difference between night and day, to my
mind.
Secretary Lansing. It is a difference in degree rather than any-
thing else.
Senator £[nox. It is the degree, I think, that determines the ques-
tion.
Secretary Lansing. But it binds future Congresses, does it not —
that treaty I
Senator Knox. Only in. the sense that future Congresses might
feel that the same reasons that justified the making of the treaty
would justify the carrymg of it out as long as we have the canal.
Senator Williams. Which cost us the most money from an Ameri-
can standpoint, the Panama Canal or the European war t
Secretary Lansing. It is hardly necessary to answer that question.
Senator Williams. It seems that we had a pretty important
interest in that war when we were dragged into it against our own will.
Senator Knox. We did not go into it in pursuance of any agree-
ment whatever.
Senator Williams. No; but if we had gone into it in the pursuance
of any agreement we would not have been any more in it than we were
without any agreement.
Senator JS^nox. But I do think in all seriousness that it is impor-
tant to understand the provisions of the treaty. In one breath the
President says we are bound. In the next breath he says we may
act according to our own discretion upon the recommendation. Now,
we ought redly to know what the thing means, and I am only trying
to set your opinion, because I value your opinion.
Secretary Lansing. Thank vou. 1 confess that all it provides in
article 10 is that the council snail advise upon the means.
Senator Johnson of California. That is tne last sentence of article
10. That is as to a threat or a danger. First we guarantee. Then
after that sentence guaranteeing comes another sentence
Or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression
If you will follow me, am I accurate in that statement ?
Secretary Lansing. You are
the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfiUed.
That is the obligation with respect to preserving territorial integ-
rity and the political independence.
Senator Johnson of California. Vou do not divide it, then, as
Senator Lodge does, into two distinct segments or sections t
Secretary Lansing. No; indeed I do not. There is no comma
after the word ** aggression."
Senator Williams. Mr Secretary, Italy had an alliance with Ger-
many and Austria under which Italy was obliged to go the assistance
of her allies imder certain circumstances, in a war of defense. Ger-
many declared that she was in a war of defsnse. Austria declared
that she was in a war of defense, and Italy put her own interpretation
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 201
upon the sort of war it was, and declared that she was neutral. Is
not that analogous? There may be a moral obligation, but after all
each nation is left to determine whether the particular circumstances
that bind it are confronting it ?
Secretary Lansing. I thmk you are right, Mr. Senator.
Senator Knox. I think, Mr. Secretary, that there is no one phase
of the covenant of the league of nations that the public are so much
interested in as in Article X, and I think any elucidation that you
can make of it would be a real service, to tell us your opinion as to
whether we have bound ourselves so that in honor we must accept the
advice of the council and go to the relief of nations that are threat-
ened by outside ageression or whether we can take the matter under
consideration and ao as we please.
Secretarv Lansing. As I understand the last clause of article ten,
the council shall meet to consider the means by which this obligation
shall be fulfilled, and then it is up to the various nations to take such
action as they may deem proper after the result of that consultation
is reported.
Senator Knox. But that advice is only as to the means. We have
already entered into a covenant that we will do the thing.
Secretarv Lansing. YeS; that is quite true.
Senator "^Nox. If you have covenanted to do a thing and then
leave it to somebody "to determine the means, it seems to me you are
under an obligation to adopt the means suggested by the council or
committee, or whatever the authority is that suggests the means.
The strength of the covenant, it seems to me, is in the first sentence
there.
Secretary liANsiNG. It is, and the word ''aggression" is very
important. ' The word ''aggression" naturally conveys the idea of a
wrongful act. Now, somenody has to determine whether or not it is
a wrongful act. As I read it, the mere invasion of territory is not
necessarily an aggressive act. You mav invade territory to protect
your own nationals fi*om danger. 1 do not assume for one
moment
Senator Knox. Would it not be aggression just the same, only it
would be justifiable ag^ssion t It is still aggression.
Secretary Lansing, rossibly that is in a broader sense, but 1
assume that this is used in tne narrower sense of an evil invasion.
For example, I can conceive where it is necessary to land troops in
time of revolution or anarchy to protect your own citizens and their
property.
Senator Knox. I would not regard that as an aggression at aU.
Secretary Lansing. That is not agression.
Senator Knox. I would not regard that as agression.
Secretaiy Lansing. And there mi^ht be simnar cases, where you
could cover considerable area of temtory.
Senator Knox. But take a case where it was a distinct aggression.
We bind ourselves to protect the territorial integrity and political
independence of all members of the league against external agression.
Now, suppose there is what, to your mind, would be a well defined
case of aggression. There is no aoubt about what we have agreed
to do first.
Secretary Lansing. No.
202 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator KInox. Very well then. If we have agreed to do it, have
we not agreed to adopt the means of the council that we have set up
to determine what means shall be adopted ?
SecretaryLiANSiNG. No; I do not think that follows at aU.
Senator Williams. We might not agree with them.
Secretary Lansing. We might not agree with them. Our repre-
sentative in the council might disagree with the others.
Senator Pall. About what — about whether it was an act of
aggression, or about how we should repel it, or what our obligations
are?
Secretary Lansing. Or whether this Nation should take part in any
military operations at all.
Senator Fall. Is it not clear to your mind that the council itself
decides whether an act is one of aggression or not, and not the nation
itself behind it ?
Secretary Lansing. I think the Nation has a right to determine.
Senator Fall. To decide whether it is an act of aggression ?
Then what has the coxmcil to do ?
Secretary Lansing. It has to advise and consider means as to
fulfillment of the obligation.
Senator Fall. It has to submit to every nation obligated by the
treaty, and allow each nation to say whether a particular act tmder
consideration is an act of aggression or not. Then suppose they report
back to the council that they have discovered that it was an act of
aggression. Then the coxmcil says, ^' You should repel it in such and
such a way. " Then that is reported back to the inaividual members
of the league, and then they take up the question as to how they
will repel it, or whether they will repel it at ail. Is that what article
10 means ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think the machinery is as complicated
as that.
Senator Fall. I have imderstood ^ou to say that the question
as to whether it was an act of aggression was to be decided, not by
the coxmcil but by the State.
Secretary Lansing. Ultimately. I think they have a right to
review that question.
Senator Fall. Then there is an appeal from the coxmcil to the
State, first as to whether it is an act of agression, and second the
State has power to determine as to whether it will adopt the recom-
mendation of the council. That is your judgment, is it?
Secretary Lansing. I think so. It is just as if we, in the event of a
manifest wrong against some nation
Senator Fall. We have that privilege without going into this
league at all.
Secretary Lansing. But we will not do it.
Senator Fall. We have done it in the history of this country.
We have just done it, and we are now trying to wind up a war m
which we did it. We had another war in 1898 in which we exercised
that judgment. We engaged in that war. We have done it wherever
humanity has called upon xis to do it, every time in our entire history.
I should like to see anyone cite an instance where we have not.
Secretary Lansing. Other nations have not.
Senator Fall. But we have. I am speaking of the United States
of America. Now you say that is all the power we would have — all
the obligation we would incur under article 10.
TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GEBMAKY. 208
Secretary Lansing. As I have stated.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you ever present at any dis-
cussion of article 10 at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you ever hear the American
commissioners discuss article 10, as to what would occur imder it?
Secretary Lansing. No; they never discussed it with me.
Senator Johnson of California. Never discussed it at all t Did
you ever discuss it with anybody, Mr. Secretary ?
Secretary Lansing. I have, a great many times.
Senator Jc»inson of California. But the viewpoint of the men who
adopted it at Paris and the viewpoint of those oi our own commission
who adopted it you do not know ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know their views of it.
Senator Johnson of California. Never having discussed it with
anvofthemf
Secretary Lansing. Oh, well, I have discussed it informally with
them, of course.
Senator Johnson of California. You do not recall the discussions 1
Secretarv Lansing. I do not recall them.
Senator ^aix. Mr. Secretary, so that we may clear up the record
as we go alon^, that is so far as my own head is concerned, I wish to
ask you anouier question or two. The Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Williams) asked you a question about to this effect, as to whether
the line of demarcation agreed upon in this treatj between Poland
and Oennany could be maintained six months if it were not for the
constitution of the league of nations, and I imderstood you to answer
that it could not. Was that the effect of his question and your
answer?
Secretary Lansing. I limited it.
Senator Fall. That it would be impossible unless it was for the
league of nations — that it would be impossible to maintain that line.
^cretary Lansing. I went further tnan that.
Senator Fall. That is exactly what I want to know. Jf ow, let us
see how far.
Secretary Lansing. I stated that very clearly.
Senator Fall. That is what I am trying to get.
Secretary Lansing. That if Germanv was disarmed and Poland
was armed, of course Poland could hold. it. That is a manifest fact.
Senator Fall. But you think it is necessary to form a league of
natioi^ for the purpose of maintaining that line ?
Secretary Lansing. I did not say so.
Senator Fall. Well, do you think so ?
Secretary Lansing. If you keep Poland fiilly armed and Germany
disarmed, you do not need the league of nations.
Senator Fall. Suppose they are both armed ?
Secretary Lansing. If they are both armed, then you need the
league of nations.
^nator Fall. Then you need the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing, les.
Senator Fall. The league of nations, as it happens, has nothing to
do with it in the treaty.
Secretary Lansing. I think article 10 has.
204 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Fall. Page 129 of the treaty, paragraph 2 of the annex,
provides for an international commission which shall govern the
disposition of that line. It provides that the United States of America.
France, the British Empire, and Italy shall appoint an international
commission. Paragrapn 3 provides that —
The commission shall enjoy all th'^ powers exercised by the German or the Pniasiaii
Govamment exc?pt thos? of legislation or taxation.
On page 131 it provides that —
The commission will maintain ord'^r with the help of the troops which will be at
its disposal, and, to the extf^nt which it may deem necessary, by means of gendarmerie
recruited among the inhabitants of th? country.
Now the league of nations has nothing to do with that, has it ?
Secretary Lansing. You are referring to the plebiscite in upper
Silesia?
Senator Fall. No; I am referring to the maintenance of order;
and I will say ta you further that the following article provides for
that for one year and a half, and then for a period of six months
longer for the governing by this commission alone, without the inter-
ference in any way of the league of nations, and then provides for a
continuous government forever of this territory between Prussia and
Poland unless Prussia and Poland, respectively, in the meantime
have so restored order that they are able to reinstate it within their
respective territories themselves. The league of nations has nothing
to do with it. It is the international commission.
Secretary Lansing. That area, upper Silesia, is an area which is as
yet to be subjected to a plebiscite; and then, when that line is deter-
mined, you will not have a strategic line, no matter which way the
plebiscite goes, and after that you will have to depend on the league
of nations or disarm Germanv, or Poland can not maintain her lines.
Senator Fall. Then why do we have this commission with arms,
and the right to recruit soldiers, and why do we not say that the
lea^e of nations shall do it? We do not say that the league of
nations has anything to do with it.
Secretary Lansing. We do not need to, because it is covered by
the article.
. Senator Fall. '* We do not need to. *' Then the league has general
powers, whether it is given them definitely or not ?
Secretary Lansing. 1 do not understana you.
Senator Fall. Well, I do not understand you, so we are even.
Senator Knox. It seems to be a 50-50 break.
Senator Fall. Now, Mr. Secretary, I want to go back to one or two
matters that you have spoken about. A while ago you were giving
Sour ideas as to the labor clau3es, in answer to questions by Senator
[cCumber. You said you were somewhat familiar with the labor
provisions.
Secretary Lansing. I said I had been.
Senator Fall. The American members of the commission were
. Messrs. Gompers and Hurley, were they not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. And Dr. Shotwell was an alternate ?
Secretary Lansing. Dr. Shotwell was an alternate. He took Mr.
Hurley's place.
Senator Fall. The United States of America had Mr. Samuel
Gompers, proaident of the American Federation of Labor, and Hon.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 206
A. N. Hurley, president of the American Shipping Board; substi-
tutes, Hon. H« M. Robinson and Dr. J. T. Snotwell. The British
Empire was represented by the ri^ht honorable G. N. Barnes, mem-
ber of Parliament and member oi the war cabinet; substitutes, Mr.
H. B. Butler and Sir Malcolm Delevingne. France was represented
by Mr. CoUiard, minister of labor; substitute, Mr. Arthur Fontaine.
Italy was represented by Baron Mayor des Planches, and Japan was
represented oy Mr. Otcnai. Belgium was represented by Mr. Van-
deryelde; Cubaby Mr. DeBustamante; Poland by Coimt Zoltowski,
and the Czecho-Sloyak Republic by Mr. Ben6s. Are you familiar
with the proceedings of that commission ?
Secretly Lansing. I am not.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether there was a suggestion
offered by any of the dfelegates — ^was that called to yoiu: attention —
that toy of those delegates offered a resolution to the effect that
agriculture should be represented on this labor board )
Secretary Lansing. I haye no knowledge of it.
Senator Fall. You do not know then whether the French and the
Italian delegates offered a resolution before the commission to that
effect which was voted down t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. By the American and other delegates t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. Are you at all familiar with the opinion of Mr.
Gompers, a member of that commission and others as to the construc-
tion of the article about which you were being interrogated by Sena-
tor McCumber 1
Secretary Lansing. I haye neyer discussed it with them.
Senator FALL. Well, it is public. It is printed.
Secretary Lansing. I haye neyer read it.
Senator Fall. You seem to haye an idea that the proyisions of
article 419, referred to by Senator McCumber, were not penal in their
terms; that they are not in any way obligatory.
Secretary Lansing. Permissiye.
Senator Fall. That is as to the use by any member of measiures of
an economic character to compel the carrying out of the orders of the
council. You seemed to think that was in no sense penal, as I imder-
stood it.
Secretary Lansing. It is not mandatory. It is permissiye.
Senator Fall. Only permissiye ?
Secretary Lansing, i es.
Senator Fall. You say you do not know that the commission
itself that drew the article understood that it was obligatory ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator Fall. I will take the opportunity to place in the record
later the opinion of the commission itself which adopted this article,
as weU as some of the other su^estions, discussions, and resolutions
which they offered. The pampmet which I have is published by the
American Association for International Conciliation and contains
the report of the commission on international labor legislation of the
pcAce conference, the report of this commission that Secretary Lansing
said he understood had been formed, and which was formed, and it
did agree on these articles. This pamphlet, however, also contains
the report of the British National Industrial Conference — a very
interesting dociunent.
206 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Do you know what the obiection was which was offered by the
American and the Brazilian aelegates to the proposition advanced
by the British, French, Italian, and other delegates with reference
to the labor articles ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator Fall. You do not know that both of those delegations
held that they could not accede to some of the propositions advanced
by Great Bntain, France, Italy, Japan, and others, because of the
Constitution of the United. States and tne form of our Government,
being constituted of various sovereign States ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator Fall'. You heard nothing of that discussion at all!
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. Did you hear anything of any discussion there or
any promise or pledge on the part of the labor leaders, or the rep-
resentatives of tne United States Grovemment, on that commissioiiy
that they would go as far as they could and then they would here-
after seek to have the Constitution of the United States amended
so that without the interposition of a court they could make the
mandate of the league coimcil absolutely binding upon the United -
States?
Secretary Lansing. I never heard of any such thing.
Senator Fall. You do not know that that proposition was ad-
vanced by Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, ana other delegates t
Secretary Lansing. I certainly do not.
Senator Fall. And that it was turned down by the Americans,
simply on the Constitution of the United States ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
Senator JFall. Now, Mr. Secretary, to clear up another matter, I
was out of the room this morning when you were asked a question
by one of the Senators with reference to the reason why Costa Rica
was not allowed to sign the peace treaty. Of course I have not read
the record, and I regret that I was not present; but I have under-
stood from the other members of the committee that the reason in
general offered by you was that the Government of Costa Rica now
existing has not oeen recognized by the powers.
Secretary Lansing. No; I said it had not been recognized by all .
the powers.
Senator Fall. And that is the reason why it was not even invited
to become a party to the treaty?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. There was no invitation at all extended to her?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. And Costa Rica is left at war with Germany ?
Secretary Lansing. Mexico was treated in the samQ way.
Senator Fall. Mexico never was at war with Germany. That is
the distinction. Costa Rica, however, did declare war against
Germany, did it not?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; that is, the unrecognized Government of
Costa Rica did.
Senator Fall. The unrecognized Government. Do you recall that
on December 20, 1918, Hon. Thomas R. Marshall, Vice President of
the United States and President of the Senate, sent a telegram to the
President of the Senate of the Republic of Costa Rica ac&owledging
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 207
the receipts of their notice that they had gone to war, which telegram
was to the following effect: .
Hy resolution the S?nat9 of the United States has instructed me to acknowledge
witH d3ep appreciation your recent message of congratulation and compliment you
and your country upon your splendid stand for liberty.
Secretary Lansing. I recall that.
Senator Fall. You recall that 1 ♦
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. Do you know whether the French Government also
congratulated Costa Kica, through its present Government ?
Secretary Lansing. Costa Rica was recognized by France.
Senator Fall. It was recognized by France ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. And it has a minister at Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. A recognized minister ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Fall. Then, it is only necessary for me to make a record
to show the recognition and the congratulations extended by the
President of the Congress of France on December 18, 1918, to Costa
Rica, upon her entrance into the war.
Do you know what action Great Britain took with reference to
Costa Kica 1 Was her Government acknowledged by Great Britain ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you, but my impression is it was.
I am not sure.
Senator Fall. Then, this transcript which I have is probably cor-
rect. It is dated Paris, France, May 29, 1918, and signed ** Derby."
Derby was the representative of Great Britain, was he not t
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. It is addressed to SefLor Manuel de Peralta, Costa
Rican Minister, Paris, France :
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note in which you announce that
the Pteaident of Coeta Rica has declared war against the German Government.
I have loet no time in transmitting your communication to my Grovemment.
This is followed by a note of June 1, 1918, to the following effect:
Ab I had the honor to inform you in my note of May 29, I promptly broue:ht to the
attention of my Government the declaration of war against Germany made by the
Republic of Casta Rica, which you have been good enough to communicate to me.
I have just received orders from my Government to transmit to you the following
measa^e in reply to your communication:
''His Majesty's Government desires to assure the Government of the Costa Rican
Republic Uiat it has received with the greatest pleasure the good news of the adherence
of Coeta Rica to the cause of liberty and of humanity.''
Si^ed by Derby.
It is not necessary for me to go further, I presume, than to call your
attention to the note of Mr. Jrichon. Mr. Pichon, I beUeve, is the
minister of foreign affairs of France, is he not t
Secretary Lansing. Foreign affairs; yes.
Senator Fall. 1 call attention to his note of May 31, 1918, to the
minister of Costa Rica, acknowledging the receipt of the communica-
tion of Costa Rica to France, and thanking Costa Rica for her action
in joining the Allies in the war against Germany.
208 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
It is not necessary to go further than to call your attention. I
presume, to a telegram from Gen. Foch, commander in chief of the
allied armies, I believe, to Gen. Tinoco.
Many thanks for your congratulations. Please convey to the Costa Rican Anny,
in the names of the armies fiehtlng, full of confidence for the most just of causee.
My sincere thanks for its good wishes.
TMfen there is a conmiunication from the Iniperial Japanese em-
bassy, Paris, France, May 31, 1918, signed by K. Matusi. Do you
know who Mr. Matusi is ?
Secretary Lansing. Matsui, is it not?
Senator Fall. It is signed here "Matusi.'' Possibly it should be
"Matsui.'' Do you know Mr. Matsui ?
Secretary Lansing. I do.
Senator Fall. You are acquainted with him. I did not have ref-
erence to chop-suey, which is more familiar to some of the Senators,
possibly, than Mateui is to me. In this communication he says :
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of the 25th instant, in which
vou are good enough to inform me that tne President of the Republic of Costa Rica
has declared the existence of a state of war with the German Empire.
Do you consider that a recognition of the Costa Rican Government ?
Secretary Lansing. Not that act necessarily, but I think probably
it was recognized.
Senator Fall. It was recognized. Then there is a communication
from the United States embassy, a letter from Mr. W. G. Sharpe. I
think I have made no mistake in the spelling of that name. He is
our ambassador, is he not 1
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. His commimication is addressed to Senor Manuel
de Peralta, in which he acknowledges receipt of the notice of the
declaration of war, and states:
This news has given me great pleasure, and I hear with lively satisfaction the
noble decision of your valorous Republic, which, with no incentive but its fraternal
disinterestedness, has of her own free will taken its place by the side of the powers of
the entente, ready to aid with all its forces the cause of right against oppression.
Your declaration will evoke the hearty sympathy of all our sister Republics.
You had knowledge of that note of Ambassador Sharpe, did you
not?
Secretary Lansing. I never did.
Senator Fall. He is tmder you, is he not ?
Secretary Lansing. He is. It was not done by authority of the
Department of State.
Senator Fall. Neither was that of the Senate of the United States
in sending its congratulatory message.
Secretary Lansing. It did not have to be.
Senator Fall. Here is a commimication from the Italian ambassa-
dor, mider date of Jime 3, saying:
You were good enough to inform me that the President of the Republic of Costa
Rica, by decree of the 23d of May, has declared the existence of a state of war with
the German Empire, and that his Government desires to cooperate with the Govern-
ment of His Majesty and its allies in the triumph of right and of civilization.
While noting with the liveliest satisfaction the decision of your Government, which
has thus established a new bond of friendship between our respective countries,
associated as they are now in the same noble cause, I hasten to assure you that I
immediately brought the contents of your communication to the attention of Hia
Majesty's Government.
TBBATY OF PBAOB WITH GERMAmT. 209
r
I find also a communication from the then president of Brazil,
&Ir. Gomez. I find a note from the Serbian Legation to the minister,
thanking him for the entrance of Costa Rica into the war. I find a
cablegram under date of June 19, 1917, from Brazil to Costa Rica,
notifying them that Brazil was entering the war, and calling upon all
the republics on this continent to join them; and I find here an answer
from Costa Rica complying witn the request of Brazil, expressing
their Ratification at the action of Brazil, and their intention to follow
Brazifin the matter. Did ^ou have any knowledge of those matters ?
Secretary Lansing. I thmk I did.
Senator Fall. Then who was it that had not recognized Costa
Rica, or caused her to be left out ?
Secretary Lansing. The United States of America.
Senator Fall. Yes;' thank you, sir.
Secretary Lansing. You could have asked me that to begin with,
and I would have answered it frankly.
Senator Fall. I may be unfortunate in my method of interrogation.
Senator Williams. Has an ambassador, or a legation, or a general
in the field any right to recognize any government!
Secretary lliNSiNG. Oh/ no.
Senator Fall. The Senator evidently did not hear the answer of
the Secretary.
Senator Williams. The Senator evidently did hear it.
Senator Fall. I did.
Senator Williams. Well, I did, too.
Senator Fall. I did not think the Senator would interject a remark
of that kind if he had heard the answer.
Senator Williams. I am sure the Senator heard it, and the Senator
interjected the remark for the express purpose of showing the wide
extent and the small depth of all this stuff.
Senator Fall. I would not engage in a controversy with the Senator
from Mississippi, nor with the nonorable Secretary of State; but if
it became a matter of importance I would ask tlie Secretary of State,
and I think I know what his answer would be, if there are not more
ways than one of recognizing a government.
Senator Williams. Oh, yes; but
Senator Fall. You agree, do you ?
Senator Williams. But those telegrams are not one of the ways.
Senator Fall. That depends altogether
Senator Borah. This controversv is very unfortunate.
Senator Williams. The whole thing is of no importance.
Senator Fall. You mentioned Mexico, Mr. Secretary. Was the
United States equally responsible for the noninvitation or the fact
that no invitation was extended to Mexico to join the league?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. It was not. Then who was responsible t
Secretary Lansing. I do not know.
Senator Fall. Did the United States suggest extending to Mexico
an invitation?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. It did not. Did any other nation suggest it ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know.
Soxator Fall. You do not know whether France su^ested it?
Secretary Lansing. I do not.
186546—19 ^14
210 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EItl4ANY.
Senator Fall. Did jou meet Mr. De la Bara in Paris ?
Secretary Lansing. I did.
Senator Fall. May •! ask — ^I am not going to ask you what it
was — ^but did you have any conference with him with reference to-
Mexican affairs ?
Secretary Lansing. Not a word.
Senator Fall. He was the former ambassador to this country ?
Secretarjr Lansing. I knew him very well.
Senator Fall. And he was the president ad interim between;
Huerta and Madero ?
Secretary Lansing. We justhad personal conversations ; that was all.
Senator Fall. I was not going to ask you, of course, about that.
It would not be official, I presume. Now, Mr. Secretary, was there-
any discussion in reference to Mexican matter^ or any pnase of the-
Mexican matters at Paris in which you engaged ?
Secretary Lansing. None at all.
Senator Fall. There was no discussion ?
Secretary Lansing. None.
Senator Fall. May I ask you whether, when you came in as-
counsellor for the State Department, you found upon your files, or*
whether after you came in there were ^placed upon your files, any
notices of any kind or requests from this Government to any other
Government that the United States of America be allowed to handle-
Mexican affairs ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I have not seen any such thing. I do
not recall any such thing. But what has that got to do with the
German treaty ?
Senator Fall. I imderstood that jou were considering the peace of
the world, and that you were engaging in the formation of a league
for the conservation and preservation of the peace of the world.
Secretary Lansing. That is qidte true, but I am considering the
treaty. I am not considering Mexican affairs. If you wish to ask
me aoout Mexican affairs, I shall be very dad to come before the
committee at any time and discTiss them; but I shoidd like to be
prepared beforehand, because I do not know where an investigatioii
of tnis kind is going, and I do not propose to answer offhand.
Senator Fall, lam not going to ask you to answer anything that
I think would embarrass you at all, sir. I so stated with reference
to the conversations between Mr. De la Bara and yourself. They
were not of an official nature, as I understand you ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at aU.
Senator Fall. So I simply asked you whether you had met him
there and talked to him.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. I asked you nothing as to the purport of your con-
versations. Something of that kind I might kiiow m^eli through
some other source, but I am not going to interrogate you about it at
all. I simply ask you now as leading up to what I consider to be a
very important matter, and which it seems to me must necessarily
have been considered in some way around the peace table wita
reference to Mexican matters.
Secretary Lansing. I might say that, so far as I know, Mexico was
never mentioned.
Senator Fall. It was not ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
TEEAXY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 211
Senator Fall. No phase of Mexican matters was mentioned ?
Secretary Lansing. Never discussed.
Senator Fall. The question of the French banking interests in
Mexico was never mentioned ?
Secretary Lansing. Never to my knowledge.
Senator Fall. I am not asking you as to the contents of any notes.
Do vou know, however, whether the United States Government has
made representations to any other Goveriunent, prior to the peace
conference or during the peace conference, with reference to the lia-
bility or nonliabihty of the United States and such other Governments
for debts or damages due to the nationals of such Governments in
Mexico)
Secretary Lansing. I never heard of such a thing.
Senator Fall. And nobody suggested that Mexico should be even
invited into the league ?
Secretary Lansing. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Fall. Who suggested that Sweden should be invited into
the league, Mr. Secretary ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know; but, of course, you will bear in
mind that the list was made up by France originally.
Senator Fall. The list of those who were to be invited to the
conference was made up by France ?
Secretary Lansing. les.
Senator Fall. I am glad to know that. I did not know that.
Secretary Lansing. They had control of the organization, it being
in Paris.
Senator Fall. Then such nations as France left off of her list were
not invited to become parties to the league of nations ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think there were any added. I do
not recall.
Senator Moses. Senator, I understood the Secretary to mean
that France made up the list of nations to be invited to the peace
conference.
Secretarv Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. Not the league of nations.
Senator Fall. No ; I am speaking now — there is a list here
Secretary Lansing. Oh, the league of nations?
Senator Fall. Yes, sir.
Secretary Lansing. I do not know how that was reached. I
assume that was done, probably, by the commission on the league of
nations.
Senator Fall. There are so many States here who signed. Aside
from the principal allied and associated powers, various other States-
signed this treaty, the States invited to accede to the covenant —
the Argentine Republic, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Netherlands,.
Norway, Paraguav, Persia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland^
and Ven^uela. i ou do not know why Mexico was not invited ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I do not Imow. I assmne it was made
up by the commission on the league of nations, but I am not sure
aoottt that.
Senator Fall. And you are sure that Costa Rica was not repre-
sented at the peace taole or invited to sign because of the Umted
States?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. Because of her objections ?
212 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. Thank you, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Mr. Secretary, referring to this list of matters
that Senator Fall suggested to you, and then asked you whether
they were the subjects of consideration over there by the peace com-
mission, and you say as to the most of them they were not, so far as
you know, or according to your knowledge — ^it is quite possible, I
suppose, that some of them may have been discussed without your
knowledge ; is it not ?
Secretary LiANSiNG. I doubt if the Mexican question would be.
Senator Brandbgee. What do you say as to the other questions?
Secretary Lansing. What other questions ?
Senator Brandegee. Many of them that you do not know about
that have been asked vou this afternoon. It is not possible that the
commissioners themselves, the heads of the States, had conversations
among themselves that you did not know about ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, possibly^ but I am quite convinced that
Mexico was not discussed. That is the only thing that I am re-
ferring to.
Senator Brandegee. Now I want to ask you just this one question.
Article 10 of the covenant of the league reads as follows:
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and existing pK)litical independence of all members
ofthe league. In case of any such aggression or in case of any thieat^or danger of such
aggression the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be
fSffilled. •
I understand your view of the effect of that article is that although
we, if we entered the league, would undertake to respect and pre-
serve as against external aggression the territorial mtegrity and
existing poutical independence of all members of the league, when the
council advise upon the means by which this obligation should be
fulfilled it is then optional with every member of the league to do as
they please about the matter ?
Secretarv Lansing. Furthermore than they think it is their duty.
Senator IBrandegee. Now. if that is so, as it seems to me, in view
of the fact that the friends oi this lea^e are claiming to erect some-
thing that is going to at least diminish the pocsibi&ties of war, at
any rate, under this article 10, euaranteeing the territorial integrity
of all members against external aggression, if each member of the
league is to be aUowed to carry out its guaranty in its own way,
what sort of a spectacle will the world be treated to if all the mem-
bers of the league think that different methods ought to be adopted
to carry out the guaranty ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, but of course
Senator Brandegee. I had supposed this was an idea of unifying
the members, so that their combined strength could be brought
against the offending power.
Secretary Lansing. I think you are quite right about that. I
think your views are correct about that, and that by a council of
the nations when there has been external aggression to be resisted,
or the rights of the nation invaded restored, they should counsel
together as to the means which should be taken. It is assumed tiiat
the decision of the coimcU will be a reasonable decision. In any
event, it will be oi value in showing how the aggression may be
resisted.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAI!^Y. 213
Senator Bbandegee. My point is this: Suppose there is a threat
of aggression, and the council meets in conclave, and resolves unani-
moi^y, our del^ates concurring with the others, that a force of a
million men shoiild be raised and sent agamst the offending power,
and that the proportion of the United States of that force is hereby
apportioned as 200,000 men. In your view of this, we are not in
honor bound to agree to conform to the judgment of the council;
but if we think at that time that our contribution and our honor
will be sufficiently vindicated by having Congress pass an economic
law cutting off trade with the enemy, that we nave sufficiently
fulfilled our pledge to guarantee the territorial int^rity of our friend
and fellow-member of the league, that is perfectly permissible, and
can be done without any reflection upon our honor ?
Secretary Lansing. I think the chances are that we would have to
refer it back to the other nations and say that we viewed this as an
imfortunate way of handling the situation.
Senator Brandeoee. Yes. Suppose we have a pacifist wave in
this country at that time, and we nave had enough fighting, and we
say we will resort to economic pressure; we will forbid our citizens to
trade with them, etc. Now, tnen, your theory is that we so report
to the council, who are begging us. to send 200,000 men i
Secretary Lansing. Yes,
Senator Bbandegee. And then if the council adhered to their
former well-considered reconunendation, and said, ''You are a
shirker: we want your men and your guns, and we do not care any-
thing aoout your statute of Congress. Then what would we do ?
Secretary Lansing. Then I suppose it would be up to Congress to
determine whether we should raise the men.
Senator Bbandegee. In other words, we would be an international
slacker if we did not obev the reconunendation of the coimcil of the
league, in my opinion. Now, in yotu* opinion we would not be ?
Sscretary Lansing. No.
Senator Bbandegee. If your opinion is correct, I desire to state
that in my opinion this whole fabric is a league of sand, a rope of sand,
without any power whatever except moral suasion.
Senator Bobah. Not even that.
Senator Bbandegee. Which is not very effective against the
bayonets of ravaging Prussians, in my opinion.
The Chaibman. ^e there any further questions t
Senator Williams. Is not that about the measure of power imder
which we waged the war of the Revolution and won our independence?
Was there any way of making a colony furnish its quota ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Bbandegee. France had to come to oiu* rescue.
Senator Borah. We got out of that fearful dilemma just as quickly
88 we could.
Senator Williams. Yes; after we once formed a government. But
the S^iator does not want to form a government.
The Chaibman. The Secretary has been on the stand now for some
hours, and I do not know whether the Senators desire to ask him any
more questions or not; but the Secretary said there were certain
statements he woidd like to have time to prepare.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chaibman. When would it be convenient to you to make those
statements ?
214 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERlCAlinF.
Secretary Lansino. Just as soon as possible^ Mr. Senator. Can I
do it by writing ? Would you prefer it in writmg ?
The Chairbcak. As you please. If you will come before the com-
mittee, you can present it m any form you please.
Secretary Lansing. Do you not think it would be advisable for
me to put it into writing, and then, if you want to ask any questions,
I will fee very glad to^me? ^4 ,
The Chairman. I think the committee would like to hear it, and
then we can ask the questions, if you will come and read it— any
statement you want to make.
Secretary Lansing. Very well.
The Chmrman. Would Friday be too soon ?
Secretary Lansing. I think I can do it Friday. I will try to.
The Chairman. Very well, then.
Senator Moses. Would Saturday be a more convenient time for
you, Mr. Secretary?
Senator Williams. What is to-day ?
Secretary Lansing. To-day is Wednesday. That only gives me
to-morrow. I do not know. I will have to look over and see what
the questions are.
Senator Williams. We had better make it Monday.
The Chairman. Suppose we make it Satiu*day; would that do?
Secretary Lansing. I think you had better give me until Monday,
if you can do it.
Senator Moses. I move that the committee adjourn until Monday
at half past 10.
The Chairman. The committee have some other matters they
ought to attend to.
Senator Brandegee. Suppose we adjourn subject to the call of
the chairman.
Senator Fall. The chairman is aware of the fact that some mem-
bers of the committee requested a little information about another
matter from the Secretary. Would it be possible for you to let us
have that information to-morrow ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes; I think I can get that for you at once.
I do not mow what time it is now.
The Chairman. That relates to another treaty.
Senator Fall. It relates to the Colombian treaty, so that that
mijght be considered.
The Chairman. Very well. Then the committee will meet on
Monday at 10.30 to hear the Secretary. In the meantime, what is
the pleasure of the committee ?
Senator Moses. In the meantime, the committee may be called
together by the Chair.
The Chairman. There are some other things we ought to attend
to. I hope the Secretary will be able to let me know to-morrow
about that treaty with France to modify the treaty of 1822.
Secretary Lansing. I will. I will have that for you to,-morrow.
The Chairman. Then the Chair will call the committee together
for those other matters.
(Thereupon, at 4.30 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned sub-
ject to the call of the chairman.)
XONDAY, AXraxrST 11, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Fobbion Relations,
WasMngtoTiy D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjourmnent, at 10.30 o'clock
a. m., in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge presiding.
Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Bran-
degee, FaU, Harding, Johnson of California, New, Moses, Hitckcock,
Williams, Swanson, Pomerene, and Shields.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. The Sec-
retary of State is here, and ready to go on with his statement which
he promised us to-day.
STATEKEHT OF HOV. BOQEBT LAVSIHG, SEGBETABT OF
STATE — Besnmed.
Secretary Lansing. Mr. Chairman, I was asked twice during the
hearing on last Wednesday, in relation to my knowledge as to the
secret treaties or secret agreements which existed between Japan
and Great Britain, France, and Italy, and, I believe, Russia.
In order to refresh the memory of members of the committee, I
would like to read from page 148 just a brief portion of the hearing.
[Reading.]
Senator Borah. Are you able to state whether or not it was before you went to
YerBaillee?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Borah. It was before?
Secretary Lansing. That is. so far as Great Britain is concerned I do not think
I knew of any secret agreements with France or Italy.
Senator Borah. May I suggest, then, Mr. Secretary, that you ascertain for the
oommittee as soon as you can conveniently, just when you learned of these secret
agreements? It it has not already occurred to you, I think you will recall, probably,
that these secret agreements were published first by the Russian Government, so far
as the world was concerned. I do not know how long before that the Department
of State had knowledge of them; but so far as the world had any knowledge of
them, as I recall, the fust knowledge came from Mr. Trotsky.
Later on in the hearing, this matter came up again. I read from
page 193 as follows:
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Does the fact that is apparently established now,
that these secret treaties were made before your agreement with Ishii, bring to your
mind any of the particular conditions?
Secretary Lansing. No: I would have to refresh my memory on that.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. You do not recall that you had in mind these
treaties at all?
ScKTetary Lansing. I did not know about these treaties at that time.
215
216 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of Oalifomia. You did not know about these treaties at the time
of the Lansing-Iflhii agreement, as it is called?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Johnson of California. You said you did not understand the exact line of
the questions that I was asking. I do not wish to be repetitive or insistent, but I ask
you again, do you not remember the publication even in this country of the treaties
for the disposition of territory, after the war and in peace, of the various b^ligerents?
Secretary Lansing. No, su*; I confess I do not. When were they published?
Senator Johnson of California. They were published — I got my copies in the New
York Evening Post.
Secretary Lansing. At what time?
Senator Johnson of California. Oh, it was a long time ago; I can not tell you hoV
long ago; long before the armistice, you know, during the war.
Secretary Lansing. Well, possibly that is so.
Senator Johnson of California. During the war they were first published?
Secretarv Lansing. Yes; I do not remember at all.
Senator II'omerene. May I ask^ for my own information, are you referring now to
the publication of these treaties as made by the Russian Government?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; I think Kerensky published them first, and
then they appeared in the New York Evening Post.
Gentlemen, in connection with those inauiries and the apparent
implication that I must have had knowleose, or should have had
knowledge, of those agreements prior to the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment, I can now state that mv first knowkedge of the actual agree-
ments came the first part of February of 1919. Under date of
February 26, 1919^ they were transmitted to the Department of
State by the American reace Commission, and the department has
no record or any knowledge of the treaties prior to that time.
On April 22, 1919, alleged copies of the agreements between Japan
and Great Britain and Japan and France were published by the New
York Times under a Paris date line. I have inquired of the Russian
division, and I have also inquired of Mr. D. C. roole, consular officer
of the Department of State, who has just returned from Russia, and
who was m Moscow up to the end of the time that it was safe for
Americans to remain there, and then was attached to the embassy
of the United States in Russia, and the latter.part of the time acted
as chars6 for this Government there, and the Russian division and
Mr. Poole both assure me that these treaties never were published in
any form in Russia.
In regard to the statement that I knew of the British agreement
before we went to Paris, let me say^
Senator Johnson of California. Just what British agreement do
you refer to, if you please?
Secretary Lansing. Between Japan and Great Britain.
Senator Johnson of California. And in your statement of the other
treaties that you have just referred to you referred to those with
Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. And I refer to the text of the British agree-
ment
Senator Johnson of California. With Japan?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. As to my knowledge at the time of the Lansing
Ishii A^eement, which was negotiated m September and October,
1917, 1 aid know that Great Britain and France had at least an under-
TBEATY OF FEAOE WITH GERMAIi^Y. 2l7
standine as to the disposition of the German Islands in the Pacific.
Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, then the British Ambassador, had informed me,
in October, 1916, six months before we entered the war, that Japan
was to take the islands north of the equator, and Great Britain those
that were south of it.
Furthermore, at my first interview in connection with our negotia-
tions, Viscount Ishii, on September 6, 1917, told me that in 1915,
on his way home to Japan, he stopped in London, that he saw Sir
Edward Grey there, and stated to him that Japan intended to return
Kiaochow to China, but that the islands woidd have to be retained,
because no government in Japan could stand if there was an agree-
ment to retm^n them to Germany.
Senator McCumber. Do you mean to Germany, or to China ?
Secretary Lansing. They did not belong to China. I am speaking
of the Islands in the Pacific.
Senator Pomerene. From whom did you ascertain that?
Secretarv Lansing. Viscount Ishii.
Senator Pomerene. At what time ?
Secretary Lansing. On September 6, 1917. He said it was then
practically arranged that the Equator should be the line of division
Detween the acouired territories of Japan and Great Britain^ so far
as the conquerea islands were concerned.
Senator Hitchcock. That was an agreement reached between
those two coim tries before we entered the war.
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes; in 1915.
I woidd pause here to inquire if there are any questions in regard
to what I have stated ?
Senator Bobah. I wanted to ask some questions. I will either ask
them now, or when you get through with your full statement, which-
ever you prefer ?
Secretary Lansing. If your questions refer particularly to this
matter, I would like to hear them now.
Senator Borah. Very well.
Senator Brandegee. I beg the Senator's pardon. May I ask a
question here )
Senator Borah. Go ahead.
Senator Brandegee. Does this include your statement with refer-
ence to the Japanese secret treaties? Have you finished that part
of it, or is there more on that subject ?
Secretary Lansing. No more on that question.
Senator Brandegee. Then I think it is all right for Senator Borah
to eo ahead.
^nator Borah. Mr. Secretary, as I xmderstand you, the first
knowledge you had of any of these agreements other than the British
agreement was on what date ?
Secretary Lansing. In the early part of February, 1919.
Senator Borah. And you received that information through what
channels ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell you, except that the commission
received it in Paris ?
Senator Borah. The first knowledge you had of the British agree-
ment was from Ishii himself ?
Secretary Lansing. From Sir Cecil Spring-Rice.
218 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Borah. At what time was that ?
Secretary Lansing. October, 1916. That covered merely the
Pacific islands.
Senator Borah. The agreement that I was talking about had not
been made at that time.
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Borah. The secret treaty with reference to Shantung
and the German possessions in China had not been made in October,
1916?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Bobah. When did you first learn of that agreement ?
Secretary Lansing. I first learned of that in the early part of
February, 1919. ^
Senator Borah. Will you state again briefly what it was that
Viscount Ishii stated to you as to the understanding which he had
with Great Britain, and when it was ?
Secretary Lansing. The statement was made on September 6,
1917, and ne told me that in 1915 — that was after Kiaochow and the
German islands had been taken — ^he was in London, and that he
stated to Sir Edward Grey that Japan intended to return Kiaochow
to China, but that the islands would have to be retained, as no
Japanese Government could stand without obtaining them; that it
was practically agreed that the line of division between the territory
acquu'ed by conquest in the Pacific Ocean should be the Equator, so
far as Great Britain and Japan were concerned.
Senator Borah. Will you give me the date of that?
Secretary Lansing. September 6, 1917.
Senator Borah. Is that the only statement that Viscount Ishii
made which would indicate to you any imderstanding between
Japan and Great Britain with reference to the German possessions
in China?
Secretary Lansing. That did not indicate any.
Senator Borah. Did he make any other statement indicating
to you at all that Japan had any agreement with Great Britain in
regard to the German possessions ?
secretary Lansing. None at all, sir. After that statement, that
it was the intention of Japan to return Kiaochow to China, the subject
was never again mentioned during the conversation.
Senator Borah. You do know now, Mr. Secretary, that at the
time Viscount Ishii made that statement to you, he had a secfet
agreement, or Japan had . a secret agreement, with Great Bri1)ain
and these other powers ?
Secretary Lansing. I do.
Senator JBorah. And that he either affirmatively or by his silence
concealed it from the Secretary of State of this country ?
Secretary Lansing. That ia the truth. I do not know whether
it was an intentional concealment or not. He did not tell me
about it.
Senator Borah. I want to say, Mr. Secretary, in answer to an
intimation in yoiu* opening statement that we were indicating that
you must have had Imowledge of these things, that that was not my
desire at all. My desire was to show what viscount Ishii was doing.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 219
I desire to read a statement which appeared in the Parliamentary
Debates in the House of Commons on March 4, 1918. [Reading:]
Mr. King asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there have been commu-
nicated to rreddent Wilson copies of all treaties, whether secret or public, and memo-
iBQda of all other agreements or undertakings to which this country has become a
party since 4th August; 1914; and if not, whether copies of all such documents will
be handed to the Amencan ambassador in London.
Mr. Balfour. The honorable member may rest assured that President Wilson is
kept fully informed by the AlUes.
You would understand from that that these secret agreements
had been made known to the President ?
Secretary Lansing. I should dislike very much to interpret the
lan^age of Mr. Balfour.
Snator Borah. It does not need much interpretation, does it ?
Senator Hitchcock. What was the date of that ?
Senator Bobah. March 4, 1918. When did this Government make
known to China the existence of these secret aOTeements ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know as the Uovernment ever made
them known to China, because China had delegates at Paris, and I
assume that she was more or less cognizant of tne agreements at the
same time that we were.
Senator Borah. Notwithstanding the statement of Ishii and the
statement of Mr. Balfour, it is a matter of fact that the Secretary of
State of the United States had no knowledge of these treaties until
after the signing of the armistice, is it not ?
Secretary Lansing. That is true. '
Senator Bobah. That is all.
Senator Bbandegee. You said the other day, Mr. Secretary, if I
recall correctly, that you would have made the so-called Lansing-Ishii
agreement just the same if you had known that these secret treaties
were in existence ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Bbandegee. Involving the turning over of Shantung, or
the rights in Shantung, to Japan?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Bbandegee. Has the so-called Lansing-Ishii agreement
anv binding force on this country ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Bbandegee. It is simply a declaration of your policy, or
the policy of this Government, as long as the President and the otate
Department want to continue that policy, I suppose ?
Secretary Lansing. Exactly, in the same way that the Rootr
Takahira agreement is.
Senator Sbandegee. Will you be kind enough to state again the
date of the Lansing-Ishii agreement ?
Secretary Lansing. November 7, 1917.
Senator Bbandegee. That is all I care to ask upon that. I have
some other questions relating to other things.
Seoiator Mx)ses. Mr. Secretary, the monarchy in Russia was over-
thrown in March, 1917?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. And the Kerensky government was replaced by
Lenin-Trotski government in the autumn of that year?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. November 7.
220 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Was our embassy at Petrograd in touch constantly
for information dm-ing that period ?
Secretary Lansing. During the Kerensky rfigime, yes.
Senator Moses. And through the early days of the Lenin-Trotski
rfigime?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. At Petrograd ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Moses. As I recall, one of the first steps taken by the
Lenin-Trotski regime was the publication of certain secret archives
of the Russian Government?
Secretary Lansing. Yea.
Senator Moses. Including what purported to be the texts of many
secret treaties. Did the embassy report upon those to this Govern-
ment ?
Secretary Lansing. All of them.
Senator Moses. And those reports did not include any of these
secret treaties which we have been discussing.
Secretary Lansing. None of them.
Senator Moses. Is it possible that those secret treaties were not
published in Petrograd. although published elsewhere ?
SecretaryLiANSiNG. 1 do not understand your question.
Senator Williams. What was the question ?
Senator Moses. I asked him if it was possible that those secret
treaties, though published elsewhere, were not made public in Petro-
grad, inasmudi as it was not long after the first week in November,
when Lenine And Trotzky came into power in Petrograd, that the
publication of those documents began, and they were published in
this country not greatlysubsequent to that time ?
Senator Williams. What was the object of that question. Senator ?
Senator Moses. I was trying to find out whether the embassy in
Petrograd had overlooked anything in making this report to the
State Department.
Secretary Lansing. I can assure you that I have investigated very
thoroughly as to that, and they were not published in Bussia.
Senator McCxjmber. Do you intend to go into an explanation of
the Lansing-Ishii agreement and its reasons, and so forth, and to
put the agreement in the record ?
Secretary Lansing. I will.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. Secretary, before you proceed I wish to
ask you this. Some secret treaties were published in Russia at a
certain period, were they not ?
Secretary Lansing. There were some, but none of these.
Senator Hitchcock. None relating to the Japanese matters?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Idranbegee. Was that done before the Russian revolution ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Bbandegee. When the Czar was on the throne?
Secretary Lansing. Do you mean the agreements that were made ?
Senator Hitchcock. I was referring to the fact that the Lenin^
Trotslgr government had published, shortly after they came into
power, I think in the fall of 1917, certain secret treaties.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. But they related to European or Asian affairs ?
TBEAT7 OF PEAOB WITH GERMAKT. 221
Secretary Lansing. Yes; they did not relate to this matter at all.
Senator Moses. Were those published in other European capitals,
do you know, if not in Petrograd ?
Secretary Lansing. I think none were published in other European
capitals, unless they also appeared in .Russian publications.
senator Johnson of California. Are you going on with that subject
of those treaties now, or are you going on to other subjects?
Secretary Lansing. I was going on with the Lansing-Ishii
agreement!
Senator Johnson of California. I do not want to take you out of the
thought on which you are now engaged, but do you intend to take up
again the secret treaties that were published by the Russians i
Secretary Lansing. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Johnson of California. When you answered Senator
Hitchcock you referred to the Japanese treaties alone, did you not?
Secretary Lansing. I referred to them as to being published in
Russia.
Senator Johnson of California. That they were not published ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. But there were many secret
treaties published by the Russians ?
Secretary Lansing. I would not wish to say many, and I would
not want to say what they pertained to without examining our records.
Senator Johnson of California. You know as a matter of fact that
they pertained to territorial dispositions, do you not?
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall, sir; ana I would prefer to look
that up if you desire.
Senator Johnson of California. You haye read here a portion of
the testimonjr giyen by you the other day, part of which contained
an interrogation by myself , and that interrogation related in part
at least to the treaties other than the treaty with Japan concerning
the disposition of Shantung and the islands of the Pacific.
Secretary Lansing. I did not so understand it.
Senator Johnson of California. You may be correct in that re-
spect— ^you were answering only in respect to treaties with Japan.
Secretary Lansing. That is all.
Senator Johnson of California. Let me ask you one more question
while we are on the subject. You recall that Mr. Balfour was here
and addressed the Senate at one time ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And that Viyiani was here and
addressed the Senate ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Did either of those gentlemen white
here communicate to you any secret treaties that had been executed
for the disposition of territory after the war ?
Secretary Lansing. Neither of them.
Senator Johnson of California. Did either of them on any occa-
sion, either when here or at any other time, communicate to the
State Department of the United States any information concerning
the treaties that disposed of territory in wnich the Allies were con-
cerned, the disposition of which was to be made by the peace con-
ference I
Secretary Lansing. None.
222 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. As I understood vou, you have no
recollection of the particular treaties that were published in Russia
and published subsequently in this country ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I have none.
Senator Johnson of California. I understood you to say with
some positiveness that vou knew that the Japanese treaties — the
treaties with Japan — ^had not been published ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Necessarily, to have that informa-
tion you would have to have some knowledge of what publications
were made, would you not ?
Secretary Lansing. I need not necessarily have the information,
but somebody familiar with the record would have to have the
information.
Senator Johnson of California. You had somebody who was
familiar with the record look.it up?
Secretary Lansing. Certainly.
Senator Hitchcock. You spoke of the British ambassador having
advised you in the fall of 1916 as to the agreement between Great
Britain and Japan as to the islands in the Pacific Ocean ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. The dividing line being the Equator?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Secretary HrrcHcocK. At that time the so-called secret treaties
with Japan had not been made ?
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Hitchcock. They were not made until the following
spring?
Secretary Lansing. The exchange of notes
Senator HrrcHCOOK. That was in the following spring. They
were not made at the time you talked with the British ambassador t
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator McCumber. But the Chinese-Japanese agreement with
reference to Shantung was executed in 1915, was it not ?
Secretary Lansing. In May, 1915.
Senator roMERENE. Mr. Secretary, up to the time of the exchan^
of the letters which embraced the Lansing-Ishii agreement, did the
Republic of China have any information concerning that agreement ?
secretary Lansing. Do you mean the Lansing-Ishii agreement?
Senator rOMERENE. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. Not until it was negotiated and the notes
were exchanged.
Senator Itomerene. As this related to Chinese territory, what
reason was there, if any, for not conferring with the Chinese repre-
sentatives with respect to it ?
Secretary Lansing. It was a mere matter of declaration of a
mutual policy between Japan and the United States in regard to
their attitude toward China. It did not directly affect any rights
of China, except that the two Governments agreed they woiild keep
their hands off;
Senator Brandegee. You said the other day, did you not, Mr.
Secretary, that your principal object in making this so-called agree-
ment was to get a renewed declaration from Japan in favor of the
open door in China?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 223
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I did.
Senator Pomerene. When, if at all, did you first learn that the
Chinese Government took any exception to the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment?
Secretary Lansino. We had no definite information that China
took exception to the Lansing-Ishii agreement. They did make a
declaration, which I was going to state later in discussing that agree*
ment.
Senator Pomerene. If you are going into that later, I will not
pursue it now.
Senator New. I wish to ask you, Mr. Secretary, if jou knew that
the General Board of the Navy had at any time considered the pro-
posed disposition of thePacinc islands, and had made any recom-
mendation concerning the attitude of the United States toward that
disposition of them ?
Secretary Lansing. I can not say that I have direct knowledge of
that, but it seems to me that there was soma consideration, very
naturally, as to the disposition of those islands, more particularly on
account of the trans-Pacific cables.
Senator New. Do you know or do you not know that there was a
formal recommendation made by the General Board of the Navy with
reference to that subject ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not, sir.
Senator New. Then, not knowing that, you can not say that any
action was ever taken concerning it ?
Secretary Lansing. It would depend very largely on when such
a recommendation was made, as to its effect on the negotiations in
Paris.
Senator New. That is all.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. Secretary, I suppose you mean that no
official protest was made by China against the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment; but my recollection is that the newspaper dispatches at the
time stated that Chinese sentiment was very much opposed to it.
Do you not remember that ?
Secretary Lansing. There was something of that sort; yes, in
r^ard to the Lansing-Ishii agreement. I si^gested to Viscount
Ismi that it would be well for the two Governments to reaffirm the
open-door policy, on the ground that reports were bein^ spread as
to the purpose of Japan to take advantage of the situation created
by the war to extend her influence over China — political influence.
lahii replied to me that he would like to consider that matter, but
that, oi course, he felt that Japan had a special interest in China,
and that that should be mentioned in any agreement that we had;
and I replied to him that we, of course, recognized that Japan, on
account of her geographical position, had a peculiar interest in China,
but that it was not political in nature, and that the danger of a
statement of special interest was that it might be so construed, and
therefore I objected to making such a statement.
At another interview we discussed the phrase "special interests,'*
which the Japanese Government had been very insistent upon, and
which, with the explanation I have made, I was not very strongly
opposed to, thinking that the reaffirmation of the open-door pohcy
was the most essential thing that we could have at this time ; and we
discussed the phrase which appeared in the draft note, /'special
224 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
interest," and I told him then that if it meant ''paramount interest/'
I could not discuss it further; but if he meant special interest based
upon geographical position, I would consider tne insertion of it in
the note. Then it was, during that same interview, that we men-
tioned ''paramount interest" and he made a reference to the Monroe
doctrine, and rather a suggestion that there should be a Monroe
doctrine for the Far East.
And I told him that there seemed to be a misconception as to
the underlying principle of the Monroe doctrine; that it was not
an assertion of primacy or paramount interest by the United States
in its relation to other American Republics; that its purpose was to
prevent foreign powers from interfering with the separate rights
of any nation m this hemisphere, and wiat the whole aim was to
preserve to each Republic the power of self-development. I said
further that so far as aiding in tnis development the United States
clauned no special privileges over other countries.
Senator Branbegee. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Were these
oral declarations that were made ?
Secretary Lansing. Oral entirely.
Senator Brandegee. No stenographer was present?
Secretary Lansing. No stenographer was present.
Senator Brandegee. This is from memory ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at all. It is made from memoranda
which I dictated to a stenographer immediately upon the departure
of Count Ishii.
Senator Williams. That is the usual way of keeping these records.
Secretary Lansing. It is the only posstble way.
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. I told Viscount Ishii that I felt that the same
principle should be applied to China, and that no special privileges,
and certainly no paramotmt interest, in that country should be
claimed bv any foreign power. While the phrasing of the notes
to be exchanged was further considered, the nieaning of "special
interest'' was not again discussed.
Senator Brandegee. Will vou pardon an interruption there?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, sir.
Senator 'Brandegee. What did Count Ishii say? Did he appar-
ently coincide with your view or did he maintain silence ?
Secretary Lansing. He maintained silence.
Senator Borah. Have you anything more, Mr. Secretary ?
Secretary Lansing. Not so far as ^* special interest'' is concerned.
Senator Borah. Have you finished aoout the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment?
Secretary Lansing. Not entirely.
Senator Williams. I suggest that he finish.
Senator Brandegee. I would like to ask one question there.
Have you a copy of the Lansing-Ishii agreement in the room here ?
Secretary Lansing. I have one here somewhere. It is a Senate
document."
Senator Brandegee. Please give the number of it.
Secretary Lansing. No; I beg your pardon, it is not a Senate
document." It is one of the treaty series.
Senator Brandegee. For the use of the State Department?
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT. 225
Secretary Lansing. For the use of the State Department. Treaty
Series No. 630.
Senator Pomerene. There is no objection to incorporating that
in vour testimony, is there ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at aU, sir.
Senator FoMERENE. I ask that that may be done.
The Chairman. That will be done.
(The agreement referred to is here printed in full as follows:)
AORBSMKNT BFPBCTSD BT BXCHANOB OF NOTES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
JAPAN — MUTUAL INTEREST BELATINO TO T^E BEPUBIJO OF CHINA — SIGNED
NOYBMBEB 2, 1917.
(The Secretary of State to the AmbasEndor Extraordizuuy and Plenipotentiary of
Japan on special misBion.)
Department op State,
Washington, November f , X917.
Excbllbnct: I have the honor to communieate herein my understanding of the
agreement reached by us in our recent conversations touching the questions of mutual
interest to our Governments relating to the Republic of China.
In order to silence mischievous reports that have from time to time been circulated,
it is believed by us that a public announcement once more of the desires and- inten-
tions shared by our two Governments with regard to China is advisable.
The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial pro-
pinquitv creates special relations between countries, and consequently the Grovem-
ment of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China,
particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.
The territorial sovereignty of China, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, and the
Government of the United States has every confidence in the repeated assurances of
the Imperial Japanese Government that while ^[eographical position gives Japan sudi
special interests they have no desire to discriminate aeainst the trade of other nations
or to disregard the commercial rights heretofore granted by China in treaties with other
powers.
The Governments of the United States and Japan den^r that they have any purpose
to infringe in any way the independence or territorial inteffrity of China, and they
declare, nirtheimore, that they aiways adhere to the principle of the so-called ''open
door" or equal opportunity for commerce and industo'' in China.
Moreover, they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any
government of any special rights or privileges that would affect the mdependence or
territorial integrity of China, or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any
country the fml enjoyment of equal opportunity in the conmierce and industry of
China.
I shall be glad to have Your Excellency confirm this understanding of the agree-
ment reached by us.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
Robert Lansing.
His Excellency Viscount Kikujiro Ishii,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan,
on Special Mission.
(The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan, on Special Mission,
to the Secretary of State.)
The Special Mission of Japan,
Washington, November 2, 1917,
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of to-day, communi-
cating to me your understanding of the agreement reached by us in our recent con-
versations touching the questions of mutual interest to our Gfovemments relating to
the Republic of China.
I am happy to be able to confirm to you, imder authorization of my Government,
the understanding in question set forth in the following terms:
tn order to silence mischievous reports that have from time to time been circulated,
it is believed by us that a public announcement once more of the desires and inten-
tions shared by our two Governments with regard to China is advisable.
135646—10 ^16
226 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAJSTZ.
The Governments of Japan and the United States recognisse that territorial pro-
pinquity creates special relations between countries, and, consequentl^r, the Govern-
ment of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China, par-
ticularly in the part to which her poasessions are contiguous.
The territorial sovereignty of China, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, and the
Grovemment of the United States has every confidence in the repeated aasurances of
the Imperial Japanese Government that while geo^phical position gives Japan
such special interests, they have no desire to discriminate against the trme of other
nations or to din^gard the commercial rights heretofore granted by China in treaties
with other powers.
The Governments of Japan and the United States deny that they have any purpose
to infringe in any way tne independence or territorial integri^ of China and they
declare, mrthermore, tnat they always adhere to the principle of the so-called ''open
door," or equal opportunity for commerce and industry in China.
Moreover, they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any
Government of any special rights or privileges that would affect the independence
or territorial integrity of China or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any
country the full enjoyment of equal opportunity in the commerce and industry of
China.
I take this opportimity to convey to you, sir, the assurances of my highest con-
sideration.
K. ISHII,
Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Japan on Special Jfiuion.
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary ofState,
Secretary Lansing. On the 2d of November, 1917, as will appear
by the document, the notes were exchanged between this Govern-
ment and Japan, and I issued on the 6th, the time the notes were
made public, a statement in regard to them. There are portions of
that statement that I would like to incorporate.
Senator Brandboee. Why not put tne whole statement in; I
mean, furnish it to the stenographer ? Let us have the whole state-
ment.
Secretary Lansing. I have not the whole statement.
Senator McCumbbr. If it is not too l6ng, may it not be read now ?
Secretary Lansing. This is real short, and I think it will save
time to read this.
Senator Brandbgbb. I do not mean to read it all now, but later
to furnish the whole statement so that it can be incorporated.
Senator Hitchcock. I think we ought to have read what he has
now.
Senator Brandeqeb. Certainly.
Secretary Lansing (reading) :
There had unquestionably been growing up between the peoples of the two coun-
tries a feeling of suspicion as to the motives inducing the activities of the other in the
Far East, a feeling which, if unchecked, promised to develop a serious situation.
Rumors and reports of improper intentions were increasing and were more and more
believed. Legitimate commercial and industrial enterprises without ulterior motive
were presumed to have political significance, with the result that opposition to those
enterprises was aroused in the other country.
Bv frankly denouncing the evil influences which have been at work, by openly
proclaiming that the policy of Japan is not one of aggression, and by declaring that
there is no intention to take advantage commercially or industrially of the special
relation to China created by geographical position, the representatives of Japan have
cleared the diplomatic atmosphere of the suspicions which had been so carefully
spread by our enemies and by misguided or overzealous people in both countries.
The staten • ' • ... . . . -^
reaffirmation
with the
essential to perpetual international peace, ais clearly declared by President "Wilson,
and which is tne very foundation also of Pan Americanism as interpreted by this
Government.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 227
That is all I desire to read.
Senator McCumber. That is a statement that you issued for pub-
lication at the time, in connection with the agreement ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, sir; for publication.
Senator "^all. Would it interrupt to ask a question ?
Secretary Lansing. Not at all.
Senator Fall. You made a statement as to the interpretation of
Pan Americanism. Do you understand that the Monroe doctrine
and the Pan-American doctrine as declared by President Wilson are
the same t
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Fall. I did not understand that.
Secretary Lansing. They come to the same result but they are
entirely on a different basis. The Monroe doctrine is purely a
national doctrine. Pan Americanism is an international pohcy.
Senator Hitchcock. Did Viscount Ishii make any pubhc statement
following the agreement ?
Secretary Losing. He did, very much of a similar order.
Senator Hitchcock. That was published in this coimtry, or only
in Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. I think it was tel^raphed back here, I can
not recall exactly. He did make a statement on leaving this coun-
try. I think his Government also made a statement in Japan.
Senator B&andegee. Is it your imderstanding, Mr. Secretary, that
the original use of the Monroe doctrine was based upon the theory
that it was necessary for our defense ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. Entirely so.
Senator Williabis. Defense of our institutions, too ?
Senator Brandegee. Yes; of our coimtry and our institutions.
Secretary Lansing. It was apparently a national pohcy.
Senator "drandegee. And a warning.
Senator Williams. A declaration by the United States, with a
threat by the United States that she would maintain it by force, if
necessary.
Senator Borah. Are you through with that incident, Mr. Secretary ?
Secretary Lansing. 1 am, sir.
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, in order that we may have a
chronological statement
Senator New. You say it was announced as a national poUcy ?
Secretary Lansing. Tne Monroe doctrine ?
Senator Xew. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator New. Not as a r^onal understanding ?
Secretary Lansing. It had that eflFect, very decidedly.
Senator New. But it was a national policy.
Secretary Lansing. A national jjolicy.
Senator New. Announced by this country for itself and by itself ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; it was a selfish doctrine. Pan Ameri-
canism is an unselfish doctrine.
Senator Williams. Just following up what he sai(L I understood
him to ask you if it was a regional understanding. It does pertain
to the Western Hemisphere ?
Secretary Lansing. Entirely.
228 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMA2r7.
Senator Williams. There was more or less of an express or implicit
miderstanding among the peoples of the earth that they respected it,
was there not?
SecretaryLANSiNG. Yes, sir.
Senator Williams. And they accepted it practically, whether they
did or not.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. And it was an understanding, and it was
regional.
Senator Fall. I do not like to interrupt the proceedings to call
attention to specific matters and declarations of other countries or
language of other coimtrie^ with reference to the Monroe doctrine,
but I do not want by my silence to seem to agree with the statement
made by the Senator from Mississippi and with the answers of the
Secretary. It has been challenged.
Senator Williams. I never said it had not. I was getting the
Secretary's opinion and expressing my own. I did not mean to
intrench in the slightest degree upon your right to have a different
opinion.
Senator Fall. Exactly. The Senator could not do that. How-
ever, the word ''understanding" implies something more than a
unilateral declaration, does it not?
Secretary Lansing. Necessarily.
Senator Williams. Let me ask the Secretary this question: Was
there not an imderstanding between us and Great Britain not to go
any further, even before President Monroe announced the doctrine ?
Secretary Lansing. That is apparently the evidence of history,
that Canning had a great deal to do with the annoimcement of the
Monroe Doctrine.
Senator Fall. And the United States distinctly declined to make
the declaration jointly with Great Britain, which is clearly shown
by the correspondence between the various parties, including Jeffer-
son, Madison, Adams, and Monroe.
The Chairman. We went so much further than Canning expected,
that he rejected it.
Senator Williams. To go a step further, the United States de-
clined to make a joint annoimcement with Great Britain as was
suggested by Canning, but the United States made an announce-
ment upon ner own nook, and there had been a previous under-
standing that Canning wanted the announcement made. Now, that
is all I am contending for. So that there was an understanding
which was to be constituted a part of President Monroe's proclama-
tion. It did constitute a part of it; there is no doubt about that.
Senator Fall. The Senator is another man skilled in the English
language, and he can express in his words what he understands, I
presume, or what he wants people to understand that he under-
stands, as to an understanding between Canning and the United
States which was never arrived at.
Senator Brandegee. I wish to state, in relation to what the
Senator from Mississippi has said, that Canning made the sugges-
tion that we fell into.
Senator Fall. Canning made the suggestion, which we repudiated.
Senator Williams. But imder our principle of not being involved
in entangling alliances, we did not want to be involved. And, by
the way, Mr. Jefferson was in favor of its being a joint announcement.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEEMANY. 229
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, I can not allow such historical
distortions, made, of course imintentionally, to go into the record.
Senator Williams. We will let it speak for itself. The gentlemen
wiU find it in Mr. Jeflferson's answer.
Senator Fall. I challenge that statement.
Tiie Chaibbcan. I will say to the committee that I think the
discussion of the Monroe Doctrine is hardly necessary at this point of
the hearing of the Secretary.
Senator Williams. I have thought so all along.
The Chairman. Why did you indulge in it, then ?
Senator Borah. Mr. Secretary, I do not desire to ask anything
about the Moiuroe Doctrine. We all understood what it was, up to
six months ago.
Secretary Lansing. I congratulate the Senator, because there
seems to be a wide difference of opinion as to what it means. He
may be the only man that knows.
benator Borah. There has been no misimderstanding until lately.
Mr. Secretary, ia order to get a connected statement as to the
situation, at the time that Ishii appeared here for the purpose of
consummating this agreement, the 21 demands were made, in the
early part of the year 1915?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. The first four groups of those demands had been
acceded to by China in her agreement with Japan in what is known
as the Japanese-Chinese agreement ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. Then at the time that Ishii appeared here, the
agreement, which followed the demands, had been made known to
the world ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator ^orah. Now, who suggested the proposition of inserting
in the agreement which you made with Ishii this proposition of special
interest!
Secretary Lansing. It was made bv Count Ishii.
Senator Borah. You suggested to aim that if that meant political
control or paramount control, you did not care to discuss it ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. What did he say in reply to that, which would
indicate that he waived that construction upon jour part?
Secretary Lansing. He continued the discussion.
Senator Borah. And continued it along what line?
Secretary Lansing. Well, only along the line that he inserted it in
his counterdraft of a note and urged that it be included. But he
understood exactly what I interpreted the words '* special interest"
to mean.
Senator Borah. And you understood what he interpreted them
to mean ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I did not.
Senator Borah. He had said that his idea was that Japan had
special interests in China which ought to be recognized, and by those
special interests he meant paramount control ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; and I told him I would not consider it.
230 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Borah. Did he say, '* Very well, I adopt that construction
of it," or anything of that kind?
Secretary Lansing. No, but he continued to introduce the words
''special interest ''; but he knew that if he did not take my meaning
I could not continue the discussion.
Senator Borah. Is it not a fact that before and after he appeared,
his country, officially or semiofficially, placed the construction upon
it which Ishii placed upon it?
Secretary Lansing. Before?
Senator Borah. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. Not to my knowledge, further than his
statement.
Senator Borah. I have a dispatch here from the Russian ambas-
sador to his home Government, made October 22, 1917, in which he
said that Japanese
Senator Pomerene. From what are you reading ?
Senator Borah. From a copy of this dispatch published in
"Democracy and the Eastern Question.''
Secretary Lansing. By whom?
Senator Borah. By Mr. Millard. Is there any question about the
authenticity of the dispatch ?
Secretary Lansing. No question, because I do not know anything
about it, except his publication of it.
Senator Borah. Do you have any doubt about this publication
being correct, as to this dispatch ?
Secretary Lansing. I have no information on the subject at all,
one way or the other.
Senator Borah. Then you do not desire to have it inferred from
your answer that it is false ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. No.
Senator Williams. Or true?
Secretary Lansing. No, neither one.
Senator Borah. We will read it and see whether time proves it to
be true. [Reading:]
The Japanese are manifesting more and more clearly a tendency to interpret the
special position of Japan in China, inter alia, in the sense that other powers must not
undertake in China any political steps without previously exchanging views with
Japan on the subject — a condition that would to some extent establish a Japanese
control over the foreign affairs of China. On the other hand, the Japanese Govern-
ment does not attach great importance to its recognition of the principle of the open
door and the integrity of China, regarding it as merely a repetition of the assurances
repeatedly given by it earlier to other powers and implying no new restrictions for
the Japanese policy in China. It is therefore quite possible that in some future time
there may arise in this connection misunderstandings between the United States and
Japan. iThe minister for foreign affairs again confirmed to-day in conversation with
me that in the negotiations by viscount Ishii the question at issue is not some special
concession to Japan in these or other parts of China, but Japan's special position in
China as a whole.
That information, I take it^ was unknown to you at the time you
had your discussion with Ishii.
SecretaryLANSiNG. That dispatch ?
Senator Borah. Yes.
Secretarv Lansing. Entirely so. I would call your attention to the
fact that the Root-Takahira agreement includea an arrangement be-
tween Japan and the United States that they would take no steps
without consulting each other, and it would have the same effect as
this statement made by the Russian Ambassador.
TREATY OF PBAGB WITH GEBMAKY. 231
Senator Borah. And in another dispatch from the Russian Am-
bassador wider date of November 1, 1917, there is another paragraph
which I quote. [Reading:]
To my question whether he did not fear —
This was the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Japan that he was
t4ilking to —
that in the future miminderBtandines might arise from the different inteipretationB by
Japan and the United States of me meaning of the tenns "special pK)eition'' and
^'special interests" of Japan in China, Viscount Motono replied oy saying that (a gap
in the original). Nevertheless I gain the impression from the words of tne minister that
he is conscious of the possibility of misunderstandings also in the future, but is of the
opinion that in such a case Japan would have better means at her dispoaetl for carrying
into effect her interpretation than the United States.
Now, it is a fact that you stated the other day, is it not, Mr. Secre-
tary, that after this Lansmg-Ishii ajgreement was made, Japan placed
the construction upon it which Ishii desired to have you place upon it
in the first instance?
Secretary Lansing. I have no recollection that there is any state-
ment made by the Japanese Government as to the fact which you set
forth.
Senator Bobah. Have you information that it was made by the
press of Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. Oh, yes.
Senator Borah. And by publications which are under the control
of the Government?
Secretary Lansing. That I do not know.
Senator Borah. Now, these notes between yourself and Count
Ishii were published first in Japan, were they not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. Was that in accordance with the understanding ?
Secretary Lansing. I believe not. I believe they were puD-
lished — I believe they came to the knowledge of China before they
were made pubUc.
Senator Borah. Japan presented the information of these notes to
China?
Secretary Lansing. That is my recollection.
Senator BORAH. Yes; and the first knowledge that the American
ambassador had of the contents of the notes or uiat they existed came
to him from the Japanese Government?
Secretary Lansing. That I can not teU you. Very likely that is
so, however.
Senator Borah. They were published there. There was an agree-
ment as to the date upon which they should be published and made
known to the world ?
Secretaiy Lansing. The 6th of November; four days after they
were signed.
Senator Borah. And they were published in China and Japan
prior to that time ?
Secratary Lansing. I will not say that they were published.
Senator Borah. They were made known to China prior to that ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. And the information came back here prior to the
time it should ha e been published ?
232 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Secretary Lansiko. I think not. I do not think you could have
had it by cable.
Senator Borah. The information came to this coimtry not through
the Secretary of State, but through cable from China and Japan.
Secretary Lansing. I can not tell that. I do not recall any such
thing.
Senator Borah. The Chinese Legation issued a statement in the
nature of a protest, November 12, 1917.
Secretary Lansing. Not a protest.
Senator Borah. What do you regard it ?
Secretary Lansing. A declaration, as she called it.
Senator Borah. I said, ^' in the nature of a protest." I should say,
"a declaration."
Senator Hitchcook. That was after the publicationf
Senator Borah. Yes, Of course they could not issue it before,
because they did not know.
Senator Hitchcock. You intimated that the Qunese Government
did have advance information, and I thought possibly you might be
under the impression that they issued this proclamation before.
Senator Borah. K I led to that inference I should be corrected.
It is declared [reading]:
The Government of the United States and the Government of Japan have recently,
in order to silence mischievous repK>rts, effected an exchange of notes at Washington
concerning their desires and intentions with regard to China. Copies of the said notes
have been commimicated to the Chinese Government by the Japanese Minister at
Peking; and the Chinese Government, in order to avoid misxmderstanding, hastens
to make the following declaration so as to make known the views of the Government.
The principle adopted by the Chinese Government towards the friendl>r nations
has always been one of justice and equality; and consequent!]^ the rights enjoyed by
the friendly nations derived from the treaties have been consLstently respected, and
so, even with the special relations between countries created by the fact of territorial
conti^ty, it is only in so far as they have already been provided for in her existing
treaties. Hereafter the Chinese Government wiU stiU adhere to the principle hitherto
adopted, and hereby it is again declared that the Chinese Government will not aUow
herself to be bound by any agreement entered into by other nations.
That last sentence undoubtedly had reference to the Ishii agree-
ment?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Borah. And they undoubtedly interpreted it as giving
more than a geographical interest in China.
Secretary Lansing. That is an assumption that I do not think fol-
lows from the language.
Senator Borah. Wnat is your construction of it?
Secretary Lansing. Simply that that was a very natiu'al thins for
a Oovernment to issue a declaration of that sort because it was deal-
ing more or less with her interests. I wish, since you have inserted
the text of that declaration into the hearing, that you would also
insert the title.
Senator Borah (reading) :
Declaration of the Chinese Government concerning the notes exchanged between
the Governments of the United States and Japan, dated November 2, 1017.
Senator Pomerene. May I si^est there that it would seem to be
a natural thing for the Chmese &ovemment to issue such a declara-
tion in view of the fact that the newspapers of Japan had apparently
placed a different construction upon the agreement from that which
was entertained by the United States.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 238
Senator Bobah. I do not know whether they had prior to the 12th
of November or not, because that was only five days after the pub-
lication in Japan.
Senator Pomerene. I had in mind the fact that you had stated
that there were such publications.
Senator Borah. No doubi there were such views in the Japanese
press.
I would like the Secretary to make clear to m^r untrained mind
the difference between a declaration and a protest in the diplomatic
world.
Secretary Lansing. There is a very decided difference. A protest
calls for an answer, and a declaration does not.
Senator Hitchcock. The declaration was in entire accord with
the American interpretation of the Lansing-Ishii agreement ?
Secretary Lansing. Entirely, sir.
Senator Williams. The Monroe doctrine did not call for any
answer.
Secretary Lansing. That declaration was delivered to the State
Department here by the Chinese ambassador, and it was also de-
livered at the Japanese Government.
Senator Bbandegee. May I ask you, Mr. Secretary, at the time
jou and Coimt Ishii were liaving your conversations in relation to
this subject, and as to what ''special interests'' meant, did he say
anything which would allow you to understand what he meant by
the term '' special interests''?
Secretary Lansing. Nothing further than I have stated.
Senator Brandegbb. Did he at any time intimate that it meant
paramountcy or interest different from that of any other nation,
other than from Japan's propinquity to Chiina?
Secretary Lansing. My only recollection as to that is that he wished
to have inserted the words '' special interests and influence," and I
objected seriously to the insertion of the words ''and influence," and
they were stricken out.
Senator Bbandegee. He rave no intimation of what he under-
stood by those terms? He aid not attempt to define either "influ-
ence" or ''special interests," did he?
Secretary Lansing. Nothing further than that, except that the
insertion of the words "and influence" indicated that he understood
fully my interpretation of "special interests."
^nator Bbandegee. "Special interests" could not mean any-
thing else, in your opinion, could it, except
Secretary Lansing. PoUtical.
Senator Bbandegee (continuing). Except political ?
Secretary Lansing. That is true.
Senator Bobah. That is alll want to ask.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. Secretary, may I direct your
attention again to what are termed the secret treaties published by
IVotsId after November, 1917, when the Kereiwky government fell?
Up to the time of those pubhcations and the transmission, as you
have suggested, by the representative of the United States to our
Government, did our Government have any knowledge whatsoever
of those secret treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. I think not, sir.
234 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QEBM:A27Y.
Senator Johnsox of California. Are you familiar with their terms
now?
Secretary Lansing. No ; I could not, without refreshing my mem-
ory as to tne terms of any treaties that were entered into
Senator Johnson of California. But the first intimation that the
United States had of those secret treaties was in the publication by
Trotsky?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any position taken by
our commissioners at Paris concerning secret treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. Only in the spitit of the treaty, finally.
Senator Johnson of California. In the discussion and the conversa-
tions, the debates, or the arguments, was there a definite position
at any time taken by the American commissioners concerning secret
treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. Well, I should not wish to answer that, be-
cause— of course you understand the organization of the peace con-
ference for work, do you not ?
Senator Johnson of California. Partially so. I would not say
wholly so.
Secretary Lansing. I might explain that.
Senator Johnson of Calitomia. If you please.
Secretary Lansing. In the first instance, it was discovered that to
deal with so manj delegates and delegations as there were at Paris
was not a practicable way of doing business. There were some
80 delegates. It was therefore determined that there should be
instituted a council of ten composed of the 5 heads of the principal
Sowers, and the 6 foreign ministers of the several powers. They
ealt with the questions and planned in a general wav the work of
the conference. Certain commissions were appointed by the confer-
ence at the suggestion of the Council of Ten, and on the other hand,
other commissions were appointed directly by the Coimcil of Ten
when it became necessary to deal with specific subjects.
Later, it was deemed advisable that there should be a division of
the Council of Ten in order that the work might progress more
rapidly, a division into a council of heads of States wmch was com-
posed of President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George, Mi*. Clemenceau, and
Mr. Orlando, and then there was a coimcil of foreign ministers
established which was composed of the foreign ministers of the heads
of the principal Governments, at which presided Mr. Pichon, French
minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Balfour, Baron Sonnino, and myself,
ministers of foreign affairs, and Baron Makino, of Japan, who was a
former minister of foreign aflfairs of Japan.
Senator Moses. There were, then five in the Council of Foreign
Ministers and only four in the Council of the Heads of the States ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; they were frequently designated as the
Council of Four and the Council of Five.
The Coimcil of Four practically had entire control of all the activi-
ties of the various councils, commissions, and committees that were
appointed.
The Coimcil of Five took up the questions which were referred
to it by the Council of Four. Tney frequently had hearings, and they
frequently even appointed special committees to consider subjects
and report directly to them; but in the majority of cases they passed
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 235
on questions that were submitted to them and made recommenda-
tions to the Council of Four, who adopted, rejected, or amended
their recommendations.
That was the system of operation, and that prevailed to the last.
Senator Johnson of California. Did the Council of Five have
referred to it at any time questions of territorial disposition ?
Secretary Lansing. Many.
Senator Johnson of California. As a member of the council, and
as one of the representatives of the United States, did you have any
policy concerning secret treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall that the question of secret
treaties came up before the Council of Five at all.
Senator Johnson of California. So far as you are aware, did the
United States commissioners have any policy respecting secret
treaties ?
Secretary Lansing. I think that as I merely stated the policy
myself. I was approached by one of the Italian representatives as
to the treaty of London. That was before we had had any meetings
of the conference, at all, and he wanted to know what the attitude of
the United States would be toward the treaty of London, and I said
that so far as the United States was concerned it would support the
treaty of London if it was just, and if it was unjust it would resist it
or any portion of it.
Senator Johnson of California. Pardon me for repeating the ques-
tion: Specifically, then, there was no policy outlined for the American
Commissioners concerning secret treaties, at all?
Secretary Lansing. We did not consider ourselves bound by secret
treaties.
Senator Johnson of California. That is exactly what I mean
That was a definite policy ?
Secretary Lansing. A definite policy.
Senator Johnson of California. And that was the policy of the
United States Commissioner in the negotiations at Paris?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Senator Williams. But I understand you further to have left the
inference, at any rate, that where the provisions of a treaty were just
and reasonable, the United States womd respect them ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes. Oh, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That was, Senator, as I gathered
it, irrespective of any treaty; they would determine the matter upon
its justice. Is not that correct ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. I did not quite mean that, Senator, where it
had not been determined by the treaty; but if the determination by
the treaty was reasonable and just, the United States would respect it ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Let me see if I get that correctly.
Was it not the justice of the particular territorial disposition that
controlled, with you, rather than any secret treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of Calif ofnia. Yes; I think I understand you.
236 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Secretary Lansing. Yes. Of course you will bear in mind, in that
connection, that it is not always possible^ in a diplomatic negotiation
such as this, to carry out entirely your own ideas of what justice is.
Senator Johnson of CaUf omia. 1 recognize that.
Secretary Lansing. And we had to make peace.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes. Now, are you familiar with
any engagements, if there are any, that the United States undertakes
in the Austrian treaty ?
Senator Williams. What is that question ?
Senator Johnson of California. I asked him if there were any en-
gagements with which he was famihar that the United States under-
takes in the Austrian treaty ?
Secretarjr Lansing. I should want to refresh my memory on that.
I do not think I have got the fuD text of the Austrian treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. You could not speak with accu-
racy of that, at present ?
Secertary Lansing. I could not speak at all.
Senator Williams. With authority ?
Senator Johnson of California. No; accurately, he said. Do you
know whether or not in the Turkish and in the Bulgarian treaties tnat
are contemplated there are any engagements that the United States
is to undertake ?
Secretary Lansing. We have had no text on those at all.
Senator Johnson of California. So that the full engagements in
which the United States may be involved can not be determined
until we get the full text of all the treaties.
Secretary Lansing. That is guite true, of course.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether there is any
tripartite agreement with respect to the Orient or the Far East
between France, England, and Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. I have never seen any. I have heard of such
an agreement, but I do not know of its contents, only in that gen-
eral way.
Senator Johnson of California. You say you have heard of it in a
general way. Have you heard of it officially ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you heard of it in such
fashion that in your opinion you covld say that such an agreement
exists ?
Secretary Lansing. I should not wish to say so, but I believe so.
Senator Hitchcock. Are you speaking of the Near East now ?
Senator Johnson of California. I am speaking of the Far East and
the Orient.
Senator HnoHCOCK. Are you speaking of Asia Minor ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; of Asia Minor, China, and the
territory thereabouts.
Secretary Lansing. Possibly it would help me to answer and it
woidd be of more value to you if I should find out just what this has
to do with the German treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. It has this to do with it: The
German treaty has within it a league of nations, llie German treaty
has within it a disposition of a part oi China. If there is a secret
tripartite agreement in existence to-day dealing with other parts of
Chma and other parte of the Far East, of course, we ought to know
TREATY OF PEAC5E WITH GERMANY. 237
it when we are dealing with this particular treaty. That is the
theory, exactly, upon which I asked you.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. In your opinion, then, does such an
agreement, such a tripartite agreement — ^mutual understanding--'
exist t
Secretary Lansing. That I am not prepared to say, without
Senator Johnson of California. May I rest it upon the proposition
that you believe there is such a one ?
Secretary Lansing. I believe there is such an agreement. Just
what it contains I do not know.
Senator Williams. To what effect do you believe it extends?
What is the substance of the understanding that you believe exists t
Secretary Lansing. I believe there was some agreement early in
the war as to, possibly^ the spheres of influence in Turkish territory.
Senator Williams. In Turkish territory?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. Senator, are you inquiring about Turkey, or
the Far East?
Senator Johnson of California. I was inquiring about Asia Minor
and China as well.
Secretary Lansing. I do not know anything about any other
agreements with regard to China. I do not believe there are any.
Senator Swanson. You believe that this agreement is limited to
what is generally known as Asia Minor and that section ?
Secretary Lansing. To the Ottoman Empire, I woidd say.
Senator Williams. I understand^ as a matter of newspaper
notoriety, at any rate, whether it is true or not — ^nobody knows
how much is true — that there was some sort of agreement between
Great Britain and France and Italy and Greece with regard to
Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and possibly Armenia. Is mat the
matter you are referring to ?
Secretary Lansing. les; that is the matter I am referring to.
Senator Johnson of California. We will clear that up. Do you
refer to an agreement between France, England, and Japan?
Secretary Lansing. Another one ?
Senator Johnson of Cdifomia. Yes.
Secretary Lansing. I never heard of it.
Senator Pomerene. Do I understand, then, that when you said
that you believed there was such a tripartite agreement awhile a^o,
you meant between- some other parties and France, Great Britam,
and Japan ?
Secretary Lansing. No; I did not refer to France, Great Britain,
and Japan, at all. I referred to France, Great Britain, and Italy in
regard to the Ottoman Empire; nothing else.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; I am glad of the correction,
because I thought your answer was open to the suggestion made by
Senator Pomerene, and I wanted to get it exactly. The question
did involve only those three powers; but you have made that matter
plain, now^ so lar as that is concerned,
it Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall, first, the submission
of the German treaty; then subsequently, the matter coming up
upon modification or revision?
238 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. You recall such a thing trans-
piring?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Can you state whether or not it is
a fact that Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Clemenceau left to the President
the determination of whether there should be modification or revision ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir; I do not know.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. That is all, so far as I am concerned.
Senator Moses. Mr. Secretary, what was the reason that Japan
had no place on the first council of five ?
Secretary Lansing. There was no head of the state.
Senator Moses. She had a chief plenipotentiary.
Secretarv Lansing. I know, but that is a different thing. That is
the head delegation. There now are sitting in Paris, instead of the
Council of the Heads of States and the Council of Forei^ Ministers,
a Council of the Heads of Delegations^ which are deahng witii the
Austrian, Bulgarian, and Turkish questions.
Senator Moses. Roumanian, too ?
Secretary Lansing. Roumanian, yes.
Senator Moses. At any time during the consideration of the treaty
was the question of racial minorities Drought forward ?
Secretary Lansing. I could not answer uiat with actual knowledge,
because whatever was brought forward in that connection was brought
forward before the commission on the league of nations, and I was
not a member of tiiat commission.
Senator Moses. Do you think it was brought forward before that
commission ?
Secretary Lansing. I believe it was.
Senator Moses. And what determination was made of it I
Secretary Lansing. That I could not answer.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know how our representa-
tives on that commission voted on that question?
Secretary Lansing. I would not answer, sir. I can not.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know anything about the
blockade, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Lansing. The blockade ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes,
Secretary Lansing. What feature of it?
Senator Johnson of California. Is there a blockade being main-
tained in respect to Russia at the present time ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it off, so far as the United States
is concerned ?
Secretary Lansing. So far as the United States is concerned.
Senator Johnson of California. Were we a party to it for a time ?
Secretary Lansing. Only so far as it affected certain ports that
were occupied by Germans.
Senator Johnson of California. Are our people at Uberty to trade
with Russia now — ^I mean European Russia ?
Secretary Lansing. To an extent. I do not know how far. That
is a matter which the War Trade Board is at present considering. I
believe that it would be a rather dangerous thing to do.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether we have
merchants in Stockholm waiting to go in and trade ?
TREATY OP 3PEACB WITH QEKMJJSIY. 239
Secretary Laksino. That I do not know. I believe we have,
because we have many in neutral coimtries simply waiting for the
treaty of peace to be ratified, when they will go in and stand an equal
chance with the British and the French, who are also waiting.
Senator Wiluams. With regard to our blockade of certam ports
of Russia, do you know whether that affected only those ports of
Russia where the commerce of Russia would become indirectly, at
any rate, commerce with Germany ?
Secretary LANfii;[NG. That is practically the only place that we car-
ried on a blockade.
Senator Williams. That is what I imderstand.
Secretary Lansing. The attitude of this Government has been that
a blockade was an act of war, and that we could not institute a
blockade until Confess had declared war on Russia. That has been
our attitude, and within a week I have sent such instructions to Pans.
Senator Williams. That is, a blockade against all Russia ?
SecretaryliANSiNG. Yes.
Senator W illiams. A blockade against points in Germany or imder
German influence ?
Secretary Lansing. That is a different thing.
Senator Johnson of California. How long nave we been a part of
the blockade of Russia ?
Secretary Lansing. We have not been a part of the blockade, yet.
Senator Johnson of California. At any time t
Secretary Lansing. Not that I know of.
Senator Johnson of California. Are not the French and the English
tradmg in Germany now 1
Secretary Lansing. Trading in Germany ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Senator Whxiams. Across the border ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know to what extent.
Senator Johnson of California. Are not trade relations resumed
between the French and the English and the Germans ?
Secretary Lansing. Not entirely.
Senator Johnson of California. Not entirely; that is quite true;
but are they not resumed so that they are resumed in great part ?
Secretary Lansing. Without the sanction of the Governments, I
believe.
Senator Williams. We are also trading with Germany, are
we not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Williams. To a certain extent; sending cotton through
certain Dutch ports; that goes on through to Germany?
Secretary Lansieyg. We can not resume trade relations imtil
we have consuls in the various ports, and we can not have consuls
in the various ports imtil this treaty is ratified.
The Chairman. We abrogated — or terminated, I should say — the
Russian treaty, as you wiU know, some years ago.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chaibman. Have we ever made another consular treaty with
Germany?
Secretary Lansing. Not yet. We have not had the opportunity.
The Chairman. How did we carry on trade with Germany ?
240 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAIfTT.
Secretary Lansing. By mutual agreements with our consular
officers.
The Chaibman. It is perfectly possible to do that.
Secretary Lansing. With any country.
The Chairman. Trade can be carried on without a consular
treaty.
Secretary Lansing. I did not say a consular treaty; I said without
consular omcers. You can not carry on much trade without consular
officers.
Senator Harding. What would happen to our trade if England,
France, and Japan were to ratify this treaty and we should not ?
Secretary Lansing. We could not have considar officers. We
could not go on with the trade.
Senator Harding. The treaty becomes effective on such ratifica-
tion ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And the treaty gives us every right that
France, Englaiid, or Japan woidd have in commercial relations the
moment it is signed, even by them, even though we do not sign ?
Secretary Lansing. No; it does not go into effect except by the
signature of those who have ratified the treaty.
The Chairman. I do not think that is the wording of the treaty.
Secretary Lansing. What ?
The Chairman. Is that the wording?
Senator McCumber. Does not the treaty itself provide that when
it is ratified so that it becomes an effective treaty even as between
those nations, that all nations shall have the right of the most-
favored nation ?
Secretary Lansing. No^ sir; because there is no most-favored-
nation clause that we can mvoke.
Senator McCumber. No; but if the treaty does provide that every
one of the allied and associated nations shall have the rights of the
most-favored nation, then when this is signed by Great Britain and
France and England and Germany, that gives us the right, does it not ?
Secretary Lansing. The right to what ? .
Senator McCumber. The right of the most-favored nation to trade
in GermanVs territory? Of course I admit that you would have to
have consular agents to get along very well.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; of course.
Senator McCumber. But I am speaking of the bare legal right.
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so.
Senator McCumber. I will simply say that the treaty so. provides.
Secretary Lansing. I do not tmnk that the ratification by any
other power can create peace between this country and Germany.
Senator McCumber. But it declares what the commercial relations
shall be between this country and Grermany and all the fdlied powers,
including the United States. I can not turn to it immediately, but
I call your attention to it.
Secretary Lansing. But unless we accept that, it does not affect us.
The Chairman. We are trading with Germany now, as a matter of
fact.
Secretary Lansing. To a very small degree, sir.
The Chairman. Still, we are trading with Grermany now, as a mat-
ter of fact.
TRBATY OF PBACB WITH GEBHANY. 241
Secretary Lansing. Because it is an emei^gency.
The Chaibman. I am not going into explanations, but I am sim-
ply stating l^at as a matter of fact we are trading with Germany now.
Secretary Lansing. Yes, but it is not the legalized trade of a time
of peace, when we say we are trading with her.
The Chairman. If you will pardon me, I did not say what kind of
trading it wag or how much it was. I said that we were trading with
Ciermany now, as a matter of fact.
Secretary Lansing. I quite agree with you, sir, but I do not want
to let it rest there. I want to show that the trade we are canying
on with Germany amounts to nothing to-day.
The Chaxbman. You can make any explanation you desire, of
course.
Secretary Lansing. And it will amount to nothing until we have a
restoration of peace; and the only way we can have a restoration of
peace is by the ratification of this treaty.
Senator Williams. Or the making of a new one.
The Chairman. How about France ? I saw it stated that the
Chamber of Deputies would not take up the discussion of the peace
treaty until the 26th of August.
Secretary Lansing. I heard that was so, sir. That is all I know
about it. I have seen that in the paper.
Senator Fall. Mr. Secretrary, I wa? not here during the first part
of yoiu' discussion of this consular matter. In the event that we
ratified this treaty, would considar arrangements be restored between
the United States and Germany at once ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, sir.
Senator Fall. There is no provision in the treaty for that.
Secretary Lansing. That does not make any difference. We could
have just a formal agreement. We can send consular officers any-
where, provided we can find a government from which the proper
documents can issue.
Senator Fall. We could do that without the treaty of peace.
Secretary Lansing. No; not without the treaty of peace, because
we can not trade with enemies.
Senator Fall. The reason for my remark is because I have here
before me what purport to be the counterproposals of Germany, with
the Brockdorff-Kantzau covering letter, and the answer to the same
with the Clemenceau letter, and the specific discussion of yourself and
the other peace commissioners; and I find imder the discussion of
part 10, Economic Causes, a final answer, followed by the other
matters, to (Jermany, containing this statement:
Conmilar relatdons are not reciprocally establlBhed, owing to the war activity of
iierman coneulfl.
That is, not established and not provided for in the Peace Treaty,
and this is our official answer:
Private property of GermanB abroad may justly be used to meet reparation chaieee.
as Germany's resources are wholly inadequate and because in the war the aluea
powers themselves have had to take over foreign investments of their nationals to
meet foreign obligatians, giving their own domestic obligations in return.
The significant part of it is that in passing upon this treaty I noted,
as all the other members did inmiediately, tnat there was no provision
for reciprocal trade relations except as carried on by certain com-
135546—19 ^16
242 TREATY OF PBAOS WITH GERNLAJSCY.
missions, the Reparation Commission having general governmental
powers, for instance; but here is the distinct statement as to why the
consular agreements, which we either place in a peace treaty or follow
by a separate consular agreement, are not reciprocalljr established.
In answer to the demand of Germanv that these very things be done,
the specific reason is set forth here, if this is a correct statement of the
position of the Allies, and the reason stated why we do not provide for
consular relations. I will read it again :
Consular relations are not reciprocally established, owing to the war activity of
Grerman consuls.
Senator Williams. ''Reciprocally."
Senator Fall. That was the governing influence with the peace
commissioners, was it?
Secretary Lansing. Undoubtedly.
Senator Fall. Then, in the event that we sign this treaty, the
war activities of the German consuls would no longer prevent our
entering into consular relations with Germany?
Secretary Lansing. Why, we have got to negotiate a coilsular
treaty with Germany, of course.
Senator Fall. Is it not a fact, or an I misinformed, that through
your office the statement was made that, in the absence of consular
agents or consuls of the United States in Germany, consuls of other
coimtries in Germany would be asked temporarily to take care of the
.American business, in order that trade might go along?
Secretary Lansing. They have to a certain extent been asked to
do so.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you mean the consuls of neutral
coimtries ?
Secretary Lansing. Of neutral coimtries; yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Has that request been made of
them ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall that it has.
Senator Fall. As I recall, the statement purporting to emanate
from your office — possibly it may have been from the Department of
Commerce — ^was tnat that request had been made, and pending a
final arrangement, or the signing of the treaty, and consular arrange-
ments being restored, that consuls of other countries who were there
would be asked to take care of American trade, and that American
trade with Germany was being carried on through such channels. I
assume that it meant through the consuls of such countries as Sweden,
Norway, Switzerland, and Holland — neutral countries.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions that any Senator
desires to ask?
Senator Swanson. On page 537 of the treaty is a provision which
says that the treaty only oecomes operative with those who ratify it.
I will read the provision:
A first proc^ verbal of the deposit of ratificatioDfl will be drawn up as soon as the
treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one hand, and by three of the principal
alliea and associated powers on the other hand.
From the date of this first procte verbal the treaty will come into force between the
high contracting parties who have ratified it.
The Chairman. Read the whole of it.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAINY. 243
Senator Swanson. The rest of it reads:
For the det^nnination of all periods of time provided for in the present treaty this
date will be the date of the coining into force of the treaty.
Of course that limits it to those who ratify it.
Senator McChmber. Let us put into the record this statement in
addition, that if the treaty itself provides, and there is an agreement
between Germany and Great Britain and France, that Germany shall
^ve to the United States the same rights that she gives to France and
Great Britain, then we have the right to take advantage of the treaty
which Germany has made with Great Britain and France, that she
will give to American citizens the same rights that she gives to the
British and French citizens, and that is what I contend this treaty
does provide.
Senator Swanson. But that treaty does not become operative until
we agree to it.
Senator McCumber. We can take advantage of it or not, as we
choose, but we have that right in the treaty itself.
Senator Williams. By that the Senator may mean one of two
things. If he means that while we are technically at war with Ger-
many we can claim the rights of the most favored nation, that she has
given to those who are technically at peace with her, I think he must
be mistaken. But immediately after the ratification by us, of course
we come into our rights under the treaty.
The Chairman. Are there any more questions to be asked of the
Secretary ?
Senator Fall. I should like to ask this question, Mr. Secretary:
Has the ban been removed from the importation of German potash t
I have a newspaper clipping here which sajys that the War Trade
Board, in response to the farmers' demand for potash for fertilizer,
have removed the ban, and that German potash can now be imported
into the United States.
Secretary Lansing. That is correct.
Senator Fall. We are technically at war with Germany, and still
under the powers vested in the War Trade Board by the laws of the
United States the War T^ade Board can relieve tnat condition to
the extent of allowing the importation of potash simply by a declara-
tion of the War Trade Board ?
Secretary Lansing. Certainly.
Senator Fall. Could the War Trade Board by a similar declaration,
or by a similar proclamation, relieve the ban against the trading with
Germans in every other way ?
Secretary Lansing. Those are imports into this coimtry and not
exports to Germany.
Senator Fall. Could they do that? Could they allow German
imports to come in ?
Secretary Lansing. Possibly we could continue in a state of war
with Geijnany, and the War Trade Board, which is created as an
instrument of war, could modify certain prohibitions that* were
issued.
Senator Williams. Either in part or in toto ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; I think so.
Senator Harding. If Germany wanted American raw materials,
would there be anything to prevent her getting them if we were
agreeable f
244 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Secretary Lansing. And continue at war?
Senator Harding. Whatever you choose to call it.
Secretary Lansing. I should doubt the feasibility of such a plan as
that.
Senator McCuMBER. Not discussing the question of feasibility, can
it be done under the treaty ?
Secretary Lansing. Not under the treaty, no.
Senator McCumber. The question is not whether it is feasible,
but could American citizens, with the consent of Germany herself,
sell goods into Germany? Germany makes no objection, and we
make no objection. What is to prevent our sending the goods into
Germany, simply in spite of the fact that there is technically a state of
war?
Secretary Lansing. A great deal. We have none of the machinery
of commerce.
Senator McCumber. We hav6 ships and we have goods. They are
the principal machinery.
Secretary Lansing. That is not the only machinery that is neces-
sary.
Senator McCumber. It is difficult, we will say, without consular
agents, but I am speaking now of the bare legal right.
Secretary Lansing. Yes, but we would have no claim against a
government with which we are at war, if she should violate her agree-
ment.
Senator McCumber. That would be a different proposition entirely.
Senator Fall. Mr. Secretary, if the other SenatoiB are through, I
should like to go back to the subject that we were discussing. That
is the question of trading between German nationals and American
nationals and the German Government and the American Govern-
ment, in view of your statement with reference to imports. That is
certainly a matter of our municipal regulation.
Secretary Lansing. It is.
Senator Fall. In other words, unless we had the trading-with-the-
enemy act, which is municipal legislation adopted by the Congress
of the United States, there would not have been any penalty at all
attaching to trading between the citizens of this country and the citi-
zens of Germany, although enemies, except the liability to seizure of
the goods. There would not have been any penalty for such trading,
except the liability of seizure, if it had not been for the trading-with-
the-enemy act.
Secretary Lansing. We have got to have a law fixing the penalty,
of course.
Senator Fall. Then, subject simply to seizure by the respective
governments, either as contraband of war or because of the inter-
national rule against trading with the enemy, or because of our
municipal law, the interchange of products between the two countries
is prohibited; but imder the mternational rule the only penalty would
be the seizure of the goods and the loss of them, if intended for enemy
consumption. Of course, a country has the right always, without
municipal legislation, to prevent its citizens senoing goods out of the
country or trading with tne enemy so as to assist the enemy in carrv-
ing on the war while we are at war with her. That would be the right
of a government in self-protection; but there is no penalty except the
seizure of the goods, we passed the trading-with-the-enemy act for
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBlCA2!rY. 245
the Tery purpose of proyiding a penalty, so that we could immediately
seize the goods through our civil authorities as well as we ordinarily
could seize them through our military authorities, in order to stop it.
Now, there is power vested in the War Trade Board, so you say, to
suspend that law in so far as imports from Germany are concerned.
They have done that in the matter of potash. Of course, if they
could do it in the matter of potash they could do it with reference to
chemicals or any other product of Germany.
There is no distinct provision in the law, as I recall it, which gives
to the War Trade Board any such authority. My recollection of
the trading-with-the-enemy act is that trading, either buying or
selling, is prohibited under a penalty, and that the President of the
United States may issue licenses allowing citizens of the United
States, or presumably alien citizens, possibly enemies, to continue
to trade under his license, under proper circumstances, in his dis-
cretion. That is the only provision that I find in the trading with
the enemy act by which there can be any suspension of the penalty
whatsoever; that is, at least in so far as our citizens are concemea.
We can not penalize the Germans, because we can not catch them.
But as soon as those goods come into the hands of citizens of the
United States, unless mey have a license from the President of the
United States, would they not be liable under the trading-Math-the-
enemv act ?
Secretary Lansing. I assume they would.
Senator Fall. Then along with this declaration or proclamation
authorizing the importation of potash there would be necessarilv a
license from the President to the party receiving the goods and ^s-
tributing them, to relieve him from the penalties of the trading with
the enemy act.
Secretary Lansjnq. I presume that would be so, but I am not an
expert on the provisions of that act, or on the operations of the War
Trade Board, although it has recently been placed under the Depart-
ment of State.
Senatx)r Fall. You readily understand the point I am getting at.
Then this whole matter is a matter of municipal l^slation under the
act of Congress governing the trading.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. If the Congress of the United States to-day repealed
the provisions contained in the trading-with-the-enemy act, then
there would no longer be any penalties, and the trading would be
free, would it*not?
SecretaryLANSiNG. No.
Senator Williams. Except still the penalty of seizure ?
Secretary Lansing. The penalty of the seizure of the goods com-
ing from Germany.
Senator Fall. Then Conjgress could not repeal that at all.
Secretary Lansing. I thmk that is a war power.
Senator Fall. My impression was that tne war power belonged
to Congress.
Secretary Lansing. The war power, so far as the Military and
Naval Establishments are concerned, rests very lai^ely, I believe,
with the President of the United States, as Commanoer in Chief.
246 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBBCANY.
Senator Fall. Naturally the direction of the naval and military
forces in time of war, of course, rests in the hands of the President.
No one undertakes to assert the contrary: but the whole line of my
Questioning, with which I thought you were in agreement, was that
tnis trading-with-the-enemy act could be suspended so that people
could come in here with carloads or shiploads of potash and trade
freely with the people of the United States, and that that was all in
pursuance of this proclamation by the War Trade Board.
Secretary Lansing. I think it takes a proclamation of the Presi-
dent to do that.
Senator Fall. I thought you said that it was suspended, and that
potash was being brought in.
Senator Williams . Licensed .
Secretary Lansing. Licensed by the President.
Senator "Fall. Not in so far as Grermans are concerned. The
President can not Ucense Germans. He could license them to trade
with us, of com^e, during the war, here in this coimtry; but so far as
the importation of potash into this country is concerned, the War
Trade Board has issued a proclamation, and potash is being brought
into this country at the demand of the farmers. Now, under the
ruling of the War Trade Board, this is what is happening. I am not
trying to put anybody in a hole or to take any advantage. I am
trying to ascertain exactly where we stand; and I myself nave sug-
gested that in the face of the trading-with-the-enemy act passed by
Congress, an American citizen accepting that potash here and imder-
taking to distribute it might become liable to the penalties provided
in the act itself, unless he operated under a license irom the President
of thp United States. I tnink that is a fair statement of it, as I
understand the law.
Senator Williams. 1 think so, too, except this, of course, which I
wish to add, that the President made the War Trade Board his
instrumentality for the purpose of granting these licenses.
Senator Fall. I am not trying to criticize. I am trying to get at
the facts.
Senator Williams. That is all I am trying to do, and all anyone is
trying to do, I think.
Senator Fall. The Senator from Mississippi is entitled to. amend
the question, or to get such definition of the answer as he desires,
if he can.
Now, Mr. Secretary, to get back for a moment, you say you under-
stand we are trading with Germany, and we are using the instru-
mentalities of the consular agents and consuls of other countries
there for that purpose.
Secretary Lansing. I did not say that, sir.
Senator Fall. I misimderstood you. I asked you if it was not a
fact, and I understood you to say that you understood it was.
Secretary Lansing. I did not say that I knew that to be a fact.
I said I thought so.
Senator Fall. Are we trading with Germany at all?
Secretary Lansing. I do not know anythmg- about the actual
trading that is going on with Germany.
Senator Fall. If it is necessary that bills of lading should be
visaed by consuls or consular agents, in order that intercourse be
carried on between two coimtries, through their regular diplomatic
XBEATY OF PBAGB WITH QEBMAHY. 247
ag^ts or through consular agents or consuls of some other country
acting for us, you would know it, would you not ? That is in your
department ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes, I assume so; unless something has been
done while I was on the way over or while I was in Paris. If some-
thing had been done while I was away I might not know it, but I
have no recollection of its having been Drought to my attention since
I returned.
Senator Fall. Then you do not know, as a matter of fact, whether
we are trading with the enemy or not?
Secretary I^Nsmo. As a matter of fact I do not know. I assume
that we are.
Senator Fall. If we are, we must necessarilv be using some
other instrumentality for the carrying on of such trade, must we
not!
Secretary Lansing. If we go to* German ports, yes; but if we go
to neutral ports instead of German ports, we do not need to.
Senator Tall. Assuming that we are trading directly with Ger-
man ports, then we must use some instrumentsJity, like the consuls
or consular agents of neutrals ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. Prior to the war we had a consular agreement
with Germany.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. We first had consular agreements with Prussia
and the Hanseatic towns, and Bavaria, and various other independ-
ent States.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. And then we had a consular agreement with the
Crerman Empire ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. And that was suspended during the war t
Secretary Lansing. It was abrogated before the war.
Senator Fall. I mean it was in effect up to the time that we
dismissed von Bemstorff and broke off diplomatic relations.
Secretary Lansing. It had been abrogated prior to that.
Senator Fall. It had t
Secretary Lansing. Yes; following the Seaman's act. We abro-
gated about 23 consular treaties at that time.
Senator Fall. You have reference to the La FoUette Act?
Secretary Lansing. To the La FoUette Act.
Senator Fall. We abrogated that how ?
Secretary Lansing. We gave notice to the Governments. Accord-
ing to the terms of the consular treaties, and treaties which con-
tamed consular provisions, we gave notice to the various Govern-
ments that we abrojgated that portion, or the whole treaty.
Stfiator Fall. Did we withdraw our consuls and consular agents
from Gtermany ?
Secretary Lansing. We did not. It was permissive that they
would continue, so as not to interrupt the trade.
Scfliator Fall. What functions did they perform ?
Secretary Lansing. The same functions that they had performed
previously, but under the general provision as to consular oflBicers.
248 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAlfTY.
Senator Fall. That general provision was never abroe&ted by
the United States Government, except as it was suspendea by the
declaration of war by the Congress oi the United States.
Secretary Lansing. Yes; 1 mink that is true. I think your state-
ment of that is correct.
Senator Fall. We continued doing business with Germany right
along ?
Secretary Lansing. We did.
Senator Fall. Except in so far as the particular provisions with
reference to desertions of sailors in ports, and so forth, were concerned.
Secretary Lansing. Of course there were not very many American
ships entering German ports.
Senator Fall. No, but the provisions of this seaman's act to
which you have reference were with regard to seamen who should
desert or leave ships in port ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. And subsequent to the passage of the La Follette
Act, which abrogated these treaties, we no tifiecf these coimtries that
these particular provisions in these consular treaties were abrogated.
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. As to the other provisions, they remained in full
force and effect until we declared war.
Secretary Lansing. They did remain in effect with certain coun-
tries.
Senator Fall. With Germany ?
Secretary Lansing. That I can not tell you without examining the
act. I presume the whole treaty fell in that particular case, because
we had a special consular treaty.
Senator Fall. Then if the whole treaty fell, and we continued to
do business with Germany, all that is necessary is that there be by
the President, whom I asaiune to be the proper authoritv, or by some
other proper authority, a declaration that peace exists between Ger-
many and the United States, and those consular agreements or
arrangements would be restored.
Secretary Lansing. So far as they are concerned it would be —
when peace is restored, those provisions would be restored.
Senator Williams. Senator, if you will pardon me, I should like
to ask a question right there, more as a matter of curiosity, because
it relates to this.
Senator Fall. Certainly.
Senator Williams. How far did our cutting off diplomatic rda-
tions with Germany affect our consular service, before the declara-
tion of war ?
Secretary Lansing. We withdrew our consular oj£cers at the
same time.
Senator Williams. At once ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. I noticed in yesterday's dispatches among other
things a statement that Rumania would decline to be bound or to
abide by or to enter into treaties such as are provided in this treaty
that is pending b^ore us, for the protection of racial and religious
minorities. Ebve you had any information upon that subject T
Secretary Lansing. None at all.
Senator Fall. Has your attention been called to the Associated
Press dispatches f
TBEAT7 OF PEACE WITH GERMAlinr. 249
Secretary Laxsing. No, sir.
Senator IIabding. Mr. Secretary, Rumania wanted to make some
reservations in the treaty, did she not ?
SecretaryLANSiNG. i es.
Senator Habding. Do you know what they were i
Secretary Lansing. They related to minority representation.
Senator Fall. Mr. Secretary, in so far as enemy countries are con-
cerned we haye only negotiated a treaty with Germany. That is,
in so far as any conclusion of negotiations is concerned. Is that
correct?
Secretary Lansing. That is correct.
Senator Fall. With what other countries are there now pending
peace-treaty negotiations ?
Secretary Lansing. Peace treaties with Austria, Bulgaria, and
Turkey are being considered. The negotiations with Austria are
practically finished.
Senator Fall. They are in process of negotiation and more or less
completed ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; and I assume-j-though it would be an
assumption on my part — that a Himgarian treaty is also being
prepared.
Senator Fall. I was going to ask about that. Hungary when we
entered the war having been an integral portion of the Austrian
Empire and haying since been separated, and we recognizing and
demanding the separation
Secreta^ Lansing. It was a federated monarchial State com-
posed of two distinct soyereignties united under one ruler.
Senator Fall. I said "the Austrian Empire," not Austria; that it
was an integral portion of the Austrian Empire, which was composed
of Austria and Hungaiy.
Secretary Lansing. " Austro-Himgarian " is the title.
Senator Fall. Then I hope the record may be corrected so that
where I said the "Austrian Empire" it will appear that it should
haye been the "Austro-Himgarian Empire," of which Himgary was
an int^al portion.
The Chaibman. It is understood that that correction will be made.
Senator Fall. Mr. Secretary, there is a proyision here for a future
treaty with Czechosloyakia with the principal allied and associated
powers — that is, the fiye great powers — ^is tnere not ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. Although it is placed in the German treaty here, it
is a treaty to be made with Czechosloyakia. They are to enter into
a treaty with the principal allied and associated powers, by which
they are to a^ee to guarantee racial and reUgious protection within
their boundaries wheneyer they haye any boimdaries. That is cor-
rect, is it not ?
Seoretary Lansing. Yes,
Senator Fall. Sometime within two years ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Fall. There is a similar proyision with reference to a
treaty with Poland ?
Secretary Lansing. We haye that.
Senator Fall. We haye that and it is before this body now.
The Chairman. It has neyer been sent in. I haye had printed in
the record an English copy of it.
250 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
Senator Fall. I was assuming that it had been brought in before
us as officially as any of the others.
The Chaibman. It was laid before the House of Commons and the
Chamber of Deputies, but it has never been laid before us officially.
Senator Fall. Very well. You say you have not had your atten-
tion called to it; but suppose it is true, as annoimced, that Roumania
has declined to enter into any proposed treaty to guarantee racial or
religious minorities. Would that have any enect upon the treaty for
the same purpose mentioned in the treaty that is pending before us ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so.
Senator Fall. You think not?
Secretary Lansing. I think not.
Senator Fall. Suppose that Roumania declined to enter the league
of nations. Would that have anv effect upon the league at all f
Secretary Lansing. She has already signed this treaty.
Senator Fall. She has already broKen it, has she not)
Secretary Lansing. No.
Senator Fall. If she signed it, and she is continuing at war,
continuing to fight the commands of the high commissioners who are
there now, and if she has invaded Hungary and has committed acts
of war on various portions of the earth's surface, do you say there is
no violation of any treaty agreements ?
Secretary Lansing. No; because it has not been ratified.
Senator Fall. Is it not a fact that as between governments them-
selves a treaty becomes operative when it is signed or negotiated f
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Fall. It is not f
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Fall. Has not our Supreme Court so held ?
Secretary Lansing. No, sir.
Senator Fall. Do you remember the Swiss case, decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States several years ago, in wmch a
treaty] between Switzerland and the United States was negotiated
and signed, but not ratified for something like 10 years? A ques-
tion came up involving private property rights, and the Supreme
Court of the United States held that as between Governments the
treaty was in force from the date of the negotiations, but that as to
citizens it was not in effect and would not take effect until it was
ratified.
Secretary Lansing. I have no such recollection.
Senator Fall. Well, sir, I will take pleasure in furnishing you
with that decision, as well as with some other opinions upon the
same subject.
Secretary Lansing. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions to be asked of
the Secretary ?
Senator Moses. Has the State Department received any recent
information from the legation at Brussels with reference to the pro-
ceedings in the Belgian Farliament in connection with the treaty!
Secretary Lansing. I have heard nothing except what I have seen
in the papers. We have had no reports on it at all.
Senator Moses. The legation has not reported t
Secretary Lansing. No.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 251
The Chairmak. Are there any further questions to be asked of
the Secretary? Some members of the committee would like to ask
some questions of Mr. David Hunter Miller, .who is in the State
Department; and we should be glad to have him here to-morrow at
haU past 10.
Secretary Lansing. Very well, sir. Th^e is one other thing I
want to make entirely dear, that I fulfill my promises. I was asked
to produce the resolution that I suggested to oe introduced in regard
to the league of nations. It is very brief, and with your permission
I will read it.
The Chairman. Certainly, we should be very glad to have you
read it into the record.
Secretary Lansing. It was imder date of January 22, 1919, and
IB as follows:
FR0P09BD RESOLUTION TO BB LAID BEFORE THE OONFEBENCE ON THE PRELIMINARIES
OF PEACE.
Resolved, That the conference make the following declarations:
That the preservations of international peace is the standing poUcy of civilization
and to that end a league of nations should oe organized to prevent international wars;
That it is a fundamental principle of peace that all nations are equally entitled to the
undisturbed possession of their respective territories, to the full exercise of their
respective sovereignties, and to the use of the high seas as the common property of
allpeoples; and
That it is the dutv of all nations to engage by mutual covenant —
(1) To safeguard from invasion the sovereign rights of one another;
(2) To submit to arbitration all justiciable disputes which fail of settlement by
diplomatic arrangement;
(3) To submit to investigation by the league of nations all nonjusticiable disputes
which fail of settlement by diplomatic arrangement;
(4) To abide by an award of an arbitral tribunal and to respect a report of the league
of nations after investigation.
That the nations should agree upon —
(1) A plan for general reduction of armaments on land and sea;
(2) A plan for the restriction of enforced military service and the governmental
regulation and control of the manufacture and sale of munitions of war;
^3^ Full publicity of all treaties and international agreements;
(4) The equal application to all other nations of commercial and trade regulations
and restrictions imposed by any nation;
(5) The proper regulation and control of new states pending complete independence
and sovereignty.
January 22, 1919.
Senator Williams. That was your suggestion to the American
deflates, to be suggested by them to the conference ?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
The Chaibman. I will say that I have here, just received from the
President, a printed copy of the American draft, and also a printed
copy of the first covenant reported, which has, of course, been widely
pnnted in this coimtry.
Senator Williams. Suppose you print it in this hearing.
Senator Lodge. I am going to nave it printed separately as a
dociunent.
Senator Williams. I suggest that ^ou also put it into this record.
Senator Lodge. I can see no objection to that.
Senator Moses. Mr. Secretary, with reference to that resolution
which you read, everything which you have to say further about it
is contained on page 144 of your testimony, in which you say that it
was laid before the commission. Senator orandegee asked you what
252 TREATTT OF FBAOE WITH GBBMAinr.
was done with that by our commission, to which you replied that
you did not know. Senator Brandegee said, ^'It was not favorably
considered, was it ? Of course it was not adopted/' And you replied,
''No; there was no action taken/'
The Chairman. Are there any further questions?
Secretary Lansing. I was also asked to submit the report oi the
Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on
Enforcement of Penalties, which contained the reservations
The Chairman. Those are the sections relating to the Kaiser?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; the trial of the Kaiser. I do not know
whether you want that inserted in the record.
Senator MosEs. I think it should be.
The Chairman. It may be inserted as a part of the Secretary's
testimony.
Senator McCumber. Your view on that subject is in the document ?
Secretary Lansing. Is in the signed memorandum that is annexed
to the report.
(The document referred to is printed following to-day's hearing.)
Senator Fall. Is there a statement in this memorandum as to
whether the trial of the Kaiser wiH be judicial in its nature or not ?
Secretary Lansing. You will have to determine that from the terms
of the treaty. I do not imdertsand that it is of a judicial nature at
all, but it is rather a tribimal that is established as a political instru-
ment.
Senator Fall. Mr. Clemenceau so stated in his answer to Brock-
dorff-Rantzau, did he not ?
Secretary Lansing. I do not recall.
Senator Fall. Mr. Clemenceau stated in his answer to Brock-
dorff-Rantzau that the trial would not be judicial in its nature, while
it would follow judicial forms.
Senator Williams. Yes; as I understand it, it is a political case,
but that in investigating it they will pursue judicial- methods.
Secretary Lansing. That is correct.
The Chairman. Is there anything else vou care to have printed ?
We will be very glad to put it in the record if there is anything.
Secretary Lansing. I think there is nothing to add.
The Chairman. I understand Mr. Miller had something to do with
the drafting of the league of nations provision, and we will be very
glad to have him here to-morrow morning at 10.30. If there are no
further questions, we will excuse the Secretary of State.
(Whereupon, at 12.35 p. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday,
August 12, 1919, at 10.30 a. m.)
(The documents referred to in the hearing, to be printed in con-
nection with it, are as foUows:)
To THB Senate:
I have received the resolutions of the Senate dated July 15 and July 17 asking:
First. For a copy of any treaty purporting to have been projected between Oermany
and Japan, such as was referred to in the press dispatch inclosed, together with any
information in regard to it which may be m posBession of the State I)ei>artment, or
any information concerning anv negotiations between Japan and Germany during
the progress of the war. In reply to this resolution 1 have the honor to report that I
know of no such negotiations. I had heard the rumors that are referred to, but was
never able to satisfy myself that there was any substantial foundation for them.
Second. Requestmg a copy of any letter or written protest by the members of the
American Peace Commission, or any officials attached thereto, against the disposition
TBBATY OF PEACB WITH GEBMANY. 253
or adjustment which was made in reference to Shantung, and particularly a copv of
a letter written by Gen. Taaker H. Blias, member of thejpeace commifision, on behalf
of himself, Hon Kobert Lansing, Secretary of State, and Hon. Henry White, members
of the peace commission, protesting against the provisions of the treaty with refer-
ence to Shantung. In reply to thjis request let me say that Gen. Bliss did write me
a letter in which he took very strong grounds against the proposed Shantung settle-
ment, and that his objections were concurred in by the Secretary of State and Mr.
Henry White. But the letter can not properly be described as a protest against the
final Shantung decision, because it was written before that decision had been arrived
at and in response to my request that my coUea^es on the commission apprise me of
their judgment in the matter. The final decision was verv materiallv qualified by
the policy wMch Japan undertook to pursue with regard to the return of the Shantung
Pemnsula in full sovereignty to China.
I would have no hesitation in sending the Senate a copy of Gen. Bliss's letter were
it not for the fact that it contains references to other Governments which it was per-
fectly proper for Gen. Bliss to make in a confidential communication to me, out
which, I am sure, Gen. Bliss would not wish to have repeated outside our personal
and intimate exdiange of views.
I have received no written protest from any oflScials connected with or attached to
the American Peace Commission with regard to this matter.
I am also asked to send you any memorandum or other information with reference
to an attempt of Japan or her peace delegates to intimidate the Chinese peace dele-
gates. I am happy to say that I have no such memorandum or information.
WooDRow Wilson.
The Whttb House,
August 8f 1919.
The White House,
WashmgUm, 8 August, 1919.
Mt Dear Mr. Chairman: I have at last been able to go personally over the great
mass of papers which remained in my hands at the close of my stay in Paris, and am
disappointed to find that it is in no respect a complete file, the complete files remaining
with the American commission.
You ask for all drafts or forms presented to or considered by the peace commissionerB
relating to the league of nations, and particularly the draft or form prepared or pre-
sented by the commissioners of the United States. There are no formal drafts in
my possession, except that presented by the American commissioners, and this I
take pleasure in enclosing, s^ong with the formal report of the commission on the
league of nations.
You also SLBk for all proceedings, aiguments, and debates, including a transcript
of the stenographic reports of the peace commiasion relating to or concerning a league
of nations or the league of nations finally adopted, and all data bearing upon or used
in connection with the treaty of peace with Germany now pending. No stenographic
reports were taken of the debates on the league of nations, and such memoranda as
were taken it was agreed should be confidential. The reason for regarding as con-
fidential intimate exchanges of opinion with regard to many delicate matters will,
of course, occur to you, and I beg to sav that I am following tne example of the repre-
sentatives of the other Governments in making this explanation.
The various data bearing upon or used in connection with the treaty of peace with
Gennany are so miscellaneous and enormous in mass that it would be impossible
for me so supply them without bringing from Paris the whole file of papers of the
commission itself, and would include many memoranda which, it was agreed on
grounds of public policy, it would be unwise to make use of outside the conference.
Very sincerely, yours,
WooDROW Wilson.
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge,
Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs, United Stales Senate.
AMERICAN DRAFT OF COVENANT OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
COVENANT.
Preamble.
In order to secure international peace and security by the accept-
ance of obligations not to resort to the use of armed force, by the
Erescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations,
y the firm establishment of the understandmgs of international
law as the actual rule of conduct among governments, and by the
maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty ooliga-
tions in the dealing of organizea peoples with one another, and in
order to promote mternational cooperation, the Powers signatory
to this Covenant adopt this constitution of the League of Nations.
Article I.
The action of the Contracting Powers under the terms of this
Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of a Body
of Delegates which shall consist of the diplomatic representatives
of the Contracting Powers accredited to X. and the Minister of For-
eign Affairs of X. The meetings of the Body of Delegates shall be
held at the seat of government of X. and the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of X. shall be the presiding officer.
Whenever the Delegates deem it necessary or advisable, they may
meet temporarily at me seat of government of Y. or of Z., in which
case the diplomatic representative to X. of the country in which
the meeting is held shall be the presiding officer pro tempore.
It shall be the privilege of any of the Contracting Powers to assist
its representative in the Body of Delegates by any method of con-
ference, counsel, or advice that may seem best to it, and also to be
represented at any time by a special representative.
Article II,
The Body of Delegates shall regulate their own procedure and
shall have power to appoint such committees as they may deem neces-
sary to inquire into and report upon any matters that he within
the field of their action.
It shall be the right of the Body of Delegates, upon the initiative
of any member, to discuss, either pubUcly or privately as it may
deem best, any matter lying within the field of action of the League
of Nations as defined in this Covenant, or any matter likely to af^ct
the peace of the world; but all actions of the Body of Delegates
taken in the exercise of the functions and powers granted to them
under this Covenant shall be formulated and agreed upon by an
254
TBEATY OF FBAGB WITH QEBliCAKT. 255
Executive Council, which shall act either by reference or upon its
own initiative and which shall consist of the representatives of the
Great Powers, together with representatives drawn in annual rota-
tion from two panels, one of which shall be made up of the repre-
sentatives of the States ranking next after the Great Powers and
the others of the representatives of the minor States (a classification
which the Body of Delegates shall itself establish and may from time
to time alter), such a number being drawn from these panels as will
be but one less than the representatives of the Great Powers; and
three or more negative votes in the Council shall operate as a veto
upon any action or resolution proposed.
All resolutions passed or actions taken bv the Body of Delegates or
by the Ebcecutive Council, except those adopted in execution of any
specific powers herein granted, shall have the effect of recommenda-
tions to the several governments of the League.
The Elxecutive Council shall appoint a permanent Secretariat and
staff and may appoint joint committees, chosen from the Body of
Delegates or consisting of other specially qualified }>ei'Sons, for the
study and svstematic consideration of the international questions
with which tne Council may have to deal, or of questions likely to lead
to iQtemational complications or disputes. The Elxecutive Council
shall also take the necessary steps to establish and maintain proper
liaison both with the forei^ offices of the Contracting Powers and
with any gOTermnents or Igencies which may be actiBg as manda-
taries oi the League in any part of the world.
Article III.
The Contracting Powers xmdertake to respect and to ^protect as
against external agression the political independence and territorial
integrity of all States members of the League.
Article IV.
The Contracting Powers recognize the principle that the main-
tenance of peace will require the reduction of national armaments to
the lowest point consistent with domestic safety and the enforcement
by common action of international obligations; and the Elxecutive
Cloimcil shall formulate plans for effecting such reduction. It shall
also require into the feasibility of abolishing compulsory military
service and the substitution therefor of forces enrolled upon a volun-
tary basis and into the military and naval equipment which it is
reasonable to maintain.
The Elxecutive Council shall also determine for the consideration
and action of the several governments what military equipment and
armament is fair and reasonable in proportion to tne scale of forces
laid down in the programme of disarmament; and these limits, when
adopted, shall not be exceeded without the pemnssion of the Body of
Delegates.
'Rie Contracting Powers further agree that munitions and imple-
ments of war shall not be manufacture by private enterprise and tnat
there shall be full and frank publicity as to all national armaments
and military or naval programmes.
256 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKY.
Akticle V.
The Contracting Powers agree that should disputes or difficulties
arise between or amoni^ them which cannot be satisfactorily settled
or adjusted by the ordmary processes of diplomacy, they will in no
case resort to armed force without previously submitting the ques-
tions and matters involved either to arbitration or to inquiry by
the Executive Council and until there has been an award bv the
arbitrators or a recommendation by the Executive Council; and that
they will not even then resort to armed force as against a member of
the League of Nations who complies with the awara of the arbitrators
or the recommendation of the Executive Coimcil.
The Contracting Powers agree that whenever any dispute or
difficulty shall arise between or among them with r^ardf to any ques-
tion of the law of nations, with rega^rd to the interpretation of a
treaty, as to any tact which would, if established, constitute a breach
of international obligation, or as to any alleged damaj^e and the nature
and measure of the reparation to be made therefor, it such dispute or
difficulty cannot be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary processes
of negotiation, to submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration and
to carry out in full good faith any award or decision that may be
rendered.
In case of arbitration, the matter or matters at issue shall be referred
to arbitrators, one of whom shall be selected by each of the parties
to the dispute from outside their own nationals, when there are but
two such parties, and a third by the two thus selected. When there
there are more than two parties to the dispute, one arbitrator shall
be named by each of the several parties and the arbitrators thus
named shiril add to their number others of their own choice, the num-
ber thus added to be limited to the number which ^ill suffice to giNre
a deciding vote to the arbitratoi-s thus added in case of a division
among the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties. In case
the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties cannot a^ree upon
an additional arbitrator or arbitrators, the additional arbitrator or
arbitrators shall be chosen by the Executive Council.
On the appeal of a party to the dispute the decision of said arbi-
trators may be set aside by a vote of three-fourths of the Delegates,
in case the decision of the arbitrators was unanimous, oi by a vote
of two-thirds of the Delegates in case the decision of the arbitrators
was not unanimous, but unless thus set aside shall be finally binding
and conclusive.
When any decision oi arbitrators shall have been thus set aside, the
dispute shall again be submitted to arbitrators chosen as heretofore
provided, none of whom shall, however, have previously acted as
arbitrators in the dispute in question, and the decision oi the arbi-
trators rendered in this second arbitration shall be finally binding and
conclusive without right of appeal.
If for any reason it should prove impracticable to refer any matter
in dispute to arbitration, the parties to the dispute shall apply to the
Executive Cotincil to take the matter under consideration for such
mediatory action or recommendation as it may deem wise in the cir-
ctunstances. The Council shall inmiediately accept the reference and
give notice to the parties, and shall make the necessa^ arrangements
for a fiill hearing, mvestigation and consideration. The Coimcil shall
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 257
ascertain and as soon as possible make public all the facts involved in
the dispute and shall make such recommendation as it may deem wise
and practicable based on the merits of the controversy ana calculated
to secure a just and lasting settlement. Other members of the Lea^e
shall place at the disposal of the Executive Council any and all infor-
mation that may be m their possession which in any way bears upon
the facts or merits of the controversy; and the Executive Council snail
do everything in its power by way of mediation or conciliation to bring
about a peaceful settlement. Ine recommendation of the Executive
Coimcil shall be addressed to the disputants. Should the Executive
Council fail to arrive at any conclusion, it shall be the privilege of the
members of the Executive Coimcil to publish their several conclusions
or recommendations; and such publications shall not be regarded as
an unfriendly act by any of the disputants.
The Executive Council may in any case refer the consideration of a
dispute to the Body of Delegates. The consideration of the dispute
shall be so referred at the request of either party to the dispute. In
any case referred to the Body of Delegates all the provisions of this
Article relating to the action and powers of the Executive Council shall
apply to the action and powers of the Body of Delegates.
Abticle VI.
Should any Contracting Power be found by the Lea^e to have
broken or disregarded its covenants tmder Article V, it snail thereby
ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all the
menibers of the League^ which shall immediately subject it to a com-
plete economic and financial boycott, including the severance of all
trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between
their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and
the prevention, so far as possible, of all financial, commercial, or per-
sonal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking
State and the nationals of any other State, whether a member of the
League or not.
It shall be the dutv of the Executive Council in such a case to
recommend what effective military or naval force the members of the
League shall severally contribute, and to advise, if it should think best,
that the smaller members of the League be excused from making any
contribution to the armed forces to be used against the covenant-
breaking State.
The covenant-breaking State shall, after the restoration of peace, be
subject to the regulations with regard to a peace establishment pro-
vided for new States under the terms supplementary Article IV.
Article VII.
If any Contracting Power shall be found by the League to have
declarea war or to have begun hostilities or to nave taken any hostile
step short of war, against another Contracting Power before sub-
mitting the dispute involved to arbitrators or consideration by the
Executive Coimcil as herein provided, or to have declared war or to
have begun hostilities or to have taken any hostile step short of war,
in regard to any dispute which has been decided adversely to it by
arbitrators the Contracting Powers hereby engage not only to cease
135546—19 17
258 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANT.
all commerce and intercourse with that Power but also to tmite in
blockading and closing the frontiers of that Power to commerce or
intercourse with any part of the world and to use any force which
may be agreed upon to accomplish that object.
Article VIII.
Any war or threat or war, whether immediately aiffectin^ any of
the Contracting Powers or not, is herebj declared a matter oTconcem
of the League and to all the Contractmg Powers, and the Contract-
ing Powers hereby reserve the right to take any action that may be
deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly right of
each of the Contracting Powers to OTaw the attention of the Body of
Delegates or of the Executive Council to any circumstances anywnere
which threaten to distiu'b international peace or the good imder-
standing between nations upon which peace depends.
The Body of Delegates and the Executive Council shaD meet in
the interest of peace whenever war is rumored or threatened, and
also whenever the representative of any Power shall inform the Body
of Delegates that a meeting and conference in the interest of peace
is advisable.
The Body of Delegates may also meet at such other times and
upon such other occasions as they shall from time to time deem best
and determine.
Article IX.
In the event of a dispute arising between one of the Contracting
Powers and a Power not a party to this Covenant, the Contracting
Power shall bring the matter to the attention of the Executive
Council. The Executive Council shall in such a case, in the name of
the League, invite the Power not a party to this Covenant to become
ad hoc a party, and if that Power consents it is hereby agreed that
the provisions hereinbefore contained and applicable to the sub-
mission of disputes to arbitration or to consideration shall be in aU
respects appjhcable to the dispute both in favor of and against such
Power as if it were a party to this Covenant.
In case the Power not a party to this Covenant shall not accept the
invitation of the Executive Council to become ad hoc a party, it shall
be the duty of the Executive Council immediately to institute ^
inquiry into the circumstances and merits of the dispute involved
and to recommend such joint action by the Contracting Powers as
may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances cusclosed.
Article X.
If hostilities should be begun or any hostile action taken against
the Contracting Power by the Power not a party to this Covenant
before a decision of the dispute by arbitrators or before investiga-
tion, report and recommendation by the Executive Council in regard
to the dispute, or contrary to such recommendation, the Contracting
Powers engage thereupon to cease all commerce and communication
with that rower and also to unite in blockading and closing the fron-
tiers of that Power to all commerce or intercourse with any part of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 259
the world, and to employ jointly any force which may be agreed upon
to accomplish that object. The Contracting Powers also undertake
to unite in coming to tne assistance of the Contracting Power against
which hostile action has been taken, and to combine their armed
forces in its behaU.
Article XI.
In case of a dispute between states not parties to this Covenant,
any Contracting Power may bring the matter to the attention of the
boHy of Delegates or the Executive Council, who shall thereupon
tender the good offices of the League with a view to the peaceable
settlement of the dispute.
If one of the states, a party to the dispute, shall offer and agree to
submit its interests and cause of action wholly to the control and
decision of the League, that state shall ad hoc be deemed a Contract-
ing Power. If no one of the states, parties to the dispute, shall so
o&r and agree, the Bod^ of Delegates shall through tne Executive
Council or of its own motion take such action and make such recom-
mendation to the governments as will prevent hostilities and result
in the settlement en the dispute.
Article XIL
Any Power not a party to this Covenant, whose government is
basecf upon the principle of popular 9elf-government, may apply to
the Body of Delegates for leave to become a party. If the Body of
Delegate shall regard the granting thereof as likely to promote the
peace, order, ana security of the World, they shall act favorably
on the application, and their favorable action shall operate to con-
stitute the Power so applying in all respects a full signatory party to
this Covenant. This action shall require the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of the Body of Delegates.
Article XIIL
The Contracting Powers severally agree that the present Covenant
is accepted as abrogating all treaty obligations inter se which are
inconsistent with the terms hereof, and solemnly engage that they
will not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms
hereof.
In case any of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently ad-
mitted to the League shall, before becoming a party to this Covenant,
have undertaken any treaty obligations wiicn are inconsistent with
the tenns of this Covenant, it shaU be the duty of such Power to take
immediate steps to procure its release from such obUgations.
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS.
I.
To the colonies formerly part of the German Empire, and to those
territories formerly belonging to Turkey which mclude Armenia,
Km-destan, Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Arabia, which are
inhabited by peoples not able to stand by themselves under the
260 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied
the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples
form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the per-
formance of this trust should be embodied in the constitution of the
League.
Tne best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the
tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who
by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical
position, can best undertake this responsibility, and that this tutelage
should be exercised by them as mandatariefe on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of
development of the people, the geographical situation of the terri-
tory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
II.
Certain commimities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire
have reached a stage of development where their existence as inde-
Sendent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the ren-
ering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory power
until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these
communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the
mandatory power.
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage
that the mandatary must be responsible for the administration of the
territory subject to conditions wnich will guarantee the prohibition of
abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic,
and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military
and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than
police purposes and the defense of territory, and will also secure
equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of
the League.
There are territories, such as South-west Africa and certain of the
Islands in the South Pacific, which, owing to the sparseness of their
population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of
civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the mandatory state,
and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of
the mandatary state as if integral portions thereof, subject to the
safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of tlie indigenous
population.
III.
In every case of mandate, the mandatary state shall render to the
League an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its
charge.
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised
by the mandatory State of agency shall in each case be explicitly
defined by the Executive CouncU in a special Act or Charter which
shall reserve to the League complete power of supervision, and which
shall also reserve to the people of any such territory or governmental
unit the right to appeal to tne League for the redress or correction of
any breacli of the mandate by the mandatory State or agency of for
the substitution of some other State or agency, as mandatory.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMA:NY. 261
The object of all such tutelary oversight and administration on the
part of the League of Nations shall be to build up in as short a time as
possible out of the people or territory under its guardianship a political
unit which can take cnarge of its own affairs, determine its own con-
nections, and choose its own policies. The League may at any time
release such people or territory from tutelage ana consent to its being
set up as an mdependent imit. It shall also be the right and privilege
of any people or territory to petition the League to take such action,
and upon such petition being made it shall be the duty of the League to
take the petition under full and friendly consideration with a view of
determinmg the best interests of the people or territory in question
in view of bR circumstances of their situation and development.
IV.
No new State shall be recognized by the League or admitted into
its membership except on condition thatita military and naval
forces and armament shall conform to standards prescribed by the
League in respect of it from time to time.
V.
The Contracting: Powers will work to establish and maintain fair
hours and himiane conditions of labor for all those within their
several jurisdictions and they will exert their influence in favor of
the adoption and maintenance of a similar policy and like safeguards
wherever their industrial and commercial relations extend. Also
they will appoint Commissions to study conditions of industry and
labor in their international aspects and to make reconmiendations
thereon, including the extension and improvement of existing con-
ventions.
VI.
The League shall require all new States to bind themselves as a
condition precedent to their recognition as independent or autono-
mous States and the Executive Council shall exact of all States
seeking admission to the League, the promise to accord to all racial
or national minorities within their several jurisdictions exactly the
same treatment and securij^y, both in law ana in fact, that is accorded
the racial or national majority of their people.
VII.
Recognizing religious persecution and intolerance as fertile sources
of war, the Contracting Powers agree, and the League shall exact
from all new States and all States seeking admission to it the promise
that they will make no law prohibiting or interfering with the free
exercise of religion, and that they will in no way discriminate, either
in law or in fact, against those who practice any particular creed,
religion, or belief whose practices are not inconsistent with public
order or public morals.
262 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
VIII.
When the rights of belligerents on the high seas outside territorial
waters shall have been defined by international convention, it is
hereby agreed and declared as a fundamental Covenant that no
Power or combination of Powers shall have a right to overstep in any
particular the clear meaning of the definitions thus established ; but
that it shall be the right of the League from time to time and on
special occasions to close the seas in whole or in part against a par-
ticular Power or Powers for the purpose of enforcing the mtemational
Covenants here entered into.
IX,
It is hereby covenanted and agreed by the Contracting Powers
that no treaty entered into by them shall be regarded as valid, bind-
ing, or operative imtil it shall have been published and made known
to all the other States members of the League.
X.
It is further covenanted and agreed by the Contracting Powers that
in their fiscal and economic regulations and policy no discrimination
shall be made between one nation and another among those with
which tibey have commercial and financial dealings.
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
Preliminary Peace Conference.
1. Terms of Reference.
The Preliminary Peace Conference at the plenary session of the
25th January, 1919 (Protocol No. 2) decided to nominate a Commis-
sion to work out in detail the Constitution and functions of a League
of Nations.
The terms of reference of this Conunission were as follows:
'*The Conference, having considered the proposals for the crea-
tion of a League of Nations, resolved that —
^'1. It is essential to the maintenance of the world settlement,
which the Associated Nations are now met to establish, that a League
of Nations be created to promote international co-operation, to ensure
the fulfilment of accepted international obhgations and to provide
safeguards against war.
'^ 2. This league should be treated as an integral part of the general
Treaty of Peace, and should be open to every civilised nation which
can be relied on to promote its objects.
"3. The members of the League should periodically meet in inter-
national conference, and shoulahave a permanent organization and
secretariat to carry on the business of the League in the intervals
between the conferences.
"The Conference therefore appoints a Committee representative
of the Associated Governments to work out the details of the con-
stitution and functions of the League.''
This Commission was to be composed of fifteen members, i. e.
two members representing each of the Great Powers ( United States of
America, British Empire, France, Italy and Japan), and five members
to represent all the Powers with special interests. At a meeting of
these latter Powers on the 27th January, 1919, Belgium, Brazil,
China, Portugal and Serbia were chosen to designate one representa-
tive each. (See Annex 6 of Protocol No. 2.)
2. CoNSTrruTiON of the Commission.
The Commission was therefore originally composed as follows:
For the United States of America:
The President of the United States of America.
Honorable Edward M. House.
For the British Empire:
The Rt. Hon. the Lord Robert Cecil, K.C., M.P.
Lieutenant-General the Rt. Hon. J. C. Smuts, K.C., Minister of
Defence of the Union of South Africa.
263
264 TBKATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
For France:
Mr. Leon Bourgeois, former President of the Council of Ministers
and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Lamaude, Dean of tne Faculty of Law of Paris.
For Italy:
Mr. Orlando, President of the Council.
Mr. Scialoja, Senator of the Kingdom.
For Japan:
Baron Makino, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Member of
the Diplomatic Council.
Viscount Chinda, Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Pleui-
f)otentiary of H.I.M. the Emperor of Japan at London,
gium:
Mr. Hymans, Minister for Foreign Atiairs and Minister of State.
For Brazil:
Mr. Epitacio Pessoa, Senator, former Minister of Justice.
ForChma:
Mr. V. K. Wellington Koo, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
For Portu
Plenipotentiary of China at Washington,
'tugai:
Mr. Jayme Batalha-Reis, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of Portugal at Petrograd.
For Serbia:
Mr. Vesnitch, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo-
tentiary of H.M. the King of Serbia at Paris.
A request of four other Powers — Greece, Poland, Roumania and
the Czecho-Slovak Republic — to be represented on the Commission
was referred by the Conference to the CJommission for consideration.
Upon the recommendation of the Commission the four following
members took their seats on February 6th:
For Greece :
Mr. Eleftherios Veniselos, President of the Council of Ministers.
For Poland :
Mr. Roman Dmowski, President of the Polish National Commit-
tee.
For Roumania:
Mr. Diamandy, Roumanian Minister Plenipotentiary.
For the Czecho-Slovak Republic :
Mr. Charles Kramar, President of the Council of Ministers.
3. First Repoet of the Commission.
Between the date of its appointment and the 14th February, the
Commission met ten times. As a result of the>e meetings the fol-
lowing draft Covenant of the League of Nations wa^ adopted, and
read as a preliminar}'' report by the Chairman at a plenary seission
of the Conference on the latter date. (Protocol No. 3) :
Preamble.
In order to promote international co-operation and to secure international peace
and security by the acceptance of oblip,tions not to resort to war, by the prescrip-
tion of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establisn-
ment of tne understandings of international law as the actud rule of conduct amone
governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for aU
treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, the Powers
signatory to this Covenant adopt this constitution of the League of Nations.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAHY. 265
Article I.
The action of the High Contracting Parties under the terms of this Covenant shall
be effected through the instrument^ity of meetings of a Body of Delegates repre-
senting the High Contracting Parties, of meetings at more frequent intervals of an
Executive Council, and of a permanent international Secretariat to be established
at the Seat of the League.
Article II.
Meetings of the Body of Delegates shall be held at stated intervals and from time
to time as occasion may require for the purpose of dealing with matters within the
sphere of action of the League. Meetings of the Body of Delegates shall be held at
the Seat of the League or at such other place as may be foimd convenient and shall
consist of representatives of the High Contracting Parties. Each of the High Con-
tracting Parties shall have one vote but may have not more than three representatives.
Article III.
The Executive Council shall consist of representatives of the United States of
America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, together with representatives
of four other States, members of the League. The selection of these four States shall
be made by the Body of Delegates on such principles and in such manner as they
think fit. Pending the appointment of these representatives of the other States,
representatives of shall be members of the Executive Council.
Meetings of the Council shall be held from time to time as occasion may require
and at least once a year at whatever place may be decided on, or failing any such
decision, at the Seat of the League, and any matter within the sphere of action of the
League or affecting the peace of the world may be dealt with at such meetings.
Invitations shall be sent to any Power to attend a meeting of the Council at which
matters directlv affecting its interests are to be discussed and no decision taken at
any meeting will be binding on such Power unless so invited.
Article IV.
All matters of procedure at meetings of the Body of Delegates or the Executive
Council including the appointment of Committees to investigate particular matters
shall be regulated by the Body of Delegates or the Executive Council and may be
decided by a majority of the States represented at the meeting.
The first meeting of the Body of Delegates and of the Executive Council shall be
summoned by the President of the United States of America.
Article V.
The permanent Secretariat of the League shall be established at
which shall constitute the Seat of the League. The Secretariat shall comprise such
secretaries and staff as may be required, under the general direction and control of a
Secretary-General of the League, who shall be chosen by the Executive Coimcil; the
Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary-General subject to confirmation by
the Executive C/Ouncil.
The Secretary-General shall act in that capacity at all meetings of the Body of
Delegates or of the Executive Council.
The expenses of the Secretariat shall be borne by the States members of the League
in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau
of the Universal Postal Union.
Article VI.
Representatives of the High Contracting Parties and officials of the League when
engaged on the business of the League shsdl enjoy diplomatic privileges and immu-
nities, and the buildings occupied by the League or its officials or by representatives
attending its meetings shall enjoy the benefits of extraterritoriality.
Article VII.
Admission to the League of States not signatories to the Covenant and not named
in the Protocol hereto as States to be invited to adhere to the Covenant requires the
aasent of not less than two-thirds of the States represented in the Body of Del^ates
266 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBICANT.
and shall be limited to fully self-governing countries including Dominions and
Colonies.
No State shall be admitted to the League unless it is able to give effective guar-
antees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations^ and unless it
shall conform to such principles as may be prescribed by the League in r^ard to its
naval and military forces and armaments.
Article VIII.
The High Contracting Parties reco^ize the principle that the maintenance of
peace will require the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent
with national safety and the enforcement b^r common action of international obliga-
tions, bavins; special regard to the geographical situation and circumstances of each
State: and the Executive Council shall formulate plans for effecting such reduction.
The Executive Council shall also determine for the consideration and action of the
several governments what military equipment and armament is fair and reasonable
in proportion to the scale of forces laid down in the programme of disarmament; and
these limits, when adopted, shall not be exceeded without the permission of the
Executive Council.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of
munitions and implements of war lends itself to grave objections, and direct the
Executive Council to advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture
can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those countries which
are not able to manufacture for themselves the munitions and implements of war
necessary for their safety.
The High Contracting Parties undertake in no way to conceal from each other the
condition of such of their industries as are capable of being adapted to war-like pur-
poses or the scale of their armaments, and agree that there shall be full and frank
interchange of information as to their military and naval progranmies.
Article IX.
A permanent Commission shall be constituted to advise the League on the execu-
tion of the provisions of Article VIII and on military and naval questions generally.
Article X.
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all States
members of the lioague. In case of any such a^ession or in case of any threat or
danger of such a^ession the Executive Council shall advise upon the means by
which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
•
Article XI.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the High Con-
tracting Parties or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the League, and the
High Contracting Parties reserve the right to take any action that may be deemed
wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly right ( each of the High
Contracting Parties to draw the attention of the Body of Delegates ci of the Executive
Council to any circumstances affecting international intercourse which threaten to
disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which
peace depends.
Article XII.
The High Contracting Parties agree that should disputes arise between them which
cannot be adjusted by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, they will in no case resort
to war without previouslv submitting the questions and matters involved either to
arbitration or to inquiry by the Executive Council and until three months after the
award by the arbitrators or a recommendation by the Executive Council; and that
they will not even then resort to ^ar as against a member of the League which com-
plies with the award of the arbitrators or the recommendation of the Executive Council.
In any case under this Article, the award of the arbitrators shall be made within
a reasonable time, and the recommendation of the Executive Council shall be made
within six months after the submission of the dispute.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 267
Article XIII.
The High Contracting Parties agree that whenever anv dispute or difficulty shall
arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration
and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole
subject matter to arbitration. For this purpose the Court of arbitration to which the
case is referred shall be the court agreea on by the parties or stipulated in any Con
vention existing between tliem. The High Contracting Parties agree that they will
carry out in full good faith any award thit may be rendered. In the event of any
failure to carry out the award, the Executive Council shall propose what steps can
best be taken to give effect thereto.
Article XIV.
The Executive Council shall formulate plans for the establishment of a Permanent
Court of International Justice and this Court shall, when established, be competent
to hear and determine any matter which the parties recognize as suitable for sub-
mission to it for arbitration under the foregoing Article.
Article XV.
If there should arise between States members of the League any dispute likely to
lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration as above, the High Contracting
Parties agree (Jiat they will refer the matter to the Executive Council; either party
to the dispute may give notice of the existence of the dispute to the Secretary-General,
who will make all neceesarv arrangements for a full investigation and consideration
thereof. For this purpose the parties agree to communicate to the Secretary-General,
as promptly as possible, statements of their case with all the relevant facts and papers,
ana the Executive Council may forthwith direct the publication thereof.
Where the efforts of the Council lead to the settlement of the dispute, a statement
shall be published indicating the nature of the dispute and the terms of settlement,
together with such explanation as mav be appropriate. If the dispute has not been
settied, a report by the Council shall be publisned, setting forth with all necessary
facts and explanations the recommendation which the Council think just and proper
for the settlement of the dispute. If the report is unanimously agreed to by the
members of the Council other than the parties to the dispute, the High Contracting
Parties agree that they will not go to war with any party which complies with the
recommendation and that, if any party shall retuse so to comply, the Council shall
propose the measures necessary to give effect to the recommendation. If no such
unanimous report can be made, it shall be the duty of the majority and the priv-
ileee of the minority to issue statements indicating what thev believe to be the facts
ana containing the recommendations which they consider to be just and proper.
The Executive Council may in any case under this Article refer the dispute to the
Body of Delegates. The dispute shall be so referred at the request of either party to
the dispute, provided tiiat such request must be made withia fourteen days after
the submisedon of the dispute. In anv case referred to the Bodjy of Delegates all the
provisiona of this Article and of Article XII relating to the action and powers of the
Executive Council shall apply to the action and powers of the Body of Del^ates.
Article XVI.
Should any of the High Contracting Parties break or disr^^ard its covenants under
Article XII, it shall thereby ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war
against all the other members of the League, which hereby undertake immediatelv
to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all
intercourae between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State,
and Uie prevention of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse between the
nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether
a member of the Leetgue or not.
It shall be the duty of the Executive Council in such case to recommend what
effective military or naval force the members of the League shall severally contribute
to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.
The High Contracting Parties f^ee, further, that they will mutually support one
another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article,
in order to minimize the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures,
and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures
aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will
afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the High Contracting
Parties who are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.
268 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEB1CAN7.
Article XVII.
In the event of disputes between one State member of the League and another State
which is not a member of the League, or between States not members of the League,
the High Contracting Parties agree that the State or States not members of the League
shall be invited to accept the obli]p:ations of membership in the League for the purposes
of such dispute, upon such conditions as the Executive Council may deem just, and
upon acceptance of any such invitation, the above provisions shall be applied with
such modifications as may be deemed necessary by tne Lesigue.
Upon such invitation being given, the Executive Council shall immediately insti-
tute an inquiry into the circumstances and merits of the dispute and recommend
such action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances.
In the event of a Power so in\dted refusing to accept the obligations of membership
in the League for the purposes of such dispute, and taking any action against a State
member of the League which in the case of a State member of the League would
constitute a breach of Article XII, the provisions of Article XVI shall be applicable
as against the State taking such action.
If both parties to the dispute when so in\dted refuse to accept the obligations of
membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, the Executive Council
may take such action and make such recommendations as will prevent hostilities
and will result in the settlement of the dispute.
Article XVIII.
The High Contracting Parties agree that the League shall be entrusted with the
general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in which
the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest.
Article XIX.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceawd
to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which
are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by theitnpelvea under the strenuous
conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-
being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of ciN'ilization and that
securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in the constitution of
the League.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of
such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources,
their experience or their geographical position, can best undertake this responsibility,
and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandataries on behalf of ^e
League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development
of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and
other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a
stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provision-
ally recfignized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a
mandatory power until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these
communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory
power.
Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the manda-
tary must be responsible for the administration of the territory subject to conditions
which will guarantee freedom of conscience or religion, subject only to the mainte-
nance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the
arms traffic ana the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifica-
tions or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than
police purposes' and the defense of territory, arid will also secure equal opportunities
for the trade and commerce of other members of the League.
There are territories, such as Southwest Africa and certain of the South Pacific
Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their
remoteneis from the centers of civilization, or their geographical contiguity to the
mandatory state, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws
of the mandatory state as intej^ral portions thereof, subject to the safeguards above-
mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
In every case of mandate, the mandatory state shall render to the League an annual
report in reference to the territory committed to hs charge.
TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMANY. 269
The deeree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the mandatory
State shall if not previously a^eed upon by the High Contracting Parties in each
case be explicitly defined by the Executive Council in a special Act or Charter.
The High Contracting Parties further agree to establish at the seat of the League a
]i(andatory Commission to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatory
Powers, and to assist the League in ensuring the observance of the temus of all Mandates.
Article XX.
The High Contracting Parties will endeavor to secure and maintain fair and humane
conditions of labor for men, women and children both in their own countries and in
all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend; and to that
end agree to establish as part of the organization of the League a permanent Bureau
of Labor.
Article XXI.
The High Contracting Parties agree that provision shall be made through the instni
mentality of the League to secure and maintain freedom of transit and equitable
treatment for the commerce of all States members of the League, having in mind,
among other things, special arrangements with regard to the necessities of the regions
devastated during the war of 1914-1918.
Article XXII.
The High Contracting Parties agree to place under the control of the League all
international bureaux already established by general treaties if the parties to such
treaties consent. Furthermore, they agree that all such international bureaux to be
constituted in future shall be placed under tb e control of the League.
Article XXIII.
The High Contracting Parties agree that every treaty or international enga^ment
entered into hereafter by any State member of the lioague, shall be forthwith registered
with the Secretary-General and as soon as possible published by him, and that no such
treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered.
Article XXIV.
It shall be the right of the Body of Delegates from time to time to advise the recon-
sideration by States members of the League, of treaties which have become inapplic-
able, and of international conditions, of which the continuance may endanger the
peace of the world.
Article XXV.
The High Contracting Parties severally agree that the present Covenant is accepted
as abrogating all obligations inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof,
and solemnly engage that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements incon-
sistent with the terms thereof.
In case any of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the League
ahall, before becoming a party to tltds Covenant, have undertaken any obligations
which are inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such
Power to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
Article XXVI.
Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the States whose
representatives compose the Executive Council and by three-fourths of the States
whose representatives compose the Body of Delegates.
4. Subsequent Meetings of the Commission.
•
The draft CoTenant of the 14th February was made public in order
that discussion of its terms might be provoked. A OTcat deal of
constructive criticism followed upon its publication. Further sug-
gestions resulted from hearings of representatives of thirteen neutral
270 TREATY OF PEAOB WITH QESMAin.
states before a Committee of the Commission on the 20 and 21st
March.
These various reconmiendations were taken under advisement by
the Commission which held meetings on the 22nd, 24th and 26tn
March and on the 10th and 11th April. At the meeting of the 10th
April a delegation representing the International Council of Women
and the Sufi^agist Conference of the Allied coimtries and the United
States were received by the Commission.
5. Final Report of the Commission.
At the meeting of the 10th and 11th April the Commission agreed
definitely on the loUowing text of the Covenant to be presented to the
Conference:
COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace
and security by the acceptance of obliea'ttons not to resort to war, by the prescription
of open, just and honoraole relations between nations, by the firm establishment of
the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among govern-
ments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for alF treaty
obli^tions in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, the High Contracting
Parties agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.
Abticlb I.
The original Members of the League of Nations shall be those of the Signatories
which are named in the Annex to this Covenant and also such of those other States
named in the Annex as shall accede without reservation to this Covenant. Such
a?ces8ion shall be effected by a Declaration deposited with the Secretariat within
tjro months of the coming into force of the Covenant. Notice thereof shall be sent
to all other Members of the League.
Any fullv self-governing State, Dominion or Colony not named in the Annex, may
become a Member of the League if its admission is agreed to b>r two-thirds of the
Assembly, provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to
observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be
prescribed by the League in regard to its military and naval forces and armaments.
Anv Member of the League may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do,
withdraw from the League, provided that all its international obligations and all its
obligations under this Covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal.
Article II.
The action of the Leafi^e under this Covenant shall be effected through the instru-
mentality of an Assembly and of a Council, with a permanent Secretariat.
Article III.
The Assembly shall consist of Representatives of the Members of the Lea^e.
The Assembly shall meet at stated interyals and from time to time as occasion may
require at the Seat of the League, or at such other place as may be decided upon.
The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere oi action
of the Lea^e or affecting the peace of tne world.
At meetings of the Assembly each Member of the League shall have one vote, and
may have not more than three Representatives.
Article IV.
The Council shall consist of Representatives of the United Stat^ of America, of
the British Empire, of France, of Italy, and of Japan, together with Representatives
of four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be
selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion. Until the appointment
of the Representatives of the four Members of the League first selected by the Assem-
bly, Representatives of shall be members of the Council.
TBEATY 07 P£\OB WITH QEBMANY. 271
With the approviil of the majority of the Aseembly, the Council may name addi-
tional MembeTB of the Lea^e whose Representatives shall always be members of
the Council; the Council with like approval may increase the number of Members
of the League to be selected by the Assembly for representation on the Council.
The Council shall meet from time to time as occasion may require, and at least
once a year, at the Seat of the League, or at such other place as may be decided upon.
The Council may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action
of the League or affecting the peace of the world.
Any Member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send
a Representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council during the con-
sideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that Member of the League.
At meetings of the Council each Member of the League represented on the Council
shall have one vote, and may have not more than one Representative.
Article V.
Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant, decisions at any
meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the
Members of the League represented at the meeting.
All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of the Council, including
the appointment of Committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated
bv the Assembly or by the Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members
of the League represented at the meeting.
The first meeting of the Assembly and the first meeting of the Council shall be
summoned by the President of the United States of America.
Article VI.
The permanent Secretariat shall be established at the Seat of the League. The
Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary General and such secretaries and staff as may
be required.
The first Secretary General shall be the person named in the Annex; thereafter the
Secretary General shall be appointed by the Council with the approval of the majority
of the Assembly.
The secretaries and the staff of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary
General with the approval of the Council.
The Secretary General shall act in that capacity at all meetings of the Assembly
and of the Council.
The expenses of the Secretariat shall be borne by the Members of the League in
accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of
the Universal Postal Union.
Article VII.
The Seat of the League is established at Geneva.
The Council may at any time decide that the Seat of the League shall be established
elsewhere.
All positions under or in connection with the League, including the Secretariat,
shall be open equally to men and women.
Representatives of the Members of the League and oflicials of the League when
engaged on the business of the League shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
The buildings and other property occupied by the L^igue or its officials or by
Representatives attending its meetings shall be inviolable.
Articlb VIII.
The Members of the League recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the
reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety
and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.
The Coimcil, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of
each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action
of the several Governments.
Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years.
After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits
of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the
CouDcil.
The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of
munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall
272 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due
regard being: had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not
able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information
as to the scale of their armaments, their military and naval programmes and the
condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.
Article IX.
A permanent Commission shall be constituted to advise the Council on the execu-
tion of the provisions of Articles I and VIII and on military and naval questions
generally.
Article X.
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members
of the League. In case of anv such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of
such aggression the Council shall adv^ise upon the means by which this obligation
shall be fulfilled.
Article XI.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the
League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the
League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the
peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General
shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the
Council.
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring
to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting
international relitions which threatens to disturb international peace or the gooa
understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
Article XII.
The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any
dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter eiliier to arbitration
or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three
months after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the Council.
In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators shall be made within a
reasonable time, and the report of the Council shall be made within six months after
the submission of the dispute.
Article XIII.
The Members of the League agree that whenever an)r dispute shall arise between
them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which
cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject
matter to arbitration.
Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international
law, as to the existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach
of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be
made for any such breach, are declared to be among those which are generally suitable
for submission to arbitration.
For the consideration of any such dispute the court of arbitration to which the case
is referred shall be the court agreed on by the parties to the dispute or stipulated in
any convention existing between them.
The Members of the League agree that they xrill carry out in full good faith any
award that may be render^ and that they will not resort to war against a Member
of the League which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out
such an award, the Council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect
thereto.
Article XIV.
The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption
plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of Internati(mal Justice. The
Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international Char-
acter which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an ad\Tsory
opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the
Assemblv.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 273
Article XV.
If there should aruie between Members of the League any dispute likely to lead
to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration as above, the Members of the
League agree that they will submit the matter to the Council. Any party to the dis-
pute may effect such submission by giving notice of the existence of the dispute
to the Secretary General, who will make all necessary arrangements for a full investi-
gation and consideration thereof.
For this purpose the parties to the dispute will communicate to the Secretary
General, as promptly as possible, statements of their case with all the relevant facts and
papers, and the Council may forthwith direct the publication thereof.
The Council shall endeavor to effect a settlement of the dispute, and if such efforts
are successful, a statement shall be made public giving such facts and explanations
regarding the dispute and the terms of settlement thereof as the Council may deem
appropriate.
If tne dispute is not thus settled, the Council either unanimously or by a majority
vote shall msJce and publish a report containing a statement of the facts of the dispute
and the recommendations which are deemed just and proper in r^ard thereto.
Any Member of the League represented on the Council may make public a state-
ment of the ^ts of the dispute and of its conclusions regarding the same.
If a report by the Council is imanimouslv agreed to oy the members thereof other
than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members
of the League agree that they will not go to war with any party to the dispute which
complies with the reconmiendations of the report.
If the Council fails to reach a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members
thereof, other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the
Members of the League reserve to themselves the right to take such actions as tney shall
consider necessary for the maintenance of right and justice.
If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the
Council to arise out of a matter which by international law is solelv within the
domestic junadiction of that peuty, the Council shall so report, and snail make no
recommendation as to its settlement.
The Council mav in anv case under this Article refer the dispute to the Assembly.
The dispute shall be so referred at the request of either party to the dispute, provided
that such request be made within fourteen days after the submission of the dispute
to the Council.
In any case referred to the Assembly all the provisions of this Article and of Article
XII relating to the action and powers of the Council shall apply to the action and
powers of the Assembly, provided that a report made by the Assembly if concurred
m by the Representatives of those Members of the League represented on the Council
and of a majority of the other Members of the Leaeue, exclusive in each case of the
Representatives of the parties to the dispute, shall have the same force as a report by
the Council concurred in by all the members thereof other than the RepresentativeB
of one or more of the parties to the dispute.
Articlb XVI.
Should any Member of the Lea^e resort to war in disregard of its covenants imder
Articles XI t, XIII or XV, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of
war against all other Members of the League, which hereby imdertake immediatelv
to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all
intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking
State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse between
the nationala of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State,
whether a Member of the League or not.
It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Govern-
ments concerned what effective military or naval force the Members of the League shall
severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the
Lejttue.
The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one
another in the financial and economic measures which are taken imder this Article,
in order to minimize the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures,
and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures
aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will take
the necessary steps to afford passage through their temtorv to the forces of any of the
Members of the League which are co-operating to protect tne covenants of the League.
Any Member of the Leaeue which mis violated any covenant of the League may be
dedaied to be no longer a Member of the League bv a vote of the Council concurred in
by the Representatives of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.
135546—19 ^18
274 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Article XVII.
In the event of a dispute between a Member of the League and a State which is not
a Member of the League, or between States not Members of the League, the State
or States not Members of the League shall be invited to accept th^ obligaitions of
memberBhip in the League for the purposes of such dispute, upon sudi conditions as
the Council may deem just. If sucn invitation is accepted, the provisions of Artidee
XII to XVI inclusive shall be applied with such modifications as may be deemed
necessary by the Council.
Upon such invitation being given the Council shall immediately institute an inquiry
into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best
and most effectual in the circumstances.
If a State so invited shall refuse to accept the obligations of membership in the
League for the purposes of such dispute, and shall resort to war against a Member of
the League, the provisions of Article XVI shall be applicable as against the State
taking such action.
If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to accept the obligations of
membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, the Council may take
such measures and make such recommendations as will prevent hostilities and will
result in the settlement of the dispute.
Article XVIII.
Every treaty or international engajgement entered into hereafter by any Member
of the League, shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shsJl as soon as
possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be
oinding until so registered.
Article XIX.
The Assembly may from time to time advise the reconsideration by Member^ of
the Lea^e of treaties which have become inapplicable and the consideration of
international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world.
Article XX.
The Members of the Leaeue se\era]ly agree that this Covenant is accepted as abro-
gating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms
thereof^ and solemnly imdertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engage-
ments inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the I^^eague,
have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it
shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from
such obligations.
Article XXI.
Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international
engagements such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe
Doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace.
Article XXII.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased
to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which
are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by th^msehes under the strenuous
conditions of the modem world, there should be applied the principle that the well-
being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that
securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of
such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their re-
sources^ their experience or their geographical position, can best umdertake this
responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exer-
cised by them as Mandataries on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development
of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and
other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a
stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provi-
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 275
sionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and aasistance
by a Mandatary until such time as they^ are able to stand alone. The wishes of these
communitieB must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatary.
Other peoples* especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Manda-
tary must be responsible for the administrationof the territory under conditions
which will guarantee freedom of conscience or religion, subject only to the mainte-
nance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade
the arms traffic and the liauor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of
fortifications or military ana naval bases and of military training of the natives for
other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and wul also secure equal
opportunitiee for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.
There are territories, such as South-west Africa and certain of the South Pacific
Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or
their remoteness from the centers of civilization, or their geographical contiguity
to the territory of the Mandatary, and other circumstances, can be beet administered
under the laws of the Mandatary as intes^ portions of its territory, subject to the
aafeguarda above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.
In every case of mandate, the Mandatary shall render to the Coimcil an annual
report in reference to the territory committed to its chaigd.
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Manda-
tary shall if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League be explicitly
defined in each case by the Council.
A permanent Commission ^all be constituted to receive and examine the annual
reports of the Mandataries and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the
observance of the mandates.
Article XXIII.
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions
existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League
(a) will endeavor to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labor for
men, women and children both in their own countries and in all countries to which
their conmiercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpoae will establish
and maintain the necessary international oiganizations; ^
(b^ undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under
their control;
(c^ will entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agree-
ments with regard to the traffic in women ana children, and the traffic in opium
and other dangerous drugs;
(d) will entrust the League with the general supervision of the trade in arms and
ammunition with the countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in
the common interest:
(e) will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of communications and of
transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of all Members of the League. In
this connection, the special necessities of the regions devastated during the war of
1914-1918 shall be borne in mind;
(f ) will endeavor to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention
and control of disease.
Article XXIV.
There shall be placed under the direction of the League all international bureaux
already established by general treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All
such international bureaux and all commissions for the regulation of matters of inter-
national interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under the direction of the
League.
In all matters of international interest which are regulated by general conventions
but which are not placed under the control of international bureaux or commissions,
the Secretariat of the League shall, subject to the consent of the Council and if desired
br the parties, collect and distribute all relevant information and shall render any
oth^ assistance which may be necessary or desirable.
The Council may include as part of the expenses of the Secretariat the expenses
of any bureau or commission which is placed under the direction of the League.
Article XXV.
The Members of the League a^ee to encourage and promote the establishment
and co-operation of duly authorized volimtary national Red Cross organizations
having as purposes the improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the
mitigation of suffering throiighout the world.
276
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Abticle XXVI.
Amendmente to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the MembeiB of
the League whose Repreflentatives compose the Council and by a majority of the
Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Assembly.
No such amendment shall bind any Member of the League which signifies its dis-
sent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease to be a Member of the League.
ANNEX TO THE COVENANT.
1. Original Members of the League of Nations.
SIGNATORIES OP THE TREATY OF PEACE.
United States of America.
Bel^um.
Bolivia.
Brazil.
British Empire.
Canada.
Australia.
South Africa.
New Zealand.
India.
China.
Cuba.
Czecho-Slov^kia .
Ecuador.
France.
Greece.
Guatemala.
Haiti.
Hedjaz.
Honduras.
Italy.
Japan.
Liberia.
Nicaragua.
Panama.
Peru.
Poland.
Portugal.
Roumania.
Serbia.
Siam.
Uruguay.
STATES INVITED TO ACCEDE TO THE COVENANT.
Argentine Republic.
Chfli.
Colombia.
Denmark.
Netherlands.
Norway.
Para^ay.
Persia.
Salvador.
Spain.
Sweden.
Switzerland.
Venezuela.
2. First Secretary General of the League of Nations.
6. Recommendation of the Commission.
At the last meeting of the Commission, the following resolution
was adopted :
Resolved, that in the opinion of the Commiasion, the President of the CommiflsiQn
should be requested by the Conference to invite seven Powers, including two neu-
trals, to name representatives on a Committee
A. to prepare plans for the organization of the League,
B. to prepare plans for the establishment of the ScSbt of the League,
C. to j)repare plans and the Agenda for the first meeting of the Assembly.
This Committee shall report both to the Council and to the Assembly.
PRELIMINARY PEACE CONFERENCE.
PROTOCOL No. .2.
Session of January 25, 1919.
AMEBICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE.
[Preliminary peace oonferenoei protocol No. 2, plenary session of January 25, 1010.]
The Session is opened at 15 o'clock (3 p. m.) under the presidency
of Mr. Clemenceau, President..
Present:
For the United States op America.
The President of the United States.
Honorable Robert Lansing.
Honorable Henry White.
Honorable Edward M. House.
General Tasker H. Bliss.
For the British Empire.
great BRITAIN.
The Rt. Hon. D. lioyd George.
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
The Rt. Hon. G. N. Barnes.
The Hon. C. J. Doherty, Minister of Justice of Canada.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, Bart., K. C. M. G., Minister of
Finance and Posts of New Zealand.
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Robert Cecil, K. C, M. P., Technical
Delegate for the League of Nertions.
Dominions and India.
CANADA
The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden, G. C. M. G., K. C, Prime
Minister.
The Rt. Hon. Sir George Eulas Foster.
AUSTRALIA
The Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Cook.
SOUTH AFRICA
General The Rt. Hon. Louis Botha.
Lieut.-General The Rt. Hon. J. C. Smuts.
277
278 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
NEW ZEALAND
The Rt. Hon. W. F. Massey, Prime Minister.
INDIA
The Rt. Hon. E. S. Montagu, M. P., Secretary of State for India.
Major-General His Highness The Maharaja oi Bikanir.
Fob France
Mr. Clemenceau.
Mr. Pichon.
Mr. L. L. Ellotz.
Mr. Andr6 Tardieu.
Mr. Jules Cambon.
Mr. L6on Bou^eois, Former President of the Council of Ministers,
Former Minister of Foreign AffairSi Technical Delegate for the
League of Nations.
Marshal Foch.
For Italy.
Mr. V. E. Orlando, President of the Council of Ministers,
The Baron S. Sonnino.
The Marquis Salvage Ra^gi.
Mr. Antonio Salanm'a, Deputy, former President of the Coimdl of
Ministers^
Mr. Salvatore Barzilai, C. B., Deputy, former Minister.
Mr. Scialoja, Senator of the Kingdom, Technical Delegate for the
League of Nations.
For Japan.
The Baron Makino, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Member
of the Diplomatic Advisory Coimcil.
The Viscount Chinda.
Mr. K. Matsui.
Mi. H. Ijuin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
His Majesty The Emperor of Japan at Rome,
For Belgium.
Mr. Hymans.
Mr. Van den Heuvel.
Mr. Vandervelde, Minister of Justice, Minister of State.
For Bolivia.
Mr. Ismael Montes.
For Brazil
Mr. Olyntho de Magalhaes.
Mr. Pandia Calogeras.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEB1CAN7. 279
Fob China
Mr. Lou Tseng Tsiang.
Mr. Chengting Thomas Wang.
For Cuba
Mr. Rafael Martinez Ortiz.
Fob Ecuadob
Mr. Dom y de Alsua.
Fob Gbeece
Mr. Elef therios VeniseloS; President of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Nicolas Politis.
Fob Peru
Fob thj: Hedjaz
His Highness The Emir Feisal.
Mr. Rustem Haidar.
Mr. Francisco Garcia Calderon.
For Poland
Mr. Roman Dmowski.
Fob Pobtugal
•
The Count Penha Garcia, Former President of the Chamber
of Deputies, Former Minister of Finance.
Mr. Jayme Batalha Reis, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plempotentiary of Portugal at Petrograd.
Fob Roumania
Mr. Jean J. C. Bratiano.
Mr. Nicolas Misu.
Fob Serbia
Mr. Pashitch.
Mr. Trumbitch.
Mr. Vesnitch.
Fob Siam
The Prince Charoon.
Phya Bibadh Eosha.
Fob the Czecho-slovak Republic
Mr. Charles Kramar, President of the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Edouard Benes.
280 treaty of peace with germany.
Fob Urttguay
Mr. Juan Carlos Blanco.
The President informs the Conference that, at the request of the
Delegation of the United States, the approval of the Protocol of the
first Session is postponed to the next Session, as that Delegation
has not yet received the EngUsh text of Protocol No. 1 which it
reserves the right to present to the Conference.
The order of the day calls for the appointment of five Commis-
sions charged with the duty of examining the following questions : —
1. League of Nations.
2. ResponsibiUty of the authors of the War and enforcement of
penalties.
3. Reparation for damage.
4. International Legislation on Labor. •
5. International Control of Ports, Waterways and Railways.
The first Commission to be nominated concerns the League
of Nations, upon which subject the Bureau presents a draft res-
olution (Anex I.) which has been distributed in English and French
to all the members of the Conference.
The discussion is opened on the question of the League of
Nations.
The President of the United States delivers the following
speech:
'^I consider it a distinguished privilege to open the discussion
in this Conference on the League of Nations. We have assembled
for two purposes — to make 5ie present settlements which have
been rendered necessary by this War, and also to secure the Peace
of the world not only by the present settlements but by the arranee-
ments we shall make in this Conference for its maintenance. The
League of Nations seems to me to be necessary for both of these
purposes. There are many complicated questions connected with
the present settlements which, perhaps, cannot be successfully
worked out to an ultimate issue by the decisions we shall arrive at
here. I can easily conceive that many of these settlements will
need subsequent re-consideration; that many of the decisions we
shall make will need subsequent alteration in some degree, for
if I may judge by my own study of some of these questions they
are not susceptible of confident judgments at present.
^'It is, therefore, necessary that we should set up some machinery
by which the work of this Conference should be rendered complete.
We have assembled here for the purpose of doing very much more
than making the present settlement. We are assembled under very
pecuUar conditions of world opinion. I may say without straining
the point that we are not representatives of Governments, but
representatives of peoples. It wul not suffice to satisfy Governmental
circles anj^where. It is necessary that we should satisfy the opinion
of mankind. The burdens of this War have fallen in an unusual
degree upon the whole population of the countries involved. I do
not need to draw for you the picture of how the burden has been
thrown back from the front upon the older men, upon the women,
upon the children, upon the homes of the civilized world, and how
the real strain of the War has come w^here the eye of Government
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 281
could not reach, but where the heart of humanity beats. We are
bidden hj these people to make a peace which will make them seciu-e.
We are bidden by these people to see to it that this strain does not
come upon them again, and I venture to say that it has been possible
for them to bear this strain because they hope that those who repre-
sented than could get together after this war, and make such another
sacrifice necessary.
''It is a solemn obligation on our part, therefore, to make per-
manent arrancrements that justice shall be rendered and peace
maintained. This is the central object of our meeting. Settlements
may be temporary, but the actions of the nations m the interests
of peace ancTjustice must be permanent. We can set up permanent
processes. We may not be able to set up permanent decisions, and
therefore, it seems to me that we must take, so far as we can, a
picture of the world into our minds. Is it not a startling circum-
stance for one thing that the great discoveries of science, that the
quiet study of men in laboratories, that the thoughtful develop-
ments which have taken place in quiet lecture-rooms, nave now been
turned to the destruction of civilization? The powers of destruc-
tion have not so much muItipUed as gained faciUty. The enemy
whom we have just overcome had at its seats of learning. some
of the principal centres of scientific study and discovery, and used
them in order to make destruction sudden and complete; and only
the watchful; continuous co-o{)eration of men can see to it that
science, as well as armed men, is kept within the harness of civili-
zation.
''In a sense, the United States is less interested in this subject
than the other nations here assembled. With her great territory
and her extensive sea borders, it is less likely that the United Stat^
should suffer from the attack of enemies than that many of the
other nations here should suffer; and the ardor of the United States, —
for it is a very deep and genuine ardor — ^for the Society of Nations
is not an ardor springing out of fear and apprehension, but an ardor
springing out oi the ideals which have come to consciousness in
tne War. In coming into this war the United States never thought
for a moment that she was intervening in the politics of Europe,
or the politics of Asia, or the politics of any part of the world. Her
thought was that all the world had now become conscious that
there was a single cause which turned upon the issues of this war.
That was the cause of justice and liberty for men of every kind
and place. Therefore, tne United States would feel that her part
in this war had been played in vain if there ensued upon it merely
a body of European settlements. She would feel that she could
not take part in guaranteeing those European settlements unless
that guarantee involved the continuous superintendence of the peace
of the world bjr the Associated Nations of the World.
"Therefore, it seems to me -that we must concert our best judg-
ment in order to make this League of Nations a vital thing — ^not
merely a formal thing, not an occasional thing, not a thing some-
times called into Ufe to meet an exigency, but always functioning
in watchful attendance upon the interests of the Nations, and that
its continuity should be a vital continuity; that it should have
functions that are continuing functions and that do not permit an
intermission of its watchfumess and of its labor; that it should
282 TREATY OF PBAGB WITH GERMANY.
be the eye of the Nation to keep watch upon the common interest,
an eye tnat does not slumber, an eye that is everywhere watchful
and attentive.
''And if we do not make it vital, what shall we do? We shall
disappoint the expectations of the peoples. This is what their
thought centres upon. I have had the very delightful experience
of visiting several nations since I came to this side of the water,
and every time the voice of the body of the people reached me
through any representative, at the front of its plea stood the hope
for the League of Nations. Gentlemen, select classes of mankind
are no longer the governors of mankind. The fortunes of mankind
are now in the hands of the plain peoples of the whole world. Satisfy
them, and you have justified their confidence not only, but estab-
lished peace. Fail to satisfy them, and no arrangement that you
4^an make would either set up or steady the peace of the world.
''You can imagine. Gentlemen, I dare say, the sentiments and
the pxurpose with which representatives of the United States sup-
port this great project for a League of Nations. We regard it as
the keystone of the whole program which expressed our purpose
and our ideal in this war and which the Associated Nations have
accepted as the basis of the settlement. If we return to the United
States without havmg made every effort m our power to realise
this program, we should return to meet the merited scorn of our
feUow-citizens. For they are a body that constitutes a great
democracy. They expect their leaders to speak their thoughts
and no private purpose of their own. They expect their represen-
tatives to be their servants. We have no choice but to obev their
mandate. But it is with the greatest enthusiasm and pleasure
that we accept that mandate; and because this is the keystone of
the whole fabric, we have pledged our every purpose to it, as we
have to every item of the fej[>ric. We would not dare abate a single
part of the program which constitutes our instructions. We womd
not dare compromise upon any matter as the champion of this
thing — this peace of the world, this attitude of justice, this principle
that we are masters of no people but are here to see that every people
in the world shall choose its own master and govern its own desti-
nies, not as we wish but as it wishes. We are here to see, in short
that the very foimdations of this war are swept away. Those founda-
tions were the private choice of small coteries of civU rulers and
military staffs. Those foundations were the aggression of great
Powers upon small. Those foundations were the holding together
of Empires of unwilling subjects by the duress of arms. Those
foundations were the power of small bodies of men to work their
will upon mankind and use them as pawns in a game. And nothing
less than the emancipation of the world from these things will ac-
complish peace. You can see that the Representatives of the United
States are, therefore, never put to the embarrassment of choosing
a way of expediency, because they have laid down for them their
unalterable lines of principle. And, thank God, those lines have
been accepted as the lines of settlement by all the high-minded
men who have had to do with the beginning of this great business.
"I hope, Mr. Chairman, that when it is known, as I feel con-
fident that it will be known, that we have adopted the principle
of the League of Nations and mean to work out that principle in
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 288
^effective action, we shall by that single thing have lifted a great
part of the load of anxiety from the hearts of men everywhere.
We stand in a peculiar case. As I go about the streets here I see
everywhere the American uniform. Those men came into the War
after we had uttered our ptirposes. They came as crusaders, not
merely to win the war, but to win a cause; and I am responsible
to them, for it fell to me to formulate the purposes for which I asked
them to fi^t, and I, like them, must be a crusader for these things,
whatever it costs and whatever it may be necessary to do, in honor,
to accompUsh the objects for which {bey fought. I have been glad
to find from day to day that there is no (question of our standing
alone in this matter, for there are champions of this cause, upon
every hand. I am merely avowing this in order that you may
understand why, perhaps, it fell to us, who are disengaged from the
poUtics of this great Continent and of the Orient, to suggest that
this was the keystone of the arch and why it occurs to the generous
mind of our IVesident to call upon me to open this debate, it is not
because we alone represent this idea, but oecause it is our privilege
to associate ourselves with you in representing it.
" I have only tried in what I have said to give you the fountains
of the enthusiasm which is within us for this thing, for those foim-
tains spring, it seems to me, from all the ancient wrongs and sym-
pathies of mankind, and the very pulse of the world seems to beat. "
Mr. Lloyd George (Great Britain) delivers the following speech:
''I arise to second this resolution. After the noble speech
of the President of the United States I feel that no observations
are needed in order to commend this resolution to the Conference,
and I should not have intervened at all had it not been that I
wished to state how emphatically the people of the British Empire
are behind this proposal. And if the National leaders have not
been able during the last five years to devote as much time as they
would like to its advocacy, it is because their time and their energies
have been absorbed in the exigencies of a terrible struggle.
*^Had I the slightest doubt in my own mind as to the wisdom
of this scheme it would have vanished before the irresistible appeal
made to me bv the spectacle I witnessed last Sunday. I visited
a region whicn but a few years a^o was one of the lairest in an
exceptionally fair land. I foimd it a ruin and a desolation. I
drove for hours through a country which did not appear like the
habitation of living men and women and children, but like the
excavation of a buried province — shattered, torn, rent. I went to
one city where I witnessed a scene of devastation that no indemnity
can ever repair — one of the beautiful things of the world, disfigurea
and defaced beyond repair. And one of the cruellest features, to
mv mind, was what I could see had happened, — that Frenchmen,
who love their land almost beyond any nation, in order to establish
the justice of their cause, had to assist a cruel enemy in demolishing
their own homes, and I felt: these are the results — only part of the
results. Had I been there months ago I would have witnessed
something that I dare not describe. But I saw acres of graves of the
fallen. And these were the results of the only method, the only
oiganized method, — the only organized method that civilized nations
have ever attempted or established to settle disputes amongst each
284 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
other. And my feeling was: surely it is time, surely it is time that a
saner plan for settling disputes between peoples should be estab-
lished than this organized savagery.
**I do not know whether this will succeed. But if wo attempt
it the attempt will be a success, and for that reason I second tne
proposal."
Mr. Orlando (Italy), having asked leave to speak, delivered the
speech of which the following is a translation:
"Allow me to express my warmest adhesion to the great prin-
ciple which we are called upon to proclaim to-day. I think that
we are thus accomplishing the first and the most solemn of the
pledges which we gave to our people when we asked them to make
immense efforts in this immense war; pledges of which the counter-
part was death, nameless sacrifices and boundless grief. We are,
therefore fulfilling our duty in honoring this sacred pledge. That
is much, but it is not all. We must bring to the task a spontaneous
spirit and, if I may be allowed the mjrstic expression, purity of
intention. It is not in any spirit of petty national vanity that
I allow myself to recall the great juriaical traditions of my peo-
ple and its aptitude for law. I only do so the better to prove to
you that the mind of the Italian people is well fitted to accept
this principle spontaneously and wholly. Now. law is not only the
defense of order, founded on justice, against all violence, it is also
the necessary outward form, guaranteed by the State, of that
essential principle which forms the very foundation of the existence
of human society, that is to say, the principle of social co-operation.
I think then tnat the formula proposed to us offers not only
guarantees against war, but also that co-operation among nations
which is the true essence of right.
''Mr. President, Gentlemen, today is a great moment, a great
historical date, because it is only from today that the law of peoples
begins and is born, and the fact that this birth has taken place
in the generous ana glorious land of France, which has proclaimed
and won acceptance for the rights of man by its genius and its
blood appears to me to be a happy omen. Quod bonum felix
faustumque sit."
Mr. L6on Bourgeois (France) speaks in French in these terms:
''I am deeply grateful to the President of the Fi-ench Council of
Ministers for having done me the distinguished honor of entrusting
to me the task of speaking in the name of France. Recollections
of the Conference of the Hague have probably led him to this choice;
the honor therefore belongs to the very numerous colleagues present
here with whom I collaborated in 1899 and 1907.
** President Wilson has just eloquently and finally said that we
do not, that y6u, Gentlemen, do not represent Governments alone,
but peoples. What do the peoples wish today and what therefore,
do tne Grovemments wish who are really free, really representative,
really democratic, that is to say, those whose wishes are necessar-
ily in agreement with those of their peoples ? They wish that what
we have seen during these four horrible years shall never be repeated
in this world. Their wishes are the wishes of all the victims of
this war, of all those who have breathed their last for liberty and
for right. Those men fought not only to defend their country,
but came together from all parts of the world for this crusade of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 285
which President Wilson so rightly spoke, and they knew that they
died not only for France but for universal freedom and univerasl
peace. For universal peace: the Premier of England has just de-
scribed with striking eloquence the picture of ruin and desolation
which he has seen. That ruin, that desolation we ourselves have
witnessed and you have seen them very far from the snot where
hostilities began. For in fact, henceforth, no local conflict, can be
confined to some one part of the world: whatever may be the State
where the difficulty arose, believe me, it is the whole world that is
in danger. There" is such an interdependence in all the relations
between nations in the econonaic, financial, moral and intellectual
spheres that, I repeat, every wound inflicted at some point threatens
to poison the whole organs.
"There is another reason why it is impossible that Humanity
should again witness such spectacles. President Wilson has just
alluded to the alarming progress of science, turned from its proper
object, which is continually to give to mankind greater well-being,
a surer moral, more hope for the future, and which was used for
the most terrible and miserable of purposes, the purpose of destruc-
tion. Now science daily makes fresh progress and fresh conquest;
daily it perfects its means of action and in the light of what we
have seen during these last five years in the way of terrible and
destructive improvements in machinery and gunnerjr, think of the
fresh destruction with which we might oe threatened in a few years.
"We have then the duty of facing a problem of conscience which
thrills us all, that is what we are to do to reconcile the special
interests of our peoples, which we cannot forget, with those of our
common country, all Humanity.
"We must take counsel with ourselves and ponder that saying
which I deem as a sublime truth, that amon^ all the vital interests
which we can consider, there is one which is above, and includes
all others, one without the defence and protection of which all the
others are in danger — the interest of the conmaon country.
"Speaking of tragedy of conscience, I remember the scruples
which, at the Conference of the Hague, held back the Representa-
tives of even the freest peoples, the peoples most imbued with the
sense of democracy and most resolvea to prepare the way of peace.
They said to themselves: 'We must nevertheless reserve (questions
of our honor and our vital interests.' Perhaps it was this which
delaved the creation of that bond which will imite us from to-day.
We Imow now that there is one vital interest which we have before
aU to consider and defend. That is the interest of imiversal peace
founded on Right, without which none of the most vital interests
of our several coimtries, great or small, would be free from menace
and destruction.
"How can we succeed in making a reality of that which but a
few years ago was still thought to be a dream? How is it that
this dream now appears as an imminent fact in the mind of the
statesmen present here, realists whose rieht and duty it is not to
let themselves be carried away by ideaL of generosity, however
attractive they may be? Why is it that to-day these statesmen
are sitting round tms table inspired with a common thought ? For
doubtless you will presently adopt unanimously the proposals which
will be made to you. How is it that these statesmen, these realists,
286 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
can come to consider as a tangible thing realisable in a short time^
that which formerly appeared a dream? Looking back at the his-
tory of the last tharty years, particularly to that Conference at th&
Hague, for reverting to which I beg your pardon, we see that if it
did not produce all the results expected from it, it nevertheless pro-
duced a certain number. Members of the different Governments-
will remember that the institutions set up by the Hague Conference
thrice proved defective and that in differences — I will not use a
stronger term — ^which might have disturbed the relation between
the different States, the judgments of the Hague succeeded in
smoothing away difficulties and re-establishing harmony. I may
even recaSi that between France and Germany there was a conflict—
the Affair of Casablanca — ^which might have been very serious and
not for those two countries alone, for, — as I was saying, local
conflicts sometimes become general, — where recourse to arbitration
conipletely safeguarded the honor of France and made it possible
for Germany not to draw the sword.
*'Why is it that this could not last, or rather, why is it that the
institutions of the Hague failed to prevent the terrible conflict*
from which we are just emerging? There are two reasons and
within the next few aays you will sweep away one of them. The
Conferences at the Hague were attended by the Representatives of
many States, but even those who were inspired by real good will
were forced to recognize that on the map of the world the frontiers
of different countries were not what they should have been. While
we were deliberating there, we Frenchmen could not forget that
there was a part of France which was not free and you, Represent-
atives of the Kingdom of Italy, could not forget that there were
still Italian Provinces outside Italian law. How could you expect
an international organization, however perfect, to prove really
effective if, when it began to work, it met this terrible question of
irredentism as our Italian friends call it, national claims, as we say,
just as one's foot meets an obstacle on the road ?
*^you will bring about the situation in which the facts conform
to the principles of Right. You will draw frontiers which corre-
spond to the wishes of the peoples themselves, and you will give to
each country the limits which Right itself would give it. You will
also impose obligations which it was beyond our power to impose,
for, as you will remember, — it was historically a very significant
fact — how the different states grouped themselves, and we have
now seen those who voted against us then join against us on the
field of battle. The foes of Right were already leagued together
against us.
'*You who have fought for Right are about to set up an organi-
zation, to impose penalties and to insure their enforcement. Having
established compulsory arbitration, having fixed — ^methodically,
progressively and surely — the penalties to be imposed for disobe-
dience to the common will of civilized nations you will be able to
make your work sohd and lasting and enter with confidence and
tranquility the Temple of Peace.
''This is not the moment to discuss ways and means, but I hasten
to say, in the name of the Government oi the French Republic, that
to do all that can be done to lead the free peoples as far as possible
on the road to agreement must be our aim and wish. In addition
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMANT. 287
to juridicial methods designed to establish the reign of Ri^ht and
to ensure the freedom of all, we shall certainly adopt — and here I
turn toward the Italian Prime Minister who just said ; ^ It is co-opera-
tion in the work of peace' — all the measures required for co-opera-
tion between States in relation to those numberless interests the
interdependence of which I mentioned just now. This interde-
pendence becomes daily closer. It wiD not only be a question of
checking nacent conflicts but of preventing their birth.
'*! think that, even without any further statement, I have thus
correctly interpreted the general feeling. It is enough for me to
have shown with what deep enthusiasm France ioins those who but
lately proposed the creation of the League of Nations. President
Wilson said that this question was at the very heart of mankind.
That is true. He said we must constantly have an eye open on
humanity, a watchful eye that never shuts. Well, I will end by
recalling another memory of the Hague. It has been said that we
heard there the first heart-beats of ifiimanity. Now it hves indeed.
Thanks to you. May it Uve for ever ? "
Mr. Hughes (Australia) having asked whether it will be possible
to discuss the scheme when it is complete, the President replied that
the members of the Conference would be quite at liberty to do so»
The President calls successively on the Delegates of various
Powers who, speaking in French^ supports the draft resolution in
these terms:
Mr. Lou (C3iina): In the name of the Chinese Government I
have the honor to support whole-heartedly the proposed resolution.
China, always faithful to her obligations ana deeply interested
in the maintenance of the Peace of the World, associates herself
entirely with the lofty ideal embodied in the resolution, which is
that of creating an international cooperation which would insure
the accomplishment of obligations contracted and will give safe-
Sards aeamst war. I am glad to give an assurance to this Con-
ence tliat the Chinese Republic will always have the keenest
desire to consult with the otiier States in the establishment of a
League which will give all nations, both small and great, an eflPective
guarantee of their territorial integrity, of their political sovereignty,
and of their economic independence founded upon an impartial justice.
Mr. Dmowski (Poland): I rise not only to support the draft
resolution but to express deep gratitude for this noble initiative.
I do so not only as representing a part of mankind which has suffered
no less than tfiose who have suffered most and which cherishes the
hope that such sufferings will never be repeated and that what this
war has not destroyed will be preserved for the peaceful generations
of the future.
I do so also as representing a country placed in that part of the
world where sources of danger to future peace are greater than
elsewhere, where today after the conclusion of the armistice, war
continues, as representing the country which at this moment is
exposed on three sides to danger and is forced to make war on three
fronts. If we have an institution like that which is proposed to-day,
such as would give international guarantees of peace, we should not
be in this dangerous situation.
288 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
I express my gratitude in the name of a comitry which, perhaps
more than all others, needs international guarantees of peace and
which will greet a League of Nations with the greatest enthusiasm.
Mr. Hymans (Belgium): Gentlemen, I have not asked leave to
speak in order to discuss the ideas expressed in the draft resolu-
tion, which the Belgian Delegation of course accepts whole-heartedly,
and which have been so noBly set forth in this Assembly. I have
asked to speak only on a practical question which is, 1 think, of
general interest.
The Conference to-day is organizing its methods of work and pro-
cedure. I should Uke to ask for an explanation of the last sentence
of the draft resolution relative to the representation of the Powers
on the Commission appointed to examine the draft constitution of
the League of Nations. ^ The draft sa^ that the Conference appoints
a Commission representing the Associated Governments to work out
the constitution in detail and to settle the fimctions of the League.
The President replies to Mr. Hymans that the explanation which
he is about to furnish will doubtless give him satisfaction.
As nobody asks leave to speak on the subject of a resolution of
the League of Nations, which has been submitted to the Conference
by the Bureau, that resolution is unanimously adopted.
The President then repUes to the question raised by the Hon.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, on the method of appoint-
ment of the Commission charged with the duty of working out the
draft constitution of the League of Nations:
The Great Powers, in accordance with the motion, have desig-
nated two delegates each to serve on the Commission. It has been
decided that five delegates to be chosen in common by the. other
Powers should represent those Powers on the Commission. That
is to say that you are asked to meet here, say, on January 27th, if
that day suits you, at 2 or 3 o'clock, to come to an agreement
among yourselves and appoint the 5 delegates of the other powers.
I ought to tell you that we shall ask you to agree to the same
course as regards the appointment of other commissions. You will
therefore have several elections to hold at the same time.
On this question of the anpointment of the commission, the dele-
gates of a certain number oi Powers ask leave to speak and explain
in turn the views of their respective coim tries: (All speak in French
except Sir Robert Borden (Canada) and M. Phym Bibaoh Kosha
(Siam) .
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) : The reply which the Hon. President has
been so good as to make to me raises the question of the constitution
of all* the conditions which will be appointed to-day. That will
allow me, I think, to define my views on the whole question, which
I will do very quickly.
Excepting the case of the Commission appointed to examine the
question of reparation for the damage of the war, the general system,
according to the President, is to give two delegates to each of the
great Powers, which allows them 10 delegates, and five delegates in
all to a group or collection formed of 19 Powers who have been
classed among the Powers ingeniously termed ''Powers with special
interests."
TREATY OF PBAOE WITH GERMANY. 289
I do not wish to speak in the name of the Delegates of other coun-
tries, hut I will speak only in that of my own and in that of the
Belgian Delegation.
J^ an exceptional measure we, like Serbia, Greece, Poland and
Roumania, have been given 2 delegates — 2 to each of these Powers
that on the Commission appointed to examine the question of repa-
ration for the damage of tne war. Apart from this Commission, the
19 Powers *'With special interests" have to appoint in common by
a system hitherto unexplained, which they wiu have to discover, 5
delegates. It is not stated whether this will be done by propor-
tional representation or otherwise.
We Belgians will beg leave to present to the Conference the follow-
ing request:
First, as regards the Commission to examine the constitution of
the League oi Nations and next, the Commission appointed to ex-
amine international legislation on labor. We should wish the Con-
ference to be so good as to grant to Belgium 2 delegates on each of
these 2 Commissions.
As regards the Commission for the estabUshment of the League
of Nations, we think that we have a right to this on account of our
international, political and even geographic position, which has ex-
posed us, and may again expose us m the future to serious danger.
As regards the question of international labor legislation there is
nothing that could interest us more. Belgium, small in extent,
counts among the great commercial producinjg and industrial powers
of the world — she coimted among them ana I hope she will again
count among them in a short time, after her reconstruction.
I will not tire the Conference by quoting figures, but we are in
that respect among the 5 or 6 foremost Powers; we have a large
industrial population. In certain departments we are among the
very first. I will mention only the coal and zinc industries and the
production and casting of iron. I will not labor the points.
I think it would be just to give to Belgium a double representa-
tion on the 2 Conmiissions I have mentioned, that is, two delegates.
There remain 3 Commissions: One dealing with the control of
ports and ways of communication, another which will deal with
crimes committed during the war and with the penalty to be in-
flicted for those orimes and the third dealing with reparation. But
in this last named Commission we think we are fairly well repre-
sented. There remain therefore only two: that on ports waterwavs
and railways and that on crimes committed during the war and tne
penalties which those crimes deserve.
I ask that it should at once be recognized that Belgium shall have
a delegate on each of these two Commissions and in doing so I do
not thmk that I am asking more than is reasonable. Belgium pos-
sesses one of the three most important ports on the European Con-
tinent. She has a network of railways which is the densest m Europe.
Owing to the needs of her production and trades she is directly inter-
ested in the whole system "of international commtmications. It is
certainly not exaggerated to ask that for the examination of so grave
a problem Belgium should have a Delegate, and I ask the Confer-
ence to decide m this sense.
As regards the question of crimes committed during the war
and the penalties to be exacted for them, who could deny that we
13564&-19 ^19
290 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
have an absolute right to be represented on the Commission, when
our comitry was the first to be invaded, the first to be submerged
by invasion, when her neutrality was violated in spite of the treaty
signed by the enemy, and when some of the most abominable
crimes with which the enemy can be reproached were committed on
our soil as also on Serbian soil ? I think then there is nothing exces-
sive in our demand.
I speak only for ourselves. I do not wish to prejudice the rights
and interests of any other country. I do not tnink I shall arouse
their susceptibilities when I state this claim in the name of the
Belgian Delegation alone.
To sum up, I ask that, as in the case of the Commission on damage
caused during the war, Belgium, should have two delegates on the
Commission lor the establishment of the League of Nations, two
delegates on the Commission on international labor legislation, one
delegate on the Commission relative to the control of ports, and one
delegate on the Commission for the examination of crimes committed
by the enemy and of the penalties to be exacted for them.
I appeal to the sense of justice of the Great Powers and to that of
the President of the Conference.
Mr. Calogeras (Brazil) : It is with some surprise that I constantly
hear it said: ^^This has been decided, that has been decided." Who
has taken a decision? We are a sovereign assembly, a sovereign
court. It seems to me that the proper body to take a decision is the
Conference itself.
Now. it appears from what has been said that functions have
been allotted and that representation on the Commissions is con-
templated without certain very important interests having been
able to obtain a hearing. It is unnecessary to say that I cordially
adhere to the principle of a Lea^e of Nations. I have the honor
to represent a country which in its constitution absolutely forbids,
in express terms, the waging of a war of conquest. This is an idea
of long standing with us, firmly rooted in our traditions. I am
therefore heartily in favor of the idea of a League of Nations.
But if, on the other hand, I consider the proposed organization
of the conditions and the manner in which the interests of my
country may be represented thereon, I must point out that we
have laws, I may even say texts, of a constitutional character, which
do not permit us to rive to anybody powers to represent us.
I therefore appeal to the sense of justice of the President and
of the members of the Bureau of this Conference. I ask them that,
at least on the Commission which will deal with the League of
Nations as well as those on which are to examine international
control of railways and ports and reparation for damage, Brazil
should enjoy the representation to which she considers herself
entitled.
Sir Robert Borden (Canada): I have a great deal of sympathy
with the point of view of the smaller nations, because possibly the
constitution of the League affects them even more closely that it
affects the status of the Great Powers of the world. On the other
hand, I realize that there must be a reasonable limitation of the
membership of the committee; otherwise, it would be very difficult
to carry on the work in an effective way. And I remember, also, tibiat
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 201
after this Committee has made its report, its conclusions must be
submitted to this Conference, and must be approved by it before
they can go into effect, but I do feej that the matter has been
placed before this Conference in perhaps not the most appropriate
way. We are told that certain aecisions have been reached. The
result of that is that everyone of us asks: *'By whom have those
decisions been reached, and by what authority?'*
I should have thought it more appropriate to submit a recom-
mendation to this Conference, and to nave the Conference itself
settle the number to be appointed and who they are to be. If that
course had been taken, it seems probable that most of the difficulty
which had arisen woidd not have presented itself. And I should
like to suggest, with all due respect, that perhaps that would be a
more appropriate method of dealing with such matters in the future.
Certain regulations have been formulated and passed by which,
as I understand, two Conferences were established — one a Confer-
ence of the 5 Great Powers, and another which may be called the
fuU or plenary Conference. I do not understand that, up to the
present time, there has been any Conference of the five great Powers
m accordance with the regulations thus adopted. It may be that
there has and I have no doubt that there is, and with the best inten-
tion; but nevertheless, as we are acting under regulations adopted
by the representatives of the 5 Great Powers, it seems highly desirable
that we should abide by them. Therefore, I again suggest, with
all respect, that the proceedings in the future should be guided by
those regulations.
M. Trumbitch (Serbia) : I have the honor to declare, in the name
of the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes,
that we support the entirely just proposal of my honorable friend
Mr. Hymans. At the same time, I have the honor to ask that the
same representation may be given to the delegation to whi^^h I
belong as to the Belgian delegation.
It 18 not necessary for me long to retain the attention of thit
high assembly to justify the desire which I have expressed, for
the reasons just now put forward by M. Hymans are almost the
same as those which justify our proposal.
M. Veniselos (Greece): As regards the Lea^e of Nations.
I associate myself with the request put forward by the Belgian
Delegation, without, however, asking that Greece should receive
the same treatment. I reco^ize that aiU small countries are deenly
interested in the study of this question, but I must admit also that
the situation of Belgitun is entirely a special one by reason of her
proximity to the German Empire, whicn started this War, and for
the other reasons given by Mr. Hymans.
I therefore do not ask that my country should be specially repre-
sented on this Commission, and confine myself to declaring that
I hold myself at the disposal of the Commission when it is appointed
in order to make known mv ideas on the subject.
As regards reparation for damage. I must thank the represent-
atives OT the Great Powers for the representation which they
have granted to my countrv.
As r^ards the responsioility of the authors of the war, I ask
that Greece may also be given a representative, in view of the fact
292 TREATY OF PEAGB WITH GERMANY.
that we have to deplore the loss of between three and four hundred
thousand people oi Greek race in the Ottoman Empire. It would,
therefore, appear to be just that we should be represented in order
that we may be able to submit to the Commissioa and then to the
Conference our special point of view on this question.
I do not ask that my country should be specially represented
on the Commission relating to mternational legislation on labor,
for other nations are perhaps more interested than ourselves in
this question.
It would be well, finally, that we should be granted a representa-
tive on the Commission for the international control of ports,
not only on accoimt of the maritime importance of my country,
and of the special interest which it has in this question, but also
because of tne fact that even in the present territory of Greece
there are certain places which might come within the purview of
this part of the program of the Conference. It would, therefore,
be just that Greece should in this respect be authorized to make
kno%vn her wishes.
I think it right to remind the assembly in conclusion that in the
report that I have the honor to submit to the Conference concerning
the territorial claims of my coimtry, I declared myself ready to a^ee
that countries bordering on the sea should give all possible facilities
to countries placed behind them which have not such easy access to
the sea.
Count Penha Garcia (Portugal) : You will allow me to make some
observations on a question which interests small and great Powers
alike. First, I draw ydur attention to an essential met which is
moreover the corollary of all the noble speeches which this assembly-
has just heard.
It is certain that the League of Nations, a question of such great
importance raised by the Great Powers and interesting the weaker
countries in so high a degree, must inspire confidence as regards the
future, particularly among the latter. It is likewise certain that
respects for our rights, the decisions which we shall be called upon
to take and the cordiality of our relations within this Assembly will
constitute a kind of foretaste of that League of Nations which we
have just been invited to join. I feel certain that this consideration
will guide the proposals of the Great Powers and that our decisions
will be inspirea by the lofty view and the spirit of high justice which
should preside over the League of Nations.
We must not, however, exaggerate the importance of the ques-
tion of representation on the Commissions, for that, after all, only
concerns a method of work, and those who propose this method
meant well in doing so, because it offers indisputable advantages.
It is true that lai^e Commissions are more difficult to direct
and that their work is sometimes rather slow, but we must not
forget that the work of these Commissions must be of such impor-
tance to each of the countries interested that perhaps in reality
it is worth running the risk which we are now seeking to avoia.
Perhaps it would be better so to arrange that in each Commission
all interests should be represented ana made known so that we
may attain, doubtless more slowly, a surer result, which will enable
us to come with more precise ideas and less unprepared to the plenary
sessions.
TBBAT7 OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 203
I will especially draw the attention of the President, whose qualities
of heart and whose fairness constitute for us a two-fold guarantee,
to this point, of the importance of which for my country he has
certainly not lost sight.
As regards tlie Commission on Reparation, the non-representation
of Portugal is certainly due to an oversight, since other countries
having special interests in this respect are all represented thereon,
a fact which, I may say, affords me great satisfaction. I pay homage
to the sufferings and endurance of so many countries which have
been the victims of an aggression, the brutality of which has excited
universal indignation.
I b^ leave, however, to point out that the position of Portugal
is absolutely the same, that we have shed oiu* olood in France for
the cause of Right and Justice, that our territories in Africa have
been invaded, that we are half, I might indeed say completely,
ruined by our efforts in the war. We do not regret this. But why,
then, should we not be heard, why should we not also be represented
on the Commission appointed to consider the question of Reparation.
Once again I must observe this seems to me to be an oversight.
As regards the other Commissions, those relating to the control
of ports, to the League of Nations, to Labor questions and to pen-
alties for responsibility for the war, are also of unquestionable interest
to Portugal, but, generally speaking, I request tne Bureau to be so
good as to accede to the legitimate aesire of all countries represented
at the Conference to be able to make their voices heard whenever
they have a special interest to defend, and to be represented on the
Commissions. I ask that all these countries may oe placed on the
same footing as the others where their rights are affected.
Mr. Benes (Czecho-Slovak Republic) : Without entering into detail
in regard to the question of the nomination of representatives on the
Commissions, I beg leave to submit the following considerations to
the Conference:
The Czecho-Slovak delegation ask to be represented on the Com-
missions appointed to examine the questions of Reparation and of
the Responsibility of the Central Empires. We base this proposal
on the following groimds:
The Czecho-Slovak Republic is especially interested in aU questions
concerning the financial and economic liquidation of the former
Austro-Hungarian Empire; for its territory formed the most industrial
region of that monarchy. It would therefore be impossible to settle
these questions without allowing us to bring forward such information
on the subject as w^e possess.
Our delegation also has a special interest in the question of Inter-
national railways and waterways. Our country has in fact no
access to the sea, and it is extremely important for our future inter-
national position to know how these ^eat channels of communi-
cation will be controlled, and especially to take part in the discussion
relating to the control of international railways, waterways and
ports. Therefore we ask to be represented on the Commission
instructed to examine these questions.
The questions of the League of Nations being also of the highest
interest to countries surrounded, like ours, by Powers who have
294 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
always been hostile to them, we ask that we may be granted a rep-
resentative on the Commission concerned.
To sum up, we beg the Conference to grant us a representative
on each one of the three Commissions called upon to discuss qu^-
tions of special interest to our Republic.
Mr. Bratiano (Roumania): The Belgian Representative, although
professing only to speak on behalf of the special interests of Belgium,
has raised a question of principle which Roumania has far too much
at heart to allow her to refrain from expressing agreement with his
point of view.
I wish for the moment to confine myself to drawing attention
to the importance of these principles to States like Roumania withou t
entering into the details of each of the questions which, I hope, will
be treated fully in a subsequent discussion. I will, however, point
out, in passing, with regard to one of these questions (that of inter-
national ways of communications), that Roumania is at the mouth
of the Danube, a great river which afFe(;ts the communication of a
^reat part of Europe, and that she has therefore very special interests
m it.
I do not, however, wish to lose sight of the fact that at this
moment the League of Nations is in question, and that it would
be poor evidence of the interest felt by Roumania in the formation
of this League if I did not contribute to the explanations made
by those representatives of other countries who have already
spoken. It is certain that, in the representation of such a league, the
relative strength of each state has been kept in view, and it would
be just to consider at the same time the interests which lead each
state to favor the formation of this league, when it might perhaps
be found that small states have more interest in it than great ones.
In settling the representation of the League both of these
points of view must be kept in mind.
It is to express the interest which Roumania feels in the prin-
ciples of this League that she asks to be represented on this com-
mission.
Phya Bibadh Kosha (Siam): May I be permitted, in the name
of the Siamese Delegation, to ask whether representation may be
afforded to those countries who have the misfortune to be witliout
it, and, as a delegate of one of those nations, to ask whether we
have the right and opportunity to attend the proceedings of
each commission dealing with matters directly of mterest to the
country which they represent, such as a League of Nations and
the International Control of ports, railways and waterways ?
Mr. Lou (China) : I also desire to appeal to the spirit of equity of
the members of the Conference, so that technical delegates may largely
participate in the different work on the Commissions.
The desire has already been expressed, as to representation by
delegates, that the principle of equality among States be the basis of
the League of Nations. I also express the desire to see the delega-
tion of China represented in the Commissions on Labor Legislation
and on the Means of Communication. In fact, China, during the war
has sent to France nearly 150,000 Chinese laborers, of whom nearly
120,000 were in the British camps. All these laborers have indirectly
contributed to the happy issue of the present war.
TREATY OF FBAOB WITH QEBMANY. 295
On the other hand, China has a very large coast line, aitd her rail-
ways, which connect her with the three big neighboring Powers will
have considerable development after the war.
It is for these reasons that I ask for the representation of the
Chinese delegation on the two Commissions I have indicated.
I may perhaps make a suggestion. I have heard my honorable
colleague, who represents Brazil, saying: ^'The Conference decided
this, the Conference decided that.^^ I personally have had the ex-
perience of two Peace Conferences, as Mr. L6on Bourgois kindlv
remarked a moment ago: I think that the present Conference will
make its work much more interesting if it will concentrate the efforts
of the two former ones, which have established a panel of delegates
from which each delegation interested in any one particular ques-
tion could select one or two members for the workmg of the Com-
mission. That is a suggestion I beg to propose to this Conference.
Mr. Dmowski (Poland) : In view of the extent of the territory of
Poland, the size of the population, and the economic development
of the country, and in view also of her political interests and her very
important geographical position, I am of opinion that she should have
the right to send a delegate to all such Commissions as she may
think fit.
I rise to associate myself with those members present who
have opposed the methocl whereby it is proposed to choose these
five delegates for Powers with special interests. The large number
of voices which have been raised shows that the task of assembling
the delegates of the Secondary Powers would be very difficult,
that the discussion between them would, firstly, involve much
loss of time and, secondly, would not tend towards harmony among
them. I beg leave to propose that each delegation should draw
up a written statement of its case in making a demand for the
number of representatives whom it wishes to send to each Com-
mission. I would likewise propose that there should be a Commission
above all the others to decide finally on the composition of each of
them. We would accept its decisions in advance, being convinced
that it w^ould seriously consider the interests of all the Powers
whatevere they may be.
The President, speaking in French, replies to the observations
and suggestions of the delegates, in a speech of which the foUowiag
is a translation: ,
^*As nobody else wishes to speak, I shall speak in my turn in
order to try to justify the Bureau. It requires this, for if it had
ever flattered itself tliat it could satisfy everybodv, it would by
now be thoroughly disilusioned.
''Sir Robert Borden has reproached us, though in a very friendly
way, for having come to a decision. Well, we have decided, as
regards the Commissions, in the same way as we decided to summon
the present Conference. With your permission I will remind yon
that it was we who decided that there should be a Conference at
Paris, and that the representatives of the countries interested should
be summoned to attend it. I make no mystery of it — there is a Con-
ference of the Great Powers going on in the next room. Sir Robert
Borden has the less reason U) be unaware of it since he yesterday
296 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERUANY.
did US the single honor of making a statement before us on questions
concerning the British Colonies.
^'The Five Great Powers whose action has to be justified before
you today are in a position to justify it. The British Prime Minister
just now reminded me that, on the day when the war ceased , the
Allies had 12,000,000 men fighting on various fronts. This entitles
them to consideration.
''We have had dead, we have wounded in millions, and if we had
not kept before us the great question of the Lea^e of Nations we
might perhaps have been selfish enough to consult only each other.
It was our right.
''We did not wish to do this, and we summoned all the nations
interested. We summoned them, not to impose our will upon them,
not to make them do what they do not wish, but to ask them for their
help. That is why we invited them to come here. But we still
have to see how this help can best be used.
"A few days ago Mr. Lloyd George was cruel enough to remind
me that I was no longer very yoimg. I entered Parhament for the
first time in 1871. I nave seen many Committees and Commissions
and attended many meetings, and I have noticed — as most of you
{)erhaps have also noticed — that the larger the Committees are the
ess chance they have of doing any work.
"Now, Gentlemen, let me tell you that behind us is something
very great, very august and at times very imperious, something
which is called public opinion. It will not ask us whether sucn
and such a State was represented on such and such a Commission.
That interests nobbdv. It will ask us for results, ask us what
we have done for the League of Nations so eloquently championed
today by President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Bourgeois and
Mr. Orlando.
''What crime have we committed? We have decided that, for
our part, we would appoint two delegates each on the Commission
on the League of Nations. I would beg Mr. Hymans and aU those
who followed him to let me keep to the point. As soon as I indul-
gently allowed him to wander from it, as soon as the door was opened,
everybody rushed in and discussed everything except the subject
under discussion. It is my duty to guide the Conference in its work
in order to obtain a result.
"We have therefore decided to appoint two delegates each, and
then — ^may I be pardoned for it — ^we have decided to ask you ta
appoint five delegates in common.
'If you do not think this enough, 1 will not take the responsi-
bility of choosing from among you all, since each asks for more
representation, but I will make a proposal: Choose all of us, so that
evervbody will at least have his rights.
"What is the complaint? Has any right been denied to any
Power? You all know how Committees work and you have the
right to go before any Committee you like. Mr. Boui^eois, who is
here, is not a plenipotentiary. He spoke with the authority to
which he is entitled, and you were glad to hear him. I have heard
Mr. Veniselos and many of you say: 'Our voice will not be heard.'
How can you level such a reproacn at us ? Your voice will be all
the better heard, because we are now arranging a means by which
we can listen to each other. You can be heard on all the Commis-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 297
sions and Committees, and, after all, are you not sure that your voice
will reach the Conference since you yourselves will be present and
able to speak there ?
^* Think, Gentlemen, of the consequences of the proposals now
made to us. As Mr. Dmowski said just now, requests will be made
in writing and we shall collect these papers and then spend an
hour or two in our Committee trying to find the best way out
of these difficidties. But that is of no use either,. for what we
want is tangible results. The armistice still keeps many millions
of men at the front. It is not questions of procedure, but essential
ones, that have to be decided. I ask all of you to consider the con-
sequences of the proposals which come to us from all parts of this
Assembly. If today we leave aside the essential question to indulge
in debates in procedure, I think I am safe in saying that at the
end of a week or even of a fortnight nothing w3l have been
settled and the essential question will not even have been examined.
*^Now, the public is waiting. This state of things appears to
me impossible. I join Mr. Ihnbwski in asking anybody having
observations to maKe to send them to the Btireau. But I do not
ask for a special Committee to decide the matter.
'*Why should I not say what I think? I do not see that the
Committee has the right to unpose its will upon these five Powers.
At least I say what I think. 1 want to get on, and I should very
much Uke you to make up your minds today.
''Let me make a suggestion which might suit everybody for
the time. You might vote on all the proposals which we put
before you today, reserving the right, which all Assemblies have, to
insert amendments. But, Gentlemen, do not let us go home today
without having voted decisively, so that President WUson, Mr.
Bourgeois, Lord Robert Cecil and all of them may be able to get
to work this evening and the Commissions to start from tomorrow.
My aim and that of my colleagues of the other Powers is to
organize Commissions as soon as possible, so as to give them \^ork.
aS. those of you wish to appear before them will do so. Anybody
who wants changes will ask for them. As proposed by Mr. Dmow'ski,
they will be examined and reported on. In this way we shall at
least have the advantage of beginning work at once.
"We propose to you to appoint a certain number of Commissions.
There will be two — one economic and the other financial — to be
appointed at the next Session, after which all the Commissions will
be working, the order of the day can be satisfactorily dealt with, and
effective discussion begun.
"I beg yom* pardon, Gentlemen, for having spoken at such length,
but all tHat I nave said appeared to me necessarv. Think of the
immense work awaiting us. Just think of it! As l^resident Wilson
just now^ said, in an admirable sentence which sums up the whole
question: 'We, like our Armies, wnsh to win not only the war, but a
cause.' We have the burden and responsibility of this cause in our
hands. Of course, Questions of procedure have their importance, too.
They will be settled in due course. If the number ox Commissions
proves insuflicient it can be increased — we leave you quite free in
that respect — but remember. Gentlemen, the larger the Commissions,
the less gets done.
298 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
*' Gentlemen, since I began to take part in these discussions I have
sacrificed a certain number of personal opinions. I have done this
cheerfully, feeling that I was aoing something good and useful for
the Common Cause. That was what I said to niyself just now on
hearing the noble words of President Wilson and Mr. IJoyd George.
^^Let all of us. Gentlemen, be animated by the same spirit.
The Bureau never wished to hurt anybody at all. On the contrary,
it would like to unite vou all in one group. Let us, then, start
work at oncei and in the meantime claims will be presented and
your Bureau able to start work.'*
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) declares that he will say no more for
fear of justifying the reproaches of the President of the Conference,
and confines nimself to the following observation :
''I simply propose that the Conference should vote on the
resolutions which have been submitted to it. The Bureau has
heard the observations which have been made in this Assembly.
As I said just now, I have confidence in its justice, and I ask it
to pay attention to those observations, to revise the composition
of the Commissions and decide thereon.**
Mr. K^otz (France) lays on the table of the Conference, for
reference to the Commission which has just been appointed, a draft
proposal for a financial Section of the League of Nations.
The President submits to the Conference resolutions relative
to the aj)i)ointment of the four other Commissions for which pro-
vision is made in the order of the day, and for which the Powders
with special interests have to name their delegates.
He recalls the fact that the second Commission has to examine
the responsibility of the authors of the war and the enforcement
of penalties (Annex 2) and that the small Powers have to choose
five representatives on this Commission.
In reply to an observation made by Mr. Calogeras (Brazil)
on the subject of the number of representatives alloted to his
country, the President points out that Brazil has no reason to com-
plain of the number of Delegates allowed to her, and that it does
not follow that because a country is not represented on a Commis-
sion, it has not the same rights as those who are.
On the third Commission, which will consider the question
of reparation for damages (Annex 3), Belgium, Greece, Poland,
Eoumania and Serbia are asked to appoint two representatives
each.
With regard to the text of the resolution relative to this
Commission, Mr. Klotz (France) observes that there appears to
be an important omission in it. It says that this Commission will
have to examine various questions: (1) the amount of reparation
which the enemy Powers ought to pay: (2) their capacity for
payment; (3) by what method, in wnat form, and within what
time this payment must be made. To this last paragraph it will
be well to add: ''And the guarantees necessary to msure its
payment.'*
The amendment proposed by Mr. Klotz is referred to the Bureau
for examination.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 299
On the fourth (International Legislation on Labor — Annex 4)
and fifth (International. Control of Ports, Waterways and Eail-
wavs — Annex 5) Commissions, the Powers with special interests
will for the time appoint five Delegates.
The President proposes that these appointments should be made
on Januaiy 27.
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) having asked that the Secretariat should
examine the question and arrive at a decision regarding the number
of representatives to be appointed, the President replies that the
question is one for the Bureau, and not for the Secretariat. He adds:
I ask that the Bureau should retain its liberty of action. If
you do not wish to name your Delegates now, but would rather
wait, so be it, but, let me tell you, at this moment w^e are occupied with
serious questions. The Polish question is among the foremost.
On Monday we have to hear Delegates. If vou ask for the post-
ponement of the election, it will be postponed, but I must tell you
that the Delegates of the Great Powers, for their part, will not con-
sider themselves to have been postponed and nobody will gain
anything.
As for us, we think that our work is urgent, and we ask the help
of the whole Conference to assist us to get through it.
Mr. Hvmans (Belgium) expresses agreement, and asks lor the
judgment of the Bureau, whose decision will be awaited.
Mr. Bratiano (Roumania) recognizes that everybody is willii^
to meet on the 27th of January for the purpose of naming Delegates,
who will be able to begin work at once now that it is possible to
examine questions of principle.
The President puts to the vote the proposal of the Bureau: — That
the Delegates of the Powers with special mterest should meet on the
27th of January at 15 o'clock (3 p. m.) to elect representatives.
This proposal is adopted.
(See Annex 6 for the minutes of the Session ot January 27,
and Annex 7 for the list of the members of the five Commissions.)
The President asks those members of the Conference wiio have
declarations to make regarding the Delegates to be so good as to
present them to the Bureau.
The Session is adjourned at 18.10 o'clock (6.10 p. m.).
P. Dutasta, G. Clemenceau,
Secretary General. President
J. C. Grew,
M. P. A. Hankey,
Paul Gauthier,
Aldrovandi,
Sadao Saburi,
Secretaries
300 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERUAJSTS.
Annex 1.
draft resolutions relative to the league of nations.
The Conference, having considered the proposals for the c^-eation of
a League of Nations, resolves that:
(1) It is essential to the maintenance of the world settlement, which
the Associated Nations are now met to establish, that a Leao:ue of
Nations be created to promote international cooperation, to insure
the fulfillment of accepted international obligations and to provide
safeguards against war.
(2; This League should be treated as an integral part of the general
Treaty of Peace, and should be open to every civilized nation which
can be relied on to promote its objects.
(3) The members of the League should periodically meet in interna-
tional conference, and should have a permanent organization and
secretariat to carry on the business of the League in the intervals
between the conferences.
The Conference therefore appoints a Committee representative of
the Associated Governments to work out the details of the Constitu-
tion and functions of the League.
January 25, 1919.
Annex 2.
draft resolution relative to the responsibility of the au-
thors of the war and the enforcement of penalties.
That a Commission, composed of two representatives apiece from
the five Great Powers and five representatives to be elected by the
other Powers, be appointed to inquire into and report upon the
following:
(1) The responsibility of the authors of the war.
(2) The facts as to breaches of the customs of law committed by
the forces of the German Empire and their AlUes on land, on sea and
in the air during the present war.
(3) The degree of responsibility for these offences attaching to
particular members of the enemy forces, including members of the
General Staffs and other individuals, however highly placed.
(4) The Constitution and procedure of a tribunal appropriate to
the trial of these offences.
(6) Any other matters cognate or ancillary to the above which
may arise in the course of the inquiry and which the Commission
finds it useful and relevant to take mto consideration.
January 25, 1919.
Annex 3.
draft resolution relative to reparation for damage.
That a Commission be appointed with not more than three repre-
sentatives apiece from eacn of the five Great Powers and not more
than two representatives apiece from Belgium, Greece, Poland,
Roumania and Serbia, to examine and report:
(1) On the amount which the enemy countries ought to pay by
way of reparation.
TBEAT7 OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 801
(2) On what they are capable of paying' and
(3) Bv what method, in what form ana within what time payment
should oe made.
January 25, 1919.
Annex 4.
dbaft resolution on international legislation on labor.
That a Commission, composed of two representatives apiece
from the five Great Powers and five representatives to be elected
by the other Powers represented at the Peace Conference, be ap-
pointed to inquire into the conditions of employment from the inter-
national aspect and to consider the international means necessary
to secure common action on matters affecting conditions of em-
ployment, and to recommend the form of a permanent agency to
continue such in<)uiry and consideration in co-operation with, and
under the direction of the League of Nations.
January 25, 1919.
Annex 5.
draft resolltion relative to international control op.
International control of ports, waterways and railways.
That a Commission, composed of two representatives apiece from
the five Great Powers and five representatives to be elected by the
other Powers, be appointed to inquire into and report on :
International control of ports, waterwavs and railwavs.
January 25, 1919.
Annex 6.
minutes of the meeting held by the representatives of powers
with special interests, january 27, 1919.
The Session is opened at 15 o'clock (3 p. m.) under the Presidency
of Mr. Jules Cambon, French Delegate, President.
Present: —
Far Bd^um:
Mr. Hymans,
Mr. Van den Heuvel,
Mr. Vandervelde.
For Bolivia-:
Mr. Ismael Montes.
For Brazil:
Mr. Olyntho de Magalhaes,
Mr. Pandia Calogeras.
For Chiita:
Mr. Lou Tseng Tsiang,
Mr. Suntchou Wei, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary of China at Brussels.
For Cuba:
Mr. Rafael Martinez Ortiz.
For Ecuador:
Mr. Dom y de Alsua.
302 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
For Greece:
Mr. Nicolas Politis,
. Mr. Athos Romanos, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo-
tentiary of H. M. The King of the Hellenes at Paris, Technical
Delegate.
For Haitx:
Mr. Tertullien Gnilbaud^ Envoj Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of Haiti at Pans.
For The Tledjaz:
Mr. Rustem Haidar.
For Peru:
Mr. Francisco Garcia Calderon.
For Poland:
Mr. Roman Dmowski.
For Portugal:
Dr. Egas Moniz,
The Count Penha Garcia.
For Roumania:
Mr. Jean J. C. Bratiano,
Mr. Nicolas Misu.
For Serbia: .
Mr. Pashitch,
Mr. Tnunbitch,
Mr. Vesnitch.
For Siam:
The Prince Charoon,
Phya Bibadh Kosha.
For the Czecho-SlovaJc Republic: ,
Mr. Charles Kramar, j
Mr. Edouard Benes.
For Urugmiy:
Mr. Juan Carlos Blanco.
The President sets forth in the following terms the object of the
meeting: —
The President of the Conference has done me the honor of appoint-
ing me to preside over the meeting of the Delegates of the Powers :
with special interests which have to settle the names of their repre-
sentatives on the different Commissions, the list of which has already
been drawn up. Other Commissions will be appointed later on.
Today you are summoned to express your views in regard to the
composition of four Commissions.
I believe that all the members present speak or understand French -
I therefore suggest that you should deciae that no translation shaJI
be made of the words pronoimced here.
(The meeting, after consultation, assents to this proposal.)
So far as concerns the appointment of Delegates on the Commis-
sions, the simplest plan appears to me to be to suspend the session
in order that you may be able to come to an agreement among your-
selves. We will open an examination of the lists when the session i»
resumed.
Mr, Kramar (Czecho-Slovak Republic) asks leave to speak in
order to propose a compromise: —
I perfectly imderstand the idea which guided Mr. Clemenceau at
the last session, when he said that it would be useless to have Com*
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 303-
missions composed of too great a number of members. All those
who, like hiiri, "have had experience of parliamentary affairs tire
convinced of this.
I hold the view, in accordance with this opinion, that the Com-
missions should be composed, in fact, of fifteen members. I ask,
however, that an exception should be made in the case of one of
them which seems to me to be of special importance. I mean the
Commission on the League of Nations. I am well aware that
nothing will be definitely decided in commission, but we all of us
realize that, when a step has been accepted by a Commission, it is
difficult for a contrary decision to be taken in plenary session.
Now, no injury could be caused to the idea of the Lea^jue of
Nations if the small Powers were represented on the Commission.
For this reason, and since Mr. Clemenceau has publicly declared
that number was not a sacred thing before which one has to bow,
it has occurred to me that we might modify the number of Delegates
on this important Commission. It would be possible to decide that
it should be composed of twenty-five members: fifteen to represent
the Great Powers and ten for the Powers with special interests. In
this way it would be impossible for any kind of bitterness to remain
in the minds of the Delegates of the last-named Powers.
The other Commissions would remain with their composition of
fifteen members, ten for the Great Powers and five for the Powers
with special interests.
Such is the arrangement which I desire to propose.
The President states that he takes note of the extremely interest-
ing observations offered by Mr. Kramar, and adds :
You certainly remember that at the last plenary session, the
President of the Conference was at pains to observe that all Dele-
^t-es who might desire to make their voices heard in the Commis-
sions could do so as they wished.
At the present moment, I do not think that we — ^for we repre-
sent here only a fraction of the Conference — can modify on our
own authority that which has been decided by the Conference at
its last session. The proposal which Mr. Kramar has just made can
be referred to the next plenary session. To-day we could not
deliberate in regard to it without exceeding the mandate which
we have to fulfifl. The onlv thing which we have to do is to keep
within the rules laid down for us By the Conference and to proceed
to vote.
It would, in my opinion, be best to suspend the session in order
that you may agree among yourselves on tne choice which you wish
to make.
Mr. Calogerds (Brazil), after seeking leave to speak, expresses
himself as foUows:
I desire, in the first place, to congratulate this limited assembly
on having at its head as President so illustrious a statesman as Mr.
Jules Cambon. May I now be permitted to define certain questions ?
Unless I am mistaken, it was stated at the last plenary session of
the Conference, as Mr. Kramar reminded us, that the composition
of the Commissions, in respect of numbers, was a settled matter.
304 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QERUANY.
It was likewise stated that all claims — justified ones, naturally —
relating to an increase in the number of members ff these Com-
missions, should be reserved for a later session.
I think I remember that certain claims have already been heard;
it will at least be necessary for them to be examined.
It is clear that we cannot at this moment do more than what
has been decided. It should, however, be well understood and per-
fectly clear that this is only a temporary solution imtil such time
as a decision shall have been taken with regard to the question of
increasing the nmnber of members of the Commissions. I apologize
for spealSng at some length and I will attempt to siunmarize my
observations.
I possess a certain experience of international conferences, having
sat on several occasions as the representative of Brazil in Pan-
American conferences. Now, my experience does not altogether
accord with what has been said nere. One is aware that in great
parliamentary debates, the majority, by its vote, compels the minority
and, moreover, that commissions are not always models of efficiency:
this we all know; I am myself a parliamentarian. However, in an
Assembly like this one, which is an International Conference, where
neither majority nor minoritv exists, votes must be obtained by
unanimity, because, as a final enforcement, you have the signature
of the agreements whereby conventional laws are fixed.
There clearly exists certain difficulties in connection with pub-
Ucity, the very great publicity which is, moreover, necessary to our
discussions, in plenary session, a question of human pride comes
into play. A nation which has expressed itself in a certain sense
cannot easily gainsay itself or reach a compromise; whereas, in
Commissions where there is a far greater degree of intimacy, where
discussions take place with greater heat but also with greater treedom,
agreements are far easier and far simpler than when they are de-
pendent on a vote to be obtained in the plenary Conference.
It is, moreover, manifest that one cannot require that, among
so many representatives of diflFerent States, among so many man-
datories bearers of diverse diplomatic instructions, one should
obtain forthwith the agreement which is the indispensable prelimi-
nary of the needed solutions. By the very fact that publicity is
much greater in plenary session, you win imderstana that any
divergences of opinion, even those which may merely be ones of
detail and devoid of really great importance, directly they appear
soon acquire a much greater importance and produce an impression
which might be unfavorable and, if I may say so, disastrous to the
solutions which we wish to reach in harmony and by the free con-
sent of the will of all concerned.
These are the reasons for which it seemed, and still seems to me
to-day— I speak from my small experience as a member of several
international conferences — that there will be every advantage, from ^
the point of view of the rapidity of our labors ana having regard to
the necessary agreement which must receive the sanction of the
plenary Conierence, in fixing the niunber of members, not of all
out of certain of the Commissions, at a higher figure than the one
hitherto adopted. I have myself made a claim. Other Delegates
have sj)oken more or less in the same sense; it is clear that there is
something to be done in this direction.
TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GERMAKY. 305
We have come here with a great ideal which all the world sup-
ports ; we desire to institute the Jjeague of Nations, that is to say,
a system of equality as between all nations. The principle of the
League has already been completely established. Each nation
must be given a vote; '*one nation, one vote.'' That is the spirit
in which 1 beg leave to bring to y;our attention the arguments wnich
appear to militate in favor of an increase in the number of members
of Commissions, for the phrase ''League of Nations" must not
merely appear in our speeches; its spirit must reign in our hearts.
The President points out, with the agreement of Mr. Calogeras,
that the observations which have just oeen made cannot modify
the proposals already placed before the Assembly; that, moreover,
they cannot be taken into account at a meeting which has for its
sole object the designation of the representatives of Powers with
special mterests.
The observations of the Delegate for Brazil will, however, be
recorded in the Minutes of the session, and the President will com-
municate them to the Bureau of the Conference.
Furthermore, the Delegates of Powers which desire to see an
increase in the number of their representatives on the Commission
of the League of Nations may naturally go and offer their observa-
tions before that Commission. That Commission, which will be
undoubtedly animated by a most liberal spirit, may, if it considers
the number of representatives to be insufficient, request the plenary
Conference to increase the number originally settled.
Mr, Vesnitch (Serbia), offers an observation of a technical descrip-
tion by proposing that the vote to be given should be in the name of
States, but not in the name of jpersons.
This proposal is adopted.
The session is suspended at 15.25 o'clock (3.25 p. m.) in order
to allow the Delegates to exchange views before examining
the list of the representatives to be designated.
The session is resumed at 16.05 o'clock (4.05 p. m.).
On the resumption of the session Mr. Ilymans (Belgium) de-
scribes as follows the result of the exchange of views among the
Delegates: —
We have sought to reach an agreement, by means of private
conversations, in r^ard to the position of the four following Com-
missions: Commission on the League of Nations; Commission on
Ports; Commission on International Legislation on Labor; Commis-
sion to inquire into the Responsibihty for Crimes committed during
the war.
As a result of the conversations which have taken place, there
are two Commissions in regard to the composition of which there
appears to be agreement, and we can tnenceforward eliminate
tne two following questions from our deliberations: the Commission
on the Responsibility for Crimes committed during the war, and
the Commission on tntemational Legislation on Labor.
If there were no opposition, we could consider that the Dele-
gates have been named for the Commission to inquire into the
responsibility for crimes committed during the war, and to examine
the penalties attached to those crimes, that Commission being
composed of the representatives of Belgium, Serbia, Roumania,
Poland and Greece.
135546—19 20
306 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAI7T.
As regards the composition of the Commission to study Inter-
national Legislation on Labor, we propose to put down the names
of the following Powers: Belgium, Serbia, Cuba for the South
American CTOup, Poland and the Czecho-Slovak Republic. The
Serbian Delegates, however, have been good enough to state that
they agreed to yield their place to Belgium, which, in view of the
position which she holds in the industrial and commercial world,
may be considered from that point of view as a Great Power.
Be&ium would therefore have two seats.
Tae question is a more delicate one as regards the composition
of the Commission to inquire into the constitution of the League
of Nations, and the composition of the Commission on the Control
of Ports, Waterways and Railways.
In the conversations which have just taken place, there seemed to
be an agreement as regards Belgium and Serbia, each having a
representative on both Commissions; there are, however, besides
those two, Powers which likewise demand to be represented on
both Commissions and the number of the Powers wnich wish to
sit on them exceeds the number of available seats. Brazil, China,
Roumania, Poland, the Czecho-Slovak Tlepublic, Greece, and Por-
tugal ask to be represented on the League of Nations Commission.
With regards to the Ports Commission, in addition to Belgium
and Serbia, Uruguay representing the South American group, Po-
land, China, Greece, Roumania, and Portugal ask to be represented
on this Commission.
In our opinion it would be best, with a view to the composition
of these two Commissions, to take a vote; it is our intention to
request you, Mr. President, when the vote has taken place and after
the nomination of the five Delegates to whom we have been told
we are entitled, to make yourself the interpreter of the desire of
today's meeting by begging the Bureau of the Conference to be
so good as to increase eventually the number of seats on these two
Commissions; we would indicate the Powers for which these seats
are requested.
The Greek Delegates state that they agree with Mr. Hymans in
regard to the composition of the first two Commissions for which,
in default of opposition, the vot« should be regarded as settled;
furthermore, like Serbia, they renounce their representation on the
International Labor Legislation Commission in favor of Beligiim.
TTie President gives his consent to this mode of procedure and
concludes, to sum up, that five Delegates will be appointed and
that four will be designated in order that they may oe proposed
to the Bureau of the Conference so as to complete the Delegation.
The discussion is resumed on the method of voting.
The President states that, with regard to the Labor Legislation
Commission and that on the Responsibility for Crimes, there is no
need to vote, as the Delegates have agreea among themselves.
The representation of Powers wim special interests on the
international Labor Legislation Commission will therefore be com-
gosed as follows: Belgium, with two seats; Cuba, Poland, and the
zecho-Slovak Republic, with one seat each.
As regards the Commission to inquire into the ResponsibUitv
for Crimes committed during the War, Belgium, Greece, Polandf,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 307
R >umania, and Serbia will each have one representative on that
Coinmission.
As regards the two other Commissions — those on the League
of Nations and on Ports — the President proposes to proceed by
separate vote for each Commission. This havmg been accepted, he
states that it is understood that the Delegates to be considered as
elected will be the five who have received the greatest number of
votes. The four names following them will be laid before the Con-
ference, by way of suggestion, with a view to complete the Conunis-
sions.
An exchange of view takes place in order to fix the method of
voting. It is decided in the first place that the voting at the first
round is to be determined by absolute majority; at the second,
by relative majority; further, that each Delegation shall only hand
in one voting card.
The list at candidates for the League of Nations Commission is
communicated to the meeting. These candidates are, in alpha-
betical order in French: Belgium, Brazil, China, Ecuador, Greece,
Haiti, Poland. Portugal, Roumania, and Serbia and the Czecho-
slovak Republic.
The votes are collected, sorted and counted.
The President announces the result:
There are seventeen voters; the five iiations which have received
an absolute majority and the greatest number of votes are: Belgium,
China, Brazil, Serbia, and Portugal. Thereafter come Roumania,
Poland, Greece, the Czecho-Slovak Republic, Haiti and Ecuador.
In accordance with the decision of the Assembly, the President
will communicate to the Bureau of tlie Conference the names of
the four nations which, after the five nations appointed, have ob-
tained the greatest number of votes, namely: Roumania, Poland,
Greece, and the Czeclio-Slovak Republic.
The President thereupon pjroposes to designate the members of
the Ports, Waterways and Railways Comimission.
J/r. Benes (Czecho-Slovak RepubUc) offers the following ob-
servation :
When we examined the question of the number of Delegates
to be admitted into the Commission for Railways, Waterways, and
the Internationalization of Ports, I explained to my colleagues on
the Commission certain reasons for which we, the Czecho-Slovaks
were anxious to be represented among the five Powers to be desig-
nated. Those reasons are as follows: We are in the middle of
Central Europe, a coimtry surrounded on all sides by enemy powers,
notably Germany and the Magyars, and we have no access to the
sea. For us the question of the internationalization of railways is
a vital one; on the other hand, our State is a riverain state ol the
Danube and we are specially interested in the question of the
Adriatic; moreover, having no great ports, we shall tlierefore be
interested in expressing our views on the subject of the special
systems of control of the Baltic and the Adriatic ports. Tliese are
the reasons which we have advanced in order that we may be
included in the number of the five Powers which are to be represented
on the Commission: I therefore propose the candidature of the
Czecho-Slovaks to be among the Five Powers which you are about
to designate.
808 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) announces, but not in order of priority,
the names of the Powers which ask to be represented on the Com-
mission: They are Belgium, Serbia, Uru^ay, Poland, China, Rou-
mania, Greece, the Czecno-Slovak Repubhc and Portugal.
The votes are collected, sorted and counted.
TTie President annoimces the result: —
The five Powers which have secured an absolute majority are:
Belgium, China, Greece, Uruguay and Serbia.
Mier them, the following have secured the greatest nimiber
of votes: Roxunania, Portugal, Poland and the Czecho-Slovak Re-
public.
Therefore, the suggestion to be made to the Bureau is concerned
with the supplementary admission of the four last-named Powers.
Mr. Calogeras (Brazil) makes the following statement in regard
to the result of the voting:
It appears to me that a great moral lesson is derived from the
votes wnich this Assembly has just cast: on all the Commissions it
is to Belgium that the greatest number, indeed almost the una-
nimity of votes, has been given. That is not astonishing. We have
barely emerged from a struggle which will imdoubtedly effect a
complete transformation of modem society: now, if it has been
possible to secure this victory, if we are assembled round this
Conference table, it is certainly because there has been an expira-
tory victim^ a coimtry, small m extent, but great of heart, which
has offered itself up as a holocaust, and to which we may well apply
the phrase which Joan of Arc used of her banner: '*It has been
dragged in the dust; it now floats in the breeze."
Mr, Hymans (Belgiimi) thanks him in the following terms: —
From the depths of nay heart I thank the representative of noble
Brazil for the words with which he has just greeted my country.
We have, I think, done our duty; victory has crowned the conmion
efforts of the Allies and all of us here will have only one purpose,
together with the great Allies at whose side we were sitting yesterday •
that is, to establish a just peace, and to oi^anize an international
order founded on the rights and equality of nations.
The President adds these words:
In the name of all the nations represented at this table I
associate myself with the words just pronounced by the represen-
tatives of Brazil; at the same time, however, I desire to associate
with these eulogies Serbia, Roumania, and all the nations which
have suffered, like ourselves and like Belgium, for the cause of
Civilization and Right.
It is understood, of course, that the Delegates of countries which
have been indicated will be at the same time the Delegates of all the
nations, and that they may be requested to present the desiderata of
nations which have not been themselves designated.
In conclusion, the President begs the Delegations to communi-
cate as soon as possible to the General Secretariat the names of the
representatives of nations designated by the vote which has just
been taken, as the Commission ought to be constituted as rapidly
as possible.
The members of the Secretariat take note of these names. (See
Annex VII.).
The session rises at 16.50 o'clock (4.50 p. m.).
TBEATY 07 FEACS WITH QEBMAKT. 809
Annex 7
■
LIST OF MEMBEBS OF COMMISSIONS
Commissum on, the League oj Nations.
United States of America:
President Wilson,
Honorable Edward M. House.
British Emvire:
The Rt. Hon. The Lord Robert CecU,
Lieutenant-General The Rt. Hon. J. C. Smuts. *
Prance:
Mr. L6on Bourgeois,
Mr. Lamaude, Dean of the Faculty of Law of Paris.
Italy:
m. Orlando,
Mr. Scialoja.
The Baron Makino,
The Viscount Chinda.
Belgium:
Mr. Hyinans.
Brazil:
}Si, Epitacio Pessoa, Senator, former Minister of Justice.
China:
Mr. Wellington Koo, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plen-
ipotentiary of China at Washington.
Portugal:
Mr. Jayme Batalha Reis.
Serbia:
Mr. Vesnitch.
2
Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and the
EnfoTcemenJt of Penalties.
United States of America:
Honorable Kobert Lansing.
Mr. James Brown Scott.
British Empire:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Hewart, K. C, M. P., Attorney General,
with the right of substituting.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Pollock, K. B. E., K. C, M. P. SoUcitor-
General.
The Rt. Hon. W. F. Massey.
France:
Mr. Andr6 Tardieu,
Mr. Lamaude.
Mr. Scialoja,
Mr. Raimondo, Deputy.
310 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Japan:
Mr. Adatci, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister * Plenipotentiary
of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan at Brussels.
Mr. H. Nagaoka.
Belgium:
Mr. Rolin-Jacquemyns, Secretary-General of the Belgian
Delegation.
Greece:
Mr. Politis.
Poland:
Mr. Constantin Skirmunt, Member of the Polish National Com-
mittee, Representative of the Committee at Rome.
Roumania: •
Mr. S. Rosental, Jurist.
Serbia:
Mr. Slobodan Yovanovitch, Rector of the University of Bel-
grade, with the right of substituting.
Mr. M. K. Koumanoudi; Professor of the University of Belgrade, or
Mr. M. M. Novacovitch, Professor of the University of Be^rade.
Commission on Reparation of DaTna^e,
United States of America:
Mr. Bernard M. Baruch, President of the War Industries Board.
Mr. Norman H. Davis, Commission of Finance.
Mr. Vance McCormick, President of the War Trade Board.
Great Britain:
The Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes,
The Rt. Hon. The Lora Sumner of Ibstone, Lord of Appeal in
Ordinary,
The Rt. Hon. The Lord CunliflFe, former Governor of the Bank of
England.
France:
Mr. L. L. Klotz,
Mr. Loucheur, Minister of Industrial Reconstruction,
Mr. Albert Lebrun, Minister of the Liberated Territories.
Italy:
Mr. Salandra,
Mr. D'Amelio, Coimcillor to the Court of Cassation,
Mr. E. Chiesa, Deputy.
Japan:
Mr. Kengo-Mori, Financial Agent to the Embassy at London,
Mr. H. Nagaoka,
Mr. Tatumi, Administrator of the Yokohama Specie Bank.
Belgium: \
Mr. Van den Heuvel, !
Mr. Despret, Advocate at the Court of Cassation, Administrator
of the Bank of Brussels.
Greece:
Mr. Romanos,
Mr. Michalakopoulos, Minister of State.
XBBATT OF FEAOB WITH GEBMAlSrY. 311
Poland:
Mr. Sigismond Chamiec, Director of the National Loan Bank;
Mr. Casimir Olszowski, Director of the Department of War Damage
at the Ministry of Finance.
Roumania:
Mr. Georges Danielpol, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo-
tentiary of His Majesty the King of Boumania at Washington,
former Director of the National Bank of Konmania.
Mr. P. Zahariade; Engineer, Inspector-General, former Director of
the Railways.
Serbia:
Mr. C. Stoyanovitch, Deputy,
Mr. Milosh Savtchitch, former Minister, with the Right to be
Replaced by:
M. Dragoutine Provitch, Lawyer,
Dr. Vel Baikitch, Bank Director.
Commission on IntemoMonal Legislation on Labor.
United States of America:
Honorable Edward N. Hm-ley, President of the Shipping Board,
Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of the American JFederation of
Labor.
Great Britain:
The Rt. Hon. G. N. Barn^
Sir Malcolm Delevingne, IS., C. B., Assistant Under-Secretary of
State for the Home Department.
France:
Mr. CoUiard, Minister of Labor and Social Insurance,
Mr. Loucheur.
Italy:
Baron Mayor des Planches, Honorary Ambassador, Commissioner-
General of Emigration,
Mr. Cambimi, Deputy.
Japan:
Mr. Otchiai, Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary of
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan at The Hague;
Mr. Oka, former Director of Commercial and Industrial Affairs at
the Ministry of Commerce.
Belgium:
Mr. Vandervelde,
Mr. Mahaim, Professor of the University of Li%e, Secretary of the
Belgian Section of the International Association for the Legal
Protection of Workers.
Ouba:
Mr. Antonio S&nchez Bustamante.
Poland:
Mr. Jean Zoltowski, Member of the Polish National Committee
(temporary Delegate).
Ozecho-Slovak Mepubhc:
Mr. Benes.
312 TREATY OF PBAOB WITH OBBICAITT.
Commission on the IrUemoHondl Control of PoriSy Waterways, and
Railways.
United States of America:
Honorable Henry White,
Honorable David Hunter Miller.
Oreat Britain:
The Hon. A. L. Sif ton.
Sir Hubert Llewellyn-Smith, K. C. B., Permanent Secretary to the
Board of Trade.
France:
Mr. QaveiUe, Minister of Public Works and Transport,
Mr. Andrfi Weiss, Professor at the Faculty of Law of Paris, Legal
Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affau^.
Italy:
Mr. Crespi, Minister of Food,
Mr. de Martino, Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Javan:
Mr. K. Matsui,
Colonel Sato.
Belqium:
Mr. Paul Segors, Minister of State.
China:
Mr. Chenting Thomas Wang.
Oreece:
Mr. Coromilas, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
of His Majesty the Eling of the HeUenes at Rome.
Serbia:
Mr. Trumbitch.
Uruauay:
Mr. Juc
Juan Carlos Blanco.
COMMISSION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE.
AUTHORS OF THE WAR AND ON ENFORCEMENT
OF PENALTIES
I
THE Preliminary Peace Conference at the plenary Session on
the 25th January, 1919 (Minute No. 2), decided to create, for the^
purpose of enquiring into the responsibilities relating to the war,,
a Commission composed of fifteen members, two to K>e named by
each of the Great Powers (United States of America, British Empire^
France, Italy and Japan) and five elected from among the Powers^
with special interests.
The Commission was charged to enquire into and report upon
the foUowing points: —
1. The responsibility of the authors of the war.
2. The facts as to breaches of the laws and customs of war coni-
mitted by the forces of the German Empire and their
Allies, on land, on sea, and in the air during the present
war.
3. The de^ee of responsibility for these offences attaching to
particular memoers of the enemy forces, including members
of the General Staffs, and other individuals, however highly
placed.
4. The constitution and procedure of a tribimal appropriate for
the trial of these offences.
5. Any other matters cognate or ancillary to the above which
may arise in the course of the enquiry, and which the
Commission finds it useful and relevant to take into con-
sideration.
At a meeting of the Powers with special interests held on the
27th January, 1919. Belgium, Greece, Poland, Roimiania and Serbia
were chosen as tne rowers who should name representatives.
(Minute No. 2. Annex VI.)
After the several States had nominated their respective repre-
sentatives, the Commission was constituted as follows: —
United States of America:
Hon. Robert Lansing.
Major James Brown Scott.
British Empire:
The Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Hewart, K. C, M. P.
or
Sir Ernest Pollock, K. B. E., K. C, M. P.
The Rt. Hon. W. F. Massey.
France:
Mr. Aadrfi Tardieu.
(Alternate: Captain R. Masson.)
Mr. F. Lamaude.
313.
^14 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Italy:
Mr. Scialoja.
(Alternates: Mr. Kicci Busatti^ Mr. G. Tosti.)
Mr. Raimondo. Later, Mr. Brambilla (3rd February);
Mr. M. d'Ameloi (16th February).
Japan:
Mr. Adatci.
Mr. Nagaoka. Later, Mr. S. Tachi (15th February).
Belgium:
Mr. Rolin-Jaequemytis.
Oreece:
Mr. N. Politis.
Poland:
Mr. C. Skirmunt. Later, Mr. N. Lubienski (14th February).
Roumania:
Mr. S. Rosental.
Serbia:
Professor Slobodan Yovanovitch.
(Alternates: Mr. Koumanoudi, Mr. Novacovitch.)
Mr. Lansing was selected as Chairman of the Commission, and
AS Vice-Chairman, Sir Gordon Hewart or Sir Ernest Pollock and
Mr. Scialoja. Mr. A. de Lapradelle (France) was named General
Secretary and the Secretaries of the Commission were : —
Mr. A, Kirk, United States of America; Lieutenent-Colonel O. M.
Biggar, British Empire; Mr. G. H, Tosti, Italy; Mr. Kuriyama,
Japan; Lieutenant Baron J. Guillaume, Belgium; Mr. Spyridion
Marchetti, Greece; Mr. Casimir Rybinski, Poland.
Mr. G. H. Carmerlynck, Professeur aqrige of the University of
France, acted as interpreter to the Conmiission.
The Commission decided to appoint three Sub-Commissions.
Sub-Commission I, on Criminal Acts, was instructed to discover
and collect the evidence necessarv to establish the facts relating to
culpable conduct which (a) brought about the world war and accom-
panied its inception, and Q>) took place in the course of hostilities.
This Sub-Commission selected Mr. W. F. Massey as its Chairman.
Sub-Commission II, on the Responsibility for the War, was
instructed to consider whether, on the facts established by the
Sub-Conunission on Criminal Acts hi relation to the conduct which
brought about the world war and accompanied its inception,
prosecutions could be instituted, and, if it decided that prosecu-
tions could be imdertaken, to prepare a report indicatmg the
individual or individuals who were, m its opimon, gtdlty, and the
Court before which prosecutions should proceed.
This Sub-Commission selected alternatively Sir Gordon Hewart
or Sir Ernest Pollock as Chairman. .
Sub-Commission III, on the Responsibility for the Violation of
the Laws and Customs of War, was instructed to consider whether,
on the facts established by the Sub-Commission on Criminal Acts
in relation to conduct which took place in the course of hostilities,
prosecutions could be instituted, and if it decided that prosecutions
could be imdertaken, to j)repare a report indicating the individual
or individuals who were, m its opinion, guilty, and tne Court before
which prosecutions should proceed.
TKBATT OF FEAOB WITH GBBSiAITY. 315
This Sub-Commission selected Mr. Lansing as its Chairman.
When the reports of the Sub-Commissions had been considered,
a committee composed of Mr. Rolin-Jaequemyns, Sir Ernest PoUoek
and Mr. M. d'Amelio was appointed to draft the report of the
Commission. This Committee was assisted by Mr. A. de Lapradelle
and Lieutenant<:!olonel O. M. Biggar.
The Commission has the honour to submit its report to the
Preliminary Peace Conference. The report was adopted unani-
mously subject to certain reservations by me United States of America
and certain other reservations by Japan. The United States Delega-
tion has set forth its reservations and the reasons therefor in
a memorandum attadied hereto (Annex II) and the same course
has been taken by the Japanese Delegation (Annex III).
REPORT PRESENTED TO THE PRELIMINARY PEACE CON-
FERENCE BY THE COMMISSION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY
OP THE AUTHORS OF THE WAR AND ON ENFORCEMENT OF
PENALTIES
CHAPTER I
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS OF THE WAR
On the (][uestion of the responsibility of the authors of the war,
the Commission, after having examined a number of official docu-
ments relating to the origin of the world war, and to the violations
of neutrality and of frontiers which accompanied its inception,
has determined that the responsibility for it lies wholly upon the
Powers which declared war m pursuance of a policy of agression,
the concealment of which gives to the ori^n of tnis war the cnaracter
of a dark conspiracy against the peace of Europe.
This responsibility rests first on Germany and Austria, secondly
on Turkey and Bulgaria. The responsibility is made all the graver
by reason of the violation by Germany and Austria of the neutrality
of Belgium and Luxembiu*g, which they themselves had ^aranteed.
It is increased, with regard to both France and Serbia, by tne violation
of their frontiers before the declaration of war.
I. — ^Premeditation of the War.
A. — Oermany and Austria
Many months before the crisis of 1914 the German Emperor had
ceased to pose as the champion of peace. Naturally believing in
the overwhelmine superiority of his army, he openly showed his
enmity towards France. General von Moltke said to the King of
the Belgians: 'This time the matter must be settled.' In vain the
King protested. The Emperor and his Chief of Staff remained no
less fixed in their attitude.^
On the 28th Jime, 1914, occurred the assassination at Sarajevo
of the heir-apparent of Austria. 'It is the act of a little group of
madmen,' saia Francis Joseph.* The act, committed as it was by
a subject of Austria-Hungary on Austro-Himgarian territory, coiild
in no wise compromise Serbia, which very correctly expressed its
condolences' and stopped public rejoicings in Belgraae. If the
Government of Vienna thought that there was any Serbian com-
plicity. Serbia was ready * to seek out the guilty parties. But this
attitude failed to satisfy Austria and still less Germany, who, after
their first astonishment had passed, saw in this royal and national
misfortime a pretext to initiate war.
I Yellow Book, M. Cambon to M. Pichon, 22nd November, 1913.
* Message to his people.
• Serbian Blue Book, pace 30.
« Yellow Book, No. 15, M. Cambon to M. Bienvena Martin, 2lst July, 1014.
316
TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMAlirr, 317
At Potsdam a 'decisive consultation' took place on the 5th July,
1914.* Vienna and Berlin decided upon this plan: 'Vienna will
send to Belgrade a very emphatic ultimatum with a very short
limit of time.' *
The Bavarian Minister, von Lerchenfeld, said in a confidential
despatch dated the 18th July, 1914, the facts stated in which have
never been officially denied: 'It is clear that Serbia cannot accept
the demands, which are inconsistent with the dimity of an inde-
pendent State.' * Count Lerchenfeld reveals in this report that, at
the time it was made, the ultimatum to Serbia had been jointly
decided upon by the Governments of Beriin and Vienna; that they
were waiting to send it until President Poincarfi and M. Viviani
should have left for St. Petersburg; and that no illusions were
cherished, either at Beriin or Vienna, as to the consequences which
tins threatening measure would involve. It was perfectly well
known that war would be the result.
The Bavarian Minister explains, moreover, that the only fear of
the Beriin Government was that Austria-Hungary might" hesitate
and draw back at the last minute, and that on the other hand Serbia,
on the advice of France and Great Britain, might yield to the pres-
sure put upon her. Now, 'the Berlin Government considers that
war is necessary.' Therefore, it gave full powers to Count Berch-
told, who instructed the Ballplatz on the 18th July, 1914, to nego-
tiate with Bulgaria to induce her to enter into an alliance and to
participate in the war.
In order to mask this understanding, it was arranged that the
Emperor should go for a cruise in the North Sea, and that the
Prussian Minister of War should go for a holiday, so that the Imperial
Government might pretend that events had taken it completely by
suiprise.
Austria suddenly sent Serbia an ultimatum that she had carefully
prepared in such a way as to make it impossible to accept. Nobody
could be deceived; 'the whole world understands that this ulti-
matum means war.' * According to M. Sazonof, 'Austria-Hungary
wanted to devour Serbia.' *
M. Sazonof asked Vienna for an extension of the short time limit
of forty-eight hours given by Austria to Serbia for the most serious
decision in its history.* Vienna refused the demand. On the
24th and 25th July England and France multiplied their efforts to
persuade Serbia to satisfy the Austro-Hungarian demands. Russia
threw in her weight on the side of conciliation.'
Contrarv to the expectation of Austria-Hungary and Germany,
Serbia yielded. She agreed to all the requirements of the ultimatum,
subject to the single reservation that, in the judicial enquiry which
she would commence for the purpose of seeking out the guilty par-
ties, the participation of Austrian officials would be kept within
the limits assigned by international law. ' If the Austro-Hungarian
Government is not satisfied with this,* Serbia declared she was ready
Ho submit to the decision of the Hague Tribimal.' ^
1 Licbnowsky Memoir.
* Dr. Muehlon's Memoir.
* Report of the 18th Julv, 1914.
* Austro-Huiigarian Red Book, No. 16.
*' Klue Book, No. 26.
* Yellow Book, No. 36; Blue Book, Nos. 12, 46, 55, 65, 94, US.
» Yellow Book. No. 46.
318 XBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
A quarter of an hour before the expiration of the time limits
at 5.45 on the 25th, M. Pachich, the Serbian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, delivered this reply to Baron Greisl, the Austro-Hungarian
Minister. On M. Pachich' return to his own office he found awaiting
him a letter from Baron Geisl saying that he was not satisfied with
the reply. At 6.30 the latter had left Belgrade, and even before he
had arrived at Vienna, the Austro-Hunffarian Government had
handed his passports to M. Yovanovitch, the Serbian Minister, and
had prepared thirty-three mobilisation proclamations, which were
published on the following morning in the 'Budapesti Kozloni,'
the official gazette of the Hungarian Government. On the 27th
Sir Maurice de Bunsen telegraphed to Sir Edward Grey: 'This
country has gone wild with joy at the prospect of war with 5>erbia.' ^
At midday on the 28th Austria declared w^ar on Serbia. On the 29th
the Austrian Army commenced the bombardment of Belgrade, and
made its dispositions to cross the frontier.
The reiterated suggestions of the Entente Powers with a view; to
finding a peaceful solution of the dispute only produced evasive
replies on the part of Berlm or promises of intervention with the
Government of Vienna without any effectual steps being taken.
On the 24th of July Russia and England asked that the Powers
should be granted a reasonable delay m which to work in concert
for the maintenance of peace. Germany did not join in this request.^
On the 25th July Sir Edward Grey proposed mediation by four
Powers (England, France, Italy and Germany). France ^ and Italy *
immediately gave their concurrence. Germany * refxised, allegmg
that it was not a question of mediation but of arbitration, as the
Coiiference of the four Powers was called to make proposals, not to
decide.
On the 26th July Russia proposed to negotiate directly with
Austria. Austria refused.®
On the 27th July England proposed a European Conference.
Germany refused.'
On the 29th July Sir Edward Grey asked the Wilhelmstrasse to
be good enough to 'suggest any method by which the influence of
the four Powers could be used together to prevent a war between
Austria and Russia.* * She was asked hereelf to say what she
desired." Her reply was evasive.*^
On the same day, the 29th July, the Czar Nicholas II despatched
to the Emperor William II a telegram suggesting that the Austro-
Serbian problem should be submitted to the Hague Tribunal. This
suggestion received no reply. This important telegram does not
appear in the Germah White Book. It was made public by the
Petrograd 'Official Gazette' (January 1915).
The Bavarian Legation, in a report dated the 31st July, declared
its conviction that the efforts of Sir Edward Grey to preserve peace
would not hinder the march of events."
» nine Book, No. 41.
9 Ka^sian Oruiigo Book, No. 4, Yellow Book, No. 43.
a Yellow Book. No. 70.
« Yrllow Book. No. 72, Blue Book, No. 49.
* Blue Book, No. 43.
■ Yollow Book, No. .>4.
' Yollow Book, NoM. (J8 and 73.
■ Yi'llow Book, No. 97. Blue Book, No. U.
» Blue Book, No. HI.
10 Yellow Book. 97, 9S and 109.
» Seco^ul Rn)ort of Count Lcf ehcnfeld. Bavarian Plenipotentiary at Berlin, pablished on the instruc*
tlons of Kurt ELsner.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 319-
As early as the 21st July German mobilisation had conmienced
by the recall of a certain number of classes of the reserve/ then of
German officers in Switzerland,^ and finally of the Metz garrison on
the 25th July.' On the 26th July the German fleet was called back
from Norway.*
The Entente did not relax its conciliatory efforts, but the German
Government systematically brought all its attempts to nought.
When Austria consented for the first time on the 31st July to discuss
the contents of the Serbian Note with the Russian Government and
the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador received orders to * converse ' with
the Russian Minister of Foreim Affairs,* Germany made any negotiation
impossible by sending her ultimatum to Russia. Prince Licnnowsky
wrote that 'a hint from Berlin would have been enough to deciae
Count Berchtold to content himself with a diplomatic success and to
declare that he was satisfied with the Serbian reply, but this hint was
not given. On the contrary they went forward towards war.' •
On the 1st August the German Emperor addressed a telegram to
the King of England ^ containing the following sentence: 'The trcops
on my frontier are, at this moment, being kept back by telegraphic
and* telephonic orders from crossing the Frencn frontier.'
Now, war was not declared till two days after that date, and as
the German mobilisation orders were issued on that same day, the
1st August, it follows that, as a matter of fact, the German army
had been mobilised and concentrated in pursuance of previous orders.
The attitude of the Entente nevertheless remained still to the very
end so conciliatory that, at the very time at which the German fleet
was bombarding Libau, Nicholas II gave his word of honour to
William II that Russia would not undertake any aggressive action
during the pourparlers,* and that when the German troops commenced
their marcn across the French frontier M. Viviani telegraphed to all
the French Ambassadors ' we must not stop working for accommo-
dation.'
On the 3rd August von Schoen went to the Quai d'Orsay with the
declaration of war against France. Lacking a real cause of complaint,
Germany alleged in her declaration of war, that bombs had beeu
dropped by French aeroplanes in various districts in Germany. This
statement was entirely false. Moreover, it was either later admitted
to be so • or no particulars were ever furnished by the German
Government.
Moreover, in order to be manifestly^ above reproach, France was
careful to withdraw her troops 10 kilom. from the German frontier.
Notwithstanding this precaution, numerous officially established
violations of French territory preceded the declaration of war.^^
I Yenow Book, No. 15.
« Yellow Book, No. 60.
» YeUow Book, No. 10«.
• Yellow Book, No. 58.
» Blue Book, No. 133, Red Book, No. 55.
• Lidmowsky Memoir, p. 1.
' White Book, Anlage 32; Yellow Book, Annex II bis. No. 2.
» Telegram from Nicholas II to William II. Yellow Book No. 6, Annex V.
• Statement of the Mmilcipalltv of Nuremburg, dated the 3rd April, 1916.
>* Patrols of various strengths crossed the French frontier at fifteen points, one on the 30th July at Xures,
dght on the 2nd August, and the others on the 3rd August, before war was declared. The French troops
lost one killed and several wounded. The enemy left on French territory four killed, one of whom was an
officer, and seven prisoners. At Suarce, on the 2nd August, the enemy carried off nine inhabitants, twenty -
ftte horses, and thirteen carriages. Four incursions by German dirigibles took place between th ^ 25th
JdIt and the 1st August. Fin^y, German aeroplanes flew over Luneville on the 3rd August, before the
deaaration of war, and dropped six bombs. (Yellow Book, Nos. 106, 136, 139 &c.)
.'820 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAlir?.
The provocation was so flagrant that Italy, herself a member of
the Triple Alliance, did not hesitate to declare that in view of the
aggressive character of the war the casus fc^deris ceased to apply.*
B. — Turkey and Bulgaria
The conflict was, however, destined to become more widespread, and
Germany and Austria were joined by allies.
Since the Balkan war the i oxmg Turk Government had been draw-
ing nearer and nearer Germany, whilst Germany on her part had
•constantly been extending her activities at Constantinople.
A few months before war broke out, Turkey handed over the com-
mand of her military and naval forces to the German General Liman
von Sanders and the German Admiral Souchon.
In August, 1914, the former, acting under orders from the General
Headquarters at Berlin, caused the Tm-kish Army to begin mobilizing.*
Finally, on the 4th Aueust, the underatandine between Turkey
and Germany was definitely formulated in an alliance.' The con-
sequence was that when the 'Goeben' and the 'Breslau' took refuge
in the Bosphorus, Turkey closed the Dardanelles against the Entente
squadrons and war followed.
On the 14th October, 1915, Bulgaria declared war on Serbia,
which country had been at war with Austria since the 28th July,
1914, and had been attacked on all fronts by a large Austro-German
army since the 6th October, 1915. Serbia had, however, committed
no act of provocation against Bulgaria.
Serbia never formulated any claim against Bulgaria during the
negotiations which took place between the Entente Powers and
Biilgaria prior to the latter's entry into the war. On the contrary,
she was offering herself ready to make certain territorial concessions
to Bulgaria in order to second the efforts of the Entente Powers to
induce Bulgaria to join them. According to Count Lerchenfeld's
reports, however, Biugaria had begun negotiations with the Central
Powers as early as the 18th July, 1914, with a view to entering the
war on their side. In April, 1915, the Bulgars made an armed
attack against Serbia near Valandovo and Struvmitza, where a real
battle was fought on Serbian territory. Being defeated, the Bulgars
retired, ascribmg this act of aggression to some comitadjis. An
International Conunission (composed of representatives of the
Entente) discovered, however, that there had b,een Bulgarian regular
officers and soldiers among the dead and the prisoners.*
On the 6th September, 1915, Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary con-
cluded a treaty which recited that they had agreed to undertake
common military action against Serbia and by which Austria-
Hungary guaranteed to Bulgaria certain accretions of territory at
Serbians expense, and also agreed, jointly with Germany, to make
to the Bulgarian Government a war loan of 200,000,000 fr., to be
increased if the war lasted more than four months.* Even after
this, M. Malinoff, one of the former Prime Ministers of Bulgaria,
* YeUow Book, No. 124.
s H. Morganthau, 'Secrets of the Bosphorus/ London, 1918, pp. 39, 40.
t German White Book, 1913, 1917, Nos. 19 and 20.
* Aiemorandum I of the berbian uelogation, Chapter II, para. c.
* Treaty between Bulgaria and Austria-Hungary, dated the 24th August, 1915 (famished by the Serbian
Ration).
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKY. 321
took part in negotiations with the Entente, and, while these negotia-
tions were contmxiing, Bulgaria^ on the 23rd September, mobuLsed,
ostensibly to defend her neutrality.
No sooner had the army been mobilised and concentrated and
Bulgarian forces massed on the whole length of the Serbian frontier,
than the Bulgarian Grovemment openly and categorically repudiatea
M. Malinoff, stating that he was in no way qualifiedi to commit
Bulgaria, and that he deserved ' to be subjected to the utmost rigour
of ms country's laws for his conduct on that occasion.* Some days
later, Austro-German troops crossed the Danube and began to invade
Serbia.
As soon as the Serbian troops began to retire, the Bulgars, on
the pretext that the former had violated their frontier, launched
the attack which eventually led to the complete subjugation of Serbia.
Two documents in the possession of the Serbian Government prove
that this incident on the frontier was 'arranged' and represented as a
Serbian provocation. On the 10th October, 1915, tne Secretary-
General to the Foreign Office at Sofia, at the request of the Bulgarian
Minister for Foreign Affairs, sent the following commxmication to
Count Tamovski, Austro-Hungarian Minister at Sofia: — 'In order to
divest the attack on Serbia of the appearance of a precohceived plot,
we shall, this evening or to-morrow morning, provoke a frontier
incident in some uninnabited region.' ^ Also, on the 12th October,
1915, Count Tamovski sent the U)llowing telegram to Vienna: — 'The
Generalissimo informs me that the desu'ed incident on the Serbian
frontier was arranged yesterday.' *
Bulgaria, in fact, first attacked on the 12th October, 1915, two days
before the declaration of war on Serbia, which took place on the 14th
October, 1915. That this was the case does not prevent Bulgaria
from asserting that the Serbs first crossed her frontier.
The above sequence of events proves that Bulgaria had premed-
itated war against Serbia, and pemdiously brought it about.
By means of German agents Enver Pasha and Talaat Pasha had,
since the spring of 1914, been aware of the Austro-German. plan, i. €.,
an attack oy Austria against Serbia, the intervention by Germany
against France, the passage through Belgium, the occupation of Paris
in a fortnight, the closing of the Straits by Turkey, ana the readiness
of Bulgaria to take action.
The Sultw acknowledged this plot to one of his intimates. It was
indeed nothing but a plot engineered by heads of four States against
the independence of Serbia and the peace of Europe.^
COHCLUSIOHS
1. The war was premeditated by the Central Powers together with
their Allies, Turkey and Bulgaria, and was the result of
acts deliberately committed in order to make it unavoid-
able.
2. Oermany, in agreement with Austria-Hungary, deliberately
worked to defeat all the many conciliatory proposals made
by the Entente Powers and their repeated efforts to avoid war.
1 Memorandiim I of the Serbian Delegation. Chapter II, para. c.
* Memorandum of the Serbian Delegation. L Chapter II, para. c.
* Basrl, 'L'Orlent d6balkanis6/ Chapter II (Paris, 1919).
135546—19 ^21
322 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
II. — ^Violation of the Neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg
A. — Belgium
Germany is burdened by a specially heavy responsibility in
respect of the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxem-
burg. Article 1 of the Treaty of London of the 19th April, 1839,
after declaring that Belgium should form a * perpetually neutral
State/ had placed this neutrality under the protection of Austria,
France, Great Britain, Russia and Prussia. On the 9th August,
1870, Prussia had declared 'her fixed determination to respect
Belgian neutrality.' On the 22nd July, 1870, Bismarck wrote to
the Belgian Minister at Paris, *This declaration is rendered super-
fluous by existing treaties.'
It may be of interest to recall that the attributes of neutrality
were specifically defined by the fifth Hague Convention, of the
18th October, 1907. That Convention was declaratory of the law
of nations, and contained these provisions — *The territory of neutral
Powers is inviolable' (Article 1). * Belligerents are forbidden to
move troops^ or convoys, whether of munitions of war or of supplies,
across the territory of a neutral Power' (Article 2). 'The fact of
a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts against its
neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act' (Article 10).
There can be no doubt of the binding force of the treaties which
guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium. There is equally no doubt
of Belgium's sincerity or of the smcerity of France in their recogni-
tion and respect of tnis neutrality.
On the 29th July, 1914, the day following the declaration of war
. by Austria-Hungary against Serlxia, Belgium put her army on its
reinforced peace strength, and so advisea the rowers by which her
neutrality was guaranteed and also Holland and Luxemburg.*
On the 31st July the French Minister at Brussels visited the
Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs to notify him of the state of war
proclaimed in Germany and he spontaneously made the following
statement: 'I seize this opportunity to declare that no incursion
of French troops into Belgium will take place, even if considerable
forces are massed upon the frontiers of your country. France does
not wish to incur the responsibility, so far as Belgium is concerned,
of taking the first hostile act. Instructions in this sense will be
given to the French authorities.' '
On the 1st August, the Belgian Army was mobilised.'
On the 31st July, the British Government had asked the French
and German Governments separately if they were each of them
ready to respect the neutrality of Belgium, provided that no other
Power violated it.* In notifying the Belgian Government on the
same day of the action taken by the British Government, the
British Minister added : ' In view of existing treaties, I am instructed
to inform the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs of the above,
and to say that Sir Edward Grey presumes that Belgium will do
her utmost to maintain her neutrality, and that she desires and
expects that the other Powers will respect and maintain it.' * The
immediate and quite definite reply of the Belgian Minister of Foreign
•
1 Grey Book I, No. 8. ■ Grey Book I, No. 10.
« Grey Book I , No. '^. « Grey Book I, No. U.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 323'
Affairs was that Great Britain and the other nations guaranteeing
Belgian independence could rest assured that she would neglect no
effort to maintain her neutrality.^
On the same day, Paris and Berlin were officially asked the
Suestion to which reference was made in the British commxmication.
.t Paris the reply was categorical: 'The French Government are
resolved to respect the neutrality of Belgium, and it would only
be in the event of some other Power violating that neutrality that
France might find herself under the necessity, in order to assure
the defence of her own security, to act otherwise/ ^
On the same day as this reply was made at Paris, the French
Minister at Brussels made the following communication to M. Davig-
non, the Belgian Minister of Foreign AflFairs: — *I am authorised
to declare that, in the event of an mternational war, the French
Government, in accordance with the declarations they have always
made, will respect the neutrality of Belgium. In the event of this
neutraUty not being respectea by another Power, the French
Government, to secure their own defence, might find it necessary
to modify their attitude.' '
It was decided that this communication should forthwith be
made to the Belgian press.
Meanwhile the attitude of the German Government remained
enimatic. At Brussels the German Minister, Herr von Below^
made efforts in his discussions to maintain confidence ^ : but at
Berlin, in reply to the question which had been officially asked
by the British Government, the Secretary of State informed the
British Ambassador that 'he must consult the Emperor and the
Chancellor before he could possibly answer.' '
On the 2nd August, in the course of the day, Herr von Below
insisted to the Belgian Minister, M. Davignon, upon the feelings
of security which Belgiimi had the right to entertain towards her
eastern neighbour,' and on the same day, at 7 o'clock in the evening,
he sent him a "very confidential'' note, which was nothing more
than an ultima ttun claiming free passage for German troops through
Belgian territory.'
It was impossible to be under any delusion as to the purely imagi-
nary character of the reason alleged by the German Government
in support of its demand. It pretended that it had reliable infor-
mation leaving "no doubt as to the intention of France to move
through Belgian territory" against Germany, and consequently
had notified its decision to direct its forces to enter Belgium.*
The facts themselves supply the answer to the German allegation
that France injbended to violate Belgian neutrality. According to
the French plan of mobilisation, the French forces were being con-
centrated at that very "moment on the German frontier, and it
was necessary, by reason of the situation created by the Germaii
violation of Belgian territory, to modify the arrangements for their
transport.
In the meantime; at 7 o'clock in the morning of the 3rd August,
at the expiration of the time limit fixed by the ultimatum, Belgium
— — - —
t Orey Book I, No. n. • Blue Book, No« 122.
* Blue Book, No. 125. • Orey Book I, No. 19.
» Grey Book I, No. 16. » Grey Book I, No. 20.
« Grey Book I, No. 19. • Orey Book I, No. 20.
324 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
had sent her reply to the German Minister. Affected neither by
Germany's promises nor her threats, the Belgian Government
boldly declared that an attack upon Belgian independence would
constitute a flagrant violation of mtemational law. "No strategic
interest justifies such a violation of law. The Belgian Government,
if they were to accept the proposals submitted to them, would
sacrifice the honour oi the nation and betray their duty towards
Europe." In conclusion, the Belgian Government declared that
they were "firmly resolved to repel by all the means in their power
every attack upon their rights.'' ^
Even on the 3rd August, Belgium refused to appeal to the guar-
antee of the Powers until there was an actual violation of terri-
tory.^ It was only on the 4th August, after German troops had
entered Belgian territory, that the Belgian Government sent his
Sassports to Merr von Below,' and it then appealed to Great Britain,
"ranee and Russia to cooperate as guaranteeing Powers in the
defence of her territory.*
At this point it may be recalled that the pretext invoked by Ger-
many in justification of the violation of Belgian neutrality, and the
invasion of Belgian territory^ seemed to the German Goveminent
itself of so little weight, that m Sir Edward Goschen's conversations
with the German Chancellor, von Bethmann Hollweg, and with yon
Jagow, the Secretary of State, it was not a question of aggressive
Frencn intentions, but a 'matter of life and death to Germany to
advance through Belgium and violate the latter' s neutrality,' and of
'a scrap of paper.' * Further, in his speech on the 4th August, the
German Chancellor made his well-known avowal: 'Necessity knows
no law. Our troops have occupied Luxemburg, and perhaps have
already entered Belgian territory. Gentlemen^ that is a breach of
international law. . . . We have been obliged to refuse to pay
attention to the justifiable protests of Belgium and Luxeniberg.
The wrong — I speak openly — the wrong we are thereby committing
we will try to make good as soon as our military aims have been
attained. He who is menaced, as we are, and is fighting for his all
can only consider how he is to hack his way through.' To this
avowal of the German Chancellor there is added the overwhelming
testimony of Coimt von Lerchenfeld, who stated in a report of the
4th August, 1914, that the German General Staff considered it 'neces-
sary to cross Belgium: France can only be successfidly attacked from
that side. At the risk of bringing about the intervention of England,
Germany cannot respect Belgian neutrdity.' •
Ab for the Austrian Government, it waited until the 28th August
to declare war against Belgium,^ but as early as the middle of the
month 'the motor batteries sent by Austria have proved their excel-
lence in the battles around Namur,'* as appears from a proclamation
of the German general who at the time was m command of the fortress
of Li6ge, which German troops had seized. Consequently, the par-
» Grey Book I, No. 22.
» Grey Book I, No. 24.
• Grey Book I, No. 30.
. * Grey Book I. No. 42.
• Blue Book, No. 100.
• Stenograpbiacho Berlchte tiber die Verhandluncon des Reichstags, Dlenstag, 4 Aqgust, lOU. Sea
alao E. Mahler. < Des Weltkilegen und das VOlkerrecht,! Berlin, G. Reixner, 1915, pp. 84 et teq.
TGrey Book I, No. 77.
• Grey Book II, No. 101.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 325
ticipation of Austria-Hungary in the violation of Belgian neutrality
is aggravated by the fact mat she took part in that violation without
any previous declaration of war.
B. — Luzernburg
The neutralitv of Luxemburg was guaranteed by Article 2 of the
Treaty of Lond.on, 11th May, 1867, Prussia and Austria-Hungary
being two of the guarantor Powers. On the 2nd August, 1914,
German troops penetrated the territorv of the Grand Duchy. Mr.
Eyschen, Minister of State of Luxemourg, immediately made an
energetic protest.*
The German Government alleged 'that military measures had
become inevitable, because trustworthy news had been received
that French forces were marching on Luxemburg.' This allegation
was at once refuted by Mr. Eyschen.'
coircLTJSioir
The neutrality of Belgium, guaranteed by the Treaties of the 19th
April, 1839, and that of Luxemburg, guaranteed by the Treaty of the
11th May, 1867, were deliberately violated by Germany and Austria-
Hungary.
CHAPTER n.
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR
On the second point submitted by the Conference, the facts as
to breeches of the laws and customs of war committed hy toe forces
of the German Empire and their allies on land, on sea, and in the air,
auring the present war, the Commission has considered a large number
of documents. The Report of the British Commission drawn
up by Lord Bryce, the labours of the French Commission presided
over by M. Payelle, the numerous publications of the Belgian Gov-
ernment^ the Memorandum submitted by the Belgian Delegation,
the Memorandum of the Greek Delegation, the documents lodged
by the Italian Government, the formal denunciation by the Greeks
at the Conference of the crimes committed aeainst Greek popula-
tions by the Bulgars, Turks and Greeks, the Memorandum of the
Serbian Delegation, the Report of the Inter-AUied Commission on
the violations of the Hague Conventions and of international law
in general, committed between 1915 and 1918 by the Bulgars in
occupied Serbia, the summary of the Polish Delegation, together
with the Roimianian and Armenian Memoranda, supply abundant
evidence of outrages of every description committed on land, at
sea, and in the air, against the laws and customs of war and of the
laws of humanity.
In spite of the explicit regulations, of established customs, and of
the clear dictates of humanity, Germany and her allies have piled
outrage upon outrage. Additions are daily and continually being
« Yellow Book, No. 131.
s Telegram to Uie Oerxaan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the 2nd August, 1914.
326 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
made. By way of illustration a certain number of examples have
been collected in Annex I. It is impossible to imagine a list of cases
so diverse and so painful. Violations of the rights of combatants,
of the rights of civilians, and of the rights of both, are multiplied in
this list of the most cruel practices which primitive barbarism, aided
by all the resources of modern science, could devise for the execu-
tion of a system of terrorism carefully planned and carried out to the
end. Not even prisoners, or wounded, or women, or children have
been respected by belligerents who deliberately sought to strike terror
into every heart for the purpose of repressing all resistance. Murders
and massacres, tortures, shields formed of living human beings,
collective penalties, the arrest and execution of hostages, the requisi-
tioning of services for military purposes, the arbitrary destruction of
public and private property, the aerial bombardment of open towns
without there being any regular siege, the destruction of merchant
ships without previous visit and without any precautions for the
safety of passengers and crew, the massacre oi prisoners, attacks on
hospital snips, the poisoning of springs and of wells, outrages and
profanations without regard for religion or the honour of individuals,
the issue of counterfeit money reported by the Polish Government,
the methodical and deliberate destruction of industries with no other
object than to promote German economic supremacy after the war,
constitute the most striking list of crimes that has ever been drawn
up to the eternal shame of those who committed them. The facts
are established. They are numerous and so vouched for that they
admit of no doubt and cry for justice. The Commission, impressed
by their number and gravity, tninks there are good grounds for the
constitution of a special Commission, to collect and classify all outr
standing information for the purpose of preparing a complete list of
the charges under the following heads: —
The following is the list arrived at: —
(1.) Murders and massacres; systematic terrorism.
(2.) Putting hostages to death.
(3.) Torture of civilians.
(4.) Deliberate starvation of civilians.
(5.) Rape.
(6.) Abduction of girls and women for the purpose of* enforced
prostitution.
(7.) Deportation of civilians.
(8.) Internment of civilians under inhuman conditions.
(9.) Forced labour of civilians in connection with the military
operations of the enemy.
(10.) Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation.
(11.) Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants
of occupied territory.
(12.) Attempts to denationalise the inhabitants of occupied
temtory.
(13,) Pillage.
(14.) Confiscation of property.
(15.) Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and
requisitions.
(16,) Debasement of the currency, and issue of spurious
currency.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 327
(17.) Imposition of collective penalties.
(18.) Wanton devastation and destruction of property.
(19.) Deliberate bombardment of undefended places.
(20.) Wanton destruction of religious, charitable, educational,
and historic buildings and monimients.
(21.) Destruction of merchant ships and passenger vessels
without warning and without provision for the safety
of passengers or crew.
(22.) Destruction of fishing boats and of relief ships.
(23.) Deliberate bombardment of hospitals.
(24.) Attack on and destruction of hospital ships.
(25.) Breach of other rules relating to the Red Cross.
(26.) Use of deleterious and asphyxiating gases.
(27.) Use of explosive or expandmg bullets, and other inhiunan
appliances.
(28.) Directions to give no Quarter.
(29.) Ill-treatment of wounded and prisoners of war.
(30.) Employment of prisoners of war on unauthorised works.
(31.) Misuse of flags of truce.
(32.) Poisoning of wells.
The Commission desires to draw attention to the fact that the
offences enumerated and the particulars given in Annex I are not
regarded as complete and exhaustive; to these such additions can
from time to time be made as may seem necessary.
coircLTJSioirs
1. The war was carried on by the Central Empires together with
their allies, Turkey and Bulgaria, by barbarous or illegitimate meth-
ods in yiolation of the established laws and customs of war and the
elementary laws of humanity.
2. A Commission should be created for the purpose of collecting
and classifying systematically all the information already had or to
be obtained, in order to prepare as complete a list of facts as possible
concerning the yiolation of the laws and customs of war committed
by the forces of the German Empire and its Allies, on land, on sea and
in the air, in the course of the present war.
CHAPTER m
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The third point submitted by the Conference is thus stated: —
TTie degree oj responsibility for these offences attaching to far-
ticvJar members of the enemy forces, including members of the
General Staffs and oUier individuals , however highly placed.
For the purpose of dealing with this point, it is not necessary to
wait for proof attaching guiit to particular individuals. It is quite
clear from the information now oefore the Commission that there
are grave charges which must be brought and investigated by a
Court against a number of persons.
328 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
*
In these circumstances, the Commission desire to state expressly
that in the hierarchy of persons in authority, there is no reason why
rank, however exalted, should in any circumstances protect the holder
of it from responsibility when that responsibility has been estab-
lished before a properly constituted tribunal. This extends even to
the case of Heads of States. An argument has been raised to the
contrary based upon the alleged immunity, and in particular the
alleged inviolability, of a Sovereign of a State. But this privilege,
where it is recognised, is one of practical expedience in municipal
law, and is not fundamental. However, even if, in some countries,
a Sovereign is exempt from being prosecuted in a national court of
his own country the position from an international point of view is
quite different.
We have later on in our Report proposed the establishment of
a High Tribunal composed of judges drawn from many nations,
and included the possibility of the trial before that Tribunal of a
former Head of a otate with the consent of that State itself secured
by articles in the Treaty of Peace. If the immunity of a Sovereign
is claimed to extend beyond the limits above stated, it would involve
laying down the principle that the greatest outrages against the laws
and customs of war and the laws of numanity, if proved against him,
could in no circumstances be punished. Such a conclusion would
shock the conscience of civilized mankind.
In view of the grave charges, which may be preferred against —
to take one case — the ex-Kaiser — the vindication of the principles
of the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity which have
been violated would be incomplete if he were not brought to trial
and if other offenders less highly placed were punished. Moreover,
the trial of the offenders might be seriously prejudiced if they at-
tempted and were able to plead the superior orders of a Sovereign
against whom no steps had been or were being taken.
There is little doubt that the ex-Kaiser and others in high authority
were cognisant of and could at least have mitigated the barbarities
committed during the course of the war. A word from them would
have brought about a different method in the action of their sub-
ordinates on land, at sea and in the air.
We desire to say that civil and military authorities cannot be
relieved from responsibility by the mere fact that a higher authority
might have been convicted of the same offence. It will be for the
Court to decide whether a plea of superior orders is sufficient to
acquit the person charged from responsibility.
coircLTJSioir
All persons belonging to enemy conntries, however high their position
may have been, withont distinction of rank, inclnding Chiefs of States,
who have been guilty of offences against the laws and onstoms of war
or the laws of humanity, are liable to criminal prosecution.
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 329
CHAPTER IV
CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF AN APPROPRIATE
TRIBUNAL
The fourth point submitted to the Commission is stated as fol-
lows:— TJie Constitution and Procedure of a Tribunal appro-
riatefor the Trial oftkeae Offences (crimes relating to the war).
On this question the Conunission is of opinion that, having regard
to the naultiplicity of crimes committed by those Powers wnich
a short time before had on two occasions at the Hague protested
their reverence for right and their respect for the principles of
humanity/ the public conscience insists upon a sanction which will
put clearly in the light that it is not permitted cynically to profess
a disdain for the most sacred laws and the most formal undertakings.
Two classes of culpable acts present themselves: —
(a.) Acts which provoked the world war and accompanied its
inception.
(6.) Violations of the laws and customs of war and the laws of
humanity.
(a.) Acts which ProvoTeed the War and Accompanied its Inception
In this class the Conmussion has considered acts not strictly war
crimes, but acts which provoked the war or accompanied its mcep-
tion, such, to take outstanding examples, as the invasion of Luxem-
burg and Belgium.
Tae premeditation of a war of aggression, dissimulated under
a peaceful pretence, then suddenly aeclared under false pretexts,
is conduct which the public conscience reproves and which history
will condemn, but by reason of the purely optional character of
the Institutions at The Hague for the maintenance of peace (Inter-
national Commission of Enquiry, Mediation and Arbitration) a war
of aggression may not be considered as an act directly contrary
to positive law, or one which can be successfully brought before
a tribimal such as the Conunission is authorised to consider under
its Terms of Reference.
Further, any enquiry into the authorship of the war must, to be
exhaustive, extend over events that have happened during many
years in different European countries, and must raise many difficult
and complex problems which might be more fitly investigated by
historians and statesmen than by a tribunal appropriate to the
trial of offenders against the laws and customs of war. The need
of prompt action is from this point of view important. Any tribunal
appropriate to deal with the other offences to which reference is
made might hardly be a good court to discuss and deal decisively
with such a subject as the authorship of the war. The proceedings
and discussions, charges and counter-charges, if adequately and
dispassionately examined, might consume much time, and the
result might conceivably confuse the simpler issues into which the
tribunal will be charged to enquire. While this prolonged investiga-
^— I _ - ~ — ■— . - ■ ■ ■■ — ■ ■ ■
> See the declaration of Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, who, spcaklni; at the Ha^^ue Conference of 1907
with refnrd to siubmarine mines, used the following expressions:— * Military operations are not governed
ulely by stipulations of international law. There are other factors. Conscience, good sense, and the sense
of duty imposed by the principles of humanity will be the surest guides for the conduct of sailors, and will
constitute the most effective guarantee against abuses. The officers of the German Xavy. I loudly pro-
claim it, will alwavs fulfil in the strictest fashion the duties which emanate from the unwritten law of
bamanity and civiUsation.'
330 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
tion was proceeding some witnesses mi^ht disappear, the recollection
of others woidd become fainter and, less trustworthy, offenders
might escape, and the moral effect of tardily imposed punishment
would be much less salutary than if punishment were innicted while
the memory of the wrongs done was still fresh and the demand
for punishment was insistent.
We therefore do not advise that the acts which provoked the war
should be charged against their authors and made the subject of
proceedings before a tribunal.
There can be no doubt that the invasion of Luxemburg by the
Germans was a violation of the Treaty of London of 1867, and abo
that the invasion of Belgium was a violation of the Treaties of 1839.
These Treaties secured neutrality for Luxemburg and Belgium, and
in that term were included freedom, independence and security for
the population living in those countries. They were contra<its made
between the High Contracting Parties to them, and involved an
obligation which is recognised in international law.
The Treaty of 1839 with regard to Belgium and that of 1867 with
regard to Luxemburg were deliberatedly violated, not by some out-
side Power, but by one of the very Powers which had undertaken
not merely to respect their neutrality, but to compel its observance
by any other Power which might attack it. The neglect of its duty
by the guarantor adds to the gravity of the failure to lulfil the under-
taking given. It was the transformation of a secmrity into a peril,
of a defence into an attack, of a protection into an assault. It
constitutes, moreover, the aJ3Solute denial of the independence of
States too weak to interpose a serious resistance, an assault upon the
life of a nation which resists, an assault against its very existence
while, before the resistance was made, the aggressor, in the guise of
tempter, offered material compensations in return for the sacrifice
of honour. The violation of international law was thus an aggrava-
tion of the attack upjon the independence of States which is the funda-
mental principle of international right.
And tnus a nigh-handed outrage was committed upon international
engagements, deliberately, and for a purpose whicn cannot justify
the conduct of those who were responsible.
The Commission is nevertheless of opinion that no criminal charge
can be made against the responsible authorities or individuals (and
notably the ex-Kaisor) on the special head of these breaches of
neutrality, but the gravity of these gross outrages upon the law of
nations and international good faith is such that tne Commission
thinks they should be the subject of a formal condemnation by the
Conference.
coircLTJSioirs
1. The acts which brought about the war should not be charged
against their authors or made the subject of proceedings before a
tribunal.
2. On the special head of the breaches of the neutrality of Luxem-
burg and Belgium, the gravity of these outrages upon the principles
of the law of nations and upon international good faith is such that
they should be made the subject of a formal condemnation by the
Conference.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 331
3. On the whole case, including both the acts which bronght about
the war and those which accompanied its inception, particularly the
yiolation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, it would be
right for the Peace Conference, in a matter so unprecedented, to adopt
special measures, and even to create a special organ in order to deal
as they deserve with the authors of such acts.
4. It is desirable that for the future penal sanctions should be
provided for such grave outrages against the elementary principles
of international law.
(b.) VioicLtions of the Laws and Customs of War and of the Laws of
Humanity
Every belligerent has, according to international law, the power
and authority to try the individuals alleged to be guilty of the
crimes of which an enumeration has been given in Chapter II. on
Violations of the Laws and Customs of War, if such persons have
been taken prisoners or have otherwise fallen into its power. Each
belligerent has, or has power to set up, pursuant to its own legis-
lation, an appropriate tribunal, mihtary or civil, for the trial of
such cases. These courts would be able to try the incriminated
persons according to their own procedure, and much complication
and consequent delay would be avoided which would arise if all
such cases were to be brought before a single tribunal.
There remain, however, a number of charges: —
(a.) Against persons belonging to enemy countries who have com-
mitted outrages against a number of civilians and soldiers of
several AUiea nations, such as outrages committed in prison
camps where prisoners of war of several nations were con-
gregated or the crime of forced labour in mines where pris-
oners of more than one nationality were forced to work;
(6.) Against persons of authority, belonging to enemy countries,
whose orders were executed not onfy in one area or on one
battle front, but whose orders affected the conduct of opera-
tions against several of the Allied armies;
(c.) Against all authorities, civil or mihtary, belonging to enemy
countries, however high their position may have been, with-
out distinction of rank, including the heads of States, who
ordered, or, with .knowledge thereof and with power to inter-
vene, abstained from preventing or taking measures to pre-
vent, putting an end to or repressing, violations of the laws or
customs of war (it being understood that no such abstention
should constitute a defence for the actual perpetrators);
id.) Against such other persons belonging to enemy countries as,
having regard to the character of the offence or the law of
any belHgerent country, it may be considered advisable not
to proceed before a court other than the High Tribunal
hereafter referred to.
For the trial of outrages falling under these four categories the
Commission is of opinion that a High Tribunal is essential and
should be established according to the following plan: —
(1.) It shall be composed of three persons appointed by each of
the following Governments: — ^Tne Unitea States of America,
the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, and one person
appointed by each of the following Governments: Belgium,
332 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEKMANY.
Greece, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, Serbia, and Czecno-
Slovakia. The members shall be selected by each country
from amon^ the members of their national courts or tribunals,
civil or military, and now in existence or erected as indicated
above.
(2.) The tribunal shall have power to appoint experts to assist
it in the trial of any particular case or class of cases.
(3.) The law to be applied by the tribunal shall be ^the principles
of the law of nations as they result from the usages estab-
lished among civilised peoples, from the laws of numanity
and from the dictates of public conscience.'
(4.) When the accused is found by the tribunal to be guilty, the
tribunal shall have the power to sentence him to such
punishment or punishments as may be imposed for such an
oflFence or oflFences by any court in any country represented
on the tribunal or in the country of the convicted person.
(5.) The tribunal shall determine its own procedure. It shall
have power to sit in divisions of not less than five members
and to request any national court to assume jurisdiction
for the purpose of enquiry or for trial and judgment.
(6.) The duty of selecting the cases for trial before the tribunal
and of directing and conducting prosecutions before it shall
be imposed upon a Prosecuting Commission of five members,
of whom one shall be appointed by the Governments of
the United States of America, the British Empire, France,
Italy and Japan, and for the assistance of which any other
Government may delegate a representative.
(7.) Apphcations by any AUied or Associated Government for
the trial before the tribunal of any offender who has not
been delivered up or who is at the oisoosition of some other
AUied or Associated Government shall be addressed to the
Prosecuting Commission, and a national court shall not
proceed with the trial of any person who is selected for
trial before the tribunal, but shall permit such "person to
be dealt with as directed by the Prosecuting Commission.
(8.) No person shall be liable to be tried by a national court for
an oflfence in respect of which charges have been preferred
before the tribunal, but no trial or sentence by a court of
an enemy country shall bar trial and sentence by the tribunal
or by a nationsu court belonging to one of the Allied or
Associated States.
coircLTJsioirs
The Commission has consequently the honour to recommend : —
1. That a High Tribunal be constituted as above set out.
2. That it shall be provided by the Treaty of Peace : —
(a.) That the enemy Governments shall, notwithstanding that
Peace may have been declared, recognise the jurisdiction of
the B'ational Tribunals and the High Tribunal, that all
enemy persons alleged to have been guilty of offences against
the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity shall
be excluded from any amnesty to which the belligerents
may agree, and that the Governments of such persons shall
undertake to surrender them to be tried.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 333
(b.) That the enemy Governments shall undertake to deliver up
and give in such manner as may be determined thereby : —
(i.) The names of all persons in command or charge of or in
any way exercising authority in or over all civilian
internment camps, prisoner-of-war camps, branch camps,
working camps and * commandoes' and other places
where prisoners were confined in any of their dominions
or in territory at any time occupied by them, with
respect to which such information is required, and all
orders and instructions or copies of orders or instructions
and reports in their possession or under their control
relating to the administration and discipline of all such
places in respect of which the supply of such documents
as aforesaid shall be demanded;
(ii.) All orders, instructions, copies of orders and instructions,
Oeneral Staff plans of campaign, proceedings in Vaval
or Military Courts and Courts of Enquiry, reports and
other documents in their possession or under their con-
trol which relate to acts or operations, whether in their
dominions or in territory at any time occupied by them,
which shall be alleged to have been done or carried out
in breach of the laws and customs of war and the laws
of humanity;
(iii.) Such information as will indicate the persons who
committed or were responsible for such acts or opera-
tions ;
(iv.) All logs, charts, reports and other documents relating
to operations by submarines ;
(v.) All orders issued to submarines, with details or scope of
operations by these vessels ;
(vi.) Such reports and other documents as may be demanded
relating to operations alleged to have been conducted
by enemy ships and their crews during the war contrary
to the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity.
3. That each Allied and Associated Government adopt such legis-
lation as may be necessary to support the jurisdiction of the
International Court, and to assure the carrying out of its
sentences.
4. That the five States represented on the Prosecuting Commis-
sion shall jointly approach ITeutral Governments with a view
to obtaining the surrender for trial of persons within their
territories who are charged by such States with violations
of the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity.
334 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
CHAPTER V.
COGNATE MATTERS
Finally, the Commission was asked to consider any other matters
cognate or ancillary to the above which may arise in the course of
the enquiry, and which the Commission finds it useful and relevant
to take into consideration.
Under this head the Commission has considered it advisable to
draft a set of provisions for insertion in the PreUminaries of Peace,
for the assuring in practical form, in accordance with the recom-
mendations at the end of the last chapter, the constitution, the
recognition, and the mode of operation of the High Tribunal, and
of the national tribunals which will be called to try infractions of
the laws and customs of war or the laws of humanity.
The text of these provisions is set out in Annex IV.
March 29, 1919.
United States of America: —
Subject to the reservations set
forth in the annexed Memo-
randum. (Annex II.)
ROBERT LANSING.
JAMES BROWN SCOTT.
British Empire: —
ERNEST M. POLLOCK.
W. F. MASSEY.
France: —
A. TARDIEU.
F. LARNAUDE,
Italy: —
Japan: —
V. SCLA.LOJA.
M. D^AMELIO.
Subject to the reservations set
forth in the annexed Memo-
randum. (Annex III.)
M. ADATCI.
S. TACHI.
Beloittm * '
' ROLIN-JAEQUEMYNS.
Gebecb: —
N, POLITIS.
Poland: —
L. LUBIENSKI.
Roxtmania: —
S. ROSENTAL.
Serbia *"^
SLOBODAN YOVANOVITCH.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 335-
COMMISSION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS
OF THE WAR AND ON ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES
Annex I to the Report op the Commission
(Report pp. 17, 18.)
Summary of Examples of Offences committed by the Authorities or
Forces of the Central Empires and their Allies against the Laws
and Customs of War and the Laws of Humanity.
[Note. — ^As has already been stated in the Report, this tabular
analysis does not bj any means purport to be exhaustive or com-
plete. The object is simply to give a number of typical examples.
The crimes imputable to the Central Empires and^ their allies run
into thousands. The list under each of the heads given below could
be very greatly extended.]
Contents
Page.
1. Murders and massacres; systematic terrorism 29
2. Patting hostages to death 31
3. Torture of civilians 32
4. Deliberate starvation of civilians 33
5. Rape 34
fk Abduction of girls and women for the purpose of enfor(»d prostitution 34
7. Deportation of eivUlans 35
& Internment of civilians under inhuman conditions 36
9. Forced labour of civilians in connection with the military operations of the enemy, and othcr\«1se. 37
10. Usurpation of sovereignty during military occupation 38
11. Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the iimabitants of occupied territory 39
12. \ttempts CO denationabse the inhabitants of occupied territory 39
13. Pillage 40
14. Connscation of property 41
L5. Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions 42
16. Debasement of the currency, and issue of spurious currency 43
17. Imposition of collective penalties 44
Ig. Wanton devastation and destruction of property 44
19. Deliberate bombardment of undefended places 46
20. Wanton destruction of religious, charitable, educational, and historic buildings and monuments. 48
21. Destruction of merchant smps and passenger vessels without warning ana without provision
for the safety of passengers and crew 48
22. Destruction of fishing boats and of rehef ships 50
23. Deliberate bombardment of hospitals 51
21. Attack on and destruction of hospital ships 51
23. Breach ot other rules relating to tne Red Cross 52
26. Use of deleterious and asphyxiating gases 53
27. Uce of explosive and expanding bullets, and other inhuman appliances 53
28. Diiections to g:ive no quarter 54
29. Ill-treatment of prisoners of war 56
30. Employment of prisoners of war on imauthoriaed works 57
31. Misuse of flags of truce 51
32. Poisomng of wells 57
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMANT.
1 |f '
•I M ^
i il I
iF Is il
II
II
III
!
lliil
lllii I I.
iHllittl!
5 ^in J
! !Pl I"
•Is
J?5
I »
-I I
.3 i
[ I I
flillj ^
III
ms.m
' '1 -.6 g
I i ='
! I
\^
ill
«
J
I i
i-
ITU
i
■3
.1
i iiSil
.1
TREATY OF PEACE WITH (
1 11
Ifi
^ 1
■ «.
If
1 -jii
If
!l
II
1 i
i i
II
Hi
II
1"
1 J
1^ i=
1
1
i i M
3 i i i
i i 1
i
1
! 1 !l
1 It
i
w i
TBEATI OP PEACE WITH GEHMAHT.
I = |1
liif
If i I
I U
1 ««
. 1.== II
I* f
ii
III
111
:5 -^l
115
ill'
I
I
3
83
I
Ii
;5ll i I
I !
MB
Plli
iiiifJIiiii
'I
T
"II
■3 -S
II
II
I
Pifi
i
i
I ii
i
P
I- M
ii I
n r
iiii
I
TBEAIT OF PEACE WITH GEBUAHY.
i i :
1 .-I
i 2!
a"
I'
till
II
82
=11,
vigils
■IF
1 1*.
!l I r
981
1 1 i
Mi
|IS|!
Piil
8 ill I
8.1 lis
II
if
I
I
Ij
ll
I
li
1
I
TBEAIY OF PEACE T
iii. !
Ml .
III U
I
ii i; i 11
i I
mi
i! ill
m
Ii. i 11
II
i 11-
III!
M
p
if-
i
ii
I
i I i
I i
J I
|! ji
i I
I 1
Uiifi ^
iiHiili
! I 1 K !■< 1
1
nijii I 1 ! ii
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAN?.
3 I -.1
Is
m
4
II
III
lifi
mil 111
ill
ill
ml
8
i'
5 1 ■
i
s
" ]
E
1
i
1 i
li
i J
1 t
5
I
3 i
s :
K :
1 1
i :
5 ;
- !
-J
il
i
hTm
-I S,'|a2
'' ffi^l 1
ill
f
, -I
I
i 11
illi
Hi
i Si
m
I
I
ili
I
iM.
ii i
! i
n
I"!
ii^ il
■B
1
IJ
i il
; ;;
1
i
..
I
hi
i mm
1.
a ' p I p i? m
!-i 1 to:
11!
i i
; 1
i 1
fj
II
II
ill
ill
111
I. if il4 !
s i I
it!
11
i \
1^ ii
' i
ill
liiil
-
1
h
i
j
t
1
a
■i
fl
p
'i I-
"1 — r
I 1^
-ill
11 i
Wli
i i
ill,
p
! iiiii
I
if
ii
li
Si
s! I
li
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAHT.
1
I
1
1
1
1
■1
1
1
i
'
i i
t
1
til a
Srfs" 4
if II i
4.i|i|5 iiiiip i mm
n i
■til
i 11
!lilSHSIii!
llllilflililillli;!!:-
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH (
ii
If i
W
II h I
! ii Piil I i
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBAIAKY.
1^1
iil
il I
ol5
fll-
Hi
dm»i[B wnw am, dmtiiB rome
1«
t HI
I ill
°3S
111
■2 5
II ii
1 S il
J
ssisl
lull
ell .=*.
T'ii '- ill
Ibfs* i III
si -II I «iS'
!i!ii I ml
iijfl I ml
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
^1m i
I
If
i I
: M 1
I I
s ssss
I . =
2 . si ?J-" 1 a
-I
I i
r.s
■9a2 § 5° 5 ■
If! I U I
II
Is I
i I
I
i I
r
ill
II i
si i
m
IF.
11 1
n
1
ill! iiii i
'fBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERICAITY.
180M6— 19 23
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAUT.
■J
■5
ii
i
*
» -J
E
M M
E3
U . ^K
;
t
:
I
1
.
.
»
t-
0
e-
p
^
^
1
w
i
1
a:
;
?
■S"
D
_j
J
1
2
i
2
&•
2
!)
O
•
i
§
o
s
IE
1
~
i
1
1
m
m
:
^s?«
1
7 > -S S?^^
i ■
«
!^||
;
eIi=I
lii
i
J: Mil
■
i
£
3^
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERUAIIT.
1 II
I
i s
a
ill I
it|fli|
1 III.
I l-'l
3 I sis
I -1^1 i
ac J * » =
I I
I i
•3
1
s
c
>
I
O
i
a'
1
?
S
i
s
i
Hi
\
!
1
I"
«
1
llll
y.tJ
■ SSR -
TREATY OP PEACE WITH
TEEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
= e|
Ill
Ill
Ms
!l?i
ill:
III ;l^
till lill
|t |fii I
is *s«s I
I" |»s" I
si
l!
Iff
III
Sli
- I 'ii
iilJ
lis I
lllllipilttftfli?
sill =;?jsi5^-'= ■'"
mm
Mil i
iilit
|51sl|lltiJpl
Ml Ml I
i' ii'i I!
ij
ir
•II
jiiUiiiUii
1 l-Mni s'l 3 III 1^ '' :J p
'l|gf i f i II
TBEAXT OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKT.
359
n S
o
Q
BS
O
D
•<
75
Z
o
fit,
O
CO
7i
O
at
O
frr
»
>*
o
»^
I
»
8
f ^
Ml — •?»
I ll
g
o
CQ
O
O
H
g
1
T'-ga o g 9
CQ
i4
Pm
O
O
7;
o
OQ
•^
o
I
a
p
IS
^1
r
& —
360 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Annex II. .
Memorandum of Reservations presented by the Representatives of the
United States to the Report of the Commission on Responsihdties,
April 4, 1919.
The American members of the Commission on Responsibilities, in
presenting their reservations to tixe report of the Commission, declare
that they are as earnestly desirous as the other members of tie
Commission that those persons responsible for causing the Great War
and those responsible for violations of the laws and customs of war
should be punished for their crimes, moral and legal. The differences
which have arisen between them and their colleagues lie in the means
of accomplishing this common desire. The American members there-
fore submit to the Conference on the Preliminaries of Peace a memo-
randum of the reasons for their dissent from the report of the Com-
mission and from certain provisions for insertion m Treaties with
enemy countries, as stated in Annex IV, and suggestions as to the
course of action which they consider should be adopted in dealing
with the subjects upon whicn the Commission on Responsibilities was
directed to report.
Preliminary to a consideration of the points at issue and the irre-
concilable differences which have developed and which make this dis-
senting report necessary, we desire to express our hi^h appreciation of
the conciliatory and considerate spirit manifested oy our coUea^es
throughout the many and protracted sessions of the Commision.
From the first of these, held on February 3, 1919, there was an earnest
f>urpose shown to compose the differences which existed, to find a
ormula acceptable to all, and to render, if possible, a unanimous
report. That this purpose failed was not because of want of effort
on the part of any member of the Commission. It failed because,
after all the proposed means of adjustment had been tested with frank
and open minds, no practicable way could be found to harmonise the
differences ^thout an abandonment of principles which were funda-
mental. This the representatives of the United States could not do
and they could not expect it of others.
In the early meetmjgs of the Commission and the three Sub-
Commissions appointea to consider various phases of the subject
submitted to the Commission, the American members declared
that there were two classes of responsibilities, those of a legal
nature and those of a moral nature, that legal offences were jus-
ticiable and liable to trial and punishment by appropriate tribunals,
but that moral offences, however iniquitous and infamous and
however terrible in their results, were bej;ond the reach of judicial
procedure, and subject only to moral sanctions.
While this principle seems to have been adopted by the Com-
mission in the report so far as the responsibility for the authorship
of the war is concerned, the Commission appeared unwilling to
apply it in the case of indirect responsibility for violations of the
laws and customs of war committed after the outbreak of the
war and during its course. It is respectfully submitted that this
inconsistency was due in lar^e measure to a determination to
punish certain persons, high m authority, particularly the heads
of enemy States, even though heads of States were not hitherto
legally responsible for the atrocious acts committed by subordinate
TBBATT OF FBAOE WITH GEBMANY. 361
authorities. To such an inconsistency the American members of
tiie Conmiission were unwilling to assent, and from the time it
developed that this was the unchangeable determination of certain
members of the Conmaission they doubted the possibility of a
unanimous report. Nevertheless, they continued their efforts on
behidf of the adoption of a consistent basis of principle, appreciating
the desirability of unanimity if it coidd be attained. That their
efforts were futile they deeply regret.
With the manifest purpose of trying and punishing those persons
to whom reference has oeen maae, it was proposed to create a
high tribunal with an international character, and to bring before
it those who had been marked as responsible, not only for directly
ordering illegal acts of war, but for having abstained from preventing
such illegal acts.
Appreciating the importance of a judicial proceeding of this
nature, as well as its novelty, the American Representatives laid
before the Commission a memorandum upon the constitution and
procedure of a tribimal of an international character which, in
their opinion, should be formed by the union of existing national
military tribimals or conmiissions of admitted competence in the
premises. And in view of the fact that 'customs' as well as 'laws'
were to be considered, they filed another memorandum, attached
hereto, as to the principles which should, in their opinion, guide
the Commission in considering and reporting on this subject.
The practice proposed in the memorandum as to the military com-
missions was in part accepted, but the purpose of constituting a high
tribimal for the trial of persons exercising sovereign rights was
{>ersisted in, and the abstention from preventing violations of the
aws and customs of war and of humanity was insisted upon. It
was frankly stated that the prnpose was to Ibring before this tribunal
the ex-Kaiser of Germany, and that the jurisdiction of the tribunals
must be broad enough to include him even if he had not directly
ordered the violations.
To the unprecedented proposal of creating an international
criminal tribunal and to the doctrine of negative criminality the
American members refused to give their assent.
On January 25, 1919, the Conference on the Preliminaries of
Peace in plenary session recommended the appointment of a Com-
mission to examine and to report to the Conference upon the follow-
ing five points: —
1. The responsibility of the authors of the war.
2. The facts as to the violations of the laws and customs of war
committed by the forces of the German Empire and its
allies, on land, on sea, and in the air during the present
war.
3. The degree of responsibility for these crimes attaching to
particular members of the enemy forces, including mem-
oers of the General Staffs, and other individuals, however
highly placed.
4. The constitution and procedure of a tribunal appropriate for
the trial of these offences.
5. Any other matters cognate or ancillary to the above points
which may arise in the course of the enquiry, and which
the Commission finds it useful and relevant to take into
consideration.
362 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMA19T.
The conclusions reached by the Commission as to the responsi-
bility of the authors of the war, with which the Representatives of
the United States agree, are thus stated: —
The war was premeditated by the Central Powers, together with
their Allies, Turkey and Bulgaria, and was the result of acts
deliberately committed in order to make it unavoidable.
Germany, in agreement with Austria-Hungary, deliberately
worked to defeat all the many conciliatory proposals made by
the Entente Powers and their repeated efforts to avoid war.
The American Representatives are happy to declare that they not
only concur in these conclusions, but also in the process of reasoning
by which they are reached and justified. However, in addition to
the evidence adduced by the Commission, based for the most part
upon official memoranda issued by the various Governments in
justification of their respective attitudes towards the Serbian ques-
tion and the war which resulted because of the deliberate determina-
tion of Austria-Hungary and Germany to crush that gallant little
country which blocked the way to the Dardanelles and to the realisa-
tion of their larger ambitions, the American Representatives call
attention to four documents, three of which have been made known
by His Excellency Milenko R, Vesnitch, Serbian Minister at Paris.
Ctf the three, the first is reproduced for the first time, and two of the
others were only published during the sessions of the Commission.
The first of these documents is a report of Von Wiesner, the Austro-
Hungarian agent sent to Serajevo to investigate the assassination at
that place on Jxme 28, 1914, of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand,
heir to the Austro-Hungarian Throne, and the Duchess of Hohen-
bersr, his morganatic wife.
TTie material portion of this report, in the form of a telegram, is as
follows : —
^'Herrvon Wiesner , to the Foreign Ministrij, Vienna.
''Serajevo, July IS, 1914, l-W p. m.
''Cognizance on the part of the Serbian Government, participation
in the murderous assault, or in its preparation, and supplying the
weapons, proved by nothing, nor even to be suspected. Chi the con-
trary there are indications which cause this to be rejected.*' ^
The second is likewise a telegram, dated Berlin, July 25, 1914, from
Coimt Szoegeny, Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at Berlin, to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs at Vienna, and reads as follows: —
"Here it is generally taken for granted that in case of a possible
refusal on the part of Serbia, our immediate declaration of war will
be coincident with military operations.
"Delay in begmning mUitary operations is here considered as a
great danger because of the intervention of other Powers.
^HtTTv. mesntran MinUUtium dt8 Aeussernin H'kn.
Sxrajivo, 13. Juli 1914^ t.tOp. m.
Mit^vl«9cnschaft serbischcr Rc^icnmp, Lcilimg an Attentat odcr do^«cn Vorberciding und IleislcUung
dcr WafTcn, durch cichts erwiesm oder auch nur zu vermuten. Es hestehtn viclmelir Anbalupunkte,
dies als ausgcschlosscn anzusehin.
TBBATT OF FEACB WITH GEBMAKY. 368
*^We are imently advised to proceed at once and to confront the
world with a /Si< accompliJ^ *
Tlie third, likewise a teleeram in cipher, marked '^strictly confi-
dential/' and dated Berlin, SyXj 27, 1914, two days after the Serbian
reply to the Anstro-Hungarian ultimatum and the day before the
Austro-Hungarian declaration of war upon that devoted kingdom,
was from the Austro-Himgarian Ambassador at Berlin to the Min-
ister of Foreign AflFairs at Vienna. The material portion of this
document is as follows: —
'*The Secretary of State informed me very definitely and in the
strictest confidence that in. the near future possible proposals for
mediation on the part of England would be brought to Your Excel-
lencv's knowledge by the German Government.
''The German Government gives its most binding assurance that
it does not in any way associate itself with the proposals; on the con-
trary, it is absolutely opposed to their consideration and only trans-
mits them in compliance with the English request.'' '
Of the English propositions, to \raich reierence is made in the
above telegram, the lollowing may be quoted, which, imder date
July 30, 1914, Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, telegraphed to Sir Edward Goschen, British Ambassador at
Berlin: —
*'If the peace of Europe can be preserved, and the present crisis
safely passed, my own endeavour will be to promote some arrange-
ment to which Germany could be a party, by which she could T)e
assured that no aggressive or hostile policy would be pursued against
her or her allies by France, Russia, and ourselves, jointly or
separately." '
while comment upon these telegrams would only tend to weaken
their force and effect^ it may nevertheless be observed that the last
of them was dated two days before the declaration of war by Ger-
many against Russia, which might have been prevented, had not
Germany, flushed witn the hope of certain vi<itory and of the fruits
of conquest, determined to force the war.
The report of the Conunission treats separately the violation of
the neutrality of Belgium and of Luxemburg, and reaches the
conclusion, in which the American Representatives concur, that
the neutrality of both of these countries was deliberately violated.
The American Representatives believe, however, that it is not enough
to state or to hcdd with the Conunission that *Hhe war was pre-
meditated by the Central Powers," that ''Germany, in agreement
1 OrofSzoeoenp an MlnMer des Aeutsfrn in Wien.
(MS.) Berfin,i5.JuliW4.
HJer wird allgemein voraos^esetst, dass auf erentaelle abweisende Antwort Bertteos sofort unserc
Kri«;wrkUnixiq verbunden mlt lolegischen Operationen erfolf^en werde.
Man sieht hier m ieder Verr^Sgemng des Beginnes der kriegenschen Operatioxien grosse Gefahr betrefls
Einmischung anderer MSchte.
Man rat uns drlngendst sofort vonugehen und Welt vor einfait accompli ca stellen.
* OrafSzoeffenp an 3^nisterium du Aewsem in lilen.
(307, Streng TertraiiUch.) . Berlin, S7, J di 1914.
3t»it39ekretar erkl&rte mlr in streng vertraulicher Form sehr entschleden, dasa in der nAchsten Zeit
erentoelle Vermittlungsvorschliige Englands durch die deutsohe Regierung sur Kenntnis Euer Exc.
gebrachtwOrden.
Die dentsche Re?:ienmg rersichere aaf das Btlndigste, daat He eieh in keiner Weise wit den VorachUgen
tit iH^fire, 99sar entschieden gegen derer Beriicksichtigung sei, und dieselt en nur, um der engllschen
Bitte Recnnung m tragen, weitergebe.
* British Parliamentary Paners, "Miscellaneous, No. 10 (1915)," "Collected Documents relating to the
Outbreak of the European War," p. 78.
864 TREATY OF FBACB WITH GBBMANY.
with Austria-Hungary, deliberately worked to defeat all the many
conciliatory proposals made by the Entente Powers and their repeated
efforts to avoid war," and to declare that the neutrality of Belgixim,
fuaranteed by the Treaty of the 19th of April, 1839, and that of
iuxemburg, guaranteed oy the Treaty of tne 11th of May, 1867,
were dehberatdy violated by Germany and Austria-Himgary.
They are of the opinion that these acts should be condemned m
no uncertain terms and that their perpetrators should be held up
to the execration of mankind.
II
The second question submitted by the Conference to the Com-
mission requires an investigation of and a report upon 'the facts
as to breaches of the laws and customs of war committed by the
forces of the German Empire and their Allies, on land, on sea, and
in the air, during the present war/ It has been deemed advisable
to quote again the exact language of the submission in that it is at
once the authority for and the limitation of the investigation and
report to be made by the Commission. Facts were to be gathered,
but these facts were to be not of a general but of a very specific
kind, and were to relate to the violations or 'breaches of the laws
and customs of war.' The duty of the Commission was, therefore,
to determine whether the facts found were violations of the laws
and customs of war. It was not asked whether these facts were
violations of the laws or of the principles of humanity. Nevertheless,
the report of the Commission does not, as in the opinion of the
American Representatives it should, confine itself to the ascertain-
ment of the facts and to their violation of the laws and customs of
war, but, going beyond the terms of the mandate, declares that the
facts found and acts committed were in violation of the laws and
of the elementary principles of humanity. The laws and customs
of war are a standjard certain, to be foimd in books of authority
and in the practice of nations. The laws and principles of humanity
vary with the individual, which, if for no other reason, should
exclude them from consideration in a court of justice, especially one
charged with the administration of criminal law. The American
Representatives, therefore, objected to the references to the laws
ana principles of humanity, to be found in the report, in what they
believed was meant to be a judicial proceeding, as, in their opinion,
the facts foimd were to be violations or breaches of the laws and
customs of war, and the persons singled out for trial and punish-
ment for acts committed during the war were only to be those
persons guilty of acts which shoidd have been committed in violation
of the laws and customs of war. With this reservation as to the
invocation of the principles of humanity, the American Representa-
tives are in substantial accord with the conclusions reached by the
Commission on this head that:
1. The war was carried on by the Central Empires, together with'
their Allies, Turkey and Bulgaria, by barbarous or illegiti-
mate methods in violation of the established laws and
customs of war and the elementary principles of humanity.
IBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAJfTY. 365
2. A Commission should be created for the purpose of collecting
and classifying systematically all the information already
had or to be ob tamed, in order to prepare as complete a list
of facts as possible concerning the violations oi the laws
and customs of war committed by the forces of the German
Empire and its aUies, on land, on sea, and in the air, in
the course of the present war.
However, in view of the recommendation that a Commission be
appointed to collect further information, the American Repre-
sentatives believe that they should content themselves with a mere
expression of concurrence as to the statements contained in the
report upon which these conclusions are based.
Ill
The third question submitted to the Commission on Responsibili-
ties requires an exprsesion of opinion concerning "the degree of
responsibility for these o£Fences attaching to particular members of
the enemy forces, including members of the General Staffs, and other
individuals, however highly placed." The conclusion which the Com-
mission reached, and which is stated in the report, is to the effect that
"all persons belonging to enemy countries, however high their posi-
tion may have been, without distinction of rank, induding Cniefs
of States, who have been guilty of offences against the laws and cus-
toms of war or the laws oi humanity, are liable to crimintd prosecu-
tion." The American Representatives are unable to agree with this
conclusion, in so far as it subjects to criminal, and, therefore, to legal
prosecution, persons accused of offences against " the laws of human-
ity," and in so far as it subjects Chiefs of States to a degree of re-
sponsibility hitherto imknown to municipal or international law, for
which no precedents are to be foxmd m the modem practice of
nations.
Omitting for the present the question of criminal liability for
offences against the laws of humanity, which will be considered in
connection with the law to be administered in the national tribunals
and the Hight Court, whose constitution is recommended by the
Commission; and hkewise reserving for discussion in connection with
the High Court the question of the liability of a chief of State to crim-
inal prosecution, a reference may properly be made in this place to
the masterly and hitherto unanswerea opinion of Chief Justice Mar-
shall, in the case of the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon and Others
(7 Cranch, 116), decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
in 1S12, in which the reasons are given for the exemption of the
sovereign and of the sovereign agent of a State from judicial process.
This does not mean that the head of the State, whetner he be called
emperor, king, or chief executive, is not responsible for breaches of
the law, but that he is responsible not to the judicial but to the
political authority of his country. His act may and does bind his
country and render it responsible for the acts which he has committed
in its name and its behalf, or under cover of its authority; but he
is, and it is submitted that he should be, only responsible to his coun-
try, as otherwise to hold would be to subject to foreign countries, a
cmef executive, thus withdrawing him from the laws of his country,
even its oiganic law, to which he owes obedience, and subordinating
366 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
him to foreign jurisdictions to which neither he nor his country owes
allegiance or obedience, thus denying the very conception of sov-
ereignty.
But the law to which the head of the State is responsible is the
law of his countrv, not the law of a foreign country or group of
countries ; the triounal to- which he is responsible is the tribunal
of his country, not of a foreign country or group of countries, and
the punishment to be inflicted is the punishment prescribed by the
law m force at the time of the commission of the act, not a punish-
ment created after the commission of the act.
These observations the American Representatives believe to be
applicable to a head of a State actuaUnr in office and engaged in
the performance of his duties. They do not apply to a head of
a State who has abdicated or has been repudiated by his people.
Proceedings against him might be wise or unwise, but in any event
they would be against an individual out of office and not against
an mdividual in office and thus in effect against the State.
The American Representatives also believe that the above
observations apply to liability of the head of a State for violations
of positive law m the strict and legal sense of the term. They are
not intended to apply to what may be called political offences and
to political sanctions.
These are matters for statesmen, not for judges, and it is for
them to determine whether or not the violators of the Treaties
fuaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium and of Luxemburg should
e subjected to a poUtical sanction.
However, as questions of this kind seem to be beyond the man-
date of the Comerence, the American Representatives consider it
unnecessary to enter upon their discussion.
IV
The fourth question calls for an investigation of and a report
upon *^the constitution and procedure of a tribunal appropriate for
the trial of these offences." Apparently the Conference had in mind
the violations of the laws and customs of war, inasmuch as the
Commission is required by the third submission to report upon
^Hhe degree of responsibihty for these offenses attaching to par-
ticular members oi the enemy forces, including members of the
General Staffs and other individuals, however hi^y placed." The
fourth point relates to the constitution and procedure of a tribunal
appropriate for the investigation of these crimes, and to the trial
and punishment of the persons accused of their commission, should
they be found guilty. The Commission seems to have been of the
opinion that the tribunal referred to in the fourth point was to
deal with the crimes specified in the second and third submissions,
not with the responsibility of the authors of the war, as appears
from the following statement taken from the report: —
On the whole case, including both the acts which brought about
• the war and those which accompanied its inception, particu-
leu'ly the violation of the neutraUty of Luxemburg and of Bel-
giiun, the Conunission is of the opinion that it would be right
for the Peace Conference, in a matter so unprecedented, to adopt
special measures, and even to create a special organ in order
to deal as they deserve with the authors of such acts.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAITY. 367
This section of the report, however, deals not only with the laws
and customs of war — improperly adding ''and of the laws of hu-
manity"— ^but also with the ''acts which provoked the war and
accompanied its inception," which either m whole or in jpart would
appear to fall more appropriately imder the first submission relating
to the "responsibility of the authors of the war."
Of the acts which provoked the war and accompanied its incep-
tion, the C!ommission, with special reference to the violation of the
neutrality of Luxemburg and of Belgium, says: "We therefore do
not advise that the acts which provoked the war should be charged
against their authors and made the subject of proceedings beK)re
a tribimal." And a little later in the same section the report con-
tinues: "The C!ommission is nevertheless of opinion that no criminal
charge can be made against the responsible authorities or individuals,
and notably the ex-Kaiser, on the special head of these breaches
of neutrality, but the ^avity of these gross outrages upon the law
of nations and international good faith is such that the Ciommission
thinks they should be the subject of a formal c<mdem7uUion by the
Conference,'* The American Representatives are in thorough accord
with these views, which are thus formally stated in the first two
of the four conclusions tmder this heading: —
The acts which brought about the war should not be chained
against their authors or made the subject of proceedings belore
a tribunal.
On the special head of the breaches of the neutrality of Luxemburg
and Belgium, the gravity of these outrages upon the principles
of the law of nations and upon international good faith is such
that thev should be made the subject of a formal condemnation
by the Conference.
K tne report had stopped here, the American Representatives
would be able to concur in the conclusions under this heading and
the reasoning by which they were justified, for hitherto the authors
of war, however unjust it may be in the form of morals, have
not been brought before a court of justice upon a criminal charge
for trial and punishment. The report spjecincally states: (1) That
"a war of aggression may not be considered as an act directly
contrary to positive law, or one which can be successfully brought
before a tribunal such as the Commission is authorised to consiaer
under its Terms of Reference"; the Commission refuses to advise
(2) "that the acts which provoked the war should be charged
against their authors and made the subject of proceedings belore
a tribunal"; it further holds (3) that "no criminal charge can be
made against the responsible authorities or individuals, and notablv
the ex-Kaiser, on the special head of these breaches of neutraUty.
The American Representatives, accepting each of these statements
as sound and imanswerable, are nevertheless unable to agree with
the third of the conclusions based upon them: —
On the whole case, including both the acts which brought about
the war and those which accompanied its inception, particu-
larly the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxem-
burg, it would be right for the Peace Conference, in a matter
so unprecedented, to adopt special measures, and even to create
a special organ in order to deal as they deserve with the authors
of such acts.
368 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QBRMAKY.
The American Representatives believe that this conclusion is
inconsistent both with the reasoning of the section and with the
first and second conclusions, and that ''in a matter so imprece-
dented/' to quote the exact language of the third conclusion, they
are relieved irom comment and criticism. However, they ooserve
that, if the a^ts in question are criminal in the sense that they are
punishable under law, they do not understand why the report
should not advise that these acts be pimished in accordance with
the terms of the law. If, on the other nand, there is no law making
them crimes or affixing a penalty for their commission, they are
moral, not legal, crimes, and the American Representatives fail to
see the advisabiUty or indeed the appropriateness of creating a
special or^an to deal* with the authors of such acts. In any event,
tne organ in question should not be a judicial tribunal.
In order to meet the evident desire of the Commission that a
special organ be created, without however doing violence to their
own seniles in the premises, the American Representatives pro-
posed—
The Commission on ResponsibiUties recommends that : —
1. A Conmxission of Inquiry be established to consider generally
the relative culpability of the authors of the war and also
the question of their culpabiUty as to the violations of the
laws and customs of war committed during its course.
2. The Commission of Inquiry consist of two members of the
five following Powers: United States of America, British
Empire, France. Italy, and Japan; and one member from
each of the five f ollowmg Powers : Belgium, Greece, Portugal,
Roumaina, and Serbia.
3. The enemy be required to place their archives at the disposal
of the Commission which shall forthwith enter upon its
duties and report jointly and separately to their respective
Governments on the llth November, 1919, or as soon there-
after as practicable.
The Commission, however, failed to adopt this proposal.
The fourth and final conclusion under this heading declares it to
be '^desirable that for the future penal sanctions shomd be provided
for such grave outrages against the elementar;^ principles of inter-
national law.*' With this conclusion the American Representatives
find themselves to be in substantial accord. They beUeve that
any nation going to war assumes a grave responsibiUt^, and that
a nation enagaging in a war of aggression commits a crime. They
hold that the neutrality of nations should be observed, especially
when it is guaranteed by a treaty to which the nations violating it
are parties, and ^at the plighted word and the good faith of nations
should be faithfully observed in this as in all other respects. At
the same time, given the difficulty of determining whether an act
is in reality one of aggression or of defence, and given also the
difficulty 01 framing penal sanctions, where the consequences are
so great or may be so great as to be incalculable, they nesitate as
to the feasilibity of this conclusion, from which, however, they are
unwilling formally to dissent.
With the portion of the report devoted to the ''constitution and
procedure of a tribunal appropriate for the trial of these offences/'
the American Representatives are unable to agree, and their views
TREATY OF PBAGE WITH QEBMANY. 369
differ so fundamentally and so radically from those of the Com-
mission that they found themselves obliged to oppose the views of
their colleagues m the Commission and to dissent from the state-
ment of those views as recorded m the report. The American
Representatives, however, a^ee with the introductory paragraph
of this section, in which it is stated that ''every belligerent has,
according to international law, the power and authority to try the
individuals alleged to be guilty of the crimes" constituting violations
of the laws and customs of war, ''if such persons have oeen taken
Prisoners or have otherwise fallen into its power/' The American
Lepresentatives are likewise in thorough accord with the fu/ther
provisions that ''each belligerent has, or has power to set up, pur-
suant to its own legislation, an appropriate tribunal, military or
civil, for the trial of such cases." The American Representatives
concur in the view that "these courts would be able to try the
incriminated persons according to their own procedure," ana also
in the conclusion that "much complication and consequent delay
would be avoided which would arise if all such cases were to be
brought before a single tribunal," supposing that the single tribunal
could and should be created. In fact, these stat^ements are not only
in accord with but are based upon the memorandum submitted by
the American Representatives, advocating the utilisation of the
militarv commissions or tribunals either existing or which could be
created in each of the belligerent countries, with jurisdiction to pass
upon offences s^ainst the laws and customs of war committed .by
the respective enemies.
This memorandum already referred to in an earlier paragraph is
as follows: —
1. That the military authorities, being charged with the interpreta-
tion of the laws and customs oi war, possess jurisdiction to
determine and punish violations thereof;
2. That the miUtary jurisdiction for the trial of persons accused of
violations of tne laws and customs of war and for the punish-
ment of persons found guilty of such offences is exercised by
military tribunals;
3. That the jurisdiction of a military tribunal over a person
accused of the violation of a law or custom of war is acquired
when the offence was committed on the territory of the nation
creating the military tribunal or when the person or property
injured by the offence is of the same nationality as the mil-
itary tribunal;
4. That the law and procedure to be applied and followed in deter-
mining and punishing violations of the laws and customs of
war are the law and the procedure for determining and pun-
ishing such violations established by the mihtary law of the
country against which the offence is committed; and
5. That in case of acts violating the laws and customs of war
involving more than one country, the mihtary tribunals of
the countries affected may be united, thus forming an inter-
national tribunal for the trial and punishment of persons
charged with the commission of such offences.
In a matter of such importance affecting not one but many coun-
tries and calculated to ififluence their future conduct, the American
Representatives believed that the nations should use the machinery
135546—19 24
370 TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
at hand, which had been tried and found competent, with a law and
a procedure framed and therefore known in advance, rather than to
create an international tribxmal with a criminal jurisdiction for which
there is no precedent, precept, practice, or procedure. They further
believed that, if an act violating the laws and customs of war com-
mitted by the enemy affected more than one country, a tribunal could
be formed of the countries affected by uniting the national commis-
sions or courts thereof, in which event the tribunal would be formed
by the mere assemblage of the members, bringing with them the law
to be applied, namely, the laws and customs of war, and the procedure,
namely, tJie procedure of the national conmussions or courts. The
American Representatives had especially in mind the case of Henry
Wirz, commandant of the Comederate prison at Andersonville,
Georeia, during the war between the States, who after that war was
tried by a miUtery commission, sitting in the city of Washington, for
crimes contrary to the laws and customs of war, convicted thereof,
sentenced to be executed; and actually executed on the 11 th Novem-
ber, 1865.
While the American Representatives would have preferred a
national military conmiission or court in each country, for which
the Wirz case furnished ample precedent, they were willing to con-
cede that it might be advisable to have a conmiission of representa-
tives of the competent national tribimals to pass upon charges, as
stated in the report: —
(a) Against persons belon^g to enemy coimtries who have com-
mitted outrages against a number of civihans and soldiers
of several Allied nations, such as outrages committed in
prison camps where prisoners of war of several nations were
congregated or the crime of forced labour in mines where
prisoners of more than one nationality were forced to work.
(b) Against persons of authority, belonging to enemy countries,
whose orders were executed not only m one area or on one
battle front, but whose orders affected the conduct towards
several of the Allied armies.
The American Representatives are, however, unable to agree that
a mixed commission thus composed should, in the language of the
report, entertain charges •— . .
(c) Against all authorities, civil or military, belonging to enemy
coimtries, however high their position may have been, w^ith-
out distinction of rank, including the Heads of States, who
ordered, or, with knowledge thereof and with power to inter-
vene, abstained from preventing or taking measures to pre-
vent, putting an end to or repressing, violations of the laws
or customs of war, it being understood that no such absten-
tion shall constitute a defence for the actual perpetrators.
In an earlier stage of the general report, indeed, until its final
revision, such persons were declared liable because they 'abstained
from preventing, putting an end to, or repressing, violations of the
laws or customs of war. To this criterion of liability the American
Representatives were \inalterably opposed. It is one thing to
punish a person who committed, or, possessing the authority,
ordered others to commit an act constituting a crime; it is quite
another thing to punish a person who failed to prevent, to put an
end to, or to repress violations of the laws or customs of war. In
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 371
one case the individual acts or orders others to act, and in so doing
commits a positive offence. In the other he is to be punished for
the acts of others without proof being given that he knew of the
commission of the acts in question or that, knowing them, he
could have prevented their conmiission. To establish responsibility
in such cases it is elementary that the individual sought to be
punished should have knowledge of the commission of the acts of
a criminal nature and that he should have possessed the power as
well as the authority to prevent, to put an end to, or repress them.
Neither knowledge of commission nor ability to prevent is alone
sufficient. The auty or obligation to act is essential. They must
exist in conjunction, and a standard of liabilitv which does not
include them all is to be rejected. The difficulty in the matter
of abstention was felt by the Commission, as to make abstention
punishable might tend to exonerate the person actually committing
the act. Therefore the standard of liability to which the American
Representatives objected was modified in the last sessions of the
Commission, and the much less objectionable text, as stated above,
was adopted and substituted for the earher and wholly in admis-
sible one.
There remain, however, two reasons, which, if others were lacking,
would prevent the American Representatives from consenting to
the tribunal recommended by the Commission. The first of these
is the uncertainty of the law to be administered, in that liability
is made to depend not only upon violations of the laws and customs
of war, but also upon violations ^of the laws of humanity.' The
second of these reasons is that Heads of States are included within
the civil and military authorities of the enemy countries to be tried
and punished for violations of the laws and customs of war and
of the laws of humanity. The American Representatives believe
that the Commission has exceeded its mandate in extending liability
to violations of the laws of humanity, inasmuch as the facts to be
examined are solelv violations of the laws and customs of war.
They also believe that the Commission erred in seeking to subject
Heads of States to trial and punishment by a tribunal to .whose
jurisdiction they were not subject when the alleged offence were
committed.
As pointed out by the American Representatives on more than
one occasion, war was and is by its very nature inhuman, but acts
consistent with the laws and customs of war, although these acts
are inhuman, are nevertheless not the object of punishment by
a court of justice. A judicial tribunal only deals with existing law
and only administers existing law, leaving to another forum infrac-
tions of the moral law and actions contrary to the laws and principles
of humanity. A further objection lies in the fact that the laws and
principles of humanity are not certain, varying with time, place,
and circumstance, and according, it may be, to the conscience of
the individual JTudge. There is no fixed and universal standard
of humanity. The law of humanity, or the principle of humanity,
is much like equity, whereof John Selden, as wise and cautious as
he was learned, aptly said:
** Equity is a roguish thing. For Law we have a measure, know
what to trust to; Equity is according to the conscience of him that
is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is Equity. 'Tis
372 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a
**foot'' a Chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this
be: One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third
an indifferent foot. Tis the same thing in the ChanceDor's con-
science/'
While recognising that offences against the laws and customs of
war might be tried before and the perpetrators punished by national
tribunals, the Commission was of the opinion that the graver charges
and those involving more than one countrv should be tried before
an international body, to be called the High Tribunal, which ** shall
be composed of three persons appointed by each of the foDowing
Governments: — ^The United States of America, the British Empire,
France, Italy, and Japan, and one person appointed by each of the
following Governments: Belgium, Greece, roland, Portugal, Rou-
mania, Serbia, and Czecho-Slovakia''; the members of this tribunal
to be selected by each country **from among the members of their
national courts or tribunals, civil or military, and now in existence
or erected as indicated above/' The law to be applied is declared by
the Commission to be *Hhe principles of the law of nations as they
result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the
laws of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience/' The
punishment to be inflicted is that which may be imposed ''for such
an offence or offences by any court in any coimtry represented on
the tribunal or in the country of the convicted person. The cases
selected for trial are to be determined and the prosecutions directed
by **a prosecuting commission" composed of a representative of the
United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and
Japan, to be assisted by a representative of one of the other Govern-
ments, presumably a party to the creation of the court or repre-
sented in it.
The American Repreaentatives felt very strongly that too great
attention could not be devoted to the creation of an international
criminal court tot the trial of individuals, for which a precedent is
lacking, and which appeare to be unknown in the practice of nations.
They \^ere of the opinion that an act could not be a crime in the
legal sense of the word, unless it were made so by law, and that the
commission of an act declared to be a ciime by law could not be
punished unless the law prescribed the penalty to be inflicted. They
were perhaps, more conscious than their colleagues of the difficulties
involved, inasmuch as this question was one that had arisen in the
American Union composed of States, and where it had been held in
the leading case of united States v. Hudson (7 Cranch 32), decided
by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1812, that '*the legis-
lative autnority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix
a punishment to it, and declare the court shall have jurisdiction of
the offence." What is true of the American States must be true
of this looser union which we call the Society of Nations. The
American Representatives know of no international statute or con-
vention making a violation of the laws and customs of war — ^not to
speak of the laws or principles of humanity — an international crime,
affixing a punishment to it, and declaring the court which has juris-
diction over the offence. They felt, however, that the difficidty,
however great, was not insurmountable, inasmuch as the various
States have declared certain acts violating the laws and customs of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 373
war to be crimes , affixing pumshments to their commission , and
providing nulitary courts or commissions within the respective States
possessing jurisdiction over such offence. They were advised that
each of the Allied and Associated States could create such a tribimal,
if it bad not already done so. Here then was at hand a series of
existing tribtmal or tribunals that could lawfully be called into exist-
ence in each of the Allied or Associated cotmtnes by the exercise of
their sovereign powers, appropriate for the trial and punishment
within their respective jurisdictions of persons of enemy nationality,
who during the war committed acts contrary to the laws and customs
of war, in so far as such acts affected the persons or property of their
subjects or citizens, whether such acts were committed within portions
of their territory occupied by the enemy or by the enemy within its
own jurisdiction.
The American Representatives therefore proposed that acts affect-
ing the persons or property of one of the Allied or Associated Govern-
ments snould be triea by a military tribunal of that country; that
acts involving more than one country, such as treatment by Germany
of prisoners contrary to the usages and customs of war, could be
tried bj a tribunal either made up of the competent tribimals of the
countries affected or of a commission thereof possessing their
authority. In this way existing national tribunals or national com-
missions which could legally be called into being would be utilised,
and not only the law and the penalty would be already declared, but
the procedure would be settlea.
It seemed elementary to the American Representatives that a
countiT could not take part in the trial and punishment of a viola-
tion of the laws and customs of war committed by Germany and
her Allies before the particular coimtry in question had become a
partv to the war against Germany and ner AUies; that consequently
the tlnited States could not institute a military tribunal within its
own jurisdiction to pass upon violations of the laws and customs of
war, unless such violations were committed upon American persons
or American property, and that the United States could not properly
take part in tne trial and punishment of persons accused of violations
of the laws and customs of war committed by the military or civil
authorities of Bulgaria or Turkey.
Under these conditions and with these limitations the American
Representatives considered that the United States might be a party
to a High Tribunal, which they would have preferred to call, because^
of its composition, the Mixed or United Trbunal or Commission.
They were averse to the creation of a new tribunal, of a new law, of a
new penalty, which would be ex post facto in nature, and thus contrary
to an express clause of the Constitution of the United States and in
conflict with the law and practice of civilised communities. They
believed, however, that the United States could co-operate to this
extent by the utilisation of existing tribimals, existing laws, and
existing penalties. However, the possibility of co-operating was
frustrated by the insistence on the part of the majority that criminal
liability should, in excess of the mandate of the Conference, attach
to the laws and principles of humanity, in addition to the laws and
customs of war, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court should be
specifically extended to " the heads of States."
374 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBRMAlSrY.
In regard to the latter point, it will be observed that the American
Representatives did not deny the responsibility of the heads of
States for acts which they majr have committed in violation of
law, including, in so far as their country is concerned, the laws
and customs of war, but they held that heads of States are, as
agents of the people, in whom the sovereignty of any State resides,
responsible to the people for the illegal acts which they may have
committed, and that they are not and that they should not be made
responsible to any other sovereignty.
The American Representatives assumed, in debating this ques-
tion, that from a legal point of view the people of every mdependent
coimtry are possessed of sovereignty, and that that sovereignty
is not held in that sense by rulers; that the sovereignty whi^ is
thus possessed can sunmion before it any person, no matter how
high nis estate, and call upon him to render an account of his
official stewardship; that tne essence of sovereignty consists in
the fact that it is not responsible to any foreign sovereignty; that
in the exercise of sovereign powers wnich have been conferred
upon him by the people, a monarch or head of State acts as their
agent; that ne is only responsible to them; and that he is respon-
8U)le to no other people or group of people in the world.
Tlie American Representatives admitted that from the moral
point of view the head of a State, be he termed emperor, king, or
chief executive, is responsible to mankind, but that from the legal
point of view they expressed themselves as unable to see how any
member of the Commission could claim that the head of a State
exercising sovereign rights is responsible to any but those who have
confided those rights to him by consent expressed or implied.
The majority of the Commission, however, was not influenced
by the legal argument. They appeared to be fixed in their deter-
mination to try and punish by judicial process the "ex-Kaiser"
of Germany. That there might be no doiibt about their meaning,
they insisted that the jurisdiction of the High Tribimal whose
constitution they recommended should include the heads of States,
and they thereiore inserted a provision to this effect in express
words in the clause dealing with the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
In view of their objections to the imcertain law to be applied,
varying according to the conception of the niembers of the High
Court as to the laws and principles of humanity, aiid in view abo
of their objections to the extent of the proposed jurisdiction of that
tribimal, the American Representatives were constrained to decline
to be a party to its creation. Necessarily they declined the proffer
on behalf of the Commission that the United States should take part
in the proceedings before that tribunal, or to have the United States
represented in the prosecutine commission charged with the "duty
of selecting the cases for triid before the tribimal and of directing
and conducting prosecutions before it.'' They therefore refrained
from taking further part either in the discussion of the constitution
or of the procedure of the tribunal.
It was an ungracious task for the American Representatives to
oppose the views of their colleagues in the matter of the trial and
punishment of heads of States, when they believed as sinceirely and
as profoundly as any other member that the particular heads of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 375
States in question were morall;^ guilty, even if they were not punish-
able before an international tribunal, such as the one proposed, for
the acts which they themselves had committed or with whose com-
mission by others they could be justly taxed. It was a matter of
great regret to the American Representatives that they found them-
selves subjected to criticism, owing to their objection to declaring
the laws and priaciples of hiunanity as a standard whereby the acte
of their enemies should be measured and punished by a judicial
tribunal. Their abhorrence for the acts of the heads of States of
enemy countries is no less genuine and deep than that of their col-
leagues, and their conception of the laws and principles of hiunanity
is, they believe, not less enlightened than that of their colleagues.
They considered that they were dealine solely with violations oi the
laws and customs of war, and that mey were engaged under the
mandate of the Conference in creatine a tribunal in wnich violations
of the laws and customs of war should be tried and pimished. They
therefore confined themselves to law in its legal sense, believing that
in so doing they accorded with the mandate of submission, ana that
to have ]>ermitted sentiment or popular indignation to affect their
judgment would have been violative of their duty as members of
the Conunission on Responsibilities.
They submit their views, rejected by the Commission, to the Con-
ference, in full confidence that it is only through the administration
of law, enacted and known before it is violated, that justice may
ultimately prevail internationally, as it actually does between indi-
viduals in £dl civilised nations.
Memorandum on the Principles which should Determine Inhuman and
Improper Acts of War
To determine the principles which should be the standard of
justice in measuring the charge of inhuman or atrocious conduct
uuring the prosecution of a war, the following propositions should
be ccmsiderM : —
1. Slaving and maiming of men in accordance with generally
accepted nues of war are from their nature cruel and contrary to
the modem conception of humanity.
2. The methods of destruction of life and property in conformity
with the accepted rules of war are admitted by civilised nations to
be justifiable and no charge of cruelty, inhumanity, or impropriety
lias against a party emplojring such methods.
3. The principle underlying the accepted rules of war is the nec-
oessity of exercising physical force to protect national safety or to
maintain national nghts.
4. Reprehensible cruelty is a matter of degree which cannot be
justly determined by a fixed line of distinction, but one which
fluctuates in accordance with the facts in each case, but the mani-
fest dmarture from accepted rules and customs of war imposes
upon the one so^ departing the burden of justifying his conduct,
as he is prima facte guiltj of a criminal act.
5. The test of guilt m the perpetration of an act, which would
be inlranittn or otherwise reprehensible under normal conditions,
is the necessity of that act to the protection of national safety or
national rights measured chiefly by actual military advantage.
376 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
6. The assertion by the perpetrator of an act that it is necessary
for military reasons does not exonerate him from guilt if the facts
and circmnstances present reasonably strong grounds for establishing
the needlessness oi the act or for believing tnat the assertion is not
made in good faith.
7. Whfle an act may be essentially reprehensible and the per-
petrator entirely unwarranted in assmning it to be necessary from
a military point of view, he must not be condemned as wilfully
violating the laws and customs of war or the principles of humanity
imless it can be shown that the act was wanton and without reasonable
excuse.
8. A wanton act which causes needless suffering (and this includes
such causes of suffering as destruction of property, deprivation of
necessaries of life, enforced labour, &c.) is cruel and criminal. The
full measure of guilt attaches to a party who without adequate
reason perpetrates a needless act of cruelty. Such an act is a crime
against civilisation, which is without palliation.
9. It would appear, therefore, in determining the criminality of
an act, that there should be considered the wantonness or malice
of the perpetrator, the needlessness of the act from a military point
of view, tne perpetration of a justifiable act in a needlessly harsh
or cruel manner, and the improper motive which inspired it.
Robert Lansiko.
James Brown Scott.
Annex III
Reservations by (he Japanese Delegation
The Japanese Delegates on the Commission on Responsibilities are
convinced that many crimes have been committed by the enemy in
the course of the present war in violation of the fundamental prin-
ciples of international law, and recognise that the principal respon-
sibility rests upon individual enemies in high places. Thev are
.consequently of opinion that, in order to re-establish for the future
the force of the principles thus infringed, it is important to discover
practical means for the punishment of the persons responsible for
such violations.
A question may be raised whether it can be admitted as a principle
of the law of nations that a High Tribunal constituted by belligerents
can, after a war is over, try an individual belonging to the oppoeite
side, who may be presumed to be guilty of a crime against the la;ws
and customs of war. It may further be asked whether intemationcd
law recognises a penal law as applicable to those who are guilty.
In any event, it seems to us important to consider the consequ^xces
which would be created in the nistory of international law by the
Erosecution for breaches of the laws and customs of war of enemy
eads of States before a tribunal constituted by the opposite party.
Our scruples become still greater when it is a question of indieting
before a tribunal thus constituted highly-placed enemies on the
sole ground that they abstained from preventing, putting an end
to, or repressing acts in violation of the laws and customs of war,
as is provided in clause (c) of section (&) of Chapter IV.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 377
It is to be observed that to satisfy public opinion of the justice of
the decision of the appropriate tribunal, it would be better to rely
upon a strict interpretation of the principles of penal liability, and
consequently not to make cases of abstention the basis of such
responsibility.
In these cu'ciunstances the Japanese Delegates thought it possible
to adhere, in the course of the discussions m the Commission, to a
text which would eliminate from clause (c) of section (h) of Chapter
IV both the words * including the heads of States,' and the provision
covering cases of abstention, but they feel some hesitation in sup-
poiting the amended form which admits a criminal liability where
the accused, with Imowledge and with power to intervene, abstained
from preventing or taking measures to prevent, puttmg an end to,
or repressing acts in violation of the laws and customs of war.
The Japanese Delegates desire to make clear that^ subject to the
above reservations, tney are disposed to consider with the greatest
care every suggestion calculatea to bring about unanimity in the
CommiBsion.
M. Adatci.
S. Tachi.
Apbil 4, 1919.
Annex IV.
Provisions for Insertion in Treaties wiOi Enemy Governments
Article I.
The Enemy Government admits that even after the conclusion
of peace, every Allied and Associated State may exercise, in respect
of any enemy or former enemy, the right which it would have nad
during the war to try and punish any enemy who fell within its
power and who had Deen guilty of a violation of the principles of
the law of nations as these result from the usages established among
civilised peoples, from the laws of humanity and from the dictates
of public conscience.
Article II.
The Enemy Government recognises the right of the Allied and
Associated States, after the conclusion of peace, to constitute a
High Tribunal composed of members named by the Allied and
Associated States in duch numbers and in such proportions as they
may think proper, and admits the jurisdiction of such tribunal to
try and punish enemies or former enemies guilty during the war of
violations of the principles of the law of nations as these result from
the usages established among civilised peoples, from the laws of
humanity and from the dictates of public conscience. It aCTees
that no trial or sentence by any of its own courts shall bar trial and
sentence by the High Tribunal or by a national court belonging to
one of the Allied or Associated States.
378 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANT.
Article III.
The Enemy Government recognises the right of the High Tribunal
to impose upon any person found guilty the punishment or punish-
ments which may be imposed for such an oflfense or offences by
any court in any country represented on the Hi^h Tribunal, or in
the country of the convicted person. The Enemjf Government will
not object to such punishment or punishments being carried out.
Article IV
The Enemy Government agrees, on the demand of any of* the
Allied or Associated States, to take all possible measures for the
purpose of the delivery to the designated authority, for trial by
the High Tribunal or, at its instance, by a national court of one of
such ^lied or Associated States, of any person alleged to be guilty
of an offence against the laws and customs of war or the laws of
humanity who may be in its territory or otherwise under its direc-
tion or controK No such person shall in any event be included in
any amnesty or pardon.
Article V
The Enemy Government agrees, on the demand of any of the
Allied or Associated States, to furnish to it the name of any person
at any time in its service who may be described by reference to his
duties or station during the' war or by reference to any other
description which may make his identification possible and further
agrees to furnish sucn other information as may appear likely to
be useful for the purpose of designating the persons who may be
tried before the High Tribunal or before one of the national courts
of an Allied or Associated State for a crime against the laws and
customs of war or the laws of humanity.
Article IV
The Enemy Government agrees to furnish, upon the demand of
any Allied or Associated State, all General Staff plans of campaign,
oraers, instructions, reports, logs, charts, correspondence, proceed-
ings of courts, triounals or investigating bodies, or sucn other
documents or classes of documents as any Allied or Associated
State may request as being likely to be useful for the purpose of
identifying or as evidence for or against any person, and upon
demand as aforesaid to furnish copies of any such documents.
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY.
TUESDAY, ATJGTJST 12, 1919.
United States Senate,
commntee on foreign relations,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjourmnent, at 10.30 o'clock
a. m., in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodfije (chairman), McCumber, Brandegee, Fall,
Harding, New, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams, Swanson, Pomerene, and
Pittman.
STATEXEIT OF MB. DATID HUVTEB HILLEB.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order and I will ask
Mr. Miller to take the stand. Mr. Miller, will you give your full name,
please, to the steno^apher ?
Mr. Miller. David Hunter Miller.
The Chairman. You are now in the State Department 1
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; special assistant in the Department of State.
The Chairman. You are a lawyer ?
Mr. Miller. T^s.
The Chairman. Will you give the name of your firm in New York?
Mr. Miller. Miller & Auchincl6ss.
The Chairman. You were in Paris, were you not ?
Mr. Miller. I was.
The Chairman. And in what position there ?
Mr. Miller. I went to Paris in November, attached to the mission
of Col. House, which was then in Paris. When the American com-
miasioix to negotiate peace arrived in Paris, I was attached to the
American commission as one of the two techincal advisers, or legal
advisers, of the commission.
The Chairman. As one of the legal advisers of the commission ?
Mr. MiLLSB. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It was after the armistice that you arrived in Paris ?
Mr. Miller. I arrived in Paris on the 19th of November. I left
before the armistice, and arrived there after the armistice.
Senator Brandeoee. What year i
Mi. Millkr. 1918.
The Chairman. As one of the legal advisers of our commissioners,
did vou have any part in drafting the American plan for the league ?
Mi. Miller. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, by ' 'American plan'' do
you mean the plan which is printed in the Congressional Record t
870
380 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAITT.
The Chairman. The plan which was submitted by the President
yesterday as the American plan, which is printed in the Congressional
Record, of which I handed you a copy.
Mr. Miller. I think not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You were not consulted about the drafting of the
covenant of the league at all }
Mr. Miller. Well, I was consulted about the drafting of the
covenant, but your former question related to the American plan.
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I had submitted memoranda before I saw that plan,
but I was not
The Chairman. You mean you had submitted memoranda to the
. American commissioners?
Mr. Miller. My recollection is that I submitted one memorandum
to Col. House before the commission arrived in Paris, and that,
together with Dr. James Brown Scott, I submitted another memo-
randum to the commission after they arrived in Paris.
The Chairman. Those memoranda related to the covenant of the
league ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir; they related to a league of nations.
The Chairman. They were suggestions for a league covenant ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you see the resolution which Mr. Lansing
drafted, which he put in here yesterday, the purpose being to lay
down the principles upon which the covenant of the league should
be drafted?
Mr. Miller. I am not certain as to whether I did or not, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know what became of that resolution of
Mr. Lansing's, or what action was taken upon it ?
Mr. Miller. I do not.
The Chairman. When the commission arrived you submitted the
memoranda in relation to the league?
Mr. Miller. Only one memorandum. I think, after the com-
mission arrived.
The Chairman. Was there a draft then made of the covenant of
the let^ue by the commission ?
Mr. MiLLEii. Not that I know of, sir.
The Chairman. This plan that the President sent in yesterday —
where did that come from ?
Mr. Miller. I suppose it came from the President. I saw it in
printed form, as I recollect, in Paris.
The Chairman. You saw it then for the first time ?
Mr. Miller. After it was printed.
The Chairman. After it was printed — and did you have any dis-
cussion in regard to it?
Mr. Miller. I discussed it with Col. House.
The Chairman. Was that plan that you then saw the same as the
one in the printed form ? I do not expect you to cover every detail,
of course, but generally, was it the same?
Mr. Miller. I have looked at it very hastily. It appears to me
to be the same.
The Chairman. After that was submitted to you in printed form,
I mean after it was shown to you in printed form by the President,
there Were no changes made in it ?
TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 381
Mr. Miller. I do not quite understand.
The Chairman. I understood you to sa;^ that you first saw this
plan in printed fornix laid before the commission by the President.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. And I wanted to find out whether it was sub-
stantially the same. You think it was the same ?
Mr. Miller. I think the plan that I saw was the same as this
plan which is printed in the record, although I have not read this
with enough care to be positive as to that point.
The ChSIirman. No changes were made by the commission in the
plan submitted by the President ?
Mr. Miller. Not that I know of. There was a subsequent draft
submitted to the commission on the league of nations.
The Chairman. But this draft that we have here was not the
draft submitted }
Senator Brandegee. Submitted to whom?
The Chairman. To the commission on the league of nations
appointed by the peace conference.
Mr. Miller. I did not say that, or at least I did not intend to say
that.
The Chairman. What became of this plan ?
Mr. Miller. I think it was submitted to the other members of the
commission. '
The Chairman. Of the American commission?
Mr. Miller. Of the commission on the league of nations.
The Chairman. The commission on the league of nations appointed
by the peace conference ?
Mr. Miller. I believe so. I did not personally have anything to
do with that.
The Chairman. I had understood that you had some part in
drafting the lea^e of nations as it finally appeared.
Mr. Miller. I did.
The Chairman. That is, as reported by the commission ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you appear before that commission ?
Mr. Miller. I was present at its meetings — that is, at the meetingt
of the commission on the league of nations of the peace conference.
The Chairman. That was composed of hoiv many persons ?
ilr. Miller. At the beginning it was composed of, I think, 15
persons, but after two or three meetings four other powers were
represented, so that it became composed of 19 persons.
The Chairman. And that was the commission which drafted the
covenant of the league as it now appears ?
Mr. Miller. It was.
The Chairman. Were the American plan and the Italian plan and
the British plan and the French plan all submitted to that commis-
sion?
Mr. Miller. I believe they were.
The Chairman. What became of the other plans ? Do you knov ?
The President stated to us at the White House in March that the
British plan was submitted as the foundation. That is, were the
other plans withdra".^Ti, or were they simply laid aside ?
Mr. Miller. No; they were not laid aside. They were there.
382 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANT.
The Chairman. They took the British plan as the foundation for
the work of the league commission^ did they ?
Mr. Miller. No. The plan that was taken as the basis of dis-
cussion
The Chairman. Yes; that is what I mean
Mr. Miller. Was not the British plan.
The Chairman. Whose plan was it ?
Mr. Miller. I think it was a combination of various features of
various plans.
Senator Pittman. Mr. Chairman, I was present at the irifeeting at
the White House to which you refer, and I want to go on record a&
saying that my memory does not serve me to the extent of remem-
bering that the President stated that the British plan was taken as
the foundation for the formation of the league. I understood the
President to say at that time that it appeared that it was possibly
more nearly like the British plan than others, but I certainly did not
understandf him to say that the British plan was taken as the plan.
The Chairman, I understood him to say that there were these four
Elans; that they were in agreement on the fundamental principles,
ut that the British plan was the basis of the covenant subsequently
develooed. That is what I understood him to say.
Mr. Miller. I did not understand it that way.
Senator Brandeoee. I want to add my recollection of that meet-
ing, because I am very positive about it. I made a statement about
it at the time, the next day after the President talked with us; and
my recollection of what he said is clear and positive, to the effect that
he said that the plan proposed by Gen. Smuts was the plan that had
been mostly before the commission, and that while that had not been
adopted just as presented, it fiu*nished a basis for the plan that was
finally adopted.
Senator Williams. A skeleton structure.
Senator Brandegee. Yes; words to that effect. He certainly
mentioned the fact that the plan proposed by Gen. Smuts was the
plan that the commission used in buildine up what turned out to be
their report in favor of a covenant for a league of nations, and that
the American plan and the other plans had been laid aside or put
aisde. He dia not say whether there had been any formal vote
taken upon that or not. He said that the Italian plan had not been
a complete plan, but was more of a skeleton of principles than it
was a detailed plaii.
Mr. Miller. It was more a statement in the nature of a statement
of principles.
Senator McCumber. I wanted to ask the witness whether it was
his imderstanding that the plan that was proposed by Gen. Smuts
was the plan that was followed to a greater extent than any other ?
Mr. Miller. The plan that was proposed by Gen. Smuts was
printed. It was available to anyone, prmted, I think, in the paper,
as well as in a pamphlet. The plan that was taken as a basis of
discussion bv the commission was a plan which was modeled, to some
extent, on tne other plans, but was not the Gen. Smuts plan itself.
Senator McCl^mber. When you speak of the British plan, do you
mean to be understood as speaking of the Gen. Smuts plan ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, generally; although I think there was another
British pamphlet which embodied it.
TBEAT7 OF FEAOE WITH GERMANY. 383
Senator McCuMBER. But generally, when you speak of the
British plan, you refer to the plan submitted by Gen. Smuts, do you ?
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Senator McCumber. I ask that in order that I may understand
your testimony.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to interrupt
your examination. I simply want to ask the witness one question,
and then I will hand him back to you.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. Miller, you speak of being present at the
proceedings of the commission, which was a committee, I suppose,
of the dekgates who were represented at the peace conference. It
was called a commission, but was really a committee of that body
was it not, comp^ed of 15 persons?
Mr. Miller. We would probably call it a committee, but they
call it a commission over there.
Senator Brandegee. I get the idea.
Mr. Miller. Of 19 members.
Senator Brandegee. It was another name for what we would call
a committee here ?
Mr. Miller. They call it a commission when it is rather lao^e.
Senator Brandegee. Very good. You said you were present
there while they considered the formulation of the plan which they
finally proposed?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. What I wanted to know was, did you
regularly attend their meetings? Were you present at all of them
or the greater part of them, or only once or twice ?
Mr. Meller. I was present at all of them. I was not a member
of the commission.
Senator Bra'ndegee. I understand that. You were there as an
adviser?
Mr. Miller. As legal adviser of the President; yes, sir.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will pardon me just a
m<»nent, as we appear to be making records here
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Fall. My reason for declining to attend this conference
at the White House which the other Members have testified that they
attended is brought out by the records which have been made here
this morning. I felt that we woiild differ in our recollection of what
occurred, that there woiild be various opinions of what occurred, and
that that difference would possibly be embarrassing both to the
Senate committee and to the JPresident of the United States, and that
was one of the reasons why I declined to attend that conference at
the White House.
The Chairman. Is it not true, Mr. Miller, that comparison shows
that a good deal of the covenant, as now presented, was exactly like
what was printed in this Smuts plan ?
Mr. Mm^R. I think some of it is, but I would not say that a good
deal of it is exactly like it.
Senator Hitchcock. Is the present league a sort of composite of
various plans that were submitted ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Senator; and it is the composite of previous
ideas also, such as the so-called Bryan peace treaties.
384 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBSCANY.
The Chairman. You mean those arbitration treaties of Mr. Bryan?
Mr. Miller. I mean the 30 treaties which were negotiated by Uie
United States Grovemment, of which 20 were ratified by the Senate.
The Chairman. Those were very brief treaties and dealt with only
one thing.
Mr. Miller. True, Mr. Chairman, but the principle of those trea-
ties is very similar to one of the principles of the covenant.
The Chairman. One of the principles of the covenant? Surely
those Bryan treaties do not cover all the things in the covenant 1
Mr. Miller. Oh, no; I did not intend so to state, of course.
Senator HrroHoocK. You are referring to the provisions of the
covenant which prohibit war within three months after the period
of arbitration or investigation by the council 1
Mr. Miller. I refer to that, Senator. The so-called treaties for
the advancement of peace do not provide for compulsory arbitration.
Neither does the covenant. They do provide for an international
inquiry into any cause of difference whatsoever, in the most sweeping
language, without any exception. There is a similar provision in the
covenant. They contain a covenant not to go to war pending that
inoruiry. There" is a similar provision in the covenant.
The treaties for the advance of peace provide that the international
commission shidl have one year in wnich to conduct its inquiry.
The covenant makes that period six months.
The international commissions provided by the treaties for the
advancement of peace are composed of five members, of which only
one could be an American. That is very similar to the provision
for inquiry by the council, on which the United States is represented
byonetnember.
Some of the treaties for the advancement of peace provide for &
further period of six months after the report of the commission
in which the parties agree not to go to war, and the treaties for the
advancement of peace provide that the report of the international
commission may be made by a majority. The covenant provides
that only in the case of a report which is unanimous, except for the
parties, is there an agreement not to go to war.
The treaties for the advancement oi peace reserve liberty of action
after the report, subject to six montns' exception in some cases,
which I have mentioned, and the covenant is similar except in the
one case of the report which is unanimous, aside from the parties,
in which there is a covenant not to go to war against a state which
accepts the ananimous recommendation.
The Chairman. Were not the Byron treaties substantially arbitra-
tion treaties?
Mr. Miller. I do not think so, at all.
The Chairman. Do you think they established a league of nations )
Mr. Miller. I do not.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. Miller, what did you say your law firm's
name was ?
Mr. Miller. Miller & Auchincloss.
Senator Brandegee. Is that all of it?
• Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. What Auchincloss is that? What is his first
name?
Mr. Miller. Gordon.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAISTY. 385
Senator Brandeoee. Does he hold any position abroad now?
Mr. Miller. I believe not. He was in the State Department and
resigned on the 1st of Julv.
Senator Brandeoee. He has been abroad^ has he not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. What was he doing there?
Mr. Miller. He was private secretary to Col. House.
Senator Brandeoee. Is he related to Col. House?
Mr. Miller. He is his son-in-law.
Senator Brandeoee. And your partner ?
Mr. Miller. I so stated.
Senator Brandeoee. What has been your experience as an inter-
national lawyer?
Mr. Miller. 1 have been connected with the State Department
since the United States went into the war, or shortly afterwards.
Senator Brandeoee. In what capacity?
Mr. Miller. As special assistant of tlie Department of State.
Senator Brandeoee. Before you went into the State Department
what had been your experience as an international lawyer?
Mr. Miller. I had a general practice in New York. To some ex-
tent it was European.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, I mean advising commissions of dif-
ferent countries ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Your firm had a general law practice in New
York?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Had you personally had any special exper-
ience as an international lawyer representing Governments before
commissions, making treaties, or anything of that kind?
Mr. Miller. Not prior to my entrance into the State Department.
Senator Brandeoee. What Is the name of your position that you
occupied when you sat with the commission on the covenant of the
league? What did you call yourself, or what were you called?
Mr. Miller. I was technical adviser of the American commission
to negotiate peace.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know who reconmiended you for that
post?
Mr. Miller. I do not. I was appointed by Secretary Lansing. I
had been appointed by him about a year previously on a committee
consisting of Mr. Lester H. Woolsey, the oohcitor of the Department
of State, Dr. James Brown Scott, and myself, to prepare data of a legal
nature in anticipation of peace negotiations. Tnat coimnittee worked
in Washington — I do not remember exactly the time; but for about
a year previous to the arrival of the American commission in Paris.
Senator Brandeoee. You are not related to Col. House, are you ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you Imow who prepared the American
plan that the President is said to have taken to Europe with him, the
draft for a plan for a league of nations ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir. I do not know that he did take such a plan.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know whether there had been pre-
pared for the President by any New York lawyers a plan for a loa;j:ue
of nations which the President had seen ?
135546—19 ^25
386 TBBAT7 OF PEAOB WITH OBBMAISrT*
Mr. Miller. I have no knowledge of that.
Senator Brandegee. I have been told by New York lawyers that
they had seen such a plan and that they luiew who drew it.
flow many plans, or suggestions, or resolutionis, or prospectuses
for plans were presented by any American interests or any Americans
for consideration by the commission of the plenary conference which
was considering the covenant of the league of nations ?
Mr. Miller. Could I have that repeated ?
Senator Brandegee. How many drafts for a league of nations
were presented by anybody to the commission which was considering
the draft for a covenant for a league of nations in behalf of America ?
You have spoken of several yourself.
Mr. Miller. I have spoken of two.
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I do not know of any others.
Senator Brandegee. You kno .v that Secretary Lansing presented
a resolution, do you not?
Mr. Miller. I do not know to whom he presented it.
Senator Brandegee. He stated that he presented it to the Ameri-
can commission; not to the committee or commission that was
considering the draft in behalf of the peace conference, but to the
American commission.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know anything about that ?
Mr. Miller. Senator, you spoke a moment ago about the commis-
sion of the plenary conterence. You are now speaking of the Amer-
ican commission.
Senator Brandegee. I am speaking of both. I want to know, if
your recollection serves you about it, now manj; plans or suggestions
were presented either to the American commission, our five commis-
sioners, of which the President was the head, and Col. House was next
in rank, and Secretary Lansing was a member — how many American
drafts or plans or suggestions were presented to the official commis-
sion that was considermg the formation of a covenant for a league of
nations as an agency of the peace conference ?
Mr. Miller. So far as tne American commission to negotiate
peace was concerned and the plans submitted to it, I have mentioned
aU that I know about it, Senator, except that I suppose that a great
many plans were presented by writers on the subject and sent to the
commission. The volume of such matter was very large.
Senator Brandegee. Was article 10, as it is now embodied in the
proposed covenant for the league of nations in the treaty of Ver-
sailles, in any of these so-called American plans of propositions ?
Mr. Miller. As it now stands I
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I think not.
Senator Brandegee. Was the subject of our guaranteeing the
territorial integrity or political independence of menipers of the league
phrased in that way in any of the American propositions 1
The Chairman. I will at this point read into the record Article III
of the plan sent to the Senate by the President — the American plan.
[Reading:]
The contracting powers undertake to respect and to protect as against external
aggression the pohtical independence and territonal integrity of all States members of
the league.
TKKATY OF I'EACK WITH GERMANY. 387
That is the whole of the article. It is in the American plan which
the President sends ns.
Senator Brandegee. You are familiar with that, are you not, Mr.
Miller, that Senator Lodge has just read?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. In your opinion, as a technical expert for the
commission, are not those two provisions substantially the same ?
Mr. Miller. This provision s
Senator Brandegee. The one that Senator Lodge just read and
the one that is in the treaty, article 10.
Mr. Miller. I think there is considerable difference between
article 10 and Article III, which the chairman has just read from the
Congressional Record of yesterday.
Senator Brandegee. Well, I would be glad to have your idea of
the diflFerence.
The Chairman. Let me read article 10 so that they may be side
by side [reading]:
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all meml era
of the league.
That is the first sentence of article 10. I will repeat Article III
[reading]:
The contracting powers undertake to respect and to protect as against external
aggression the political independence and territorial integrity of all States members of
the league.
Senator Brandegee. Now, you may answer, Mi\ Miller.
Mr. Miller. Well, the first sentence of article 10 differs from
article 3 in containing the word *' existing,'' and otherwise in
phraseology.
Senator Brandegee. Will you pardon me there a minute. You
interpret the words '' existing political independence'' to mean
existmg political independence that may exist at the time the treaty
is ratified, if it is ratified. The treaty speaks from the date of its
ratification, does it not ?
ilr. Miller. The treaty goes into force when ratified by certain
powers as therein provided.
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Mr. Miller. As to *' existing political independence" I think it
would relate back to the date of signature.
Senator Brandegee. I do not get you.
Mr. Miller. As to *' existing," I think it would relate back to the
dat« of signature.
Senator Swanson. I understand the treaty when ratified goes
back to the date of signature.
Senator Brandegee. I want to get the witness's idea. He is the
international lawyer of the commission. Suppose the treaty is
signed at different dates by the different signatories. Then what
does "existing" mean?
Senator Hitchcock. They were all signed the same date.
Senator Brandegee. Please let me examine him. You will have
plenty of time.
Senator Hitchcock. I thought possibly you used language you
did not intend. You said ^'ratify.''
388 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Brandegee. No; I did not. He said the word "exist-
ing" relates back to the date of signature. Now, I asked him if the
signatures
Senator HrrcHCOCK. You are supposing an impossibility.
Senator Brandegee. What do you niean by signatures? Signa-
tures by whom ?
Mr. Miller. By the contracting parties.
The Chairman.^ On the 28th of June.
Senator Brandegee. You think that the word "existing" relates
back to that time?
Mr. Miller. I do.
The Chairman. The 28th of June ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Of course, China has not signed the treaty
yet, and we have not signed.
Mr. Miller. The United States has signed it.
Senator Brandkgee. Yes. Now, I do not know whether bounda-
ries have been changed or will have been changed between the date
of the signatTire of f ne treaty and the date of the proclamation that
it has been duly ratified by the different nations; but, however that
may be, it refers to the boundaries as defined by the treaty, of course.
Those are the boundaries to be maintained and preserved, are they
not?
Mr. Miller. Not necessarily.
Senator Brandegee. Well, can these boundaries be changed no'sv,
after the treaty has been ratified by Great Britain, in your opinion,
by the peace commission?
Mr. Miller. Certainly. Tliere are a great many boundaries that
are not described.
Senator Brandegee. No; I am talking about the boundaries that
are described.
Mr. Miller.' Your question is. Can a boimdary be changed after
the treaty goes into force ?
Senator Brandegee. I asked you first if the boundaries to be
preserved by the signatories of the treaty are the boundaries as
described in the treaty. I assumed of course that thev were. "Wliat
do you say to that. Are they or are they not ?
Mr. Miller. It is the territorial integrity of the members of the
league — the boundaries of manv members of the league are not
described in the treaty at all.
Senator Brandegee. I ask you if the territorial integrity vrhich
we are asked to guarantee ancl preserve is the territory as defined
by boundaries fixed in the treaty where boundaries are fixed in the
treaty ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, at present.
Senator Brandegee. You do not think that the peace conference,
or what is left of it now, can make any change in the boundaries that
are defined in the treaty, do you?
Mr. Miller. Not without the consent of all the parties to the treaty.
Senator Brandegee. There woidd have to be a new treaty, would
there not?
Mr. Miller. A new agreement, certainly.
Senator Brandegee. 1 am moved to ask that because Mr. Davis,
the financial expert, the other day, if I understood his testimony
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 389
correctly, seemed to be under the impression that one of the fruits
in the covenant of the league was that if any mistake had been made
about fixing a boimdary m the treaty it could be corrected by the
league or the council of the league. You do not think that could be
done, do you ?
ilr. MiixEB. Well, there are certain of the boimdaries in the treaty
which are not definitely fixed, which are fixed subject to plebiscite.
The Chaibman. Which are those, Mr. Miller ?
Senator Bbandegee. Which boimdaries are not definitely fixed
that we are to guarantee ?
Mr. MiLLEB. There is a plebiscite in upper Silesia, in Schleswig,
in the Saar Basin
The Chaibman. Is the plebiscite to alter the boimdaries ? It does
not seem to read that way.
Mr. MiLLEB. I did not catch you.
The Chaibman. The plebiscite is to determine to what country it
is to belong. Does the plebiscite alter boundaries? Plebiscites
alter possession but not boundaries.
Mr. MiLLEB. The boundaries are to be fixed in some cases by the
plebiscite.
The Chaibman. Are thev ?
Senator Bbandegee. Tnen we do not guarantee those, do we,
under the language of our obligation to guarantee existing boundaries ?
Mr. Miller. May I complete my answer?
Senator Bbandegee. Yes. sir.
Mr. MiLLEB. And in the district adjacent to Belgium.
Senator Bbandegee. So that you consider that if we ratify the
treaty we are gauranteeing to preserve boundaries that may be
placed in the future, and of which we have no present knowledge, in
some instances?
Mr. MiLLEB. I did not state that as the legal effect
Senator Bbandegee. State it in your own way, and take all the
time you want to, what your conception is about that.
Mr. Miller. In the first place, I pointed out that the word ** exist-
ing" does not qualify '^territorial integrity," but qualifies 'Apolitical
independence."
Senator Bbandegee. I agree with you.
Mr. Miller. ''Territori^ integrity and existing poUtical inde-
pendence."
Senator Brandegee. What territorial integrity? The territorial
integrity as of what date ?
Mr. Miller. The territorial integrity as it exists; primarily, as it
exists at present.
Senator Brandegee. And secondarily?
Mr. Miller. As it may be determined pursuant to the provisions
of the treaty, according to these plebiscites which I have mentioned.
The Chairman. You refer to Belgium. The second part of the
treaty begins by defining the boundaries of Germanjr. I do not sup-
pose you mean that the boundaries of Germany with Holland and
rrance are to be changed, do you? There is nothing about those
there. I merely asked that preliminarilv. The boundary between
France and Belgium and the boundary between Belgium and iio.-
land — are those open to change ?
390 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Miller. There is no provision for changing the boundary be-
tween France and Belgium and the boundary between Holland and
Belgium.
The Chairman. I did not say that. Are they open to change by
those treaties?
Mr. Miller. The treaty makes no reference to them, Senator.
They are open to change by agreement.
The Chairman. Between France and Belgium, undoubtedly.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. But that is not what we are discussing. The only
boundary of Belgium that is open for settlement is the boundary
with Germany. Is that not true ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, that first one reads:
The boundaries of Germany will be determined as follows:
1. With Belgium: From the point common to the three frontiers of Belgium. Hol-
land, and Germany and in a southerly direction; the northeastern boundary of the
former territory of neutral Moresnet, then the eastern boundary of the Kreis of Eupen.
then the frontier between Belnum and the Kreis of Montjoie, then the northeastern
and the eastern boundary of tne Kreis of Malmedy to its junction with the frontier
of Luxemburg.
Do you concede that boundary to be open to further change ?
Mr. Miller. In answer to that, Mr. Cnairman, I will read article
34 of the treaty [reading]:
Germany renounces in favor of Belgium all rights and title over the territory com-
prising the ^ hole of the Kreise of Eupen and of Malmedy.
Durmg the six months after the coming into force of this treaty, registers will be
opened By the Belgian authority at Eupen and Malmedy in which the inhabitants
of the above territory'" will be entitled to record in writings desire to see the whole or
part of it remain under German sovereignty.
The results of this public expression of opinion will be communicated by the Belgian
Government to the league of nations, and Belgium undertakes to accept the decision
of the league.
The Chairman. Yes; that is the question of settling possession.
But are the boundaries to be changed ?
Mr. Miller. The boundary womd be changed if a part of Eupen
and of Malmedy went back to Germany.
The Chairman. Would the boundary be changed ? The possession
would be changed, unquestionably.
Mr. Miller. The sovereignty would be changed.
The Chairman. Yes. I mean, are they altering these boundaries
as laid down in the treaty as the boimdaries of Germany and Belgium ?
It may go to Germany or Belgium under article 34, with which I am
familiar, but the change provides for no change in the boimdary line.
Mr. Miller. But the boundary line will depend on whether it
goes to one or the other.
The Chairman. There seems to be nothing depending on it but
possession.
Senator McCumber. What you mean is that at present imder the
treaty that territory is subject to Belgium.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. But subject to change as to its plebiscite?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And therefore if a portion of it goes back to
Germany after a vote, it would change the boundary of Belgium.
The Chairman. It carries the boundary with it.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 391
Senator McCumber. It carries the boundary with it ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. I only wanted to get what it meant.
Senator Brandeoee. To guarantee the territorial integrity of all
members of the league would cover the preservation to the powers to
whom they have been awarded under this treaty, of all the colonies
taken from Germany, would it not ?
Mr. Miller. I think that would depend on the exact disposition
of the colonies — ^the final disposition of the colonies— which is not
provided in detail in the treaty.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, I know, but that is one of the reasons
why it is important to know when the treaty speaks from — ^from what
date. In other words, does it mean to guarantee boundaries or the
territorial integrity of members of the league as that integrity existed
at the time of the signing of the treaty or at the time of the procla-
mation of its ratification, or does it mean to guarantee, as you sug-
g^t, the territorial integrity of the members of the league as it may
be added to, depending upon the result of future considerations and
the award of other territory yet to come to the various members of
the league ?
Mr. Miller. I think the whole treaty must be read together. The
provisions which provide for the plebiscites are a part ox the treaty,
just as much as the provisions of article 10;
Senator Brandeoee. Very well,, then. What I am trying to get
at is whether the thing we are asked to preserve is an existing thmg
or is a thing that is liable to be different from what it is now, and are
we guaranteeing a known thing or something that is liable to change
in the future? I simply want your opinion about it, of course. I
do not expect your decision will settle it
Mr. Miller. Naturally.
Senator Brandeoee. But I want to get your view of it. You
were present at the consideration of the treaty.
Mr. Miller. I think that the territorial integrity of Poland would
mean the territorial integrity of Poland as it resulted from this
treaty — ^from all its provisions.
Senator Brandeoee. All right.
Mr, Miller. Including the provision as to upper Silesia and the
plebiscite there.
Senator Brandeoee. How many powers took part in the so-called
peace conference in Paris ? By that I mean how many of them sent
peace commissions or delegates? Do you not remember without
looking it up in the book ?
Mr. Miller. The number is quite large.
Senator Brandeoee. How large ?
Mr. Miller. It is 27, not counting the British dominions in India,
and aside from Germany.
Senator Brandeoee. Counting the Germans and the British
dominions in India, how many?
Mr. Miller. Countingthose would make 33.
Senator Brandeoee. Thirty-three powers. Did they all have the
same number of commissioners ?
Mr. MnxER. No, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Who fixed the number of commissioners who
were to attend the peace conference ?
392 TREATY OF PEACK WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Miller. It was fixed before the invitations were sent out by
the French Government to attend the conference.
Senator Brandegee. You mean it was fixed by the French Gov-
ernment, or that the invitations were sent out by the French Govern-
ment?
Mr. Miller. The invitations, according to my recollection, were
sent out by the French Government, and the number was fixed by
consultation before that.
Senator Brandegee. Consultation by whom ?
Mr. Miller. I do not know.
Senator Brandegee. I do not want to ask you anything that you
do not know. Of course, if you do not know^^
Mr. Miller. I know that the United States was consulted. I do
not know how many powers were consulted, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. You do not know who did the determining of
how many commissioners each country should have, do you ?
Mr. Miller. Except that it was done by consultation. I do not
know who participated.
Senator Brandegee. Of course, somebody must have consulted
and determined, but I did not know but you, being the expert legal
adviser of the commission, might have known. Of course, if you do
not know, just say so and I will pass on to something else.
Mr. Miller. I know that it was discussed. I do not know who
made the final decision.
Senator Brandegee. If you know that it was discussed, by whom
was it discussed? Never mind. Wo have not very much time this
morning.
Mr. Miller. My recollection is
Senator Swanson. I insist that the witness be allowed to answer.
Senator Brandegee. I am perfectly willing he should, but it is
rather immaterial, and the witness seems to hesitate.
Senator Williams. Let him answer.
Mr. Miller. The French Government sent, a note on the subject
to various powers; I do not know what to powers, but 1 do know
that the United States was included.
Senator Williams. Mr. Chairman, the United States was con-
sulted upon how the commissioners
Senator Brandegee. I prefer that the witness should do the
testifying, because the Senator will have a chance later.
Senator Williams. I was going to ask a question, with the per-
mission of the chairman, and I addressed the chairman for that
purpose.
Senator Brandegee. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
Senator Williams. I did not know we were going through all that.
Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the Senator irom Connecticut,
I would like to ask a question. Is the permission granted )
Senator Brandegee. Why, certainly.
Senator Williams. You do know, do you not, that the United
' States was consulted as to how many commissioners she desired to
name to the conference ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator W^illiams. Do you or not presume, from that, that other
nations were hkewise consulted ?
Mr. Miller. Certainly; they must have been.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 393
Senator Williams. It is a very harmless question that I wished
to ask.
Senator Brandegee. I think so. Now, Mr. Miller, as a matter of
fact, did these different participants all have the same number of
commissioners ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; they did not.
Senator Williams. Different numbers ?
Mr. Miller. Different numbers.
Senator Brandegee. What was the total number of commis-
sioners in the plenary conference, if that is the proper expression ?
Mr. Miller. I would have to look that up.
Senator Brandegee. All right.
Mr. Miller. Because, as you suggested, some powers had a
greater number than others.
Senator Brandegee. All right. How many meetings did the
plenary conference have before these commissions were appointed
to take up various phases of the treaty ?
Mr. Miller. Well, as to that, Senator, the commissions, as I
remember it, were not appi>inte(l at the same time. There were a
good many commissions appointed, and I do not think they were all
appointed at the same plenary session.
Senator Brandegee. Very well; I will change the form of the
question. How many meetings did the plenary conference hold
before the final meeting of the plenary conference. which approved
the treatv ?
Mr. Miller. Three or four, I think. I do not remember exactly.
Senator Brandegee. Are you aware to what extent the various
commissions who had under consideration the different parts of the
treaty consulted with one another and kept posted on the work of
one another ?
Mr. Mn.LER. I do not think there was any communication be-
tween the commissions as such. The different members of each
delegation who were on the various commissions doubtless con-
sulted, but as between one commission and another I do not think
there was consultation except between the economic commission
and the financial commission.
Senator Brandegee. After each commission finished its work and
was ready to report, to whom did they send the completed report of
their proposals ?
Mr. Miller. They sent it to the plenary conference through the
secretariat.
Senator Brandegee. They sent it to the secretariat. Then who
took the various reports and put them together, so as to make the
completed treaty?
Mr. Miller. The drafting committee.
Senator Brandegee. And were these reports of commissions ap-
proved by any meeting of the plenary council before the final meet-
mg of the plenary council approved of the entire treaty ?
Mr. Miller. Some of them were. I am not sure that all of them
were.
Senator Brandegee. Do you remember which ones were approved
by the plenary conference before the entire treaty was approved ?
Mr. Miller. The report of the commission on the league of nations
was approved.
394 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandegee. Excuse me richt there. At the meeting of
the plenary conference that approved the report on the league of
nations^ were the reports of any other commissions approved?
Mr. Miller. I thmk it was at the same meeting that the report of
the commission on the labor clauses was approved.
Senator Brandegee. Are you sure about that 1
Mr. Miller. I would have to look that up, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. My impression had been, from whc^t little
information we got in this country about it, that the meeting of the
plenary conference which approved the report of the commission on
the covenant of the league of nations did that and nothing else, and
that it was a hastily called meeting, called by the President to get
the covenant approved so that he could come back here in March
and submit it tentatively or informally to us.
Mr. Miller. I think he did, without referring to the final report
of the commission. When the report was made in February, I
think there was nothing else approved at that meeting.
Senator Brandegee. That was my impression.
Mr. Miller. Yes, I think that is correct. I thought you were
referring to the later meeting. Senator.
Senator Brandegee. Did you attend in any way, or were jrou
present, either as an auditor or in any other capacity, at the meeting
of the plenary conference which approved the draft for the covenant
of the league of nations ?
Mr. Miller. The one in February?
Senator Brandegee. If that was in February, and I think it was,
Mr. Miller. There was a first report and a second report.
Senator Brandegee. The report where the plenary conference
approved the draft for the covenant of the league of nations just
beiore the President sailed for this country and got here with it.
Mr. Miller. Yes, I was present.
Senator Brandegee. You were present. Was that meeting of the
plenary conference open to the puolic ?
Mr. Miller. I think it was. Senator.
Senator Brandegee. Do you not remember whether people were
in the gallery; or was there a gallery? Were there outsiders there
other than the delegates or commissioners ?
Mr. Miller. Yes; the public was there.
Senator Brandegee. Was there quite a large audience or a small
one? It seems to me, this, being an epoch-making event, ought to
have occasioned a ripple, and there ought to have been a few spec-
tators to see it adopted. But never mind
Mr. Miller. There were quite a large number, considering — ^as
many as coidd get into the room.
Senator Brandegee. How many spectators were there — 10 or 100 ?
Mr. Miller. Oh, well, more than a hundred. Senator, but I am not
an expert at guessing crowds.
Senator Swansqn. How many could the room hold ?
Mr. Miller. I think the room could hold some hundreds.
Senator Swanson. And you say the room was filled?
Mr. Miller. It seemed crowded to me.
Senator Brandegee. Now I am getting something. I am much
obliged to you.
Senator Swanson. You insisted upon it.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 395
Senator Brandegee. I did not insist upon it, but you did. There
were hundreds of people there, were there ?
Mr. Miller. I snould think so.
Senator Brandegee. How long was the plenary conference in
session considering the covenant of the league of nations ?
Mr. Miller. Mv recollection is it was alfthe afternoon.
Senator Brandegee. The whole afternoon. The President made
the report, did he not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senatoi: Brandegee. And made a speech about it, did he not?
Mr. Miller. He did.
Senator Brandegee. Who else made speeches ?
Mr. Miller. I do not remember, at this distance of time.
Senator Brandegee. Was there any debate on the various provi-
sions of the covenant of the league of nations in the plenary council?
Mr. Miller. Yes; there were various speeches made.
Senator Brandegee. I know there were speeches made. The
President made one. Was there any debate upon the various
articles, the 26 articles, which constitute the covenant of the league of
nations ?
Mr. Miller. I think that the speeches were all prepared speeches.
Senator Brandegee. Yes?
Mr. Miller. They seemed so.
Senator Brandegee. Canned oratory?
Mr. Miller. I do not know whether you would call it debate or not.
Senator Brandegee. What I want to know is, did anybody ask
anybody else what certain articles meant ? Was there any difference
of opinion expressed as to the meaning of any of the articles or what
they might mean ?
Mr. &&XER. I do not think so. Not that I remember.
Senator Brandegee. There was not a word said, was there, except
that the President, and the head of the Japanese delegation, and other
heads of delegations made remarks about it. That was all, was it
not, and then they unanimously agreed to the whole thing, did they
not?
Mr. Miller. I do not recall that the head of the Japanese delega-
tion made any remarks at that meeting. Possibly he did.
Senator Brandegee. I read something that purported to be, not
a protest on his behalf, but a regret that some racial equality clause
had not been included in it, or something of the kind, but I may be
mistaken about that. I do not consider the garbled newspaper ac-
counts that we were allowed to receive through the censor at that
time as being authority for any opinion; but that is all we have. I
get a fair idea of how the thing was done, and that is all I care to
ask.
Senator Harding. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question.
The Chairman. The Senator from Ohio.
Senator Harding. Do you understand that the lea^e of nations
has authority to change the territorial possessions of any nation a
member of the league ?
Mr. Miller. It has authority to some extent to decide on these
plebiscites, as granted in the treaty.
Senator Harding. Suppose the readjustment of the Balkan and
other Near East problems should not prove to be all that those who
396 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
favor them hope, would the league of nations for the promotion and
preservation of peace have authority to make readjustments of
territorial lines ?
Mr. Miller. Not unless it was so agreed.
Senator Harding. What do you mean when vou say *'so agreed" ?
Do you mean the unanimous consent of everybody?
Mr. Miller. Well, it might be agreed in the treaty with Austria,
for example, or with Hungarv or with Bulgaria, that a line should
be subsequently fixed by the league of nations.
Senator Harding. Do you mean a reservation, for instance, like
that contained in the treaty relating to the Saar Basin, wherein the
government of the basin is intrusted to the league of nations, and
wherein Germany renounces her sovereignty to the league of nations ?
Mr. Miller. I was not referring to that, Senator. 1 was referring
to the provisions which provide lor the fixing of the line and for a
plebescite in such territory as Upper Silesia, or in Schleswig.
Senator Harding. Maybe I can make it a little more specific. I
do not know that the question is wise. I am trying to clear up
certain things in my own mind. Suppose the disposition of Tlirace
should^ two years irom now, prove a menace to the peace of the
world in the estimate of the membei's of the council or the assemblv.
Has the league authority to undertake the readjustment of that
assignment oi territory?
A&. Miller. To change it^
Senator Harding. Yes.
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Harding. Not without a specific provision in the treaty
with Austria.
Mr. Mn.LER. There might be a specific provision in a subsequent
treaty; in that case, with Bulgaria.
Senator Harding. Then in accepting the lea2:ue covenant in the
peace treaty that we have before us we really undertake to guarantee
territorial integrity that we know not of at this time.
Mr. Miller. The boundaries are not fixed. That is true, Senator.
Senator Harding. That is precisely what I am getting at.
The Chairman. I am obliged to go to the Senate, but there is no
need of adjourning this hearing, because I am going to move that the
Senate take a recess from 12 to 2 o'clock to enable those who desire
to see the parade of the Marines to do so, so the Senate will not
really meet for action until 2 o'clock.
(Senator McCumber took the chair.)
Senator Moses. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Brandegee)
has some other questions to propound, but he has left the room
temporarily.
Senator Williams. Mr. Miller, does not this league of nations
article itself provide that where any nation shall report to the league
that a given question has become a menace to the peace of the world,
the league may take up that question and consider it and make
recommendations concerning it ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Williams. Then, in so far as that goes. Senator Harding's
question would have been answered in the affirmative, that the league
could deal with the subiect matter of Thrace if later on, upon com-
plaint of Greece or Bulgaria, the league concluded that it was a
menace to the peace of the world to allow it to remain in statu quo.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 397
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Williams. Now let me ask you another q[uestion. Does
it not provide that the league shall have power to consider complaints
that existing treaties have become inapplicable and that if allowed to
exist they may become a menace to the peace of the world.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Article 19 provides:
The asaembly may from time to time advise the reconsideration by members of the
league of treatien which have become inapplicable and the consideration of inter-
national conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world.
Senator Harding. Now, following up Senator Williams's question:
Suppose in the judgment of the council that the possession of the
Damsh West Indies, which we purchased within the last few months,
should be a menace to the peace of the world from any cause what-
soever. Would the league have a right to step in and make that
readjustment?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; in my opinion not.
Senator Harding. They would be inhibited by the exercise of the
Monroe doctrine only.
Mr. Miller. It would be inhibited by that, in my opinion — by the
Monroe doctrine provision.
Senator Harding. This is the point I am trying to get at, and I
consider it of some importance. If when once territorial lines are
established by this peace treaty the league has authority to step in
to make a readjustment and pass territory from one nation to another
in the interest of the peace of the world, what is to prevent the
league doing the same thing with a piece of American territory?
What except our size would prevent that?
Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, my answer to that is that I do not
think the league has the power to make the change.
Senator Harding. You said to Senator Williams that if they foimd
an adjustment of territory was menacing the peAce of the world,
they had the authority to take it up and change it.
Mr. Miller. To advise. I read the article.
Senator Williams. I said to recommend — to investigate and
recommend.
Senator Harding. Well, then, let us follow that. Let us ask
ourselves the practical question — I should like the judgment of the
witness on this: What does the league amount to if its recom-
mendations are nothing more than an admonition?
Senator Williams, if its recommendation is unanimously adopted
and there is no minority report upon it, then none of the members of
the league can go to war. That is one thing. The next thing, of
course, is that where the recommendation of the council is unani-
mously given, we being represented upon it as well as the other great
powers, it will have a moral weight in the world that will be irre-
sistible.
Senator Harding. All right. Now, let us follow that. Suppose
we were involved, and the league unanimously made a recommenda-
tion, and we declined to accept the recommendation of the league.
What happens then ?
Senator Williams. If that were the case, of course our commission
would have had to vote against what we have done. If there was no
minority report, then if we went to war, the council would consider
what measures were necessary and would make a recommendation ;
398 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
but in addition to that, the free passage of troops would be allowed
through the territories of all members of the league against the re-
calcitrant country — in that case our own country — and in addition
to that the league might recommend anything that it chose to recom-
mend that mignt be accepted by the other members of the league.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, I submit that this is all entirely
irregular, with due deference to the Senator from Mississippi. Of
course, he is expressing his opinion, and we woidd have different
opinions, and this committee is engaged in a general conversation.
Senator Harding. Does the Senator mind if 1 ask a question ?
Senator Fall. I have no objection in the world.
Senator Williams. I agree thoroughly, but the Senator from Ohio
asked a question and I was answering it.
Senator Fall. 1 thought the Senator from Ohio said he would like
to have the opinion of the witness upon it.
Senator Williams. I beg the pardon of the Senator from New
Mexico. The Senator from Ohio turned to me, and we were just
talking amongst ourselves.
Senator McCumber. I think the question was rather general, and
it might be answered by anyone. We will get back to the witness
now.
Senator Harding. I will address my question to the witness. This
is what I want to get at. Take a hypothetical case, where a question
of American territory is involved, and the league of nations recom-
mends contrary to our wishes, ouppose then that we do not even
go to war. .We are subject to what might be termed ostracism by
the international powers, are we not? Are we subjected to that,
for one thing? Are we made an international outlaw if we refuse
to accept the recommendations?
Mr. Miller. Not if we do not go to war.
Senator Harding. Are we not subject, under the terms of the con-
tract, to trade bovcotts i
Senator Hitchcock. Certainly not, unless we go to war.
Mr. Miller. It is one of the sections of article 16, which provides
that —
Should any member of the league resort to war in disregard of its covenants, under
articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war
against all other members of the league.
Senator Harding. Suppose we do not go to war. Wliat happens ?
Suppose we just refuse to accept the recommendations of the league
and iimore its authority \
Mr. Miller. WTiat happens as a practical matter ?
Senator Harding. "What happens to us as a practical thing?
Mr. Miller. Nothing, under the covenants, if we do not resort to
war.
Senator Harding. But the league would have authority to institute
a boycott, economic pressure, embargoes
Senator Hitchcock. Certainly not.
Senator Harding. I am asking the witness.
Mr. Miller. Not in my opinion. I think it is prefaced by those
words 1 just read, which limit it to a case whore a member of the
league resorts to war in disregard of its covenent under articles" 12,.
13, or 15.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 399^
Senator Harding. Then, if that be true, what remedy has the
league to make its recommendations effective ?
Sir. Miller. Public opinion, publicity, the moral force of its
recommendations.
Senator Moses. We might be expelled.
Mr. Miller. For a violation of any covenant we might be expelled.
Senator McCuirfBER. But mere negative action would not be a
violation of the covenant ?
Mr. Miller. Not a violation of the covenant in this particular
case that is supposed.
Senator McCumber. In other words, if the United States did not
accept the suggestions of the coimcil, it would not make a cause for
expulsion.
ifr. Miller. Not in my opinion.
Senator Harding. Then let us put it in another way. Suppose
the league makes an alteration of territorial lines, are we bound under
articJe 10 to recognize the territorial integrity of the new allotment ?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I do not think the league has any power to
make a new line, as you put it, except in a case where it is given
specific power under this treaty or under a subsequent treaty.
Senator Harding. I understood you to say, at the suggestion of
the Senator from Mississippi, that if a situation was menacing the
peace of the world it did have that power.
Mr. Miller. I said to advise. I read article 19, in which that
would be included. The word ^* advise*' is used.
Senator Harding. Then let us go back to a specific case. I am
sorry to take the time of the committee, but it is important to me.
Senator Fall. I think it is very interesting.
Senator Harding. If I understand the covenant, if that question
arises and we are disputants, we have nothing to say. We are ruled
out because we are disputants.
Mr. Miller. We sit in the council.
Senator Harding. I know; but we do not vote on it, because we
are disputants.
Mr. Miller. I would not say that. There is no provision that we
do not vote.
Senator Fall. There are several provisions here that wherever a
member is a party to a dispute it has no vote.
Mr. Miller. I differ, Senator
Senator Swanson. Explain your understanding of it.
Mr. ^Miller. My understanaing is that the provision does not say
that the parties to the dispute shall not vote, but it simply provides
that the votes of the parties to the dispute shall not be counted.
Senator Harding, it is the same practical situation.
Senator Fall. It is the same thing. I do not see why you want
us to vote if the vote is not counted. That is the southern style.
Senator Harding. The point I am trying to get at is this: I am
very sincere about it. I want to know if the league becomes an inter-
national power that can change territorial lines in the interest of
world peace and then command the adherents of the league to
respect those lines.
Mr. Miller. My opinion is no.
Senator Harding. Except as it is provided for
Mr. Miller. Except as it is specifically provided for in this treaty
or in other treaties
400 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Habdino. That is all I have to ask.
Senator Moses. Mr. Miller, you said that the draft of the cove-
nant of the league of nations which was finally adopted as a basis
upon which the commission worked to get its final results was a com-
posite of many suggestions.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Moses. Parts being taken from the four drafts submitted
by Great Britain, the United States, France, and Italy.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Moses. Who made that composite ?
Mr. Miller. I have to ask a rather technical question before I
can answer your question. Do you mean who physically got it
up, prepared the language of it?
Senator Moses. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Hurst and myself.
Senator Moses. In the form m which you submitted it, was it
submitted by our representatives on the commission, namely, the
President and Col. House? You submitted it to them and they
submitted it to the commission ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Moses. Have you a copy of that draft as you handed it
to the President and Col. House ?
Mr. Miller. I suppose the department has a copy.
vSenator Moses. Under the limitations set upon our procuring the
information, as stated in the President's letter of yesterday, do you
think we could get it ?
Mr. Miller. I have no authority to answer that question.
Senator Moses. May I ask the witness to endeavor through the
department to get that for the committee ?
Senator McClt^iber. Will the witness do so ?
Senator Hitchcock. I did not hear the question. What was it
that was desired ?
Senator Moses. The witness testified in the first instance that the
draft upon which the finally completed covenant of the league of
nations was based was a composite draft containing suggestions
drawn from the four drafts submitted by the United States, Great
Britain, France, and Italy, and he testified that that composite
draft was made bv Mr. Hurst and himself. I am asking if we can
get possession of that draft ?
Senator Swanson. The right way would be to ask the department.
Mr. Miller. I will ask the department, if that is the request.
I can not do any more than that.
Senator McCltmber. Of course, that is all that you could do.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. You have not a copy in your possession ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; I have not.
Senator Hitchcock. Senator Moses, will you put into the record
a statement of the reason why such a reauest is made?
Senator Moses. Yes; because I would like to know in what
particulars the completed draft departed from the draft of Mr, Miller
and Mr. Hurst.
Senator Hitchcock. Why?
Senator Moses. I have a great thirst for information on the subject
Senator Hitchcock. Why ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 401
Senator Moses. I would like to enlighten myself. I shall have to
vote on it presently.
Senator HrrcHOOCK. I supposed you had made up your mind a
long while ago.
^nator Fall. I suppose the Senator from Nebraska is doing as
we all very often do, and that is judging others by himself. Mr.
Chairman, may I ask the witness a tew questions ?
Senator McChmber. Certainly.
Senator Fall. Mr. Miller, you have referred once or t^ice to article
19, apparently with the idea that that is the only article that would be
appealed to in the event that there was a question as to readjustment
of territorial lines. Suppose that there were a question between the
United States and Mexico, on the lines suggested by the Senator from
Ohio, touching, we will say, an irrigation project on the Colorado
-River, a portion of which was in the United States and a portion of
which was in Mexico, that the matter was brought before the league
by Mexico after we had become a member of the league, or by some
fnend of Mexico, while Mexico is outside the leajjue. Suppose the
lei^:ue in its judgment were to come to the conclusion that here was a
question that might affect the peace of the world. Article 17, in the
event that Mexico was out of the league, would then be invoked,
would it not ?
Mr. Miller. It might be.
Senator Fall. In a dispute between a member of the league and
a State which is not a member of the league, it is provided that the
nonmembers shall be invited to accept the obligation of membership
for the purpose of the dispute. Mexico would then be invited by
the council to become a member of the league for the purposes of
that dispute, would it not ?
Mr. Miller. tJpon such conditions as the council may deem just.
Senator Fall. Well, of course I am not attempting to quioble
about it.
Mr. Miller. No ; I was not either.
Senator Fall. I do not care to read into the record the entire
article, but I call your attention to it. The invitation would be
extended to Mexico to become a member of the league for the pur-
poses of the dispute. Then articles 12 to 16 of the covenant would
unmediately automatically become operative in the event that
Mexico accepted the invitation, would tney not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. Suppose then that under the second paragraph of
article 17 —
Upon such invitation being given the council shall immediately institute an inquiry
into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best
and most effectual in the circumstances —
if the recommendation of the council were to the effect that the
Mexican line should be so extended as to take in that portion of the
countrv in dispute which is now claimed by the United States, what
would }ye the effect of such recommendations ?
Mr. Mn.LER. It would depend on whether the United States
accepted it or not.
Senator Fall. Suppose that Mexico accepted it, and acted upon
it, and the United States did not accept. Wnat would be the status ?
What would be the result ?
135546—19 2Q
402 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
•Mr Miller. The result would be that not havinp: been accepted
by the United States, it would not have gone into effect.
Senator Fall. Suppose Mexico had accepted and put into effect
the recommendations of the council. Suppose that she had put her
flag over the country and put her civil officers there, if not her mili-
tary force, to administer it, and the United States did not accept.
Mr. Miller. It would be an invasion of the United States.
Senator Fall. It would ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. By Mexico ?
Mr. Miller. Tes.
Senator Fall. Contrary to the orders of the league, when Mexico
herself accepted the recommendations of the league ?
Mr. Miller. It would still be an invasion of the United States.
Senator Fall. One which we would be authorized to resist with
armed force, without violation of our covenant ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. Then what does it mean by saying, in the paragraph
which I was reading here, * * And recommend such action as may seem
best and most effectual in the circumstances'^? If your construction
is true, they could not then recommend anything which might prove
effectual.
Mr. Miller. The second paragraph of article 17 is the provision
for inquiry, upon the invitation being given.
Senator Fall. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Your question supposes that the invitation is ac-
cepted by Mexico
Senator Fall. Accepted by Mexico, and Mexico comes in. I will
state the proposition a little more fully. Suppose that in the event
of such dispute Mexico was invited to become a member of the
league for tne purposes of the dispute only, and she accepts.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. Immediately and automatically the provisions of
articles 12 to 16 apply. The comicil makes its recommendations ,
with such suggestions as it thinks necessary to make such recommen-
dations effectual. Mexico accepts, and acts upon the recommenda-
tions, and takes the effectual means suggested by the council. The
United States refuses to accept it. You say that Mexico in taking
possession of the territory would be making an invasion of the United
States which we would be justified, without violating our pledges, to
resist with all the force necessary. Is that your opinion ?
Mr. Miller. Senator, the recommendation of the council would
be, as I understand your question, a recommendation regarding a
disputed boundary ?
senator Fall. Yes.
Mr. Miller. The United States being in possession of the territory ?
Senator Fall. Yes.
Mr. Miller. The recommendation, assuming, as I understand you,
that it was in favor of Mexico, would not in my opinion authorize
Mexico to take possession forcibly of the territorv.
Senator Fall. If she did not do it, then both the United States
and Mexico, to use a legal phase, would be in contempt of the council,
because neither one would have accepted it.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 403
Mr. Miller. Mexico would have accepted, according - to your
h^-pothesis.
Senator Fall. Oh, no. According to my hypothesis, but you sr.y
she would have no right to accept. I am saying that she does accept
the recommendation. The recommendation is that the disputed
territory is given to Mexico, and the effectual means which is sug-
gested W the council for putting that recommendation into effect
IS that Jtfexico's jurisdiction should be extended over the disputed
territory. Mexico accepts the recommendation and adopts the
means suggested by the council, and puts her flag over it and takes
possession.
Mr. Miller. The difference, Senator, is this: That the recommen-
dation which the council would make in the case of a boundary
dispute would be to suggest where the boundary should be locatedf
Senator Fall. That is exactly the point I am making.
Mr. Miller. But you go further
Senator Fall. Well, I will take a case that possibly you know
about, having been connected with the department, to put the shoe
on the other foot. The Chemizal zone in Texas is claimed by Mexico
and by the United States. At the same time the American flag is
put over it, the American customs are put over it, and one end of
the international bridge between Texas and Mexico is located upon
the Chemizal zone, wnich has always been claimed by Mexico, or is
now cJaimed by her, at least. An arbitration treaty was agreed
upon between tne United States and Mexico. Arbitration has been
had upon that question. The arbitration resulted in a decision
against the United States, and the United States refused to accept
the result of the arbitration. Now, suppose that exactly the same
thing were brought up to-day, without reference to the prior arbi-
tration, and Mexico, through some friend — ^because any nation has a
right to bring to the attention of the council under the terms of this
treaty any matter which may threaten the peace of the world —
Mexico, through some friend, brought the matter to the attention of
the council. France was one of the arbitrators that decided against
us in that case. Suppose the attention of the council was brought to
the Chemizal zone, and Mexico under article 17 was invited to become
one of the members of the league for the purposes of the Chemizal
dispute; and suppose that one party refused to arbitrate. Auto-
matically the case would go to the council for disposition. Suppose
the council decided in favor of the claims of Mexico and recom-
mended that the American flag be pulled down and that the Mexican
flag be raised over the Chemizal zone and that Mexico took possession
through her civil authorities and established her customs upon this
zone; and suppose that Mexico acted upon that recommendation,
and the United States refused, as she has refused, to abide by the
arbitration and to abide by the action of the council. What would
be the result ? .
Mr. Miller. Senator, your question assumes that the council
might recommend that Mexico should go to war.
Senator Fall; Xo; I am not assuming anything of the kind. I
very carefully refrained from the use, except incidentally, of an
ar ed force.
Mr. Miller. You said as I understood, an armed force.
404 TREATY OF FBAOE WITH GKEBCAKY.
Senator Fall. Then I will repeat it and cut out any armed force,
and put the supposition that Mexico, without the use of a man in
uniform or a man with a rifle or a pistol or a hoe, should proceed to
follow the advice of the commission and to use the effectual means
which the council recommends to restore to herself the disputed
country. She comes over across the country, across what we now
regard as the international line, and raises her flag and establishes
her customs. What is the result ?
Mr. Miller. I repeat, Senator, that in my opinion that is not a
settlement of the dispute. Neither party has agreed to accept that.
Senator Fall. But Mexico has accepted it.
Senator Hitchcock. Let the witness answer the question and not
be interrupted all the time.
Senator Fall. I am pursuing this line of inquiry.
Senator Hitchcock. You objected yourself to somebody butting in.
Senator Fall. I was objecting to an ordinary conversation, just
as I am objecting now.
Senator Hitchcock. The witness should not be interrupted in the
midst of his answer.
Senator Fall. I do not accept your suggestion
Senator Hitchcock. I am making the objection, whether you
accept it or not.
Senator Fall. Very well, then; I will pursue my line of inquiry
without your assistance.
Mr. Miller. I do not remember what the question was.
The Chairbian. Let the stenographer read the question.
The stenographer read as follows:
Senator Fall. Then I will repeat it and cut out any armed force, and put the sup-
position that Mexico, without the use of a man in uniform, or a man with a rifle or a
pistol, or a hoe should proceed to follow the advice of the commission and to itte the
effectual means which the council recommends to restore to herself the disputed
country. She comes over across the country, across what we now regard as the inter-
national line, and raises her flag and establishes her customs. What is the result?
Mr. Miller. In my opinion, Senator, the distinction is this: Hie
question being a boundary dispute, the recommendation of the
council is, as it is specifically stated in the covenant, a recommenda-
tion. It is not a decision of the boundary dispute, and the United
States in the case supposed is not obliged to agree and does not
agree to accept that as a decision of the dispute. All the United
States agrees is by negative covenant that it will not resort to war in
disregard of the covenants in the three articles named, the reference
in iiSa case being to article 15, which says that the members of the
league agree that they will not go to war with any party to a dispute
that complies with tne recommendations of the report. That is the
sole covenant. The dispute as to the boundary question is not
settled, as it would be by final judgment in the matter.
Senator Fall. Very well, let us go back to the conditions as we
left them. Mexico is over nere with her flag raised and her custom-
houses on the chemizal zone. What is the result?
Mr. Miller. I can not imagine Mexico being there. Senator.
Senator Fall. Well, possibly your imagination is not as vivid
as mine. I can imagine her being there, because she is constantly
trying to come now, invading the chemizal zone. Now, in the event
that your imagination could wing its far light to that result, if the
XBBATY OF FE40E WITH GERMANY. 405
United States resorted to force to eject Mexico she would violate
article 16 of the lea^e covenant, and all the power of each of the
members, and all of them collectively and severally, and all the
power of the nations not members, of the leagUQ, imder articles 16
and 17. should be, and they obligate themselves to exert it economi-
cally, nnancially and with armed force, against the United States,
do they not ?
Mr. MiLLEB. If the United States resorts to war, the provisions
of article 16 apply to the United States the same as they do to any
other member of the league.
Senator Fall. Very well. Then, if the United States did not
resort to war, we would simply have a condition existing where tibe
United States possibly would still continue to maintain her custom-
houses, wave her flaf in the breeze along hj the side of the Mexican
customhouse, and uie Mexican flag floatmg. Would that be t^e
condition i
Mr. Miller. I should not think so.
Senator Fall. That is all on that line. I have one or two other
questions.
Senator Swanson. Let me ask Mr. Miller a question.
Senator Fall. On this line ?
Senator Swanson. Yes.
Senator Fall. Certainly.
Senator Swanson. As I understand, in a boimdary dispute like
this, you stated that your judgment is that the United States, where
the reconmiendation, as contained in the covenant is unanimous,
would agree not to resort to war 1
Mr. AuLLER. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Then, if the United States did not accept that
provision, Mexico would not be restrained from going to war ? Under
the covenant, she could declare war against us.
Mr. Miller. There would be no covenant on the part of Mexico
not to go to war.
Senator Swanson. So she could declare war against us. If she
did 80, then there is nothing in the league covenant that prevents us
from defending against a war declared on us first ?
Mr. Miller. I do not think there is.
Senator Swanson. If Mexico should be the aggressor in a war
against us, there is nothing that prevents us from defending our-
selves. Our covenant, as I imderstood you to say, is that we agree
not to go to war, where there is this unanimity?
Mr. MiLLSR. Yes.
Senator Swanson. If Mexico should declare war on us, do you
know anything that prevents us from being on the defensive? Is
there any such provision in the league covenant ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; it would create a state of war which we could
not avoid.
Senator Fall. We can each read again article 16 and the other
articles, and we would possibly come to the same result of a disagree-
ment, which is the result ordmarily between an old line Baptist and
a Methodist. Now, Mr. Miller, you have said that this covenant was
lareely based upon what is known as the Bryan peace treaties, as I
unaerstood it.
406 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMAKY.
Mr. Miller. I said that some of the features of the covenant were
very similar to those of the Bryan peace treaties.
Senator Fall. One of the features which you referred to was tliat
we had only one representative in the international commission pro-
vided by the Bryan peace treaties, as we would have only one repre-
sentative upon the coimcil.
Mr. Miller. I said there was only one American on the interna-
tional commission.
Senator Fall. I am glad you now use the word ''American.'' You
said ''one representative," because I put that down myself. I ani
glad you qualify it by saying "one American.''
Mr. Miller. I wish to say that I used the word "American " before,
and the stenographic record will show it.
Senator Fall. I want to do you justice. I regret that my hearing
was at fault. Now, in the Bryan peace treaties you speak of the pro-
vision for this international commission. That was a commission
between two nations alone, was it not; that is, the two nations which
were parties to this particular treaty ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I used the words "international commission,'
because those are the words used in the Brvan treaties.
Senator Fall. Yes; it is also the expression used in this peace
treaty, is it not; but in this peace treaty it meansjn many instances
the representatives of all the various nations, while in the Brym
peace treaties it means the representatives of the two nations.
Mr. Miller. The word "council" is used in the covenant— not
members of the international commission.
Senator Fall. Well, members of the council then, or the repre-
sentatives of the nations. You are familiar with this treaty. There
are plebiscite commissions and governing commissions established
through the league of nations.
Mr. Miller. I thought you were referring to the covenant.
Senator Fall. We have both, and the covenant appears to be, so
far, until we can possibly separate it, a part of the peac^ treaty.
Now, all the Bryan peace treaties are similar, and article 2 of tfie
treaty that I now have— which happens to be the treaty with Nica-
ragua, but there are similar covenants in each of them, and I have
them here before me - provides that the commission shall be composed
of five members to be appointed as follows: One member shall he
chosen from each country by the Government thereof. That is the
American citizen that you lia<l reference to. One member shall he
chosen by each Government from some third countr}\ That is the
representative of this country on that commission, is it not?
Mr. Miller. One of the two chosen bv this countrv, ves.
Senator Fall. Supposed to be a representative of this country,
because Nicaragua has nothing whatsoever to do with the choice of
that man chosen by this country.
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Senator Fall. Then this country has two representatives chosen
by itself. Nicaragua has two, chosen by itself, and the fifth member
is chosen by the two countries jointly, is he not ?
Mr. Miller. I think in most of tKe treaties it is provided that he
shall be chosen by the four firat named.
Senator Fall. I can read this treaty to you.
Mr. Miller. They differ a little bit in tKat.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 407
Senator Fall. I am very familiar with them. I will sav to you
very frankly that I am not yet at all sorry that I opposed eacli of
those treaties.
Mr. Miller. I think the general provision, Senator, is that the two
Governments shall chose the fifth member, and if they do not agree,
that the four members already selected shall choose the fifth.
Senator Fall. Yes; you are correct about that. That is the pro-
vision in each of them. That is not with reference to the four com-
missioners chosen, but the common provision is that the two countries
shall choose the fifth member. ' In one or two of the treaties there
is a provision that that fifth member, in the event of failure to choose,
may be chosen by the four commissioners already selected. Now,
that is purely an agreement by treaty between two countries, with
which no other countries of tlie world have anything to do and in
which they have no interest, is it not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes. '
Senator Fall. Now, you have stated, as I imderstand vou — I may
be mistaken and if I am I want you to correct me — that the provision
that the decision of those commissioners should not be binding was
similar to the provision that the procedure of the arbitration tribunal
under articles 12 and 15 is not binding. That was another basis
upon which you founded this treaty. Do you still understand that
that is the fact, that there is any similarity between those provisions
in the Bryan peace treaties, such as you seem to think there was,
and the provisions contained in articles 12 and 15 of the present
treaty ?
Mr. Miller. Not as to article 12, I did not say so. Article 12 is
that provision of the covenant that relates to arbitration.
Senator Fall. Yes. Then what other ground of similarity do you
find between the Bryan peace treaties and this treaty now before us?
Mr. Miller. The similarity that the recommendation of the coun-
cil is not a binding decision of the dispute, that the liberty of action
is reserved in the treaties for the advancement of peace.
Senator Fall. Of course that is your iudgment. I have mine.
Now, to refer back to one of the matters which you discussed a while
ago, that is, as to the boundaries present and future which we agree
by article 10 to respect, and the territorial integrity of which we
a^ee to protect — on the 28th of June Germany signed this treaty,
did she not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. And in that agreement she agreed to the Saar
Basin proposition, did she not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator F'all. She agreed to the division between Poland and
Prussia, and to the constitution of Danzig as a free city, subject in
so far as her external relations were concerned to be controlled bv
Poland ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. Now, suppose that before the ratification of this
treaty and the deposition of the ratification, when it comes into
effect, Germany refuses to yield as to Danzig or as to the Saar Basin,
refuses to abicfe b}^ her agreement in this treaty, what is the status
of Germany with reference to the other nations who signed it with
408 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
her on the 28th of June? Suppose she just simply says, '*I will not
abide by it."
Mr. Miller. She continues the war.
Senator Fall. She does continue the war ? Then in order to make
peace the negotiation of another treatj^ would be necessary ?
Mr. Miller. Probably. I do not think it would certainly be so.
Senator Fall. Then, is it your opinion or not that on the signing
of this treaty on the 28th of June a status was fixed as between the
signatories to the treaty ?
Mr. Miller. There was a change in the status; yes.
Senator Fall. Peace is the ordmary status, is itnot ?
Mr. Miller. Yes; between nations!
Senator Fall. Then, is it your opinion that on the 28th day of
June the status of war was affected by the signature to this treaty by
Germany with the other nations ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; the status of war still continues.
Senator Fall. Still continues until when ?
Mr. Miller. Until the treaty goes into force. •
Senator Fall. The status of war still continues ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. The President is in error, then, when he sayfe that
both the status of peace and the status of war continue.
Mr. Miller. I was speaking
Senator Fall. We are neither at peace nor at war ?
Mr. Miller. I was dpeaking from the legal point of view.
Senator Fall. That was what I was trying to get at, because I
understood you were there as an mternational lawyer.
Mr. Miller. The practical situation is of course very different from
that of actual war.
Senator Fall. Yes; we have stopped fighting.
Mr. Miller. The fighting stoppea at the date of the armistice.
Senator Fall. When the fightmg stops, then the status of peace
exists ?
Mr. Miller. Is that a question. Senator Fall ?
Senator Fall. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Then my answer is no.
Senator Fall. I am glad to have your idea upon that subject.
Then there can be no peace between nations except by the execution
and ratification of a signed peace ? You answer that '^ no,'' I presume,
as an international lawyer.
Mr. Miller. That is the customary method of concluding war and
making peace.
Senator Fall. You know that Sweden and Poland had peace for
a great many years after 1720 without ever declarin^: it ? •
Mr. Miller. I have so understood.
Senator Fall. Do you know that Mexico and France had a peace
after 1867 without ever declaring it?
Mr. Miller. I have understood that. There are instances where
peace has resulted without the procedure which I mentioned as the
usual procedure.
Senator Fall. Peace is established as recognized by all inter-
national law writers, in three different ways, is it not ?
Mr. Miller. As recognized by law writers
Senator Fall. Yes; every one that I have ever read.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 40O
Mr. Miller. I do not understand the question.
Senator Fall. Where war has been the status between two coun-
tries, peace may be established in at least three different and distinct
ways, may it not ?
i£r. Miller. Yes; I think it may.
Senator Fall. A treaty of peace simply establishes the terms
upon which the nations will remain at peace and conduct their busi-
ness together, does it not ?
Mr. Miller. Well, a treaty of peace may establish a great many
different things. To say that it sunply establishes^
Senator Fall. I am speaking of the effect upon the status of the
nations. A treaty of peace is not necessary to peace, is it ?
Mr. Miller. Not in all cases.
Senator Fall. How is that ?
Mr. Miller. It has not been in all cases.
Senator Fall. But a treaty of peace is adopted to provide distinct
rules and regulations, and to avoid futxu'e disputes between the two
nations, to provide rules by which the citizens of the countries may
enter into commercial relations and continue to do business, and by
which the countries themselves, as distinguished from the populations
of the countries, may conduct their intercourse. That is the purpose
of the treaty of peace, is it not?
Mr. Miller. Yes, and to create definitely a status of peace instead
of a status of war, and to provide for the usual relations that exist
in time of peace.
Senator Tall. Suppose that you have no treaty of peace at all
between Germany ana the United States of America. Suppose that
this treaty is not ratified by the Senate of the United States at all.
Do you mean to say that the status of war would continue to exist
between he German Empire and the United States of America ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, I ask to put in the record right at
this point various advertisements of sailings of ships between this
country and German ports.
Senator McCtjmber. They will be made a part of the record.
(The advertisements referred to are as follows:)
(From the New York Jonmal of Commerce.]
Hanibura — ^Now loading Pier 7, N. R. — S. S. Juliana (Bteel, 100 Al liloyds'i —
Shipping Hoard Rates — Pacat Steamship Corporation, 42 Broadway, New York*
Broad 7551-2-3^4-6-6.
Hamburg — ^Japanese steel steamer — 100 Al Lloyds — Gozan Maru — Now receiving —
Sailing on or about July 16— Fidl brokerage paid — For rates and particidars apply
Trian^e Steamship Co" (Inc.), 44 Whitehall Street, New York; Bowling Green
6511-6512-6513-6514.
Prompt sailings to Hambiirg and Rotterdam — 100 Al steel steamers — Sk(W8tad—
Jtdianna — Dalgada — Ohak — Prompt loading from our own per 7, North River —
For rates and furtherparticulars apply to Pacat Steamship Corporation, 42 Broad wav.
N. Y.— Telephone Broad 7651-2-3-4-5-6— Chicago, 327 So.^LaSalle St., Harrison
283-'Philadeiphia, Land Title Bldg., Spruce 5515 — Pittsburgh, Chamber of Commerce
Bldg., Grant 2371— San Francisco, 210 Drumm St.; Sutter 4472— Mobile, City Bank
Bldg., Mobile 326.
410 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
For the development of American trade in Germany — ^Our Mr. Charles Schroeder is
now in personal charge of our branch office in Hamburg — We are in a position to offer
to manufacturers, exporters, importers, and others interested in furthering trade vnth
the above and adjacent countries, the facilities of a complete organization for the sale
and distribution of all products — We invite proposals, samples, catalogues, and
correspondence from responsible parties — ^Maritime Navigation Co. (Inc.), 17 Battery
Place, New York; telephone, Whitehall 1648-55.
Hamburg — Japanese steel steamer — 100 A-1 Lloyds — Itsukushima Mara— Now
receiving— Sailing on or about July 11 — Full brokerage paid — For rates and particu-
lars apply Triangle Steamship Co. (Inc.), 44 Whitehall Street, New York; Bowling
Green 6511-6512-6513-6514.
Hambiu^— American steamer — ^A-1 IJoyds — Thala- -Now receiving — Sailing on or
about July 18 — For rates and particulars applv Brooks Steamship Corporation, 25
Broad St., New York; Broad 5835.
Senator Brandegee. Will the Senator from New Mexico permit
me to ask a question at this point ?
Senator Fall. Certainly. Then I will have another question or
two later.
Senator Brandegee. Right on that particular point, before you
pass to the other methods of making peace. As between Germany
and the United States of America, Germany never declared war on
America, did she?
Mr. Miller. No; the United States declared that a state of war
existed.
Senator Brandegee. Now the President appeared before Congress
and announced that the war was over. The German Army has been
defeated and demobiUzed. ^Fhe American Army is being demobilized.
The German Navy has been surrendered. Germany has signed the
peace treaty, which Great Britain has signed. The President has
affixed his signature to that same peace treaty. The fighting is over.
The blockade against Germany has been raisedf. We get no indemnity
and no reparation from Germany under the terms of the treaty itself,
and we are demanding none. VVe get no part of the captured Ger-
man territories. In view of those facts, is there no way in which the
United States of America and Germany can be in a status of peace,
except by having a written treaty of peace executed by the two
nations ?
Mr. Miller. Do you mean that no way could be devised ?
Senator Brandegee. I mean, is there no way possible for us to be
at peace without executing a written treaty of peace ?
Mr. Miller. I do not think there is any practical way of doing it.
Senator Brandegee. Suppose Congress should repeal the joint
resolution which it passed declaring a state of war to exist. What
do you think the international situation would be between the
Ignited States and Germany ?
Mr. Miller. I should like to consider that, Senator, before an-
swering it. It has never happened in the history of the country,
and I should like to think it over.
Senator Brandegee. Suppose Congress should pass a joint reso-
lution, as it did when it declared a status of war, but declaring that
the status of war previously declared by Congress no longer existed.
What do you think would be the international relations between the
Cnited States and Germany ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAN^Y. 411
Mr. Miller. I should like also to make a (Considered answer to
that question.
Senator Braxdegee. Suppose that'were supplemented by a joint
resolution of Congress autnorizing and directing the President to
reestablish the Consular Service and to proclaim that a status of peace
exists between the two countries ?
Mr. Miller. You are assuming that the joint resolution was passed
by Congress and signed by the President, or passed over his veto?
Senator Brandegee. No; I am not assuming that, any more than
I assume that it was necessary for the declaration of war to have
been signed bv the President. The Constitution provides that
Congress shall declare war.
Wr. Miller. Well, I am aware of that. I was asking what your
assumption was in this case ?
Senator Brandegee. I will assume both cases. I will assume,
first, that the joint resolution declaring a status of peace was signed
by the President. Then what is your answer. And if it was not
signed by the President, what is your answer? Please answer both.
Mr. Miller. I should like to think of that a little, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. Very well. I understood you, when you
were answering a question of mine sometime ago, to say that you
and a gentleman named Hurst had prepared, or had to do with the
preparation of the plans for the covenant of the league which was
submitted to the commission. Am I correct about that ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. What is the full napae of this Mr. Hurst ?
Mr. MuxER. C. J. B. Hurst.
Senator Brandegee. What does the "C" stand for?
Mr. Miller. I only know his initials.
Senator Brandegee. How long were you associated with him?
Mr. MiLLBR. He was there in Paris all the time that I was there —
most of the time.
Senator Brandegee. How long were you in conference with him
in the preparation of this plan ?
Mr. Miller. Several days, I think, Senator. I don't remember.
Senator Brandegee. And you do not know his first name ?
l^Ir. Miller. It escapes me at the moment Senator.
Senator Brandegee. You have known it ?
Mr. Miller. I have known it; but it escapes me at the moment.
Senator Brandegee. What was his business ?
Mr. Miller. He is legal adviser to the British foreign office.
Senator Brandegee. Is he an attorney at law in Great Britain?
Mr. Miller. I assume that he is.
Senator Moses. He has no connection with Mr. Francis Hurst,
former editor of the Economist?
Mr. Miller. I know nothing as to that.
Senator Brandegee. He is an Englishmen, is he not, a subject of
Great Britain?
Mr. Miller. Well, I assume so.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know whether he is a writer in public
journals ?
Mr. Miller. I think he has -written; yes.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know in what journals he has
written ?
414
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Now, suppose the United States and Great Britain had a dispute.
Great Britain has six votes in the assembly, has she not?
Mr. Miller. Well, there is a vote for each of the four dominions,
and one for India.
Senator Brandeoee. How many does that make for Great Britain,
the British Empire altogether ? i ou know what the Briti^^h Empire
is, do you not?
Mr. MILLER. I do, but
Senator Brandeoee. How many votes doe*^ the British Empire
have in the assembly altogether ?
Mr. Miller. The British Empire has one vote, Canada has one
vote, Australia has one vote. New Zealand has one vote
Senator Brandeoee. Wait a minute.
Senator Hitchcock. I insist that the witness be allowed to finth
his answer.
Senator Brandeoee. I do not are.
Senator Hitchcock. The committee has a right to have the ques-
tion answered.
Senator Swanson. It is the committee, not a matter of the Senator
personally.
Senator McCumber. I think the witness should answer the ques-
tion.
Senator Swanson. This is not done entirely for any one Senator.
It is for the entire committee.
Senator Brandeoee. I have the right to call the attention of the
witness to what I think was a misstatement. I am going to give
the witness a chance to answer the question.
Mr. Miller. I should like to complete the answer.
Senator Brandeoee. I should like to suggest to you the difference
between the British Empire and the United Kingdom.
Senator McCumber. The witness was enumerating the votes that
the British Empire had in the assembly.
Senator Brandeoee. Please enumerate the votes that the British
Emph-e has in the assembly.
Mr. Miller. The British Empire has one vote, Canada has one
vote, Australia has one vote, New Zealand has one vote, South Africa
has one vote, and India has one vote.
Senator Brandeoee. Is not Canada a part of the British Empire ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Then, why do you say the British Empire
has one vote and Canada has one vote?
Mr. Miller. Because that is what the covenant says.
Senator Brandeoee. Does it not say that Great Britain has one
vote, and its self-governing colonies, Canada, New Zealiand, and
India each have one vote ?
Mr. Miller. It does not.
Senator Brandeoee. The British Empire altogether has six votes ^
has it not, in the assembly ?
Mr. Miller. 1 can only answer it except in the way I have an-
swered it.
Senator Brandeoee. What is the total of the votes that the
British Empire has, as you have answered it ?
Mr. Miller. The total as I have answered it is that the British
Empire has one vote, Canada has one vote, Australia one vote, India
one vote, South Africa one vote, and New Zealand one vote.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 415
Senator Brandeoee. That makes six votes under the control of
the British Empire, does it not ?
Mr. Miller. Not in my opinion.
Senator Brandeoee. Now, the covenant provides, does it not,
that a party to the dispute can not sit in judgment, can not partici-
pate in the judgment by the assembly i
Mr. Miller. To be precise, it excludes that vote in certain conse-
quences.
Senator Brandeoee. Does it not exclude the vote of the parties
to the dispute, from participation in the proceedings, in the settle-
ment of the dispute ?
Mr. Miller, rfo; they participate in the proceedings, Senator.
There is no provision that they shall not participate in the proceedings.
Senator Brandeoee. What does it mean then, when it says in the
part I have read —
Provided^ That a report made by the assembly, is concurred in by the representatives
of those members of the league represented in the council and of a majority of the other
members of the league, exclusive in each case of the representatives of the parties to
the dispute?
Mr. Miller. That is exclusive in relation to the concurrence.
Senator Brandeoee. They can not participate in making the
report, can they ?
Mr. Miller. I do not see why they can not.
Senator Brandeoee. I do not see how they can, if this English
language means what I think it does:
Protided, That a report made by the assembly, if concurred in by the representa-
tives of those members of the league represented on the council and of a majority of
the other members of the league, exclusive in each case of the repre8entati> es of the
parties to the dispute.
Does not that exclude them from participation in the report ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; because that is not what it says. It says a
report made by the assembly, if concurred in by the representatives
of those members of the league represented on the council, and a
majority of the other members of tne league, exclusive in each case
of the representatives of the parties to the dispute.
That is in regard to concurrence by the representatives of those
members represented on the. council, and in regard to the concur-
rence of a majority of the other members of the league. ''Exclu-
sive" relates to that. The effect of the vote is the effect of their
concurrence or nonconcurrence, as described here.
Senator Brandeoee. And do you understand by that where
two nations are members of this league, and at the request of one
of them a dispute has been referred to the assembly, that the parties
to the dispute can participate in the decision of their own case ?
Mr. Miller. They take part, yes; but under this provision their
concurrence or theii* nonconcurrence does not affect certain results,
of the decision.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you mean that they can vote on the
adoption of the report ?
Mr. Miller. In my option, yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, I just wanted to get your opinion.
Senator Harding. May I ask a question right there ?
Senator Brandeoee. Certainly.
416 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMAKY.
Senator Harding. Suppose a case affecting Australia should go
from the council to the assembly for settlement, and under this pro-
vision a majority vote of the assembly carried the decision, if it is
concurred in by the members of the council apart from those con-
cerned in this dispute, would the other representatives of the British
Empire be restrained from votins in the assembly if it was a matter
in which Australia was concerned ?
Mr. Miller. May I ask a question, Senator ?
Senator Hardino. Certainly. I want to make it clear.
Mr. Miller. The dispute is between Australia and some other
Senator Harding. Some other country than Great Britain. We
will say it is between Australia and the United States, for example i
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Harding. And we will say that the matter in dispute is
agreed on in the council except by Australia. Australia has no place
in the council.
Mr. Miller. If it was referred to the council, Senator, there is a
provision in Article IV —
Any member of the league not represented on the council shall be invited to send a
representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the council during the consideration
of matters specially affecting the interests of mat member of the league.
Senator Harding. Let us disregard that. Let us assume that the
-dispute between the United States and Australia goes from the council
to the assembly. The point I am trying to clear up is, will Great
Britain and Canada and India and her ouicr possessions, other than
Australia have a right to vote in the assembly in that decision ?
Mr. Miller. I think, Senator, there is some doubt as to that. I
can only give you my own opinion, which is that they would.
Senator Harding. That they would ?
Senator Brandegek. I was gpin^ to ask him that very question.
Senator Swanson. Let him finish.
Mr. Miller. I had not quite finished my answer, Senator. I
paused, but I had not quite nnished.
Senator Brandegee. I beg your pardon.
Mr. Miller. Although I wisn to point out that you used the words
'''Great Britain'^ I think that name does not appear in the treaty.
Senator Harding. You know what 1 mean. I mean the associated
governments of the British Empire.
Mr. Miller. But I pointed out. Senator, that the British Em-
pire
Senator Harding. The British Dominions. Choose any term you
like. You know precisely what I mean.
Mr. Miller. les. Senator, there was no misapprehension, but I
wanted to allude to the point, because the words ''British Empire"
as used here, include various parts of the British Empire that are not
dominions, that are outside of dominions. That is the British Em-
pire here.
Senator Harding. I am not trjring to be querulous or smart about
it. I am trying to get at this fact: In a dispute between one of
Britain's dominions which participated with her in the defense of the
realm, arising between that dominion and the United States, it goes
apparently to the assembly for a vote. Will India and England and
Cfanada and the other British possessions, other than the one part^ to
the dispute, have votes in the assembly in determining the question?
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 417
Mr. Miller. I am inclined to think they would, Senator, because
this covenant has gone very far in the direction of making AustraUa
a separate entity internationally. I do not say that it has reached
that point, but I do say that it nas gone very far in that direction in
my opinion.
Senator Fall. She is a separate party to the treaty herself ?
Mr. Miller. The treaty is made
Senator Fall. I was referring to pages 5 and 7, which I have
before me. She signed by her representatives.
Mr. Miller. Yes, under their theory, as I understand it, the treaty
is made by the King for the British Empire and for Canada and for
Australia and so on.
Senator Fall. Whatever the theory may be, it s^ys :
His Majesty, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of
le Britim Dominions beyond the seas, Emporor of India, bv:
The Right Honorable David Lloyd George, M. P., first lord of his treasury and prime
minister;
The R%ht Honorable Andrew Bonar Law, M. P., his lord privy seal;
The Right Honorable Viscount Miner, G. G. B., G. G. M. G.. his secretary of state
for the colonies;
The Right Honorable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P., his secretary of state
for forei^ affairs;
The Right Honorable George NicoU Barnes, M. P., minister without portfolio;
And—
For the Dominion of Canada, by:
The Honorable Charles Joseph Doherty, minister of justice;
The Honorable Arthur Lewis Sifton, minister of customs;
For the Commonwealth of Australia, bv:
The Right Honorable William Morris Hughes, attorney j^eneral and prime minister;
The Right Hoaorable Sir Joseph Cooke, G. C. M. G., minister for the navy;
For the Union of South Africa, by:
General the Right Honorable Louis Botha, minister of native affairs and prime
minister;
Lieatenant General the Right Honorable Jan Christian Smuts, K. C, minister of
defense;
For the Dominion of New Zealand, by:
The R^ht Honorable WiUiam Ferguson Maasey, minister of labor and prime minis-
ter;
For India, by:
The Right Honorable Edwin Samuel Montaf;u, M. P., his secretary of state for India:
less Maharaja Sir Ganga Singh Bahadur, Maharaja ot
Bikaier, G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E., G. C. V. O., K. C. B., A. D. C.
Major General His Highnc
Ml, Miller. It was to that that I alluded.
Senator Brandegee. Now, I want to resume my examination.
I was just about, in the next question, to ask you the very question
that Senator Harding asked. I notice on page 43 of this treaty in the
annex it describes the original members of the league of nations
signatories of the treaty of peace. They are so headed, and when it
comes to the British Empire these words are used: *^ British Em-
pire," ^'Canada," ^^AustraUa,'' ^'New Zealand," ''South Africa,"
'India."
There are six of them. There are six votes, as I imderstand it,
in the assembly, to which upon the request of either party, within 14
days after a dispute comes to the coimcil, the dispute must be re-
moved. Now, I ask you this : Suppose a dispute develops between
what I suppose as correctly described as the United Kingdom of
England, Ireland, ScotJand, and Wales, which I suppose is called
Great Britain; supposing a dispute arises between tnat portion of
136546—19 21
418 TBEAT7 OF FBACB WITH OBBMAlfrY.
the British Emj^ire and the United States of America, and upon the
request of the United States of America the dispute is removed from
the council to the assembly, where there are these six' British vote:
what we call the United l^in^om, and these self-governing colome^,
Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, and New Zealand, which are
parts of the British Empire. Would they be allowed to have iivp
votes in that dispute while the United States is excluded from any
vote?
&fr. MiLLEB. I think I have answered that, Senator.
Senator Branbeoee. I should like to have you answer it now!
Mr. MiLLBB. I think I have answered that if the dispute were
such that it in no wav involved any of the dominions or India, whifh
is proposed by your hypothesis
Senator Brandeoee. My hypothesis is that they are part of the
British Empire, and are allowed to sit in a dispute between a p&rt
of the British Empire and the United States, whde the United States
is clearly excluded from participation. I wanted to know if that wa^
your understanding, or whether you consider the question to be
in doubt ?
Mr. Miller. I think it is in a great deal of doubt, Senator, because
it is very difficult to imagine a dispute in which the British dominioiis
and India would not be interested in the result.
Senator Brandeoee. It seems to me so. That is, it is difficult to
imagine a case where they would not be interested, but it does not
seem to me there is any doubt about it; but if it is in doubt, in tout
opinion as an international lawyer and as the expert adviser o{ the
commission that drafted the league of nations covenant, do you not
think now is the time to clear up that doubt, before we take the
chances of submitting a vital dispute affecting the United States
to a tribunal from which we are excluded and in which Great Britaio.
or the British Empire, may have five votes to our none ? Is not now
the time to clear that up ?
Mr. Miller. Why, Senator, my doubt was as to the possibihty of
the hypothesis.
Senator Brandeoee. What is there about the hypothesis that is
doubtful ?
Mr. Miller. That there might be a dispute affecting the British
Empire in which Canada and the other dominions and India were
not interested. The question which the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Harding) asked me was concerning a dispute with Australia, which
is a possibility, I admit.
Senator Brandeoee. I know his question involves the question
whether Great Britain — or England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales,
as I understood you — ^would be allowed to vote on the Austraban
dispute ? My question is whether in a dispute between Great Britain,
Ireland, Scotland, and Wales on the one hand, and the United States
of America on the other, all the other members of the British Empire
which are allowed delegates in the assembly are to be aUowed to vote
in a case in which the British Empire is interested, while we are to be
excluded from voting on the report on that dispute. You under-
stand the question, do you not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I understand the question. Senator. The doubt
I expressed was not as to the answer to the question, but as to the
possibility of the case arising.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 419
Senator Brandegee. Do you mean that you denj the possibility
... of the United States ever having a difference of opinion with Great
Britain which would come under the jurisdiction of the council of the
league of nations ?
-~ Mr. Miller. Oh, no; that is possible; but
Senator Brandegee. Assuming that that possibiUty has arisen,
and I repeat the question which I just asked you, and to which I did
not quite understand your answer. You, however, seem to doubt
something
Mr. Miller. I will make it perfectly clear.
Senator Brandegee. I wish you would.
Mr. Miller. Suppose a dispute between the British Empire and
the United States: As I understand it, in that dispute neither Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or India nas any interest.
Senator Brandegee. They. are parts of the British Empire, are
they not ?
Mr. Miller. If they have an interest, then they would be parties
to the dispute. That is what I am in doubt about.
Senator Harding. Who determines that ?
Senator Brandegee. Do you claim there can be any dispute
between the British Empire and the United States of .^jnerica in
which the units that compose the British Empire are not interested ?
Mr. Miller. That was the point I was raising. Senator; because
then, if
Senator Brandegee. Suppose-;
Senator Swanson. Let him finish his answer.
Senator Brandegee. Very well; let him answer. I am glad to
have him.
Mr. Miller. In that case they would be interested and would
come within the provisions of parties to the dispute, and would be
excluded.
Senator Brandegee. In which case ?
Mr. Miller. In that case.
Senator Brandegee. In which case ?
Mr. AfiLLER. In the case of a dispute in which, as you say, they
would be interested, they would come within the expression ^* parties
to the dispute."
Senator Brandegee. Can you imagine a case in which a dispute
arose between the United States and that portion of the British
Empire composed of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, which
woiud not interest all the members of the British Empire as an
Empire?
Mr. Miller. That is what I can not imagine, Senator, and that is
why I say they would be parties to the dispute and would be excluded
as against the United States.
Senator Brandegee. Then, is it your understanding that no dis-
pute could arise between the United States on the one hand and
England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales on the other hand in which
all members of the British Empire would not be interested ?
Mr. Miller. I can not think of any such dispute.
Senator Brandegee. Then you think they all would be excluded,
instead of having the right to participate, do you not?
Mr. Miller. In the case you suppose.
420 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandeqee. Then what did you mean by saying in your
previous answers that you had some doubt about it ^
Mr. Miller. That was not the same question. That was if there
was a possibiUty of dispute between Australia and the United
States.
Senator Brandeqee. Have you any doubt that there might be a
dispute between Australia and th'e United Stat es ?
Mr. Miller. Oh, no; there might be.
Senator Brandeqee. Verv well. In that case would the other
self-governing colonies of the British Empire bo excluded from par-
ticipation in the assembly ?
Mr. Miller. It is very difficult to imagine a case where the others
would not be interested, but I think perhaps it is possible to imagine
such a case, where the interests oi Canada would be adverse to
Australia.
Senator Swanson. I think the question was
Senator Brandeqee. I do not care to be interrupted
Senator Swanson. The question was
Senator Brandeqee. I am conducting this examination, and you
have no right to interrupt it without I yield to you.
Senator Swanson. If the Senator insists, I will not press my ques-
tion for the present.
Senator Brandeqee. I do not yield. As I understand you, Mr.
Miller, there might arise a case where one English colony was inter-
ested in a dispute, and it would be doubtful whether another English
colony would be interested or not.
Mr. Miller. I think it is very difficult to visualize a case where it
would be doubtful, but it is perhaps possible, Senator.
^ Senator Brandeqee. I can not conceive that there would be any
doubt that one part of the British Empire would be interested in
anything that affected the whole British Empire, just as any State of
the American Union would be interested in everything that pertains
to the United States of America. But if there was a doubt or could
be a doubt in anv case, in your opinion who would decide the ques-
tion of whether tney were interested or not ?
Mr. Miller. Let* me explain. Senator.
Senator Brandeqee. Certainly, that is what I am asking you about.
Mr. Miller. When I answered the Senator from Ohio he raised
the question of Australia. I was thinking of it as perhaps a possi-
bility— a technical possibility. I can not think of a concrete case
which would arise, out perhaps some such case could arise. None
have been suggested that I know of, and it seems to me that the
presumption would certainly be that a dispute involving one part of
the British Empire would involve all of it.
Senator Brandeqee. Do you think you have answered the ques-
tion ? You know I asked you who would decide the question in case
there was a doubt. Do you think you have answered that question ?
Mr. Miller. I do not think I have fully answered it.
Senator Brandeqee. No; I did not thmk you had. Do you care
to answer it ?
Mr. Miller. Oh, yes. I think the presumption would be, certainly,
that every part of the British Empire was interested.
Senator Brandeqee. If there was a doubt, and it was only de-
pending upon a presumption, who would decide the doubt ?
J
TKBATT OF PBAOE WITH QEBMANY. 421
Mr. Miller. It would seem to me that it would reouire the unan-
imous vote of the assembly to permit any part of the British Empire
to participate in that case.
oenator Bbandeobe. In that case the very people who might be
interested — the question is, being interested, are tney to be aUowed
to vote in their own case ?
Mr. Miller. Their vote, in my judgment, would not have any
eflfect on the matter, because every other power would have to agree
unanimously that they be admitted.
Senator Brandegee. But would they be allowed to vote or not ?
Afr. Miller. I answer that by savmg that they would, in my
opinion, be allowed to vote — to record what they thought — but that
it would not aflfect the result.
_ Senator Brandeoee. Do you mean to say that a party whose
right to participate in the proceedings is challenged because he may
be interested would be allowed to vote as to his own qualifications,
as to whether he was interested and should be excluded or not.
Mr. Miller. I think he would have a right to record his view that
he was not interested.
Senator Brandegee. I did not ask you about recording his view,
or making an oral statement. I asked you, would he have a right to
vote on the question and have his vote coimted as determining his
own credentials?
Mr. Miller. I said his vote would not count in my opinion.
Senator Brandegee. Then, what would be the use of letting him
vote at all if you would not coxmt his vote ?
Mr. Miller. That applies to a great many votes. Senator.
Senator Brandegee. Some in tne South; yes. I did not suppose
the league was going to do business on those principles,
Mr. Miller. It applies to any minority vote, where a majority
controls.
Senator Brandegee. Well, I give it up.
Senator Harding. I think it will help us to get an understanding
if you will return for the moment to the language in article 15, if the
witness will say to us whether a prejudicial or fraternal interest makes
one of the British subsidiary powers a party to the dispute. It says
in the language used here —
Exclusive in each case of representatives of the parties to the dispute.
Is there any construction whereby in a strictly technical way a
British dominion would become a party to a dispute raised by another
dominion ? Let us go back, for example, to our AustraUan question.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Harding. If we had a dispute with Australia, do you con-
strue it that Canada could in any way be counted as a party to the
dispute?
Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, it might be possible to think of a case
where Canada would have no interest, but it seems to me
Senator Harding. But now, mark you, the language does not say
"having an interest."
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Harding. It says *'a party to the dispute."
ilr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Harding. And that is precisely what I am anxious to see
cleared up. I can not myself conceive, these nations being members
•
422 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
of the league, how any of them save the one directly interested can
be in any way a party to the dispute, though I can very well conceive
of every one of them being interested.
Senator McCumber. Let me ask right there : If we have any trouble
with Canada, where do we go to settle that trouble ? We go to Great
Britain — that is, the British Empire, as represented by Great Britain —
do we not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. We want to settle it diplomatically. Canada
has no diplomatic agent here. We have to deal with Great Britain,
do we not ?
Mr. Miller. The theory and the practice are very different in that
regard. Theoretically we deal with London, but it is not so prac-
tically.
Senator McClt^ber. But she, of course, refers the matter to her
dominion, and will generally go in accordance with the wishes of that
dominion; but in au cases m matters of dispute between the United
States and the Dominion we must deal with the British Grovernment,
must we not ?
Mr. Miller. Senator, I want to repeat, because I do not think it
is technical at all — I think it is very practical — that the negotiations
in that event have been carried on directly with Canada. iTiat is a
practical matter.
Senator Hitchcock. Canada has no diplomatic relations with any
country ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Hitchcock. If a dispute arises, it is a dispute between the
British Empire, representing Canada, and the other Government.
Mr. Miller. That is true, Senator.
Senator Hitchcock. So that any dispute that could arise between
the United States and the Dominion of Canada involves the whole
British Empire.
Mr. Miller. It seems so to me, Senator; but I mean to say that as
a practical matter somebody is usually appointed who is satisfac-
tory
Senator Hitchcock. That is not the question. But it disqualifies
the whole British Empire from participating in the decision.
Mr. Miller. In my opinion, I can not conceive of a case where it
would not be interested.
Senator McCumber. Tliat is what we wanted to understand.
Senator Hitchcock. If a dispute arises between the British Em-
pire and the United States, does not that disqualify all of the parts of
the British Empire from participating i
Mr. Miller. It would seem to me that it would be impossible to
suppose that they were not parties to the dispute.
Senator Hitchcock. Yes; certainly.
Mr. Miller. In that case.
Senator McCumber. Are there any other questions ?
Senator Fall. Yes. I should like to see if we can get at the truth
of this business. Under the status as it exists to-day between the
United States of America and Great Britain, it is true that a diplo-
matic question affecting Canada would be taken up by Great Britain;
but what will be the status after the adoption of this treaty?
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 423
Senator HitchcOok. The same thiiig
Senator Fall. You are answering for the witness, and you and I
disagree absolutely.
Senator Hitchcock. I thought you were askmg me.
Senator Fall. I say, granting that disputes between the United
States and Canada to-day are taken up to Great Britain, which is the
truth, what will be the status if this treaty is ratified ? I will go on
and explain a little further. You said, Mr. Miller, that you could
not imagine a case in which Great Britain might be interested and her
colonies not be interested. Great Britain has a coastwise trading act
applicable to the Kingdom of Great Britain, but not applicable to
Canada or Australia, just as we have a coastwise trading act.
Mr. Miller. We have. I am not sure about the British act.
Senator Fall. You are not familiar with the general navigation
act of Great Britain ?
Mr. Miller. I am not clear that it is just like ours.
Senator Fall. You know that imder the British North American
Act of Union, of 1867, the different Provinces of Canada have juris-
diction over lands and mines and real estate and timber, etc., within
their own confines, and that under that act of 1867 and subsequent
acts amendatory to it the general Dominion Government of Canada
exercises aj)pellate jurisdiction over those matters, and in some cases
original jurisdiction, and has absolute control, aside from any control
whatever ol Great Britain over such objects, do you not?
Mr. Miller. Yes; I know generally the effect of that act.
Senator Fall. Then there could be a case arising between one of
those Provinces, which has entire self-government and control of
this property, and the United States, which in so far as the subject-
matter was concerned would not interest the other Provinces, except
as they might say they would generally be interested in the welfare
of one another.
Mr. Miller. A dispute between one Province of Canada
Senator Fall. One of the dominions of the British Empire and
the United States, in which the other dominions of the British Em-
pire would not be interested, just as you have suggested that there
mijjht arise such a case in Australia. Now, if Australia has final
juTLsdiction over her land matters, or, for instance, over certain har-
Dors in Australia, and she owns her own railroads, with which Great
Britain has absoluteljr nothing to do, and New Zealand owns her
own railroads, a question might arise between New Zealand and the
United States or some'other country, in which Canada was not inter-
ested at all. Ordinarily such a dispute with a foreign country would
fo to Great Britain, and through diplomatic arrangements she, might
ring pressure to bear on New Zealand or Australia, exactly as the
dispute between Japan and the United States over the exclusion act
in California, so far as the public schools are concerned, or over the
land act of California, mignt indirectly involve the United States.
The United States might bring pressur t bear upon the State of
California. Might not that condition arise with reierence to such a
dispute as we have been discussing ?
Mr. Miller. It ia very difficult. Senator, for me to see how it would
not involve the rest of the British Empire
Senator Fall. The difference is simply this, that this is the United
States of ^Vmerica, and that you gentlemen over there aroimd the
424 TREATY OF PEAGB WITH GERMANY.
peace table gave six votes to Great Britain — that is, to the United
Kingdom one vote, to Canada one vote, to Australia one vote, to
Soutn Africa one vote, to India one vote, to New Zealand one vote,
or six votes altogether, and you did not give a vote to the State
of California, or to the State of New York, or to any one of the 48
States of our Union. There is the difference.
Mr. Miller. May I have it appear in the record, Mr. Chairman,
that my answer to the OTevious question was not completed ?
Senator McCumber. The witness can now complete his answer.
Senator Fall. I beg the pardon of the witness. I thought he had
completed his answer.
Senator McCumber. It is not necessary to ask the pardon of any-
one. The witness has signilBed that he has not completed his answo:,
and he is now allowed to complete it.
Senator Fall. I will be very glad to hear it.
Mr. Miller, I do not remember just the words of the question, or
how far I had got in my answer, but I had not completed it.
Senator McCumber. Let the stenographer read the question and
the answer as far it had gone.
(The stenographer read as follows:)
Senator Fall. One of the dominione of the British Empire and the United States
in which the other dominions of the British Empire would not be interested, just
as you have suggested that there might arise such a case in Australia. Now if Aus-
tralia has final jurisdiction over her land matters, or for instance, over certain har-
bors in Australia, and she owns her own railroads, with which Great Britain has
absolutely nothing to do, and New Zealand owns her own railroads, a question inif>;ht
arise between New Zealand and the United States or some other country, in which
Canada was not interested at all. Ordinarily such a dispute with a foreigp country
would go to Great Britain, and through diplomatic arrangements she might bring
pressure to bear on New Zealand or Australia, exactly as the dispute between Japan
and the United States over the exclusion act in California, so far as the public schools
are concerned, or over the land act of California, might indirectly involve the United
States. The United States might bring pressure to oear^upon the State of (California.
Might not that condition arise with reference to such a dispute as we have been
discussing?
Mr. Miller. It is very difficult, Senator, for me to see how it would not involve
the rest of the British Empire
Senator McCumber. Now you may complete your answer,
Mr. Miller. It is very difficult for me to see how it would not
involve the rest of the British Empire, because a dispute regarding
any such matters would arise under treaties which had been made
with the British Empire.
Senator Fall. That is the answer, is it ?
Mr. Miller. That is all.
Senator Brandegee. Let me ask this one question: Under the
language of the clause of the covenant of the league of nations which
we have been discussing—
Exclusive in each case of the representatives of the parties to the dispute —
If we had a dispute with Australia, would you consider that all
the other countries which constitute the British Empire were parties
to that dispute ?
Mr. Miller. It would seem w me, Senator, that in any case that
I can think of they would be. I do not say that it is not possible
to imagine a theoretical case, some dispute that might arise in the
future, particularly if the relations of the British Empire change
in terse.
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 425
Senator Brandeoee. What I am surprised at is that your answer
now seems to be diametrically opposed to what it was when I asked
you these questions in the earlier part of your examination; because
you were saying then, as I understood it, that a dispute with one of
the self-governing colonies of the British Empire would not exclude
the other membera of the British Empire from participating in the
report on that dispute.
Mr. Miller. If I recollect, I said that a case could be imagined.
I said I did not ima^e any. I said that in reply to the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. Hardmg].
Senator Brandeoee. I will put the question in this way, then:
If we hare a dispute with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, for
instance, do you think that any of the British self-governing colonies
can participate in the report on that dispute?
Mr. Miller. No; I do not think so.
Senator Brandeoee. You think they would all be excluded ?
Mr. Miller. I think they will all be excluded in that case bv this
language; but we must remember, without regard to the tecnnical
question of voting, that they would have no effect on the result.
Senator Brandeoee. They could not participate in the report,
could they ?
Mr. Miller. They might concur in the report in favor of the
United States if they chose.
Senator Brandeoee. What does it mean then by saying —
Excluaive in each case of the representatives of the parties to the dispute.
Mr. Miller. It means this, that their concurrence or noncon-
currence is immaterial. It might well be that Canada or Australia
would concur with the view of the United States against the British
Empire in a dispute between the British Empire and the United
States.
Senator Brandeoee. How can that be so when the very language
of the act is —
Provided, That a report made by the ajBsembly if concurred in by the representa-
tives of those members of the league represented on the council and a majority of the
other members of the league, exclusive in each case of the representatives of the
parties to the dispute.
Does not that exclude them even from the privilege of concurring
in the report, which you say they have the right to do ?
ilr. Miller. No, oenator; this is what I thmk it means. Let me
take an arbitration case to illustrate exactly what I mean; and in
order to simplify it, may I take the council instead of the assembly ?
The council is composed at present of nine members. Now I will
assume that the dispute is between two States represented on the
council. The provisions of article 15 are that if tne report is con-
curred in by the other seven members, it has a certain effect, but it
does not say that one of the other two may not concur in it if he
chooses; but his concurrence in it or his dissent from it would not
affect the result that the report concurred in by the seven members
would have. The distinction, I admit, has no practical result; but
you asked me as to the precise language and 1 think that is the
effect of it.
Senator Braxdegee. I was asking, of course, not as to the council
but as to the assembly, and that is what I have directed my entire
426 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
examination to, because it is in the assembly that the self-governing
colonies of the British Empire have votes, and not in the council.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Therefore what you say about the council is
not responsive at all to my question.
Mr. Miller. Well, Senator, it is intended to be responsive. I
took it for the sake of simplicity of numbers. I did not intend to
evade the question.
Senator Brandeoee. I know you did not. I did not know that you
saw the point of my question. Of coiu^e, the question does not
arise in the coxmcil as to whether the self-governing colonies of Great
Britain can vote, but that question continually arises in the assembly
where each self-governing colony has a vote, and there are six votes
of the British Empire in the assembly; and the whole object of my
inquiry for the last hour has been to ascertain whether, the United
States being excluded certainly from concurring in the report of the
assembly because it is a party to the dispute — the question is whether
all the British self-governing colonies are excluded also in case of a
row between the United States and Great Britain itself. The council
has nothing to do with it. I am talking about the assembly.
Mr. Miller. But the provisions are the same.
Senator Brandeoee. The provisions are not the same, because
Great Britain has only one vote in the council and we have one vote.
In the assembly Great Britain has six votes and we have one, and if
we are a party to a dispute with Great Britain our one vote is excluded,
and we can not concur in it because we are a party in interest; and 1
understood you first to say that the self-governing colonies, if they
themselves were not original parties to the dispute, cDuld sit there and
vote, although Great Britain was concerned.
Mr. Miller. Oh, no; I never said that. You are mbtaken. I
did not say that.
Senator Brandegee. I will have to leave that to the record, and
I can not quote the whole record. But that was clearly what I
understood you to say.
Mr. Miller. No, Senator, I did not say so, and I am sure the
record will show it.
Senator Brandegee. I will leave it to the record.
Mr. Miller. In what I said in answer to your last question I took
the council simply for the sake of simplicity of numbers. My opinion
is the same as to the assembly. I think in a dispute between the
British Empire and the United States the votes of the dominions and
of India would not count in the force that the report would have under
the last paragraph of article 15; but I do think there is nothing in
article 15 which would prevent one of the dominions or all of them
from concurring in that report in favor of the United States and
against the British Empire; but their concurrence would not affect
or change the force of the report.
Senator Brandegee. If they have the right to concur, they cer-
tainly have the right to nonconcur, have they not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. That means to vote against it, does it not?
Mr. Miller. And that would not have any effect upon the force
of the report.
Senator Brandegee. Not if they were outvoted, of course.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 427
Mr. Miller. No, but their votes are not counted, according to the
ast paragraph of article 15, in my opinion.
Senator Brandeoee. Not only not counted, but the language is
that they are excluded from concurrence, in my opinion; but I will
leave it right there.
Mr. Miller. I do not think there is any practical difference
between what you have expressed and what I have expressed.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, I do.
Senator MgGumber. Are there any other questions ?
Senator Swanson. Let us see what is the practical effect of this.
Let us see if I have got it clear in my mind about going to the assem-
bly. The United States has a dispute. The United States has
agreed that it will not go to war in a dispute provided it has been
referred to the assembly, and provided that the members of the
council represented in the assembly, and the majority of the members
of the assembly ^ee on a report — excluding the members interested.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Now, when it comes up it is left to the United
States to determine, when that report is made, whether a majority,
either in the council or the assembly, is composed of people not
interested, is it not? That is what is required to make it binding
on us under our obligation not to resort to war. That is the only
obligation we assume. The obligation not to go to war is in a case
where a majority of the. assembly not interested, not counting the
votes of those interested, have made a report, or there is imanimity
of the council, not counting those interested. She is left to judge
when that report is made and the vote is recorded, as to whether
that situation is complied with or not, is she not?
Mr. Miller. Yes. I do not see, Senator, how there could be any
difference- It would have to be all the members of the council, or
it would have to be a majority of the assembly, excluding those
interested.
Senator Swanson. When you get to the assembly the United States
may say that the six members representing Great Britain are inter-
ested, and that consequently they have not got a majority of the
assembly, and not havmg a majority, our obligation not to resort to
war has not been imposed. Who determines as to whether a majority
of the assembly is composed of people not interested ?
Mr. Miller. The United States would coimt and see.
Senator Swanson. My cont^tion is that the United States would
count the number of votes in the assembly, and then if there was a
majority, excluding those who are interested — and she would have to
determine that for herself whether they were or not — then her obli-
gation under that would accrue, would it not ?
Mr. Miller. Her obligation would accrue.
Senator Swanson. I mean the obligation has not accrued until she
is satisfied that a majority in the assembly of those not interested
have voted against her, or if there is a unanimous report by the
members of the council ?
Mr. Miller. All of them imanimously except the parties to the
dispute.
Senator Swanson. When that report is made, it is not binding
unless that is the condition ?
Mr. Miller. It has no effect.
428 TREATY OF PEACB WITH GEBMAlSry.
Senator Swanson. Who determines whether that condition has
been complied with or not ?
Mr. Miller. It says specifically that in that case the members of
the league reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they
may consider necessary.
Senator Swanson. But suppose you have 160 men in the lea^e
and 83 of them vote one way, and in that 83 there are the six repre-
sentatives of Great' Britain in the assembly. If we take those six
away, it does not leave a majority. The United States says, *' If you
take six from this report, it is not a majority of the assembly, and
consequently I am not bound.'' Who determines that question i
Mr. AliLLER. The United States would say it is not boimd. It is
not boimd, in my opinion, according to the language of the treaty.
Senator Swanson. Consequently it would be left to the United
States to determine whether the six members representing the British
Empire were sufficiently interested that their concurrence in the
report would not count. What is your judgment on that ?
Mr. Miller. I do not think it would be doubted at all that they
were not to be counted by the United States or anybody else.
Senator Moses. In other words, we take on an obligation in the
covenant which leaves us to do as we please ?
Mr. Miller. No, Senator, I do not think you can say that, but it
is true in any international agreement of any Icind, of any treaty, that
in the last analysis the power that signs the treaty says that it will do
this, that, or the other thing. It is very difficult to draw the line
between what the party to a treaty is boimd to do, and the particular
decisions that may come up at particidar times, as to just how it
shall do it. That is very difficult.
Senator Moses. Do you find in your answer any justification fqr
Germany in her tearing up the treaty with reference to the neutrality
of Belgium ?
Mr. miller. Oh, no; because that was a case where there could be
no doubt whatever, and furthermore Germany admitted it. Ger-
many said, '^ We have violated this treaty."
Senator Moses. Then, you think the stipulations of this covenant
arenot sufficiently clear, so as to obviate all these doubts in the inter-
pretation of questions arising under the covenant ?
Mr. Miller. I think they are sufficiently clear. I do not think
there wUl be differences of opinion of any serious character regarding
the interpretation of the covenant.
Senator Moses. There seem to have been quite a number around
this table.
Mr. Miller. I think that is quite a different thing, Senator.
Senator McCumber. I want to ask you just one or two questions
bearing on this same subject, and call your attention to Article V of
the treaty, which says:
Except where otherwiec expresely provided for in this covenant or by the terms
of the present treaty, decisions at any meeting of the assembly or of the council shall
require the agreement of all the members of the league represented at the meeting.
That, of course, means a unanimous vote ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. The exception is found immediately in the
following paragraph:
All matters of procedure at meetings of the assembly or of the coimcil, including
the appointment of committees to investigate particalar matters, shall be regulated
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMA17Y. 429
by the afisembly or by the council, and may be decided by a majority of the members
of the league represented at the meeting.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. In other words, practically all matters
except those of procedure must be by a unanimous vote. Now,
turning again to page 31, which relates to the transferring of a matter
from the council to the assembly — aU matters must firat go to the
council; that is, all matters of dispute-;-and then the council may in
any case, under this article, refer the dispute to the assembly. That
means, of course, that there is a discretion there in the council to refer
the matter.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Otherwise there will be no necessity for that
provision at all. Now, inasmuch as that is not a mere matter of pro-
cedure but a matter affecting the vital interests of the parties — that
is, as to where it shall be sent for detennination — that Would require a
unanimous vote in the council, would it not ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator McCuhbeb. Very well, then, if it required a imanimous
vote, and the United States had any doubt or fear about being out-
voted in the assembly, she would not be required to send it to the
assemblv, would she ?
Mr. Miller. No; she would vote against it.
Senator McCumber. She would vote against it, and if she voted
against it, it could not go to the assembly ?
Mr. Miller. No; not under that provision.
Senator MgCumbeb. That is all I d^ire to ask.
(Thereupon, at 1.35 p. m. the committee adjourned imtil Wednes-
day, August 13, 1919, at 10.30 a. m.)
(Subsequently, at his request, the following letter from Mr, Miller
was ordered printed in the record :1
Department of State,
Washingtony August 25, 1919.
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge,
Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations^ United States Senate.
Dear Sir: In reading over the print of my testimony before the Committee on
Foreign Relations of August 12, I have observed certain errors, mostly typographical,
which I have indicated in the inclosed print, and I request that the record oe corrected
accordingly.
Referring to pages 411 and 412 of the record, there was obviously some confusion
as to the identity of Mr. Cecil J. B. Hurst. In justice to Mr. Hurst. I venture to
suggest that the record be changed by striking out everything after the question on
page 411, **What is the full name of this Mr. Hurst?" down to and including the
words, ''Senator Brandegee. That is all," on page 412, and that the following be
inserted:
"Cecil J. B. Hurst. Mr. Hurst has been connected with the British foreign office
since 1902. He was technical delegate and legal ad\Tser to the British Government
at the Second Hague Conference in 1907, ana appeared before the British- American
Claims Commission, at its sessions in the United States. "
The questions which were asked obviously related to Mr. Francis W. Birsl, but even
a careful reading of the record does not make this clear.
Faithfully, yours,
DuRAND Hunter Miller.
MONDAY, AUGUST, 18 1919.
United States Senate, ^i-
Committee on Foreign Relations, "'*
WashiTtgUmj D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10 -'
o'clock a. m., in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge presiding. ''
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Brando-
fee, Kiiox, Johnson of California, Moses, Hitchcock, Swanson, and
^omerene.
STATEMENT OF HB. THOHAS F. F. HILLABD.
The Chairman. Please give your full name.
Mr. Millard. Thomas P. F. Millard.
The Chairman. You have been a newspaper correspondent, have
you not ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; that is my occupation.
The Chairman. Have vou been in Cnina in that capacity?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I liave been more or less connected with the
Far East for 20 years.
The Chairman. In what capacity?
Mr. Millard. As a writer, a journalist, a publisher of newspapers, '
editor of newspapers.
The Chairman. I am going to ask Senator Johnson, as he has
^ven particular attention to this matter, to conduct your examina-
tion. ^
Senator Swanson. If the Senator will allow me, before he begins,
1 would like to ask Mr. Millard this question: Did you ever hold any
official position, or were you ever advisor to the Chinese Government ?
Mr. Millard. I can state the circumstances to you, and you can
judge for yourself. Last February I was in New York. I left '
hina in December and came to New York, and in January and
February I wrote the manuscript for a book; and while I was doing
that I received a telegram transmitted through the Chinese Legation '"'
in Washington, from the Chinese delegation at Paris, asking me -^
if I would come to Paris to advise them in an unofficial capacity. -^
Wlien I had delivered mv manuscript, I went on to Paris, and from i
the time I left New York until I got back they paid my expenses. J
I received no compensation.
Senator Swanson. No compensation?
Mr. Millard. No. If that constitutes an official connection,
why, that is what it amounted to.
I might say in that connection, that it has been the desire of the
Chinese delegation at Paris to employ two eminent Americans of
reputation as international lawyers, as their official advisors over
there; but by reason of advice given to them by our Government,
thoy did not do that. They had an English and a French advisor.
Senator Brandegee. TVnat part of our Government gave them
that advice ?
Mr. Millard.' I think the advice was first tentatively rendered
through our legation at Pekin and afterwards confirmed at Paris
in the early weeKS of the assemblage of the conference.
Senator Brandegee. Confirmed by whom at Paris ?
430
TBEATY OF PEAOE WITH GERMANY. 431
kMr. Millard. I think, perhaps, by Mr. Lansing, or perhaps com-
unicated through the Far Eastern experts — the advisors of our
mmission.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know what was the ground of that
idvice that they should not employ American counsel ?
llr. Millard. The explanation given to me by the Chinese was
that our Government felt that China's position over there was some-
what that of the ward of the United States. I am not saying that
tliey used that term, I am using that term as descriptive of the situa-
tion. There had been prelimmary consultations with the Chinese
delegation at Peking before they left for Paris, in which they had
submitted to our legation at Pelang a list of the matters which they
wished to bring up at Paris. On the suggestion of our Government,
communicated through the minister at feking, certain matters were
eliminated. That is, China was advised that our Government con-
sidered that it would be inexpedient and would embarrass matters or
complicate matters to raise those questions at Paris, and that led to
the elimination of those questions. China did not raise those ques-
tions.
Then the matter of employing some expert American advisors was
brought up at that time, but I think was deferred for later considera-
tion.
After the peace conference had met at Paris, as I understand it, the
matter was brought up again. I, meanwhile, and others, had advised
diem in a perf ectiy informal way, myself acting merely as a sort of
general friend of CJnina and a man who was known to oe a friend of
China and familiar with the political questions out there, that they
employ a couple of American advisors. I had suggested Mr. John
Bassett Moore and Dr. W. W. WiUoughbe, who at one time had been
employed out there, but neither of those gentlemen went, and I did
not know until after I arrived at Paris why thev had not gone. Then
I was told by the Chinese over there that it nad been intimated to
them that our Government would prefer that no An^ricans be
ofRcially connected with the Chinese delegation.
Senator Brandegee. Was it stated at any time that the embar-
rassments to which you refer if they did employ American advisors
would be because the plans of our Government or the intention of
our Government or oi our peace commissioners to protect China
would be interfered with if they had American counsel connected
with them 'i
Mr. Millard. I could not say that. I could only conjecture
about it. That was the explanation given me when I got over
there. I asked Mr. Wong, and I asked Dr. Ku, because I nad had
some correspondence here in America with Dr. WiDoughbee, in
America, as to whether he was going over there or not. I said
"Why didn't you get any of uiese gentlemen? Their counsel
would have been valuable in these circumstances." And then they
told me they had not done so because it had been intimated to them
that our Government would prefer that they did not. I do not
know what the motives of our Government were.
Senator Brandegee. These Chinese gentlemen to whom you refer
as having told you these things, were they officially connected with
the Chinese delegation ?
432 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. They were official envoys of the Chinese Govern-
ment at Paris.
Senator Brandegee. And your services, as I understand you,
were without compensation. Simply your expenses were paid ?
Mr. Millard. My expenses were paid.
Senator Brandegee. Did you regard it simply as a friendly act !
Mr. Millard. It was a friendly act on my part, without any com-
pensation. I probably would have gone to raris any way.
Senator MoCumber. What were your services to oe ? What were
they?
Mr. Millard. Just you might say as a sort of friendlv counsellor.
Senator McCumber. A counsellor representing the Chinese Gov-
ernment ?
Mr. Millard. No; I did not represent the Chinese Government.
My position was entirely unofficial.
Senator McCumber. 1 know, but if you were ooimsel you must have
been counsel for somebody or something, and what I am trying to get
at is for whom you were acting.
Mr. Millard. I have explained the exact circumstances.
Senator Brandegee, You did not say you were counsel. You
said you were advisor. Who received the requests of the Chinese
over here in Washington? Who made the requests from China—
Whatman?
Mr. Millard. It was Dr. WeUington Ku who sent the telegram.
He was one of the plenipotentiaries, the former Chinese minister here
in Washington.
Senator McCumber. You were to advise on what ?
Mr. Millard. Whatever they would ask me to advise them about.
Senator McCumber. That is very broad. I assumed that it was
technical advice.
Mr. Millard. On several occasions — I watched the course of
events, and whenever anything came up that I thought worthy of
attracting their notice, I would call attention to it or write a memo-
randum about it or something like that, and on two or three occasions
they asked me what I thought about this or that question that came
up, and I would write a little memorandum about it.
Senator McCumber. But you were not acting officially in any way ?
Mr. Millard. Oh, no, sir; in no sense It was entirely unofficial.
Senator Brandegee. Are you interested in any publications pub-
lished in the Far East now, or anywhere else, with reference to Far
Eastern questions ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I am interested in a publication in China.
Senator Brandegee. What is the name of it ?
Mr. Millard. Millard's Review.
Senator Brandegee. Do you own that ?
Mr. Millard. No, it is owned by a corporation.
Senator Brandegee. Are you the editor ?
Mr. Millard. Oh, no; I have been away for the last year or so
most of the time, and Prof. J. B. Powell is the editor.
Senator Brandegee. Were you ever the editor of it ? i
Mr. Millard. Yes; I founded that paper.
Senator McCumber. Did you live in tfapan at any time during the
last 20 years ?
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 438
Mr. Millard. No, sir. I have spent diiferent times over there,
sometimes for two or three months at a time. I have been there
very frequently but never resided there.
Senator Swanson. Most of the 20 years you have resided in China 1
Mr. Millard. I went to China to reside in 1911. Before that
I had been there frequently, sojourning there.
Senator Swanson. Since 1911 you have lived there?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I founded a daily newspaper in China in 1911,
called the China Press, and edited it for the first five years of its
existence at Shanghai.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you speak Chinese at all?
Mr. Millard. Very little.
Senator Hitchcock. Were you in China at the times the Germans
acquired their leasehold and other interests in the Shantxmg Penin-
sida?
Mr. Millard. No; I was first in China in 1897, and that was
done the previous year.
Senator Hitchcock. Is Millard's Eeview a self-sustaining pub-
lication ?
Mr. Millard. It is just about breaking even now.
Senator Hitchcock. From what does it derive its revenue ?
Mr. Millard. Ordinary sources — subscriptions and advertising.
Senator Hitchcock. Nothing else ?
Mr. Millard. Nothing else.
Senator Hitchcock, it has no subsidy?
Mr. Millard. None whatever.
Senator Hitchcock. No revenue except from advertising and
stibscriptions ?
Mr. Millard. Nothing whatever.
Senator Johnson of California. Its attitude has been very different
from that of any American papers that are engaged in Japanese
propaganda, has it not?
Mr. aIillard. I do not know as to that.
Senator Johnson of California. Your residence in China, Mr.
Millard, has been for about 20 years, most of that time at Shanghai ?
Mr. Millard. As far as I have had any residence there it has oeen
entirely in Shanghai. Of course I have always traveled more or less.
I have made different trips to Peking, but my habitat has been
Shanghai.
Senator Johnson of California. In addition to your journalistic
activities have you written any published books on the Far East?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I have published several books on the Far
East.
Senator Johnson of California. What are their titles ?
Mr. Millard. My first book was published in 1906. It was
called The New Far East. In 1907 I published a book called America
and the Far Eastern Question. Then I published a small book in
191 1. Then I published a book in 1916 called Our Eastern Question.
Senator Knox. What was the title of the 1911 book?
Mr. Millard. That was called The Revolution in China. It was
published out there, right in Shanghai, and then it just dropped out
of publication and I incorporated some of the contents of that book
in a later book. Our Eastern Question, in a more permanent form.
135546—19 28
434 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
That was published three yeara ago. Then I published a book the last
of May called Democracy and the Eastern Question.
Senator Johnson of California. During the time you have been in
China you have made an intimate study, have you not, of the Far
Eastern question?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I think I may say that I have.
Senator Johnson of California. Not only in its relation to China,
but in its relation to the other powers, including Japan ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. You are familiar, are you not, with
the situation that exists there at present regarding China and Japan ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I think I am.
Senator Johnson of California. Just amplify what you were asked
by my colleague a moment ago. What was the date you went to
Paris in the capacitv you have indicated?
Mr. Millard. I left New York toward the end of March and
arrived there at the end of March.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. March, 1919?
Mr. Millard. March, 1919.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. And vou remained there how long ?
Mr. Millard. I remained there until toward the end of May.
Senator Johnson of California. During the period that you were
there was the Shantung question under mscussion ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; it was decided during the period that I was
there.
Senator Johnson of California. It was decided during the period
that you were there ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. I presume you foUowed the pro-
ceedings of the peace conference respecting the Shantung decision?
Mr. Millard. Yes, as well as I coiild.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Please go ahead in your own
fashion and describe the problem as it affects Japan and China or the
Far East, as to the interest of America in the situation there, and
then leading up to the decision that was made in the Shantung-
Kaiochow question, and the effect of that so far as the United States
is concerned and so far as China is concerned. Go ahead in your
own way, if you please.
Mr. AIillard. WeU, gentlemen, it might help a little in this con-
nection if I would somewhat briefly give the background of this
Shantung question.
I might saj that the Shantung question is the crux of the far-
eastern question. It was one of the contributory causes of the great
war in Europe, and it was a contributory cause to the creation of
one of the two fundamental foreign policies of the United States,
the two that I have in mind being the Monroe doctrine and the Hay
doctrine.
Senator Hitchcook. What other doctrine beside the Monroe
doctrine ?
Mr. Millard. The Hay doctrine. We are aU the time learning
about these matters, and there is a great deal about it in a book
caUed The Eclipse of Russia, published by the great authority on
Russia, the EngUshman, Dr. E. J. DiUon. This Dook was not per-
mitted for pubhcation during the war, but it was published three or
TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 435
four months a^o. I obtained a copy in Paris and read it on my way
back home. He was a sort of confidential adviser of Count Vitte
for many years, and in that book he discloses how Germany came to
acquu'e Shantung. That is, at a certain very historic conference
held between the Kaiser and the Czar, the Kaiser obtained the con-
sent of the Czar that Germany should acquire a foothold in Kaiochow
Bay. Ooimt Vitte says that it was without the knowledge of his own
Russian foreign office that this was done.
Some of these facts have only recently been disclosed. Then, with t
that as a background, Germany seized a pretext — some violence done
to a German missionary in Shantung — to demand of China the cession
that was acquired there. These facts, revealed in Dr. Dillon's book,
coming from Count Vitte himself, show, however, that even the point
that they were going to seize had bieen determined before the so-called
outrage which was made the excuse of it. That secret agreement had
been made between the Czar of Russia and the Emperor of Germany,
to the effect that Russia would interpose no objection to Germany
seizing the port of Kaiochow.
Senator Hitchcock. Give the date of the agreement between the
Czar and the Kaiser.
Mr. Millard. You will find that in this book, the whole thing.
Senator Hitchcock. What was the date of the agreement ?
Mr. MiLLAUD. It was, I should say, about 1897, or some such time
as that.
Senator Swanson. Was any documentary evidence produced, or
was it simply on the evidence of this writer ? Was there any docu-
mentary evidence ?
Mr. Millard. Of course, you know what Count Vitte's position was.
Senator Swanson. I mean, were there any letters or memoranda V
Mr. Millard. He gives it in considerable detail in this book. I had
intended to bring the book with me, but I found I had loaned it to
Judge Campbell, and he had not returned it. You will find it in the
Congressional Library.
Senator Swanson. Was there any documentary evidence — were
there any memoranda made at the time ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; he gives certain memoranda, and he gives the
details as related to him by Count Vitte in full in this book.
Senator HrrciicocK. The date was 1897?
Mr. Millard. As I recall, 1896 or 1897; thereabouts.
Senator Knox. Do you know as a matter of fact that as early as
1896 there had been a public statement in the Reichstag that that
was going to be the policy of Germany ?
Mr. Millard. If I did know it, I have forgotten it.
Senator Knox. Prof. Hombeck's authority for that is Contempo-
rary Politics in the Far East ?
Mr. Millard. Of course the matter had been discussed; there had
been a good deal said about it by the German press, and they had been
beating about the bush for several years; but the specific thing you
refer to I did not have in mind.
Senator Knox. Prof. Hombeck refers to that.
Mr. Millard. Yes; he no doubt looked it up.
Senator Borah. At any rate, Senator Swanson, Dr. Dillon said
that. I do not think the Senator will have any doubt about it when
he reads it.
436 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. Of course he is recomized as outside of Russia, the
greatest authority on Russia, Dr. E. J. Dillon; and he was employed
m the most confidential capacity by the Russian Government for
years.
Well, then, Germany raised the pretext and secured the leasehold
of Kiaochow, China, not being able at that time to get any support
to resist the pressure that was brought upon her. So she signed the
ease.
I Senator Hitchcock. Do you know what effort was made by her
to get support in any direction ?
Mr. Millard. I have been told that she went to the legations at
Peking, that she went to the British and American legations, and
flustered around, to see if she could, but she found that she could not,
and Germany was backed up by Russia, and China gave in.
Senator mTOHCOCK. Did she apply to the United States?
Mr. Millard. I do not know if she actually applied. Probably
some one went up and sounded out the American legation and founcl
out that we considered it not a matter that vitally concerned us.
At that time we had not even enunciated the Hay doctrine. The
Hay doctrine was the result of these things that occurred, as I am
going to point out.
Now, that was the manner in which Germany obtained that
leasehold.
I noticed in a communication some two weeks a^ that Mr.Taft,
in commenting on the Shantung matter, referred to the murder of the
Gennan minister at Peking, and said that the Shantung leasehold
was the result of that. He just got the events in inverse order.
It was the Shantung *^grab/' if I may term it that, that led to the
murder of the German minister at Peking some two years later, and
brought on the world and all of us the turbulence known as the
Boxer Rebellion, that upheaval in China against the foreign interests
in China. That was caused by a cumulation of circumstance^s, and was
brought to a head by the Shantung matter, l)ocauso Shantung has
sacred associations for China. In the Chinese mind it is the birth-
place and the burial place of Confucius; and various other matters
give it a sentimental place in the thoughts and in the minds of the
Chinese.
Moreover, it was recognized that when you pressed into Shantung
you pressed right into the heart of China, politically, strategically,
and every other way.
vSenator Hitchcock. Before you go any further, can you put into
the record the date of the enunciation of the Hay doctrine of tho
*'opcn door'' ?
Senator Braxdeoee. He has indicatod that.
Senator Swaxsox. That is in his recent book.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. IJax was vSecrotarv of State at the time
this so-called German ^^grab" occurred?
Senator «foiiNsox of California. No.
The CiiAiRMAX. No; he came in shortly afterwards. Mr. Olney
was Sof.rctarv of State and Mr. Hay must have succeeded very soon
after.
Senator Hitchcock. Will you put that date in the record?
Mr. Millard. Yes; I have all those documents here in this book.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 437
The Chairman. Mr, Hay became Secretary of State in September,
1898, as I remember. He came home from London
Senator Knox. Yes; he succeeded Mr. Day.
The Chairman. Yes; in the summer or autumn of 1898.
Senator Hitchcock. Did not the Germans acquire Shantung in
1899 ?
Mr. Millard. No, sir; in 1898. I have the whole document here
printed in this book. I will look it up.
Senator Hitchcock. The lease is dated 1899.
Mr. Millard. Here it is; ^^ Convention between the German Empire
and China, Kiachow,'' page 434; here it is. The date is the 6tn of
March, 1898.
Senator Hitchcock. What was that ?
Mr. Miulard. The Kiachow convention — the German lease. It is
dated March 6, 1898.
Senator Swanson. Mr. Day was Secretary at that time.
The Chairman. Yes; he was Secretary of State.
Senator Knox. That demand was made upon China in 1897.
That was when the ministers were killed.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Then at the time that was signed, Mr. Day
was Secretary of State and Mr. McKinley was President ?
Mr. Millard. I would not know without looking it up.
Senator Knox. Mr. McKinley had been President two days.
Senator Swanson. No; a year and two days.
Senator Knox. Yes; a year and two days.
Mr. Millard. The reason I have brought these details out was that
I wanted to demonstrate its connection with other events that
occurred later. Gerrnanv being able at that time to grab the stra-
tegical position there in Kiaochow had demonstrated to the minds of
our diplomats in Europe the existence of some kind of secret compact
or collusion with Russia. I have never seen these facts fully brought
out until they were brought out in this book of Dr. Dillon's, but any
trained diplomat would at once have seen, in the circumstances there,
that there was some connection.
That set other forces in motion that unquestionably brought about
the first Anglo-Japanese alliance. That made the Japanese-Russian
War possible. There was set in motion the whole train of circum-
stances of which we are to-day beginning to see the consequences.
Now, this was so important— that is, this seizure by the Germans —
strategically and in regard to the whole situation of China and the
balance of power in the Far East, that Mr. Hay took cognizance of it,
and as you will recall, the so-called Hay doctrine resulted from an
exchange of notes which Mr. Hay took up with the German Govern-
ment through von Biilow, the Clerman minister of foreign affairs,
and it was entirely about the Shantung question; the Shantung
?uestion, that is, was the nail upon which the Hay doctrine was hung,
t was Germany's acquisition of Shantung which caused the Hay
doctrine to be formulated. That is, Mr. Hay, when he came in and
surveved the situation, said, ''If this thing goes on, China is broken
up; the partition of China will soon be an accomplished thing;'' and
he took cognizance of that situation, and the way it would anect the
United States and the way it would affect various other matters, in
his judgment; and so he opened up a correspondence with the German
438 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAl<r7.
Grovernment — ^with the minister of Foreign Affairs, Count von
Billow — ^which resulted in what is called the Hay doctrine. Of
course the Hay-von Btilow notes are published. I nave them here.
Senator Sw^anson. Will you put those notes in the record ?
Senator Bbandegee. You do not mean to put them in now, but
put them in afterwards ?
Mr. Millard. On page 448 of this book, ''Mr. Hay, American
Secretary of State, to Mr. White, American Ambassador of Germany."
That is, it was communicated in that way.
The Chairman. That was Andrew D. White ?
Mr. Millard. I suppose so. Yes, Andrew D. White, Mr. Hay's
note is *' Washington, September 6, 1899," and Count von Biilow's
is February 19, 1900.
Senator Brandeoee. On what page of that book does that occur?
Where is it printed ?
Mr. Millard. In this book?
Senator Brandeoee. Yes.
Mr. Millard. It is in the appendices, pages 448 to 450. Of course
it is in Rockhill's Treaties, and m all the textbooks.
Senator Borah. Those things are in that book, and are much more
accessible than they would be in this interminable record. Of
coiu^e it is in that book Contemporary Politics in the Far East, also.
Senator Brandeoee. Will vou let me ask you one thing, not con-
nected with this particular thing. When did you first hear of this
particular treaty between Great Britain and Japan providing that
Great Britain will have Shantung? In 1917, was it not?
Mr. Millard. 1917? I first heard of it at Paris.
Senator Brandeoee. When ?
Mr, Millard. About the 1st or 2d of Apri — last April.
Senator Brandeoee. 1918?
Mr. Millard. 1919.
Senator Brandeoee. That is all.
Mr. Millard. I wiU come to that a little later.
Senator Swanson. Now, will you tell us, from yom* interpretation
of the Hay doctrine, the open-door policy, from those two com-
munications, how far it goes, and how it affects trade and commerce
of this country ?
Mr. Millard. The Hay doctrine was designed, as it appears on its
face, to extract from the German Government a statement, which
it did extract, that in acquiring the leasehold of Kiaochow and the
subsequent railway agreement signed a year or so after the lease,
Germany disclaimed by those acquisitions any preferential position
in China, any impairment of Chinese sovereignty, any intention or
fmrpose to use her position at Kiaochow to discriminate against the
ree commerce in Chma of other nations, or the rights of other nations
under the clause of the so-called most-favored nations cla\ise of the
treaty — that is our position; we have a very favorable treaty with
China. The notes, as I say, speak for themselves. Now, then when
Mr. Hay got the German Government on record then he approached
the opposite Governments, the British, the French, and the Japanese,
and the other Governments.
Senator Swanson. Before you proceed, was that a protest against
the sovereignty that Germany acquired ? Did the note contain any
protest against sovereignty ?
TBBA.TT OF FEAOB WITH GEBMAKY. 439
Mr. Millard. You can read the note.
Senator Swanson. I iust wanted that clear. It simply asks for
equal trade relations ana things of that sort.
Mr. Millard. It started out with the usual diplomatic language,
that it should be cleared up and would be to the advantage of every-
body if they would state tneir positions.
Senator Swanson. I had an idea that the determination was that
no rights acquired by Germany should interfere in any manner
with the rights and the position of the United States.
Mi*. Millard. No ; with the integrity of all nations, and also that
China's rights were to be unimpaired.
Senator Swanson. I did not notice that particularly.
Senator Knox. Territorial integrity is specificallv mentioned.
Mr. Millard. Territorial integrity is mentioned.
Senator Knox. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion,
that Senator Johnson has asked the witness to narrate in his own
way this story and the witness is accustomed to giving a consecutive
narration of events. I would like to hear that and then nave questions
asked afterwards. I think we could get a much better idea if we
would let Mr. Millard go on and answer Senator Johnson's question
in ins own way, and then put such questions as we wish.
The Chairman. You mean that no Senator is to ask any question
until he has concluded his statement t
Senator Knox. Oh, I do not mean no question.
Senator Swanson. If other Senators ask questions, I want the same
right. I want to have his interpretation of what the Hay doctrine
did.
Senator McCumber. We have been deviating from that rule a great
deal since we began the examination of witnesses.
Senator E^nox. But none have been so accustomed to express
themselves consecutively as Mr. Millard.
Senator Swanson. I am perfectly willing that he proceed without
interruption.
Senator Knox. I think it will contribute to the information of all
of us.
The Chairman. I think it is a better way to let him make his state-
ment.
Senator Swanson. So long as all the Senators do not interrupt.
The Chairman. Of course that is imderstood.
Senator McCumber. As his next statement is on a different subject,
if I understood Mr. Millard correctly, Germany renoimced any claim
over Shantung.
Mr. Millard. I would say that it amounted to that, a disclaimer
of any purpose to infringe upon the integrity of China or interfere
with the general open door or various things of that kind.
Senator McCumber. She claimed no sovereign rights over the
territory,
Mr. Millard. She disclaimed. That was the purpose of the Hay
note, and it accomplished that.
Senator Brandeoee. Japan disclaims any sovereignty over Shan-
tunff and agrees to give it oack.
^&. Millard. It is difficult to know.
Senator Borah. Can not we have an understanding that the wit-
ness may make a statement, and then ask questions if we want to ?
440 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
Senator Swanson. It is perfectly agreeable to me.
Senator Brandegee. Senator Johnson has the witness.
Senator Johnson of California. I asked a general question, and we
have not advanced verv f-ar on it. I ask that no particular rule be
pursued except that whicih the committee deem appropriate, but I
would be glaa if the witness could proceed with his statement imder
such rule as may be prescribed by the committee.
Mr. Millard. I merely brought that in because I think it is im-
portant to understand in relation to this Shantung situation to-day
the different steps by which this Shantung situation has arisen.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, if you will proceed histori-
cally and come down to the Shantung decision, describe what it was,
its effect upon China, upon Japan, and upon our country.
Mr. Millard. I think it is pertinent in this connection to point out
that after the promulgation of what was termed the Hay doctrine,
after Mr. Hav had gotten this communication from the German Gov-
ernment, and then nad subsequently got the assent of the other Gov-
ernments to the thing in principle, the whole thing constituted a gen-
eral international understanding known as the Hay doctrine.
Various Governments, however, continued among themselves to
make what we now have a new phrase for, *^ regional understandings''
regarding China. There exists at the present time in the neighbor-
hood of 20 known regional understandings affecting China, and
others are suspected to exist. For instance, among the regional
understandings, soon after Germany's acquisition of Shantimg there
was a regionjQ understanding between the British and Grerman Gov-
ernments whereby Great Britain in effect recognized Germany's
superior position or sphere in Shantimg. That agreement held pre-
sumably up until the abrogation by declaration of war in 1914 of all
agreements between the British and German Governments. And
then various other trades were made in the Far East, regional imder-
standings or collateral trades on the side amon^ the various nations
to reduce the balance, due to Germany's acquisition of that position
there.
One of the very pertinent things in that connection was the Anglo-
Japanese alliance. There is very good authority for the statement
that the Anglo-Japanese alliance was first proposed by Germany in
the form oi a tri-partite aUiance — Grermany, Japan, and Great
Britain. Germany approached the Japanese Government first, and
the Japanese Government evidently took the thing under favorable
consideration, and approached the British Government. The British
Government at that time seemed to have been animated by a different
hypothesis, and they did not w^ant any alignment in the Far East
between Germany and Japan ; so finally they succeeded in sidetrack-
ing that, and the alliance was made between Japan and Great Britain
solely, and excluding Germany. I mention that for the bearing that
Germany was gradually being pushed into a position off by herself,
and in my mind those were among the contributing causes that finally
led to tms clash in 1914. One thing led to another. You built up
and kept building up combinations, a wall, and Germany was tr3ring
to breaK out in different directions.
I have brought in that question of regional understandings and
their existence because you will see the pertinency of that later.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 441
We come along now up to the time of the beginning of the great
war. There were different demonstrations in the interim there of the
application of these various regional understandings, operating, you
may say, inside of the Hay doctrine, and antagonistic to it. Mr.
Knox's efforts to neutralize the railways of Manchuria constituted one
strong demonstration of the fact that there were combinations inside
of combinations there, regional understandings of powers among them-
selves, which, when it came to a showdown, superseded their acqui-
escence to the Hay doctrine.
When the Great War broke out suddenly, Japan almost immediately
took the occasion to send an ultimatum to Germany, practically de-
manding that she get out of Shantung, to which Germany never re-
plied, and that resmted in a declaration of war and the Japanese expe-
dition which captured the port of Tsingtau. China made efforts to
preserve her neutrality. She made efforts in which the American
legation at Peking took some part, but the time was very short.
The proposal that Tsingtau be neutralized, that it be turned over to
China, and various ways to keep China from being involved in the
thing were proposed. Japan did not want any of those things. She
moved quickly, and proceeded to go over there and land her troops.
In her occupation of the Province she immediately, from the begin-
ning, went further than Germany had ever done. She did not con-
fine her military operations to the leased German territory at all.
She overran the whole Province almost inmiediately; seized the
whole railway up to the capital of the Province over its entire lengtib,
established her troops and police clear outside the railway, and va-
rious other parts; and in that way she made a rapid military pene-
tration of this entire Province, which condition exists to the present
day.
China's various efforts to prevent that were imavailing; and the
next move in that ganie — the other powers were preoccupied with the
desperate struggle in Europe, and xmable to interpose any effective
action in the Far East — so Japan came along in 1915 with her 21 de-
mands, which she sought first to impose upon China by secrecy. When
that was impossible, the Chinese realized the character of the demands,
and they happened to have quite a strong man as President of China
at that time, Yuen Che Kai, a strong, able man. He conunimicated
it to other governments. The thing was brought out into the light,
and raised such an outcry that although Japan persisted in pressing
the demands, and China was finally compelled to yield, they were in
somewhat modified form over the form in which they had been
originally presented. That was in 1915. However, the United
States Government took an official exception to that 1915 treaty,
which is all in the record.
Senator Pomerene. You say the United States Government took
an exception ?
Mr. Millard. Took an exception; yes, sir. The United States
Government took an official exception, which is published, and which
i3 included in that book; and the Chinese Government took exception
also by stating that it signed under compulsion.
From the standpoint of the United States, the next important
official maneuver, if you may caU it that, was the Lansing-Ishii
agreement. Oh, no; let me go back a little.
442 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
After our Government severed diplomatic relations with Germany,
which I believe was early in February, 1917, we approached tae
Chinese Government officially. I was m Peking at trie time. The
United States Government officially, through the American minister
at Peking, approached the Chinese Government with an invitation
and advice that we join with her in severing diplomatic relations with
Germany. That was very strongly urged upon the Chinese Govern-
ment, and for several days there was a very strong diplomatic fight
raised in Peking, the German and Austrian legations, of course, op-
posing* it, and tne Japanese legation opposing it very strongly, but m
a secret way. The British, French, and Russian legations were sym-
pathetic to the proposal, and such influence as they had was exerted
in favor of Chma accepting the American invitation. China did.
Well, at that time China was favorably inclined to this proposal. I
might say that on two previous occasions China had offered to join
the Allies. Both times she had been prevented by the objections of
Japan. Japan would not let her come in. Her influence with the
other allied powers was so strong that China was not allowed to join
the Allies.
The result was that when we came along and urged China to join
with us — ^we had not at that time declared war on Germany, but we
urged her to take the preliminary step and join us in severmg diplo-
matic relations with Germany, which every one felt would be a pre-
lude to war — China was dubious, having been repulsed twice in
efforts to join the allies by the Japanese objections; and having
knowledge that at that moment the Japanese legation and all the
Japanese influences at Peking were fighting bitterly the proposal that
China act upon the advice of the United States, the Chinese Govern-
ment wanted certain assurances. That is, they wanted to know
where they would get off. They said: ''Suppose we do follow your
advice and come in: Now, we want certain assurances. We would
like to have definite assurances of the Allies that our territorial
integrity will be protected in the peace settlement." An effort was
made by the Chinese Government at that time to get such assurances
from the French and British Governments. The French and British
legations at Peking, while they urged China to follow the advice of
the United States, communicated with their Governments, and they
could not give any definite assurances; but they told the Chinese
Government — tnat is, the British minister and the French minister to
Peking told the Chinese Gorernment — ^* You come on in; you follow
along with the United States, and come on in, and we are quit« sure
you will be taken care of."
The thing hung fire for two or three days just on that point, China
quite willing to come in, but saying: '*No; tell us just exactly, will
you, if we come in, will you guarantee our territorial integrity?"
They finally, when they got that kind of a negative reply from the
British and French Governments, went after Dr. Reinsch, and said,
'' Well, at least the American Government can say that you will sup-
port us in protecting our territorial integrity.'' Now, I have this
accoimt from Dr. Keinsch, the American minister at Peking—
Dr. Paul Reinsch.
It happened that just at that moment there was a break in the
Pacific cable, and for several days Dr. Reinsch was out of cable com-
XBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 443
miinication with the State Department. It was very urgent, and the
thing had to be concluded quickly, or everyone there thought that
it should be concluded quicldy, because they felt that if they did not
get the Chinese to act promptly the various Japanese intrigues would
get to work, and they womd succeed possibly in preventing China
from taking any action. They were holding almost hourly sessions
there for two or three days. Two or three times a day Dr. Reinsch
was in consultation with the Chinese Premier, Tuen Chi Jui, and
Li-Un-Hung, the President at that time — Gen. Li-Un-Hung. They
wanted demiite assurances. Dr. Reinsch said: "The cable is inter-
rupted, and I can not communicate with my government at this
moment, but I feel justified in telling you ver Dally my opinion that
in the event that you follow the advice of the United States now
and sever displomatic relations with Germany, and in the event that
that leads us into war with Germany, you can coimt upon the dip-
lomatic support of the United States in seeing that China's rights are
protected m the peace settlement." The result of these negotiations
was that China did take that action, and, as the document shows,
upon the advice of the United States, severed diplomatic relations
with Germany. That eventually brought China into the war as an
enemy of Germany.
The next important event in this connection was the signing of the
so-called Lansmg-Ishii agreement, which occurred here in Wash-
ington, signed on the 2d of November, 1917. Meanwhile, both the
United States and China had declared war on Germany.
The Lansing-Ishii asreement followed the general lines of pre-
vious statements of tne United States regarding China — the so-
called Hay doctrine formula, which had been repeated now in eight
or nine international agreements of one kind or another, which had
been repeated in the Root-Takahira a^eement signed in 1907; that
is, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of China, and the ^^open
door"; but it was significant in that it contained in its preliminary
paragraphs a recognition of Japan's special position relating to China.
That a^eement was made, the negotiations were conducted, with-
out Chma being informed, without consulting China in any way.
China first learned of it when it was pubhshed. I might say in that
connection that it was given premature pubhcation at Peking by
Japan. As the document itseu shows, it was signed on the 2d of
November, 1917. By a sort of general aCTeement, the two Gov-
ernments were to give it simultaneous publication on November 7
at a stated hour — to give it simultaneous publication in Tokio and in
Washington. However, as we know now, I think it was two days,
even, before the thing was signed — ^it was either October 31 or
October 30 — that the contents of the agreement were communicated
to the Russian Government by Japan through the Russian ambas-
sador at Tokio.
As I say, it was to have been given simultaneous publication on
the 7th of November. On the 4th of November — and meanwhile our
Government had not even informed our embassy at Tokyo or our
legation at Peking of this matter at all — on the 4 th of November the
Japanese minister &t Peking officially informed the Wei Chow Pou — that
is, the Chinese Foreign Office — of the signing of the Lansing-Ishii
agreement, and provided them with a text in Japanese and Chinese.
In those texts in Japanese and Chinese, the phrase ^'special position''
444 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
was translated in a way to amount to a recognition of Japan's para-
mountcv in China. Trie Chinese Government was naturally dum«
founded at this thing, and immediately went to the American lega-
tion.
Now, if you know anything of the diplomatic atmosphere of Peking
under those circumstances, the way that would look to the Chinese
was this: Japan comes and tells tKem of this thing under the cir-
cumstances, which gives it the circumstantial appearance that
*^Now, we are paramount here, and we inform you about this, and
if you do not believe us go up and ask the American legation.''
They went over to the American legation and inquired, and the
American legation had never heard of it, of course. It immediately
cabled for information. Meanwhile, through Japanese sources at
Peking, and Chinese sources, too — they were bound to blab a thing
like that; it completely flustered them — the Chinese Government ana
the Chinese Foreign Office and the newspaper men there in Peking
got hold of it, and the result was a little telegram carried by the
Associated Press and Renter's New Service all over the world, to the
effect that this had been signed, and the news was given out at Peking.
I was in New York when I read that short telegram in the papers,
and then our Government, of course, cabled the text inmiediately to
the minister at Peking, to the legation at Peking, and we then com-
municated it to the (Siinese Government; but our translation of the
term ''special position" differed very materially, when translated
into Chinese, from the way that Japan had translated it in the original
text communicated by Japan. That led to some little diplomatic
controversy there at Peking, but we stuck to our text, and Japan
sticks to hers, and so that matter stands to this day, so far as I know;
the Chinese having two texts of this thing in their Foreign Office, one
the first one communicated by Japan in Japanese and Chinese, in
which the term ''special position" is translated into the equivalant
of paramountcy, and our text, which translates into the interpreta-
tion which Mr. Lansing exhibited to you in his examination the other
day, which, so far as 1 know, has been the first official delineation of
the American position on the subject. Meanwhile it has stood in
China's eyes in that obscure position, with all of the circumstantial
indications favoring the Japanese interpretation.
Moreover, Japan went ahead and acted on her interpretation.
From that time she assumed a position of paramountcy in relation
to China. She went ahead and began the establishment of civil gov-
ernment over Shantung Province. She extended her civil govern-
ment regime in Manchuria. She began actually to acquire the pos-
sessions and the position of a sovereign in those parts ci China where
she had obtained a foothold by the methods I nave indicated. She
went on, and she obtained, through that influence, a great influence
at Peking. The Chinese Government, vou might say, threw up their
hands and said: "Well, America will not support us; they have
recognized Japan's paramountcy; we have got to do the best we can."
Japan bribed several high Chinese officials up there, and b^an to
press for other secret agreements and things. However, the Chinese
Government resisted. They did obtain a so-called supplementary
agreement to the 1915 agreement, signed, I believe, in September,
1918; but they could not get that signed at Peking. They seemed
to have reached the Chinese minister over in Tokio by the money
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAl^Y. 445
process — ^I am only repeating the open accusations made in the
press of China — and got him to sign a memorandum, the so-called
seiTet 1918 agreement, which is further confirmatory of Japan's
position in Shantung, and which amounted to the fact that they
would have certain additional railway concessions there over ancl
above what Germany had had, and that, providing the peace con-
ference would give Japan Germany's position in Shantung, China
woultl consent. That thing was signed at Tokio by the Chinese
minister, and if that holds China, that is all there is. It was never
confirmed bv the Chinese parliament; it was never confirmed by a
meeting of the Chinese cabmet or anything. Now, that is what tnat
so-called 1918 agreement rests upon.
Senator Pomerene. Will it interrupt you to ask you just this
question, to clear that up : Does the Cninese law require ratification
by the Chinese Parliament ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; the only constitution that is in existence.
Senator Pomerexe. Excuse me for interrupting you.
ilr. MiLi ARD. You see, China has been in a more or less turbulent
state ever since the revolution. They have a so-called constitution
and under their forms it would have required at least ratification by
the cabinet and also ratification by the Parliament. It was never
ratified. In fact, the text of it was never even disclosed to anybody
until the Paris peace conference.
That brings us along up to, say, the armistice. I was in Peking
at the time, and CTiina made preparations
Senator IIitciicock. Before you leave that, will you please make
it clear whether there was any disagreement between the Ishii note
in Japanese and the iVmerican note in English ?
Mr. Millard. As I say, it was a question of translation. Of
course, we can all read the American note in English, but wo can not
read it in Japanese or Chinese. Now, the Japanese Government,
of course, immediately telegraphed this out to Tokio and then tele-
granhed it over to Pekin, ana they had translations made. They
ha(i a translation made into CTiinese and another translation made
into Japanese, those, of course, being the languages of the two
Governments.
Senator Hitchcock. Is there any question whether the Japanese
note is correctly translated into Chinese ^
Mr. Millard. That, of course, as I say, led to a dispute, because
our sinologues say that our translation is the better translation.
Senator Hitchcock. Is the translation of the Japanese note into
Chinese ?
Mr. Millard. Our translation of the Lansing-lshii agreement
into Chinese is accepted by everybody except Japan. She made
her ovm translation.
Senator Borah. As I understand, in translating it into Chinese
and Japanese they used a certain word
Mr. Millard. They used a certain character.
Senator Borah. They used a character or word.
ilr. Millard. They used a different character than we used in
our translation.
Senator Borah. Which indicated '^special interest'^ or ^'para-
mount," according to which character was used.
446 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Mr. Millard. Something which they translate paramount.
Senator Borah. Ours indicates nothing but ** special interest."
Mr. Millard. Ours indicates the interpretation which Mr. Lansing
fave you gentlemen the other day. There is just that difference,
ut as you say, it is a very important difference.
Senator Pomerene. In view of these questions may I ask this
further question: Are you able to state whether the word which
was used by the Japanese was correctly translated into our word
^^paramountcy?''
Mr. Millard. There would be no way of making an exact trans-
lation, but the sense of it would be that according to the sinologues.
Our legation has Chinese experts, as every legation has, and these
sinologues got together and translated this thing, and the general
unanimity of opinion outside of the Japanese legation is that oui
translation is correct and theirs is a translation fixed up to suit what
they want to put in there.
Senator Pomerene. That is all.
The Chairman. You may continue, Mr. Millard.
Mr. Millard. Now the next step would come after the armistice,
when China began to make her preparations. The Japanese had
been making a fight up there for some time by which they were
attempting to secure representation in China. They even produced
at Peldng — they never had the nerve to produce it at Paris — an
agreement which this same Chinese minister, Mr. Lou, had signed,
whereby Japan was to represent China at the peace conference.
However, when they tried to put that over, China absolutolv re-
sisted that, and of couise the British, American, and all other lega-
tions said, '* Do not recognize anything Hke that. You send your own
delegation.'' They did that. They nominated their representatives.
They sent their minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Lou Tseng-tsiang.
Then the Chinese delegates had been working with various experts
on the subject of their case, how they would present it at the peace
conference, and the matters they would want to bring up at the
peace conference. I understand you have summoned Mr. Ferguson
to appear. He was among the foreign advisers they had employed.
When I was in Peking, last October, I went up there, and I had two
interviews with the Chinese minister of foreign affairs, merely in
my capacity as a journalist, in which we discussed these various mat-
ters, and wnat China ought to do, and what China purposed to bring
up, and things like that. Just about that time the Cninese foreign
office went up to our legation and said, '^Now, we have followed
along with you people. We came into the war under your wing, and
we are going to continue in that way. We are going to Paris in that
way. We are not going there under the wing of Japan, like slie is
trying to fix it up, and here is what we propose to ask. Wiat do
you think about it ?'' And they laid down a list of the matters which
China wanted to bring up at the peace conference. I will say that
I have this information in a way so that I do not doubt its substantial
accuracy, and I presume that that list perhaps was cabled by Dr.
Rice, the American minister, to the State Department, and eventually
the Chinese were advised by our Government that it would be better
if they would not raise certain questions.
I might mention what those questions are. One of them was the
question of extraterritoriality in China. Another was the question
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 447
of fixture financial cooperation in China, and these various conces-
sions and one thing and another. China wanted to obtain from the
Powers over there a general declaration written somehow into the
treaty, which would mrm the groundwork for a real reconstructive
policy in China, which would ria her of the burden of aU these secret
and published regional understanding, and aU these various conces-
sions interfering with Chinese territorial integrity and economy,
which in one way and another have been forced on her by that
method.
As I understand it our Government advised China somewhat to
this effect, that it would tend to befog the issue. Our Government,
I understand, was in perfect sympathy with what China wanted to
do by these things, but she said, ' ' Now, the Paris conference will be
concerned with the making of peace with Germany, and perhaps it
will be advisable if China will not raise any questions at Paris except
those which are directly concerned with her relations with Germany/'
Of course the Shantung question was directly concerned, and a few
matters associated with the Shantung question, but our Government
said, **Do not raise aU these other questions, because they will open
up the whole subject so that perhaps it will impair your chances of
getting the Shantung q^uestion raised in the right way.'* And I
will say that, in mv opimon, that advice was exactly sound, and that
if my advice had been asked at that moment I would have advised
Cliina in the same way. In fact I did so at Paris.
1 do not think it is fortunate the way the thing turned out, but I
mean looking at it from the way the situation appeared then, 1 would
have given the same advice that our Government is presumed to have
given on that occasion. China took ynth her to Paris her chief
British adviser. Dr. George E. Morrison, for twenty-odd years the
famous foreign correspondent of the London Times, and for the last
seven years employed as foreign adviser on foreign affairs to the
Chinese Government. They took Dr. Leconte, a Frenchman, who
for a long time has been employed over there as counsel. The
Japanese tried to force them to take Dr. Riga, the Japanese legal
adviser, whom in one way and another they had forced upon the
Chinese Government, but they would not take him, because they
knew that if Dr. Riga had gone along the Chinese delegation would
have been privv to everything the Chinese delegation did. They
refused to take Dr. Riga, 6ut they took Dr. Morrison and Dr. Leconte,
and they desired to take one or Uvo Americans, but I have explained
about that.
That brings us on to Paris. China went over there and confined
the presentation of her case to the Shantung issue, which, of course,
was entirely a question with Germany, complicated by Japan's inter-
position. At a plenary session — I was under the impression that it
was early in February, but I see Mr. Lansing the other day fixed
it, 1 believe, at «ianuary 29, which probably is the correct date — at a
plenary se^on of the council of ten in Paris, before it narrowed
down to a council of four — my knowledge of this, as you gentlemen
nnderstand, is second hand. 1 was not present.
The account which I am going to give now was, however, given to
me circumstantially by two plenipotentiaries who sat at the table,
and their accounts substantially coincided. They did not differ in
any material degree in their recollection of what transpired. The
448 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
matter under discussion at the moment was the disposition of the
German colonies. As you may recall, at that time they had advanced
the theory that the German colonies were to bo detached from Ger-
many, but that their disposition would be turned over to a league of
nations if such a thing was organized, to be disposed of by them, and
they brought forward this idea of mandatories. They were discussins:
the disposition of the German colonies, and President Wilson, as 1
understand it, proposed that they could just brush this question of
the German colonies off to one side by agreeing at that session that
they should be detached from Germany, and their disposition in-
vested in the league of nations or some other international trusteeship,
to be parceled out afterwards under the mandatory theory in some
form, and by that method they would simply get that question dis-
posed of and out of the way, and they could go on to other business.
There was a general agreement and it looked like it would be passed
imanimously, but the Japanese plenipotentiary. Baron Makino, who
was sitting in the council, interposed an objection. They asked liim
what was the objection. He said Japan could not consent to that.
When asked for nis reasons, he said that Japan could not consent
because she already had private engagements with her allies regarding
the Shantung question.
President T^^son then asked, or some one asked, what was the
nature of those private^agreements. Baron Makino said they vere
confidential, and he did not feel at liberty to communicate them
without conferring with the other Allied governments and with his
own government. President Wilson then asked that it be made tht^
sense of the council that the Japanese Government be requested
to produce the text of those agreements and to lay them upon the
table for the information of the council. That action was taken as
the sense of the council, and the result was that at the next meetini;
the text of those airreements was produced. They are known tis the
Shantung secret ajrreements, and were produced confidentially. I
can say from my o',vn knowledge, commg direct from the Chinese
delegation at Paris, that that was the first knowledge which the
Chinese Government had of their existence, although myself and
many of us had suspected the possible existence of those agreements,
from various circumstantial mdications, for at least a couple of
years. In fact I had for some time felt morally certain of tliem.
You could not explain in any other way certain things that had
happened. Therefore those agreements revealed that at different
dates, from I Ix^lieve the 16th of February on to the 7th of March
and on certain intervening dates, Japan had obtained
Senator Hitchcock. In what year ?
Mr. Millard. In 1917 — that Japan had obtained from the British,
the French, the Russian, and the Italian Governments written en-
gagements— in the case of the British, French, and Russian Govern-
ments, and oral statements from the Italian Government — by which
those nations assented and would support Japan at the Peace Confer-
ence in having yielded to her Gonnany's rights and leaseholds in
Shantung Province.
There was one other interesting thing brought out in the French
note replying to the Japanese note on tliat question. France made
certain conditions, one of which was that Japan would withdraw her
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 449
objections to China entering that war on the allied side. You will
find that in the text of the French note, thereby getting it down in
black and white, what everybody had known for various reasons to
be the fact, that Japan had been keeping China out of the allied
g^oup ever since the war started. If you will note the dates of the
signing of those agreements you will see that they coincide with our
severance of diplomatic relations with Germany and with the
efforts which I have just narrated by which we were inducing China
to come into the war, which was in February and March, 1917. I
guess it was earlv in March. China, I think, actually took that step
on the 9th of March, 1917. However, as we all had been morally
certain, but as Mr. Lansing disclosed positively the other day, our
Government did not know of the existence of those agreements imtil
we learned of it at Paris, in the manner which I have described, at
the same time that China did.
China was urging them to give her assiu*ances in the same way she
was urging us to give assurances, but the British, Russian, and French
Governments would not give any assurances that the territorial rights
of China would be protected, because they had already signed them
away to Japan, or were on the verge of doing so; but if China had
known it at that time and we had known it at that time, it was rea-
sonable to assume it would have had some influence upon the action
of China and upon the action of the United States. If we had been
appraised of it at that time we would have said to the nations flatly,
*' 1 ou musy agree to this." We were in a position at that moment to
have demanded any conditions from any of those governments, any-
thing in reason that we had said we wanted, and we could have pro-
tected China positively by saying, **Here, these things must be un-
written, these things miist be wiped out. It will be understood that
we will all be there to act on a tooting ot justice to China when the
time comes."
Mr. Lansing also disclosed the other day that at the time of the
Lansing-Ishii agreement we also were not informed of it, and after we
had declared war on Germany and were in the war, and Mr. Balfour
and M. Viviani came over here, they did not tell us, but we were
allowed to go ahead and*get China into the war under those circimi-
stances, wiSiout that information.
After that disclosure at Paris — the d^te of which Mr. Lansing
fixes at January 29 — ^I thourfit it was early in February — then
it was evident m respect to China's case at the peace conference
that she had to submit her case to a court of five, because Japan was
added to the council of foui: on the Far Eastern question, and that
of those five, four members of the court had signed a secret agreement
in advance to decide against her. Under those circumstances it
became a question as to whether or not our Government would or
could exert its influence upon the British, French, Japanese, and
Italian Governments. Russia was also a signatory to one of those
secret Shantung agreements, but she was not represented in the
oonference. The revolution had eliminated Russia. Under those
circumstances, as I say, it becama a question as to whether or not
our Government could prevail upon them to scrap those secret
Shantung agreements ana to make what we considered to be a proper
solution of the Shantung matter, in justice to ourselves and to
135646—19 2d
450 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
China there. That was the situation I fomid when I got to Paris.
I went over to see Dr. Kou immediately, and one of the first things
he said to me was, ^'Do you know of the secret Shantung agree-
ments?'' I said, *'I know nothing about them except that I saw
a short telegram in one of the New i ork papers from Paris indicating
that something of the facts had been disclosed." I said, ''Is it a
fact?" He said, ''Yes, we have the texts, but of course the texts
are confidential at present." He gave me a synopsis of their con-
tents, and I as rapidly as I could posted mvseli up on the situation
of what had transpired before I had arrivea at Paris, and from that
time on I could follow the developments with more or less intelligence.
I was constantly in touch witn the experts attached to our com-
mission, the experts on the far eastern question. I had been per-
sonally acouainted with all of them for many years. I saw them
all almost aaily.
Senator Johnson of California. State their names, will you ?
Mr. Millard. The oflicial ones were Dr. E. T. Williams and Prof.
Hornbeck, who ranked over there as a captain ; and at different times
certain naval and mihtary oflicers were brought into the thing on
those angles.
I will say in that connection that on several occasions, when I
would prepare little memoranda for the advice and information of
the Chinese on certain developments from Japan, I would alwa}^
take a copy over and give it to our own experts on the commission
for their information. The whole thing, as far as China was con-
cerned at Paris, was conducted with the greatest intimacy with the
American delegation. Every move that China made was immedi-
ately communicated to the American commission.
Every move that any foreign advisor of China made, she imme-
diately communicated to the American experts. Of course none of
us could tell whether they went on higher up or whether they did not.
We turned them in for the information of Prof. Williams and Prof.
Hombeck. I had various conversations with Di . Morrison, whom
I had known for twenty veers, and who probably of all foreigners
knows more about the politics and conditions of the Far East than
any man, because he is a methodical man and has kept his notes for
years, and he indexes them and files them. He is simply a walking
encyclopedia of the politic^ of China of the last 30 years.
Senator Johnson of California. Where is he now?
Mr. Millard. He is in England now, I believe. At that time he
was sick, and his wife had to come over and take him to England.
He became ill so he took very little part in matters after I arrived
there on account of his illness. But I went up and had several talks
with Dr. Morrison about the situation, because he particularly was
in touch with the British end of it, being a British subject, and I
found that he was very doubtful as to what, England was, and he felt
very gloomy about the situation. He told me tnat he was afraid that
the sense of the French and British Governments was to make the
Shantung agreement stick. I found that our own experts were very
much mystified by the official attitude regarding China of the Britisn
and French Governments, particularly of the British. They would
go over and talk to the men who held corresponding positions to
them, and the Far East experts of the British (Jommission, and they
could not fathom — they would know how these men stood — ^but
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 451
back of that there was the superior policy of the Grovernment. One
thing accumulated after anotner, and they felt that the British and
French were against them, which turned out afterwards to be the
case.
The situation drifted along in that position and became side-
tracked. China meanwhile discovered the psychology of the situa-
tion and acting upon the advice of a number of those whose opinions
were asked, she interposed a proposal to compromise the matter
which opened a way out.
Senator Pomebene. China did ?
Mr. Millard. China did. It had developed by that time pretty
conciselv the attitude of the different nations. The attitude of
Great Britain and France was that they would have to stand by
these secret agreements unless the United States somehow or other
persuaded Japan to recede. Japan was saying "We insist upon
Germany ceding her possession there to us, because we have prom-
ised to restore it to Cnina, and we want to do that in our own way,
and any other solution would indicate to the people that they do
not take our word for it, and would dishonor us, ana so forth, and so
on." China proposed a compromise by way of getting around the
difficulty. That proposal was made on Apnl 23, in writing to the
council of four, and it was in four points. I quote now tne sense
of it from memory.
The first part was that China would consent to have the treaty
of peace cede the Grerman rights in Shantung direct to Japan, pro-
vided the other members of the council of four would be, you might
say, cotrustees for the eventual turning over of it to China, or a
league of nations or whatever body should be organized to carry
out these processes.
Japan had made a great deal over there of the enormous expense
she had been to in capturing Shantimg and driving Germany out of
the Far East China's second proposed to compromise was that she
would reimburse Japan for those expenses.
Japan had gotten in the 1918 agreement — I have described how
she obtained it — a special concession that she was to reserve to herself
Tsing Tau, which included railway tunnels, docks, water front, and
the whole port machinery. China proposed that during such period
when other foreign residential conditions exist in China, Tsing Tau
be made an international port.
And the fourth one was merely that Japan would also in the treaty
record a definite promise to restore and evacuate Shantung and
restore Tsing Tau within a certain specific time. As I sav, that pro-
posal was conmiunicated in writing on April 23 by the Chinese dele-
gation to the council of four. Before the decision was made it was
known that it was coming up for decision very shortly. Meanwhile
all along China had been pressing for a consideration of this thing.
She had presented her case in prmt and in various ways had been
pressing to get the thing out of the way. Japan had been retarding
it. That compromise was taken under advisement as I understand
it by the council of four but Japan objected and succeeded in defeat-
ing it.
I do notjcnow what her. objection was based on, but it is interesting
now to recall that she did reject that proposal, in view of the state,
ments that they are making now that she is proposing to interna-
452 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
tionalize Tsing Tau, which means that she is proposing to hold the
kernel of the nut and turn over the shell, and various other claims
which she is making now.
It is intereating to put into the record the fact that she was instru-
mental in rejecting the proposed compromise of the Chinese Govern-
ment, which would seem to an impartial mind to have met the situa-
tion fully, provided Japan has any real intention of getting out of
Shantung.
After this decision was announced the Chinese were naturally very
much disappointed. The President's reasons were given to them,
that he was forced to make this decision because of the uncompro-
mising attitude taken by Japan, which amounted virtually to a threat
to bolt the conference and to refuse to join the league of natioas.
The President was afraid of the general effect upon the world of that
thing happening. Of course, I may say here that the President seems
to have been about the only one of the powers that seemed to think
that Japan's threat was more than a pure bluff. But at any rate he
did not think so. He apprehended that that might take place, and he
acted accordingly, and he told the Chinese — or rather he did not tell
them personally, but sent them word — that he felt that from the oral
Sromise that had been obtained before the Council of Four from
apan, taken in conjunction with the relief which China might obtain
from the league of nations, China could eventually get justice by that
method.
To that the Chinese delegation responded in substance as follows:
In the first place the league of nations had no existence, and in the
second place, that if it was organized, its power and authority were
problematical. In the third place, that it was not logical to assume
that a league of nations, adopted by the same vote and in conjunction
with the treaty of peace, would design to reverse the provisions of
that treaty. In the fourth place, that the real ruling power, the
supreme council, of the league, would be constituted oy the same
nations as made the Shantung decision in the council of four.
Senator Borah. You say this was the Chinese reply ?
Mr. Millard. Yes. And in the fifth place, that as near as China
could make out, it was only the weak nations that were asked to
depend for justice upon the league, for the strong powers were taking
every other outside precaution to protect their interests.
However the decision had been made, and China's pleas from that
on were in the nature of doing what she could to amend or better
herself in that position. She made various requests for interviews
with the President and others. I remained in Paris several weeks
longer and China had not seen the President up to that time, but
China's representatives were subseauently received by him, and they
Were received by Mr. Balfour ana the French representative, anil
they gave the information that they found they had been bound bv
the secret agreements and that Japan had made oral promises which
they felt Japan intended to carry out.
And then this happened after 1 loft Paris; but I have the informa-
tion from a man who was attached to the Chinese delegation or who
left Paris after I did. I advised in a memorandum which I wrote, a
copy of which I have here somewhere on the situation — I i^vised uie
Chmese to take a certain course. One of the things that I suggested —
and I showed this to Prof. Williams and Prof. Horbeck, also, and they
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBUCANY. 453
concurred— I said, "Get the best le^al counsel you can; get the best
American international lawyer, and the best French international
lawyer, and the best British international lawyer you can find, and
get their advice on this point: If you under these circumstances sign
this treaty without reservation, to what extent will they qualify any
appeal which you may make for revision of this law to an mter-
national court, or a court of international arbitration, or to a league
of nations. Get their advice on that point, and also even if you
make no reservations:*' I do not know whether they took that coxmsel
or not. Then I said : ' ' When the things come up, ask to be permitted
to make reservations, stating your position, so that you may file
four exception for an appeal later, on which to base your appeal,
f these l^al coimselors advise you and you draft these exceptions,
and the exceptions are put into the recora, and you are not inhibited
from taking your appeal later, then sign. If you can not sign under
those circiunstances, then do not sign.
I do not know to what extent my advice had to do with the course
that the Chinese delegation pursued. Later they requested formally
that they be allowed to make certain reservations to the treaty. I
was still in Paris on the day that the treaty came up for adoption
by the conference, when it was read and adopted, and China had
signified her intention of taking an exception. She was advised not
to do it. Great pressure was being brought on them to yield, and
when later it came to the signing of the treaty and they asked to put
in these reservations, that was refused. I am informed also that at
the very last moment after that was refused they then tried to obtain
some kind of a statement from the coimcil of four to the effect that
the leaeue of nations later would take up the Chinese case. They
failed idso to obtain any assurance in that particular. Under these
circumstances, as you know, the Chinese refused to sign the treaty.
Of course the refusal to sign the treaty, as the Chmese knew very
well, placed them in an imfortimate and isolated position. My
opinion is that if some malicious marplot has set out to devise a way
to place China in the most unfortunate circumstances in coimection
witn this whole thing they could not have devised anything that
would accomplish it more completely than this course of events.
China is now in the position of having lost out entirely on the
Shantung thing. By reason of the advice of the United States she
did not even present these various other matters for the consideration
of the conference, thereby providing a way for some mutual inter-
national action, by reason oi her refusal to sign the peace imder those
circumstances, because, as one of the Chinese put it, they can hang
a man, but they can not make him sign his own death warrant, they
are left so completely isolated. They are outside of the allied group.
They are nowhere. That is their situation.
I JGiight now just conclude what I have to say — that is, before you
interrogate me — ^by saying that immediately after we learned of this
decision of April 30 I was talking with Prof . E. T. Williams, our chief
oriental expert, whose experience in China extends back over 35 years,
most of the time as an official of the Government. He has been
acting minister on several occasions, and before he resigned for some
two or three years he was head of the far eastern division of the State
Department. Those of you who are acquainted with Prof. Williams
will know that he is a reticent, quiet man and one from whom it ia
454 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
difficult to get any positive expression of opinion on any subject,
especially about diplomatic matters. When he heard of this he
simplj^ said, "That means war,'' and every American expert who was
in r aris at the time felt exactly the same way. As we balance things,
we feel that such things mean war, and we felt that this was left in a
position where it is going straight on into a deadlock, and impasse,
which will not be broken m any way except by a fight. That is what
we all fear. I heard — ^I do not know whether it is true or not — that
the so-called Gen. Bliss letter contained a statement somewhat to that
effect. It is still held in camera. Probably the Government is not
yiet ready to publish that letter at this time, but, as we all know and
as has been disclosed to you, our experts and Mr. Wilson's own col-
leagues all dissented from the Shantung decision. That about con-
cludes what I have had in mind to say.
Senator Johnson of California. A question or two that I should
like to ask if you will permit me. Senator. I want to go back to the
incident of the 21 demands. Do you recall when the 21 demands
were first made by Japan, that Japan maintained secrecy concerning
the rest of the world knowing of tnose demands ?
Mr. Millard. I recall it very distinctly.
Senator Johnson of California. And then do you remember that
when finally the world learned something of those 21 demands that
Japan published an erroneous statement or misstatement of them to
the world ?
Mr. Millard. I remember that perfectly.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall that aftOT these de-
mands were made upon China, and the world became cognizant that
something of that sort had been done, Japan specifically denied that
she had made any such demands ?
Mr. MiLLAKD. I remember, ves, sir, that she did deny it until she
knew that the text of the whole 21 demands was in the possession of
every government, and then she could not deny, althougn she denied
it after that.
You gentlemen might be interested in this. If you did not know
the late Bishop Bashford of China you know who he was. I have this
from Bishop Bashford himself. The Americans in China, especially
the missionaries, well everybody out there was so wrought up over
these 21 demands that Bishop Bashford made a trip back to the
United States. He had been on a trip in the Yangtse Valley, and he
came down to Shanghai. The newspapers there published the 21
demands.
Senator Pomerene. That is the call of the Senate. What is the
purpose of the committee, to continue this hearing now?
Tiie Chaibman. I should like to conclude Mr. Millard's testimony
to-day.
Senator Pomerene. I am obliged to go to the Senate. I am sorry
that I can not be here.
The Chairman. We can take a recess until the afternoon if you
prefer.
Senator Swanson. Do you expect to be in Washington several
days?
Mr. Millard. I expect to be here a couple of days anyway.
Senator Swanson. Can we not wait until Wednesday ?
The Chairman. We have Dr. Ferguson on Wednesday.
JBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 455
Mr. MiLLABD. I was going to relate a conversation which Bishop
Bashford had with Mr. Bryan on the matter. Mr. Bryan was then
Secretaiy of State. This will show to what lengths Japan carried
her deception in the matter.
Senator Johnson of California. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
witness may finish that particular matter, and inasmuch as Dr.
Ferguson ^1 be here on Wednesday and the witness will be here, we
can conclude with him Wednesday and conclude with Dr. Ferguson
Wednesday.
Senator Swanson. Why not this afternoon ?
Senator Johnson of California. I have no objection so far as I
am concerned except that we want to be in the Senate, that is all.
Senator Swanson. I notice that there are very few in the Senate
from day to day. We adjourn on accoimt of the Senate and then we
see a large collection of empty chairs there.
Senator Johnson of California. Well, go ahead as far as I am con-
cerned. I do not care.
The Chaibman. I should hke to go on and finish with Mr. Millard
to-day.
Senator McCumbeb. Let us go on until 1 o'clock now.
Senator Johnson of California. Go ahead and finish.
Mr. MiLLABD. Bishop Bashford wrote a very strong letter to the
President, of which he gave me a copy, and I incorporated parts of
it in the book on the Far Eastern question without stating that it
came from him. The Bishop came on to Washington.
The Chaibman. Is he of the Methodist Church f
Mr. MiLLABD. Yes. He died a few years ago. He was in frail
health. Every one in China looked up to Bishop Bashford. Among
the churchmen in these foreign parts there are some eminent church-
men who are looked upon as politicians. His interests took a wide
ran^e for a cleric, and he had an interest in political matters. Bishop
Basnford came to Washington, coming nere for the purpose of
attempting to present the facts about this thing to the American
Government. There had been so much — to use a word that is
cuixent now — camouflage, and so much downright lying, that it was
very doubtful to the people out in China that the Government knew
the facts, although we knew that a full copy of the 21 demands had
been procured by our legation at Peking and had been telegraphed
and sent in writing to the State Department.
Bbhop Bashford arrived here, and he had made an appointment
to see Secretaiy Bryan, who was Secretarv of State at. that time, and
about half an hour — ^he was stopping at tne New Willard Hotel as he
told me afterwards — about half an hour before he was to go over to
see Secretary Bryan, Dr. Sidney Gulick, a former missionery in
Ji^an, who had been prominent for inany years, somewhat of a
?ro-Japan propagandist, called upon Bishop Bashford at the New
P^illard Hotel and said, *' Now, Bishop Basmord, we are old friends
and respect each other," and he added, ^' I do not like to see you
making a terrible mistake." He said, ''I saw a statement that you
gave in San Francisco in which you say so and so, and I tell you
privately that you are all wrong about this. You have come here
and you are gomg to see the President, and you are going to see Mr.
Bryan, and you do not want to go up there and make statements
that are not correct, and I think I can enlighten you." Well, Bishop
456 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAJSTY.
Bashford said, ''Go ahead and enlighten me. What is it that I am
misinformed on?'' He said, ''You are all wrong about those 21
demands/' He replied, "In what way am I wrong about those 21
demands?" "Well/' Dr. Gulick said, "Japan never did such and
such thing and so and so,'' giving a remarkaole account of the thing.
Bishop Bashford said, "What is the source of your informationr'
He replied, "The foreign minister a.t Tokyo, and I went over the
whole thing with the Japanese Minister in Washington. I can
assure you dv the highest authority that you are entirely wrong."
Bishop Bashford said, "Well, Dr. Gulick, I have an appointment
just about now with the State Department. You come over with
me and see Mr. Bryan." And Dr. Gulick said, "Very well," and
they went over and saw Mr. Bryan.
Bishop Bashford asked Mr. Bryan before Dr. Gulick, " What in-
formation have you about these 21 demands?" And Mr. Bryan
brought out a copy of the 21 demands and showed them to JDr.
Gulick, and in a way that could not dispute the authenticity of it, and
then Bishop Basmord said — ^before they had gone over Bishop
Bashford said, "You come with me and we will talk to Mr. Bryan,
and then I will go with you to talk to the Japanese ambassador."
Bishop Bashford then said, "Dr. Gulick, are you satisfied?" Dr.
GulicK, who was flabbergasted, said, "Yes." They finished their
talk with Secretary Bryan and then they went out of the State
Department, and then Bishop Bashford said, " We will now go to see
the Japanese ambassador, and see what he says." Dr. Gulick re-
plied, " I will have to ask to be excused. It would be too embarrass-
mg."
Senator Johnson of California. Do vou remember in the 21 de-
mands there was a demand by Japan for virtual sovereignty ?
Mr. Millard. It would amount practically to that. Nations in
those things deal euphemistically.
Senator Johnson of California. I am not indicating that that was
the phraseology.
Mr. Millard. The so-called group 6 made Japan practically
sovereign of China. By the way, Mr. Bryan told Bishop Bashford
and Dr. Gulic that our Government had protested.
Senator Johnson of California. It was eliminated by the protest
of our Government ?
Mr. Millard. The British protested against it, too.
Senator Johnson of California. It is ultimately eUminated.
Mr. Millard. Great Britain at that time was not in a position to
make serious demands upon Japan. Probably they would not have
paid much attention to Great Britain, but the combination of cir-
cumstances was that they thought they had better cut out group 5.
Senator Johnson of California. I want to call your attention to
another secret treaty made by Japan in addition to those in relation
to Shantung, the treaty maae in 1916 between Russia and Japan.
Do vou recall that secret treaty ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you remember the particular
provisions ? I read article 2 for instance. [Reading.]
In the event, in consequence of measures taken bjr mutual consent of Russia and
Japan, on the basis of the preceding article, a declaration of war is made by any third
power, contemplated by article 1 of this agreement, by just one of the contracting
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 457
parties, the other party, at the first demand of each ally, must come to its aid. Each
of the high contracting parties herewith covenants in the event such a condition
arises, not to conclude peace with a common enemy, without preliminary consent
therefor from its ally.
Article 3 provides [reading] :
The conditions under which each of the high contracting parties will lend armed
assistance to the other side, bv virtue of the preceding article, as well as the means
by which such assistance shall be accomplished, must be determined by the corre-
sponding authorities of one and the other contracting parties.
Senator McCumber. Do I understand that that was an agreement
that was made between Japan and Russia ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir.
Mr. Millard. It was a secret alliance during the war between
Japan and the Russian Grovemment. The documents were published
after the revolution.
Senator Johnson of California. In response to Senator McCumber,
yes; it was an agreement between Japan and Russia, signed by
Sazonoff on the one hand and Motono on the other.
Senator McCumber. On what date ?
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. 1916. [Reading:]
In witness whereof the persons invested with full power of both parties have
signed and affixed ih&i seals to the present agreement at Petrograd on the 20th of
June— July 3
Mr. Millard. That is the 20th of June our calendar, and July 3
the Russian calendar.
Senator Johnson of California. As an expert upon the eastern
question, against whom would vou say this alliance was directed ?
Mr. Millard. An analysis of all the conditions and circumstances
would demonstrate unmistakably that the third power mentioned in
there would be the United States.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you sate, Mr. Millard, who it
was that reported the result of the Shantung decision at Paris to the
Chinese there?
Mr. Millard. I believe it was communicated to them — ^well of
course they learned it first by Dr. Way being right there in the press
room when Mr. Ray Stannard Baker came in with the official
announcement. As a matter of fact everybody had known it the
Erevious day, and then that night Ray Baker went over to the hotel
lUtitia, which was the headquarters ot the Chinese delegation, and
gave them a copy of the memorandum which they had received several
hours before, and also personally tendered the President's explanation
of the thing, and then the next morning both Prof. Williams and Prof.
Hornbeck went there and communicated substantially the same thing.
Senator Johnson of Caliiornia. Did you know Mr. Ray Stannard
Baker ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir. I know him.
Senator Johnson of California. What position, if you know, did
he occupy at Paris ?
Mr. Millard. He occupied a position there of official intermediary,
I should call it, between the American press correspondents and the
President, or the American mission — ^but really the President.
Every day Mr. Palmer would go up and see the President, and then
he would come back to the press room with whatever was to be
communicated to the press and give it out, either mimeographed or
orally.
458 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. Let me askyou in regard to the
Shantung Province, if you can answer me. The Province is about
how large, if you know?
Mr. Millard. I do not know, but
Senator Johnson of California. If you are not familiar with the
statistics, never mind.
Mr. Millard. No; I know exactly its relation to China, but I
would not know how to compare it with anything; and I do not
know the nimiber of square miles it contains. You can look in the
China Year Book and see that. It is a large Province, comparable
to one of our States.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know about what its
population is ?
Mr. Millard. I should say 36,000,000 to 40,000,000.
Senator Johnson of California. What is the effect upon the control
of the Province — of economic control, there ?
Mr. Millard. The Japanese occupancy of the Province, as it has
existed since they went m there and occupied it and as they occupy
it up to the present time, and as it would be continued under this
treaty, amounts to practical economic and political control of the
Province. To give you a specific case
Senator Johnson of California. Let me ask you : Under the provi-
sions of the treaty Santung Province is practically given — substan-
tially given — ^unto Japan, is it not ?
Mr. Millard. That is really what it amoimts to. That was the
opinion of every expert we had at Paris.
Senator Hitchcock. Before you leave that, may I ask a question?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes ; I am practically tlirough.
Senator Hitchcock. Is there anything that gives to Japan, under
this treaty, more than Germany actually had ?
Mr. Millard. No ; the treaty merely cedes to Japan what Germany
was supposed to have.
Senator Hitchcock. So that if Japan does exercise anything more
than that, it is usurpation?
Mr. Millard. Yes. Now, here is the actual situation, Senator.
Japan, by the terms of this treaty, establishes herself in the position
that Germany was in, there. Meanwhile, Japan had gone ahead and
gone far beyond anything Germany had ever dreamed of doing, you
see, and bv these 1918 and 1915 agreements she had nailed Cliina
down on these things. China, of course, repudiated them; but she
said they put a bayonet to her throat and she was helpless. She
asked to be relieved from them, but that plea of China was turned
down. Did you not notice Uchida's statement the other day, and
did you not notice that the President came right back at him and
contradicted him, and said, ^^ You did not bring this up at Paris at
air' ? Now, they are going to get China oflf in a comer by herself,
there, and just stick the bayonet at her throat again^ and make her
confirm all thcMse things. In that Uchida statement, issued about 10
days ago, I believe — the 6th, was it not, of August — ^which is supposed
to clear this thing up, but which is far more cryptic than any uttierance
she has ever given out before, that I know of, sue savs — it amounts to
this — ^' We are going to give back when we get gooa and ready." He
mentions no date or anything like that, but says, ''We are going to
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 459
give it back under the 1915 agreement." Then, the President, on the
same day, came right back at him and said, ^'At Paris you did not
say anything about the 1915 agreement or the 1918 afp*eement, and
nothing that was said there could be construed as placing the prom-
ises you made upon those agreements."
Senator Hitchcock. I wanted to get your construction of that.
You agree, then, that if Japan exceeds in any particular the claims
that Germany has, or had, in regard to Shantung, it is usurpation ?
Mr. MiLijiRD. Absolutely.
Senator Johnson of California. And not due to this treaty ?
M'". Millard. Yes.
Senator ELnox. I would like to know
Senator Johnson of California. Will you not let him answer the
question ?
Senator Knox. Certainly: I will wait imtil you finish.
Senator Johnson of California. I did not hear the answer to the
last question.
Senator Swanson. He said yes.
Mr. Millard. Yes; I said yes, and I will go further and say they
have already usurped it. They are in possession.
Senator Knox. What I wanted to loiow is, by reason of Japan's
propinquitv to China, does not the same concession mean much more
to Japan than to a European power ?
Mr. Millard. Absolutely. That is as China pointed out at the
time she was trying to protect her neutrality and prevent Japan from
overrunning the province — that the possession of Germany was one
thins from the strategic point of view, but the possession oi Japan is
absolutely another thing.
Senator Swanson. Another thing to the same point: When this
ultimatum was issued by Japan, in that ultimatum was a promise, a
promise to the world that at some time in the future
Mr. Millard. They would return it to China.
Senator Swanson. That they would turn the whole thing over to
China?
Senator Swanson. When that promise was made did China take
any steps to secure
Mr. Millard. At that time there were negotiations by which China
wanted to neutralize herself.
Senator Swanson. She acquiesced in Japan taking this control ?
Mr. Millard. No; she never acquiesced.
Senator Swanson. What did she do at the time when that ulti-
matum was issued ?
Mr. Millard. She OTotested.
S^iator Swanson. Formally, at that time ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; she protested formally. Everybody saw, the
minute that it came up, that the establishment of a German base at
Kiaochow complicated matters so that China could not afterwards —
one of the proposals was that China would join the Allies. Another
proposal was that China would main absolute neutrality, and that
she would take Kiaochow and intern the (jermai. shipsi and that
would settle it.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not true that in Korea, and
coming down through Mongolia and north and south Korea, Japan
has made incursions in China that have been accompanied with the
460 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAlJnr.
most solemn protest that it was not intended to injure or impair the^
integrity or destroy the sovereignty of China ?
Mr. Millard, i es.
Senator Johnson of California. And that every time Japan winda
up with the absolute sovereignty ?
Mr. Millard. She winds up, as when she went to war with Russia,
when she affirmed the independence of Korea in the treaty of peace,
and a few years afterwards annexed it to the Japanese Empire, as she
has Shantung, and by precisely the same process.
Senator Swanson. I understand you to say that Great Britain
and France and Italy definitely stated that they would adhere to
those secret treaties, and could not adhere to a treaty in which those
secret treaties were not taken care of?
Mr. Millard. That was the attitude. Of course at the time this
decision was made Italy had bolted, you see, and she was indifferent,
and she did not care.
Senator Swanson. But if Great Britain, France, and Italy ad-
hered to their secret agreements, it was impossible for Great Britain
to sign any agreement as to the Shantung matter ?
Mr. Millard. If they adhered to the secret agreements, then it was
all fixed before the conference met.
Senator Swanson. And if that had been done a treaty of peace in
which Great Britain, France, and Italy participated would not have
been simed ?
Mr. Millard. If thev had carried out those a^eements.
Senator Swanson. If they had carried out their secret agreements;
and they insisted that they would ?
Mr. Millard. They insisted that they would, Of course nobody
believed that they would. That was just a matter of opinion.
Senator Swanson. Then we would have been relegated to a sepa-
rate treaty with Germany, if the Shantung matter had not been
included ?
Mr. Millard. It might have had that possibility, and might not.
Senator Swanson. if Shantung had been left out of the treaty
entirely, what position would have been occupied, so far as China is
concerned, now? Would not China have been confronted by an
agreement of France, Great Britain, and Italy to stand by Japan in
her attempts on China, regarding the Shantung Province?
Mr. Millard. No; that agreement only contemplated up to the
time of the peace conference, and that wiped that out.
Se*iator Swanson. Now, has not the Chinese position been im-
proved with this declaration on the part of the authorities in Japan
and also the verbal promise given the President and the other mem-
bers of the council tnat this will be restored ? Has not the position
of China been improved by those conditions, not including the treaty
but outside of the treaty; has it not been made better than it would
have been than if Shantung had been left entirely out of the treaty,
with these secret agreements ?
Mr. Millard. No; I do not think so.
Senator Swanson. What would have been the effect if the Shan-
tung matter had been left out, and Japan had been left to deal with
these other things ?
Mr. Millard. China, from the strategical standpoint, as Mr. Knox
just brought out — and so would the British and the Americans and
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 461
everybody else — ^would a great deal rather have the German status
than the Japanese status.
Senator Swanson. They would rather have left it with Germany ?
Mr. Millard. Yes. Yes, China wanted to get it back, and if she
had to have some foreign nation there, she would rather have had
Germany there, as before the war, than to have had it as it is now.
Senator Swanson. What chance would China have had with these
secret agreements between France, Great Britain, and Italy, and
Japan ?
Mr. Millard. That was a war agreement, and it would be elimi-
nated with whatever action was taken by the peace conference. In
fact, the Chinese plan was to get rid not only of those things but all
of that, and she wanted to bring those things forward at Paris.
Senator Swanson. But you stated that Great Britain, France,
and Italy frankly stated that they would have to keep these secret
agreements if Great Britain insisted upon it. Is that true ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that France and
Great Britain stated that they would refuse to sign the league and
the treaty unless Shantung was recognized ?
Mr. Millard. No; I said nothing of the kind. You said that
hypothetically.
Senator Swanson. I understood vou to say that they said that they
could not have any settlement of the Shantung matter that violated
the agreements; that that was the position of rYance, Great Britain,
and Italv.
Mr. Millard. Here is the attitude that they took, apparently.
They took the position, *'We did not want to sign these tnings, but
we have signed them, and the only way of getting out of them is that
you " — meaning the United States — " will have to open the way out.*'
Senator Swanson. That is, they would have to get the consent of
Japan ?
Mr. Millard. They would have to try to do so. We did not do
that in the Fiume matter. We could have said, ^^We will not sign
any such thing," but this is what they did
Senator Swanson. If Shantung had been left out entirely in the
treaty with Germany, what position would China have been left in
then?
Mr. Millard. It would have reverted to the prewar status.
Senator Swanson. But how would she have gotten rid of the agree-
ments with France, Great Britain, and Italy to stand by China ?
Mr. Millard. In your statement to me you assume two contra-
dictory things. If you had omitted the Shantung matter from the
treaty, they would have discovered that in some way or other the
Shantung matter would have been disposed of.
Senator Swanson. Suppose that the President had refused to
consent to anything about Shantung ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Swanson. And that it should have nothing to do with the
treaty with Germany?
M:^ Millard. Yes.
Senator Swanson. And all the allies had consented to that with
regard to Shantimg ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
462 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Swanson. What woiild have been the position of China;
better than it is to-day ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Swanson. How?
Mr. Millard. It would have reverted to the prewar status.
Senator Swanson. And those secret agreements?
Mr. Millard. Those secret agreements were simply to the effect
that when it came to the decision of a peace conference to settle this
question up, Japan was going to maKe certain claims; that thesa
powers would vote with her on those claims. That is all the secret
agreements amounted to.
Senator Swanson. And suppose the Shantung matter was then
taken up separately by France, Great Britain, Italy, and Germany^
France, Great Britain, and Italy would still have been precluded from
doing anything contrary to the wishes of Japan under tnat agreement ?
Mr. Millard. Not necessarily. That would have created a situa-
tion not contemplated in the agreements when they were signed^
and it might have been dealt with differently.
Senator Swanson. It seems to me with tnis understanding made
by the council that Japan will support it, that the position of China,
has been improved.
Mr. Millard. Not at all, because so far as we know in regard
to the promise Japan has made, she has not stated a date; and now,
by the very statement of Uchida she is equivocating already. It says
tnat you are to predicate something on thb 1915 agreement, but that
touches a lot of things besides Shantung.
Senator Swanson. Would not China have been infinitely better off
than she is now, would not she have had a better standing to-day;
would not the United States now be in a better position to befriend
her, if she has a positive agreement from Japan that she will keep
this agreement ?
The Chairman. There is no such agreement.
Senator Swanson. Yes; I think there is.
The Chairman. It is a verbal agreement. Japan has violated every
verbal agreement she has made.
Let me ask you, is it not the worst thing that could possibly happen
to China to have Shantung go into Japanese hands ?
Mr. Millard. That is the way I view it, and every person in China
that I know of, the British and everybody else.
Senator Swanson. It is all in her hands ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Just as much as the treaty could put it in her
hands ?
Mr. Millard. The treaty does not put it there.
Senator Swanson. The treaty does not put it there ?
Mr. Millard. The treaty confirms her. I will tell you how the
treaty helps her to hold the thing down.
Senator Swanson. Yes.
Mr. Millard. The treaty merely consists of the clauses by which,
without any mention of China whatever, Germany cedes certain
ihings to Japan. Those things happen to be territorially in China.
In the covenant of the league of nations there is an Article XXI.
That article is to the effect that the Monroe doctrine and other
regional understandings that are in existence, presumably at the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 463
time this covenant goes into effect, are made valid. Now, that
confirms the Monroe doctrine, and it confirms about 20 known,
agreements, and Heaven knows how many secret agreements and
understandings about China.
Senator Swanson. Are those regional understandings different
from or like our Monroe doctrine ?
Mr. Millard. They are as different as night is from day.
Senator Swanson. They do not protect tnose that are unlike the
Monroe doctrine. The treaty says ** regional understandings, like
the Monroe doctrine."
Senator Knox. No; the regional understanding is like the Monroe
doctrine.
Senator Swanson. Well, that is a difference of opinion.
Senator Johnson of California. We will now let him go ahead
and finish his answer about the regional understandings ?
•Senator Swanson. Yes.
Mr. Millard. Since I have returned to this country I have taken
the troubl<^ to get the opinions of two or three international lawyers
of ability on that question^ '' Now, here, whom are you going to appeal
that case to ? You are gomg to appeal it to this very bunch that have
got these regional understandings betwen themselves. You see, that
IS where the Chinese Government is going, and they are going to take
a di{)lomatic attitude, just like they took at Paris, favorable to a
certain construction; and when is our Government ever going to be,
I would like to know, in a better position to make these various
nations conform to our ideas of what is right than we were at Paris ?"
Senator Swanson. Except that we have, if the statement is true^
an agreement Irom the Japanese Government — verbal — but a written
agreement is simply evidence of an understanding, and it is simply
evidence and it does not give any more sanctity, it is of no more
force than a verbal one, and it is of value only as insuring that there
shall be no dispute about.it — an understanaing that tms territory
will be returned to China.
Senator Johnson of California. So far as Japan is concerned t
Mr. Millard. Yes; of course reserving the special concession and
these special privileges.
Senator Swanson. Now
Ml*. Millabd. Will you let me finish one of the observations, if you
do not object ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Mr. Millard. To my mind and to the mind of every expert who
:eallv imderstands the conditions as they are translated into action
in China, and all the various things that affect it, Japan is now in a
much stronger position, looking at those things that are goin^ to
arise. You have seen one thing: Mr. Uchida's understanding does
not conform to the President's, because when Mr. Uchida made that
statement the President came ri^ht back at him and said that he
did not say anvthing about that m Paris.
Mr. Johnson s understanding as to the Japanese agreement is not
what the Japanese imderstand by it.
Senator Sw^anson. If this regional agreement had not been ratified
by Great Britain, France, Italy, and the United States in the council
when they had their conference that she would siu'render what she
has to Cmna, that supersedes the secret treaties^ does it not ? It is
464 THE AT Y OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
subsequent to the secret treaties, and you understand that having
made this agreement with the United States and these other coun-
tries, she will return Shantung to China, and with that understanding,
which is subsequent to the secret treaties, my impression was that
the situation of China was benefited rather than hurt by the situation.
Mr. Millard. Yes, that was the tenor of the President's expla-
nation.
Senator Swanson. Now, the only thing is whether Japan will com-
ply with that
Mr. Millard. Every expert disagreed with him, however.
Senator Swanson. Now, let us go back to your ideas about these
regional understandings. Let me read what is in article 21 [reading]:
Nothing in this covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of interDatioiml
engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe
doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.
Now, my idea is that the one thing protected is regional under-
standings like the Monroe doctrine. Now, if these regional imder-
standin^s are contrary to the Monroe doctrine, which to my mind is
plain, they are not protected by this.
Mr. Millard. If when this thing came up you Senators or the
President were going to interpret it, it would probably be along the
line of what you have expressed.
Senator Swanson. Just take that language.
Mr. Millard. But you are not going to interpret it. That is going
to be the point; and the chances are that Mr. Wilson is not going to
interpret it, because the test of this thing is going to come after he
leaves office.
Senator Swanson. The President has given his statement about it.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Swanson. They have made a public declaration which any
honorable nation ought to comply with.
Mr. Millard. There is no question about that.
Senator Swanson. They have made a promise and bound them-
selves to it.
Mr. Millard. Yes; the question is whether under the circum-
stances you can trust it or not.
The Chairman. Where is the record of that statement ?
Mr. Millard. I will say that the Chinese made a request in writing,
and they referred that statement up, and my latest information
was they could not obtain it. They would be entitled to it.
The Chairman. It has never been made in writing.
Senator McCumber. Has Japan made an agreement with China
that has been put in writing?
Mr. Millard. Yes; that is, in half a dozen different statements,
if you want to say that, something Uke what Mr. Uchida said the
other day is an agreement.
Senator McCumber. But when was the agreement made with
China 'i
Mr. Millard. They put that in the agreement, I think, on half a
dozen different things.
Senator McCumber. That is in writing ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Japan agreed in writing there that she will
return Shantung to China.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 466
Mr. MiLi-ARD. She has agreed ; all right.
Senator McCumber. We will agree^ then, if you wish, that she
will break her word; but my question is whether Japan has made a
solemn covenant in writing that she will return Shantung to China ?
Mr. Millard. If you will read that agreement, wherever she has
stated anything in writing, vou will find that is in very vague and
qualified fashion. It woiud lead the average person to say that she
has agreed to do this; but when you come to analyze it and see how
this is qualified by other clauses of other things, then you will get
a different impression, and nobody but an expert understands that.
He digs into it.
Senator McCumber. Do not take the witness away from me. It
is my purpose to ask some other questions along this line.
The Chairman. Did not Japan make explicit statements that she
would respect the independence of Korea, and then change the
dynastvl
Mr. Millard. She did.
Senator Knox. She did that in a treaty?
Mr. Millard. Yea, in the Portsmouth treaty of peace.
Senator McCumber. All right; she makes an agreement that she
will sign this agreement, another agreement, not that she has made
with Korea, but with the whole world; and one of the things she
agrees to is that in order to pei*mit international cooperation and the
largest international vision and security, she is to do it by the main-
tenance of justice and scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Now, Japan signs that?
Mr. Millard. Yes; she signed it, all right.
Senator McCumber. When she signs tnat with Great Britain and
France and the United States and Italy, do you mean to say that we
are not in a better position to compel her to abide by what she agrees
to abide by?
Mr. Millard. Not at all, because that is worth nothing, and when
the thing comes to a test, some combinations, or plans, will develop
that wilfchange everything.
Senator McCumber. We will differ as to our decision on that.
Do you suppose they will allow her to make an agreement with
China and then break it?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
The Ohaiiucan. China is helpless in this.
Mr. Millard. I wish you Senators would go into this thing some-
what on the lines I have laid down to you, and see if you can not find
out whether or not a tiling in Paris is supposed to have happened,
that happened while the French and British Governments were
making up their minds how they were ^oing to line up on this ques-
tion, did nappen. They had signed similar agreements with Italy
about Fiume. and others that they have tried to wriggle out of and
others that tney have not tried to wriggle out of but that they will
undoubtedly try to get out of before me world is 48 months older,
and when they were lining up their position there at Paris on this
Shantung thing, it ia believed, and there is considerable circumstan-
tial evidence of it, that before they decided they would come into the
council of four they said, ''If we do this, what situation does that lead
to ?'' and then had gone on and made an agreement among themselves
135546—19 30
466 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
covering the situation to which that would lead, involving the
creation of a new tripartite agreement covering Asia, which is equiva-
lent of the reco^ition of the paramountcy of Japan over a consider-
able part of China; and here they remain. But these are what we
are going to be confronted with, that far, and you gentlemen can
bring that out if you will ask the President and the Secretary of State
about it, as you did Mr. Lansing the other day, and Mr, Lansing
said he believed that there was such an agreement; that he does not
know what its terms are or what it embraces.
Senator Johnson of California. I think, if you will permit the
correction, that the newspaper accounts got that somewhat involved.
I think Mr. Lansing said he did not know of any such agreement.
Senator Swanson. I think he stated that he did not oelieve there
were any such, agreements.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; I think Senator Swanson is
correct, that he said he did not believe there were any such agree-
ments—did not know of any such.
Mr. Millard. Before you Senators decide upon the final form those
things shall take, I would not leave that to chance. All you have
to do is to ask of the British and French Governments what agree-
ments they have on that, if they have any, or if not; and if they have,
to let our Government see the test of them. That is something that
can be absolutely disclosed, and it goes right to the heart of this
whole thing; because by that information and by that information
alone have you got a line on after Mr. Wilson is out of office, after all
of you may be dead, or one thing and another; he may be dead and
the man that made this promise at Paris may be dead, and when this
question comes up, as it is coming, and I will state my position here
without any qualification with that situation in the Far East; as it is
left now if we do not have war with Japan we are going to arrive in
the next 10 years at a place where the ice is going to be so blamed
thin that we do not know whether we will get over it or not
Senator Swanson. What do you think will bring that war on ?
Mr. Millard. Any pretext; any one of a hundred things would
bring it on. You have got that issue there, and it is onlv a question
of opinion. It is just like the experts of Europe saw this thing cooking
for years, and they skated time afte^ time over ice so thin that it
cracKed and they did not know whether they would get over or not,
and finally, one day the ice did not hold.
Senator Swanson. I have read your books with a great deal of
interest, and they are very illuminating. I would like to ask you
this question: If Japan does make a verbal agreement with those five
great nations, whether that supersedes these agreements, whether
verbal or written ?
Mr. Millard. Of course in this memorandum to the Chinese
Government I analyzed this matter of the Japanese. We went over
there and talked it over with, them, and they were simply heart-
broken; and I said, ^^ We are all feeling badly to-night, and we had
better think it over to-morrow morning, and I wiU write vou out
what I think of this thing;" and the next morning I did, and I
analyzed it, and I have got that memorandum somewhere; and I
said, ^* Now, you have got to take into consideration certain tilings.''
They were bitter at the President. I said, ''Here we all think that
the President made a wrong decision here.' I said, ''There is no
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 467
reason to think that he did not mean well in his heart by China in
doing this, but he will be President of the United States for the next
20 months, and we do not want to do anything to alienate the Presi-
dent's sympathy, and if I was you people, I would be verjr circum-
spect in everything I said, and I woula try to let the President see
that you disagree with what he did, but you do not impugn his
motives;" ana then I pointed out that the only thing in this that
China could take an appeal out of in this was that these secret agree-
ments are wiped out under the Shantung agreement of 1907.
Senator Swanson. Yes.
Mr. Millard. It is wiped out because they were just like a promis-
sory note. You have paid it up. These Governments all agreed
that they would support Japan in this agreement.
Senator Swanson. Japan agreed that she would return this to
China.
Mr. Millard. These agreements were wiped out so far as these
Governments were concerned. Th^t left the French and the British
and the other Governments to line un with them to keep all their
promises in the future.
Senator Swanson. You think so if Japan made that promise ?
Mr. Millard. But now you could find out before they had done
that if they had not agreed with Japan something else. That is what
you want to find out, and the Senate has the means of finding that
out. I have not.
Senator Swanson. Do you not think that the United States, if
she wanted to help China about Shantung, would have a greater
right to do so with this understanding and promise made to President
Wilson in the council that she would return Shantung, a promise
made to him ?
Mr. Millard. To the extent that this is all cumulative, yes.
Every time that you get them to say over again that thev are going
to do this, it is cumulative in the sense that is is going to build up an
opinion, a moral sentiment.
Senator Swanson. You have a right to force anybody to comply
with an agreement.
The Chairman. No date is mentioned for the accomplishment of
this.
Mr. Millard. No. She may hold it for 50 years. You see, Sen-
ator, she is in the same thing in Manchuria, kept crowding in.
Whereas this may seem clear to you, you can not satisfy the Chinese.
It is a thing that is present to them. I would like to say this, that
this thing is a living situation to all the people out there in respect to
Shantung. We should remember that three-fifths of the people of
the world are out there, when it comes to man power, and there is a
very serious and grave danger that if something is not done to remedy
this thing or to give a hope for a remedy, not which you will under-
stand, but which the Chinese will understand as oflFering a hope. It
might be all right to you, with yoot'lc^al mind, observmg the thing
in detachments, but it has got to be fixed so that they will get some
hope out of it. You are going to have a wave of antiforeignism over
China, with missionaries murdered up in the country.
Senator Swanson. All of us would have loved to see included in
the treaty an absolute promise to China. The difficulties are such
as you have narrated. We feel that with this agreement made on
468 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Japan's part to the five great powers China is m a better condition
than she was when she went to the peace conference.
Mr. Millard. They do not think so, and the lawyers whom I have
advised them to consult do not think so, because, they say, ' ' You have
given Japan various points upon which she can successfully quibble
and evade and she did not have those points before. You nave this
signed up in the treaty with all the nations. It was more or less
nebulous before." It is my own opinion, but I did not trust my own
opinion. I state the opinion of international lawyers whose opinions
reach higher than mine.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Let me call your attention to the
fact that five great powers have nailed the thing down in the treaty.
They never have mentioned in the treaty any promise, verbal or
otherwise, and there exists to-day no written agreement for Japan
to turn back Shantimg.
Mr. Millard. Not so far as I know.
Senator McCumber. Not even with China ?
Senator Johnson of California. No written agreement.
Mr. Millard. China has requested to get the minutes of this thing,
to see what Japan did.
Senator Swanson. I think you will find that as an agreement.
Mr. Millard. You think China is included ?
Senator Swanson. It is included in the ultimatum to turn it back
to China. There is a public declaration to that effect.
• Senator Johnson of California. If anybody had considered the
promise of any value it would have been put in the treatv.
Mr. Millard. The whole psychology of the Asiatic world is turning
against us on this thing, and it leaves a veiy grave circumstance.
Tnere is this thing that the Senate can do. Tne senate can disclose
the facts and the Senate can disclose the action, and without touching
the treaty or the government to which this issue is bound, which we
say is as distinct as anything can be, it can be seen whether she makes
food these oral promises. And that is coming as certain as we sit
ere. The Senate can so shape events and it can do that without
touching the government or treaty, that we will be practically
through with them, and we will have lined up with us the majority
of the so-called principal powers. Whereas, in my opinion, if we
do not take those precautions, we will find them lined against us,
and in that event we will have the same result as at Paris, because
we will be in no better position to exert pressure than now.
The Chairman. It is now 5 minutes of 1, and as there are other
questions that Senator McCumber desires to ask, we will take a
recess until 3 o'clock.
(Thereupon the committee, at 12.55 o'clock p. m., took a recess
until 3 o'clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS,
The committee met at 3 o'clock p. m. pursuant to the taking of
recess.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Brande-
gee, Johnson, Moses, Hitcncock, Swanson, and Pomerene.
Senator McCumber. The committee will please come to order.
The chairman. Senator Lodge, is busy at present in the committee and
has asked me to preside until he returns.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 469
Senator Johnson of California. Will you note Mr. Reporter that
the presiding officer, Senator McCumber, Senator Moses, and myself
are those who are present.
Senator McCumber. Will you take the stand again, Mr. Millard t
STATEKEBTT OF MB. THOMAS F. F. MILLABD— Besnmed.
Senator McCumber. Had you finished, Senator Johnson ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Senator McCumber. I would like to ask you then, Mr. Millard,
a few questions for the purpose of placing upon the record the events
in the regular order which led to this inclusion of the treaty which also
held Baaochow for Japan. There was a lease entered into between
China and Germany March 26, 1898, respecting Shantung Peninsula,
was there not ?
Mr. Millard. I believe that is the correct date.
Senator McCumber. In that treaty Article I provides:
His Majesty, the Emperor of China, guided by the intention to strengthen the
friendly relations between China and (Germany, and at the same time to increase the
military readiness of the Chinese Empire, engages, while reserving to himself all
rights of sovereignty in a zone of 50 kilometers, etc.
And then provides what rights are granted to Germany. In that,
Germany clearly recognizes the sovereignty of China, does she not ?
Mr. Millard. I think so.
Senator McCumber. But at the same time she exercises and en-
forces upon China the right whereby Germany may exercise rights
that are inconsistent with complete sovereignty, sucn as sending her
soldiers across the territory without interference and in other respects
to control that territory ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; various matters of that nature arose subse-
quently where there was a question as to the propriety of Germany's
action.
Senator McCumber. At this time, then. Secretary Hay took the
matter up with Germany, did he not?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. And the result was an understanding that
the open-door poUcy would be maintained in that part of China and
also that Germany did not claim any sovereign rights over the
territory ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; that was disclosed by what is known as the
Hay-Von Buelow notes.
Senator McCumber. Then so far as the right of China to exercise
sovereignty over her own territory has not been denied either by
Germanv or any other coimtry ?
Mr. Millard. You mean denied in the form of a treaty or anything
of that kind 1
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Millard. Not to my knowledge.
Senator McCumber. The only treaty there was recognized the
sovereignty of China over this territory ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir; that is recognized in about 10 different
treaties.
Senator McCumber. Then we have had several other agreements
with Japan and others about the open-door policy ?
470 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. I think Japan is on record in about nine written
agreements and treaties.
Senator McCumber. Two of which ar'* the Root-Takahira agree-
ment
Mr. Millard. And the Lansing-Ishii agreement, and then also her
acquiescence in the principles of the Hay-von Buelow, or the Hay
doctrine.
Senator McCumber. Now, on May 25, 1915, Japan and China
entered into a treaty relating to Shantung, did they not?
Mr. Millard. That treaty included provisions relating to Shan-
tung. It did not relate to Shantung exclusively.
Senator McCumber. It also related to Manchuria?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. To refer now simply to the part relating to
Shantung, Article I of this agreement provides [reading]:
The Chinese Government engafi;e6 to give full assent to all matters upon which the
Japanese Government may hereafter agree with the German Government relating to
the disposition of all rights, interests, and concessions which Germany, by virtue of
treaties or otherwise, possesses in relation to the Province of Shantung.
That, of course, was a clear grant on the part of China that Japan
might retain all rights that Germany had acquired under the treaty
which China made with Germany.
Mr. Millard. Undoubtedly. Of course you are acquainted with
the fact that China signed that ultimatum ?
Senator McCukber. Oh, yes; just as practically she signed all the
other treaties whereby any of these nations obtained righte in Chinese
territory. She simed them all because she had to.
Mr. Millard, i es.
Senator McCumber. Yes; exactly; just as Japan at one time made
an agreement to open up her ports to American trade when we sent
Perry over there, some fifty-odd years ago.
Mr. Millard. There is a great deal of difference in the circum-
stances. China objected to some things very strongly.
Senator McCumber. But all of these concessions have been ob-
tained from China because she was too weak to resist ?
Mr. Millard. A majority have; yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Now, at the same time that this treaty was
under consideration, and on May 15, 1915, there were certain notes
exchanged between Japan and China; that is, between the ministers
of the two countries.
Mr. Millard. A large number of notes.
Senator McCumber. I call attention to one of them, and this was
a note from the Japanese minister to the Chinese minister, dated Mar
25, 1915. In this the Japanese minister says:
In the name of my Government I have the honor to make the following declaratioa
to the Chinese Government:
**When, at the termination of the present war, the leased territory of Kiaochow Bay
is completely left to the free disposal of Japan, the Japanese Government will restore
the said leased territory to China under the following conditions."
There was a clear and imequivocal statement on the part of Ja^mn
at that time that the leased territory would be restored to Cnina
under the conditions that are mentioned ?
Mr. MiLXARD. Yes, sir.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 471
Senator McCumber. And the conditions, I will set them out here
as "w ell [reading] :
1. The whole of Kiaochow Bay to be opened as a commercial port.
2. A concession under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan to be established a^ a
place designated by the Japanese Government.
3. If the foreign powers aeeire it, an international concession may be established.
4. As regards the disposal to be made of the buildings and properties of Germany
and the conditions and procedure relating thereto, the Japanese Government and the
Chinese Government shall arrange the matter by mutual agreement before the resto-
ration.
Now, you being particularly acquainted with these conditions, can
you explain what is meant by the second proposition:
A concession under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan to be established at a place
designated by the Japanese Government.
Mr. Millard. That has since that time been disclosed with abso-
lute definiteness. Subsequently to the singing of that the Japanese
Government has made survey^s, all of which nave been charted out
with maps specifically designating the area which is dominated there
as a special concession.
Senator McCumber. What were the rights to be given in that
concession to Japan ?
Mr. Millard. The exclusive jurisdiction over that territory.
Senator McCumber. You mean exclusive sovereignty over it, or
control over it, or what ?
Mr. Millard. It would aitiount to absolute sovereignty. Now
then you can split a hair there if you are disposed to, and say that it
is a c]ualified sovereignty. But it is an absolute and complete
sovereignty, a police control of that district just as much so as Japan
would have at Yokohama apd Tokyo.
Senator McCumber. Will you give us the facts as to what the
agreement was and the control to be exercised, and how exercised
and for what purpose ?
Mr. Millard. The control in general terms is designated in that
statement. The wav it works out in actual practice is that a certain
area of ground specifically designated, like a deed to a plot of land,
and within that the Japanese would establish their courts, and
would have entire police control and have entire mimicipal control
of the place.
Senator McCumber. Where did you obtain that information?
Where did you get that agreement as included in the concession,
because there is nothing here to show what the word "concession"
means?
^Ir. Millard. There is nothing there, but that is exactly the way
she conducts her concessions everywhere else, and there is no reason
to presume that there will be any departure in this case.
Senator McCumber. Then you do not know exactly; what Japan
will claim imder this t^eement to grant her a concession ?
Mr. Millard. No; no one could foresee in advance how the thing
may be subsequently qualified or modified or anything like that."
Nobody could loresee that. So far as anvbody could judge at the
present time, that would give her the Tull right and authority, all
that is needed to go ahead, just the same kind of jurisdiction that she
has in other places in Chinese territory.
Senator McCumber. Then followed considerable discussion between
China and Japan, and finally Japan sent an ultimatum to China ?
472 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. The third proposition in this ultimatum
Mr. Millard. That is, of course, she sent the ultimatum before
China ever signed. China signed as the residt of the ultimatum.
Senator ]\&Cumber. Yes; while they were discussing it. The
third proposition reads:
If the Chinese Govemment accept all the articles as demanded in the ultimatum
the offer of the Japanese Govemment to restore Kiaochow to China, made on the 26th
of April, will still hold good.
That was one of the agreements that Japan made to China, that if
China would agree to the ultimatum whicn she had given that very
day, the a^eement of Japan to restore Kiaochow back to China
would still Hold ^od ?
Mr. Millard. I es, sir.
Senator McCumber. Then China replied on the same day, did she
not?
Mr. Millard. I have not read that for some time. I would not
sav oflFhand.
Senator McCumber. I think it was on the same day.
Senator Borah. She did reply the same day.
Senator McCumber. The month is given here, but the year of the
Chinese Republic, and I do not know whether that corresponds with
our m-^nth or not. The Chinese reply was this [reading] :
The Chinese Govemment with a view to preserving the peace of the Far East,
hereby accepts, with the exception of those nve articles of uroup V, postponed for
later negotiation, all the articles of Groups I, II, III, and IV, etc.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And III is the one relating to Kiaochow Bay.
WeU, those agreements are in writing and are a part of the notes
relating to the transfer of all the ri^ts that Japan may have to
China m Shantimg ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Then under those notes certainly Japan is in
honor bound to return it, is she not ?
Mr. Millard. She is in honor bound, also legally boimd, I would
say, as far as treaties legallv bind any one.
Senator McCumber. Altnough it is not mentioned in the treaty
itself or the treaty taken in connection with those notes, that Japan
is boimd to return Shantimg to China ?
Mr. Millard. You will notice that in anything she has given no
time has been given.
Senator McCumber. That has been repeated several times, and I
fully recognize it, and I will come to that after a while.
Well, Germany also disclaimed any right of sovereignty when she
took the territory from China, although she exercised right-s of
sovereignty ?
Mr. Millard. To a limited extent, she did, but usually those little
matters of friction when they came up were straightened out fairly
well to the satisfaction of China. After Germany had once accom-
pliched her strategical purpose there, which was to effect lodgment
and leave herself Tree to create a naval base at that place, her pohcy
was to try to placate China in every possible way, and after a matter
of 15 or 20 years to a certain extent thev had handled the situation
so diplomatically with respect to the Chinese, that Chinese resent-
ment had very largely died down.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 473
Senator McCumbeb. But let us follow this up now. Before Great
Britain, France, and Italy entered into an a^eement with Japan
that if Japan would continue in the war she might hold the rights of
Germany, there had already been this agreement between China and
Japan t^at Japan might hold this territory ?
Mr, Millard. Yes, sir: that had preceded.
Senator McCumber. Then we have these two facts: First, that
Japan had taken the territory by conquest from Germany and seized
whatever rights Germany had m it, and in addition to that China
had agreed that Japan might hold all the rights that Germany had
had:
Mr. Millard. Yes. She had agreed under duress.
Senator McCumber. Yes; then came Great Britain, France, and
Italy, and by their secret agreement they had assured Japan that she
might hold what she had taken from Germany. That is correct ?
Mr. Millard. It amounted to this, that they would vote that way
on this question at the conference.
Senator McCumber. And that made it rather difficult for those
nations to refuse to recognize the right of Japan to hold this Shan-
tung at the peace conference. It rendered it almost impossible for
them to do tnat without going back on their national words ?
Mr. Millard. In a sense that will be; but you will recall, Senator,
on several occasions the Prime Ministers of those Govenmients made
express statements which would indicate to the world an intention to
regard various secret agreements of that kind as water imder the
bndge, so to speak. That was at the time that we came into the war^
and they were cajoling us about these questions. The average person
not cognizant with all the questions, with all the ins and outs of this
thing, would have beUeved that these Governments had said that
subsequent events had perhaps abrogated the moral obligation
involved in those agreements, just as, tor instance, China took the
position at Paris that when she came in and declared war with Ger-
many and denoimced all her treaties and agreements with Germany,
thereby the German rights in Shantung became automatically non-
existent, and the only way they could be given to Japan by treaty
would be to reinvest them somehow in Germany.
Senator MoCxjmber. But she had first given Japan, before she
entered into this war, all the rights Germany had?
Mr. Millard. She was still a neutral, you see.
Senator McCumber. But the point I wanted to make, Mr. Millard,
was this, that it was rather dimcult for Great Britain, France, and
Italy, to force Japan to relinauish her claim upon Shantung after the
promise had been given her tnat they would support her.
Mr. Millard. You might say it was difficult to do just that on
several occasions in regard to other matters.
Senator McCumber. Did they leave it to President Wilson to
attempt to accomplish that ?
Mr. MILLARD. They did in the Fiume incident, yes.
Senator McCumber. And President Wilson was unable to accom-
plish it?
Mr. Millard. There was almost an exact analogy as to the prin-
ciple and circumstances involved. You will note some discussions in
the papers at the present moment in regard to an agreement with
France in regard to extreme western Russia, When Kussia was an
474 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
important element in the war, Great Britain, France, and Russia
entered into an agreement which covered that region of Russia.
Later when Russia became weak, France and England made a sub-
sequent agreement. And now apparently the British Government
at Paris took the position that by reason of the circumstances that
caused the collapse of Russia, everything broke down, and she is out
of the agreement.
Senator McCumber. You have indicated, if I got the construction
of your testimony correctly, that Great Britain and France would
like to see China regain complete conotrol over this territory ?
Mr. Millard. I tnink in the abstract that would be their prefer-
ence; yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. And they are prevented from insisting upon
that by reason of their agreement?
Mr. Millard. I do not believe that that states the real reason
quite accuratelv, sir. That is the ostensible reason.
Senator McCumber. Do you think they could compel Japan to
do so?
Mr. Millard. Yes; and I tell you what I think the real reason is.
I have discussed these Questions at diflferent times with men in various
governments, unofficially, and they spoke freely, and I have had
some of them say to me at various times while this was going on,
'^ Here is a certain condition existing in Asia, and as far as I can make
out the American Government has no definite policy. We can not
depend on it for anything out there to stabilize the condition in
Russia. Under the circumstances, we are compelled to play with
Japan.*'
Senator Brandeoee. You mean the English said this ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; both French and English.
Senator Pomerene. Did these people have authority to conamit
Great Britain in such a statement ?
Mr. Millard. Just as I say, it was just as you and I would sit
down and talk.
Senator Pomerene. Corner grocery talk ?
Mr. Millard. Not at all, just plain common sense. I would say,
** What do vou fellows mean ? We can not figure on what jrou are
driving at. As far as British interests in China are concerned,
British opinion on this is absolutely unanimous as American opinion
is. They are so bitter against the Japanese. The British in the
Far East are so bitter about it that the average Englishman can not
talk about it without getting red in the face, and the British Gov-
ernment, say, "We know penectly well just like when they secretly
fot out of Korea, they made a sacrifice of British interests there
ut they traded it off for something else. In Manchuria they did
the same thing, and when they traded Shantimg in 1917 they did
the same thing." You talk to these fellows and ask them, "Wny do
{rou do this?'' They reply, "We admit we do not like to do it,
)ut we havr? to do it because of the shiftless policy of the American
Government which will not come down in black and white. We
have to trade the best we can. " That is the line of talk they give.
Senator Brandeoee. You say certain Englishmen and Frenchmen
when they were talking with you informally. Were they men who
are officials of these countries ?
Mr. Millard. They were officials of these countries. They were
far eastern experts.
TBBATY OP PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 475
Senator Brandegee. I mean it was not comer grocery talk.
Mr. Millard. No,
Senator McCumber. But if Japan insists before the conference
that her treaty with Great Britain, France, and Japan must be kept,
were those countries in any position to go back on their treaties f
Mr. Millard. They might if those treaties were made before
America and China came into the war. That act altered many
things.
Senator McCumber. But that treaty was made for the purpose
of keeping Japan in the war and Japan stayed in the war ana Japan
took possession of that section, she took it from Germany. Could
they then say to Japan, ''Now we promised you this, but because
the United States got into the war it made a change of conditions
and now we will go back on the promise.''
Mr. Millard. Ahey said substantially that, not to Japan but to
other nations under different circumstances.
Senator McCumber. Under different circumstances, I admit.
Senator Hitchcock. Before we leave that, this morning you
stated in reference to the secret treaties, that these secret treaties
were recognized and that Great Britain and France and Japan
liquidated them and they were closed and satisfied.
Mr, Millard. That is the way it turned out; yes, sir.
Senator Hitchcock. So that they were recognized and of course
the nations must have insisted on their recognition or they would
not have recognized them.
Mr. Millard. Japan insisted, and Great Britain stood by her.
That is the w^ it worked out.
Senator McCumber. Then Japan takes these German concessions
with the added obligation that Germany was not required to fulfill
under 99 years, but with the added obligation that she will return
Shantung to China.
Mr. Mdllard. Yes, sir; she stated that in various ways. '
Senator McCumber. So China has better terms with Japan than
she had with Germany with the exception as you say that Japan does
not fix a definite time ?
Mr. Millard. No, and with the exception also that Japan by this
supplementary 1918 agjreement whi^.h they bribed the Chinese Am-
bassador at Tokio to sign, and which she now is trying to work in
various ways, to have it established as a valid instrument, which the
President refused to do in his rejoinder the other day, gets an influ-
ence that Germany never had at all, and which she is attempting to
get in the terms she made at Paris.
Senator McCumber. But she does not get those under the treaty.
It is purely an assumption of right without any written authority
to back it.
Mr. Millard. Those matters are not mentioned in the treaty un-
less they would come in under the general terms of economic rights.
Senator McCumber. She has no right to do it under the treaty.
Mr. Millard. I would not say that she had not. She might con-
strue that she had an interest in it.
Senator Brandeqee. The obligation to return sovereignty is not
in the treaty, is it ?
Mr. Millard. No, sir; it is not mentioned in the treaty.
Senc^tor McCumber. But it is by a written agreement affixed to
the treaty?
476 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. No, sir.
Senator McCumber. The written agreement between the ministers
was made at the same time or just prior to the adoption of the treaty.
Mr. Millard. I am speaking now of the peace treaty, at Paris.
Senator Brandeoee. Yes ; that is what I was speaking about.
Senator McCumber. Then the present treaty or the treaty between
Japan and China reouires Japan to return Shantung to China ?
Mr. Millard. It aoes, sir.
Senator McCubiber. Of course, if she does carry that out in good
faith it means a reasonable length of time ?
Mr. Millard. I would assume so.
Senator McCumber. It does not mean that she has a right to
quibble ?
Mr. Millard. Not to hold it 15 or 20 years.
Senator McCumber. Nor a hundred years or a thousand years?
Mr. Millard. No, sir.
Senator McCumber. That is an obligation upon Japan ?
Senator Borah. May I say a word there? A Japanese gentleman
lecturing at Georgetown Universitj^ some time ago gave an idea
when that time would ripen. He said it was likely to be when Eng-
land got out of China or when the United States gave up the Philip-
pines.
Senator McCumber. He might have said that, but I am not talking
about what some one Japanese or any one says when he gets up ana
talks.
Senator Borah. He was a commissioner to this country. I
wanted to give you an idea of the Japanese idea of time.
Senator McCumber. Not the Japanese idea of time, but a certain
Japanese idea. The treaty requires Japan — the present treaty I am
speaking of — to faithfully carry out the terms of any treaty she has
made with a foreign government that is not inconsistent with this
treaty.
Mr. Millard. Which treaty are you referring to now, Senator?
Senator McCumber. I am referrmg to the peace treaty before us.
Mr. Millard. The peace treaty does not require them to do any-
thing.
Senator McCumber. I beg your pardon; it does.
Mr. Millard. In respect to Shantunj^.
Senator McCumber. The point is this, that Japan promises China
that she will return Shantung to China.
Mr. Millard. She did that in the 1915 agreement and she has
repeated that in various ways. There is no question about that.
Senator McCumber. It has been repeated m this treaty, if Japan
signs it. It reads:
In order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace
and security —
It is to be done by certain means —
by the maintenance of justice 'and the scrupulous respect for all treaty obligatioBs ut
the deaHngs of organized peoples.
She certainly does agjree to that when she signs this treaty.
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir; I have read a great many treaties, and 1
have discovered that preambles sometimes state a purpose opposite
to that in the treaty.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 477
' Senator McCumber. You have found that some have been broken,
but some have been kept ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Do jou not assume that honorable Govern-
ments will keep their treaties, and that this Government will main-
tain its obligations ?
Mr. Millard. Unfortunately my 25 jears in the field of world
politics will not allow me to be that optimistic about it.
Senator McCumber. Japan signs another a^eement; that is, she
agrees to reach these things in the "prescription of open, just, and
honorable relations between nations. Would it b^ an honorable
relation between China and Japan if Japan would say, "We will
turn this over in 99 years?''
Mr. Millard. I would not consider it honorable.
Senator McCumber. Do you think that Great Britain or the
United States or any civilized coimtry would think that that was an
honorable response to her treaty obligations ?
Mr. Millard. I do not think they would ; no, sir.
Senator McCumber. Now, take it on the other hand. Suppose
Japan is out of this entirely, and does not sign it. She then is not
bound by this treaty, but she is bound by what she may consider as
an honorable obligation between herself and China. Do you think
she would ever let go of Shantung under those conditions t
Mr. Millard. I do not think so, and I do not think she has any
intention any time under the present circumstances of letting go of
Shantung except as circumstances may compel her to do so.
Senator McCumber. But you are quite certain she would not if
there was no influence of any other nation to bear upon her to compel
her to do so ?
Mr. Millard. I am quite certain of it, and I am quite certain that
the whole diplomacy may neutralize the forces that would compel her.
Senator McCumber. And if she does not sign this treaty, there is
no obligation on the part of other coimtries to compel her to let go
in China?
Ifr. Millard. Yes; she is still signed up in the Root-Takahira
agreement.
Senator McCumber. That is to maintain the open door t
Mr. Millard. Yes; and the integrity of China, specifically men-
tioned in all of them.
Senator McCumber. Suppose she does not sign this and says '' I will
hold on to Shantung and turn it over when we get good and ready.''
What are we going to do about it?
Mr. Millard. I do not know. I am not the Government of the
United States.
Senator McCumber. You know something about the Government
of the United States, and under our policy we would hardly reach
over to China and defend China against Japan ?
Mr. Millard. I think under certain circumstances we might well
have to.
Senator McCumber. Do you think we ought to extend our Monroe
doctrine to China T
Mr. Millard. We do not need to. We have the identical doctrine
in the Hay doctrine.
478 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
Senator McCumbeb. You think we have a Monroe doctrine m
Chma?
Mr. MiLLABD. Exactly.
Senator McCumbbe. Then our Monroe doctrine, according to your
view, is not a doctrine that refers only to the Western Hemisphere,
but a doctrine that has been extendea by the United States until it
covers the Eastern Hemisphere ?
Mr. MiLLABD. As it is in effect therb it is called the Hay doctrine^
not the Monroe doctrine.
Senator McCumbeb. Only a difference in name ?
Mr. MiULABD. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumbeb. And therefore it would be perfectly proper
for us to interfere in China's affairs even though not proper to inter-
fere in European affairs ?
Mr. MiLLABD. I would never put it that way.
Senator McCumbeb. Put it in the way you would like to have it
in the record.
Mr. MiLLABD. Here is the exact situation that may arise. In the
history of our relations with China, just as with Japan, we have dealt
with each nation separately as an independent nation. We hare
based all our diplomatic relations, with them and all our treaties with
them, on the fact that each nation was an independent nation acting
for itself and was in a position to maintain that position. Now, for
instance, treaties with China established the position of Americans
and the relations that exist between us and China. Those are treaties
made between us and China. When they were made we did not call
in Japan, Great Britain, or anyone. We made them direct with China*
Senator McCumbeb, Whereby we agreed to protect China's terri-
tory?
Mr. MiLLABD. I am talking about our rights — how they came into
this thing.
Senator McCumbeb. All right.
Mr. MiLLABD. Now then, among those treaties, for instance, we
have certain very favorable clauses. 'We have the right to trade
anywhere in China on the same terms and conditions that other
nations have. With respect to any other matters we have all those
rights under the treaties with China. Now, let us sav that outside of
that a third power comes in and denies us those rights, takes action
which is tantamount to a special and practical denial of those rights.
We naturally as between our treaties go to China for satisfaction.
We have no other nation to go to. We do not recognize any other
nation in relation to the matter, but we take the matter up diplo-
matically with China and say, ^^Why is it that Smith & Co. can not
go over here and make a contract with this municipality for an
electric-Ughting plant?'' She comes along and says, '*We have nc
objection, but Japan says we can not." We turn around and say to
Japan, " What are you butting in here for ? '' We are not fighting for
China's rights there, but our own.
Senator McCumbeb. But the only thing that we have agreed with
China is that on the tiieorv of the open-door policy we shall have the
same commercial rights of the most favored nation.
Mr. MiLLABD. Yes ; we have such a treaty.
Senator McCumbeb. Suppose that Japan does not interfere with
that in any way, and she says she will not interfere with it, and
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 479
suppose that she does not interfere with it, but at the same time she
deprives China of her sovereignty over a portion of Chinese territory.
Will we have to go to war io help China out ?
Mr. Millard. 1 think that would largely depend on the mentality
and the character of the man who happened to be president of the
United States.
Senator McCumber. Do you think the American people would
want to go to war to see that Japan did not get control over any
portion oi China and to protect our commercial mterests in China ?
ilr. Millard. At this moment if you were to put it to the Ame: ican
people they would say no, just as sixyears ago they would have said
no to sending millions of troops to Europe and spending billions of
dollars there.
Senator McCumber. They would have continued to say that if
they had not stepned on our toes.
Mr. Millard. That is what will happen in this case, and that is
what I can not make clear.
Senator McCumber. I am assuming that it has not happened.
Mr. Millard. If it does not happen — our whole character as &
Nation of course is that we are not seeking trouble and will not go to
war.
Senator McCumber. We have not interfered in Korea.
Mr. Millard. No.
Senator McCumber. Nor in Manchuria.
Mr. Millard. Have not as yet.
Senator McCumber. What reason would you give that we will not
interfere in Shantimg?
Mr. Millard. There are a great many people that will fight a
different stages of provocation. Take the provocation that Germany
gave us leading up to our declaration of war. Many people thought
that the first provocation was sufficient for us to so to war, but a
majoritv of people thought it was not. And then others thought that
when the second provocation came along that that was sufficient
provocation, and so on. The thing becomes cumulative. Now in
regard to this far eastern question, the way it shapes itself in my mind
after 20 years of study of it is that the thing that we have declared
over and over again is that the territorial integrity and the political
autonomy of Cmna is ultimately in the last analysis sacred to our
'opinions and out institutions.
That comes up in the question that is returnable to the American
people or to the man who at the time happens to be President; it
may be 10 or 20 years from now. Then, I say. if that question
comes to them in that form, they will say, *' We will fight;'' and I do
not care whether it is in China or at the North Pole, if we recognize
that as sOy we will fight. That is what I say.
Senator McCumber. In other wjords, you consider that we will
extend our Monroe doctrine to China and will fight to maintain the
Monroe doctrine on the assumption that it is necessary in our national
life?
Mr. MnxARD. That it is necessary for our national security and
our institutions, and for those institutions throughout the world;
yes, that is my belief.
Senator Brandeqee. Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to leave the
room in a little while. Will you allow me to ask one question before
480 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAN7.
Senator McCumber. Certainly.
Senator Brandeoee. The Senator from North Dakota asked
whether, if our commercial rights in China were jeopardized, we would
be justified in fighting.
senator McCumber. If they were not.
Senator Brandeoee. Or if they were not, if we would be justified.
I call your attention, in the hearings before this committee, to the
following matter in the letter of Secretary Lansing to Visconnt
Ishii — and this matter is duplicated in the letter of Viscount Ishii to
Secretary Liansing:
Moreover, they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any
government of any special rights or privileges that would affect the independence or
territorial integrity of China or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any
country the full enjoyment of equal opportunity in the commerce and industry of China.
Thev declare — Japan declares — that it is opposed to the acqui-
sition bv any government of any special rights or privileejes that would
affect the independence or the territorial integrity of China.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. If such an agreement was made by any
nation, what do you think about the possibility of our being lustifieH
in intervening, or doing something to stop the violation of the terri-
torial integrity of China t
Mr. Millard. In speaking of possibilities of armed conflict between
nations, it is very difficult to deal with them as abstractions. That
is not the way wars come up, as a matter of fact. Now, of course,
to read these various declarations of governments you would think
they were all in harmony and that they all agree ; consequently, that
there is no danger, where all agree. That is not the way the thing
works. These governments sign up these things, some of them Uke
a lot of sharpers would, with the full intention of gaining a certain
point and then working it around into something else.
If they would stick to their statements, this eastern question would
have been solved 20 years ago, which amounts to the extension of the
Monroe doctrine to Asia. They have all agreed to that. The devil
of it is that they do not stick to them, and that leads to trouble; and
that goes on. i ou gentlemen sit here and carry your minds back 20
years, and you see tms Japanese situation creep up on us inch by inch,
and inch by inch; and it is creeping on further, just like the Glennan
situation crept up on Europe, and you are going to have to meet this'
thing. You are not going to be able to meet that with words, but
when you meet that issue it will come to you in such a form that the
American people would fight for it, it does not make any difference if
it was at the North Pole.
Senator MoCumber. You think, then, that the American people
would make war if their treaty obligations — that is, the treaty rights-
are maintained for commercial rights of China, and if Japan claims
that she does not deprive China of her territorial integrity, although
she has certain concessions, she would still go to war to compel these
concessions being carried out ?
Mr. Millard, li you would just state that in an auditorium before
any number of Americans, in the abstract, they would have to agree
with you.
Senator MoCumber. Yes; I am asking you this question
Mr. Millard. No ; but it will not come up that way, Senator.
Senator McCumber. I was asking you what you would do.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 481
Mr. Millard. Stating it in that form, I mean to me, you are stating
a set of facts imder which I would not go to war, myself; I mean, 3
the thing was genuine. If there was a genuine respect for these
things I would not go to war, myself. The point is, that that is
not the way we have got the thing to deal with. Here is the way
this thing will come up on us, and we will get sucked in just like we
were into this thing in Europe: If we are not very careful, and that
is one reason I am so anxious to see the Senator make some kind of
a disclaimer that will straighten us out in the eyes of the Chinese
Eeople, that we do not approve of this Shontimg question. This
as caused a lot of revulsion of these Chinese, and there are 400,000,000
of them. There are 900,000,000 of these Asiatics, and I am more or
less familiar ^ith. the psycology of Asiatics, having Uved among them
for years, and I say if we ever get into a nght about China you are
not going to have anything to say about it at all because when it
comes to a certain pomt where you feel yoiu^elf sucked in, the way
we were into the German things in Europe, we will not be able to
help ourselves. This is the way the people out there think about it.
It will start, perhaps, in the form of a fight between Chinese and
Japanese. The Japanese hava got that coimtry plastered with what
thev call their agents for wawfOoire. A Japanese ^«dll go up into a
little remote town up in the middle of China and open a httle barber
shop or store, and go ahead and stay there and peddle and trade.
Some day, working around among the Chinese, this fellow's shop will
be burned down. That will create an incident. A mob will form
and something of that sort will happen. Japan goes in there and
interferes, and this thing spreads and they have a condition of tur-
moil; they get to fighting among themselves. What happens?
The Chinese nave learned a good deal in the last few years about war
psycology and the minute that thing starts the Chmese will begin
to kill American missionaries aroimd all over China, if for nd other
purpose than to force iis into this war, and we i^l then be in the
position of either having to sit back and throw up our hands and
de|)end on some friend oi ours to protect us, or of having to take some
action to protect ourselves, and one thing will lead to another, just
like in this thing in Europe, and we will be sucked into it. It is apt
to come up in the foUowmg manner when it comes up. Something
like this will happen.
Senator McCumber. This is what I wanted to know. I think I
understand yoa pretty well. So far as Chinese matters are con-
cerned you ^o not believe that this country should occupy a situa-
tion of isolation to the extent that she would not take any part in
Chinee difficulties and the settling of Chinese questions in pre-
venting wai in China, if possible ?
Mr, Millard. We have to, Senator.
Senator McCumber. We have to ?
Mi. Millard. Yes; we can not help ourselves. It is not a Ques-
tion of wanting to keep out of it. We can not help ourselves. That
is the way I think about it.
Senator McCumber. And you beUeve, from what you know of the
situation there, that we ought not to take a situation in which we say
we will be drawn into your squabbles and questions ?
Mr. Millard. Here is the way it looks to me, I have been
watching these Orientals for years. I know their psychology. I
135546—19 31
482 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
have got Asiatics that work for me as writers, graduates of Oxford
and Cambridge and of American universities, etc. In the Japanese
and China, however, you have just got another Germany. Piece by
piece, it fits with the same purposes. With China you have got a
Dig, lumbering democracy. The Chinese are distinctly democratic,
to the very essence and to the very core. Looking to the future,
this thing shapes itself something like this: Are we goin^ to have
another autocratic power, another Germany, undei me hegemony
of these Japanese; are we going to have these 900,000,000 Asiatics
trained ana armed and directed against us; to develop ^lus thing
there and create this very thing that Germany was going to create
in Europe; and are we just letting this creep on and creep on, and we
are just letting them build this up and get another little place here;
to raise a dust here when what tney want is something over there;
and so build this thing up. That is what they are doing on us. I
have watched that for 20 years.
Senator McCumber. And you would stop it w'th war, would you
not?
Mr. Millard. If it gets to the place where we can not stop it in
any other way, then we must fijght.
Senator M!cCumbbr. That is the way you think we should have
stopped the encroachment of Gennany ?
Mr. Millard. We did not stop it. They want everything we can
think of.
Senator McCuhber. But you think we should have stopped
the encroachments of Germany by war?
Mr. Millard. Yes; we can not get back to where we were on that
thing; but we have the same thing developing out there now, and I
say that we should try to head it off if we can and not let it m on to
a point where we can not control it, and we will simply be sucked into
a greaC conflict out there, in spite of us.
Senator McCumber. If you could do it by alliances with the great
white nations, you would do it ?
Mr. Millard. I think this thing can be fixed without danger and
without a scrap of alteration in the treaty.
Senator McCumber. Entangling alliances would not affect you,
would they ?
Senator Swanson. What is your suggestion about it ?
Mr. Millard. The President has brought over here, tacked on as
a sort of a supplement to the treaty, a covenant, a proposed alliance —
it amoimts to that whether yov call it so or not — ^between Great
Britain and France and the united States, and the purpose of it
stripped right down to the bone is to sustain a certain balance of
power in Europe during an indeterminate period. Now, I am not
saying that anything the Senate can do or does not do wiU of necessity
prevent the tmng that I fear happening in the Far East. I do say
this, that the Senate may take action m respect to this thing, the
tendencies of which would be to retard such an imfortunate consum-
mation out there; or if we ultimately do have to get into a fight on
this thing, we will have the general psychology or the situation and
the general alignment with us instead of against us. With that, all
fou would have to do would be to write a clause into this alliance,
do not know what you intend to do with that alliance, whether
you are going to throw it out altogether or not, but the whole thing,
TREATY 07 FEAOE WITH GERMANY. 483
the treaty and the covenant and everything else, is very wobbly,
unless you put that spike in it, I can see that.
There is another thing. Japan does not want to put anything in
writing, but they come over here and they do not trust Mr. Wilson's
memory whether we are cominjg to the support of France. They
want us down in black and white. When you get this thing up
close you see that they have certain concessions in regard to Uie Hay
doctrme which they have all in writing adhered to; that if it is threat-
ened, or anything like that, they wilTstand with us.
Senator Borah. That is, that France will.
Mr. MiLi«ARD. France and Great Britain.
Senator Borah. Yes.
Mr. Millard. Then you will align the whole psychology of this
thing. You leave it in the shape, then, in which these Japs wiU
carry it on, building up combinations, and you create a different set
of combinations, also and they will say, '* Well, yes, I guess maybe
we can not get away with this," and you alter their psychology, and
their governments will alter their policy. That is the way this
world policy goes. It is done just lite your Senate politics is done.
They ao not nm this thing on a lofty and theoretical oasis.
Senator McCumber. Mr. Millard, we have got somewhat far afield
from the purpose of my inquiries.
Senator Borah. Mr. McCiunber does not want you to talk about
Senate politics.
Senator McCumber. Let us ^et back to the agreement, and see
what effect of the alliance will nave.
Mr. Millard. I beg your pardon for digressing.
Senator McCumber. I bebeve that on certain things we have in
black and white from Japan that she will return Shantung to China.
Mr. Millard. But not when.
Senator McCumber. But not when; and also we have notice that
she will live up to her treaty obligations.
Mr. Millard. That is the assumption of every contract.
Senator McCumber. She makes that with all of these nations,
not only with China but she makes that last agreement with every
one of tHese nations. Now, if she refuses to carry out her agreement
with China, she has broken her obligation there?
Mr. Millard. I would say so, most emphatically.
Senator McCumber. Then she has al^o broken her treaty with
these other nations ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, sir; she would have done so.
Senator McCumber. She would have broken her treaty with these
other nations; just what would happen?
Mr. Millard. I could not tell. T would have to know exactly the
circimistances as to how the thing came up.
Senator McCumber. Then the matter would be brought before the
council, would it not ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, presumably.
Senator McCumber. Then the council would at least attempt to
get a settlement, would they ?
Mr. Millard. Presumably.
Senator McCumber. Ana they would attempt to get a settlement
along the line of keeping her treaty obhgations f
484 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Millard. Exactly; I mean-
Senator McCuMBER. Do you not thinly if we have the United
States and Great Britain and France and Italy all pressing Japan to
keep her obligations, that she makes in this treaty, and to prevent
war with China, it would be a wholesome influence ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; if you had that combination you could make
Japan keep her promises.
Senator McCumber. Yes; but you have the combination of this
treaty, in general terms. I am very much afraid that in beliind that
you have a combination that will work exactly to the contrary.
Senator McCumber. That may be a conclusion and others may
Agree to it, but I am assuming that she is going to carry out this con-
tract honestly; that these nations are entering into it with an honest
purpose, and that if China comes to this alliance, to this council, and
says, *' Japan in said treaty with me agreed to return Shantung, and
I now demand that she wUl return it, and if she does not return it I
will make war,'' then there is a threat of war, and then it goes before
the council and then the council will say to Japan, ** There is your
written agreement. Are you going to oreak both your agreement
with China and your agreement with us to keep your agreement \\ith
China ?" Would not Japan then be made an outlaw nation under the
very terms of that agreement, if she did not comply ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; theoretically she would; but she could say,
''You fellows can all go to heU; I will fight,'' and you will probably
find then that all these nations that are aligned with us would fall
off and decide that it was none of their business.
Senator McCumber. In other words, you assume that the league of
nations would fail and that all of them would fail to perform their
duties under the league of nations ?
Mr. Millard. Under those circumstances, that they all had a lot
of regional understandings that would control, it at least certainly
would fail.
Senator McCumber. But any regional understanding to control
is vacated by the very terms of this agreement.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. We have heard about how they
liave been vacated heretofore.
Mr. Millard. That would be an abstract assumption about it. I
would state that if you state it that way, that would be correct; but
you will see there cJways comes up the possibility that other people
wiU construe this thing differently.
Senator McCumber. I am only considering whether China would
be in a better position if she had the United States and Great Britain
and France and Italy and Japan signing up an agreement that Japan
will keep her agreement — whether she would be in a better position
to secure her rights than she would be in if we would turn her over to
the tender mercies of Japan without any agreement.
Mr. Millard. You would not turn her over to the tender mercies
of Japan. She already had all these assurances of Japan about get-
ting out of Shantung, and one thing and another, before the Paris
conference met.
Senator McCumber. But you are assuming that Japan will not
keep her word.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 485
Ml*. Millard. Japan might just as well not have gone into the
conference, and this issue will move along in a practical way very
much as if there had been no such thing as the peace conference.
Senator McClt^ber. But Japan can not turn that over to China
to-day because Japan only gets this Shantung right under this treaty,
and the treaty has not been signed. After the treaty has been
signed and Japan secures the right and the cession from Germany,
then she will be in position to turn Shantung back, and then if she
refuses she has broken her treaty.
Mr. Millard. As a matter of fact Japan could, if she wished to^
to-morrow — or she could have done it ever since they have occupiea
Tsingtau — get up and get out and say to China, ''Here it is."
Senator McCumber. But she could not transfer the German rights:
until she got them.
Senator Borah. They are all forfeited.
Mr. Millard. In regard to those German rights, our position in
this war was like that of a neutral until the war oegan.
Senator McCumber. But Germany did get a right in Shantung.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCl^mber. And that right will exist until Germany haa
been deprived of that right, and Germany must be deprived of that
right by some kind of written agreement.
Air. MILLARD. Germany, for the purposes of an abstract argument,
was deprived of that right absolutely on the day that Japan declared
war on her.
Senator McCumber. She was also deprived of it when she signed
the treaty depriving her of it.
Mr. Millard. She was deprived of it on the day that Japan de-
clared war on Germany and declared all Germany's rights forfeited.
Senator Pomerene. Was it not forfeited when Germany declared
war, and that she should acquire property by the declarance
ilr. Millard. I am not enough oi a lawyer to decide that, but there
are two kinds of rights in Shantung that Germany had. One was a
territorial right, but more important, so far as commerce goes, were
the economic rights. When you come down to the economic rights,
there in Shantung it is as if, while we were still a neutral, some third
power should come over here, and there was some corporation in
Aew Jersey which was a German concern in which Germans owned
half or more of the stock, and one of the belligerents had grabbed
that, and proceeded to put their troops in there. That is what the
Japanese did in Shantung Province, all over that Province. Here
was a coal mine, we will say, 200 miles away from Tsing-tau, in
which the Germans, being technical men, and supplving the ma-
chinery, were operating the coal mine in partnership with the Chinese,
and they just walked in there and toolk possession of it; and now
they expect to retain control of all of it.
Senator McCumber. I shall have to leave in just a moment, and I
want to ask you a question on another subject before I go. I ask
this simply for information. What did China do in the matter of thia
war? She declared war on Germany?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator McCumber. But what did she do under it ? She furnished
no soldiers, did she ?
Mr. Millard. No, sir; she wanted to.
486 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBBCAKY.
Senator McCumber. She furnished laborers for France, did she not?
Mr. Millard. She furnished some 200,000 to 250,000 laborers.
Senator MoCumber. Did they go simply under the instructions of
the Chinese Government to go there?
Mr. Millard. No.
Senator McCumber. Or did France simply allow them to go in for
the wa^es they could receive for foreign laoor there ?
Mr. Millard. No; it was a question of wages. The people re-
ceived wages. But you could not go in and take 250,000 of that
population. Most of these fellows came from Shantung, by the way.
l7hma agreed to it.
Senator McCumber. Was it done under a military order of China?
Mr. Millard. It was done by the consent of the Chinese Govern-
ment.
Senator MoCumber. In other words, she consented that her citi-
zens might go to France ?
Mr. Millard. Yes; and as you may know, on two or three occa-
sions these Chinese laborers actually fought, at the time the Germans
were running over things; they picked up what arms they could get
and fought, and thousands of them died, were killed and wounded,
although they were not trained soldiers, at all.
Here was the proposition. France needed man-power. The
French even sent a military mission to Peking and made a plan
whereby China would contribute so many troops. At different
times they tried to get Japan to send troops, but tney could not get
her to do it. She always asked such compensation, in various ways,
that they could not do it. They wanted to get Chinese, and the
Chinese were very willing to go. They could not finance themselves.
We had to finance Italy and all. If we had sent the money, a couple
of million dollars, the Chinese would have sent three of four htmdred
thousand troops.
Senator McCumber. Did China send any troops or assist finan-
cially in any way, or with supplies ?
Mr. Millard. They bougnt about $2,000,000 worth of Liberty
bonds. I never heard of anybody in Japan buying any.
Senator Moses. These Oninese laborers that went to France
released a lot of men for active fighting ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, they did.
Senator Hitchcock, i ou know that Japan has invested in a lot
of Liberty bonds, do you not ?
Mr. Millard. No, I do not know. This thing in China was a
popular subscription.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Japan has purchased a lot of war securities.
Senator Brandeoee. You mean the Japanese Government?
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Yes; the Government.
Mr. Millard. In China they got up aLiberty loan drive in Shanghai,
and the Chinese came up and subscribed liberally. The Chinaman
never before in the worM could have been gotten to put his money in
any foreign investment.
Senator HrroHCOCK. Were you in the Fai East at the time the
trouble occurred over Korea ?
Mr. Millard. I do not know what trouble you refer to now,
Senator.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. The first aggression of Japan in Korea ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKY. 487
Mr. MiLLABD. Of course the first aggression of Japan in Korea
occurred away back in 1894, in the Japan and China War. I was not
in the Far East at that time. I was in the Far East as a newspaper
correspondent during the whole of the Japanese-Chinese War ana then
I have been in Korea three or four times since that time.
Senator HrroHCOCK. Was that, the time they were making their
grab in Korea ?
Mr. MiLLABD. They had seized Korea at that time. They seized
it on the theory of protecting Korean independence, and the rest was
simply the different phases of their absorption until they got possession
of tne entire country.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Do you remember the appeal that the Korean
Emperor made to the United States ?
ifr. Millard. Not in a very definite way. I recollect it.
Senator HrroHcocK. Do you remember the effort to seek asylum
in the legation of the Unitea States ?
Mr. Mjllard. Yes ; I remember that.
Senator Hitchcock. Do you recall the terms of the treaty we made
with Korea in 1892 by which we agreed to exert out good oflSces for
the benefit of the Korean Government in the event that it was im-
posed upon in any way ?
Mr. Millard. Yes, I do. I have had a lot of Koreans throw that
up to me.
Senator Hitchcock. Did the United States ever do anything
toward carrying out that agreement?
Mr. MiLLABD. I think, quite on the contrary, that they rather
lent themselves to the other hypothesis.
Senator Hitchcock. That is, helped the Japanese ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. I will just insert in the record at this point
that part of article 1 of our treaty with Korea which reads as follows:
If other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other
will exert tneir good offices, on being informed of the act, to bring about an amicable
arrangement, thus showing their friendly feeling.
You think that the United States, when appealed to by the Korean
Emperor, did not do anything to carry out tnat promise ?
Mr. Millard. I do not thmk that it did anything at aU. In fact,
I am quite sure they did not.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Were you familiar, at all, with the action
of our minister who at that time was located in Seoul, representing
the United States, when he was appealed to by the Korean Emperor
to make good on this promise t
Mr. Millard. I was not there then. I read and heard something
of what occurred.
Senator Hitchcock. Did you ever hear of this telegram which
was sent by our minister, Mr. Harris M. Allen, to Mr. John Hay, then
Secretary of State, reading as follows:
Hon. John Hat, S"^^^' ^^«"^' i^etruory 21, 1904.
Secretary of 8 tatty Washington.
Sir: I have the honor to confirm my telegram of to-day as follows: ''Had an audi-
ence with the head of Government of Korea last night. He informed me Japanese
minister opposed to making alliance whereby in return for the protection of Korea
Japan will nave control. The document promised me has not arrived. Head of
Government of Korea is very anxious to secure the assistance of the United States.
I have pacified him without any promises, and refused any asylum. "
I have the honor, to be, sir, your obediant servant, . Harms M Allen
488 treAttT of peace with Germany.
Mr. Millard. Yes; I have seen a copy of that telegram before.
Senator Hitchcock. Yes.
Mr. Millard. In fact, I was shown all of that matter by Mr. Allen
himself within a few months, as I recall it.
Senator Hitchcock. Then, were you familiar with the story of
how the Japanese representative in Seoul was attempting to force
the Korean Emperor to sign this decree giving full power to the
JapQ,nese 9
Mr. Millard. In two of my books I devoted quite a number of
chapters to information about those events.
Senator Hitchcock. And how the Korean minister sought to
escape from him and appealed to the American minister to let him
enter the American legation.
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. And how the American minister sent repre-
sentatives to the fence and prohibited the Korean minister from
even being able to escape from the Japanese by entering the American
legation.
Air. Millard. Yes, I recollect those things.
Senator Hitchcock. Who was Secretary of State at that time?
Mr. Millard. I would have to think.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. John Hay ?
Mr. Millard. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Who was President of the United States at
that time ?
Mr. Millard. I wolild have to think about that. I guess it must
have been Mr. Roosevelt.
Senator Br ANDEGEE. In what year?
Senator Hitchcock. In 1904.
Senator Moses. Maj^ I interrogate the Senator from Nebraska
about the purpose of his inquiry ? That has been done here before.
Senator rlrrcHCOCK. Part of the purpose of the inquiry is to show
that even when bound by a treaty the United States has refused to
come to the assistance of an Oriental power against Japan.
Senator Moses. The purpose being to show that the United States
did not live up to its treaty obligations?
Senator Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator Moses. And from that you argue that therefore Japan
will live up to its treaty obligations ?
Senator Hitchcock. No; but to argue that all these tears that
are being shed over the woes of China are crocodile tears, because
they are being shed by men associated with the same people who laud
John Hay as a great American statesman who always protected the
rights of those with whom he had contracted.
Senator Johnson of California. I do not know anything about
those who laud John Hay, but
Senator Hitchcock. Ho was lauded on the floor the other day.
Senator Johnson of California. But I do know there are no croco-
dile tears being shed over the Shantung matter. What I say in
regard to it is tnat it presents a moral question, that it is up to us to
determine for ourselves, not up to John Hay or any Secretary of State.
Senator Moses. Nor anj other dead man.
Senator Johnson of California. It is up to us to determine what we
will do on a moral question; and when we come to a moral question
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 489
like Shantung I know that I shall not shelter myself behind any wrong
that may have been done in the past, nor any action, whatever it
i*i may have been, of any official oi the United States in the past. I
will meet that moral question and decide it as I think a moral ques-
tion ought to be decided. Now, I do not know whether the United
States Senate ever had anything to do with the Korean question or
not, but the United States Senate to-day has to do with the Shan-
tung decision; and so when you endeavor to escape responsibility
for a decision in the Shantung question because some official in the
past may have done wrong in respect to some other question, you are
seeking hypocritically simply to escape a boimden duty that rests
upon the human bemgs beifore whom that moral question comes
to-day.
Now, Mr. Millard, I want to ask you a question or two, in response
to Senator McCumber. Are you famUiar with these provisions in
relation to Shantimg in the treaty ?
Mr. Millard. I read them several times; yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Before this peace conference in
Paris all the nations of the earth were assembled, deciding territorial
Juestions. Before them came Japan and China, the United States,
taly, Great Britain, France, and others. Definitively, at that time,
with all the evidence before them, they decided the Shantung ques-
tion by sections 156 and 157, did they not?
Mr. Millard. Yes; they did.
Senator Johnson of California. Now, would it not seem to follow,
then, that that definitive determination hj all the nations of the
earth, with all of the previous acts and treaties before them, decided
everything concerning Shantung finally at that time ?
Mr. Millard. I would say that a certain presumption to that
effect would lie; and furthermore I would like to say this, perhaps
you noticed it: In finally leaving Paris the Japanese peace delega-
tion, through its mouthpiece, Baron Makino, gave out a sort of state-
ment in which he said officially that Japan regarded the way the
Shantung question was settled before the peace conference as a gen-
eral indorsement of Japan's policy in the Orient.
Senator Johnson of California. Of necessit}^, that is so, is it not,
because they had before them the Chinese statement and the Chinese
treaty ?
Mr. Millard. He gave that out as an official statement. That
was his validictory you might say upon leaving Paris.
Senator Johnson of California. So that the Shantung decision
rests upon a definitive agreement, and the indefinite verbal promise of
Japan that at some indefinite period in the future something will be
returned.
Mr. Millard. All the gentlemen who have rank as international
lawyers, to whom I have submitted the question, say that that is the
status.
Senator Johnson of California. That is all.
Senator Brandegbe. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask some
questions.
The Chairman. The Senator from Connecticut.
Senator Brandegee. I understood you to say this morning that
when Japan entered upon the possession of Shantung she practically
overran the whole Province.
Mr. Millard. She did, sir; yes.
490 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandegee. Including the railroad, up to the capital of
the Province.
Mr. Millard. Yes. A city called Tsinan, or, as the Chinese write
it, Tsi-nan-pou, but pou means capital or great city.
Senator Brandegee. I understood you also to say that they
assumed control of the civil government.
Mr. Millard. That was later. First', on the theory of military
necessit]^, they went clear outside of the comparatively small tern-
tory which had been leased to Germany, ana sent their troops all
over the Province and occupied the principal places, and evervwhere
they did that they would string a field military telegraph, and would
establish telegrapn and post offices, and all those things are still there
to-day.
Senator Brandegee. Do you consider that a violation of the terri-
torial integrity of China ?
Mr. Millard. I would say absolutely that it is a violation of terri-
tory and an invasion, where that set of circumstances would arise.
Senator Brandegee. Do you consider it an invasion of the sov-
ereignty of China for Japan to come in there and assume control of
the civil government of the Province ?
Mr. Millard. Yes. In regard to the civil government, that status
that I am describing established Japan throughout the Province.
They would send their troops into a certain district where there had
been some little coal mine that the Chinese had hired some German
engineer or somebody to get the coal out of, and under the presump-
tion that there was a German equity in it somewhere they would go
off the railroad over to this district and grab that property. Then
they would send a few hundred troops in there and string a military
wire, a mihtarv telephone system for communication, and the next
thing you would find a Japanese post office, and the next thin^ there
would be a Japanese drug shop with which they distributea their
opium and other things throughout the country, and you would find
a Japanese house of prostitution and all those other things, a little
Japanese settlement would grow up there. After that thing had
gone on for a couple of years, and they had the whole Province pretty
well placed, then they foresaw a time when the war would end and
when the excuse of military necessity would not hold good. So then
they invented a kind of substitute and began a substituting process
by which there would be gradually substituted a civil administration
in the Province instead oi the mihtary occupation, with its presumed
military necessity. There was no more military necessity for it than
there would have been for the Japanese occupation of California, but
that was the excuse, and of course with the termination of the war
that would end even as an excuse, so they set out to create a so-G>illed
civil administration.
They b^an it tentatively like they always do, by establishing it
in three different localities. There had been a military commandant
at each of those places. So they substituted a civil administrator
there, and creating a little court along with him. Now, that was a
direct infringement, not only upon the Chinese sovereignty, but upon
the treaty rights of all other nations, because they extortea the extra-
territoriality from China under certain circumstances, imder which
China does certain things and the foreigners will do certain things,
and the foreigners will reside in certain localities. If they go out of
those localities, at least under certain conditions, by reason of those
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAinT. 491
things they retain their extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is, if a
foreigner commits an offense, he can be haled before his own consul,
or something like that. So, when the Japanese would go out into
these places and establish a civil administration, that merely meant
that if a Japanese committed any offense he could not be haled before
a Chinese court but he would be brought before a Japanese court,
which would simply release the man. They worked that all over
the province.
Senator Swanson. In your last book, Democracy and the East,
I received the impression that you stated in that book that the
Japanese had the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the entire
Chinese Empire. Is that true?
Mr. Millard. No; their status under the treaty is exactly the
same as ours.
Senator Swanson. But the impression I derived in reading that
book was that by some process the CSiinese had ^ven or the Japanese
had taken the ri^t of extraterritorial jurisdiction on all differences
with the Chinese EJmpire. Is that true ?
Mr. Millard. Not quite. I must have stated it quite obscurely if
you got that impression. They ha\a done it wherever they have
obtained a foothold. Thej^ have done it in Manchuria and Shantung.
They have done it in diflterent parts of China. They claimed that
Pu-feien Province is within their sphere on account of its proximity to
Formosa, and that is just a criterion ot their methods for the rest of
the country, which amounts to taking political possession ot it by
those methods.
Senator Swanson. As I understand them, they have no greater
rights by treaty than the other nations have as to extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
Mr. Millard. None whatever. Their rights by treaty are the same
as ours. We would have just the same rights at any time in this war,
while China was neutral, or since, to have sent a bunch of American
marines over into Shantung Province and grabbed coal mines and
strung telegraph wires there, or anything else, just as Japan has done.
Senator Swanson. I got that impression from your book, and I
looked to see if there were any treaties in the appendix, but I did not
find any. So you say it is simply limited to where they have mil-
itarv occupation, Uke Shantung and Formosa.
Mr. Millard. Yes; and they saw that the end of the war would
end that, and they have created a substitute for it in the form of
civil administration.
Senator Brandegee. At what points has Japan established herself
in China ?
Mr. Millard. Over three Manchurian Provinces and what is called
Outer MongoUa. The distinction between Outer and Inner Mon-
golia was never heard of imtil Russia and Japan split it up that
way by a secret treaty and invented those distinctions to define
what was Japan's part and what was Russia* s part, and then through
this process down there in Fukien Province. That is down there
by Amoy.
The revolution in China began in 1911, and the first outbreak
occurred awav up there on the Yangtse River, at Wu-chang, opposite
Hankow, ana there was a good deal of disorder. The government
troops were on the north bank of the river and the rebels were
on tne south bank, and sheUs and bullets fell aroimd the settlement,
492 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
before the government went up there to protect foreign concessions.
Japan took advantage of that period ol disorder to send a lot of
troops up there, and then she just deliberately went over there and
took a piece of ground right outside of the foreign settlement of
Hankow, and buut big permanent barracks there, and has kept a
garrison there ever since, and China can not get them out.
Senator Brandeoee. In what province is that?
Mr. Millard. That must be m the Province of Hupeh. It is
right up there at Hankow. Hankow bears about the same relation
to China that Chicago does to the United States. It is the great
interior city of China, with 3,000,000 people there-
Senator Srandegee. What other Provinces does Japan occupy?
Mr. Millard. Every time I go to China I find she has done a fot
more things. In the last two years she has gone out, and by this
process of penetration she will go off into some little Provinc-e up
there and bribe some local official, or in some way get some kind of a
concession out of him — mayb« to mine some minerals in the district,
or something of that kind — ana in that way establish some sort of a
presumption of Japanese vested interest in something or other.
Senator Brandeoee. Does she send her troops in there ?
Mr. Millard. Then the first thing you know there will be half a
dozen Japanese soldiers who will drift in from nowhere. You will
hardhr know how they came there. You will wake up some morning
and find them there, supposedly there to protect this vested interest,
and that is the way it is aone. Then some fine day some of the other
foreign consular agents wake up and find the soldiers there, and thej^
say, *^ What are these Japanese soldiers doing here?'' And the Chi-
nese say, "We don't know how they got here. We woke up one
morning and found them there." Then they go and make represen-
tations to the Japanese consul, and they say, "What are those fel-
lows there for? They have no right there. Then they will make
some excuse and say, "Oh, they are here temporarily," and they
dawdle along, and the next time, where there were 6 there will be 50
more, and then a little later they will have barracks built, and there
will be 200. You would have to check up those things every three
months in order to catch up with them.
Senator Brandegee. To revert to an inquiry that Senator Mc-
Cumber made of vou a little while ago, as to the effectiveness of the
league of nations if the covenant should bo ratified, as to being an ef-
fective guaranty that Japan would perform its treaties or the stipu-
lations made in a note to abandon the sovereignty of Shantung, or to
get out within a certain time. You started to say something, but was
cut off and did not finish it. You expressed some doubt as to
whether the league would come up to the test of protecting China,
and you said that in other cases it had not been done, and that that
fact could be developed by the Senate if it wanted to. Do you recall
having made such a statement, and if you made it, what did you
mean?
Mr. Millard. My 20 years' experience as a reporter of interna-
tional events and politics may have made me a little cynical. I do
not think I am cynical, but I do think I regard international politics
from a common sense practical view. I see how the machinery
works. I know how the thing runs. And here you have got this
situation: As Senator Johnson said, vou have had all the nations of
the world assembled in a great conclave at Paris, where they were
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 493
fixing up everything on the basis of justice, and were supposed to
give everything due consideration, and that was the result in regard
to Shantung.
Now let us suppose this thing eoes on for two or three years and
China comes along some day ana says, **I can not stand this any
more," and some disorder starts in Ctuna and there is a flare-up, and
it takes the form of an antiforeign demonstration, and they kill some
missionaries, and our Government says, *' Something has got to be
done," and China says, **We can not let Japan go in nere by herself;
she will just overrun the country." And if we have any kind of
international action, then we have got to go in and participate, and
then China comes along and says, *^I demand that the league of
nations make Japan funill her promises and get out." She might
come and make that appeal to the league of nations. Then suppose
it should develop that it would get around to the point where there
would have to oe a matter of force. How are you going to make
her get out ? She could tell the league of nations to go to the devil
unless you could line up certain forces that she could see could be
applied to her, and the only way you could make her see that would
be by making a certain alignment, and united action among enough
of the principal powers to overawe her, or else fight her. You
would have to have a sufficient alignment of power to overawe her.
Under those circumstances our Government might take the attitude,
*' Japan, this is all wrong. You must straighten this thing out before
the league of nations."
Then we go around among the British and French Governments,
among the principal powers as the Senator who interrogated me a
little while ago was speaking about; and we ask these principal
powers to tell Japan that she has got to behave herself; and suppose
under those circumstances the British Government should shrug its
shoulders and say, *^We are very sorry, but here is another secret
agreement," and should pull it out on you, and France should pull out
another secret agreement on you, and so forth and so on, in which
secret agreements thev have practically agreed in advance that Japan
can get away with all this. That is just what happened to us at
Paris; that is, thev pulled these things on us there. That is the way
the game is playea. It is a practical proposition, and I say that there
is circumstantial evidence that that arrangement was agreed to prac-
tically at Paris, except that my information was that the French had
not committed themselves to it, because they wanted to wait to find
out what conditions we might attach to this so-called alliance, to the
support they want us to give them; but Pichon distinctly was in
favor of it, and it is believed that the British have already really
reached an agreement with Japan, one of those collateral or regional
agreements on the side. Now, suppose you sign up this league of
nations, or this alliance, and within say six montns, or whatever time
would elapse, they got the league of nations together and started to
oi^anize it; then it would seem to me that under article 21, or another
article which says that treaties shall all be made public, they say.
*' Everybody who has got any treaties bring them out on the table and
let us look them over.
Then it would seem that legally all those that are brought out under
those circumstances will be valid treaties. Then when they bring
out those agreements, we are signed up, 'we are nailed down, and we
494 TREATY OF PBACE WITH OEBHANY.
have not any way of jgoing back on this thing. I say, get back of it
now and fina out if it is true. The only hold we had over any of these
nations was that they were asking us to do something. Now, what
they are a.^dng us to do is to enter into a tripartite-alliance to protect
the balance oipower in Europe. There is a good deal to be said in
favor of that in sustaining the equilibrium of the world.
Senator Brandeoee. i ou refer to the Franco-American treaty
and the British-French treaty.
Mr. Millard. Yes. But I say, let us say to them, "Now let us
make this 50-50. We went into this war blmd. You did not tell us
of these things, and we gave you our best. We gave you our generous
help without asking any questions, and we believed that everybody
would act right at the end. Now, before we go into any of these
things we would like to ask you a few questions. Have you got any
secret agreements that are going to infringe upon our policy in differ-
ent parts of the world ?'' Let us say to them, "If you have got any-
thing of that sort, put them right on the table now. Don't wait until
later. Then we will see what kind of a treaty we have got." That
was one line of thought that I was proposing. Senator. If they do
that, they can find out these things. If you ask the President or
Mr. Lansing whether they know of any such thing, they say, '*No,
we don't know." Let us make it a categorical interrogation, of the
French and British Governments, and see what they say.
Senator Brandeoee. You are aware, I assume, of the construction
which I understand the President and certain Senators place upon
article 10 of the covenant of the league, are you not ?
Mr. Millard. I have read a good many different statements
about it.
Senator Brandeoee. If I und^^rstand their position correctly, they
claim that when the council hears a dispute and makes recommenda-
tions, or makes recommendations as to how the treaty stipulations
shall be carried out by the members of the league, their recommen-
dations are merely advisory and not compulsory on the members of
the league. You are famihar with that, are you ?
Mr. Millard. I would not consider that my opinion about that
would be worth anything.
Senator Brandegee. I am not going to ask your opinion about
that, but have you heard that interpretation of article 10, of the effect
of such a recommendation of the council, that it would be purely
advisory and not mandatory on the members of the league ?
Mr. Millard. I have.
Senator Brandeoee. What effect do you think the guaranty under
article 10, that we are, if we are asked to undertake to protect and
preserve the territorial integrity of all the members of the league
would have if Japan should imderstand that the recommendations of
the council imder that were only advisory ?
Mr. Millard. I would think that anything that leaves a loop-
hole by which Japan can squirm around and evade the promises that
she has made about that, she will utilize in that way. So I think
prudence would dictate that you leave as few loopholes as possible.
Senator Brandeoee. If there are loopholes there, they are there,
and we are told that we can not stop them or amend them, or dot an
''i'' or cross a ^'t.''
Mr. Millard. I do not know what the powers and prerogatives
of the Senate are in respect to these things.
TREATY OF FBAOB WITH GERMANY. 495
Senator Bbanbegee. Well, I do; but you do not think, do you,
that if the recommendation of this council that Senator McCumber
was asking you about is onl^r advisory on the members, if as you
have said you do not think this recommendation would be an effect-
ive guaranty to China that Japan would perform her promise to get
out of Shantung, do you thint that recommendation would terrify
Japan to any appreciable extent?
Mr. Millard. From my knowledge of the circumstances I do not
think it would terrify her at all. NTothing will terrify Japan in re-
spect to this subject unless she sees that if she does not do certain
tnings she is commg in collision with superior forces.
Senator Bbandegee. Moral forces ?
Mr. Millard. No, material forces. She does not care the snap
of her fingers about any moral force, any more than Germany did.
Senator Pomerene. May I ask a question ?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Pomerene. This morning you said there were some 20
regional understandings affecting Qiina.
Mr. Mnu^RD. I said I thought there were about that many known,
yes.
Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by understandings?
Do you mean secret treaties?
Mr. Millard. No, sir; most of them are in writing and have been
published.
Senator Pomerene. Between what countries ?
Mr. Millard. I can give you a list of them if you want them, that
is a partial list. I will not say it is complete. I was looking it up
the other day and I have it here. The first are the various notes and
so forth constituting what they call the "Hay doctrine."
Then there is the Anglo-Japanese alliance, first signed on January
30, 1902; revised and amended August 12, 1905, and revised and
renewed July, 1911.
Third, there is the Franco-Japanese arrangement, signed July 10,
1907.
Fourth is the Russo-Japan treaty of peace of September 5, 1905.
Fifth, there is the convention between Japan and Russia of July
30, 1907.
Sixth, there is the Russo-British convention of August 31, 1907.
Seventh, there are the secret Russo-Japanese alliance and agree-
ments siorned on July 7, 1907; June 21, 1910; July 4, 1910; Jime 25,
1912; July 8, 1912; Jime 20, 1916. The existence of these agree-
ments was revealed by the publication of documents after the revo-
lution in Russia, but the texts of all of them have not yet been pub-
lished. The text of the secret alliance of 1916, made during the
Great War, has been published.
Eighth, there is the Russo-British agreement of April 28, 1899.
Ninth is the agreement between Great Britain and France of Janu-
ary 51, 1896.
Tenth, there are the British-American agreements of September 2,
1898, and October 16, 1900.
Eleventh is the British-Chinese agreement relating to Thibet.
Twelfth is the Root-Takahira agreement between Japan and the
United States of November 30, 1 908.
Thirteenth is the Lansing-Ishii agreement between Japan and the
United States of November 2, 1917.
496 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Fourteenth is the secret agreement between Russia, Great Britain
and France in 1915, relating to Western Asia.
Fifteenth is the secret agreement between Great Britain and
France, known as the Sykes-Picot Treaty, made in 1916, relating to
Western Asia.
Sixteenth are the allegred secret agreements made by Japan with
various Russian factions in Siberia in 1918 and 1919.
Seventeenth is the alleged secret regional understanding relating
to Asia made by Japan, France, and Great Britain in 1919.
I have 17 of them enumerated here, but I do not have with me a
copy of Mr. RockhilPs treaties.
Senator Pomerene. Those are either secret treaties or an exchange
of notes, are they ?
Mr. Millard. Most of them are in the form of the exchange of
notes.
Senator Pomerene. So in that respect they are not akin to the
Monroe doctrine.
Mr. Millard. I do not know to what extent you would draw an
analog there. I would not think they were akin to the Monroe
doctrine.
Senator Pomerene. Now another matter. As I recall, Count
Ishii gave out a statement which was printed in the American papers
here, to the effect that Japan had invited China to join her forces in
fighting the German troops in the Far East in the Shantung Peninsula
or Province.
Mr. Millard. Viscount Ishii. Do I understand you to say he
stated that Japan had invited China to do so ?
Senator Pomerene. Yes.
Mr. Millard. I think quite the contrary. As I say, she pre-
vented Cliina from doing so.
Senator Pomerene. In the first place, I mean.
Mr. Millard. In the first place.
Senator Pomerene. Before or about the time she began activ^e
militarv operations.
Mr. Millard. Absolutely the contrary of that is the fact. China
proposed to enter into the operations at Kaichow, and Japan pre-
vented her.
Senator Pomerene. So vou take issue with Viscount Ishii in thati
Mr. Millard. If he made that statement. I do not know that he
did.
Senator Pomerene. That is as I understand it.
Mr. Millard. I never heard it before.
Senator Pomerene. Suffice it to sav that China took no part in
seeking to drive the Germans out of Shantung.
Mr. Millard. She asked to be permitted to participate in the
operations, but was not permitted.
Senator Pomerene. Was that during the period that Japan was
doing the actual fighting ?
Mr. Millard. It was hefore she even started to fight.
Senator Pomerene. If I understood you correctly this morning,
you stated that later on Japan tried to dissuade China from severing
diplomatic relations with Germany.
Mr. Millard. Yes; I did state that.
Senator Pomerene. With what Chinese officials were those
efforts made i
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 497
Mr. MtLLARD. With various people in the Wai-chow Pou and espe-
cially with the Premier of China.
Senator PoMEBENE. What was Japan's reason for doing that, if
you know ?
Mr. MiLLABD. Of coiu^e I can only say that by deduction. Her
reason was that Japan had twice before rejected absolute proposals
for China to join the war, proposals made du*ectly on one occasion to
the ambassadors at Tokyo, saying that she did not want China to
join, because under those circumstances China would be in the allied
group and would have aprotected position at the end of the war.
Senator Pomebene. That position would be antagonistic to the
position taken both by Great Britain and France, would it not ?
Senator Pomebene. With respect to China severing her diplomatic
relations.
Mr. MiLLABD. Yes; the attitude of the British and French legations.
I suppose you are ref errinenow to China — ^when China did sever relations.
Senator Pomebene. Yes.
Mr. MiLLABD. The attitude of the French and British legations at
that time was distinctly sympathetic to having China follow the
advice of the United States.
Senator Pomebene. So that Japan at that time was, in your judg-
ment, acting in direct antagonism to what were the interests of Great
Britain ana France and Italy, with which nations she had these
secret treaties ?
Mr. MiLLABD. You see the signing of these treaties was very nearly
contemporaneous with these events which we are speaking of. These
negotiations in regard to the secret treaties were being conducted at a
different place.
Senator Pomebene. These secret treaties were made some time in
1915, were they not?
Mr. MiLLABD. In 1917, right at the very time, almost day for day,
week for week, almost at that moment. Japan did not want China
to do anything untU she got the^e secret treaties signed up. That
was one immeoiate motive. Meanwhile you have got to take various
other things into consideration. That was the most precarious
moment of the war for the Allies.
Senator Pomebene. And still, at that very precarious moment,
you feel satisfied that Japan was trying to prevent China from sever-
ing relations with Germany.
Mr. MiLLABD. Exactly. She used that very circumstance, I would
say flatly, to blackmail her allies into signing these secret agreements.
Senator Pomebene. Suppose this treaty fails of confirmation,
what will be the relationship existing between China and Japan with
respect to Shantung?
Mr. MiLLABD. It will be just what it has been at any time for the
last five years.
Senator Pomebene. That is all.
If there are no further questions, Mr. Millard will be excused, and
the secretary will arrange lor his fees and expenses.
The committee will sUmd adjourned until to-morrow at 10 a. m., at
the White House.
(Thereupon, at 4 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m., the committee ad-
journed until Tuesday, August 19, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m., at the
White House.)
135546—19 32
TX7BSDAY, AUaXTST 19, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washingtarif D. C^
conference at the white house.
The committee met at the White House at 10 o'clock a. m.^
pursuant to the invitation of the President, and proceeded to th&
TSibsi Room, where the conference was held.
Present: Hon. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States,
and the following members of the committee: Senators Lodge (chair-
man), McCumber, Borah, Brandegee, Fall, Knox, Harding, Johnson
of Calif omia. New, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams, Swanson, romerene^
Smithy and rittman.
STATEHEVT OF THi! PSESIDEVT.
The President. Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of writing^
out a little statement in the hope that it might facilitate discussion
by speaking directly on some points that I know have been points of
controversy and upon which I thought an expression of opinions
would not be \mweIcome.
I am absolutely glad that the committee should have responded
in this way to my intimation that I would like to be of service
to it. I welcome the opportimity for a frank and full interchango
of views.
I hope, too, that this conference will serve to expedite your con-
sideration of the treaty of peace. I beg that you will pardon and
indulge me if I again urge that practically the whole task of bringing-
the country back to normal conditions of life and industry waits upon
the decision of the Senate with regard to the terms of the peace.
I' venture thus again to urge my advice that the action of the
Senate with regard to the treaty be taken at the earliest practicable
moment because the problems with which we are face to lace in the
readjustment of our national life are of the most pressing and critical
character, will require for their proper solution the most intimate
and disinterested cooperation of all parties and all interests, and can
not be postponed witnout manifest peril to our people and to all the
national advantages we hold most dear. Majr I mention a few of
the matters which can not be handled with intelligence until the
country knows the character of the peace it is to have? I do so only
by a very few samples.
The copper mines of Montana, Arizona, and Alaska, for example,,
are being kept open and in operation only at a great cost and loss, in
part upon borrowed money; the zinc mmes oi Missouri, Tennessee,
and Wisconsin are being operated at about one-half their capacity;
the lead of Idaho, Illinois, and Missouri reaches only a portion of it»
499
500 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
former market; there is an immediate need for cotton belting, and
also for lubricating oil, which can not be met — all because the channels
of trade are barred by war when there is no war. The same is true
of raw cotton, of whicn the Central Empires alone formerly purchased
nearly 4,000,000 bales. And these are only examples. There is
hardly a single raw material, a single important foodstuff, a smgle
class of manufactured goods which is not in the same case. Our fml,
normal profitable production waits on peace.
Our miUtary plans of course wait upon it. We can not intelli^ntly
or wisely decide how large a naval or military force we shall maintain
or what our poUcy with regard to miUtary training is to be until we
have peace not only, but also until we know how peace is to be
sustained, whether by the arms of single nations or oy the concert
of all the great peoples. And there is more than tnat difficulty
involved. The vast surplus properties of the Army include not food
and clothing merely, whose sale will affect normal production, but
great manufacturing establishments also which should be restored to
their former uses, great stores of machine tools, and all sorts of
merchandise which must lie idle imtil peace and miUtary poUcy are
definitively determined. By the same token there can be no properly
studied national budget until then.
The nations that ratify the treaty, such as Great Britain, Belgium,
and France, will be in a position to lay their plans for controlUng the
markets of central Europe without competition from us if we do not
presently act. We have no consular agents, no trade representatives
there to look after our interests.
There are large areas of Europe whose future will lie uncertain and
questionable until their people know the final settlements of peace
And the forces which are to administer and sustain it. Without
determinate markets our production can not proceed with intelligence
or confidence. There can be no stabilization of wages because there
can be no settled conditions of employment. There can be no easy
or normal industrial credits because there can be no confident or
permanent revival of business.
But I will not weary you with obvious examples. I will only
venture to repeat that every element of normal life amongst us
depends upon and awaits the ratification of the treaty of peace; and
also that we can not afford to lose a single summer's day by not doing
all that we can to mitigate the winter's suffering, wmch, unless we
find means to prevent it, may prove disastrous to a large portion of
the world, and may, at its worst, bring upon Europe conditions even
more terrible than those wrought by the war itself.
Nothing, I am led to believe, stands in the way of the ratification of the
treaty except certain doubts with regard to the meaning and impUca-
tion of certain articles of the covenant of the league oi nations; and
I must frankly say that I am unable to understand why such doubts
should be entertained. You will recall that when I had the pleasure
of a conferc^nce with your committee and with the Committee of the
House of Representatives on Foreign Affairs at the White House in
March last the questions now most frequently asked about the league
of nations were all canvassed with a view to their inmiediate clari-
fication. The covenant of the league was then in its first draft and
subject to revision. It was pointed out that no express recognition
was given to the Monroe doctrine; that it was not expressly pro-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 501
yided that the league should have no authority to act or to express
a judgment on matters of domestic policy; that the right to with-
draw from the league was not expressly recognized; and that the
constitutional right of the Congress to determine all questions of
peace and war was not sufficiently safeguarded. On my return ta
raris all these matters were taken up again by the commission on
the league of nations and every suggestion of the United States wa»
accepted.
The views of the United States with regard to the questions I have
mentioned had, in fact, already been accepted by the commission
and there was supposed to be nothing inconsistent with them in the
draft of the covenant i&rst adopted — the draft which was the subject
of oiu; discussion in March — but no objection was made to saying-
explicitly in the text what all had supposed to be implicit in it.
There was absolutely no doubt as to the meaning of any one of the
resulting provisions of the covenant in the minds of those who par-
ticipated m drafting them, and I respectfidly submit that there ia
notning vague or doubtful in their wording.
The Monroe doctrine is expressly mentioned as an understanding
whichisinnoway tobe impaired or interfered with by anything con-
tained in the covenant and the expression ' * regional understandings hke
the Monroe doctrine" was used, not because anyone of the conferees
thought there was any comparable agreement anywhere else in
existence or in contemplation, but omy because it was thought
best to avoid the appearance of dealing in such a document with
the policy of a single nation. Absolutely notliing is concealed
in the phrase.
With regard to domestic questions Article XVI of the covenant
expressly provides that, if in case of any dispute arising between
members of the league the matter involved is claimed by one of the^
parties '*and is found by the council to arise out of a matter which
by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that-
party, the council shall so report, and shall make.no recommendation
as to its settlement." The United States was by no means the only
Government interested in the exphcit adoption of this provision, and
there is no doubt in the mind oi any autnoritative student of inter-
national law that such matters as immigration, tariffs, and naturahza-
tion are incontestably domestic questions with which no international
body could deal without express authority to do so. No enumeration
of domestic questions was undertaken because to undertake it,
even by sample, would have involved the danger of seeming to
exclude those not mentioned.
The right of anv sovereign State to withdraw had been taken for
granted, but no objection was made to making it explicit. Indeed,
80 soon as the views expressed at the White House conference were
laid before the commission it was at once conceded that it was best
not to leave the answer to so important a question to inference. No
proposal was made to set up any tribunal to pass judgment upon the
(question whether a withdrawing nation had in fact fulfilled ^'all its
international obligations and alt its obligations imder the covenant."
It was recognized that that question must be left to be resolved by
the conscience of the nation proposing to withdraw; and I must say
that it did not seem to me worth while to propose that the articfe
be made more explicit, because I knew that the United States would
502 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKY.
never itself propose to withdraw from the league if its conscience
was not entu'ely clear as to the fulfillment of all its international
obligations. It has never failed to fulfill them and never will.
Article 10 is in no respect of doubtful meaning when read in the
light of the covenant as a whole. The council of the league can only
*" advise upon'* the means by which the obligations of that great
article are to be given effect to. Unless the United States is a party
to the policy or action in question, her own afltenative vote in the
<50uncil is necessary before any advice can be given, for a unanimous
vote of the council is recjuired. If she is a party, the trouble is hers
anyhow. And the unanunous vote of the council is only advice in
any case. Each Government is free to reject it if it pleases. Nothing
could have been made more clear to the conference than the right of
•our Congress under our Constitution to exercise its independent
judgment in all matters of peace and war. No attempt was made to
•question or limit that right. The United States will, indeed, under-
take under article 10 to "respect and preserve as against external
Aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence
oi all members of the league," and that engagement constitutes a
very grave and solemn moral obligation. But it is a moral, not a
legal, obligation, and leaves our Congress absolutely free to put its
own interpretation upon it in all cases that call for action. It is
binding in conscience only, not in law.
Article 10 seems to me to consitute the very backbone of the whole
covenant. Without it the league would be hardly more than an
influential debating society.
It has several times been suggested, in public debate and. in private
conference, that interpretations of the sense in which the United
States accepts the engagements of the covenant should be embodied
in the instrument of ratification. There can be no reasonable objec-
tion to such interpretations accompanying the act of ratification pro-
vided they do not form a part of the formal ratification itself. Most
of the interpretations which have been suggested to me embody what
Beems to me the plain meaning of the instrument itself. But if such
interpretations snould constitute a part of the formal resolution of
ratification, long delays would be tne inevitable consequence, inas-
much as all the many governments concerned would have to accept,
in effect, the language of the Senate as the lang^iage of the treaty
T>efore ratification would be complete. The assent of the German
Assembly at Weimar would have to be obtained, among the rest, and
I must frankly say that I could only with the greatest reluctance
.approach that assembly for permission to read the treaty as we
understand it and as those who framed it quite certainly imderstood
it. If the United States were to qualify tne document in any way,
moreover, I am confident from what I know of the many conferences
and debates which accompanied the formulation of the treaty that
our example would immediately be followed in many quarters, in
some instances with very serious reservations, and that tne meaning
and operative force of the treaty would presently be clouded from
one end of its clauses to the other.
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, if I have been entirely unreserved and
Slain spoken in speaking of the great matters we all have so much at
eart. If excuse is needed, I trust that the critical situation of
affairs may serve as my justification. The issues that manifestly
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAIT?. 603
hang upon the conclusions of the Senate with regard to peace and
upon the time of its action are so grave and so clearly insusceptible
ot being thrust on one side or postponed that I have felt it necessary
in the public interest to make this urgent plea, and to make it as
simply and as unreservedlv as possible.
I thought that the simplest way, Mr. Chairman, to cover the points
that I knew to be noints of interest.
The Chairbican. Mr. President, so far as I am personally con-
cerned— and I think I represent perhaps the majority o;f the com-
mittee in that respect — ^we have no thought of entering upon arra-
ment as to interpretations or points of that character; but tne
committee is very desirous of ^ettin^ information on certain points
which seem not dear and on vmich they thought information would
be of value to them in the consideration of the treaty which they, I
think I may say for myself and others, desire to hasten in every
possible way.
Your reference to the necessity of action leads me to ask one
question. If we have to restore peace to the world it is necessary, I
assume, that there should be treaties with Austria, Hungary, Turkey,
and Bulgaria. Those treaties are all more or less connected with the
treaty with Germany. The question I should like to ask is, what
the prospect is of our receiving those treaties for action.
The President. I think it is very good, sir, and, so far as I can
judge from the contents of the dispatches from my colleagues on the
other side of tibe water, the chief delay is due to the uncertainty as
to what is going to happen to this treaty. This treaty is the model
for the others. I saw enough of the others before 1 left Paris to
teow that they are being framed upon the same set of principles and
that the treatv with Germany is the model. I think that is the chief
element of delay, sir.
The CHAiRBiAX. They are not regarded as essential to the con-
sideration of this treaty ?
The President. They are not regarded as such; no, sir; they
follow this treaty.
The Chairman. I do not know about the other treaties, but the
treaty with Poland, for example, has been completed?
The President. Yes, ana signed; but it is dependent on this
treaty. My thought was to submit it upon the action on this treaty.
The Chairman. I should like, if I may, to ask a question in regard
to the plans submitted to the commission on the league of nations, if
that is the right phrase.
The President. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You were kind enough to send us the draft of the
Arderican plan. When we were here m February, if I understood
you rightly — I may be incorrect but I understood you to say that
there were other drafts or plans submitted by Great Britain, by
France, and by Italy. Woidd it be possible for us to see those other
tentative plans ?
The President. I would have sent them to the committee with
pleasure. Senator, if I had found that I had them. I took it for
granted that I had them, but the papers that remain in my hands
remain there in a haphazard way. I can tell vou the character of the
other drafts. The British draft was the only one, as I remember,
that was in the form of a definite constitution of a league. The
504 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
French and Italian drafts were in the form of a series of propositions
laying down general riiles and assuming that the commission, or
wnatever body made the final formulation, would build upon those
principles if tney were adopted. They were principles quite con-
sistent with the final action.
I remember saying to the committee when I was here in March—
I have forgotten the expression I used — something to the effect
that the British draft had constituted the basis. I thought after-
wards that, that was misleading, and I am very glad to tell the com-
mittee just what I meant.
Some months before the conference assembled, a plan for the league
of nations had been drawn up by a British committee, at the head
of which was Mr. Phillimore — ^I oelieve the Mr. Phillimore who was
known as an authority on international law. A copy of that docu-
ment was sent to me, and I built upon that a redraft. I will not
now say whether I thought it was better or not an improvement; but
I built on that a draft which was quite different, masmuch as it
put definiteness whore there had been what seemed indefiniteness in
the Phillimore suggestion. Then, between that time and the time
of the formation of the commission on the league of nations, I had the
advantage of seeing a paper by Gen. Smuts, of South Africa, who
seemed to me to have done some very clear thinking, particularly
with regard to what was to be done with the pieces of the dismembered
empires. After I got to Paris, therefore, I rewrote the document to
which I have alluded, and you may have noticed that it consists of a
series of articles and then supplementary agreements. It was in the
supplementary agreements that I embodiea the additional ideas that
had^ come to me not only from Gen. Smuts's paper but from other
discussions. That is the full story of how the plan which I sent to
the committee was built up.
The Chairman. Of course, it is obvious that the Gen. Smuts plan
has been used. That appears on the face of the document.
The President. Yes.
The Chairman. Then there was a previous draft in addition to
the one you have sent to us ? You spoke of a redraft. The original
draft was not submitted to the committee?
The President. No; that was privately, my own.
The Chairman. Was it before our commission 1
The President. No; it was not before our commission.
The Chairman. The one that was sent to us was a redraft of that?
The President. Yes. I was reading some of the discussion before
the committee, and some one, I think Senator Borah, if I remember
correctly, quoted an early version of article 10.
Senator !Borah. That was Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. I took it from the Independent.
The President. I do not know how that was obtained, but that
was part of the draft which preceded the draft which I sent to you.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. It was first pubUshed by Mr. Ham-
ilton Holt in the Independent; it was again subsequently published
in the New Republic, and from one of those pubhcations I read it
when examining, I think, the Secretary of State.
The President. I read it with the greatest interest, because I had
forgotten it, to tell the truth, but I recogniied it as soon as I read it.
Senator Johnson of California. It was the original plan ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMAN7. 505
The Pkesidbnt. It was the original form of article 10; yes.
The Chairman. I was about to ask in regard to article 10, as the
essence of it appears in article 2 of the draft which you sent, whether
that was in the British plan — the Smuts plan — or the other plans ?
Of course if there are no drafts of these other plans, we can not get
them.
The President. I am very sorry, Senator. I thought I had them,
but I have not.
The Chairman, Mr. Lansing, the Secretary of State, testified
before us the other day that ne had preparea a set of resolutions
covering the points in the league, which was submitted to the
American commission. You saw that draft ?
The President. Yes.
The Chairman. No specific action was taken upon it?
The President. Not in a formal way.
The Chairman. Mr. President, I have no prepared set of questions,
but there are one or two that I wish to ask, and will go to an entirely
different subject in my next question. I desire to ask purely for
information. Is it intended that the United States shall receive any
part of the reparation fund which is in the hands of the reparation
commission ?
The President. I left that question open. Senator, because I did
not feel that I had any final right to decide it. Upon the basis that
was set up in the reparation clauses the portion that the United
States would receive would be very small at best, and my own judg-
ment was frequently expressed, not as a decision but as a jud^ent,
that we shoula claim nothing under those general clauses. I did that
because I coveted the moral advantage that that would give us in the
counsels of the world.
Senator McCumber. Did that mean we would claim nothing for
the sinking of the Lusitaniat
The President. Oh, no. That did not cover questions of that
sort at all.
The Chairman. I understood that prewar claims were not covered
by that reparation clause.
The President. That is correct.
The Chairman. I asked that question because I desired to know
whether imder the reparation commission there was anything ex-
pected to come to us.
The President. As I say, that remains to be decided.
The Chairman. By the commission ?
The President. By the commission.
The Chairman. Going now onto another question, as I understand
the treaty the overseas possessions of Germany are all made over to
the five principal allied and associated powers, who apparently, as
far as the treaty goes, have power to make disposition of them, I
suppose by way of mandate or otherwise. Among those overseas
possessions are the Ladrone Islands, except Guam, the Carolines,
and, I think, the Marshall Islands* Has there been any recommen-
dation made by our naval authorities in regard to the importance of
our having one island there, not for territorial purposes, but for naval
purposes ?
The President. ITbere was a paper on that subject, Senator,
which has been pubUshed. I only partially remember it. It was a
506 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
?apef ItLjins out the general necessities of our naval policy in the
acifiC) and the necessity of having some base for communication
upon those islands was mentioned, just in what form I do not remem-
ber. But let me say this, there is a little island which I must admit
I had not heard of before.
Senator Williams. The island of Yap ?
The President. Yap. It is one of the bases and centers of cable
and radio communication on the Pacific, and I made the point that
the disposition, or rather the control, of that island should be re-
served for the general conference which is to be held in regard to the
ownerehip and operation of the cables. That subject is mentioned
and disposed of in this treaty and that general cable conference is to
be held.
The Chairman. I had imderstood, or I had heard the report, that
our General Board of the Navy Department and our Chief of Opera-
tions, had recommended that we should have a footing there, primarily
in order to secure cable conmiimications.
The President. I think you are right, sir.
The C^iRMAN. That we were likely to be cut off from cable com-
mimication — that is, that the cables were likely to pass entirely into
other hands — imless we had some station there, and it seemed to me
a matter of such importance that I asked the question.
I wish to ask this further question: There was a secret treaty
between England and Japan in regard to Shantung; and in the corre-
spondence with the British ambassador at Tol^o, when announcing
tne acquiescence of Great Britain in Japan's ha^rmg the German rights
in Shantung, the British ambassador added:
It is, of course, understood that we are to have the islands south of the Equator and
Japan to have the islands north of the Equator.
If it should seem necessary for the safety of commimication
for this country that we should have a cable station there, would that
secret treaty interfere with it ?
The President. I think not, sir, in view of the stipulation that I
made with regard to the question of construction by this cable con-
vention. That note of the British ambassador was a part of the
dit^omatic correspondence covering that subject.
The Chairman. That was what I imderstood.
Senator Moses. Was the stipulation that that should be reserved
for the consideration of the cable conference a formally signed
protocol ?
The President. No; it was not a formally signed protocol, but
we had a prolonged and interesting discussion on the subject, and
nobody has any doubt as to what was agreed upon.
The Chairman. I asked the question because it seemed to me a
matter of great importance.
The President. Yes; it is.
The Chairman. As a matter of self-protection, it seemed on the
face of it that" the treaty would give the five principal allied and asso-
ciated powers the authority to make such disposition as they saw
fit of tnose islands, but I did not know whetner the secret treaty
would thwart that purpose. I have no fiu-ther questions to ask,
Mr. President.
Senator Borah. Mr. President, if no one else desires to bbIs. a
question, I want, so far as I am individually concerned, to get a Uttle
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 507
clearer infonnation with reference to the withdrawal clause in the
league covenant. Who passes upon the question of the fulfillment
of our international obh^ations, upon the question whether a nation
has fulfiUed its international obhgations?
The President. Nobody.
Senator Borah. Does the council have anything to say about it ?
The President. Nothing whatever.
Senator Borah. Then if a country should give notice of withdrawal,
it would be the sole judge of whetner or not it had fulfilled its inter-
national obligations — ^its covenants — to the league?
The President. That is as I understand it. The only restraining
influence would be the pubUc opinion of the world.
Senator Borah. Precisely; but if the United States should con-
ceive that it had fulfilled its obhgations, that question could not be
referred to the council in any way, or the council could not be called
into action.
The President. No.
Senator Borah. Then, as I understand, when the notice is given,
the right to withdraw is unconditional?
The President. Well, when the notice is given it is conditional on
the faith of the conscience of the withdrawing nation at the close of
the two-year period.
Senator Borah. Precisely; but it is unconditional so far as the
legal right or the moral right is concerned.
The Fresident. That is my interpretation.
Senator Borah. There is no moral obligation on the part of the
United States to observe any suggestion made by the council?
The President. Oh, no.
Senator Borah. With reference to withdrawing?
The President. There might be a moral obligation if that sugges-
tion had weight, Senator, but there is no other obligation.
Senator Borah. Any moral obligation which the United States
would feel, would be one arising from its own sense of obUgation ?
The President. Oh, certainly.
Senator Borah. And not by reason of any suggestion by the
coimcil?
The President. Certainly.
Senator Borah. Then the idea which has prevailed in some quar-
ters that the council would pass upon such obUgation is an erroneous
one, from your standpoint ?
The President. Yes; entirely.
Senator Borah. And as I imderstand, of course, you are expressing
the view which was entertained by the commission which drew the
league ?
The President. I am confident that that was the view. That view
was not formulated, you imderstand, but I am confident that that
was the view.
Senator McCumber. May I ask a question right here ? Would
there be any objection, then, to a reservation declaring that to be
the understanding of the force of this section ?
The President. Senator, as I indicated at the opening of our con-
ference, this is my Judgment about that: Only we can interpret a
moral obligation. . The legal obligation can be enforced by such ma-
chinery as there is to enforce it. We are therefore at liberty to in-
608 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
terpret the sense in which we undertake a moral obligation. What
I feel very earnestly is that it would be a mistake to embody that
interpretation in the resolution of ratification, because then it would
be necessary for other governments to act upon it.
Senator McCumrer. If they all recognizedf at the time that this
was the understanding and the construction that should be given to
that portion of the treaty, would it be necessary for them to act on
it again ?
The President. I think it would, Senator.
Senator McCttmrer. Could they not accept it merely by acquies-
cence ?
The President. My experience as a lawyer was not very long;
but that experience would teach me that the language of a contract
is always part of the debatable matter, and I can testify that in our
discussions in the commission on the league of nations we did not
discuss ideas half as much as we discussed phraseologies.
Senator McCumrer. But suppose, Mr. President, we should make
a declaration of that kind, whicn would be in entire accord with your
view of the understanding of all of the nations, and without further
comment or action the nations should proceed to appoint their com-
missions, and to act under this treaty, would not that be a clear
acquiescence in our construction?
The President. Qh, it might be. Senator, but we would not
know for a good many months whether they were going to act in
that sense or not. There would have to be either expucit acaui-
escence, or the elapsing of a long enough time for us to know whetner
they were implicitly acquiescing or not.
Senator McCumrer. I should suppose that when the treaty was
signed, imder present world conditions, all nations would proceed
to act immediately under it.
The President, In some matters; yes.
Senator Harding. Mr. President, assuming that your construc-
tion of the withdrawal clause is the understanding of the formulating
commission, why is the language making the proviso for the fulfill-
ment of covenants put into the article ?
The President. Merely as an argument to the conscience of the
nations. In other words, it is a notice served on them that their
coUea^es will expect that at the time they withdraw they will
have nilfiUed their obligations.
Senator Harding. The language hardly seems to make that
implication, because it expressly says, *^ Provided it has fulfilled its
obligations.' '
The President. Yes.
Senator Harding. If it were a matter for the nation itself to
judge, that is rather a far-fetched provision, is it not?
Tme President. Well, vou are illustrating my recent remark,
Senator, that the phraseology is your difficulty, not the idea. The
idea is undoubtedly what I have expressed.
Senator Pittman. Mr. President, Senator McCumber has drawn
out that it is your impression that the allied and associated powers
have the same opinion of the construction of these so-called indefinite
articles that you have. Is that construction also known and held
by Germany ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 509
The PREsroENT. I have no means of knowing.
Senator Pittman. Germany, then, has not expressed herself to the
commission with regajrd to these mooted questions ?
The PREsroENT. No ; we have no expression from Germany about
the league, except the expression of her very strong desire to be ad-
mitted to it.
Senator Pittman. And is it your opinion that if the language of
the treaty were changed in the resolution of ratification, the consent
of Germany to the change would also be essential.
The President. Oh, undoubtedly.
The Chairman. Mr. President, in that connection — I did not mean
to ask another question — I take it there is no question whatever,
under international law and practice, that an amendment to the text
of a treaty must be submitted to every signatory, and must receive
either then- assent or their dissent. I nad supposed it had been the
general diplomatic practice with regard to reservations — ^which apply
only to the reserving power, and not to all the signatories, of course —
that with regard to reservations it had been the general practice that
silence was regarded as acceptance and acquiesence; that there was
that distinction between a textual amendment, which changed the
treaty for every signatory, and a reservation, which changed it
onlv for the reserving power. In that I may be mistaken, however.
The President. Tnere is some difference of opinion among the
authorities, I am informed. I have not had time to look them up
myself about that; but it is clear to me that in a treaty which involves
so many signatories, a series of reservations— which would ensue,
undoubtedly — would very much obscure our confident opinion as to
how the treaty was going to work.
Senator Williams. Mr. President, suppose for example that we
adopted a reservation, as the Senator irom Massachusetts calls it,
and that Germany did nothing about it at all, and afterwards con-
tended that so far as that was concerned it was new matter, to which
she was never a party: Could her position be justifiably disputed?
The President. No.
Senator Borah. Mr. President, with reference to article 10 — you
will observe that I am more interested in the league than any other
featm-e of this discussion — ^in listening to the reading of your state-
ment I got the impression that your view was that the first obligation
of article 10, to wit —
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external
a£:gre8Bion the territorial int^rity and existing political independence of all members
01 the league —
was simply a moral obligation.
The President. Yes, sir; inasmuch as there is no sanction in the
treaty.
Senator Borah. But that would be a legal obligation so far as the
United States was concerned if it should enter into it; would it not?
The President. I would not interpret it in that way, Senator,
because there is involved the element of judgment as to whether the
territorial integrity or existing political independence is invaded or
impaired. In otlier words, it is an attitude of comradeship and
protection among the members of the league, which in its very
nature is moral and not legal.
510 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Borah. If, however, the actual fact of invasion were
beyond dispute, then the legal obligation, it seems to me, would
immediateljr arise. I am simply throwinjg this out in order to get a
full expression of views. The legal obligation would immediately
arise if the fact of actual invasion were undisputed?
The President. The legal obUgation to apply the automatic
punishments of the covenant, undoubtedly; but not the legal obliga-
tion to go to arms and actually to make war. Not the legal obliga-
tion. There might be a very strong moral obligation.
Senator MoCumeer. Just so that I may understand definitely
what your view is on that subject, Mr. President, do I understand
you to mean that while we have two different remedies, and possibly
others, we would be the sole judge of the remedy we would apply,
but the obligation would still rest upon us to apply some remeay to
brinj; about the result ?
Tne President. Yes. I can not quite accept the full wording
that you used, sir. We would have complete freedom of choice as
to the application of force.
Senator MoCumeer. Would we not have the same freedom of
choice as to whether we would apply a commercial boycott? Are
they not both under the same language, so that we would be bound
by them in the same way ?
The President. Only in regard to certain articles. The breach
of certain articles of the covenant does bring on what I have desig-
nated as an automatic boycott, and in that we would have no choice.
Senator Knox. Mr. President^ allow me to ask this question:
Suppose that it is perfectly obvious and accepted that there is an
external aggression against some power, and suppose it is perfectly
obvious and accepted that it can not be repelled except by force of
arms, would we be imder any legal obligation to participate ?
The President. No, sir; but we would be xmder an absolutely
compelling moral obligation.
Senator Knox. But no l^al obligation ?
The President. Not as I contemplate it.
Senator Williams. Mr. President, each nation, if I imderstand it,
is, of course, left to judse the applicability of the principles stated to
the facts in the case, wnether there is or is not external aggression?
The President. Yes.
Senator Williams. And if any country should conclude that there
was not external aggression, but that France or some other country
had started the trouble indirectly, we would have the same right, ft
I understand it, that Italy had to declare that her alliance with
Germany and Austria was purely defensive, and that she did not see
anything defensive in it; so when you come to judgment of the facts,
outside of the international law involved, each nation must determine,
if I understand, whether or not there has been external agression?
The President. I think you are right, sir. Senator [addressing
Senator Kjiox], you were about to ask something?
Senator Knox. I only wanted to tell you that I asked that ques-
tion because I was a little confused by the language of your message
transmitting the proposed Franco-American treaty to the Senate, in
which you said, in substance, and, I think, practically in these
terms, that this is only binding us to do immediately what we other-
wise would have been boxmd k) do under the league of nations t
TBKATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAN7. 511
The Prbsident. Yes.
Senator Knox. Perhaps I am mistaken with respect to its having
been in that message. I am sure I am mistaken; it was not in that
message; it was in the message that Mr. Tumulty gave out
The Chairman. May 10.
Senator Knox. Yes.
The President. Yes.
Senator Knox. That it was merely binding us to do immediately,
without waiting for any other power, that wUch we would otherwise
have been bound to do under tne terms of the leiague of nations.
The President. I did not use the word *'bound," but ''morally
bound." Let me say that you are repeating what I said to the other
representatives. I said, ''Of course, it is imderstood we would
have to be convinced that it was an unprovoked movement of
aggression," and they at once acquiesced in that.
Senator MgCombbr. Mr. President, there are a number of Senators
who sincerely believe that under the construction of article 10,
taken in connection with other clauses and other articles in the
treaty, the coimcil can suggest what we should do, and of course,
while they admit the council can only advise and suggest, that it is
nevertheless our moral duty to immediately obey the coimcil, with-
out exercising our own judgment as to whether we shall go to war
or otherwise. Now, the pubhc, the American people, a great pro-
portion of them, have that same conviction, which is contrary to
your view. Do you not think, therefore, that it would be well
to have a reservation inserted in our resolution that shall so construe
that section as to make it clear, not only to the American people
but to the world, that Congress may use its own judgment as to
what it will do, and that its failure to foUow the judgment of the
council will not be considered a breach of the agreement?
The President. We differ. Senator, only as to the form of action.
I think it would be a very serious practical mistake to put it in the
resolution of ratification; but I do hope that we are at Uberty, con-
temporaneously with our acceptance of the treaty, to interpret our
moral obligation under that article.
Senator jPittm AN. Mr. President, I understand that, under the
former method, in your opinion, it would have to go back to Germany
and the other countries; while under the latter method it would
not be required to go back for ratification.
The President. Yes, sir; that is my judgment.
Senator Knox. Mr. President, is it not true that such matters are
ordinarily covered by a mere exchange of notes between powers,
stating that they understand in this or that sense, or do not so
understand?
The President. Yes, sir; ordinarily.
Senator Knox. That would be a matter that would require very
little time to consummate it, if these constructions have already been
placed upon it in their conversations with you.
The President. But an exchange of notes is quite a different
matter from having it embodied in the resolution ol ratification.
Senator Knox. If we embody in our resolution of ratification a
statement that we understand section 10 or section 16 or section
sometiiing else in a particular sense, and this Government, through
its foreign department, transmits the proposed form of ratification
512 TREATY OF PEACE WITH Gi liMANY.
to the chancellors of the other nations that are concerned in this
treaty, and if those interpretations are the same as you hare agreed
upon with them in your conversations, I do not see how we would
need anything more than a mere reply to that effect.
The President. It would need confirmation.
Senator E^nox. Yes; it would need confirmation in that sense.
The President. My judgnaent is that the embodying of that in the
terms of the resolution of ratification would be acquiescence not only
in the interpretation but in the very phraseology of the interpreta-
tion, because it would form a part oi tne contract.
Senator Knox. It might with us, because we have so much ma-
chinery for dealing with treaties, but in other countries where it is
much more simple I should think it would not be.
The President. It is simple legally, Senator; but, for example,
this treaty has been submitted to legislatures to which the Govern-
ment was not, by law, obliged to submit it, and it is everywhere
being treated as a legislative matter — ^I mean, so far as the ratifica-
tion IS concerned.
Senator Knox. You mean in countries where, under their consti-
tutions, there are provisions that treaties ordinarily are not sub-
mitted to the legislative branch of the government, this treaty is
being so submitted ?
The President. So I understand.
Senator Knox. Where there are two branches of the legislative
department, an upper and a lower branch, do you know wheuier it is
being submitted to both ?
The President. I think not, sir. I am not certain about that;
but my memory is it is not.
Senator Fall. Mr. President, the idea has struck me and I have
entertained the view, since reading the treaty and the league, that
Germany having signed the treaty out not being yet a member of the
league, any reservations which we might make here would be met by
Germany's either joining the league or refusing to join the league.
It would not be submitted to her at all now, Decause she is not a
member of the league ? You catch the point ?
The President. Yes. I differ with you there, Senator. One of
the reasons for putting the league in the treaty was that Germany
was not going to be admitted to the league immediately, and we feft
that it was very necessary that we should get her acknowledgment-
acceptance — of the league as an international authority, partly
because we were excluding her, so that she would thereafter have no
ground for questioning such authority as the league might exercise
under its covenant,
Senator Fall. Precisely.
The President. Therefore, I think it would be necessary for her to
acquiesce in a league the powers of which were differentlv construed.
Senator Fall. Precisely; but her acquiescence would, be by her
accepting the invitation, when extended, either to join the league or
not to join the league. In other words, upon ratification by tmee of
the powers a status of peace is established, and as to those three
powers and Germany all the rules and regulations contained in the
treaty of peace become operative. As to the other nations which
have not ratified, the status of peace exists; that is, war has termi-
nated. Now, that being the case, and Germany being out of the
TBBATY OF FBAOE WITH GBBMANY. 513
league — ^not having been invited to join the league — if in ratifying the
treaty we ratify it with certain explanations or reservations, even in
the ratifying resolution, when tne time comes and Germany is
invited to become a member of the lea^e, or when she applies, under
the admission clause of the league, ^r membership therein, if she
enters she of coiu^e accepts our reservations. If she makes a
quaUfied appHcation, then it is for the league itself to consider
whether she will be admitted ?
The President. I do not follow your reasoning in the matter,
Senator, because this is not merely a question of either membership or
nonmembeiship. The covenant is a part of the treaty, it is a part
of the treaty wnich she has signed, and we are not at liberty to change
any part of that treaty without the acquiescence of the other con-
tracting party.
Senator Fall. Well, Mr. President, of coiuse it is not my purpose
to enter into an argument, but we are here for information. Tnere
are provisions for tne amendment of the articles. Germany is out of
the league. Any amendment proposed by the other members of the
league prior to her coming into tne league would not be submitted
to her, would it, she not being a member ?
The President. I will admit that that point had not occurred to
me. No, she would not.
Senator Fall. Then so far as we are concerned we could make a
recommendation in the nature of an amendment.
Senator Pittman. She has already agreed by this treaty that she
has signed- that the members may amend it.
The President. Yes.
Senator Fall. Precisely, and we could come in with an amend-
ment.
Senator Httchcock. Did I imderstand your first reply to Senator
Fall to be that Germany under this treaty already haa a relationship
to the league by reason of its international character, and its partici-
ation in a number of questions that Germany was interested m ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. So that it has a relationship to the league of
nations even before the time that it may apply for membership.
The President. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Mr. President, you answered one question
that I think possibly may need a little elucidation. If I remember
rightly, in reference to reparation your statement was that the com-
mission would have to decide whether the United States should
claim her proportion of the reparation.
The President. That the commission would have to do it? No;
we decide whether we claim it or not.
Senator McCumber. That is what I want to make clear. I think
the question was asked if the commission was to decide that, and
I thought your answer said yes. That is the reason I asked the
question.
The President. The claim would have to come from us, of course.
Senator McCumber. It would have to be through^ an act of Con-
gress,, would it not ?
The President. I would have to be instructed about that. Senator.
I do not know.
135546—19 83
614 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator McCumber. Whatever right the United States would
receive under the treaty for reparation or indemnity is one that runs
to the United States, and therefore to divest ourselves of that right
would require an act of Congress.
The President. To divest ourselves of it ? I suppose so.
Senator Knox. In the cjuestion of the Japanese indemnity, that
was done bv a joint resolution.
Senator McCumber. I thought the President said it would have to
" be decided by the constituted authority.
Senator Knox. I did not understand that he said that.
Senator Swanson. I understand that the reparation is to be
decided upon a representation made by the associated powers. It
would seem that tne President under that agreement with France,
Great Britain, and other nations would have to submit it to the Senate
for ratification, and the agreement would have to be reported.
Senator McCumber. In each case it would have the force of law.
Senator Swanson. If the Senate wanted to ratify it, it would take
an act of Congress.
Senator Williams. This question of reparation does not in any
way affect our rights to prewar indemnities.
The President. That is expressly stated.
Senator Williams. That is expressly stated. Now, then, one
other question. Germany has signed this treaty with the covenant
of the league in it, and she is subject to be dealt with as a nonmember
under the treaty, and has very much fewer privileges than a member!
The President. Yes.
Senator New. Mr. President, may I ask a question there? Wbat
effort was made by the delegates there to prevent the proceedings
of the reparations committee being required to be secret f
The President. I beg your pardon, Senator.
Senator New. What effort, if any, was made by the American
delegates to prevent the proceedings of the reparation conmiission
from being required to be secret, and did the American delegates
protest that America be omitted from this commission on account of
that thing ?
The President. Nothing was said about it, that I remember.
Senator Borah. Mr. President, coming back for a moment to the
subject from which we were diverted a moment ago, and coupling
with article 10 article 11, in order that wo may have the construction
of the committee which framed the league as to both of those articles,
as I understand it from your statement, the committee's view was that
the obligations under articles 10 and 11, whatever they are, are
moral obligations.
The President. Remind me of the eleventh. I do not remember
that by number.
Senator Borah (reading) :
Any war or threat of war» whether immediately affecting any of the members of the
league or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole iea<?ue, and the league
shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace
of nations.
•
What I am particidarly anxious to know is whether or not the con-
struction which was placed upon these two articles by the conunittee
which framed the league was that it was a binding obligation from
a legal standpoint, or merely a moral obligation.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANY. 515
The Pbesident. Senator, I tried to answer with regard to article 10.
Senator BoEAH. Yes; exactly.
The President. I would apply it equally with regard to article
11, though I ought to hasten to sav that we did not formulate these
interpretations. I can only speak from my confident impression
from the debates that accompanied the formulation of the covenant.
Senator Borah. Yes; I understand; and your construction of
article 11 is the same as that of article 10 ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Borah. As to the question of legal obligation. That is
all I d^ire to ask at present.
Senator Harding. Right there, Mr. President, if there is nothing
more than a moral obligation on the part of any member of the
let^ue, what avail articles 10 and 11 ?
The President. Why, Senator, it is surprising that that question
should be asked. If we undertake an obligation we are bound in
the most solemn way to carry it out.
Senator Harding. If you believe there is nothing more to this
than a moral obligation, any nation will assume a moral obligation
on its own account. Is it a moral obligation? The point I am
trying to get at is, Suppose something arises affecting tne peace of
the world, and the council takes steps as provided here to conserve
or preserve, and announces its decision, and every nation in the league
takes advantage of the construction that you place upon these
articles and says, *'Well, this is only a moral obUgation, and we
assume that the nation involved does not deserve our participation
or protection,'' and the whole thing amounts to notning but an
expression of the league council.
The President. There is a national good conscience in such a
matter. I should think that was one of the most serious thin^ that
could possibly happen. When I speak of a legal obhj^ation, I
mean one that specifically binds you to do a particular thmg under
certain sanctions. That is a legal obligation. Now a moral obU-
gation is of course superior to a legal obhgaton, and, if I may say
so, has a greater binding force; only there always remains in the
moral obligation the right to exercise one's judgment as to whether
it is indeed incumbent upon one in those circumstances to do that
thing. In every moral obligation there is an element of judgment.
In a legal obUgation there is no element of judgment.
Senator Johnson of California. But, Mr. President, when a moral
obUgation is undoubted it wiU impel action more readily than a legal
obUgation.
T^e President. If it is undoubted, yes; but that involves the cir-
cumstances of the particular case. Senator.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. Yes; necessarily.
Senator Hardin'g. In answering Senator Knox a moment ago
you spoke of a compelling inoral obUgation. Would you think that
any less binding than a specific legal obligation ?
The President. Not less binding, but operative in a different way
because of the element of judgment.
Senator Harding. But not less likely to involve us in armed
participation ?
The President. In trifling matters, very much less likely.
516 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Harding. To clear my slow mind, let me take a specific
case. Suppose the allotted territory which comes under the control
of Italy snould in some way be assailed from the Balkan States and
the council of the league should immediately look upon that as a
threat of war involving other nations and should say that the nations
of the league should immediately contribute an armed force to stop
that war or to bring the attacking nation to terms, would we be a
perfidious people, if I may use that term, or would we violate our
obligations, if we failed to participate in the defense of Italy?
The President. We would be our own judges as to whether we
were obliged in those circumstances to act in that way or not.
Senator Hitchcock. In such a case the council would only act
imanimously, and our representative on the council of course would
have to concur in any advice given.
The President. Certainly; we would always in such case advise
ourselves.
Senator Williams. But if in such case, Mr. President, we concluded
that the case provided for and prescribed had arisen and that the
extraneous attack existed and tnat it fell within the terms of the
treaty, then we would be untrue if we did not keep our word ?
The President. Certainly.
Senator Borah. In other words, then, that transfers the power to
decide whether we should act from the Congress of the United States
to one individual who sits on the council.
Senator Williams. No, it does not; it mereiv provides that when
the council acts in accordance with the prescribed terms and we see
that it has acted, then Congress will, as a matter of faith keeping, act
itself; and, if Congress does not, Congress will do a dishonorable
thing.
Senator Borah. Precisely so; so that the matter gets back to the
point where one individual has bound Congress.
Senator Hitchcock. I hope mv question to the President will not
be interpreted in that way. My question to the President was
whether the matter would even come before this countrv as the
advice of the council until the American representative had con-
curred with the other eight members of the council. After he had
concurred it would then be up to Congress to decide.
The President. You are quite right, Senator. And let me sug-
gest that I find nothing was more clearly in the consciousness of the
men who were discussmg these very important matters than that
most of the nations concerned had popular governments. They
were all the time aware of the fact that it woind depend upon the
approving or disapproving state of opinion of their countries how
their representatives in the council would vote in matters of this
sort; and it is inconceivable to me that, unless the opinion of the
United States, the moral and practical judgment of the people of
the United States, approved, the representative of the United States
on the council should vote any such advice as would lead us into war.
Senator Borah. Mr. President, does the special alliance treaty with
France which has been submitted to us rest upon any other basis as
to legal and moral obUgation than that of article 10 and article 11
which you have just described ?
The President. No, sir.
Senator Borah. That is also, as you understand it, simply our moral
obUgations which we enter into with France ?
TR£ATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAIO:. 517
The President. Yes.
Senator Williams. All international obligations are moral ones.
Senator Pittman. There is one thing I do not understand about
Senator Borah's question. He has stated that he gathers from what
you said that it all rests with our representative on the council.
Even if our representative on the council advises as a member of
the council, and the council is imanimous, is it not then still up to
Congress either to accept or reject that advice ? M|
The President. Oh, yes; but I understood the Senator to mean
that it would be dependent on our representative.
Senator Johnson of California. May I take the example that was
just suggested concering the Balkan States and a possible attack upon
the new territories of Italy. Assuming that that is a case of external
aggression by the Balkan States concerning the new territory that
Italy has acquired bv the peace treaty, upon us rests a compelling
moral obligation to dfo our part in preventing that, does there not!
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And that compelling moral obliga-
tion would reqiure us te use such means as would seem appropriate,
either economic or force ? Is not that correct? ^
The President. Deemed appropriate by whom? That is really
the point.
Senator Johnson of California. Of course, deemed appropriate for
the purpose of preventing and frustrating the aggression.
The President. Deemed by us appropriate ?
Senator Johnson of California. I assiime of necessity it would have
to be deemed by us te bind us as a compelling moral obligation te
prevent the aggression in the case named.
The President. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Mr. President, I think, due to my own fault,
I do not fully comprehend your distinction between a moral and a
legal o])ligfttion in a treaty. If we enter into a treaty with France to
defend her against aggression from Germany for any length of time,
that is a legal obhgation. is it not ?
The President. Legal in the sense that a treaty is of binding force;
yes.
Senator McCumber. Yes; that is what I meant. It is as legal
as any treaty could be made legal, and there is also a moral obligation
to keep that treaty, is there not?
The President. Yes, sir. I happened to hear Senator Knox say
what I am glad to adopt. It is a legal obligation with a moral
sanction.
Senator Borah. That is tme generally, is it not ?
The President. Yes, Senater; but I have already defined in what
special sense I use the word * 'legal.'*
Senator McCumber. To my mind those two articles are legal obli-
gations to be carried out by the moral conscience of the Ajnerican
people if the conditions justify it.
The President. You see we are speaking of two different fields,
and therefore the language does not fit. In international law the
word '* legal " does not mean the same as in national law, and the word
hardly applies.
Senator Borah. I wish to ask some questions in regard to the secret
treaties. I do not feel as free about those matters as 1 do about the
518 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
lea^e, because there are certain things that I recognize may not bo
entirely open for pubUc consideration; but, nevertheless, in so far as
we can, I should like to know when the first knowledge came to this
Government with reference to the secret treaties between Japan,
Great Britain, Italy, and France concerning the German possessions
in Shantung ?
The President. I thought that Secretary Lansing had looked that
up and told you. I can only reply from my own knowledge, and my
own knowledge came after I reached Paris.
Senator Borah. We did get a reply from Mr. Lansing to the same
effect so far as he was concerned. When did the secret treaties between
Great Britain, France, and the other nations of Europe with reference
to certain adjustments in Europe first come to your knowledge ? Was
that after you had reached Paris also ?
The President, Yes ; the whole series of understandings were dis-
closed to me for the firet time then.
Senator Borah. Then we had no knowledge of these secret treaties,
so far as our Government was concerned, until you reached Paris?
The President. Not unless there was information at the State
Department of which I knew nothing.
Senator Borah. Do you know when the secret treaties between
Japan, Great Britain, and other countries were first made known to
China?
The President. No, sir; I do not. I remember a meeting of what
was popularly called the council of ten, after our reaching Paris, in
which it was first suggested that all these understandings should be
laid upon the table of the cx)nference. That was some time after we
reached there, and I do not know whether that was China's first
knowledge of these matters or not.
Senator Borah. Would it be proper for me to ask if Great Britain
and France insisted upon maintaining these secret treaties at the
peace conference as they were made ?
The President. I thmk it is proper for me to answer that question,
sir. I will put it in this way: They felt that they could not recede
from them, that is to say, that they were bound by them, but when
they involved general interests such as they realized were involved,
they were quite willing, and indeed I think desirous, that they should
be reconsiaered with trie consent of the other parties. I mean with
the consent, so far as they were concerned, of the other parties.
Senator Moses. Were all those treaties then produced, Mr. Presi-
dent?
The President. Oh, yes.
Senator Moses. Did that include the secret arrangement with ref-
erence to Avlona ?
The President. I do not recall that agreement. Senator. You
mean with regard to Italy having Avlona ?
Senator Moses. Yes.
The President. If it did, I did not see it. I heard of it, but I can
not say confidently that the terms were laid before us.
Senator Moses. I recall in some statements you made in connection
with Fiume that you referred to Italy receiving Avlona under some
agreement previously arrived at, and in that statement you held that
to be part compensation at least for any loss she might sustain in not
having Fiume.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 519
The Peesident. I was referring to what I understood to be the
agreement. I am shnply now answering your question that I did
not see that agreement in written terms.
Senator Moses. Then, they were not produced in textual form ?
The President. I do not know; they may have been and I may
not have picked them up in the great mass of papers before me.
Senator Moses. The purpose of my inquiry was to ascertain
whether there was laid before the council of^ ten any textual agree-
ments which transferred parts of the territory of one independent
nation to another.
The President. Only those that have been spoken of.
Senator Moses. That is to say, Shantung ana Avlona ?
The President. I say only those that we have had xmder general
discussion. I can not enumerate them, but there are none that have
not been produced so far as I know. That answei*s the question.
Senator McCumber. The secret treaties to which you refer are
those treaties which were made from time to time as the exigencies
of the war required during the period of the war ?
The President. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And not treaties that were made prior to the
war?
The President. Yes.
Senator Williams. Mr. President, I wish to ask you a question
in order to see if the facts are clear in my own mind. As I understand
the situation — and I should like to have you correct me if I am
wrong — France and Great Britain both have stated that they were
bound by certain treaties with Japan and they were perfectly willing,
with Japan's consent, to reconsider those treaties, but that they
were themselves boimd if the other party to the treaty did not
consent to reconsider. Is that about it?
The President. Yes.
Senator Williams. That is what I thought. Bound in honor is
the only way a nation is bound in international affairs.
Senator Swanson. Can you tell us, or would it be proper to do
so, of your understanding with Japan as to the return of Snantung t
That is a question which has been very much discussed.
The President. I have published the wording of the under-
standing, Senator. I can not be confident that I quote it literally,
but I know that I auote it in substance. It was that Japan should
return to China in full sovereignty the old Province of Shantimg so
far as Germany had had any clamis upon it, j)reserving to herself
the right to establish a residential distnct at Tsingtao, which is the
town of Kiaochow Bay; that with regard to the railways and mines
she should retain only the rights of an economic concession there,
with the right, however, to maintain a special body of police on the
railway, the personnel of which should oe Chinese under Japanese
instructors nominated by the managers of the company and appointed
by the Chinese. Government. I think that is the whole of it.
Senator PoMerene. That is, that the instructors should be con-
firmed by the Chinese Government ?
The Rbesident. No; not exactly that. The language, as I re-
member it, was that they should be nominated by the managers of
the railway company, and appointed by the Chinese Government.
Senator Borah. Was that understanding oral ?
520 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBBCAXfY.
Senator Williams. This rather curious question presents itself to
my mind: As I underetand, Japan has retained sovereignty for the 99
years of the lease only at Kiaochow, and 5 kilometers, or some such
distance, back from the bay.
The President. She has not retained sovereignty over anything.
Senator Williams. She has not ?
The President. I mean, she has promised not to.
Senator Williams. During the period of the lease ?
The President. No; she nas promised not to retain sovereignty
at all. Senator Borah asked whether this understanding was ortS
or otherwise. I do not like to describe the operation exactly if it is
not perfectly discreet, but as a matter of fact this was technically oral,
but literally written and formulated, and the formulation agreed upon.
Senator Johnson of California. When, Mr. President, is the return
to be made ?
The President. That was left undecided, Senator, but we were
assured at the time that it would be as soon as possible.
Senator Johnson of California. Did not the Japanese decline to
fix any date ?
The President. They did at that time, yes; but I think it is fair
to them to say not in the spirit of those who wished it be within
their choice, but simply that they could not at that time say when it
would be.
Senator Johnson of California. The economic privileges that they
would retain would give them a fair mastery over the Province,
would they not, or at least the Chinese think so ? Let me put it
in that fashion, please.
The President. I believe they do, Senator. I do not feel qualified
to judge. I should say that that was an exaggerated view.
Senator Johnson of California. But the Chinese feel that way
about it, and have so expressed themselves?
The President. They have so expressed themselves.
Senator Kjnox. Mr. President, the economic privileges that they
originally acquired in Korea, and subsequently in inner and outer
Mongolia, and in northern and southern Manchuria, have almost
developed into a complete sovereignty over those countries, have
thev not ?
The President. Yes, Senator; in the absence of a league of nations
thev have.
Senator Knox. You think the league of nations would have pre-
vented that, do you ?
The President. I am confident it would.
Senator New. Mr. President, does not this indefinite promise of
Japan's suggest the somewhat analogous case of England's occupa-
tion of Malta ? She has occupied Malta for something like a century,
I believe, under a ver\^ similar promise.
The President. Well, Senator, I hope you will pardon me if I
do not answer that question.
Senator Fall. Mr. President, speaking of the duty of defense in
reference to sovereignty, and of aggression with reference to sover-
eignty; in construing these different articles of the league, I have been
curious to know who will defend the mandate territories or colonies
if there should be external aggression.
The President. Primarily, the mandatory power.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 521
Senator Fall. The mandatory power would have that character
of sovereignty over the possession which would compel it as a duty
to defend the mandate province ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Fall. Then a qualified sovereigntv would in that
instance, at any rate, compel the mandatorjr of the league first to
defend the colony?
The PREsrDENT. I should put it this way, Senator : We had in mind
throughout the whole discussion of the mandate idea the analogy of
trustees. The States taking those under mandates would be in the
nature of trustees, and of course it is part of the trustee's duty to
preserve intact the trust estate.
Senator Fall. But out of the funds of the trust estate ?
The PREsroENT. Oh, yes.
Senator Fall. Mr. President, I will not pursue that line at this
time. I will say very frankly that I have prepared some questions
which I wanted, for my own purposes, to put down in writing, and
I had expected to ask them in sequence of you after the other Senators
had concluded. It will, however, evidently take quite a long while
if we pursue the line which we are now pursuing, and particularly
if the Senators themselves argue their own interpretations of the
different clauses in the treaty.
Senator McCumber. Mr. President, I should like to get as definite
an understanding as I can, at least, of how these promises of Japan
to return Shantung are evidenced to-day. In wnat form do tney
appear ?
The PREsroENT. They are evidenced in a proc6s-verbal of the
so-called council of four — the name that we ourselves used was very
much more pretentious ; we called ourselves the coimcil of the princi-
pal allied and associated powers — ^but the four who used to confer,
or rather the five, because Japan was there of course at that time.
Senator McCumber. The principal points were taken down in
writing and read over and compared and preserved, were they ?
The President. Not read over and compared, but preserved.
The process each day was this. Senator: The matters discussed Were
summarized, and the conclusions reached were recorded in a procfts-
verbal, copies of which were distributed within 24 hours; and of course
it was open to any one of the conferees to correct anything they
might contain. Only in that sense were they corrected.
Senator McCumber. Where are those records kept now ?
The President. They are in Paris, sir.
Senator McCl^^iber. Is there any objection to their being produced
for the committee ?
The President. I think there is a very serious objection. Senator.
The reason we constituted that very small conference was so that we
could speak with the utmost absence of restraint, and I think it
would be a mistake to make use of those discussions outside. I do
not remember any blazing indiscretion of my own, but there may
be some.
Senator McCu:«iber. In those conversations it was f uUy understood
that Japan was to return Shantung as soon as possible?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Was there anything stated as to what was
meant by **as soon as possible" — that is, to place it within any
definite period at all ?
522 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The President. No, sir; no. We relied on Japan's good faith
in fulfilling that promise.
Senator McCitmber. Was there anything outside? If I go too
far in my questions vou can signify it, Mr. President.
The President, flow do you mean outside, Senator?
Senator McCumber. Was there anything said by Japan as to
anything that she would want to do before she turned the territory
over to China ?
The President. No; nothing was mentioned.
Senator McCumber. Then *'as soon as possible'' would naturally
mean, would it not, as soon as the treaty has been signed under
which she accepts the transfer from Germany ?
The President. Well, I should say that it would mean that the
process should begin then. Of course there would be many practical
considerations of which I know nothing that might prolong the
process.
Senator McCumber. And all that Japan reserves is the same that
other great nations have reserved — certain concessions?
The President. A residential concession and economic conces-
sions; yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. The same as Great Britain and France and
other countries have retained ther^ ?
The President. Yes; and I ought to say that the representatives
of Japan showed every evidence of wishing to put the matter upon
i'ust the same basis that the dealings of other nations with China
lave rested upon for some time.
Senator McCumber. The whole purpose of my question, Mr.
President, is to satisfy my mind, if I can, that Japan will in good
faith carry out her aCTeement.
The President. Iliave every confidence that she will, sir.
Senator Pomerene. Mr. President, if I may, I shoidd like to ask
a question or two along that same line. If this treaty should fail of
ratification, then would not the opportunity be open to Japan to
treat the Shantung question just as she has treated the Manchurian
situation ?
The President. I think so ; j;es.
Senator Pomerene. So that if the treaty should fail of ratifica-
tion, China, so far as Shantung is concernecf, would be practically at
the mercy of Japan; whereas if the treaty is ratified, then at least
she will nave the benefit of the moral assistance of all the other
signatory powers to the treaty to aid in the protection of Chinese
rights ?
The President. Senator, I conceive one of the chief benefits of
the whole arrangement that centers in the league of nations to be
just what you have indicated — that it brings to bear the opinion of
the world and the controlling action of the world on all relationships
of that hazardous sort, particularly those relationships which involve
the rights of the weaker nations. After all, the wars that are likely
to come are most likely to come by aggression against the weaker
nations. Without the league of nations they have no buttress or
protection. With it, they have the imited protection of the world;
and inasmuch as it is the universal opinion that the great tragedy
through which we have just passed never would have occurred ii the
Central Powers had dreamed that a number of nations would be
TB£AT£ OF P£AG£ WITH GERMANY. 523
combined against them^ so I have the utmost confidence that this
notice beforehand that the strong nations of the world will in every
case be united will make war extremely unlikely.
Senator Moses. Mr. President, are these procfis verbaux to be
deposited anywhere as a matter of public record ?
The President. That had not been decided, Senator. Of course,
if they were deposited as a matter of public record, there would be
certaiii verv great disadvantages.
Senator Moses. Are they to be deposited with the secretariat of
the league of nations ?
The President. No, sir.
Senator Moses. Without some such depository, how otherwise
would this engagement of Japan, as embodied in the procds verbal,
be brought forward for enforcement ?
The President. There would be as many copies of the procds
verbal as there were members of the conference m existence much
longer than the time within which we shall learn whether Japan
wiU fulfill her obligations or not.
Senator Moses. You mean in the private papers of the personnel
of the council of four ?
The President. I would not call them private papers. I have a
copy, Senator. I regard them as a public trust, not private papers,
and I can assure you that they will not be destroyed.
Senator Moses. Suppose that each member of tne council of four
had passed out of office, out of any position of power, at a time
when it became evident that Japan was not keeping the engage-
ment as it was embodied in the procte verbal on flie day when
this record was made, in what manner would you expect that
engagement to be brought forward for enforcement ?
The President. I should deem it my duty — I can not speak for the
others — to leave those papers where they could be made accessible.
Senator Pomerene. Afr. President, I nave another question or two
on the Shantung proposition that I should like to ask, if I may.
Assuming for tne sake of the argument that there were to be some
undue delay on the part of Japan in turning back to China her rights
in Shantung, and tnat China were to make complaint to the council
provided for in the league of nations, have you any doubt but that it
would be taken up promptly by all the members of that council for
their consideration and determination ?
The President. No, sir; I have not any doubt of it.
Senator Pomrene. Another question: On yesterday Dr. Millard
was before the committee, and ne made the statement that there
were 20 regional understandings similar to the Monroe doctrine. I
desire to say, however, that in answer to a question
The President. Did he name any of them ?
Senator Pomerene. I asked him some Questions afterwards, and in
explanation he qualified that statement oy saying that these were
written agreements somewhat akin to the Lansing-Ishii agreement,
so-called, and as to these with relation to China a part of them were
as between Japan and China, and a part as between Great Britain
and China; ana he instanced the secret agreement with Japan respect-
ing Shantung. What I desired to ask was this: Did any information
come to the commission indicating that there wore any regional
understandings similar to the Monroe doctrine ?
524 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
The President. None, whatever. The only agreements that I can
imagine he was referring to are contained in the exchanges of notes
which occurred between the Japanese and Chinese Governments in
1915 and 1918 with regard to the method and conditions of the re-
turn of Shantung Province to China.
Senator Hitchcock. Mr. President, I think it should be said also
that later on in his testimony, either in answer to a question by
Senator Pomerene, or perhaps in response to a question oy Senator
Swanson, while the witness, Dr. Millard, stated that he deemed them
regional understandings — those that he had in mind — ^he said very
emphatically that they were totally unlike the Monroe doctrme,
ana would not come imder that category.
The President. And in his sense every treaty that concerns ter-
ritory anywhere affects a region, and is a regional understanding;
but that IS a very broad and vague meaning to attach to the word.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, I am quite hesi-
tant about asking certain questions which I wish to ask. I apol-
ogize in advance for asking them, and I trust you will stop me at
once if they are questions which you deem inappropriate, or that
ought not to be asked.
The President. Thank you.
Senator Johnson of California. First, we have pending now treaties
of peace with Austria, with Hungary, with Biilgaria, and with the
Ottoman Empire, all of which involve tremendous new territorial
adjustments; and under those new territorial adjustments we will
have our obligations, moral or otherwise, under the league of nations,
of course. The new territorial adjustments about to be determined
upon in these various treaties are really greater in extent, or quite as
important, at least, as those that are provided for by the German
treaty; are they not ?
The President. I should say so; yes.
Senator Johnson of California. They will deal not only with the
creation of the boundaries of new nations, but possibly with the
subject of mandatories, too ?
The President. Well, the treaties will not themselves deal with
the mandatories. That is a matter that will be decided by the
league.
Senator Johnson of California. Oh, yes.
The President. But the treaties will no doubt create certain
territories which fall imder the trusteeship which wUl lead to manda-
tories.
Senator Johnson of California. So that there is a very important—
in fact, the most important — part of the territorial world settlement
yet to be made ?
The President. Well, in extent, yes, Senator; so far as the amount
of territory covered is concerned, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Not only in extent, but in their
character, and in the numbers of peoples involved, too, Mr. President.
Is not that accurate ?
The President. Well, you may be right, Senator; I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. I think you answered to Senator
Borah the ciuestion I am about to ask, so pardon me if it is repetitive.
It is this: Was the United States Grovernment officially informed, at
TBBAT7 OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 525
any time between the rupture of diplomatic relations with Grermany
and the signing of the armistice, of agreements made by the allied
Governments in regard to the settlement of the war ?
The President. No ; not so far as I know.
Senator Johnson of California. So far as you are aware, was it
unoflScially informed during that period ?
The President. I would be more clear in my answer, Senator, if I
knew just what you were referring to.
Senator Johnson of California. I am referring to the so-K^alled
secret treaties which disposed of territory among the belligerents.
The President. You mean like the treaty of London ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; like the London pact.
The President. No ; no, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Could you state whether or not
any official investigation was made by our Government to ascertain
whether or not there were any such treaties of territorial disposition ?
The President. There was no such investigation.
Senator Johnson of California. These specific treaties, then — the
Treaty of London, on the basis of which Italy entered the war; the
agreement with Roumania, in August, 1916; the various agreements
in respect to Asia Minor, and the i^eements consummated in the
winter of 1917 between France and Russia relative to the frontiers of
Geimany, and particularly in relation to the Saar Valley and the left
bank of the Rhine — none of these did we (and when I say *'we" I
mean you, Mr. President) have any knowledge of prior to the con-
ference at Paris ?
The President. No, sir. I can confidently answer that **No," in
regard to myself.
Senator McCumber. Senator Johnson, may I ask the President
right here whether or not after we entered into the war any treaties
were made between any of our cobelUgerents that were not given
to us.
The President. No, sir; I do not know of any.
Senator McCumber. Then the secret treaties that vou have
reference to were made prior to the time we entered into the war ?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. After that, our cobelUgerents withheld
nothingfrom us; did they?
The President. They entered into no agreements.
Senator Borah. Well, you asked, Senator, if they withheld any-
thing from us. They withheld all that they had had previously ?
The President. No, no; but he means. Did they withhold any
agreement that they made after we entered the war ?
Senator McCumber. That is just what 1 meant.
Senator Johnson of California. We do not know of any engage-
ments which have been made subsequent to our entering into the war ?
The President. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Those that I have referred to —
and I say this, Senator, so that you will have no error in respect to
it — ^I referred wholly, 1 think, to the treaties that were prior to our
en^T into the war.
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. Were you familiar, Mr. President,
please, with any agreements that were made by the aUied Govern-
526 TREATY OF PKACE WITH QEBMANY.
ments with the Czecho-Slovak National Council, the Polish National
Council, and the Jugo-Slav National Committee ?
The President, i was aware of arrangements similar to those that
we had ourselves made recognizing those national committees as
provisional representatives of the people.
Senator Johnson of California. But merely as recognizing govern^
ments, and that these committees represented the peoples of the
various countries ?
The President. Yes; and the recognition was purely informal.
It was not an international recognition, but an agreement to deal
with them as representatives.
Senator Johnson of California. When our Government through
?^ou, Mr. President, in January, 1918, made the 14 points as the basis
or Deace, were those points made with the knowledge of the existence
of the secret agreements ?
The President. No; oh, no.
Senator Johnson of California. It was not intended, then, by the
expression of these 14 points, to supplant the aims contained in the
secret treaties ?
The President. Since I knew nothing of them, necessarily not.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; quite so. Do you laiow, Mr.
President, or is it permissible for us to be told, whether France has
special military agreements with Poland and Czecho-Slovakia ?
The President. I know of none, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Did China enter the war upon our
advice — the advice of the United States ?
The President. I can not tell, sir. We advised her to enter, and
she soon after did. She had sought our advice. Whether that was
the persuasive advice or not, I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall, Mr. President, that
preceding that advice w^e had asked China, as one of the neutral
nations, to sever diplomatic relations with Germany ?
The President. Whether we had asked her ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir.
The President. I do not recall. Senator. I am sure Mr. Lansing
can tell, though, from the records of the department.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know, Mr. President,
whether or not our Government stated to China that if China would
enter the war we would protect her interests at the peace conference ?
The President. We made no promises.
wSenator Johnson of California. No representations of that sort ?
The President. No. She knew that we would as well as we could.
She had every reason to know that.
Senator Johnson of California. Pardon mo a further question:
You did make the attempt to do it, too; did you not?
The President. Oh, indeed I did; very seriously.
Senator Johnson of California. And the decision ultimately
reached at the peace conference was a disappointment to you ?
The President. Yes, sir; I may frankly say that it was.
Senator Johnson of California. You would have preferredTas 1
think most of us would, that there had been a different conclusion
of the Shantung provision, or the Shantung difficulty or controversy,
at the Paris peace conference ?
XBEAT7 OF PEACE WITH QBSMANY. 527
The President. Yes; I frankly intimated that.
Senator Johnson of Cahfomia. Did it require the unanimous
consent of the members of the peace conference to reach a decision
Uke the Shantung decision ?
The President. Every decision: yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of Cahfomia. Do you recall, Mr. President, prior
to the decision on the territorial question of Shantung, or of German
rights in Shantung, the racial equaUty question coming before the
peace conference ?
The President. I remember that at one of the sessions called
plenary sessions a resolution regarding that matter was introduced
by the Japanese representatives, but rather as an expression of
opinion or nope, and it was not pressed for action.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, the press at that
time stated that it had gone to a vote — and I trust some one will
correct me if I am in error — and that the vote was 11 to 6 upon the
proposition. The dispatches at that time were to that effect.
The President. I was misled. Senator. You are referring to the
commission on a league of nations V
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
The President. There was a vote there. There never was a vote
on any subject in the peace conference.
Senator Johnson of California. I confounded the two.
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. May I ask, if permissible, how the
representatives of the United States voted upon that particular
proposition ?
The President. Senator, I think it is very natural you should
ask that. I am not sure that I am at hberty to answer, because that
touches the intimacv of a ereat many controversies that occurred in
that conference, and I think it is best, in the interest of international
good understanding, that I should not answer.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know, Mr. President,
whetner or not the American commission at Paris urged that a defi-
nite sum of reparation be fixed in the treaty ?
The President. It did.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state, if appropriate, why
that view did not prevail ?
Tne President. No, Senator, I can not; and yet I disUke to
decline, because it may create a misapprehension on your part. Let
me see if I can explain it, without indiscretion : I w;o\ud be very glad,
fentlemen, to tell you all about it, if you will leave it out of the notes.
lay I do that? — because I do not wish. to leave any wrong impression
on your minds. The explanation is perfectly simple.
^nator Brandeoee. What is the question, please ?
The PREsroENT. The question is, Why was tne poUcy urged by the
United States, that we fix a definite sum of reparation in the treaty,
not adopted ?
Senator Borah. I would be content to have it left out of the notes
upon yoiu: request; but I am afraid it would still get to the pubhc,
and that would put us in an embarrassing position.
The President. It is not an explanation discreditable to anybody,
but it is an international secret. 1 am quite at hberty to say that the
United States financial representatives — ^who. by the way, made an
524 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
The President. None, whatever. The only agreements that I can
imagine he was referring to are contained in the exchanges of notes
which occurred between the Japanese and Chinese Governments in
1915 and 1918 with regard to the method and conditions of the re-
turn of Shantung Province to China.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Mr. President, I think it should be said also
that later on in his testimony, either in answer to a question by
Senator Pomerene, or perhaps in response to a question oy Senator
Swanson, while the witness, Dr. Millard, stated that he deemed them
regional imderstandings — those that he had in mind — he said very
emphatically that they were totally imlike the Monroe doctrine,
ana would not come imder that category.
The President. And in his sense every treaty that concerns ter-
ritory anywhere affects a region, and is a regional xmderstanding;
but that IS a very broad and vague meaning to attach to the word.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, I am quite hesi-
tant about asking certain questions which I wish to ask. I apol-
ogize in advance for asking them, and I trust you will stop me at
once if they are questions which you deem inappropriate, or that
ought not to be asked.
The President. Thank you.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. First, we have pending now treaties
of peace with Austria, with Hungary, with Bulgaria, and with the
Ottoman Empire, all of which involve tremendous new territorial
adjustments; and under those new territorial adjustments we will
have our obligations, moral or otherwise, imder the lea^e of nations^
of course. Tne new territorial adjustments about to be determined
upon in these various treaties are really greater in extent, or quite as
important, at least, as those that are provided for by the Uerman
treaty; are they not?
The President. I should say so ; ves.
Senator Johnson of California. They will deal not only with the
creation of the boundaries of new nations, but possibly with the
subject of mandatories, too?
The President. Well, the treaties will not themselves deal with
the mandatories. That is a matter that will bo decided by the
league.
Senator Johnson of California. Oh, yes.
The President. But the treaties will no doubt create certain
territories which fall under the trusteeship which will lead to mantia-
tories.
Senator Johnson of California. So that there is a very important —
in fact, the most important — part of the territorial world settlement
yet to be made ?
The President. Well, in extent, yes, Senator; so far as the amount
of territory covered is concerned, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Not only in extent, but in their
character, and in the numbers of peoples involved, too, Mr. President.
Is not that accurate ?
The President. Well, vou may be right, Senator; I do not know.
Senator Johxson of California. I think you answered to Senator
Borah the question I am about to ask, so pardon me if it is repetitive.
It is this: Was the United States Grovernment officially informed, at
TBBAT7 OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 525
any time between the rupture of diplomatic relations with Grermany
and the signing of the armistice , ot agreements made by the alUed
Governments in regard to the settlement of the war ?
The President. No ; not so far as I know.
Senator Johnson of California. So far as you are aware, was it
unofficially informed during that period ?
The President. I would be more clear in my answer, Senator, if I
knew just what you were referring to.
Senator Johnson of California. I am referring to the so-called
secret treaties which disposed of territory among the belligerents.
The President. You mean like the treaty of London ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; like the London pact.
The President. No; no, sir.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Could you state whether or not
any official investigation was made by our Government to ascertain
whether or not there were any such treaties of territorial disposition ?
The President. There was no such investigation.
Senator Johnson of California. These specific treaties, then — the
Treaty of London, on the basis of which Italy entered the war; the
agreement with Roumania, in August, 1916; the various agreements
in respect to Asia Minor, and the i^eements consummated in the
winter of 1917 between France and Russia relative to the frontiers of
Geimany, and particularly in relation to the Saar Vallev and the left
bank of the Rhine — ^none of these did we (and when I say *'we" I
mean you, Mr. President) have any knowledge of prior to the con-
ference at Paris ?
The President. No, sir. I can confidently answer that *'No," in
regard to myself.
Senator McCumber. Senator Johnson, may I ask the President
right here whether or not after we entered into the war any treaties
were made between any of our cobelUgerents that were not given
to us.
The President. No, sir; I do not know of any.
Senator McCumber. Then the secret treaties that vou have
reference to were made prior to the time we entered into the war ?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. After that, our cobelUgerents withheld
nothingfrom us; did they?
The JPresident. They entered into no agreements.
Senator Borah. Well, you asked, Senator, if they withheld any-
thing from us. They withheld all that they had had previously ?
The President. IMo, no; but he means, Did they withhold any
agreement that they made after we entered the war ?
Senator McCumber. That is just what 1 meant.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. We do not know of any engage-
ments which have been made subsequent to our entering into the war ?
The President. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Those that I have referred to —
and I say this. Senator, so that you will have no error in respect to
it — ^I referred wholly, I think, to the treaties that were prior to our
entry into the war.
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. Were you familiar, Mr. President,
please, with any agreements that were made by the aUied Govern-
526 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
ments with the Czecho-Slovak National Council, the Polish National
Council, and the Jugo-Slav National Committee ?
The President. J was aware of arrangements similar to those that
we had ourselves made recognizing those national committees as
provisional representatives of the people.
Senator Johnson of California. But merely as recognizing govern*
ments, and that these committees represented the peoples of the
various countries ?
The President. Yes; and the recognition was purely informal-
It was not an international recognition, but an agreement to deal
with them as representatives.
Senator Johnson of Cahfornia. When our Government through
?rou, Mr. President, in January, 1918, made the 14 points as the basis
or peace, were those points made with the knowledge of the existence
of the secret agreements ?
The President. No; oh, no.
Senator Johnson of California. It was not intended, then, by the
expression of these 14 points, to supplant the aims contained in the
secret treaties ?
The President. Since I knew nothing of them, necessarily not.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; quite so. Do you know, Mr.
President, or is it permissible for us to be told, whether France has
special military agreements with Poland and Czecho-Slovakia ?
The President. I know of none, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Did China enter the war upon our
advice — the advice of the United States ?
The President. I can not tell, sir. We advised her to enter, and
she soon after did. She had sought our advice. \\Tiether that was
the persuasive advice or not, I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall, Mr. President, that
preceding that advice we had asked China, as one of the neutral
nations, to sever diplomatic relations with Germany ?
The President. Whether we had asked her ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir.
The President. I do not recall. Senator. I am sure Mr. Lansing
can tell, though, from the records of the department.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know, Mr. President,
whether or not our Government stated to China that if China would
enter the war we would protect her interests at the peace conference ?
The President. We made no promises.
Senator Johnson of California. No representations of that sort ?
The President. No. She knew that w^e would as well as we could.
She had every reason to know that.
Senator Johnson of California. Pardon me a further question:
You did make the attempt to do it, too; did you not ^
The President. Oh, indeed I did; very seriously.
Senator Johnson of CaUfoinia. And the decision ultimately
reached at the peace conference was a disappointment to you ?
The President. Yes, sir; I may frankly say that it was.
Senator Johnson of California. You would have preferred,ras I
think most of us would, that there had been a different conclusion
of the Shantung provision, or the Shantung difficulty or controversy,
at the Paris peace conference ?
TS&AXY OF PEACE WITH GBBBCAITY. 527
The President. Yes: I frankly intimated that.
Senator Johnson oi CaHfomia. Did it require the unanimous
consent of the members of the peace conference to reach a decision
Uke the Shantung decision i
The President. Every decision; yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you recall, Mr. President, prior
to the decision on the territorial question of Shantung, or of German
rights in Shantung, the racial equality question coming before the
peace conference ?
The President. I remember that at one of the sessions called
plenary sessions a resolution regarding that matter was introduced
by the Japanese representatives, but rather as an expression of
opinion or hope, and it was not pressed for action.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, the press at that
time stated that it had gone to a vote — and I trust some one will
correct me if I am in error — and that the vote was 11 to 6 upon the
proposition. The dispatches at that time were to that effect.
The President. I was misled. Senator. You are referring to the
commission on a league of nations i
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
The President. There was a vote there. There never was a vote
on any subject in the peace conference.
Senator Johnson oi California. I confounded the two.
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. May I ask, if permissible, how the
representatives of the United States voted upon that particular
proposition ?
The President. Senator, I think it is very natural you should
ask that. I am not sure that I am at hberty to answer, because that
touches the intimacv of a ereat many controversies that occurred in
that conference, and. I think it is best, in the interest of international
good understanding, that I should not answer.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know, Mr. President,
whetner or not the American commission at Paris urged that a defi-
nite sum of reparation be fixed in the treaty ?
The President. It did.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state, if appropriate, why
that view did not prevail ?
Tne President. No, Senator, I can not; and yet I disUke to
decline, because it may create a misapprehension on your part. Let
me see if I can explain it, without indiscretion: I woiud be very glad,
fentlemen, to tell you all about it, if you wiU leave it out of the notes.
fay I do that ? — because I do not wish, to leave any wrong impression
on your minds. The explanation is perfectly simple.
Senator Brandeoee. What is the question, please ?
The President. The question is, w hy was tne poUcy urged by the
Qnited States, that we fix a definite sum of reparation in tne treaty,
not adopted ?
Senator Borah. I woidd be content to have it left out of the notes
upon your request; but I am afraid it would still get to the public,
and that would put us in an embarrassing position.
The President. It is not an explanation discreditable to anybody,
but it is an international secret. I am quite at hberty to say that the
United States financial representatives — ^who. by the way, made an
528 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
admirable impression upon everybody over there — did advocate the
fixing of a definite sum for reparation.
Senator Fall. Mr. President, may I ask, to clear up a difficulty
in my own mind, whether you regard the answering of these ques-
tions as an indiscretion because of the fact that there are other
negotiations pending which might be affected ?
The President. Oh, no, sir; simply because they affect the internal
political affairs of other countries.
Senator Fall. Then, in your judgment, these matters should
never be given publicity ?
The President. Matters of this sort.
Senator Fall. I say, matters of this sort that have been referred to,
should, in your judgment, never be ^iven pubUcity; and it is not
because of pendmg or other negotiations?
The President. Oh, no; I think they should not be given pub-
licity.
Senator Johnson of California. I thank you very much, Mr.
President. That is all I desire to ask.
The President. You have been very considerate in putting your
questions.
Senator Fall. Mr, President, as I suggested, I have prepared
several written questions, for the purpose of concentrating my own
ideas, and several of them, I may say, are somewhat in sequence,
and I feel that if we are going to hold hearings all day — mat is,
if we are all going to have the time and do not get into arg[uinents
amonj; ourselves — ^possibly it might be just to you to submit these
questions, as J have prepared them, to ^ou first, and allow you to
look them over before I pursue the line of inquiry. However, that is,
of course, entirely with you. They do not all refer directly to pro-
visions of the treaty nor to the construction of the treaty, but to other
matters relating to the treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. Before you do that. Senator, with
the President's permission may I ask one or two more questions con-
cerning Shantung which I omitted or forgot t
The President. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. First, did Japan decline to sign
the award as made or provided in the peace treaty ?
The President. Her representatives informed us, Senator, that
thev were instructed not to sign in that event.
^nator Johnson of California. Was the determination finally
reached a balancing of the difficulties or the disadvantages that
might arise because of the balancing of those advantages or dis-
advantages t
The President. I do not know that I could answer that either
''yes" of ''no,'* Senator. It was a matter of many conversations
and of many arguments and persuasions.
Senator Johnson of California. Was the decision reached — ^if you
will pardon the perfectly blunt question — because Japan declinea to
sign unless that decision was reached in that way ?
The President. No ; I do not think it would be true to say ''yes "
to that question. It was reached because we thought it was the
best that could be got, in view of the definite engagements of Great
Britain and France, and the necessity of a unanimous decision, which
we held to be necessary in every case we have decided.
TBBAXY OF PBAOB WITH QBBMAHY. 529
Senator Johnson of California. Great Britain and France adhered
to their original engajzementS; did they not ?
The President. Tney said that they did not feel at liberty to
disregard them.
Senator Johnson of California. And you, Mr. President, were the
one who was endeavoring to determine — I gather this from the news
dispatches — the question upon its merits and its justice.
The President. Our Government was the only Government free
under the circumstances; yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir. Do you mind stating,
or would you prefer not, what it was that caused you ultimately to
accede to the decision that was demanded by Japan ?
Ilie President. Only the conclusion that I tnought that it was
the best that could be got under the circumstances.
Senator Brandegee. May I interpolate there without disturbing
you. Senator Johnson ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. In Part 6 of the hearings before our com-
mittee, on page 182, Senator Johnson of California questioned Secre-
tary Lansing. (Reading:)
Senator Johnson of California. Waa the Shantung decision made in order to have
the Japanese signatures to the league of nations?
Secretarv Lansing. That I can not say.
Senator ^Tohnson of California. In your opinion was it?
Secretary Lansing. I would not want to say that, because I really have not the
facts on which to form an opinion alons that line.
Senator Johnson of California. Would the Japanese signatures to the league of
nations have been obtained if you had not made the Shantung agreement?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. You do?
Secretary Lansing. I think so.
Senator Johnson of California. So that even though Shantung had not been de-
livered to Japan, the league of nations would not have been injured?
Secretary Lansing. I do not think so.
Senator Johnson of California. And you would have had the same signatories that
yon have now?
Secretary Lansing. Yes; one more, China.
Senator 3'ohnson of California. One more, China. So that the result of the Shan-
tung derision was simply to lose China's signature rather than to gain Japan's?
Secretary Lansing. 'That is my personal view, but I may be wrong about it.
Senator Johnson of California, why did you yield on a quefltion on which you
thought you ought not to yield and that you thought was a principle?
Secretary Lansing. Because naturally we were subject to the direction of the
President of the United States.
Senator Johnson of California. And it was solely because you felt that you were
subject to the decision of the President of the United States that you yielded?
Secretary Lansing. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. The decision is his?
Secretary Lansing. Necessarily.
Now, I wondered whether Secretary Lansing was well informed
about this question or not?
The President. Well, my conclusion is different from his, sir.
Senator Brandegee. You coula not have got the signature of
Japan if you had not given Shantung ?
The PREsroENT. That is my judgment.
Senator Brandegee. You say you were notified to that effect?
The President. Yes, sir.
136546—19 34
580 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Swanson. As I understand, you were notified that they
had instructions not to sign unless this was included.
The President. Yes.
Senator Borah. And was it your judgment that after the treaty
had been ratified, China's rights would be protected and Japan would
surrender to China what she said she would ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Swanson. As I understand it, you consider this verbal
agreement effective as relating to Shantung and you understood that
tnis conveyance would be followed by a conveyance to China.
The President. Not to supersede it, but the action by Japan is to
follow.
Senator Johnson of California. I beg your pardon, what was your
question ?
Senator Swanson. The conveyance or retransfer of the German
possessions in Shantung is to be followed by Japan's conveyance of
this back to China, according to this agreement. One is as effective
as the other.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; but, Mr. President, you would
have much preferred to have a different disposition, notwithstanding
the promise of Japan in the treaty, would you not ?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator Fall, woidd this be a practical suggestion ? I have no ob-
I'ection to sitting here all day. Indeed, I have taken the liberty of
laving lunch prepared, if the gentlemen of the committee woula be
kind enough to join me. But since your questions are written, per-
haps you might leave them with me and let me give such answers as
I feel I can.
Senator Fall. Precisely, Mr. President. I can say to you, sir, that
I prepared the questions with some care for the purpose of informing
nayseif , and I thmk that it might not be entirely fair to you to answer
onhand a series of questions, when I have the theory m mind along
which I am propounding the questions — that is, one may lead to
another — and I think it would be only fair to vou that you might
have the questions so you can read them and follow it.
The President. Will you state the theory at the top [laughterl ?
Senator Fall. There are two or three theories. The nrst question
that I would like to ask is, ** In your judgment have you not the au-
thority by proclamation to declare in words that peace exists, and
thus restore the status of peace between the Government and the
people of this country and those with whom we declared war?*^ If
you choose, I will read the following question.
The President. That sets the key to them, I suppose.
Senator Fall. To several of them. Then there are others along
other lines, one of which leads to another.
The President. I would be happv to answer them as far as I can.
Senator Fall. That can be done later or now, just as you please.
Senator Williams. Suppose we take a recess.
The Chairman. I do not know whether there are any more ques-
tions.
The President. I had thought that I would send you in the
replies.
Senator Fall. That would certainly be satisfactory to me. You
would have no objection to the same publicity that is being given
now?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 531
The President. No.
Senator Fall. There are two or three different lines of questions.
Senator McCumber. You would probably get more clear informa-
tion if you take that method.
Senator Fall. I think so. They are not in any sense, Mr. President,
prepared as catch questions, otherwise I would not submit iJiem to
you. If you were on the stand, and I were cross-examining you as a
witness, I would prefer not to let you see the whole series of questions.
But I think that is fair, and so far as I am concerned if it is satis-
factory to you it would be more satisfactory to me.
Senator Brandegee. In reply to Senator Lodge's inquiry I jotted
down a few questions at random with the idea of asking some if tJiey
had not been touched upon by other members of the committee.
I have some that I would like to ask, but I want to conform to the
convenience of the President and the committee as to when it shall be
done. I do not mean to delay you on your luncheon hour or anything
of that kind.
The President. The luncheon hour is 1 o'clock, and I was in
hopes that you gentlemen would remain for lunch.
Senator 6randegee. I do not want to absorb the remaining time
if other vSenators want to go on now. I am perfectly willing to wait
until thev are finished.
Senator Harding. I would like to hear your questions.
Senator Brandegee. I am not sure what questions I will ask
except I made some notes.
Senator Williams. I would rather come back to-morrow morning
at half past 10.
Senator Hitchcock. We have an engagement to-morro^\ morning
for the committee.
The Chairman. I think we must have some consideration for the
President's time.
Senator Harding. I just want to reserve one (][uestion.
Senator Brandegee. Do you not want to ask it now ?
The Chairman. We have until 1 o'clock.
Senator Brandegee. T have here the President's statement
which he read to us when we met here this morning, and in it he
states:
Nothing?. I am led to believe, stands in the way of the ratification of the treaty
except certain doubts with regard to the meaning and implication of certain articles
of the covenant of the league of nations; and 1 must frankly say that I am unable
to understand why such doubts should be entertained.
Now, I do not believe the President is con^ectly informed as to
the situation if he believes that. There are things in the treaty
itself which militate against the ratification, in my opinion, of the
treaty without amendment. Did you have in mind, Mr. President,
when you read that to us, the Shantung provision of the treaty ?
The President. I certainly had that m mind. Senator, but I did
not understand that that stood in the way of ratification. I am, of
course, acting only upon such information as I have received.
Senator Brandegee. I understand — and th&t is the reason of
taking the liberty of suggesting to you that you may not be well
informed in this respect. Of course there is opposition by a great
many Senators to the entire covenant of the league of nations, which
I have no doubt you know, that is, article 1 of the treaty of Ver-
532 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
sailles. Then there is opposition to the various parts of the cove-
nants of the league and not to the whole league, by other Senators.
Then there is a great opposition, fundamental and sincere, to the
Shantung provision, which is in the body of the treaty itself, and
which can only be cured by an amendment. As I understand it,
no reservation that we could make in the resolution of ratification
would be effective to strike out the Shantung provision. It must
be cured, if it is cured, by a straight out-and-out amendment, striking
that from the treaty. That, of course, would necessitate the re-
submission of the treaty to the signatories who have already signed it.
Now, you state later on that every suggestion of the United States
was accepted, that is after you went back, after you had your con-
ference with us last March, and having obtained our views as to the
necessity for certain changes in the firat draft of the covenant, you
state [reading] :
The view of the United States with regard to the questions I have mentioned had,
in fact, already been accepted by the commission and there was supposed to be nothing
inconsistent with them in the draft of the covenant first adoptea.
And omitting a few lines which do not apply to that you say
[reading] :
There was absolutely no doubt as to the meaning of any one of the resulting pro-
visions of the covenant in the minds of those who participated in drafting them, and
I respectfully submit that there is nothing vague or doubtful in their wording.
Of course that is your opinion, if I may say so.
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. But you are familiar with the statements,
I have no doubt, that ex-Senator Root, Chief Justice Hughes, Mr.
Taft, and other able lawyers of the coimtry have made with respect
to the necessity for reservations if we are to ratify the treaty, are
you not ?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. That is, you admit that there are grave
doubts among the ablest lawyers of the country as to the necessitv for
reservations or the alternative between reservations and ratifying
the whole treaty, as it is expressed in the vernacular, without the
dotting of an *'i'' or the crossing of a *'t.''
The President. I admit that there are those difficulties in a
great many minds.
Senator Brandegee. Now, of course, it is true, is it not, that if
difficulties arise as to the construction of any provision of the treaty
after we have passed from the scene, what we thought the provisions
of the treaty or of the covcnent meant, will notice very powerful
in the construction that may be placed upon it by those who then
have to determine what it means, will it ?
The President. The vote of the United States will be essential.
Senator Brandegee. I do not mean that. The fact that j-ou
think now that everything in the treaty is plain and that there is
no doubt about the meaning of any provisions, and the fact that I
think there is grave doubt about many of the provisions, will not
seriously affect the opinion of the council or of the arbitrator that
finally passes upon the true meaning of the treaty when dispute
arises.
The President. No, Senator; but the plain wording of the treaty
will have a great deal to do, and the meaning of the wording is plain.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKY. 533
Senator Brandeoee. That is simply another way of stating, is it
not, that vou are clear in your opinion that the provisions of the treaty
are plain ) But I am suggesting that there will be a dispute between
nations as to what the treaty means after we have passed from the
scene.
The President. No, sir; it is a question of being confident of
what language means, not confident of an opinion.
Senator Brandeoee. I mean, we derive our opinions as to the
meanings of the treaty from the language of the treaty, do we not ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Now they would derive their construction
of what the treaty means from the language of it, we not being
there ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. So that what we think about it now will not
be determinative in an international court or before an arbitrator 20
years hence in case of a dispute between two nations as to the mean-
me of the treaty ?
The President. Certainly not, but the language will.
Senator Brandeoee. Of course they will have the language before
them, but the language which determines it is now in dispute be-
tween you and certain lawyers of the coimtry and certain Senators
as to its meaning. Now what provision is there in the treaty for
the determination of a dispute as to the interpretation of a clause
of the treaty if such dispute arises ?
The President. The covenant states that there are certain ques-
tions which are acknowledged as being especially suitable for sub-
mission to arbitration. One of those is the meamng of the treaty.
Senator Brandeoee. What does the treaty provide about that?
The President. You have it there, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Yes, sir; I wondered if you remembered it.
The President. I think I do so, but you have the language.
Senator Brandeoee. Yes. Article 12 of the league provides
[reading] :
The membere of the league agree that if there should arise between them any dis-
pute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to
inquiry by the council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months
after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the council.
That is, if there is a dispute, as I construe this, between members
of the league as to the meaning of the covenant or any article thereof,
it shall be referred to the arbitrators.
The President. Only if the parties aOTee.
Senator Bra'Ndeoee. Or to tne coimcfl ?
The President. Or to the council; yes.
Senator Brandeoee. That is, the council is to determine the mean-
ing of the covenant?
The President. No, Senator; I beg your pardon. There are two
processes. If the parties .agree to submit to arbitration, of course
it is submitted to arbitration, and the decision is final. If they
think it is a question that they are not willing to submit to arbitra-
tion, then they must submit it to the council for an expression of
opinion and a recommendation, but that opinion and recommenda-
tion do not bind.
Senator Brandeoee. Is there any possible way authoritatively
of determining without war what the treaty means ?
534 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The President. That is true of every treaty, Senator. If you
re-express it in the language of the Senators to whom you refer and
there is a dispute about the meaning of that, the same would apply.
You can not use any language, I assume, which could not possibly
give rise to some sort of mspute.
Senator Brandegee. I assume that if it provided that if there
should arise between the members of the league any dispute in rela-
tion to the construction of any article of the covenant of the league
of nations, such dispute should be referred to an arbitrator, and the
members would agree to be boimd by its decision; that would be an
agreement for an authoritative determination of what the treaty
meant.
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Now, as it is they will submit the matter
either to arbitration or to inouiry by the council, and so forth. Now,
you say that the opinion of tne council to which the dispute has been
submitted is only advisory?
The President. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Then suppose one party to the dispute
against whom the council decides declines to abide by it?
The President. Then there is war, but not within three months
of the opinion of the coimcil.
Senator Brandegee. Under article 10 the members of the league
undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the
territorial integrity and existing political independence oi all members
of the league. That is a contract between the si^atories. We say:
"We undertake to preserve the territorial integrity of the members
against external aggression,'' which means that we contract to do it,
does it not ?
The President. We engage to do it.
Senator Brandegee. It means an international contract, does it
not, a compact, an agreement?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Whether that is a moral or legal obligation,
it is an obligation ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Of course, it is a moral duty to keep a
Eromise, and this is an international promise; so that tne distinction
etween a moral obligation and a legal one seems to me to be not of
great importance, because we are obligated in anv event.
The President. Pardon me; I think it is oi the greatest im-
portance, because the element of judgment enters into it as it does
not in the other.
Senator Brandegee. You mean the judgment as to whether or
not it is a moral obligation ?
The President. No. For example, a ciuestion is submitted to
arbitration and it is agreed that the decision shall be final. The
judgment of one of the parties to the coatroversjr mav be that the
decision is a very bad one, but it has to accept it; the element of
{'udgment is excluded altogether; but, with r^ard to the method of
ulmling the obligations of a covenant like that under consideration
there is freedom of judgment on the part of the individual members
of the league. It seems to me that makes a very considerable differ-
ence.
TBBATY OF FEAOB WITH GEBSCAlSrY. 535
Senator Habdino. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt right
there ?
Senator Bbandegee. I will.
Senator Habdino. I dislike to interrupt the Senator.
Senator Bbandegee. I yield to the Senator.
Senator Habding. The President expressed a while ago surprise
that I raised a question as to the value of this compact oecause of
the moral obligation feature. Let me premise by the statement that
I look upon a moral obligation as that which tne conscience of the
contractme party impels. The conscience of any nation in Europe,
for example, may be warped by its prejudices, racial, geographical,
and otherwise. If that be true and any nation may put aside or
exercise its judgment as to the moral obligation in accepting any
recommendation of the league, really what do we get out of this
international compact in the enforcement of any decree }
The Pbesident. We get the centering upon it generally of the
definite opinion of the world, expressed through the authoritative
oi^ans of the responsible governments.
senator Habding. Another question: That is surrendering the
suggestion of a moral* obligation tor this Republic to the prejudices or
necessities of the nations of the Old World, is it not?
The Pbesident. I do not understand that we make such a sur-
render.
Senator Habding. Would vou not understand a decree by the
council to be a suggestion of tnis moral obligation ?
The Pbesident. Certainly I would, but we would have to concur
in that before it had any force of any kind.
Senator Habding. Would it not be quite as moral for this Republic
itself to determine its moral obligations ?
The Pbesident. Undoubtedlv, Senator; but in the meantime the
world would not have the knowledge before it that there will be con-
certed action by all the responsible governments of the world in the
protection of the peace of the world. The minute you do away with
that assurance to the world you have reached the situation which
produced the German war.
Senator Habding. What becomes of our standing among nations if
the council fixes a moral obligation upon us and we reject the judg-
ment of the coimcil as to the moral obligation ?
The Pbesident. Pardon me if I remind you that we always have
to concur in that.
Senator Habding. Precisely; but the council state what consti-
tutes the moral obligation, if we agree; but if we do not agree, then,
in the eyes of the world we have rejected its judgment as to a moral
obligation.
The Pbesident. Certainly; and I hold that we are at liberty to
do that, if our moral judgment honestly differs fi-om the moral judg-
ment of the world.
Senator Habding. Then, let us go back to the original inquiry.
What permanent value is there, then, to this compact?
Thel^BEsiDENT. The greatest permanent value. Senator, is the
point that I have raised. We are assuming that the United States
will not concur in the general moral judgment of the world. In my
opinion, she generally will. If it had been known that this war was
coming on, her moral judgment would have concurred with that of
536 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the other Governments of the world, with that of the other peoples
of the world; and if Germany had known that there was a possibility
of that sort of concurrence, she never would have dared to do what
she did. Without such notice served on the powers that may wish
to repeat the folly that Germany commenced, there is no assurance
to the world that there will be peace even for a generation, whereas
if they know beforehand that there will be that concert of judgment,
there is the most tremendous guaranty.
Senator Harding. But, Mr. Presiaent, nobody expressed for us
our moral obligation to enter into this war. That was our own
expression, was it not ?
The President. Certainly; it was our concurrence in the judg-
ment of the world.
Senator Harding. One of the points I am getting at, if I can
make it clear, is the necessity of a written compact for this Republic
to fulfill its moral obligations to civilization.
The President. Senator, this Republic, if I interpret it rightly,
does not need a suggestion from any quarter to fulfill its moral
obligations.
Senator Harding. I quite agree with that.
The President. But it steadies the whole world by its promise
beforehand that it will stand with other nations of similar judgment
to maintain right in the world.
Senator Fall. Mr. President, then if the commissioner of the
United States on the council were to join with the other members
of the coimcil in fixing a moral ooligation upon the United States,
and the Congress and the President, acting as part of the legislative
branch of the Government, were to reject that judgment, would it
not have a very disastrous effect upon the league, tnrow the world
into chaos, and imdo all that has been done?
The President. It might; but you are assuming a case
Senator Fall. Certainly; we have to assume cases.
The President. Where we wotdd have to assume that responsi-
bility, because, being part of the Government, we would in every
case really express the judgment of the American people, and if the
unhappy time should ever come when that judgment is against the
judgment of the rest of the world we would have to express it.
Senator Fall. Certainly. Mr. President, I am possibly looking,
as Bacon said, at a distance.
Senator McCumber. Would our moral conviction of the unright-
eousness of the German war have brought us into this war if Ger-
many had not committed any acts against us, without the league of
nation.^, as, of course, we had no league of nations at that time ?
The President. I hope it woula eventually. Senator, as things
developed.
Senator McCumber. Do you think if Germany had committed no
act of war or no act of injustice against our citizens that we would
have gotten into this war ?
The President. I do think so.
Senator McCumber. You think we would have gotten in anyway i
The President. I do.
Senator Brandegee. If I may be allowed to resume, for I kept still
all morning-
Senator Fall. If the Senator will pardon me a moment, I am going
to ask the President to excuse me, as I have an engagement.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY. 537
The President. I am sorry, Senator, that you are obliged to leave.
Senator Fall. I regret, sir, that I have an engagement with my
wife, who is not in very good health.
Senator Brandeoee. Now, if I may proceed without interruption,
which breaks the continuity of my thought and usee a great deal of
time, I will be through in a very few minutes. As I understand the
President, his construction of article 10 is that if the council considers
the question of external aggression upon a member of the league, we,
having signed this treaty with aiticle 10 in it, in which we undertake
to preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity of all
members of the league, can then say, it is a moral question mto which
the element of judgment enters and we, considering our judgment
binding at the time, do not care to agree to the recommendation of
the council. If every men^ber of the league is at liberty to take that
view of its moral and legal obligations under article 10, and declines
to do what the council recommends, and if it is known in advance
that that is the construction placed upon article 10 by those who
framed it, it does not seem to me — and this is merely my opinion —
that the terror to wrongdoers by what is hoped to be the united,
concerted action of the members of the league in the concentration
of its powers to suppress the wrongdoer wilihave the effect that the
President thinks it will. In other words, I do not think that Germany
would have refrained from war if she had known that article 10 was
in existence.
Article 10 says:
In case of any such aggression, or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression,
the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled .
There is no doubt that that is an obligation in a contract, and I
know of but one way to perform an obligation that you have con-
tracted to perform, and that is to perform it. I do not think that
it admits of any qualifications after you sign the treatj^. I want to
call attention also to the fact that the external aggression which we
undertake, if we sign this treaty, to repel or guarantee against is not
stated in the treaty at all to be an unwarranted aggression. I wish
to ask the President if the league were in existence and Hungary and
Roumania were members of it, and Roumania were in the position she
now is, having raided the territorial integrity of Hungar;y^ and marched
through its capital and occupied it, and the council, as its duty would
be under the covenant, considered what was best to be done and
advised us to send immediately to cooperate with them 100,000 men,
whether we would be at liberty to discuss whether we were morally
bound by article 10 of the covenant and decline to send the men, and,
if we were, could we do it without risking being called an "inter-
national slacker" by the other members of the league?
The President. Senator, since you have made the case a concrete
one I am afraid I ought not to answer it, because it involves a judg-
ment as between Roumania and Hungary.
Senator Brandegee. I withdraw the names of the two countries,
and assume the circumstances.
The President. Let me say that I take it for granted that in
practically every case the United States would respond; but that does
not seem to be the Question. I quite agree with you that a moral
obligation is to be fumlled, and I am confident that our Nation will
538 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
fulfill it, but that does not remove from each individual case the
element of judgment which we are free to exercise in two stages : We
are, first, free to exercise it in the vote of our representative on the
council, who will of course act under instructions from the home Gov-
ernment; and, in the second place, we are to exercise it when the
President, acting upon the action of the council, makes his recom-
mendation to Congress. Then, Congress is to exercise its judgment
as to whether or not the instructions of the Executive to our member
of the council were well-founded, and whether the case is one of
distinct moral obligation.
Senator Brandeoee. Suppose that each member of the council,
as you say, acting under mstructions from its home Government,
including our representative on the coimcil, should think, for instance,
that Rumania was entirely right in some invasion of Hungary, and
public sentiment was that way, but that bur Government instructed
our representative to vote with the foreign members of the coimcil
to support Hungary — suppose the pubhc sentiment of the other
members and of the people of this country were in favor of Roumania,
what sort of a position would we be in to fulfill our guaranty ?
The President. In order to answer that question I must go a little
bit afield. In the first place, I understand that article to mean that
no nation is at liberty to invade the territorial integrity of another.
That does not mean to invade for purposes of warfare, but to impair
the territorial integrity of another nation. Its territorial integrity
is not destroyed by armed intervention; it is destroyed by the
retention of territory, by taking territory away from it; that impairs
its territorial integrity. I understand the covenant to mean that
that is in no case pennissible by the action of a single nation against
another; that there is only one permissible method and that is, if
territorial arrangements are unsatisfactory, that they should be
brought to the attention of the world through the league and that then
the lea^e should exercise such rights as it may be able to exercise for
a readjustment of boundaries.
I beheve that territorial aggression, in the sense of territorial
capture, is, by the wording of the act, made illegitimate.
Senator Braxdegee. Tne words are not ** territorial aggression,"
but ** external aggression.''
The President. But it says the preservation of its territorial
integrity against external aggression.
Senator Brandegee. Suppose the external aggressor, having got-
ten within the territory of tne aggressee, stays tnere ?
The President. Then that impairs the territorial integrity.
Senator Brandegee. Certainly; and then on a call by the council
for us to perform our international contract under article 10, if
CoDjgress does not favor performing it you think we would not be
subject to criticism by the other members of the league ?
The President. Oh, we might be subject to criticism; but I
think Congress would be at liberty to form its own judgment as to
the circumstances.
Senator Brandegee. I agree with you entirely, and under our
Constitution Congress would have to do so.
The President. Yes ; that is understood by all.
Senator Brandegee. Of course; but I am assuming if the council
should advise us to do a certain thing, and Congress refused to do it —
and if every nation's representative assembly can do the same thing,
i'RKATY OF PEACE WITH OiEBMAJSTS. 589
it seems to me like a rope of sand and not an effective tribunal which
would result in promotmg peace.
The President. The reason I do not agree with you, Senator, is
that I do not think such a refusal would likely often occur. I believe
it would be only upon the gravest grounds — and in case Congress is
right, I am indifferent to foreign criticism.
S<mator Brandegee. Of coiffse, we would always think we were
right, I assume. Now, I wish to call your attention to article 15. I
do this simply because you think all these provisions are clear, and
I want to say m that connection that we had Mr. Miller, who described
himself as the technical expert or adviser to the American Peace
Commission, especially, I thmk, on questions of international law.
The President. The League of Nations.
Senator Brandeqee. We had him before our committee, and he
answered this question, that I am about to ask, in three different
wavs and we could not, of course, set much information from him;
an<l he promised to take it imder advisement and to give us his con-
sidered opinion, but he has not done so. Now, article 15, in the last
two paragraphs provides.
The council may in any case under this article refer the dispute to the assembly.
The dispute shall be so referred at the request of either party to the dispute, provided
that such request be made within 14 days after the submission of the dispute to the
council.
In any case referred to the assembly, all the provisions of this article and of article
12 relating to the action and powers of the council shall apply to the action and powers
of the assembly, provided that a report made by the assembly, if concurred in by the
retwreaentetives of those members of the league represented on the council and of a
majority of the other members of the league, exclusive in each case of the representa-
tives of the parties to the dispute, shall have the same force as a report by the council
concurred in by all the momoers thereof other than the representatives of one or more
of the parties to the dispute.
Now, in the first place, it says *' represented on the council and of a
majoritj of the other members of the league." Does that mean that
the various members of the league have got to act upon that as sepa-
rate Governments, or does it mean the representatives of the other
members of the league ?
The President. I do not quite understand that question.
Senator Brandegee. It says:
A report made by the assembly, if concurred in by the representatives of those
members of the league represented on the council and of a majority of the other mem-
bers of the league.
Does that mean there ^'and a majority of the other representatives
of members of the league in the assembly'' ?
The President. Yes; I assume so.
Senator Brandegee. But it does not sav so. It leaves it as though
the members of the league could act independently of their repre-
sentatives and the assemoly.
The President. Oh, no.
Senator Brandegee. I assume it means what you say.
The President. Yes; I assume that.
Senator Brandegee. Very well. Now, the question: Supposing
there were a dispute between the United States and that portion of the
British Empire known as the United Blingdom — ^En^land, Ireland,
Scotland, and Wales — as to some right of one of our snips to enter an
English port, for instance, and that dispute should come before the
540 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
council, and, upon the request of Great Britain, it should be removed
to the assembly. The article I have just read provides for a report
concurred in ^'exclusive in each case of the representatives of the
parties to the dispute/'
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Now, all the self-governing colonies of
England, or at least five of them, have a vote in the assembly, and
the British Empire also has a vote. I assume in the case of the
dispute which I nave supposed, of course, the United States would be
excluded from voting, as neing a party to the dispute; and I assume
the British Empire would be excluded, but I am not sure.
The President. Yes, sir; that is what I assume.
Senator Brandeqee. Do you assume also that Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, and India would be excluded ?
The President. They are parts of the British Empire.
Senator Brandegee. They are parts of the British Empire, but
are they parties to the dispute which I have supposed to have arisen
between us and England ?
The President. I admit, Senator, that that is a complicated
question; but my judgment about it is quite dear. I think I can
give one instead of three answers.
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
The President. Disputes can arise only through the Governments
which have international representation. In other words, diplo-
matically speaking, there is only one ''British Empire.'' The parts
of it are but pieces of the whole. The dispute, therefore, in the case
you have supposed, would be between the United States as a diplo-
matic unit and the British Empire as a diplomatic unit. That is the
only ground upon which the two nations could deal with one another,
whether bv way of dispute or agreement. Therefore, I have assumed,
and confidently assumed, that the representatives of aU parts of the
British Empire would be excluded.
Senator Brandegee. I should think that would be only fair, and
I woidd assume that; but Mr. Miller answered that question by saying
first that he was in doubt; secondly, that the self-governing colonies
of Great Britain or of the British Empire would not be excluded,
because they were not parties to the dispute; and then, third, that
thev woxild be excluded because they were parts of the British Empire;
and if the legal adviser of the commission was that much confused, I
feel that I need not apologize for being confused myself.
The President. No; but the commission was not confused.
Senator Knox. May I sav this: I was not present at the meeting
when Mr. Miller testined. The fact is that while it is technically true,
as the President says, that the British self-governing colonies deal
diplomatically through the British foreign office, it is only true in a
most technical sense. They are absolutely autonomous, even in
their diplomatic dealings, as to matters that affect them. For ia-
stance, 1 remember when the Canadian reciprocity agreement was
negotiated in 1911, the delegjates sent to negotiate the agreement
were from Canada. Great Britain did not appear at the hearings or
conferences at all, and in every sense Canada was just as autono-
mous in conducting her international negotiations as she would have
been if she had been an absolutely independent government.
XBBATT OF FBACB WITH QESMMTZ. 541
The President. Yes; but this, you see, Senator, is a combinat^ion
ofifdefinite Governments that have definite international relations
withfeach other.
Senator Exox. But the fact that you give representation to Canada
and AustraUa and New Zealand and other autonomous self-governing
British colonies rather contradicts the idea, does it not, that they are
one Government ?
The President. I think not, sir; because in making up the con-
stitution of the council it was provided, to speak with technical
accuracy, that the five principal allied or associated Governments
should each have one representative in the league; and in the opening
paragraph of the treaty itself those powers are enumeratea, ana
amon^ others is the British Empire. * *The Empire of Great Britain,"
I think, is the technical term. Therefore, then* unity is established
by their representation in the council.
Senator Brandeoee. Mr. President, I read from the treaty
The Chairman. I was going to ask, if I may, what function do
these five dominions of the British Empire have in the assembly ?
The President. None, except the general powers of the assembly
itself.
The Chairman. They have votes in the assembly ?
The President. TTiey have votes, but in a matter involving the
British Empire, they would have but one vote among them.
The Chairman. But on all other matters, they would each have
one vote ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. I want to call the President's attention to
the first page of the treaty with Germany, which say^s, after the
preamble setting forth the desirability of the condition existing
being replaced by a just and durable peace, *'For this purpose, the
high contracting parties represented as foUows," and then it names
them, and in the list is ''His Majesty, the King of the United King-
dom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions
beyond the seas, Emperor of India, by his duly accredited officials,
and the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the
Dominion of South Africa, the Dominion of New Zealand/' etc. Now,
thev are ''high contracting parties'' ?
'f he President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. And if one of those high contracting parties
has a dispute with another of the high contracting parties, by what
inference are other high contracting parties made parties to the
dispute ?
The President. I think by the inference that I thought I estab-
lished, sir
Senator Brandegee. But, if you will allow me to say so, it does
not say that these parties, the self-governing British* colonies, shall
be excluded from participating in the deliberations because th6y
mav have some interest in the controversy.
The President. No.
Senator Brandegee. They must be parties to the dispute. Now,
if we have a dispute with Ii^ngland about the riffht of an American
ship to enter an English port, how can it be saia that New Zealand
or Australia is a party to that dispute?
542 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The President. Because, Senator, in case of the worst commg to
the worst, and war ensuing, we would be at war with all of them.
Senator Brandeoee. It may be that a blunder has been made in
creating such a situation. It would not be determinative, in my
opinion.
Now, on page 7 of the print that I have, which is Senate Document
No. 49, Sixty-sixth Congress, first session, the last thing in the treaty
is this statement:
From the coming into force of the present treaty the state of war will terminate.
From that moment and subject to the provisions of this treaty, official relations uith
Germany, and with any of the German States, will be resumed by the allied and
associated powers.
The treaty itself provides that when Germany and three of the
allied and associated powers have ratified the treaty it has come
into force.
The President. As between those parties.
Senator Brandeoee. It does not say so.
The President. I beg your pardon, I think it does.
Senator Brandeoee. Here it is, Mr. President. [Handing pamphlet
to the President.] I have read it, and there is no such language in
it that T can discover.
The President. No: not the part that you read; I did not mean
that: but in the part where the provision is referred to about ratifi-
cation by Germany and three ot the principal allied and associated
powers.
Senator Brandeoee. I have read that with some care, and I have
not seen it.
Senator Knox. The language to which the President refers is the
concluding paragraph of the treaty, and it provides that when the
process of ratification shall have been completed by Grermany and
anv three powers, the treaty shall come into force.
The President. As between them.
Senator Knox. No; I bog your pardon, Mr. President. In a sub-
sequent clause dealing with what I thhik is an entirely different
matter — that is, the adjustments as between the nations, not adjust-
ments as between the allied and associated powers and Germany — ^it
comes into force whenever the ratifications are made; but if you will
take the body of the treaty you will find that everything that Germany
is to do is to be done within a certain number of days after the rati-
fication has been made; and a certain number of months afterwards
she is to demobilize, give up her ships, and do all things that will
make her practically a noncombatant, w^ithin a number of days after
ratification by three of the powers ; so she is either at peace vnth the
world, or she is only partially at peace with the world; and as the?
requirements of the treaty are specific that she is to go out of the wai*
business altogether, there is a conclusive inference in my mind that
she is at peace with the world when those three ratifications have
been made.
The President. I can not agree with you there. You see, the
theory is this : That when three of the principal aUied and associated
powers ratify this treaty, Germany having ratified it, then the treaty
is in force; that is to say, she has then engaged to do the things
provided in the treaty, and her engagement is with those thr€^e
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 643
powers, among the rest, and she must then proceed to do what she has
promised; but it does not estabUsh peace between her and other
countries.
Senator Knox. I think that language shows that it estabHshes
peace and provides for a resumption of diplomatic and all other
rdations with Grermany. I intend, within a short time, to try to
make my views upon that clear.
TThe President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. I went into that question rather thoroughly —
''from the coming into force of the present treaty the state of war
will terminate.'' Then it says, '*From that moment, and subject
to the pro\'isions of this treaty, official relations with Germany and
with any of the German States will be resumed by the allie(i and
associated powers," which I assume means all of them.
Now, to revert to another point, Mr. President, have you any
knowledge — and I ask all these questions, of course, subject to your
determination as to whether it is proper for you to answer them, or to
make any statement about them
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Are the Austrian, Bulgarian, and Turkish
treaties, which I assume are in process of being made
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee (continuing). Intertwined with the covenant
of the league of nations as is the treaty with Germany ?
The President. The covenant of the league constitutes a part of
each of those treaties.
Senator Brandegee. Would you feel at liberty to state what per-
centage of progress they have made up to the present time, or now
nearly completed they are?
The President. I think they are all practically completed, Sena-
tor, with the exception of some debatable questions of territorial
boundaries.
Senator Brandegee. In as much as our Constitution provides that
treaties shall be made by the President by and with the advice and
consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, do you think that it is
constitutional for us to approve the Franco- American treatv which
provides that before it goes into operation — or substantially,! would
say, before it goes into operation — it must secure the approval of the
council of the league of nations.
The President. Why, yes ; we can consent. We have the sovereign
right to consent to any process that we choose, surely.
Senator Brandegee. We have the right to consent, but of course
the Senate has the constitutional right to ratify the treaty, negotiated
and presented by the Executive, but my point is, have we a right to
provide that in addition to the constitutional recjuirements for the
making of a valid treaty there shall also be required the consent of
the council of the league of nations, which the Constitution was not
aware of?
The President. If that is a part of the treaty; yes, I think we
have.
Senator Brandegee. But you do not think that the treaty can in
any way amend the Constitution or the constitutional requu'ements
for executing a treaty.
The President. No.
544 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandeoee. Then by what process of ratiocination do you
assume that the treaty can compel the consent of the council before
this covenant is approved ?
The President. Suppose you would determine that when any
group of nations adopted a treaty then we could adopt the treaty that
contained certain provisions that we wished to put in, and to make
the operation of the treaty contingent upon its acceptance by the
other nations in the group. It seems to me that that is an entirely
analogous case. In other words, I am assuming that we adopt the
treaty with Germany. In that case we will be members of the league.
We are in eflFect saying that we have become members of the league.
If the council of the league accepts this we agree to put it in force.
It is a means of being consistent with the thing that we have already
done in becoming a member of the league.
Senator Brandeoee. I get your viewpoint about that. Now, do
you think it is wise for us to adopt the Franco-American treaty which
m substance provides that we can not denounce it until the council
of the lea^e of nations gives us permission to do so or agrees to
denounce it.
The President. I do, Senator. I have a very strong feeling with
regard to our historical relations with France, and also a very keen
appreciation of her own sense of danger, and I think it would be one
of the handsomest acts of history to enter into that.
Senator Brandeoee. I feel just as cordially toward her heroic
conduct as anybody can. But that was not the question. The
question was whether it was wise to so tie ourselves to any foreign
nation as that we never could repudiate — I will not use the word
** repudiate*' — can never cancel our treaties without due notice,
without the consent of a body not yet created.
The President. Of course I am assuming that body will be cre-
ated before we adopt the Franco-American treaty, and in that case
that provision that you are alluding to is only a completion of the
idea of the treaty, namely, as I have been quoted as saying, tliis is
an agreement on our part to anticipate the advice of the council of
the league, as we shall take such and such measures to defend
France. Inasmuch as we are anticipating that, we are assuming
the action of the league, and therefore it is with the league and its
action that the whole matter is bound up, and I think that the pro-
vision you allude to, therefore, is consistent and almost logically
necessary.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, now, inasmuch as you have stated in
your message — and I have of course agreed to it and have no doubt
that it is true — that the Franco-American treaty is only designed for
temporary purposes, the defense of France until the league says that
it is competent to do it, or words to that effect
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Would it not be the part of prudence for us
to include in the Franco-American treaty, if it should be ratified, &
provision that it shall have some time limit put upon it, that it shall
exist for not more than 10 years, say. I assume ii the league is ever
^oing to be effective to preserve the territorial integrity and political
independence of its various members, it will be in the couiseof lO
years, and there is no objection to having some time limit on tlie
treaty.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 545
The PREsroENT. Only a psychological objection, the sentiment
between the two countries.
Senator Brandeoee. The other alternative is to guarantee it for-
ever or until the council of the league loosens us from it, is it not ?
The President. Yes; when the council of the lea^e will exist,
among other uses should be that the whole international influence
that could be brought to bear for the management of all these things
will be present there to bring about this rearrangement.
Senator Brandeoee. Yes; I imderstand that. But the fact that
we have a vote to loose oiurselves does not help us, as unanimous
action is required by nine gentlemen, any one of wnom can prevent us.
The President. No, Senator; but the diplomatic relations of the
different countries in that council wiU be such, if I may judge, that
those things may be accomplished.
Senator Brandeoee. That is an optimistic view to take, if you
will pardon my opinion about it.
The President. Perhaps it is.
Senator Brandeoee. I want to call your attention to the fact
that this era of good feeling which exists between the allied and
associated powers after their common experience and suiBTering in
this great war may not always exist, in view of future commercial
contests and separate interests of different nationalities which may
occur in the future, and what some of us feel is that we ought to be
careful in making tiiese definite international engagements, which we
are wisely determined to cany out in good faitn if we should make
them, and we feel that now is the time to imderstand exactly the
obligations we are to be held to before we affix our signature, and
J have no doubt that you agree to that.
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. I want to ask you a word or two about this
so-called American draft. The American draft of the league which
was sent to us in response to Senate resolution was the draft which
was submitted by the American commission to the conference abroad ?
The President. No.
Senator Brandeoee. It was the draft which was submitted by
you as the head of the American commission to the American com-
mission. Is that correct ?
The President. Why, Senator^t was done as all other things of
this sort were done over there. We circulated the draft among the
representatives of the 14 States who were represented in the general
league of nations, and they had 10 days or more to examine it. I
also submitted it to my colleagues, not for any formal discussion
but in order to have their opinion if they chose to express it. Then
when the commission got down to its real work they appointed a
committee.
Senator Brandeoee. Of the commission?
The President. No; of two officers of the commission. Well,
they did form a committee, but that committee employed the serv-
ices of two technical advisers. Mr. Miller was one of them and
Mr. Hurst — ^not the Mr. Hurst that Mr. Miller mentioned.
Senator Brandeoee. He gave his initials as C. J. B.
The President. I have forgjotten the initials.
Senator Brandeoee. He said he was an employee of the British
State Department.
1E5546— 19 35
546 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The President. Yes; he is a very able man. He was on the gen-
eral drafting committee of the treaty, and Mr. Miller took the vanous
documents that we have been reading and discussing and made a com-
bined draft and it was that combined draft which was the subject of
formal discussion and amendment and addition by the committee.
Senator Brandegee. And that was the combined draft, the one
that you sent to us the other day ?
The President. No; Secretary Lansing was asked for it.
The Chairman. It was a composite draft. It came in yesterday.
Senator Brandegee. I beg your pardon, I did not know about
it. Was there any draft, no matter how incomplete, any skeleton
draft or enumeration or substance for a draft for the so-called
American plan for the covenant of the league of nations which you
took with you from this country or was prepared over there by you t
The President. Only the one that I referred to earlier m this
conference. Senator, when I had taken the Phillimore report as more
or less of a basis of my work.
Senator Brandegee. That was the only thing that you had in
the nature of a skeleton draft when you left the country ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Did the Phillimore draft or report, whatever
the proper term may be, contain anything like what is now article 10
of the covenant of the league ?
The President. 1 do not remember.
Senator Brandegee. You do not remember whether there was
anvthing like that in that ?
The President. Let me say this in regard to article 10. I believe
this to be a part of the history of it. It is so far as I am concerned.
Early in my administration, as I think many of the members know,
I tried to get the American States, the States of Central and South
America, to join with us in an arrangement in which a phrase like
this constituted the kernel, that we guaranteed to each other terri-
torial integrity and poUtical independence. *' Under a republican
form of government'' was added in that case. But that is another
matter. As I represented to them at that time, it was a desire on
my part at any rate to show the way to them of keeping things steady
and preventing the kind of aggression they have had.
The Chairman. That was the subject of the Niagara conference?
Senator Brandegee. The A. B. C. powers.
The President. I do not think it was discussed there, Senator.
We discussed it diplomatically.
The Chairman. It was taken up at that time ?
The President. It was taken up at that time.
Senator Brandegee. Who was the author of article 10?
The President. I suppose I was as much as anybody.
Senator Brandegee. And you recommended it to your fellow
American commissioners ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. How many Americans were on the commis-
sion which framed the covenant for the league of nations?
The President. Two — Col. House and myself.
Senator Brandegee. The total membersnip was what? Fifteen,
was it not ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 547
The President. Fourteen nations, and five principal nations
had two members, which would make 19, would it not? Yes, 19
members.
Senator Brandegee. Did they have the imit rule, so to speak,
casting one vote for each member ?
The President. In only one or two instances did we vote at aU.
I presided and the final form was this, ''If therearenoobjections we
will regard that as accepted. "
Senator Brandegee. As we say in the Senate, ''without objec-
tion it is agreed to. **
The President. Yes; and that is the way the whole thing was
agreed to.
Senator Brandegee. Did these commissions to which the plenary
conference delegated certain subjects to prepare reports upon have
any coordination with each otner? Did each commission know
what the other commissions were doing?
The President. No; the subjects were too unlike.
Senator Brandegee. Was there any debate on the completed
draft of the covenant of the league of nations when it was submitted
to the plenary coimcil just before you came over in March ?
The President. Yes: there were speeches.
Senator Brandegee. I do not call those debates. I read that
there were no debates as to what each particular government de-
manded.
The President. No; because there were so many of those rep-
resented, and they had all been canvassed in the process of formu-
lation.
Senator Brandegee. You repUed to a resolution of the Senate
requesting a copy of a letter of Gen. Tasker H. BUss, which was
also signed by Secretary Lansing
The President. And Mr. White.
Senator Brandegee. And Mr. White — ^you stated, if I recollect,
in substance, that you would be glad to furnish us with a copy of it
but for the fact that Gen. Bliss had mentioned the names of certain
Governments and you thought it was a matter of delicacy not to
make it public. Would it not be possible to furnish us with the
general drift of the arguments, leaving out the names of the Govern-
ments, etc. ?
The President. There was not any argument. He said flatly
that it was unjust. It was not a reason.
Senator Brandegee. It was an opinion.
The President. An opinion.
Senator Brandegee. A conclusion.
Senator Johnson of CaHfornia. With that, you agreed, Mr. Presi-
dent, did you not ?
The President. Senator, I do not think I ought to say any more
than I have said.
Senator Brandegee. I do not think I care to ask anything more.
Senator Hitchcock. Will you permit me to read into the record
these two paragraphs from the conclusion of the treaty and ask
whether they are what you refer to when you express the opinion
that the treaty would go into effect when Germanv and three of the
contracting parties had signed it, and only as to them?
The Chairman. That is expUcitly stated.
548 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Hitchcock. I thought it was left in some doubt. I would
like to read them into the record [reading] :
A first proc^- verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn up as soon as the
Ue&tv has been ratified by Germany on the one hand, and by three of the principal
alliea and associated powers on the other hand.
From the date of this first proc^ verbal the treaty will come into force between the
high contracting parties who have ratified it. For the determination of all periods of
time provided for in the present treaty this date will be the date of the coming into
force of the treaty.
I just wanted to make it clear that the treaty is not in effect
except as to those that have ratified it.
The President. I could not put my hand on it, but I was sure.
Senator McCumber. Mr. President, just one question on this
French treaty. If we should adopt this present treaty with the
league of nations and with section 10 in it, which brings all of the
freat nations of the league to the protection of France, if war should
e made against her by Germany, what necessity is there for any
other special treaty with France ?
The President. To meet the possibility of delay in action on the*
part of the. council of the league.
Senator McCumber. But tne agreement of section 10 comes into
effect, does it not, the moment we adopt the treaty ?
The President. Yes; but the council has to act and formulate
its advice, and then the several governments have to act and form
their judgment upon that advice.
Senator McCumber. Do you not think under the present situation
that that could be done as quickly as Germany could get ready for
a second war on France?
The President. Oh, as quickly as she could get ready, yes; but
not as quickly as she could act after she got reader.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. President, tne situation is this : If Ger-
many has surrendered her nav^, demobilized her army, and been
shorn of large portions of her territory; if we have no demand for rep-
aration or maemnity against her; if, as you stated in your addresses
to the Congress, the war is over; if there is no fighting going on; if
Germany has signed the peace treaty, and you have signed the peace
treaty; if, in fact, there is a condition of peace, and only the joint
resolution of Congress that a state of war existed a year ago — ^if that
is all so, is there no way bv which the condition of peace which
actually exists can be made legally effective except by the adoption
of the proposed treaty?
The President. Senator, I would say that there is no way which
we ought to be willing to adopt which separates us. in dealing with
Germany, from those with whom we were associated during the war.
Senator Brandegee. Why ?
The President. Because I think that is a moral union which we
are not at liberty to break.
Senator Brandegee. If we have rescued our fellow belligerents
from the German peril volimtarily and without any; charge, and if
we prefer not to have any entanglements or connections with Euro-
pean powers, but to pursue our course as we did before the war,
where is the moral obligation to merge ourselves with Europe forever 1
The President. I do not construe it as merging ourselves, but I
do think we are under the plainest moral obligation to join with our
associates in imposing certain conditions of peace on Germany.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 549
Senator Brandeoee. Even if we ratify the German so-called peace
treaty, with or without the Shantung provision in it, and strike out
article 1 of the peace treatv, the covenant of the league of nations,
we still join with those with whom we have cooperated in establish-
ing peace with Germany, do we not, and are at liberty to trade with
her f
The President. An unworkable peace, because the league is neces*
SBTj to the working of it.
Senator Brandeoee. Well, suppose they have a league, and we
ratify the treaty with the reservation that we are not bound by
article 1, which is the covenant of the league — then they have a
league of nations covenant.
The President. Yes, and we are tied into every other part of the
treaty by reason of the fact that we are supposed to be members of
the league of nations.
Senator Brandeoee. Suppose we also adopt the 21 amendments
that Senator Fall has pending before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, striking us out of these conmiissions to which we are ti^,
and just cutting the Gordian knot which ties us to the covenant:
We establish peace with Germany just the same, I fancy. The other
powers could accept our amendments to the treaty or not, as they
chose. In either case Germany would be at peace, and they would
be in the league, and we would be out of it. We could have peace,
and resume all our business in relation to copper mines ana zinc
mines, etc., and we could export to Germany, and reestablish the
consular service ; could we not ?
The President. We could, sir; but I hope the people of the United
States will never consent to do it.
Senator Brandeoee. There is no way by which the people can
vote on it. ^
The Chairman. Are we not trading with Germany now, as a matter
of fact }
The President. Not so far as I know, sir.
The Chairman. Licenses certainly have been issued. It is adver-
tised in all the New York papers.
The President. We removed the restrictions that were formerly
placed upon shipments to neutral countries which we thought were
going through to Germany.
The Chairman. Yes; I see them advertised broadly in the New
York papers.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, does the moral obli-
gation to which you have alluded compel us to maintain American
troops in Europe ?
The President. Which moral obligation. Senator ?
Senator Johnson of California. You referred to the moral obliga-
tion resting upon us to carry out the peace terms and the like in con-
junction with our associates, and felt that it would be, as I understood
you, a breaking, a denial of that moral obligation to make a separate
peace or to act by ourselves.
The President. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Does that obligation ^o to the
extent of compellii^ us to maintain American troops in Europe ?
The President. Such small bodies as are necessary to the carrying
out of the treaty, I think; yes.
550 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. And will those troops have to be
maintained under the various treaties of peace until the ultimate
consimimation of the terms of those treaties ?
The President. Yes, Senator; but that is not long. In no case,
as I remember, does that exceed 18 months.
Senator Johnson of California. I was rather under the impression
that the occupation of Germany was to be for 15 years.
The President. Oh, I beg your pardon.
The Chairman. Along the Khine.
The President. Along the Rhine; yes. I was thinking of Upper
Silesia, and the other places where plebiscites are createa, or to be
carried out. It is the understanding with the other Governments
that we are to retain only enough troops there to keep our flag there.
Senator Johnson of California. The idea in my mind was this:
Will we be maintaining American troops upon the Khine for the next
15 years?
The President. That is entirely within our choice, Senator; but
I suppose we will.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Do you know, Mr. President,
whether or not we have American troops in Budapest at present ?
The President. We have not. There are some American oflBcers
there, Senator, sent with a military commission, but no American
troops.
Senator Johnson of California. Returning, if you do not mind. Mr.
President, to one last question about Shantung, do you recall the
American experts reporting that the Japanese promise, the verbal
promise, which has been referred to, to return shantung, meant in
reality the returning of the shell but retaining the kernel of the nut?
The President. I remember their saving that; yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. That is all.
The President. But I do not agree with them.
Senator New. Mr. President, if no one else has any questions to
ask, I have a few.
The President. Proceed, Senator, if you will.
Senator New. These questions, Mr. President, are more or less
general and haphazard, referring to no particular feature of the
treaty, but to all of them.
First, was it the policy of the American delegates to avoid partici-
pation by the United States in strictly European questions and their
settlement; and, if so, what were the matters in which America
refused to participate, or endeavored to avoid participation?
The President. I could not give you a list in answer to the last
}>art of your question, sir; but it certainly was our endeavoi to keep
ree from European affairs.
Senator New. What did the American delegates say or do to secure
nonpai ticipation by the United States in me cessions of Danzig,
Memel, and in the vaiious boundary commissions, repatations com-
missions, and other agencies set up in the treaty for the diiposition
of questions in wbich America has no national interest?
The President. I did not get that. Senator, it is so long.
Senator New. I will divide it. What did tne American delegates
say or do to secure nonparticipation by the United States in the
cessions of Danzig and Memel t
The President. Why, Senator, the process of the whole peace was
this: Each nation had associated with it certain expert advisers.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 551
college professors and bankers and men who were familiar with
ethnical and geographical and financial and business questions.
Each question was referred to a joint commission consisting of the
specialists in that field representing the principal allied and associated
powers. They made a report to this smaller council, and in every
instance the American representatives were under instructions to
keep out of actual participation in these processes so far as it was
honorably possible to do so.
Senator i^^ew. The second half of the question is this: What did
the American delegates do to secure nonparticipation by the United
States in the reparations commission ?
The Prbsidbnt. Why, we were disinclined to join in that, but
yielded to the urgent request of the other nations that we should,
because they wanted our advice and coimsel.
Senator New. What agreement, written or verbal, has been
entered into by the American delegates touching the assignment to
various States of mandatories under the provisions of article 22 ?
The President. None whatever.
Senator New. If it be understood that Great Britain or her
dominions will act as mandatories of the territory in Africa lately
held by Gennany, what advantage of a practical nature is expected
to accrue, and whom will it benefit, from subjecting the British or
dominion administration to the mandatories of such nations as
Liberia, Italy, or any others ?
The President. Mandatories of Liberia ?
Senator New. Yes.
The President. I do not understand, Senator. The whole system
of mandates is intended for the development and protection of the
territories to which they apply — that is to sav, to protect their
inhabitants, to assist their development imder the operation of the
opinion of the world, and to lead to their ultimate independent
existence.
Senator New. Mr. President, it seems that there is more than a
suspicion; there is a general conviction in the world, I think, that
Germany is promoting the dissemination of Bolshevist propaganda
in the countries of the Allies, includmg the United States. That
being the case, I am prompted to ask what provision m the treaty
obligates Gennany to prohibit Bolshevik propaganda from German
sources in the Umted States and aUied countnesT
The President. None.
Senator New. No provision? Was any proposal considered by
the peace conference directed toward securing tne names of German
propaganda agents in the United States and the aUied countries, or
to obtain the records of the disbursements made in support of
Bolshevik or other propaganda intended to weaken or disrupt the
United States ?
The fttESiDENT. We made every effort to trace everything that we
got rumor of. Senator- and traced everything that we could; but no
provisions were feasible in the treaty itself touching that.
Senator New. Did not France yield under pressure at least partly
exerted bj the American del^ates to abandon certain guaranties of
the security of her German frontiers which she had been advised by
Marshal Foch were indispensable; and is not the present frontier, in
French military opinion, less secure than the one which France was
induced to abandon?
552 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The President. Senator, do you think I ought to redebat^ here
the fundamental questions that we debated at raris ? I think that
would be a mistake, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Mr. President, it is on that very
theory that I refrained from asking many of those things, the thoughto
of wmch crowd one's mind, and which one would like to ask.
The President. Of course. You see, you are goinginto the method
by which the treaty was negotiated. Now, with all respect, air, I
think that is a territory that we ought not to enter.
Senator New. Of course, if there is any reason why it should not
be answered, I will withdraw it. Is there objection to answering
this, Mr. President: What was France's solution proposed for admin-
istration of the Saar Basin ?
The President. I do not think I ought to answer those questions,
Senator, because of course they affect the policy and urgency of
other Governments. I am not at liberty to ^o into that.
Senator New. Mr. President, would our position in the War of 1812
and the Spanish-American War have been secure under the league
covenant ?
The President. Oh, Senator, you can judge of that as well as I
could. I have tried to be a historical student, but I could not auite
get the league back into those days clearly enough in my mind to lonn
a judgment.
Senator New. What would have been the procedure imder the
covenant in those two cases, in your opinion ?
The President. Why, Senator. I could figure that out if you gave
me half a day, because I would nave to refresh my mind as to the
circumstances that brought on the wars; but that has not been
regarded as a profitable historical exercise — ^hypothetically to recon-
struct history.
Senator New. Well, I do not want to press for answers, then.
Senator Moses. Mr. President, under the terms of the treaty,
Germany cedes to the principal allied and associated powers all of
her overseas possessions ?
The President. Yes.
Senator Moses. We thereby, as I view it, become possessed in fee
of an imdivided fifth part of uiose possessions.
The President. Only as one of five trustees, Senator. There is
no thought in any mind, of sovereignty.
Senator Moses. Such possession as we acquire by means of that
cession would have to be oisposed of by congressional action.
The President. I have not thought about that at all.
Senator Moses. You have no plan to suggest or recommendation to
make to Congress ?
The President. Not yet, sir; I am waiting until the treaty is diis-
posed of.
The Chairman. Mr. President, I do not wish to interfere in any
way, but the conference has now lasted about three hours and a halt,
ana it is half an hour after the limch hour.
The President. Will not you gentlemen take luncheon with me ?
It will be very delightful.
(Thereupon, at 1 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m., the conference ad-
journed.)
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 553
(The questions submitted by Senator Fall, above referred to, and
the replies of the President are here printed, as follows:)
Questions Asked bt Senator Fall and Replies by President Wilson.
questions bt senator fall.
"1. In your judgment, have you not the power and authority, by a proclamation,
to declare in appropriate words that peace exists and thus restore the status of peace
between the Governments and peoples of this country and those with whom we
declared war?
"2. Could not, in any event, the power which declared war — ^that is, Congress —
joined by the President, as you affixed your approval of the declaration of war, by a
resolution, or act of Congress, declare peace, as Germany did not declare war upon us?
''3. Is not the pending treaty, aside from the league covenant, merely a set ot agreed
rules and regulations to oe observed after peace is established, and is not the state of
war terminated merely by the filing of the first process verbd?
"4. The state of war being thus terminated by the filing of the process verbal,
although we may not yet have ratified the treaty, Germany not having declared war
upon us, could you not appoint or reappoint consular officers and agents in Germany,
and by a proclamation of the status of peace authorize our citizens and without further
delay resume governmental relations with Germany, and would we not then be off
of a war basis as to business?
'' ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEAGUE.
''5. The agreement of the signatories to the treaty is that 'from the coming into
force of the present treaty the state of war will terminate. '
'*And under article 440 it is provided that as soon as the treaty shall have been
ratified by Germany on the one nand and by three of the principal allied and associ-
ated powers on the other hand the first proc^ verbal of the deposit of ratification will
be drawn, and 'from the date of this first proems verbal the treaty will come into force
between the high contracting parties who have ratified it. '
"Am I correct in assuming:
*'(a) That when three of the principal allied powers shall have ratified the treaty
with Germany and the proems verbal is filed the league of nations is then established?
**(6) That all the other provisions of the treaty with Germany are in full force to
such ratifying powers?
''(c) That as to the two remaining powers, should they not have ratified it (the one
being the associated power, the United States), 'the state of war will terminate,'
although the particulsur terms of the treaty itself will not be in force as to such non-
ratifying powers?
"(</) That such last powers will not be members of the league until and unless
thereafter they have either ratified the treaty and the league articles or shall have been
otherwise accepted into the league under the provisions of the league articles as they
now stand or as they may be in force at the time of admission?
*'6. However desirable it might be to have the treaty immediately adopted with the
articles of the covenant of the league as written, by what process will this,, in view of
your statement as to laiie^eiy increased export within the near future or within one or
two more years, reduce m this country the rentals, cost of necessaries, etc.?
"licenses for every trade. .
"7. Have you heard from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and Switzerland,
or either, as to whether they will jom the league, and when?
"8. Are you issuing, or allowing to be issued, en bloc or otherwise, licenses to do
business with those recently our enemies, and are you allowing ships and cargoes
destined to ports of Germany or other recent enemy ports to clear from our ports?
"9. Have you requested consular representatives of other countries to act for us in
Germany?
"10. Among the documents forwarded on the 8th instant to the chairman of the
committee, by yourself, imder No. 6, following the final report of the commission
ujwn the league articles, I find the following recommeiidations: ^Resolved^ That in
the opinion of the commission the president of the commission should be requested
by the conference to invite seven ptowers, including two neutrals, to name represen-
tatives on a committee (a) to prepare plans for the organization of the league; (b) to
prepare plans for the establishment of the seat of the league; (c) to prepare plans and
the agenda for the first meeting of the assembly.'
554 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
"Wm this committee appointed, and have they reported tentatively to the com-
mission or to yourself, and, if so, is a copy of such report available?
"questions as to territory.
"11. Under article 18, of the peace treaty, part 4, there is a general renunciation of
all German rights to territory formerly belon^g to herself or to her allies and a
renunciation of all her rights, titles, and privili^ outside of her boundaries as fixed
by the treaty which she held as against the alhed and associated powers. There is
no cession, apparently, of the territory to any particular power or association of powers,
but there is an understanding on the part of Germany to recognize and conform to
the measures which may be taken 'now, or in the future by the principal allied and
associated powers in a^jeement, where necessary, with third powers in order to carry
the above stipulation mto effect.*
"To what nation or nations or association of nations does the territory renounced
imder this article ^o, aside from such portions sis are specifically assigned to certain
nations or plebiscite commissions by the particular article of the German treaty,
and by what character of title and what part, if any, does the United States take or
has she taken with reference to the disposition of such property?
"12. Article 119, section 1, of Part iV, reads:
"Germany renounces in favor of the principal allied and associated powers all her
rights and titles over her overseas possessions.'
"This appears to be a direct cession of the German overseas possessions to the prin-
cipal allied and associated powers; of course, the United States being an associated
power, what character of title does the United States receive to any 4)art of the over-
seas possessions ceded by Germany through article 119?
n
8AAR basin's DISPOSITION.
"13. Has there as yet been anv agreement, tentative or otherwise, as to the dis-
position or the government of such overseas possessions or any part of same to which
the United States is a party?
"14. Will you inform the committee whether, through an agreement between
France and Great Britain, any disposition or agreement for the disposition of all or
any part of the German overseas possessions in Africa has been arrived at * and if so.
whether the United States has, tentatively or otherwise, consented thereto, and
whether possession has been taken by either France or Great Britain of any such
German territory by any such agreement or tentative agreement?
"15. Was it or is it now contemplated that, of the commission composed of five
members to be chosen by the council of the league of nations for the government of
the Saar Basin, one of said commission to be a citizen of France, one a native of the
Saar Basin and not a native of France, and the three other members belonging to
three countries other than France or Germany, there should be one American com-
missioner among the membership of five; and if so, why is it necessary that America
should be represented upon this commission?
"16. Why should the United States be represented by one member of the com-
mission for the settling of the new frontier lines of Belgium and Germany under
articles under sections 34 and 35?
"17. As article 48 of the treaty pro\ddes for a boundary commission for the Saar
Basin, to be composed of five members, one to be appointed directly by France and
one directly by Germany, why was it not provided that the other three be nationals
of other powers? Should each be named in the article to be appointed by some par-
ticular country, as is done with reference to the other two, ratner than to leave the
selection of such three to the council of the leaeue of nations with the restrictive
provisions that the said three should be selected trom nationals of other powers than
France and Germany?
"settlement OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES.
"18. WTiy was it necessary to provide in article 83 that of the commission of seven
members to fix the boundaries oetween Poland and the Czecho-Slovak State, one
should be named by Poland, one by such Czecho-Slovak State, and the other five
named by the five allied and associated nowers, rather than that certain countries,
specifically named, should nominate the five as well as the two?
"19. Has such commission been appointed, tentatively or otherwise, and has it
proceeded to the performance of any of its duties, either in a temporary manner or
otherwise?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 555
Hi
20. ^Tiy was it necessary to fonn a commission of four members, one to be desig-
nated by each the United States, France, the British Empire, and Italy, to exercise
authority over the plebiscite area of Upper Silesia: that is to say, why 'was it neces-
sary to name the United States as one of the powers which should appoint one of the
four commissioners and then leave the decision of such commission to a majority
vote?'*
THB REPLY OF THB PRESIDENT.
**My Dear Senator Fall: You left yesterday in my hands certain writt-en ques-
tions which I promised you I would answer. I am hastening to fulfill that promise.
**I feel constrained to say in reply to your first question not only that in my judg-
ment I have not the power by proclamation to declare that peace exists, but that I
could in no circumstances consent to take such a course prior to the ratification of a
formal treaty of peace.
*'I feel it due to perfect frankness to say that it would, in my poinion, put a stain
upon our national honor which we never could efface, if after sending our men to the
battlefield to fight the common cause, we should abandon our associates in the war
in the settlement of the terms of peace and dissociate ourselves from all responsibility
with regard to those terms.
**1 respeHCtfully suggest that, having said this, I have in effect answered also your
second, third, and fourth questions, so far as I myself am concerned.
** Permit me to answer your fifth question by saying that the provisions of the treaty
to which you refer operate merely to establish peace between the powers ratifying
and that it is questionable whether it can be saia that the lea^e of nations is in any
true sense created by the association of only three of the allied and associated gov-
ernments.
** WOULD reduce cost OP LIVING."
"In reply to your sixth question, I can only express the confident opinion that the
immediate adoption of the treaty, along with the articles of the covenant of the league
as written, would certainly within the near future reduce the cost of living in mis
country as elsewhere, by restoring production and commerce to their normal strength
and freedom.
'*For your convenience, I will number the remaining paragraphs of this letter as
the questions to which they are intended to reply are numbered.
'*7. I have had no oflScial information as to wnether Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
Holland, or Switzerland will join the league.
^'8. I answered your eighth question in reply to a question asked me at our con-
ference the other day.
''9. In February, 1917, Spain was requested to take charge of American interests
in Germany through her diplomatic and consular representatives, and no other ar-
rangement has since been made.
'*10. The committee to prepare plans for the organization of the league, for the
establishment of the seat oi the league, and for the procedure of the first meeting of
the assembly has been appointed, out has not reported.
"11. Article 118 of the peace treaty,* part 4, unaer which Germany renounces all
her rights to territory formerly belongin^i; to herself or to her allies, was understood,
80 £ar as special provision was not made m the treaty itself for its disposition, as con-
stituting the principal allied and associated powers the authority by which such
dlspoeitioD should ultimately be determined. It conveys no title to those powers,
but merely intrusts the disposition of the territory in question to their decision.
"trusteeship por colonies.
"12. Germany ^s renunciation in favor of the principal allied and associated powers
of her rights and titles to her overseas possessions is meant similarly to operate as
vesting in these powers a trusteeship with respect of their final disposition and
government.
"13. There has been a provisional agreement as to the disposition of these overseas
possesaioiis, whose confirmation and execution is dependent upon the approval of
the league of nations, and the United States is a ^rty to that provisional agreement.
" H/The only agreement between France and Crreat Britain with regard to African
territory of which I am cognizant concerns the redisposition of rights already pos-
sessed oy those countries on that continent. The provisional agreement referred
to in the preceding paragraph covers all the German overseas possessions in Africa
as well as elsewhere.
**15. No mention was made in connection with the settlement of the Saar Basin of
the service of an American member of the commission of five to be set up there.
556 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
^'16. It was deemed wise that the United States should be represented by one
member of the commission for settling the new frontier lines of Belgium and Germany,
because of the universal opinion that America's representative would add to the com-
mission a useful element of entirely disinterested judgment.
'^SAAR BASIN UNDER LEAOUB.
*' 17. The choice of the commission for the Saar Basin was left to the council of the
leafi:ue of nations, because the Saar Basin is for 15 years to be directly under the care
ana direction of the lea^e of nations.
'' 18. Article 83 does, in effect, provide that five of the members of the commiaaion
of seven to fix the boundaries between Poland and Czechoslovakia should be nomi-
nated by certain countries, because there are five principal allied and associated
powers, and the nomination of five representatives by those powers necessarily means
the nomination of one representative by each of those powers.
*' 19. No such commission has yet been appointed.
*' 20. It was deemed wise that tne United States should have a representative on the
commission set up to exercise authority over the plebiscite of Upper Silesia for the same
reason that I have given with regard to the commission for settling the frontier line of
Belgium and Germany.
" Sincerely, yours,
' "WooDROW Wilson."
WEDITESDAT, AUGUST 20, 1919.
United States Senate,
committbb on fobeign relations,
WasJiingtany D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Brandegee, Fall,
Knox, Harding, Johnson of California, New, Moses, Bfitchcock,
Williams, Swanson, and Smith of Arizojia.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Mr. Ferguson,
will you be heard now ?
STATEMEHT OF ME. JOHH C. FEEOUSOH, ADVISEE TO THE
PEESIDEET OF CHIEA.
The Chairman. Will you please state to the stenographer your full
name and address ? Also will you please state to us your work in
China and your experience there ?
Mr. Ferguson. My name, sir, is John C. Ferguson. I hold an
official position under the Chinese Government* as adviser to the
President of China.
I went to China in 1887; was president of the Nanking University
till 1897, and from that time till 1902 was president of the Nanyang
College, Shanghai. Since 1894 1 have held various advisory positions
in connection with the viceroys at Nanking and Wuchang and in the
railway administration. Since 1911 I have lived in Peking and have
been associated with the four men who have held the office of Presi*
dent of the Republic of China. I am a resident of Newton, Mass.
Is that sufficient, sir?
The Chairman. That covers your service entirely. I should like
to know, from your experience, which has been a lon^ one, what has
been the general attitude of the United States toward China ?
Mr. Ferouson. I should say that the general attitude of the United
States toward China has been one of friendly cooperation and of
solicitude for the welfare of China. The United States has scrupu-
lously avoided any interference with the internal administration of
China, and avoided any attempt to take part in any seizure of China's
territory, or to connive at such seizmre on the part of other powers.
The Chairman. Has the United States ever deviated irom this
poUcy ?
Mr. Ferguson. Not as far as I have known, either from my ex-
perience or from official records. It has had provocation on three
different occasions to deviate from the policy, at the request of the
Chinese Government, for political reasons.
When concessions were obtained by other powers at the city of
Canton in the south of China the United States was offered a special
557
558 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
tract of land to be called a concession for its own administration.
It refused to take it over.
When the Shanghai Settlements were arranged — ^I speak of '^Set-
tlements" with a capital S; that is the districts where foreigners
live — the British Government was given a settlement, the French
Government was given a settlement, and the American Government
was offered a settlement known as Hongkew. This settlement was
never taken up by the American Government, and was not accepted,
though it had been offered to it freely by China.
Senator Knox. What was the area of this settlement, do you
know 1
Mr. Ferguson. I should say about 3 square miles.
Senator Brandegee. Do you remember who was Secretary of
State at that time here ?
Mr. Ferguson. That was shortly after the Civil War. I think
Mr. Seward was Secretary of State, ii I remember correctly, sir.
Again, after the Boxers* War, in 1901, a concession was offered to
America at the same time that concessions were requested by Italy
and Austria and other powers, at Tientsin, and the United States
Government refused to accept the proposition.
So that, as far as I know, in no instance has the United States
deviated from that fixed policy.
The Chairman. How would the Chinese regard our support of what
are known as the Shantung questions in the treaty, in view of what
you have been saying ?
Mr. Ferguson. I can not speak officially on behalf of the Chinese
Government in such a matter, naturally, but I can simply give to the
committee my impression, fi-om mv close relationship with the
Government, as to the opinion, which is that the arrangement pro-
posed under the treaty would be considered by the Chinese — and is so
considered — as a deviation from our policy, and that irrespective of
whether the leased territory of Eaiochow is given to Japan for a short
{)eriod or for a long period. That China has consiaered that the
ease which she made with Germanj^ in 1 898 was voided by her declara-
tion of war against Germany, and that in the nature of the lease
itself it is not a transferable lease. No such experience has ever
occurred in China, where there are manv concessions held by foreign
nations, as that a lease given for the residential purposes of one nation
shorld be transferred for any cause to another nation.
Senator Brandegee. I was called out of the room for a minute,
and will you let me ask you a question? I did not hear whether you
said that this concession which Grermany had, which is now, under
this treaty, transferred to Japan, in itself provided that it should be
nontransferable.
Mr. Ferguson. I did not make that statement, Senator.
Senator Brandegee. No.
Mr. Ferguson. I said that under the general precedents no such
transfer had ever occurred, and that China considered, in granting
such leases, always that they were nontransferable.
Senator Hitchcx)Ck. Doctor, does not the lease provide in its terms
that it may be transferred with the consent of Chma, or that it shall
not be transferred except with the consent of China ?
Mr, Ferguson. No, sir; that question had never been raised up
to that time in China to my knowledge, and I might say, sir, that I
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 569
have been, through the grantmg of concessions, one of the agents of
the Chinese Government in making such arrangements for conces-
sions
Senator Hitchcock. Are you sure that expression is not in there ?
Senator Brandeoee. Let him finish his sentence.
The Chairman. Let the witness finish his statement.
Mr. Ferguson. I am not sure with reference to the text of the
treaty which was made in March, 1898, with Germany, without refer-
ence to it; but speaking frotn memory I should say that it contains
no such clause, because up to that time the question had never been
raised and never been thought of as a possible thing.
Senator Hitchcock. Now, assuming that I am right, and that the
clause appears in there that it shall not be transferred except with
the consent of China, would it not follow that if China gave her
consent it would be transferable ?
Mr. Ferguson. I suppose so
Senator Hitchcock. And that that would be contemplated as one
of the possibilities ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, but I might say that that was never contem-
plated as a possibilitv in the granting of a foreign concession to any
nation, that it would, be transferred to another nation. I may say,
Senator, that in theTailway contracts it has been explicitly stated,
in several railway contracts which China has made, that the rights
can not be transferred to any third nation without the explicit consent
of the Chinese Government to it.
Senator Hitchcock. So that if in this treaty made with Germany,
by which this concession was secured, the clause does appear that it
can not be transferred without the consent of China, it would be
unusual, and would imply that the possibility was contemplated of
China giving her consent?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, though I think it does not occur.
Senator Brandegee. If that provision was in the lease, that it
could be transferred with the consent of China, and the consent of
China was obtained under diu'ess, that would not be a compliance
with the provision, would it ?
Mr. Ferguson. I should think not, sir.
-Senator McCuhber. But as a matter of fact, China did consent
to its transfer, did she not?
Mr. Ferguson. She did, under duress.
Senator McCumber. And she consented to it before she entered
into the war?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Well, the duress was practically the same
kind of a duress that was exercised by all of the other governments
in obtaining concessions, was it not?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; i was an unusual duress.
Senator McCumber. Do you not think there was a duress exer-
cised in all of these concessions, to Great Britain and France
Mr. Ferguson. There was always a duress exercised for the
transfer of every bit of Chinese territory to any alien nation, whether
that duress was military, financial, or political; it was some type of
duress.
Senator McCumber. So Japan was following the course of the
Caucasian nations in obtaining her concessions ?
560 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Ferguson. Except that she went them one better.
Senator McCumber. She did not go very much better than Ger-
many did when she got her concession, did she ?
Mr. Ferguson. I should say yes, sir; that she did.
Senator McCumber. She got only what Germany had ? I mean
in the instrument of concession she got only what Germany had
taken ?
Mr. Ferguson. Do you mean by the instrument of concession —
the treaty 1
Senator McCumber. Yes; the treaty with China.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; she got more than Germany possessed.
Senator McCumber. Did China in her treaty with Japan grant
more than she had &;ranted to Germany ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. What did she grant ?
'Mr. Ferguson. She granted a perpetual lease to a concession
which would be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan. That
was in article 2 of the notes exchanged between China and Japan.
Senator Brandegee. In what year?
Mr, Ferguson. On May 25, 1915, at the conclusion of the nego-
tiations for the 21 demands.
Senator McCumber. Outside of the matter
Mr. Ferguson. She gave the concession, which was not to be a
lease, but to remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan, in the
same way that Hongkong, for instance, remains under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Great Britain, and where the sovereignty of China is
not recognized. Under the old German occupation of Kiaochow it
was a leased territory in which the sovereignty of China was acknowl-
edged, and the lease stipulated a term of years — ^99 years — after
which the territory should be restored to China; but under the second
article of the notes exchanged, Japan acquires a concession which is
to remain under her exclusive jurisdiction, without any stipulation
as to the sovereignty of China or any stipulation as to any time of
return to China.
Senator McCxmBER. But in the same notes there is an agreement
on the part of Japan to return Shantung to China.
Mr. Ferguson. To return the leased territory of Kiaochow.
Excuse me for correcting you, Senator.
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. The leased territory of Eaaochow to China.
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. The fourth article of those notes stipulates certain
arrangements which are to be made between the Chinese and Japanese
Governments as to the other rights in Shantung Province which were
held by Germany.
Senator McCumber. In that respect at least, if Japan makes her
promises good, she has given to China the promise to give to China
something that Germany did not agree to give her for 99 years, has
she not ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; she takes it all, but Germany promised to
return to China at the end of 99 years the only part of that territory
which is of any conmiercial value, and Japan proposes to keep that
for herself as a perpetual possession. There is the difference, sir.
Japan proposes to keep it for a perpetual possession.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 561
Senator Brandeoee. What is there in the negotiations recently in
relation to this Shantung cession that Japan has agreed to return to
China?
Mr. Ferguson. Do you mean the negotiations in Paris, sir?
Senator Brandeoee. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. I suppose the treaty itself is the best answ^ to
that, that Japan makes no promise to return anything to China in
the treaty.
Senator Brandeoee. I know; but you know that it is stated that
there is a verbal promise made, either in the procfe-verbal of the
late peace conference, or in some other way, that Japan is to return
something to China at some date unnamed.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. What is the something that she is to return ?
Mr. Ferguson. The rest of the leased territory of Kiaochow, after
excluding this concession for her own exclusive jurisdiction, and also
the third provision of that note is that there shall be retained another
district for an international concession. The rest of it, after those
two concessions, one for the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan and one
for international use, the rest of the territory shall be returned to
Ohina. TTiat is the statement of the notes of May 25, 1915.
Senator Brandeoee. Also the sovereignty over the whole of it ?
Mr. Ferguson. That follows the return of the territory, of course.
Senator Brandeoee. But do you understand that the ceding of
the German rights in Shantimg to Japan cedes any sovereignty?
Mr. Ferguson. It does over this exclusive territory.
Senator Williams. What is that exclusive territory?
Mr. Ferguson. It has never been officially stated by Japan as to
what place she is going to occupv; but judging from her purchases of
property and from the natural place which she would take, it is to be
the port of Tsing Tao, which was the part that Germany developed,
and I might say the onlv part of Kiaochow which is of any value.
The entrance to the nortnern part of the Kiaochow territorv consists
of a lot of precipitous cliffs which are quite unapproachable. The
southern part of^ Kiaochow Bay is all silted up with sand bars, and
is unapproachable even for small Chinese junk. The only part of
Kiaochow territory which is of any value commercially to Cnina or
to any other nation is that part which Japan proposes to retain for
her own exclusive jurisdiction.
Senator Williams. That which it is supposed she will retain ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Williams. That is, Tsing Tao ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. What was the character of the duress which
Japan applied to China in order to get the concessions which she
<lid get?
Mr. Ferguson. She had her force which she had sent for the
capture of Kiaochow still in the Province of Shantung, and scattered
Along the railway northward to Lung Kow
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know how large that force was ?
^. Ferguson. Yes. May I finish my answer and then I will
explain?
Senator Brandeoee. I beg your pardon, certainly.
186W6— 19 36
562 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Ferguson. Northward to Lung Kow, westward to Tsi-nan Fu,
the capital of Shantung Province, and eastward to Tsingtan. That
force was officially stated to be somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000
men. Japan sent her troops to replace either all those or a portion
of those which she had already sent as her expeditionary force against
Kiaochow. She had already sent forces, but replaced them when
these demands were being made there, so that the force which she had
at that time must have been somewhere between 60,000 and 70,000
men in various parts of the Province. She did not take away the
original forces that she had sent new forces to replace, but left them
all there until China had consented to her ultimatum. Furthermore,
she assembled her fleet at Sasebo, her naval base, which is almost
directly east and about 20 hours' steaming from Eiaochow on the
coast of Japan ; and she had sent word through her consular officers
asking all Japanese to come from interior places and report at coast
towns. In my experience, outside of the Boxer year 1900, when all
nations sent forces to China, there has never been anything like the
size or the threatening attitude of the forces of any nation, such as
Japan used in obtaining this concession from China.
oenator Knox. What period of time did the ultimatum prescribe ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was given to the Chinese Government on Mav 7,
shortly after noon, and May 9 at 6 o'clock an answer was demandfed.
Senator Brandegee. Do you think that China would have granted
the concession to Japan in the absence of this mihtary demonstration ?
Mr. Ferguson. Iso, sir, it caused the res^nation of the Minister
of ForeigTi Affairs who had made the negotiations, and a new man
was appointed, Mr. Lu Cheng-Tsiang, who afterwards was sent as the
head of the Chinese Commission to the Paris Conference, the Chi-
nese Government fearing that this very question would arise, and
showing by the appointment of the same man as the head of the
Chinese delegation who had signed those treaties under duress her
sincerity in the position which she has consistently maintained that
the treaty was signed under duress. I imderstand from the Chinese
delegation — ^I was not present at Paris myself and only speak from
the report to me directly by a member of the Chinese del^ation who
was there — ^Mr. Lu made that statement also to the Paris Conference,
that he signed the treaty of May 25, 1915, under protest.
May I state also, Senator, that in the official statement given out
by the Chinese Government after the conclusion of the negotiations
and the signature of the treaty that fact is also mentioned ?
Senator Brandegee. Do you mean the treaty of Versailles ?
Mr. Ferguson. No; the treaty of 1915 with Japan.
Senator Brandegee. How extensive is this territory of Kiaochow ?
Mr. Ferguson. It is not an important territory or an extensive
territory. It has about a million people. It is important
Senator Brandegee. I mean in square miles?
Mr. Ferguson. May I refer
Senator Brandegee. Put it in the record later.
^b". Ferguson. Yes; I will put it into the record.
Senator Brandegee. Just one question. In view of Senator
McCumber^s question as to whether all concessions granted by
China to other nations were not obtained substantially under duress^
I wanted to ask you whether the other concessions were obtained
under duress by tne exhibition of military power, or whether they
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 563
were intimations that loans would be withheld and trade with-
drawn and things of that kind ?
Mr. Ferguson. All those means, have been used at different
periods by nations.
Senator Brandegee. But none to such an extent as this Japanese
demonstration ?
Mr. Ferguson. The only military pressure I have known was
that exercised by Germany in the seizure of Kiaochow. No other
nation as far as I know in obtaining concessions has used military
force. The other has always been political or economic, sir.
Senator McCumber. Now, Doctor, I think we all agree that this
concession was obtained by duress.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. But the point I wanted to get at in my ques-
tion was this, that China did grant the right to Japan to obtam from
Germany all the rights that Germany had, and she obtained this by
the treaty of May 25, 1915, admitting that it was by duress?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Then eliminating the question of duress,
under what theory could China claim that a declaration of war
against Germany would vitiate her contract made Mrith Japan that
Japan might obtain by force whatever interest Germany had ?
Mr. Ferguson. May I say that in that matter the Chinese Grov-
ernment took the advice of two eminent French international la\vyers.
If the committee will excuse me from mentioning names I will not
mention names, but I am stating what is within my own individual
knowledge, that she took the advice of two eminent French inter-
national lawyers, of the most eminent Russian jiirist who was known
to the president of the Poard of Foreign Aflfairs, who had formerly
been minister in St. Petersburg: of an eminent Dutch jurist of Hol-
land, and of an eminent international jurist from Belgium, and based
her claim on the advice which was given to her by those jurists, that
is, that her declaration of war against Germany, notwithstanding her
contract which had already been made in 1915 with Ja}7an, of itself
vitiated not only the German lease but also the treaty with Japan.
Senator Brandegee. Was that the unanimous opinion of these
jurists ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; all expressed, of course, as vou might expect
from such men, in very different language, and for very different
reasons, and quoting very different precedents; but as I had the
reading of all tnose opinions, I might say that they were unanimous
in their opinion.
Senator McCumber. Then, Doctor, eliminating the question of
duress, a Russian lawyer, two French lawyers, a Belgian lawyer, and a
Holland international lawyer, advised China that notwithstanding
the fact that she had solemnly agreed that if Japan should seize this
territory and take it from Germany, Japan might hold all the rights
that Germany held, that notwithstanding all this a declaration of
war by China against Germany would vitiate the contract that China
made with Japan without taking into consideration the matter of
duress.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; because China had continually held that the
settlement of the Kiaochow question was a post bellum settlement.
564 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
That is, while she was still neutral, and that was the whole point of
her controversy with Japan during the 21 demands, that the settle-
ment of the Iviaochow question, involving as it did not only the
interest of Germany and Japan but also the general trade interests—
because, as you know, all countries that have treaties with China have
the most favored nation clause, which gives them also the advantages
that are given to any single nation — that in consideration of that fact
international interests were also involved, and that the whole question
should go to the peace conference which would be held at the con-
clusion of the war for adjustment.
That was the position which the Chinese government maintained,
and which it considered to have been strengthened and made secure
by her declaration of war against Germany. Perhaps it is closer to
the statements of those jurists to say that the claim that China had
made that the whole question, involving interests which were inter-
national as it did, was a post-bellum settlement, which would go to
the final peace conference, rather than be the subject of a negotia-
tion between China and Japan or China and Germany directly. That
was also involved in the statement of those jurists, of course.
Senator McCumber. I am willing to rest the matter on whatever
theorv China may claim, that her agreement with Japan can be viti-
ated by the declaration of war.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. Anyway she can arrive at that.
Mt. Ferguson. Senator, before passing on may I read the note
exchanged between China and Japan on May 25, 1915? I do not
know whether it has been read into your record of this committee
or not.
Senator McCumber. Read it in, by all means.
Senator Brandegee. It was read in the other day, but you can
read it again.
Senator McCumber. Repeat it.
Mr. Ferguson. I did not know whether it had been read in.
Senator Johnson of California. Just read it, will you ?
Mr. Ferguson (reading) :
When, after the termination of the present war, the leased territory of Kiaochow
Bay is completely left to the free disposal of Japan —
Senator Williams. Whose statement is that ?
Mr. Ferguson. This is the statement in the notes exchanged be-
tween China and Japan. The two notes are identical with the ex-
ception of the heading, in the one case ^'I beg to state on behalf of
the Qiinese Government," and in the other case "I beg to state on
behalf of the Japanese Government.'*
Senator McCumber. The first you are reading is from the Jap-
anese Government to the Chinese Government ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The notes are identical.
Senator McCumber. Yes; but one is in answer to the other.
Mr. Ferguson (reading) :
When, after the termination of the present war, the leased territory of Kiaochow
is completely left to the free disposal of Japan, the Japanese Government will restore
the said leased territory to China under the following conditions:
1. The whole of Kiaochow Bay to be opened as a commercial port.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 565
That is the residential portion, for foreigners. [Continuing reading:]
2. A concession under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan to be established at a
place designated by the Japanese Government.
3. If the foreign powers desire it, an international concession may be established.
4. As regard the disposal to be made of the buildings and properties of Germany
and the conditions and procedure relating thereto, the Japanese Govemmenf and the
Chinese Government shall arrange the matter by mutual agreement before the restora-
tion.
Senator Williams. The Japanese answer to that was identical ?
Mr. Ferguson. Identical.
Senator McCumber. The Chinese Government simply replied,
stating that they had received a note which provided so and so ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Will you, then, follow that up by reading the
first article of the treaty itself which was signed between Japan and
China, and place it in the record ?
Mr. Ferguson. The first article, sir?
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. [Reading:]
Article 1. The Chinese Government engages to give full assent —
This is the one you refer to ?
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson (continuing reading) :
to all matters upon which the Japanese Government may hereafter agree with the
German Government, relating to the disposition of all rights, interests, and concee-
sions. which Germany, by virtue of treaties or otherwise, possesses in relation to the
Province of Shantung.
Senator McCumber. Is that all of the first article ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, that is all of the first article. The second
relat^ to the railways.
Senator McCumber. I have not the book here, but I think that in
one of the articles the clause is inserted reserving the right of
soverei^ty.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator McCumber. That may be in the notes — ^reserving for
China the right of sovereignty.
Mr. Ferguson. ShaD I read the whole of it?
Senator McCumber. No, it is not necessary to read the rest.
Have you there the treaty between China and Germany ?
Mr. Ferguson. The original treaty of 1898?
Senator McCumber. Yes. It is probably in the first article of
that treaty.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, it is in the first article of that treaty.
Senator McCumber. I think the stenographer has my little record
that I had the other day. I do not think it has been returned to me.
Mr. Ferguson. I have not that here, but it is, within my
knowledge, in the first article of that treaty.
Senator McCumber. China, in granting to Germany the rights
under the treaty, retained her sovereignty over the territory included
in the concession.
Mr. Ferguson. Except Tsingtaw, that one spot, which is to be
under the exclusive jiu-isdiction of Japan.
Senator McCumber. No; I am not speaking of Japan now; I am
speaking of the treaty between Germany and China.
566 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; there China retained absohit^ sovereignty.
Senator McCumber. That is, over all the territory ?
Mr. Ferguson. Over all the territory; yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Therefore, when dhina granted to Japan the
right t# obtain the German concession, she granted to Japan no further
rights than Germany had obtained, except such as is contained in
article 2 of the treaty between Japan and China?
Mr. Ferguson. Under the conditions; yes, sir. China is a long
distance away, and if I might
Senator McCumber. May I ask you just one question that is in
my mind now ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. At the time that German v obtained her con-
cession, did not Germany also give a note to the tJnited States to the
effect that she claimed no sovereignty over any of this territory ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; that was the inauguration of the Hay
doctrine. It was the protest of the United States Government to
Germany that inaugurated what is now known as the Hay policy or
the Hay doctrine, or whatever it is called.
Senator McCumber. Therefore, we may say definitelv that what-
ever concessions Germany obtained, she had no right oi sovereignty
over any of the district covered by the concession ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; and 1 might state also that in actual
operation she never claimed any such sovereignty or made any
attempt to exercise such sovereign^.
Senator McCumber. Therefore Japan obtained from Germany no
sovereignty over any of this territory ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir. Might I continue, there, to say
Senator McCumber. Certainly.
Mr. Ferguson (continuing). That after acqjuiring the German
rights in 1915, Japan did take certain sovereign nghts not only in the
leased territory of Kiaochow but throughout the Province of Shan-
tung, by the establishment of the civil administration on October 1,
1917, which was officially proclaimed in the Government Gazette at
Tokyo.
Senator McCumber. But she had no authority to do that under
her agreement with China ?
Mr. Ferguson.. No.
Senator McCumber. That was in violation of the agreement ?
Mr. Ferguson. That was in violation of all precedents and all
agreements and everything else.
Senator McCumber. Yes. Japan in her note has agreed with
China that she will return a portion of this territory?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumber. And can you tell us what proportion is
retained by Japan under article 2 — that is, what proportion in
population and size ?
Mr. Ferguson. In population it is about half the total population
of Kiaochow. In size it is anjrwhere from one-tenth to one-fifteenth;
I should say probably about one-tenth.
Senator Williams. One word right there, if you please.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Williams. You mean one-tenth of Kiaochow ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; of Kiaochow.
TREATY OF PEACE MQTH GERMANY. 567
Senator Williams. Not one- tenth of Shantung?
Mr. Ferguson. Y^; I mean just one-tenth of Kiaochow.
Senator McCitmber. Now, what rights may Japan exercise over the
territory in which she retains sovereign authority ?
Mr. Ferguson All rights; commercial, economic, goverrfmental,
military. In that area is the terminus of the railroad.
Senator McCumber. You mean that she may exercise a right over
that territory that would be inconsistent with the policy of the open
door, etc., that has been established ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; she can establish her own customhouse. I
should say she obtains the same rights over that concession of Tsing-
tau which England got from Germany by the retrocession of Helgo-
land on her coast.
Senator McCumber. And the right to exclude from that territory
foreign ships and foreign trade ?
Mr. Ferguson. Not under the treaty.
Senator McCumber. But she would have the right to do so except
as she is bound by treaties ?
Mr. Ferguson. By treaties with other nations.
Senator McCumber. And as notes are exchanged on that ?
Mr. Ferguson. And it would become, ipso facto, a part of Japan,
and be under the same status, so far as treaty rights are concerned, as
to foreigners, as any other part of Japan is.
Senator Brandegee. What is the population of China? What is
the best estimate you can give ?
Mr. Ferguson. About 375,000,000, 1 should say.
Snator Brandegee. What is the population of the Province of
Shantung ?
Mr. Ferguson. 38,000,000, according to the statistics of the mari-
time customs, which is the official basis.
Senator Brandegee. You started to say something a minute ago,
when Senator McCumber wanted to ask a question because he had it
right in his mind, and then vou did not finish. You said that China
is a long distance away, and then started to say something else.
Mr. ^RGUSON. I have just introduced what I intended to say,
by the simile of Heligoland on the coast of Germany, as presenting
a similar condition to that of Tsingtau on the coast of China.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know anything, either from reading
oriental literature or ffom advices, or from personal information, as
to what the feeling of the Chinese people generally is about the con-
cession of Shantung to Japan ?
Mr. Fergusoi^. I know from actual experience. I left China, I
might state, at the end of April, and I know from personal experience
up to that time what the feeling in China was, and since that time I
have had official communications and also read constantly the daily
press of China and I know what the opinion there is. I think it is
not too strong to say that the feeling is a feeling of outrage that China
has not only m this instance been forced to a specific act by one for-
eign nation, but that by the treaty fbr the first time a union of na-
tions comes in to give sanction to a thing which she feels is wrong
and is an outrage on her sovereign rights. In every former instance
where such concessions have been wrung from her, the balance of
power among nations has always made it possible that some powers
would come to her and say, ** We are sorry for you and we will help
568 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
you out as much as we can.'* In this instance China feels that she
has been robbed of her rights in Sliantung by one nation, originally
by Germany, and those rights transferred to Japan, and that all the
other nations have come along and have joined in approval of what
seems to her an infamous act; and among those powers that are
approving it is the Nation which she has always coimted* as her
most disinterested friend, the United States. Does that answer
your question?
Senator Brandegee. Yes. I want now to follow that up by ask-
ing you, are you still acting in an advisory capacity to the President
of China?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; I am still acting as adviser to the President
of China. I came here on official work for the Government of China,
and I expect to return at the end of October.
Senator Brandegee. Are you able to state whether the opinion
that you have described as beiM prevalent among Chinamen is the
the opinion of the President of China ?
Mr. Ferguson. Unquestionably; and of the premier, and of prac-
tically every member of the cabmet, of all of the governors of the
Provinces whom I have met, of the chairmen of the Chinese Chamber
of Conunerce at Peking, at Tientsin, and Shanghai and Hongkong,
all of whom I have met in the last six months.
Senator Brandegee. You speak of reading the native press. Do
you speak Chinese as well as read it ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, naturally. All my official dealings are in the
native language. I never use interpreters.
Senator Brandegee. So that you are able to ascertain at first
hand the opinions of prominent men in China ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; when I meet the President of China, no one
else is present, and I talk directly with him as I would' with the
President of our own country, and without intermediaries.
Senator McCumbei^. China was equally indignant when Germany
seized her territory under the threat of arms ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. And she is indignant now; and not only be-
cause of this act but because of a series of like acts over a number of
years, whereby China's territory has been taken ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. And her sovereignty over that territory elim-
inated by the great Caucasian powers ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. The feeling was so strong that it brought
about the Boxer movement in 1900, of course. But may I add.
Senator
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson (continuing). That in this instance the circum-
stances are unique; because, whereas in former seizures, for instance
in the seizure oi Kiaochow by Germany in the first instance, China
suffered but England came at once to her rescue and took a friendlj
occupation of Wie-Hai-Wei, which is a part of Shantimg Province, it
was a friendly occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei, and England took that
possession in order to offset the German forcible seizure of Kiaochow,
which immediately following it, the United States issued that note to
Germany, and afterwards communicated it to all the great powers,
guaranteeing in future the territorial integrity of Cliina, and the open
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 569
door in commerce; so that although China at that time lost out by
the action of Germany, she still feit that behind her was the support
of the great majority of western nations.
Senator McCumber. And she felt, also, that she could play one of
these nations against the other?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; which has been the center, as I might state,
without any fear of contradiction, and I think in doin^ that I would
state that that had been the only foreign policy available to China
since the beginning of her treaty communications, to play one power
off against another.
Senator McCuhber. My questions, Doctor, are leading toward
another point.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. They are based upon this proposition, that
the Caucasian race has taken advantage oi the yellow race wherever
it could do so, and that even the jiunerican nation has not been
entirely free from censure in that line, as is evidenced by the fact
that we sent Admiral Perry over to Japan and compelled Japan, under
the shadow of the great guns of our fleet, to open up her ports.
Mr. Ferguson. Might I say there, in relation to the opening up
of Japan, that we sent that expedition under Admiral Perry not to
compel Japan to open her ports, but to compel her to give satisfac-
tion for murdering American seamen on her coasts.
Senator McCumber. And that resulted in the opening of her
ports?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Put it in whatever way you like. Now, do
you not think that the time has arrived when tne great nations of
the world ou^ht to agree together and have some kind of a compact
that they will cease their past conduct — their conduct, in the light of
the past — against China, and that they will do all that it is possible
to do to compel Japan to return Shantimg and Eliaochow to China ?
Mr. Ferguson, i es, sir; but in order to do that it wiD be necessary
for many of the great nations to release China from existing obh-
gations.
Senator McCumber. But at least they ought to agree that they
will not carry on their efforts to seize Chinese territory any further.
Mr. Ferguson. They did make such an agreement in 1899, sir,
and no Chinese territory, with the exception of this taking over of
Japan, has been seized since 1899. They promised Mr. Hay in the
reply to his notes — Great Britain, Japan, France, Russia, and Ger-
many— that they would not take any more territory from China,
and no territory has since that time been taken from China except
this present transfer of German rights in Shantung to Japan.
Senator Knox. May I ask you a question ?
Mr, Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Knox. Were not the benefits of that agreement further
expanded along about 1911, when the great nations of the earth,
induding Germany, Russia, the United States, France, Great Britain,
and Japan, entered into a consortium for the purpose of assisting
Chuia to carry out her definite program of reforms and to abstain
from acquiring spheres of influence ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
570 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Senator Knox. And to operate generally for the advantage of
China? .
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; and the object of that banking consortiiun
also was that each nation should disclose to the other its financial
arrangements concerning China.
. Senator Knox. And that no concessions or advantages were to be
obtained in China except they were participated in by all the nations ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. May 1 answer further in elucidation of
that?
Senator Knox. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ferguson. That arrangement went on very well until 1012,
when the new republic was formed in China, displacing the old Mon-
archy, and it was necessary in order to carry on the affairs of the
Government for the Central Government to make a loan quickly, and
it made a loan through some Belgium bankers, which is generally
known as the Crisp loan, which interfered with that plan. But that
was only a temporary interference, and in 1912 the American Govern-
ment took the position that this banking consortiiun was securing
such a hold over the financial interests of China that although it was
international in character, it was leading directly to the point where it
might be necessary to take over the control of the customs, the
receipts of revenue and the disbursements, and thus have a practical
•interierence with the internal administration of China.
Senator Ej^ox. But that was only done for the service of the
loan ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; and you will remember that President
Wilson and Secretary of State Bryan notified the American group
of bankers that the protection of the United States would be vdth-
drawn from them.
Senator Ej^ox. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. And might I state also in further elucidation of
what Senator McCumber asked me, that the reason for the action
of President Wilson and Secretary Bryan at that time was the fear
lest in any respect America should deviate from her well-laiown
policy of noninterference in the internal affairs of China. It created
a great deal of comment and made a great deal of dissatisfaction
among our American bankers. Yet so strong was the feelijog of the
present administration that no interference shoidd occur in the
mtemal administration of China that that drastic action was taken.
I mav say that it has since been reversed, because the administra-
tion has within the last year taken a new policy and has approved
a return of this American group of American bankers.
Senator Ej^ox. That aUeged interference there was predicated
upon the fact that there was a foreign financial officer to see that the
monev advanced by the six-power group was used for the purposes
for which it was aavanced, honestly used for the purposes of Cnina;
is not that correct?
Mr. Ferguson. That is correct as far as it goes, but I do not
think that would be a complete statement of the situation.
Senator Knox. Has not this administration since it overthrew that
arrangement in the spring of 1913, which I think was within a very
few weeks after this administration came in, has not it sought to
renew that consortium ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 571
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; within the last year, and the arrange-
ment has ah-eady been entered into, Mr. Thomas W. Lamont bemg
the representative of the American bankers, Sir Charles Addis
representing the British bankers, Odagari representing the Japanese
and Simon representing the French. That arrangement has been
entered into within the last two months in Paris by these four groups
to become again a quadruple group. It was first a quadruple group,
then a quintuple group, and finally a sextuple group.
Senator Knox. It is in effect a renewal of the pohcy of the previous *
administration in that particular ?
Mr. Ferguson. As far as I know. I know that the group has been
organized, but the basis on which it has been organized, whether or
not the same as on the original basis, I have no means yet of ascer-
taining.
Senator Knox. I might tell you that having read it I find that it
is the same except that it is expanded to include industrial lines,
which the consortium did not intend to cover.
Now just one more question. Is it not a fact that American
Erestige in China had reached its hi^h-water mark alon^ about 1912
y reason of these altrustic efforts msti^ated by the United States
to bring the other nations of the world m accord to assist China to
develop herself ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was higher in 1912 than in any other time. It
was higher in 1917 and 1918 and had suffered no diminution from its
greatest height, until news began to leak out from Paris of this
arrangement concerning Shantung, to which the United States was
apparently preparing to accede.
senator Knox. L^t me ask you this in reference to Senator Mc-
Cumber's suggestion that the Caucasian race had habitually taken
advantage of China by acquiring spheres of influence and territory
and all that sort of thing. Is not the distinction between these
transactions and other transactions this, that the United States
never was a party to any of those?
Mr. Ferguson. Exactly. I thought I brought that out in my first
statement in answer to Senator Lodge.
Senator Knox. Perhaps you did.
Mi. Fbrguson. The difference is that the United States never has
taken any Chinese territory and never has been a party to other
nations taking it, and as far as m^ knowledge goes has always taken
some means oi protesting against it, either by the exchange of notes
with other powers or by a representation through the American
M. nister in Peking to the Chinese Government saying that they greatly
reigretted the action that had been taken. It has frequently been
done.
Senator Brandegee. I wanted to ask Senator McCiunber if he
desired to proceed without interruption.
Senator McCumber. I have only a question or two, if the witness
is not taken away from me.
Mr. Ferguson. I do not object in any sense to interruption by any
Senator.
Senator Brandegee. I was speaking about interrupting the Senator.
Mr. Ferguson. I beg your pardon. I thought you meant inter-
ruptions to me.
Senator Brandegee. No.
572 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
•
Senator McCumber. You have spoken of an exchange of notes
between the great powers, including the United States, whereby the
general policy was outlined that all of these great nations would
refrain from adding to their territorial limits by the seizure of Chinese
territory ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Now, of course, those were executive .declara-
tions and hardly had the sanctity and force of treaties. Now, do you
•not think that we would greatly strengthen that general idea if
instead of mere diplomatic notes between the heads of governments,
the nations themselves would enter into a solenm compact that not
only would they refrain from any further seizure of Chinese territory
but that they would see to it that no other one of the great nations
should seize that territory, and use the force of war if necessary to
accomplish that result. Would that not be a great protection to
China ?
Mr. Ferguson. I should say, yes, sir; if that action were not based
upon connivance and what our American conscience must recognize
as an infamous and scandalous deal, and that there can be no just
ac(iuiescence on the part of great nations in any policy which is based
primarily upon an imjust and unrighteous act.
Senator McCumber. Must not these nations if they enter into a
compact recognize the fact that Japan in her diplomatic notes with
China has agreed absolutely to the return of that territory ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; but the point which I make is this, that
nations never before had been asked to connive — not only the United
States, but other n^^tions — to connive at the seizure of property and
upon that base the promise that thev never would do it a^ain. It
does not seem to me a hopeful attitud.e for the future, and i am sure
in that respect that I should be expressing the attitude of the Chinese
Government in the matter, that a definite promise never to steal in
the future should not be based upon the promise that a theft which
is already made should be overlooked.
Senator McCumber. But suppose you have not only the definite
promise not to steal in the futiu:e but the promise of the nation who
did the stealing that it will return the property and the nations of the
world back that a^eement for the return of that property ?
Mr. Ferguson. X might say,' sir, whereas I have no authority to
speak on behalf of the Chinese Government that I would risk the
statement as being correct that if any such propitious event as that
could take place tnat Japan would return all that she has got from
Germany or China and carry out what she said in her ultimatum to
Germany of August 15, 1914, the eventual restoration of the whole
leased territory of Kiaochow, and if on top of that all the nations of
the world would guarantee that this should be carried out, China
would resume a condition not only of tranquillity but also of great
satisfaction with the result.
Senator Williams. May I ask the witness a question ?
Mr. Ferguson. I would like to return to tnat a moment later.
Senator, if I may ?
Senator McClt^ber. Certainly.
Senator Williams. Is it not a fact that all treaties settling great
world wars have been founded largely upon the status quo at the end
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 578
of the war? Is there anything new in Japan's keeping possession of
what she conquered from Germany ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; so far as I know.
Senator Williams. Now then the only thing new that is being
proposed to the world is that that sort of thing shall not take place.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; the only thing new about that in my
mind is that we are asking a nation which has had a different policy
to change her policy and connive at it and agree to this settlement.
Senator Williams. That is a different way of expressing it, but
what we are all really agreeing to do is to let Japan keep what she
conquered from Germany and what came to her by cession from
China.
Mr. Ferguson. Oh, no, sir. May I state that that is not what
we are agreeing to ? By the treaty we are agreeing to give Japan a
great deal more than she got from Germany.
Senator Williams. That is a difference of interpretation between
me and you. I do not want to argue, of course, but I think that
when Japan made a treaty with China that she was to take over the
German possessions, she took over them and nothing more. But
let that pass. I think we have three or four Senators right here now
on this board who live in territory that we took from Mexico as the
result of war. Half of Europe is based upon treaties concluded at
the end of the Thirty Years' War and the Napoleonic wars and I do
not know what else, and in all those cases the status quo at the end
of the war was put on the map.
Senator Moses. I should like to point out right there, Mr. Chair-
man, that that territory was taken from enemies and not from
AUiep.
Senator Williams. This was taken from an enemy, too; I mean
by Japan. I do not want to get into an argument, gentlemen, nor
to get into a debate about that. Of course I am not a witness, nor
am I in favor of the Shantung provision. I do not like it, myself.
Mr. Ferguson. I am very glad to hear you say it, sir.
Senator Williams. But 1 am just remarking to the witness that
in denominatine it perfidy and shame and all that, it is going pretty
far if he will take account of the history of the world.
Mr. Ferguson. May I ask the Senator if it was not stated in the
record that I was saying, in characterizing it as infamous and dis-
honorable, and so forth, that that was the opinion of the Chinese
Government and the Chinese people ?
Senator Williams. I did not so understand you. That was the
opinion of the Mexican Government toward us.
Senator Fall. May I call attention to the statement just made
by the Senator from Mississippi in which he refers to the fact that
there are some Senators around the table who are representing
territory that was obtained by the United States in a similar way
to that in which Japan is acquiring this territory of Shantung.
Of course we all recomize the fact that the Senator
Senator Williams. I am not putting them on the same level, except
that they are both acquisitions, that is all.
Senator Fall. The Senator from Mississippi is usually very correct
in any historical allusion or parallel that he may make or draw.
The territory that he refers to, however, which is represented by two
of the Senators— Senator Smith of Arizona and myself — ^was not
574 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
acquired in the first place by conquest. A large part of the territory
represented by the Senator from Arizona and myself was acquired by
treaty with the sovereign Republic of Texas, which became after-
wards the State of Texas. The other portion of the territory, which is
represented by the Senator from Arizona, and that which is repre-
sented by the Senator from California, was acquired by purchase, by
treaty. It was later confirmed by another acquisition oy purchase
of additional territory, f ^is territory was acquu^ed by three distinct
purchases, one from the State of Texas, one from the State of Mexico,
and a subsequent piu*chase, confirming the title and acquiring a
small additional territory from the Government of Mexico. It is
often said that we acquired this territory by an outrageous act of
acquisition
The Chairman. We paid $20,000,000 for it.
Senator Fall (contmuing). But the historical facts are to the
contrary.
Senator Williams. I hope the Senator will not allow me to be put
in the attitude of saying that the Mexican War was outrageous. So
far as I am concerned 1 think it was verv much justified, and I had
a grandfather who was wounded during the war and a lot of relatives
who went out to help Texas gain her independence before the war.
They were justified. I am merely saying that it is nothing new to
the world to have conquests recognized m a treaty of peace at its
conclusion.
Senator McCumber. Doctor, if I understood your statement cor-
rectly, it was that under this treaty we in some way give to Japan
more than Germany had of Chinese rights ?
Mr. !Perguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. Well, now, what do we assure to Japan other
than that which is granted by article 156, which is nothing more or
less than the German renunciation in favor of Japan of all ner rights,
titles, and privileges obtained in China. All that Japan gets under
that is that Germany surrenders to Japan what rights Germany had
in it, and I do not tnink that you will find anything in articles 156,
157, end 158 further than the mere renunciation of &erman rights in
favor of Japan, Wherein in the treaty does Japan obtain any other
additional rights that we have recognized ?
Mr. Ferguson. In reply to your question, Senator, if you will open
to article 156, the second paragraph reads as follows:
All German rights-in ihe Taingtao-Tsinanfu Railwa>r, including its branch lines,
together with its subsidiary property of all kinds, stations, shops, fixed and rolling
stock, mines, plant, and material for the exploitation of the mines, are and remain
acquired by Japan —
Now, the point comes in here:
together with all rights and privileges attaching thereto.
Senator McCumber. Well, that is Germany's agreement with Japan.
Mr. Ferguson. There is not a clear understanding of that. That
is not what the Chinese Government imderstands that to mean. It
understands, or it fears, rather — perhaps I should not use as strong
a statement as that it imderstands— but it fears that the right
which it had to take over and redeem German interests in railways
and mines in the Shantung Province now goes dejSnitely to Japan,
and they remain acquired oy Japan without any prospect of having
TRESATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 575
them come back to her. It is the same with the submarine cable.
I might point out that the railway was a privately owned railway,
not a Government State railway, and the mines were owned by the
Shantimg-Berbou Co.; and only a portion of the capital in the sub-
marine cable — at least it was so stated by the Chinese Government —
was German Government property. And this private German prop-
erty is taken over without any power, of the Chinese Government to
redeem it in future, as China can do with all other railwajr concessions
in China, and it goes into the hands of Japan and remains acquired
by Japan.
Senator McCumbeb. Doctor, let us see what the words ''remain
acquired by Japan" refer to.
Mr. Ferguson. They refer to the German rights, sir. There is no
question about that.
Senator McCxjmbeb. They refer to the first proposition :
Germany renounces, in favor of Japan, all her rights, title, and privileges— -particu-
lar! v those concenting the territory of Kiaochow — ^railways, mines, and submarine
cables which she acquired in virtue of the treatjr concluaed by. her with China on
March 6, 1898, and of all other arrangements relative to the Province of Shantung.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumrer. All German rights. Then this is descriptive
of them —
All German rights in the Tsingtau-Tsinanfu Railway, including its branch lines,
together with its subsidiary property of all kinds, stations, shops, fixed and rolling
stock, mines, plant, and material for the exploitation of the mines, are and remain
acquired by Japan, together with all rights and privileges attaching thereto.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator McCumrer. The words "are and remain acquired'' refer
back to the first provision, that Germany renounces all those rights,
and of course in the renunciation of those rights they remain in Japan.
Now
Mr. Ferguson. I am sure-
Senator McCumrer. Let me finish my question, Doctor.
Mr. Ferguson. Certainly.
Senator McCumrer. Remain for how long ? They certainly could
not remain longer than the 99 years, could they ?
Mr. Ferguson. The Chinese Government so fears.
Senator McCumrer. She so fears, but under the wording of the
treaty
Mr. Ferguson. She considers
Senator McCumrer. Whatever Japan acquired of the German
rights, if the German rights expire at the end of 99 years after 1898,
of course the Japanese rights would have to expire with that, would
they not ?
Mr. FEfROUsoN. I should hope so; but I myself consider, aiid have
advised the Chinese Government, that I consider the wording of the
section to be so indistinct that that is a very dubious question, sir.
Senator McCumrer. And if in addition to this acquiring simplv
of the rights of Germany, Japan enters into another treaty witn
China whereby she agrees to return the territory to China, do you
not think she ought to be held strictly to that by the other great
nations of the world, and would be so held in case of a league of
liations ?
576 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Ferguson. I should hope so. May I express the reason why
the Chinese Government fears as it does ?
Senator McCumber. Certainly.
Mr. Ferguson. Under article 4 of the note of May 25, 1915—1
think you have a copy of it there — it says:
As regards the disposal to be made of the buildings and properties of Germany and
the conditions and procedure relating thereto, the Japanese Government anS the
Chinese Government shall arrange the matter by mutual agreement before the restora-
tion.
That is what China agreed to in her dealings with Japan. Now
Japan takes this matter to Paris, and Paris gives her very much more
than she got from China, by taking all this, and without anj reference
to. China turning it over to Japan. Do you see my point, sir? Under
article 4 of the note of May 25 the disposal of all this property outside
of the leased territory of Kiaochow was to be by mutual arrangement
between the Chinese and Japanese Governments. Under articles 156
and 157 it is disposed of without any reference to the Chinese Govern-
ment, by turning it over directly to Japan, and the wording is "are
and remain acquired by Japan;" so that it is very natural that the
Chinese GoveAiment should fear that the reason of Japan in changing
the method of procedure which was provided for in the note wnich
was wrung from China under duress on May 25, 1915, to the terms of
articles 156 and 157, would naturallj be in the interest of Japan
herself, and therefore China entertams the fear that what Japan
means by this is that this shall all come under the same heading as
article 2 of that same note referring to concessions, that it sncdl
ffo to the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan without any reference
further to China.
Senator McCumbeb. Doctor, notwithstanding what the Chinese
may fear, I think both you and I must give this article a construction
in conformity with the theory that Germany transfers to Japan these
rights, and whatever Japan receives under article 156 is the German
right and nothing but the German ri^ht, and that is by virtue of her
treaty with Gennany. Now if she nas another treaty with China
whereby in addition to this she agrees to turn back what she does
get from Germany under article 156, she must be held to return it;
and referring to article 2, there we must assume at least that good
faith will be exercised in the making of the agreement with China.
If she does not act in good faith, she is breaking her agreement with
China.
Mr. Febguson. Mav I call your attention to the reason why it does
not seem to me that tnat is the only possible interpretation of article
156?
Senator McCumbeb. I shall be very glad to have your view.
Mr. Febguson. Because in the first paragraph you will notice,
Senator, that Germany renounces in favor oi Japan. Now if para-
graph 2 and paragraph 3 stated the same thing, there would oe no
possible doubt that your interpretation of that is the only possible
interpretation. But in view of the fact that the first section says
she renounces that in favor of Japan, and the next section takes these
things all up into a ^up and says that they are and rAnain ac-
quired by Japan, surely there is some reason for the difference in the
wording, ana that gives very serious distress to China, and leaves
open the possibiUty of Japanese claims in that matter; and it is not
TREATY OF PBACB WITH GERMANY. 577
invidious to say that Japan has been eager to acquire from China,
through every possible loophole of verbiage or transaction, all avail-
able opportunity for her own aggrandizement.
Senator McCumber. Doctor, you yourself would not claim that
by the use of the word '* renounces'' Japan would obtain anything
in addition to what she would have obtained had they used the words
*' Germany grants to Japan all her rights ?"
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir, that is quite clear. That part is quite
clear — the first paragraph.
Senator McCumber. Japan, after all, under whatever the term
us^ may be, can only obtain what Germany obtained.
Mr. Ferguson. Under the first paragraph, yes, but note that the
treaty can give Japan a great deal more than Germany had.
Senator McjCumber. It does not give anything more unless the
words "remain acquired by Japan" mean that it remains acquired
in perpetuity.
Mr. Ferguson. That is what it seems to me to mean.
Senator McjCumber. Then Germany would be renouncing more
than she had.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir. Germany does her act of renunciation
in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is the statement of
all the signatory powers to this treaty, not Germany's renunciation.
Germany's renunciation is in the first paragraph.
Senator McCumber. I do not beheve that any civilized nation
will give it the construction that China fears.
The Chairman. I may not be civilized, but I give it that con-
struction.
Senator McCumber. I do not think any civilized nation would.
Mr. Ferguson. Senator, I may say that China has had experience
in this matter in dealing with Japan in reference to Korea and in
Manchuria.
The Chairman. And so has everybody else.
Mr. Ferguson. And has had a long Ime of precedents that cause
her to be wary of such phrases, and she has a serious fear of that
phrase.
Senator McCumber. We do not blame her for being suspicious.
Senator Williams. I would like to ask a question
Senator Fall. I should like to ask a question when the opportunity
arises.
Senator McCumber. I yield to the Senator.
Senator Fall. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
Senator Williams. On this very point I want to ask you, whatever
may be the case as to treaties between China and Japan, and what-
ever may have been bad faith in the past, we are talking now about
this treaty.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Williams. In the first clause it says, *' Germany
renounces," and in the second clause it says, ''all uerman rights,
and then the third para^aph says, 'Hhe German State submarine
cables from Tsingtao to ^anghai and from Tsingtao to Chefoo " and
so forth.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
135546—19 37
578 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Williams. And article 157 says, "the movable and
immovable property owned by the Gennan State in the territory of
Kiaochow."
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Williams. Now, how can it mean anything except what
Germanv owns, when it says so in every clause ?
Mr. Ferguson. But Germany did not own. It is the ipse dixit
statement of the Japanese Government, as to whether this property,
without any Wal review of it, was German state owneo, or was
Erivately owned, a thing which I do not think has occurred in the
andling of private property in any other part of the treaty. It is
the ipse dixit statement that this property does belong to the German
State; whereas it has been generally supposed, and as far as I know
accurately supposed — because I haa a great deal of dealings witi the
administration of the Tsingtao Railway when I was the fehie.f secretary
of the Chinese Railway Administration — that it was a privatdV
owned concern, and as far as I know that has never been doubted.
That is taken over and has been stated to be German State owned.
Senator Williams. If it says in this treaty 'Hhe movable and
immovable property owned by the German State in the territory of
Kiaochow, then this treaty can not carry any privately owned
property, because it is expressly limited to the property owned by
the German State.
Mr. Ferguson. But who is going to determine that?
Senator Williams. Well, that is another question, that might come
up in treaties between China and Japan, and probably come up to
the disadvantage of China. I do now know.
The Chairman. I have no desire to make an argument, but I
want to ask a question. Does not the description the Tsin^tau-
Tsinanfu Railway," and *' submarine cable from Tsingtao to Shang-
hai" describe property that is partly private?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
The Chairman. And gives it to Japan ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; as far as my knowledge goes.
Senator Williams. That is the submarine caHe ?
Mr. Ferguson. The submarine cable and the railways.
The Chairman. I said both the submarine cable and the railway.
Senator Fall. May I ask a question before you get off of this?
Is it not your construction, and the fear of the Chinese, as though
Germany were making a quitclaim deed to Japan of more property
than Germany itself owned, and that that quitclaim deed by virtue
of these articles is being turned into what China fears to be a war-
ranty deed to Japan of more than Germany quitclaimed ?
Mr. Ferguson. I think your simile is very much to the point,
Senator
Senator Johnson of California. Let me call your attention to
article 1 57, to the peculiar language there which may lead to differ-
ences in the future:
The movable and immovable propertv owned by the German State in the territory
of Kiaochow, as well as all the nghts which Germany might claim in consequence of
the works or improvements made or of the expenses incurred by her, directly or indi-
rectly, in connection with this territory, are and remain acquired by Japan*.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
TBBATY OV FBAOB WITH GEBMANY. 579
Senator Johnson of California. You observe the loose language
and the elasticity of it, by which any possible claim might be made
by Japan now as the successor of Germany.
' Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. By the way, if they want to pre-
serve any promises
Mr. Ferguson. Before you go on, may I call your attention to the
last clause of the first par^aph of article 156?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. ''And of all other arrangements relative to the
Province of Shantung.''
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. China also fears that very much. There were
certain arrangements there which were wrung from her under diu'ess.
There may be arrangements there which were made without the
knowledge of the central government, made by provincial or local
officials, which if the Chinese Government had been cognizant of
them would have been promptly disallowed, but this makes the pos-
sibility of bringing them forward as a claim for rights. That is a
very serious matter. That is the last clause of the first paragraph
of article 156, '' and of all other arrangements relative to the Province
of Shantung.'' Arrangements with whom ? Arrangements with the
central government? The government would feel obliged to stand
by arrangements made with the central governnaent, but natiu'ally
the Chinese Government does not consider that it ou^ht to be held
accoimtable for arrangements with provincial or mimicipal authorities
which had not been reported to the central eovernment.
Senator Johnson of California. And if it nad heen desired by the
powers who executed this treaty to preserve the promise of Japan, do
you know of any reason why tnat promise should not have been in-
serted in the treaty ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; that is the strange part of the treaty, to
my mind, that Japan having made a promise to China to return this,
having made this statement in her aeclaration of war against Ger-
many that she would return it, the treaty itself makes no mention of
the promise. As far as I know all the obligations of every nation are
included in the treaty, and this obligation to return iSaaochow to
China, on the part of Japan, is not mentioned in the treaty. May I
add there, Senator — I hope I am not too discursive
Senator Johnson ot California. No; go ahead.
Mr. Ferguson. The whole process of restoring Kiaochow to China
on the part of Japan could have been such a simple thing that the
means which have been adopted since 1914 can only be explained to
my mind bv the fact that it ha3 been the deliberate policy of Japan
to make the return to China as difficult as possible. Japan captured
Kiaochow. All she had to do was to turn it back to China at that
time and withdraw her forces, and there was no need ox reterring to
anybody. She would have rid herself ot German influence in the
Far East, she would have kept faith with the Allies, and there would
have been no discussion. But, instead of doing that, she has scat-
tered her troops all over the province of Shantung; sne has made a
civil administration in the province; she has added every possible
obstacle to the keeping of her original promise in the ultimatum of
restoring Kiaochow to China. The simple, easy process has been
made a complicated and difficult one.
580 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Johnson of California. Does the possession of the harbor
and of the economic rights that have been referred to give Japan
practical control of the entire Province of Shantung ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; because it gives her the right to police the
railroad, which she has already exercised by the appointing, not of
ordinary police but of gendarmes, a part of her army organization.
That scatters troops along the whole Ime of the railway for 256 miles.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you tell us something about
the economic resources of Shantung ?
Mr. Ferguson. The output of the three coal mines, one at Fang-
tsze, one at Hungshan, ana one at Kin-ling-hsien, is about 1,000,000
tons of coal per annum. There are iron mines at Poshan, the pos-
sibilities of which have been variously estimated. A German engineer
made a fairly low estimate of the possible output of them. They have
not been developed . A Japanese expert engineer made a much nigher
estimate of the possible output of iron. There are also silicate depos-
its which are used in the manufacture of glass, a very old manufacture
in that Province.
The cultivation of silk in the northern part of the Province is one
of the great industries. For a very long time a large portion of the
silk imported into the- United States came from Chefoo. In the
northwesterly part of the Province the cotton industry has been
recently developed.
The rrovince is a very rich one, both agriculturally and in minerals.
Senator Johnson of California. In comparison with other Prov-
inces in China, what would you say of the productivity and richness
in resources of the Province of Shantung ?
Mr. Ferguson. It is in the second class of China Provinces. The
most productive Provinces are Kiangsu and Cheh-king. Then, I
should say next to those two Provinces would come this Province of
Shantimg.
Senator Johnson of California. Are there any possibilities of com-
merce or trade in which the United States might be interested with
Shantung Province ?
Mr. Ferguson. The United States has very large commercial in-
terests, in the sale of United States exports, and in the imports from
that Province.
Senator Johnson of California. The distributing point being what ?
Mr. Ferguson. Formerly the distributing point was entirely Che-
foo, but after the German occupation of Eaaochow and the develop-
ment of that harbor and the building of the railroad in 1904, a good
many of the products were diverted to the port of Tsingtau.
Senator Johnson of California. Then, we have a material interest
in Kiaochow and in the Province of Shantung ?
Mr. Ferguson. A very large interest; I should say, proportion-
ately to other Provinces in China, a larger interest than the averagre
interest of the United States in the Provinces of China.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not the
request was made by our Government of the Chinese Government to
enter the war ? I think the President testified to that yesterday, and
your statement would be only cumulative.
Mr. Ferguson. I might say that I was one of the persons who
communicated that request on behalf of the minister to the Chinese
Government, and was cognizant of the request and saw the request.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 581
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state whether or not in
pursuance of the request of the United States China did enter the war ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was at the reauest and on the continual urging
of the United States officials in PeMng that China entered the war.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not any
representations were made to China by the United States Government
that the United States would safeguard Chinese interests at the peace
conference ?
Mr. Ferguson. I never heard officially of any such statomfents,
though I am cognizant of the fact that tne United States promised
China — that is within my own personal knowledge — ^promised to
support China in her claim to bemg represented at the peace con-
ference. There was doubt as to T^ether China would fee given a
seat in the peace conference previous to her entering into the war,
and I know that the United States promised to use her best offices to
secure a seat for China, even before she had entered the war, in view
of this Eiaochow incident.
Senator Johnson of California. And when those representations
were made, they were based upon the Chinese viewpoint that she
wanted the Kiaochow matter determined at the peace conference ?
Mr. Ferguson. At the peace conference and not by virtue of the
treaty of 1915.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether or not any
of the Chinese in Shantimc Province went to the war in any capacity ?
Mr. Ferguson. Great Britain and France' both approached the
Chinese Government early in 1915 for the purpose of recruiting labor-
ersj and although China nad not declared war against Germany her
position relative to the Allies was well known, and the AlUes were
given permission openly to send officers into Shantimg and other
provinces to recruit Chmese laborers. As a result of uiat stations
were established for the shipment of these laborers at Wei-hai-wei and
at Tsingtao, and from those two stations about 175,000 Chinese
laborers were sent via Canada and the Atlantic Ocean to France and
Elngland, where they dug trenches, worked in munition factories, and
did many other forms of labor. ,
I midnt say that the work that was done by these Chinese laborers
is well Known to the Young Men's Christian Association organization
of America, which organized a band of Chinese secretaties to work
among those men, and they have the full details of what they did in
Prance and England.
Senator Johnson of California. Did a large part of those laborers
come from the Province of Shantung !
Mr. Ferguson. Practically all those that were recruited by the
British Government came from the Shantung Province. About
20,000 of them went from a southern Province via the Suez Canal,
but they were not as strong, able-bodied men as those from Shantung
Province.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know whether any of them
were killed over there t
Mr. Ferguson. A sreat manv of them were killed; and I might
say from my personSi knowledge in crossing the Pacific with one
boatload of them, consisting of 2,300 men, and talking with them,
that they all hoped they were going into the war, and not simply to
go there as laborers, and were anxious to be in the war.
582 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBBCAKY.
Senator Johnson of California. Has Japan since 1914 secured any
rights in addition to those which Germany had formerly in the
Shantung Province ?
Mr. Ferguson. Oh, yes; ffreat rights.
Senator Johnson of California. State briefly and generally what
they are.
Mr. Ferguson. The 1915 treaty and notes referred to four geo-
graphical eroups, of which Shantung was only one; and by that same
treaty ana by those same notes Japan acquired in Manchuria and
eastern Inner Mongolia new rights ot residence, rights of purchasing
agrictiltural lands, rights to construct five railroads which I could
indicate on the map n it was any benefit
Senator Johnson of Califomia. It will not be necessary to do that.
Mr. Ferguson. Bights over six mining districts in Manchuria and
three nuning districts in the Province oi Eirin, the right to connect
the Ejrin-Cnangchun Bailway with the Korean border, the right to
extend the railway westward into Chao-yan^, the great mart of eastern
Inner MongoUa, and greatly strengthenmg ner claim upon Manchuria
and eastern MongoUa. In one way those claims were extended most
markedly by the extension of the lease of Port Arthmr and Eiaochow
for 99 years, the extension of the lease of the Southern Manchurian
Bailway for 99 years, and the extension of the Antung-Mukden KaU-
way to 99 years, so that those leases do not expire imtil the twenty-
first centiu-y. She acquired in addition certain rights in the Yan^tse
Valley, chiefly those in reference to the Han-yeh-pin^ Iron & Steel
Co., which she obtained the right to make a joint ooncem
between Japanese and Chinese. Under this company is owned the
Ta-yeh iron mine from which Japan obtains nearly an of her supply
of iron ore for the use of her iron factories.
She obtained also the promise from China in reference to the
Province of Fu-Men, opposite Formosa, that no docks or harbors
should be leased to any power, or that China would not borrow money
from any power for developing docks there but herself.
I might state that in reference to the railways which Japan acquired
in Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia, they are nearly all strat^c
military railroads and not needed for present commercial purposes.
Senator Moses. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee adjourn
until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Senator Hitchcock. We would like to ask the witness some more
questions.
Senator Harding. I think the testimony of this witness is inter-
esting to all of the committee, and we would like to hear it.
Senator Hitchcock. The examination has been almost wholly on
one side of the table.
Senator Harding. I want to continue it to-morrow morinng. I
move that we adjourn.
Whereupon (at 12 o'clock noon) the committee adjourned until
Thursday, August 21, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign RELAtiONs,
WdshingtoUj D, C,
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Brandegee, Knox,
Harding, Johnson, Moses, and Swanson.
STATEMENT OF KB. JOHN C. FSBOV80V— Besomed.
The Chaibman. You may proceed, Mr. Ferguson.
Senator Johnson of Caliiomia. Sraiator McCumber have you some
other questions you wish to ask ?
Senator McCumber. Nothing further now, Senator.
Mr. Febquson. Mr. Chairman, before anything else is asked me I
want to insert what Senator Hitchcock, I thmk it was, asked me about
yesterday. I spoke from memory, and I have since consulted my
authorities and found that my memory had not served me right in
the matter, and I want to make it clear in my testimony if pos&ible.
The Chaibbian. Certainly.
Mr. Febouson. This is in regard to the convention between China
and Germany respecting the lease of Kiaochow to Germany. I was
asked yesteraay as to whether or not it was definitely specified in
thai convention that Germany could not sublet the leased territory
to any other power, and I said that according to my memory there
was no provision in the treaty, but that I spoke simply from memory
in the matter.
I have since looked up my records and find that under article 5 of
section 1 of that treaty, which was translated and inserted in the
British official treaty compilation, and also in the compilation made
for our own Government by Mr. W. W. Rockhill and printed in the
United States Government Printing Office in 1906, called *' Treaties
and Conventions with or Concerning China and Korea, 1894-1904;
Washington, 1906 (U. S. Government Printing Office)," article 5 of
section 1, in the second paragraph, states
Senator McCumbeb. That is of what treaty ? Will you state the
year ?
Mr. Febquson. That is of the treaty of March 6, 1898.
Senator McCumbeb. Between China and Germany ?
Mr. Febquson. Between China and Germany, respecting the
lease of Eaochow to Germany. It states :
Germany engages at no time to sublet the territory leased from China to another
power.
I might state that in Mr. Rockhill's edition of the treaties he
appends a footnote to the paragraph beginning ''The Chinese Gov-
583
584 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
eminent sanctions the construction of Germany," headed in the
Rockhill translation ^'sections 2 and 3/' This is the footnote:
The following sectionB of the Gennan-Chinese agreement of March 6^ 1898, have
never been made public by the German (jovemment, but have been privately oom-
municated to i)erBonB interested in the development of the protectorate. See Pro-
ceedings before the Budget Commission of the Reichstag April 29, 1898, in Brit.
Blue Book, China No. 1 (1899), p. 67. See also Precis of these sections of the agree-
ment, Brit. Blue Book, China No. 1 (1899) p. 152. The text as given here of ttiese
sections of the agreement is based on unofficial publications, but is, it is believed,
substantially correct.
That is the whole of Mr. RockhilPs footnote.
Senator Brandegee. Excuse me. Was that publication that vou
speak of as having been printed in the Government Printing Ofiice
in 1905; with the title which you gave it, printed as an executive
document or as a State Department paper?
Mr. Ferguson. As a State Department paper, as I remember.
1 speak of that simply from memory.
senator Brandegee. It is easy to identify that, I think.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. You read some provision there from Mr.
Rockhill's statement; as I recall it, stating that China had objected
to the German interpretation of the treaty ?
Mr. Ferguson, ^o, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Did you not read something about China
not agreeing to an interpretation?
Mr. Ferguson, No, sir.
Senator Brandegee. I have a memory that you said something
about the German interpretation of the treaty, did you not?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Then I am mistaken about that.
Mr. Ferguson. I might say that the official text of the treatv, in
German, was published jby the Imperial Maritime Customs as volume
2 of ''Troaties, Conventions, etc., between China and Foreign States."
Senator Brandegee. As of what date 1
Mr. Ferguson. In 1908. I have a photographic copy of the ori^-
nal convention in the German language ana in Chinese, which I will
hand over to the committee for any future reference, although it may
not be, I suppose, convenient to inoprporate it in my testimony.
I will hand it over so that the committee will always have it.
I would say that in reference to this paragraph 2 of article 5, the
provision in the German text of the treaty is —
Deutschland verplichtet sich das von China gepachtete Gebiet niemals an andere
Macht welter zu verpachten.
A literal translation of these words would seem to be —
Germany obligates itself never to extend farther the leasing process, as respects
the territory leased from China, to any other State.
Senator MoCumber. That is substantially the same that he has
given here.
Mr, Ferguson. The expression '^weiter zu verpachten'' in the
Bockhill translation, which is the English translation, is translated
'^sublease.'' Taking the literal meaning of the German words, how-
ever, this provision seems clearly to cut off all privilege of transfer of
the territory, whether by assignment or sublease.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 585
Senator Bbandeoee. You will put the German text into the record.
Mr. Ferguson. I will later put the original German text into the
record if I may be allowed to ao so. I will state also that the trans-
lation of the dninese text of the treaty explicitly states that Germany
promises forever — the two Chinese characters are yung yuan, whicn
mean forever— -jpromises forever never to transfer this lease to any
other power. That is the text as it occurs in Chinese.
Senator McCumber. And that agrees with the English translation
as set forth in the treaty, namely, that Germany engages at no time
to sublet the territory leased from China to any other power.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. If it is agreeable to tne committee I would
like also to put into your record the full text of this convention be-
tween China and Germany respecting the lease of Kiaochow to Ger-
many, which was concluded March 6, 1898. It can easily be foimd
in the State Department document, or I can furnish another copy of
it to be included in my testimony if you so desire.
Senator Brandegee. I would like to have it in the record.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
(The convention here referred to, and three others referred to in
this day's hearing, are here printed in full as follows :)
No. 1. Convention Bbtwbbn China and Germany Respectino the Lease of
Kiaochow to Germany March 6, 189S.
The incidents connected with the Mission in the Prefecture of Tsao-chow-fu, in
Shantung, being now closed^ the Imperial Chinese Government consider it advisable
to give a speciaTproof of their grateful appreciation of the assistance rendered to them
by Germany. The Imperial German and the Imperial Chinese Governments, there-
fore, inspired by the equal and mutual wish to strengthen the bonds of friendship
which unite the two countries, and to develop the commercial relations between the
subjects of the two States, have concluded the following separate Convention:
SECTION I. — ^LBASB OF KIAOCHOW.
Abt. 1. His Majesty the Emperor of China, guided by the intention to strengthen
the friendly relations between China and Germany, and at ^e same time to increase
the military readiness of the Chinese Empire, enjra^, while reserving to himself
all rights of sovereignty in a zone of 50 Idiom. (100 Chinese li) surrounding the Bay of
Kiaochow at high water, to permit the free passage of German troops within this zone
at any time, and also in taking any measures, or issuing any ordinances therein, to
pfeviously consult and secure the agreement of the German Government, and espe-
cially to place no obstacle in the way of any regulation of the water-courses which may
prove to be necessary. His Majesty the Emperor of China, at the same time, reserves
to himself the right to station troops within this zone, in agreement with the German
Government, and to take other military measures. ^
Art. 2. With the intention of meeting the legitimate desire of His Majesty the
German Emperor^ that Germany like other Powers should hold a place on the Chinese
coast for the repair and equipment of her ships, for the storage of materials and provi-
sions for the same, and for other arrangements connected therewith, His Majesty the
Emperor of China leases to Germanv, provisionally for ninety-nine years, both sides
of me entrance to the Bay of Kiaoc&ow. Germany engages to construct, at a suitable
moment, on the territory thus leased fortifications for the protection of the buildings
to be constructed there and of the entrance to the harbour.
Art. 3. In order to avoid the possibility of conflicts, the Imperial Chinese Govern-
ment will not exercise rights of administration in the leased territory during the term
of the lease, but grants the exercise of the same to Germany, wiUiin the following limits:
1. On the northern side of the entrance to the Bay:
The Peninsula boimded to the north-east by a line drawn from the north-eastern
comer of Potato Island to Loshan Harbour.
2. On the southern side of the entrance to the Bay:
The Peninsula bounded to the south-west by a line drawn from the south-western-
most point of the Bay l}dng to the southsouthwest of Chiposan Island in the direction
of Tolosan Island.
586 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
3. The Island of Chiposan and Potato Island.
4. The whole water area of the Bay up to the highest watermark at present known.
5. All islands lying seaward from Kiaochow Bay, which may be of importance for
its defence, such as Tolosan, Ghalienchow, etc.
The High Contracting Parties reserve to themselves to delimit more accurately, in
accordance with local traditions, the boundaries of the territory leased to Germany
and of the 50 kilom. zone round the Bay, by means of Commissioners to be appointed
on both sides.
CMnese ships of war and merchant vessels shall enjoy the same privileges in the Bay
of Kiaochow as the ships of other nations on friendly terms witn Germany; and the
entrance, departure ana sojourn of Chinese ships in the Bay shall not be subject to
any restrictions other than those which the Imperial German Government, in virtue
of the rights of administration over the whole of the water area of the Bay tnuisferred
to Germany, may at any time find it necessary to impose with regard to the ships of
other nations.
Art. 4. Germany engages to construct the necessary navigation signs on the islands
and shallows at the entrance of the Bay.
No dues shall be demanded from Cmnese ships of war and merchant vessels in the
Bay of Kiaochow, except those which may be levied upon other vessels for the purpose
of maintaining the necessary harbour arrangements and quays.
Art. 5. Should Germany at. some future time express the wish to return Kiaochov
Bay to China before the expiration of the lease, China engages to refund to Germany Uie
expenditure she has incurred at Kiaochow and convey to Germany a more suitable
place.
Germany engages at no time to sublet the territory leased from China to another
Power.
The Chinese population dwelling in the leased territory shall at all times enjoy the
Erotection of the German (jovemment provided that they behave in conformity with
vw and order; unless their land is reqiiired for other purposes, they may remain
there.
If land belonging to Chinese owners is required for any other purpose, the owner
will receive compensation.
As regards the reestablishment of Chinese customs stations which formerly existed
outside the leased territory but within the 50 kilom. zone, the Imperial German
Government intends to come to an agreement with the Chinese Government for the
definite regulations of the customs frontier, and the mode of collecting customs duties
in a manner which will safeguard all the interests of China, and propose to enter
into further negotiations on the subject.
SECTION n. — RAILWAYS AND MINES.
Art. 1. The Chinese Government sanctions the construction by Germany of two
lines of railway in Shantung. The first will run from Kiaochow to Chinan and the
Boundary of Shantung Province via Weihsien, Tsingchow, Poshan, Tzechwan and
Tsowping. The second line will connect Kiaochow with I-chow, whence an exten-
sion will be constructed to Chinan through Laiwu-Hsien. The construction of the
line from Chinan to the boundary of Shantung Province shall not be begun till after
the completion of the construction of the line to Chinan, so that a further anange-
ment may be made with a view to effecting a connection with China's own railway
system. What places the line from Chinan to the provincial boundary shall take in
en route shall be specified in the regulations to be made separately.
Art. 2. In order to carry out the above-mentioned railway work a Chino-German
Railway Company shall be formed with branches in one or more places, and in thii?
Company botn German and Chinese merchants shall be at liberty to raise the capital
and appoint directors for the management of the undertaking.
Art. 3. All arrangements for the above purposes shall be determined in an addi-
tional agreement to be concluded by the High Contracting Parties as soon as possible.
China and Germany will settle this matter by themselves, but the Chinese Govern-
ment will accord favorable treatment to the said Chino-German Railway Company
in constructing and operating the above-mentioned lines and extend to them other
privileges enjoyed b}r Chino-Foreign Companies established in other parts of China.
The above article is conceived only in the interest of commerce: it has no other
design. Positively no land or territory in tlie Province of Shantung may be annexed
in the construction of the above-mentioned railways.
Art. 4. In the vicinity of the railways to be built, within 30 li of them, as, for
instance, in Weihsien and Poshan Hsien on the Northern line from Kiaochow to
Chinan and as in Tchow Fu and Laiwu Helen on the Southern line from Kiaochow via
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 587
Tohow to Chinau. German merchants are permitted to excavate coal, etc. The
necesBaxy works may be undertaken by Chinese and German merchants combining
the capital. The mining regulations shall also be subsequently negotiated with care.
The Chinese Government will, according to what has been stipulated for in the pro-
vision concerning the construction of railways, also accord favorable treatment to the
German merchants and workmen, and extend to them other privileges enjoyed by
Chino- Foreign Companies established in other parts of China.
This Article is also conceived only in the interests of commerce, and has no other
demgn.
8BCTION in. — ^AFFAIRS IN THB WHOLE PROVINCB OF 8HANTDNO.
If within the Province of Shantung any matters are undertaken for which foreign
aasistance, whether in personnel or in capital, or in material, is invited, China agrees
that the German merchants concerned shall first be aaked whether they wish to
undertake tJie works and provide the materials.
In case the German merchants do not wish to undertake the said works and provide
the materials, then aa a matter of fairness China will be free to make such other ar-
rangement as suits her convenience.
RATIFICATIONS.
The above agreement shall be ratified by the Sovereigns of both Contracting States,
and the ratifications exchanged in such manner that, after the receipt in Berlin of
the Treaty ratified by China, the copy ratified by Germany shall be handed to the
Ghineee Minister in Berlin.
The foregoing Treaty has been drawn up in four copies two in German and two in
Chinese, and was signed by the Repreeentativee of the two Contracting Parties on the
6th March, 18d8, equal to the 14th day of the 2nd month in the 24th year Kuang-Hsu.
[Great seal of the Tsung-li Yamen.] Li Hung Chang.
(In Chinese), Imperial Chinese
Grand Secretary Mini»ter of the
Tsung-li Yamen, etc,
Weno Tung Ho.
(In Chinese) Grand Secretary, Member of the Council of State, Minister of the
Tsung-li Yamen , etc., etc.
Baron von Heyking.
Imperial German Minister,
No. 2. Agreement Between China and Germany Respecting the Kiaochow
Chin an Railway Regulations, March 21, 1900.
His Excellency the Governor of the Province of Shantung Yuan Shih Kai, and His
Excellency the Lieutenant General Yin Chang, upon petition of the Grovemor of
Shantung, especiall^r delegated by Imperial decree to these negotiations, on the one
side, and the Managing Board of the Snantung Railway Company at Tsingtao, repre-
sented by Mr. H. Hildebrand, a Royal Inspector of Prussian Railways, on the other
side, have, in order to prevent agitation and disturbances of any kind in Shantung
during the ^riod of building the railway and to maintain friendly relations between
the population of the province and the Companv, agreed upon the following. Rail-
way Regulatuons with regard to the line of railway between the boundaries of the
German leased territory and Chinanfu, subject to the approval of the Board of Direc-
tors of the Shantung Railway Company in Berlin and reduced to writing in Chinese
and German texts of like tenour.
Art. 1. In accordance with Art. 4, section 2, of the aforesaid Kiaochow Convention
a German-Chinese Railway Company shall be formed, issuing shares to German and
Chinese subjects. This compan^r shall for the present be under German management.
It shall half-yearly notify the Cluao Se Chuo at Chinanfu of the number of shiues pur-
chased by Chinese. As soon as the amount of such shares has reached Taels 100,000,
the Governor of the Province of Shantung shall delegate a Chinese official for coopera-
tion at the seat of the Company.
Art. 2. Should in future branches of the Administration of the Company be estab-
lished in Shantung, one Chinese official shall be delegated to each one of them.
Art. 3. Officials or respectable citizens shall be consulted upon the location of the
railway, in order to take as far as possible into consideration the interests of the ]x>pu-
lation. To avoid difficulties in negotiations, these shall be conducted on the Chinese
side by Chinese officials delegated by the Governor of Shantung. The technical
688 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
determinations of the location of line shall be left to the Company's engineera. A
sketch plan of the line's location, done in a scale of 1: 25000 snail be 8ubmitt>ed to
the (jovemor of Shantung for information and only thereafter land may be purchased.
The construction of the railway cannot be begun before Uie land has actually been
purchased.
The purchase of land shall be done peacefully and c^uickly as hitherto, so that the
construction of the railway be not delayed by purchasmg land or by difficulties aris-
ing from disputes with individual owners. To avoid all such difficulties the above-
mentioned Chinese official shall act as mediator when land is purchased and shall
settle all disputes eventually arising. The land shall be purchased in an honest way
according to the locally customary ruling price.
The Company shall not be allowed to buy more land than necessary for the railway-
enterprise, and future extension thereof.
Meanwhile the following minima may be purchased:
For stopping points a plot of land 630 m long and 70 m wide.
For coimtry stations a plot of land 730 m long and 100 m wide.
For small town stations a plot of land 850 m long and 130 m wide.
For stations of larger towns the plots of land have to be larger, corresponding to
actual importance of the place in question. The land necessary for the supply of
earth to construct embankments is not included in the foregoing areas. 1 m is equal
to 2 feet 9.6 inches, 1 foot is equal to 0.338 m.
Art. 4. Wherever water courses are met, sufficient flow has to be provided for by
building bridges and culverts so that agriculture may suffer no damage.
Art. 5. The road is to be located in such a way as not to damage or cut through
citv walls, fortifications, public edifices and important places.
Art. 6. Houses, farmsteads and villages, temples, ^ves and above all high class
graveyards belonging to the gentry which are fenced in and planted with trees shall
be avoided by the railway as far as possible. So far as this is impossible the local
authorities shall give notice to the owners two months beforehand and settle with
them a compensation of an amount enabling to erect graveyards, etc. of the same
condition at another place without sustaining any loss of money.
Art. 7. In surveying the land to be purchased the ''kung" shall be used as unit.
One kung is equal to 5 official feet, one foot is equal to 0.338 m. One Mu is counted
to be 360 kung or equal to 9000 square feet.
As to the land tax to be paid by the Shantung Railway Company the same regula-
tions shall be applied as in force for the most-fevoured Railway Company in any
other place of China.
Art. 8. Injuries done to crops during preparatory or construction work are to be
made good by the Companv according to prices to be settled with the local authorities.
Art. 9. The salaries of the assistants placed by the local authorities at the diepoai-
tion of the Railway at its ^rish shall be paid by the latter. These salaries shall not
be included in the price of land purchased.
The money for the land is to be paid into the hands of the District-Magistrate, who
is re?ponsible for the proper payment to the different owners entitled to receive the
money.
The District-Magistrate also has to hand over the title deeds to the Railway Company.
Art. 10. The Railway Administration intending to rent houses for offices and
residences near the work places shall apply to the District-Magistrate who will make
the necessary arrangements with the owners and will on its behalf conclude the
contracts.
Art. 11. The purchase of material necessary for the construction of the ndhray
shall be transacted in a fair manner and the usual market-price shall be paid for same.
If necessary the intervention of the District-Magistrate shall be applied for.
Art. 12. The exchange of different kinds of money shall always oe done at the rate
ruling on th day.
Art. 13. The Railway Company is not i)ermitted to construct without special per-
mission of the Grovemor of Shantunff other railroads than those mentioned in the
Kiaochow Convention, including the branch line to Poshanhsien.
Branch lines cozmecting coal and other mines and places where buildin^^ or ballast-
ing materials are to be tsucen, connecting with the main line, may be built without
.si)ecial authorization. It is however understood that previous notice of the con-
struction of such lines has to be given to the Governor of Shantuii^.
Art. 14. Foreigners, travelling or doing business in the interior of the Province
of Shantung, in order to enjoy better protection, must be provided with passiiprts
duly sealed by the proper Chinese and German authorities. Chinese local authorities
cannot assume responsibility if such a passport is not produced.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 589
•
Art. 15. German and Chineae employees of the Railway Compjany are to be pro-
vided with certificates attested by the seals of the Railway Administration and of the
local Authorities, in order, when necessary, to prove their official capacity.
The en^eers, when surveying, shall be accompanied by an official, delegated by
the Distnct-Ma^^istrate. This official shall, if necessary by police-force, render assist-
ance in protecting the projwrty of the Railway Company and the survey poles.
Persons fraudulently pretending to be employees of the Railway Company shall be
arrested and punished by the Ix)cal Authorities.
Art. 16. Ii troops are needed, outside of the 100 li (50 kilometer) zone, they shall
be despatched by the Governor of the Province of Shantung. No foreign troops may
be employed for this purpose.
The Governor of the Province of Shantung binds himself to take effective measures
during the period of surveying as well as when the railway is under construction or
opened for traffic to prevent any damaee being done to it by the mob or by rebels.
Art. 17. This railway, having for sole purpose the development of commerce, shall
not, outside of the 100 li zone, be i)ermitted to transport foreign troop and war mate-
rials employed by them. In case there should be war between China and a foreign
power and the railway should at the time still be managed by the said Company,
then the Company must continue to observe the provision afore-mentioned. In case
certain sections are occupied by the enemy and the Company should lose its power
of management, then the provincial authorities will not be responsible for the pro-
tection (of the railway).
Art. 18. Freightage for foodstuffs and clothing to be distributed amongst the
distressed during famines and floods, shall be reduced according to the rules adopted
by the railways of Germany and when troops are despatched to suppress rebellions
the same is to be applied to the fares for soldiers and to the freightage for their war
materials.
Art. 19. At railway stations, where custom-houses are established, the Railway
Administration shall make such arrangements as to assist the Imperial Chinese Cus-
toms in collecting the legal dues.
The expenses for the necessary buildings, to be erected upon application of the
Customs Administration are to be refunded by the latter to the Rulway Adminis-
tration according to agreements always to be made beforehand.
Art. 20. The natives of towns and villages near the railwav shall be as far as pos-
sible engaged as workmen and as contractors for the supplv <» materials.
Art. 21. Chinese subjects employed outside the leased territory by the Railway
Company in case of contravention of Chinese law are subject to the jurisdiction of the
competent District-Magistrate.
The competent District-Magistrate having officially notified the necessity of 1^1
steps against such employees, the Railway Company shall not do anything by which
he may evade justice.
Complaints against foreigners are to be dealt with according to the proper laws.
In sucD cases, the Railway Company on its part shall make an investigation and take
disciplinary proceedings against the offender.
Art. 22. Tne natives of districts, where the railway passes through, shall as far as
possible be employed at the work and shall be paid for as customary there.
If fiehts should occur between railway-men and natives the local official will have
the right to arrest and punish the guilty.
The workmen of the railway are absolutely prohibited unwarrantably to enter
houses of natives. In case of contravention they will be severely punished.
Art. 23. The construction of the railway being completed, foremen and workmen
necessary for maintenance and safekeeping of the line are as far as practicable to be
engaged from amongst the inhabitants of villages and towns near the Ime in con-
formity with suggestions made by the elders of these places. Tliese elders will be
responsible for the good behaviour of these engaged and will furnish them with cer-
tificates issued by the District-Magistrate.
Art. 24. The railway being open to public traffic, its administration assumes the
responsibility for any loss of life or goods caused by accidents and is liable to pay
compenaation to woimded or killed persons according to the local custom, ana to
cover any loss of goods according to detailed regulations to be drawn up and pub-
lished b^r the Company.
Likewise the lUulway will be held responsible for damage to persons and property
by construction trains through its neglect.
Art. 25. The safety on the line being endangered by floods, slips of embankments
or breakages of bridges, etc., public traffic shallnot be reopened before all these diffi-
culties have been removed.
Art. 26. Should the Railway Company apply for soldiers to protect the meparatory
work, the construction or the traffic of the railway, the Governor of the Province of
590 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Shantung shall at once consider the circumstances and comply with such applicat ion .
The amount to be contributed by the Company for the troops dispatched snail \>q tho
subject of a further understanding.
Art. 27. In the German leased territory the rights of sovereignty are safeguardeci
by the Governor of Tsin^^tao. In the districts of the remaining part of the Provin<*o
of Shantung through which the railway is running, the rights of sovereignty are safe-
guarded by the Governor of the Province of Shantung.
Art. 28. It shall be the subject of further agreements when and under what con-
ditions the Chinese Government may in future take over the railway.
The foregoing regulations after being approved shall be notified to the Authorities
of the Shantung Province and to the officials of the railway. Thereupon they shall
be duly observed.
Should it in future be deemed necessary to have alterations made of some of the
above regulations or to have drawn up supplementary rules, this can only be done by
mutual agreement between the then Governor of the Province of Shantung and the
Shantung Railway Company.
This agreement is executed in two exemplars each of which contains a Chinese'* a^
well as a German version of like tenour. Each of the contracting parties has receivt^d
one exemplar.
Thb Governor of the Province op Shantung,
Chinanfuy tht list of March 190**.
Seal and sigiiatureof Governor Yuan Shih Kai,
H. I. AT 8 Special Delegate^ Lieutenant Genera f.
Signed: Yin Chano.
Signed: H. Hildebrand,
Die BetriebsdirecHon der Sdiantung-Eiaenbahn-GeaelUehaft.
No. 3. Convention Between China and Germany Respbgtikg the Withdrawal
OF German Troops from Kiaochow and Kaomi, November 28th, 1905.
[TmislatlaD.)
The Emperor of (^hina has appointed Yang Shih-hsiang, Civil and Militarv Gov-
ernor of Snantung. and the German Emperor, Van Semmem, Civil and Ntilitary
Governor of Kiaocnow, who after communicating full powers and finding them in
due form have agreed upon the following articles:
Whereas the Gennan Emperor has, for the purpose of promoting friendly relation'^,
agreed to withdraw the troops stationed at Kiaochow and Kabmi. the following
articles are hereby concluded.
Art. 1. The German troops at Kiaochow shall withdraw immediately aft<.*r thi^
(Convention has been signed.
Art. 2. One-fourth of the Gennan troops stationed at Kaomi shall withdraw immi-
diatelv after the signing of this (convention, and another fourth, within two months
therent>m. The remaining troops shall withdraw within the next two months durinir
which period barracks and stables shall be so speedil)^ built in Taingtao that the
said troops may withdraw altogether within this said time limit. Hut in ca^te the
said works can not be finished within the two months, a complete withdrawal ehall
nevertheless be effected — ^there shall be no further extension of time.
Art. 3. From the date of the signing of this Convention, no matter whether tho
German troops at Kiaochow and Kaomi have completely withdrawn or not, the
railways within the surrounding zone shall completely be under the super\*ision and
protection of the Chinese local authorities and police officers. The police oflRcens
shall despatch so many policemen as they deem fit but not more than two hundre<l
and forty, to be evenly stationed at various sections; all matters relating thereto sliall
be conducted according to the police regulations prevailing beyond the surrounding
zone. At some place near the city of Kaomi tliere shall be established a police office
with a police force of not more than one hundred men who shall, by turn, attend
to their duty in the protection of the railway and in the suppression of disturbances
which may arise. But if China should station troops in the said place, all matter?
relating thereto shall be governed by the Kiaochow Lease Convention.
Art. 4. All the works which Germany has constructed in Kiaochow and Kaomi
such as barracks, stables, drill grounds, roads, waterworks, and the like, together
with the foundations thereof, houses and the fixtures attached thereto cont, calcu-
lated at their original prices, $496,388.48. From this amount are to be subtracted
$5,000.00 as rent paid for the (Jerman Government by the Chinese Government,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 591
$21,388.48 expended for annual repairs and considered as representing the annual
diminution of the value of the properties, and $70,000.00 as extra reduction; the net
price will then be $400,000.00 at which the said properties will be purchased by and
reverted to China under a separate agreement. The price of the buildings shall be
paid off in four installments within two years from the day when the barracks at
Kiaochow and Kaomi are handed over. After their purchase or reversion, all the
buildings shall be reserved for educational and other public uses.
Art. 5. In case Germany should, in accordance with the Treaties, require passage
for her troops through Kiaochow and Kaomi, and stay there for a few days, a few weefas'
notice will be necessary, in order that a vacant place may be assigned for their tem-
porar>' stay, free of charge.
Of this Convention there shall be made four copies in Chinese and four in German,
identical in sense; and after they have been signed, two copies each of the Chinese
and German texts shall be filed at the office of the Governor of Shantung, and the
other two copies each of the said two languages, at the office of the Civil and Military
Governor of Kiaochow, for reference, transmission and observance.
The second Day, eleventh Moon of the Reign of Km anghsu, corresponding to the
255th of November, 1905.
Signed Yang SiiiH-HeiAiNO.
Van Semmern.
No. 4. Agreement Between the Provincial Authorities of Shantung and the
Chino-German Mining Company for Delimiting Mining Areas in the Province
OP Shantung, July 24, 1911,
For the purpose of defining the mining rights of the Chino-German Company along
the railways In Shantung Province and concluding a working arrangement t^e Pro-
vincial Authorities of Shanttmg and the Mining Company have mutually agreed upon
the following Articles:
A or. I. 1. The Shantung Mining Company reserves for i ts exc lusi ve exploitation the
Fangtze and Tzechwan mining areas and the mining district from Chinlingchen
along the Kiaochow-Chinan Railway in a northerly direction for a distance of 30 li to
Chasten.
2. The Companv is to prepare maps showing the boundaries of the mining areas it
deeignates for exclusive development. These maps are to form an important part of
this Agreement. All mining properties within the spec ified areas are to be exc lusively
exploited bv the Company and no Chinese undertakings are permitted therein.
3. With the exception of the delimited areas set aside herein for exclusive develop-
ment by the Mining Company all mining rights hitherto granted by China to the
Company within 30 u (15 kilometers) on both sides of Kiaoc:how-Chinfln Railroad now
in operation, the Tientsin-Pukow Railroad now under construction, and the Kiao-
chow Ichow railroad rec^ently surveyed are hereby canceled.
4. Tzechwan Hsien and Poshan Hsien beiii^ within the 30-li zone of mining rights,
the Company originally intended to exploit it bv itself. Now as an act of special
friendship, the Company hereby relinquishes its claim to Poshan mines. The
Tzechwan mining area be^nning on the south at Ta Kwei Shan pacing Lungkow
Chen in a north-westerlv direction and reaching the eastern boundary of Tzechwan, is
hereby likewise relinquished to the Chinese for their free exploitation. The remain-
ing areas in this region shall, in accordance with Article 1, belong to the mining areas
of the Company.
5. The 30-li zone of the Fangtze mining area in Weihsien touches the boundaries of
Changlo and Ankiu Hsiens and includes parts thereof. The Company surrenders
voluntarily, as a further evidence of goodwill, its claim to the north western district
of Ankiu Hsien. It retains, however, its title to Chinshanwa mining area in Changlo
Hsien to the extent of 10-Ii from Fangtze mine in a straight line.
6. For the nurjxwe of delimiting mining areas the Provincial Authorities of Shan-
tung and the Mininj^ Company have jointly drawn up following maps:
1. Tzechwan mining area and the mining area from Chinlingchen to Changtien.
2. The southern section of the Tzechwan mining area.
3. Mining areas in Weihsien and Changlo Hsien.
4. General map showing all mining areas delimited by this A^eement.
Art. 2. 1. Within the mining areas relinquished by the Mining Company in the
three Hsiens of Changkiu, Tzechwan and Poshan along the Kiaochow-Chinan Rail-
way Chinese are not permitted to undertake the development of the biggest mine
therein before the year 1920, but they shall be at liberty to do so after that year.
2. In tho mining areas reserved by the Company all Chinese mining shafts that are
now in a working condition shall be stopped within one month from the date of a formal
592 TREATY OF PBAOB WITH GEBMANT.
exchange of the texts of this Agreement duly approved by the Chinese and German
Grovemments.
3. The Chinese Grovemment is still to accord protection to the works of the Company
in accGtrdance with the provisions of the Mining Ac^reement concluded in the 26ti
year of Kwane Hsu, corresponding to the year 1900 A. D.
4. Should the Chinese Grovemment and merchants be short of capital for the exploi-
tation of the mines in the districts relinquished to China bv this Agreement, they shall
approach German capitalists for loans. If foreign materials and machinery are needed
they shall purchase tnem from Germany. If foreign engineers are to be employed they
engage Grerman engineers.
Art. 3. To meet the expenditures hitherto incurred by the Company for prospecting
mines, fixing boundaries and purchasing lands, the Chinese Government agrees to pay
to the Company $210,000 Mex., the said sum being payable within one year from the
date of this Agreement in two installments. After tlie Signing of this Agreement the
Company shall immediately turn over to the Chinese Government all maps and
papers relating to the prospecting of these mines and all lands purchased dv the
Company.
Art. 4. Chinlingchen iron mine is to be exploited according to the Mining Regula-
tions of the 26th year of Kwanghsu (1900). If China desires to establish iron smelting
works near the mine a joint stock company may be formed, with a capital of some-
thing like 500,000 taels. Regulations therefor are to be drawn up separately at the
proper time.
This Agreement is executed in quadruplicate copies in the Chinese and G^man
languages, found identical in sense, together with four sets of maps of the mines,
to be held by the contracting parties.
Third year of Hsun Tung, 6tb month, 29th day, corresponding to the 24th dav of
Julv 1911.
Delimitation Commissioners of the Imperial Chinese Government, namely.
Signed: Su, Commissioner for the Promotion of Industrial Affairs at Muken.
Yu, Expectant Taotai of Shantung, Managing Director of the China-
Oennan Mining Company, German Consul General at Chinanfu,
Shantung,
Senator Brandeoee. Being included in the record, this document
will be available to Senators when the debate comes on.
Senator McCumber. Let ns see what that covers, because there
seem to have been so many treaties between China and G^ermanv
here. This refers to the treaty of what date ?
Mr. Ferguson. March 6, 1898, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. That is the treaty by which Germany first
got Kiaochow.
Mr. Ferguson. By which Germany first got Kiaochow.
Senator McCumber. That does not then include the a^eement
between China and Germany respecting the Kiaochow-Chma Bail-
way regulations of March 21, 19001
' Mr. Ferguson. No, sir. I have that also and can give that to the
committee if it so desires.
(The agreement last referred to will be found heretofore printed in
this day's hearing.)
I want to call the attention of the committee to one other matter
in that agreement.
Senator McCumber. I only wanted to show just the limits of the
treaty.
Mr. Ferguson. That is the limit of the treaty. That was later,
March 21, 1900. Then there was the further convention of Novem-
ber 28, 1905, respecting the withdrawal of German troops from
Kiaochow and Kaomi.
Then there was another agreement of July 24, 1911, between the
provincial authorities of Shantung, and the Chino-German mining
agreement
Senator Knox. Do these treaties appear in RockhilVs Chinese
treaties?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 593
Mr. Ferguson. These later ones do not, as they were after Mi*.
Rockhill's edition, which was in 1908. The Chino-German Mining
Co. agreement for delimiting mining areas in the Province of Shan-
tung was July 24, 1911. If the committee so desires I can have all
these included as an appendix to my testimony.
Senator McCumber. Do you think these latter ones in any way
explain the others and are necessary ? They are quite lengthy, and
I can not see the necessity, unless you have read them over and
think they really have a bearing upon the construction of the first
treaty of March 6.
Mr. Ferguson. They have none. They only show the extent to
which German interests were limited in the Province of Shantung.
That is the oiJy point, Senator.
Senator MoCtjmber. I understand.
Senator Knox. That is an important point, I think.
Senator McCuiiBER. I have no objection, if you think it is neces-
sary to have them all here. I have read them and have them before
me. .
Skater Knox. The point has been made that the Japanese are
getting so much more than the Germans had, that it is weil to know
what the Germans had.
Senator MgCumber. What the Germans had is stated in the first
treaty, and as I understand the subsequent treatiee do not extend
any German rights.
Mr. Ferguson. No. The subseauent treaty, though, specifies
them and gives the arrangement unaer which these rights are to be
exercised.
Senator Knox. They were in the nature of limitations, were they
not?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator. Brandegee. Then they should go into the record, I think.
Senator McCumber. I do not object.
(The two last-named documents will be found, with those already
mentioned, heretofore printed in this day's hearing. )
Senator Brandegee. What is the book which tne Senator has in
which he says these treaties appear ?
Senator I^cCumber. What! have is a book headed "The Shan-
tung Question — ^A statement of China's claim together with important
documents submitted to the Peace Conference in Paris.'* It is pub-
lished by the Chinese National Welfare Society in America, August
1, 1919. I think all the members of the committee have the same
book.
Mr. Ferguson. I do not know of that and have not seen it, Sena-
tor. What I am holding in my hand and quoting from here is the
Chinese Grovemment of&cial translation of those agreements.
Senator McCumber. From what T heard you read, they agree
entirely with this statement by the Chinese society.
Mr. Ferguson. May I call attention to article 28 of the railway
convention of March 21, 1900, also in amplification of my testimony
of yesterday as to the possibility of China recovering from Germany
the rights in the railway which slie allowed Germany to build? Article
28 states —
It shall be the subject of further agreements when and under what conditions the
Chinese Government may in future take over the railway.
135546—19 SS"
594 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
That is simply in confirmation of the statement which I made
yesterday that in the contract with Germany for the building of the
railway was included the usual stipulation tnat China has made dso
with other nations, that in due course of time the Chinese Govern-
ment would be able to buy back from the concessionaire all the
concessionaire's rights in the property.
Senator Brandeoee. That language as you read it would mean,
would it not, sir, that Japan fixed her own terms upon which CSiina
would get back these concessions?
Mr. Ferguson. This is Germany that I am referring to here.
Senator Brandegee. I mean Germany. If they have got to
agree, that makes Germany the arbiter, does it not?*
Mr. Ferguson. I might say that this contract came to the office
of which I was the adviser at the time, and I was familiar with the
idea behind that, which was that when China was prepared to put up
the money for it, the question of how much money was necessary to
do it womd be tiie subject of further agreement, not the question
whether she would be allowed to do it or not. It was a question of
how much.
Senator Brandegee. T know, but that leaves Germany in a position
to fix the price.
Mr. Ferguson. Yea
Senator Brandegee. And China can not have it back unless she
agrees to Germany's terms.
Mr. Ferguson. Unless there is a mutual agreement.
Senator Brandegee. There is no provision for arbitration.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir, but that would come up under the arrange-
ment
Senator Knox. Do you recall any case where China has ever got
anythii^ back, even tnough she was to get it back at the end of a
specified perioa or to get it back by virtue of an arraiigementt
Mr. Ferguson. Yes^ China took back from a Belgian syndicate the
control of the Pekinj^-Hankow Railway and refinanced it.
Senator Knox. Was not that rather an unusual case ? Take the
case of the Manchurian Railroad. Russia had the Manchurian
Railroad for a definite, specific period of time.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Ksox. But under the treaty of Portsmouth, as I under-
stand it, it went over to Japan. The Russian rights went over to
Japan.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Knox. Has not Japan served notice on China that not-
withstanding the limited period of time which that extended, she did
not intend to surrender the railroad ?
Mr. Furgeson. That is not quite what occurred. Senator. What
occurred was that in this treaty of May 25, 1915, to which we made
so frequent reference yesterday, one of the provisions^ concerning
Mandiiuia and eastern inner Mongolia was tnat the rights of the
Russian cx)ncessionaries should be extended for the period of 99 years:
so that that railroad does not come back to China until 2003, if I
have the date right. I can tell you exactly
Senator Knox. When was it to have come back imder the original
concession ?
TREATY OF FEAOE WITH QSBMANY. 595
Mr. Ferguson. It would have come back in another 8 or 10 years.
Senator Knox. That is what I thought — a very short time.
Mr. Ferguson. When I was referring to what Japan had got
yesterday, in answer to Senator Johnsoirs question, apart from the
Grerman rights in Shantung. I referred to that question of the exten-
sion of the leases of the Soutn Manchurian Railwav and of the Antimg-
Mukden Railwav, and also the extension of the lease of Port Arthur
and Dalmjr. Those were all extended to a period of 99 years instead
of the original period which was granted.
Senator E[nox. And all under the treaty of 1915)
Mr. Ferguson. All under the treaty of 1915.
Senator Brandegee. Do you speak Japanese as well as Chinese ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator Brandegee. The written characters of the two languages
are the same, are they not ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. So that you read Japanese ?
Mr. Ferguson. I can read documents in Japanese.
Senator Brandegee. The other day Mr. Millard testified in sub-
stance that when the Lansing-Ishii agreement was made, the Japa-
nese translated it into words in their language which signified, in audi-
tion to a '' special interest" on account of geographical contiguity,
something in the natiure of '^paramoimtcy."
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. That it was so understood generally by the
Chinese people, and by the Chinese to whom the Chmese translation
carrying the same idea had been submitted. Is that practically the
effect of the translation, in your opinion?
Mr. Ferguson. I might state tnat the official language of that
treaty, of course — of the Lansing-Ishii agreement — is the English
language, and that the official copy of it transmitted to the Chmese
Government must necessarily be the English copy; but that conciir*
rently with its transmission to China by both the United States and
Japan, a Chinese translation was appended, and the translation given
by the American legation in Pekmg was different from that given
by the Japanese legation in Peking.
Senator Brandegee. But what I understood Mr. Millard to say
was that the Japanese gave out the Lansing-Ishii agreement to the
Russians several days mf ore the date when it was understood that
it should be given out, and that they furnished to China a Japanese
translation and a Chinese translation for use in China.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. That was the Japanese translation of the
En^Ksh official text into Japanese and Qiinese both ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. For the benefit of China?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Did that Chinese translation which the
Japanese made and which was given to China carry the idea of any-
thing more than the special interests of geographical propinquity or
contiguity t
Mr. Ferguson. It did. It gave the idea of special interests.
Senator McCuhber. Do you mean by that^ ''paramount interests V
That is, the real question is whether the translation reaUy meant
'^paramount interests'' or simply ''special interests?"
596 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Dr. MiUard's testimony was that the transla-
tion amounts to '^paramountcy." 1 think that was his exact
lans:uap:e.
Mr. Ferguson. I shou]d have said rather that it was more cor-
rect to say that it was ^' specia] interests '' rather than *^ paramountcy."
Senator McCumber. That is, the Chinese
Mr. Ferguson. The Chinese translation of that docimxent as
furnished by the Japanese Government to China conveyed the idea
of special interests.
Senator McCumber. Rather than paramount interests^
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. You have read Mr. Lansing's testimony
before this committee ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. You remember he stated that Viscount Ishii
wanted him (Lansing) to agree to the insertion in the imderstanding,
in addition to the words ''special interests/' of the wonls ''and
influence."
Mr. Ferguson. And influence.
Senator Brandegee. Which Lansing would not agree to because
he thought the words **and influence" would carry the idea of some
political interest.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. But you say the English was the official
text of the understanding.
Mr. Ferguson. The English was the official text; and I mi^ht say
that for its own guidance the Chinese Government has made its own
official translation of the text and that this translation agrees much
more nearly with that made by the American legation than that
made by the Japanese legation.
Senator Brandegee. Did they dispute the interpretation put upon
it bv the Japanese foreign office or uovernment ?
Mr. Ferguson. They changed it.
Senator Brandegee. The Chinese changed it ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes; the Chinese changed it.
Senator Brandegee. But did they resent or repudiate the uiwier-
standing that Japan has as to her interest in China ?
Mr. Ferguson. Claina officially conmiunicated both to the Gov-
ernment of Japan and to this GTovemment that it did not conskler
itself bound, so far as its relations with either of the two contracting
powers were concerned, by any contract which they made between
themselves. That was the summary of the position that China took
in the matter.
Senator Brandegee. Senator McCumber makes the suggestion
that I should have first asked whether you knew what the Japanese
interpretation of the agreement was.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator McCumber. And what was it with reference to the special
or paramount interest?
Mr. Ferguson. I should say that the Japanese interpretation of
it was that Japan has special influence in the affairs of Chma. I have
not the Lansmg-Ishii a^eement before me at the moment to quot«
exactlv the wording of it, but that phrase was translated in such a
way that it became a recognition on the part of the United Stat^
that Japan has special influence in China. ,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 597
Senator McCumber. I understood by the testimony of Mr. Mil-
lard— and Senators may correct me if I am in error — that the Japanese
agreement as translated by them used the word or words as meaning
not that Japan had a special influence, but that Japan had a para-
mount interest, and what we would like to get from you — and I think
that is what the Senator from Connecticut means to get at — ^is whether
vour understanding is that the Japanese translation uses a word that
Is equivalent to the word ** paramount"?
Mr. Ferguson. Might I explain, sir, that I place no importance
upon the question one way or another, the English text being the
official text as conmiunicated to the Chinese Grovemment: and the
Chinese, recognizing the probable effect, that it would minimize the
effect of that agreement and that the Japanese (Jovemment would
make it as great as possible, to protect its own interest, made its own
translation, which it considers, as far as it is concerned, its interpre-
tation of the meaning of these notes which were exchanged in the
Ei^lish language.
The Chairman. Mr. Lansing, when he testified, emphasized the
point that he had declined to admit the word '* influence." He
thought ^'influence" would convey far more than he intended, and it
was kept out. Was there anything in the Chinese translation fur-
nished by the Japanese and published in China which conveyed the
idea that the word ** influence" was in the treaty?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; distinctly.
Senator Johnson of California. THat is the point of the present
inquiry, as I understand it.
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. What claim is made by the
Japanese under this particidar agreement; not what is the real con-
struction of the agreement, and not what the Unitod States thinks
concerning it, but what is the claim of the Japanese under that
agreement ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is stated by the chairman, that the idea of
''influence" was included in the Japanese translation.
The Chairman. In the Japanese version published in China ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Inasmuch as the English is the official text
of the understanding, I would like to insert a brief extract from the
Lansing-Ishii agreement which appears o^njpage 225 of these hearings,
part 7. Secretary Lansing put that in. This reads as follows:
The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial pro-
pinquity creates special relations between countries, and consequently the Govern-
ment of the Unit^ States recognizes that Japan has special interests in (^hina, par-
ticularly in the part to which her possessions are conticruou^.
The territorial sovereignty of China, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, and the
Government of the United States has every confidence in the repeated assurances
of the Imperial Japanese Government that while geographical position gives Japan
such special interests, they have no desire to discriminate against the trade of
other nations or to disreg^ufd the commercial rights heretofore g^tmted by Chuia in
treaties with other powers.
The Government, of the United States and Japan deny that they have any purpose
to infringe in any way the independence or territorial integrity of China, "and they
declare, furthermore, that they always adhere to the principle of the so-called "open
door'' or equsd opportunity for commerce and industry in China.
Moreover, they mutually declare that they are opposed to the acquisition by any
government of any special rights or privileges that would affect the indei)endence or
598 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
temtorial integrity of China, or that would deny to the subjects or citizens of any
country the full enjoyment of equal opportunity in the commerce and induatiy of
China.
And Japan wrote an identical note agreeing to that.
Mr. Febouson. Yes, sir. Might I say to the Senator in referenco
to that; that the Chinese Government was much embarassed by the
conflict of the interpretations which were given to it by the two lega-
tions, the American legation and the Japanese legation^ the Amari-
can legation emphasizing that the purport of the Luising-Ishii
agreement was to confirm the principle of the ^^open door'' and eaual
opportunity, and the Japanese Government emphasizing the tact
that the purport of the agreement was to recognize Japan's special
interests m China. For that reason the Chinese Government issued
the statement which it did.
Senator Johnson of Gahfomia. At the time the Lansing-Ishii
a^eement was made, China and the United States were on the meet
f nendly terms, were they not ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. su*.
Senator Johnson oi California. And at that time we had ah'eady
stated to the world our principles in the new world era of self-deter-
mination of the rights of weak nations, their protection, and that
they should not be permitted to be traded upon by the strong. Do
vou recall those circumstances, which in substance I have stated,
out not verbatim?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; those were given out through the Amer-
ican legation in Peking and published widely through the Chinese
press.
Senator Johnson of California. Now during the time of the nego-
tiations between Secretary of State Lansing and Ishii, was Chma
invited to participate?
Mr. Ferguson. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. In determining the interests of
Japan of one sort or another, as the case may be, and of China, was
Chma consulted at all by the United States, its friend ?
Mr. Ferguson. At the time of the Lansing-Ishii agre^nent, you
mean?
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. And did China know anything
about the disposition of China, so far as she was disposed of in the
Lansing-Ishii agreement, until after it had been consummated,
Bimed, and executed?
Mr. Ferguson. Absolutely not.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. You recall, of course, the 21 de-
mands that were made by Japan upon China ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, su*.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Do you remember that at the time
of the first su^estion of those demands, Japan enjoined upon China
silence, and a^ed or demanded that China should not mf^e known
the demands ?
Mr. Ferguson. That was an explicit demand by the Japanese
minister who presented them to the President of China.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Do you recall subseauently, when
they had been published or had become known to otner powers, a
TKBATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 599
specific public denial made by Japan that any such demands had
been made 1
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there such denial ?
Mr. Ferguson. There was.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Do you recall that subsequently to
that time, when the matter had become sufficiently public so that the
other nations were inquiring, Japan stated to the other nations the
demands that had been made )
Mr. Ferguson. It gave a version.
Senator Johnson of California. That is what I mean.
Mr. Ferguson. Those were communicated to several powers.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Will you state whether or not that
version was an accurate one or an entirely distorted version of the 21
points or demands ?
Mr. Ferguson. There were three versions of the 21 demands.
There was the original version as handed to the President of China,
January 18, 1915, by the Japanese minister; there is an incorrect
version as communicated bjr the Japanese Grovemment to the other
powers in response to their inquiries; and there is the third version,
which is Japan's revised demands as presented to China, April 26,
1915.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. This last revised version omitted
some of the original demands, did it not ?
Mr. Ferguson. It omitted Group 5, but provided that several of
the items under group 5 should be arranged by the exchange of notes
between China and Japan. The most notable omission in the third
version of these demands was in reference to nothing being given to
any third power. I should say the most notable omission or change
in the second and third versions from the first version was the omission
of what was recognized everywhere to be a very objectionable phrase,
and that is reference to any third power.
Senator Johnson of CaRfomia. ijet me chronologically state the
situation, and then will you please say whether or not I state it accu-
rately. Japan presented, in January, 21 demands to China.
Mr. Ferguson. Under five groups.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Under five groups. At the time
of the presentation of those demands Japan commanded China to
keep still about it and not to communicate them to the world. There-
after they were either conmiimicated by China or learned by other
powers, who requested of Japan a statement concerning the demand,
whereupon Japan, to the powers thus asMnjg, commimicated a state-
ment oi the demands at variance with the lact and not the demands
that she had presented to China. Thereafter protects were made
and group 5 or the demands was withdrawn by Japan. Thereafter
an ultiinatum was issued by Japan to China concerning the other
demands, backed up by preparation of its military and its naval
forces, and then Cluna yielded to the demands, with the elimination
of group 5, because of the military and naval preparations which
were about to carry into effect Japan's intentions. Have I stated
it correctly t
Mr. Ferguson. I should say yes, sir, with the exception of this
fact, that from the presentation of the demands — the nrst instance
until the final agreement which led up to the ultimatum — to the final
600 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
conference, rather — the demands as discussed between Chma and
Japan were the original 21 demands as presented in January 1915.
That was considered always as the basis of the discussion, and the
question was, on the side of China, to whittle those down so as to
give away as little as possible, and that resulted in the third version
which I quoted, the version of April 26, which was Japan^s final
statement of as far as she would go in yielding what she haa originally
demanded.
Senator Johnson of California. Prior to that time had not the
United States protested to Japan concerning certain of the demands ?
Mr. Ferguson. I understand so, thougn that of course is not
naturally under my personal knowledge, su*, except as I know w^hat
has been published in the matter. I have no means from mv official
Sosition of knowing what took place between the United States
rovernment and Japan.
Senator Johnson of California. But during this period the United
States was in that continued intimate friendliness with China that
has existed for a long period of time ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; and through the American legation at
Peking was constantly and consistently urging China not to yield to
these demands. I thmk it is no breach of confidence if I state that.
I would ask that this be not inserted if in the opinion of the chairman
it is a breach of confidence. But that is within my knowled^e^ that
throughout all that period the United States minister in Pekmg was
continually urging tne Chinese Government not to accede to these
demands.
Senator Brandsgee. Who was the American minister at that
time?
Mr. Ferguson. The same who is representing the Governmeat
now, Dr. Reinsch.
Senator Knox. Was he acting under instructions from this Gov-
renment or on his own accoimt ?
Mr. Ferguson. I have no means of knowing that. That was a
matter between him and the Government.
Senator Knox. He personally is a warm friend to China?
Mr. Ferguson. He is a very warm friend and consults imofficially
and officially constantly with the foreign office, the president, and the
premier.
Senator Johnson of California. At that time, the relationship
between China and the United States being as you indicate, they sat
down with Ishii, and in a measure, at least, disposed of Clmia's fate,
without ever consulting China or advising her oi the fact that we were
about to do it, or in any wav letting her know that her particular fate
was being dealt with at all f
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. sir.
Senator Johnson oi California. That is all.
Mr. Ferguson. Let me state in that connection I have a great
personal fear that the arrangement under the covenant of the league
of nations concerning regional understandings would include the
Lansing-Ishii agreement, and would be an indirect way of confirming
by the Senate that agreement as well as the Root-Takahira agreement,
and what other agreements I do not know, but I suppose that the
Lansing-Ishii agreement would come under the head of regional
understandings.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 601
Senator Braxdegee. You spoke yesterday, I think of China
havrns: signed the treaty under protest ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Branbegee. What was the character of her protest and
when was it made ?
Mr. Ferguson. The protest was made at the conference when the
ultimatum was given, and after the whole thing was practically
decided on the part of Japan, and no further yielding after April 26.
There was parle}ring for several days, and naval preparations and
military preparations by Japan, ending with the presentation of the
ultimatum of May 7. During all that time there were parleyings,
but there was no change in what was decided upon at that time, and
during the progress of the negotiations previous to April 26, on two
distinct occasions the Japanese threatened that if their reouests
were not agreed to, the promise to restore Kiaochow would be
withdrawn.
Senptor Brandeqee. That was a threat to break the treatv, was
it not?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Of course none of these protests on the part
of China which you sa\ were made at the conference prior to the
actual signature of the treaty were in writing, were they ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; but thej were all later put in writing and
there was issued an ** Official statement by the Chinese Government
respecting the Chino-Japanese negotiations now brought to a con-
clusion by China's cx>mpliance with the terms of Japan's ultimatum
deliveredon May 7, 1915."
That was communicated didy to all the various legations in Peking.
Senator Brandegee. In what publication does that appear?
Have you it in the pamphlet before you ? ^
Mr. Ferguson. I have it.
Senator Brandegee. What is the title ?
Mr. Ferguson. It is appendices.
Senator Brandegee. It is appendices of what ?
Mr. Ferguson. Appendices of Mr. Millard's book on the far
eastern question. I nave also an official copy in my notes.
Senator Brandegee. I wish you would put that written protest
or statment that China issued in relation to this treaty into the
record, if you please. How long is it — not the whole appendix, but
the protest ?
Mr. Ferguson. The whole statement covers 15 pages.
Senator Brandegee. That is China's statement of the whole case ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is China's statement of the whole case.
Senator Brandegee. I would like to have that put into the
record, if there is no objection.
(The statement referred to is here printed in full as follows:)
OpTiciAt Statement by the Chikese Government Respecting the 8ino-Jap-
AMB8B Negotiations Now Brought to a Conclusion bt China's Compliance
WITH THE Terms of Japan's Ultimatum Deuvered on May 7, 1915.
At 3 oVlock on the afternoon of May 7, 1915, his excellency the Japanese minister
in Peking cielivered to the Chinese Government in person an ultimatum from the
Impenal Japanese Government, with an accompanying note of seven articles. The
concluding sentences of the ultimatum read thus:
602 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
*'The Imperial Government hereby again offer their advice and hope that the
Chinese Government, upon this advice, will give a satiBfactory reply by 6 o'clock p. m.
on the 9th day of May. It is hereby declared that if no satisfactory reply is received
before or at the specified time the Imperial Government will take such steps as they
may deem necessary."
The Chinese Government, having received and accepted the ultimatum, feel con-
strained to make a frank and plain statement of the facts connected with the negotia-
tions which were abruptly terminated by this drastic action on the part of Japan.
The Chinese Government have constantly aimed, as they still aim, at consolidating
the friendship existing between China and Japan, and, in t&is period of travail in other
parts of the world, have been particularly solicitous of preserving peace in the Far
East. Unexpectedly on Janiuiry 18, 1915, his excellency the Japanese minister in
Peking, in pursuance of instructions from his Government, adopted the unusual
procedure of presenting to his excellencv the President of the Republic of China a
list (hereto appended) of 21 momentous demands, arranged in five groups. The first
four groups were each introduced by a preamble, but there was no preamble or ex-
planation to the fifth group. In respect of the character of the demands in this group,
however, no difference was indicated in the document between them and thoeie
embodied in the preceding groups.
Although there was no cause for such a d-marche, the Chinese Government, in
deference to the wishes of the Imperial Japanese Government, at once agreed to open
negotiations on those articles which it was possible for China to consider, notwith-
standing that it was palpable that the whole of the demands were intended to extend
the rights and interests of Japan without securing a quid pro quo of any kind for China.
China approached the pending conferences in a spirit of utmost friendlineiB and
with a determination to deal with all questions frankly and sincerely. Before negoti-
ations were actually commenced, the Japanese minister raised many questions with
regard to the number of delegates proposed to represent China, the number of confer-
ences to be held in each weelc, and tne method of discussion. The Chinese Govern-
ment, though their views differed from those of the Japanese minister, yielded in all
these respects to his contentions in the hope of avoiding any delay in the negotiations.
The objections of the Japanese minister to the customary recording and signing of
the minutes of each conference, which the Chinese Government suggested as a neces-
sary and advisable precaution, as well as one calculated to facilitate future reference,
were also accepted. Nor did the Chinese Government retaliate in anv way when in
the course of tne negotiations the Japanese Minister twice suspended tne conferences,
obviously wiHi the object of compelling compliance with his views on certain points
at the tune under discussion. ' Even when delay was threatened owing to the un-
fortunate injury sustained by the Japanese Minister as a result of a fall from his hone,
the Chinese delegates, in order to avert interruption, proposed that the conferences
should be continued at the Japanese Legation, which proposal was accepted. Later
when, on March 22,* the Japanese Government dispatched lam bodies of troops to
South Manchuria and Shantung for the ostensible purpose of relieving the garrison —
whose term of service had not then expired — ^the Japanese Minister stated at the
conference, in reply to a direct question as to when the retiring troops would be with-
drawn, that this would not be done until negotiations could be brought to a satistetory
conclusion. Although this minatory step caused much excitement, indignation, and
alarm on thejpart of the Chinese people, and made it difficult for the Chinese Govern-
ment to continue the conferences, they successfully exerted efforts to avert a rupture
and thus enabled the negotiations smoothly to proceed. All this demonstrates that
^e Chinese Grovemment were dominated by a smcere desire to expedite the progress
of the conferences; and that the Japanese Government recognized this important fact
was ntade clear on March 11 when the Japanese Minister convened to the Chinese
Government an expression of his Government's appreciation of China's frankneie and
sincerity in the conduct of the negotiations.
One of the supplementary proposals was in these terms:
From Februarv 2, when the negotiations were commenced, to April 17, 24 confer-
ences were hela in all. Throughout this whole period the Chinese Grovemment
steadfastly strove to arrive at an amicable settlement and made every concession
possible.
Of the 21 demands originally submitted by Japan, China agreed to 15, some in prin-
ciple and some textually, 6 being initialed by ooth parties.
IK THE MATTER OP THE DEMANDS TO WHICH CHINA AGREED.
At the first conference, held on February 2, China agreed in principle to the fizet
article of the Shantung eroup of demands which provides that Onina snould nve her
assent to the transfer ofGerman v^s rights in Shantung to Japan. The Chinese Govern-
ment maintained at first that the sm)ject of this demand related to the post bellum
TREATY OF PBACE WITH GBRMANT. 603
settlement, and therefore should be left over for discueeion by all the parties inter-
Mted at the peace conference. Failing to persuade the Japanese minister to accept
this view, the Chinese Government agreed to this demand in principle, and maae
certain supplementary proposals.
"The Japanese Governmcint declares that when the Chinese Government give their
assent to the disposition of interests above referred to. Japan will restore the leased
territory of Kiaochow to China, and further recognizes tne right of the Chinese Govern-
m^it to participate in the negotiations referred to above between Japan and Ger-
many."
The provision for a declaration to restore Kiaochow, was clearly not a demand on
Japan out only a reiteration of Japan's voluntary statement in her ultimatum to
Germany on August 15, 1914 (a copy of which was officially transmitted to the Chinese
Grovemment for perusal on August 15), and repeated in public statements by the
Japanese premier. Appreciating the earnest desire of Japan to maintain the peace
of the Far East and to cement her friendship with China, as evidenced by this friendly
offer, the Chinese Government left the entire question of the conditions of restoration
to be determined by Japan, and refrained from making tLuy reference thereto in the
supplementary proposal. The suggestion relating to participation in the conference
between Japan and Germany was made in view of the fact that Shantung, the object
of f utuiie negotiation between Japan and Germany, is a Chinese Province, and therefore
Glvma is the power most concerned in the future of that territory.
Another supplementary proposal suggesting the assumption by Japan of responsi-
bility for indemnification of the losses arising out of the military operations by Japan
in and about the leased territory of Kiaochow was necessitated by the &bct that China
was neutral vis-^-vis the war between Japan and Germany. Had China not inserted
such a provision, her position in relation to this conflict might have been liable to
misconstruction — ^the localities in which the operations took place being a portion of
China's temtor^ — and might also have exposed herself to a claim for indemnification
of losses tot which she was in no way responsible.
In a further supplementary proposal the Chinese Government tmggested that,
prior to t^e restoration of the Xiaocrhow territory to China, the maritime customs, the
telegraphs, and post offices should continue to be administered as heretofore;
that the military railway, the telegraph lines, etc., which were installed by Japan
to facilitate her 'military operations, should be removed forthwith; that the Japanese
troope now stationed outside of the leased territory should be iiist withdrawn, and
those within the tenltor>' should be recalled at the time when Kiaochow is returned
to China. Shantung being a Chinese Province, it was natural for China to be anxious
concerning the restoration of the status quo ante helium. Although the Chinese
Government were confident that the Japanese Government would enect such resto-
ration in pursuance of their official declaration, it was necessary for China, being
neutral throughout the war. to plaee these matters on record.
At the thira conference, held on February 22, China agreed to the second demand
in the Shantiutg Group not to cede or lease to any power any territory or island on
the sea border <h Sliantung.
At the fifth conference, held on Fobruar) 29. China agreed to give Japan the pref-
erence, provided Germany abandoned the privilege to suppl v the capital for the con-
struction of a railway from Chefoo or Lungkow to comiect with the Kiaochow-Tsinanfu
Riulway, in the event of China deciding to build that railway with foreign capital.
At the sixth conference, held on March 3, China, in the interests of foreign trade,
i^;reed to open certain important cities in Shantung as trade marts under regulations
approved by the Japanese Government, although this was a demand on the part of
Japan for privileges additional to any that hitherto had been enjoyed by Germany
and was not an outcome of the hostilities between Japan and Germany, nor, in the
opinion of the Chinese Government, was its acceptance essertiad to the preservation
01 peace in the Far East.
At the eighth conference, held on March 9, China agreed (1) to the extension of
the term of the lease of Dairen and (2^ Port Arthur, and (3) of the South Manchuria
and (4j Antimg-Mukden Railways, all to 99 jrears.
Owing to the bitter experiences which China sustained in the past in connection
with the leased portions of her territory, it has become her settled policy not to grant
further leases nor to extend the term oi those now in existance. Therefore, it was a
significant indication of China's desire to meet Japan's wishes when she agreed to this
exceptional departure from her settled policy.
At tiie same conference the Chinese Government also a^eed to refrain from nusing
objections to the principle of cooperation in the Hanyehpin^ Co., if the latter should
arrive at an agreement m this respect with the Japanese capitalists concerned. ^ With
reference to mis question it was pointed out to the Japanese Minister that, in the
604 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
provisional confltitution of the Republic of (^hina, Chinese subjects are guaraiueefl
the right of protection of their property and freedom to engage in any lawful occupation.
The Government was precluded, therefore, from interfering with the private busin*^
of the people, and couid not find any other solution than the one thus agreed to.
As regards tho single article of the fourth group, and the preamble thereto, \hc
Chinese Government held that they were inconsistent with Chinese sovereisfnty.
However, China, at this conference, expressed her readiness to meet the wishw of
Japan so far as it was possible without infringing her sovereignty, and agreed to mako
a voluntary pronouncement that she would not alienate any portion of her coast line.
In connection with the South Manchuria Railway it is worthy of note that the pro-
vision regarding the repurchase period in the agreement (36 years from 1902) was not
mention^ in Japan's original proposal. Subsequently the Japanese Govemmeni.
on the ground that the meaning of this provision was not clear, requested China
to agree to its cancellation. To this request the Chinese Government acceded, though
well aware that the proposed change could only benefit Japan. China thus relin-
quished the right to repurchase the railway at the expiration of another 23 years.
In connection with tne Antung-Mukden Railway, the article, which was originally
initialed at the conference, provided for the reversion of the railway to China at the
end of 99 years without payment, but, at the subsequent meeting, the Japanese
Minister requested that the reference to the reversion without payment de deleted
from the initialed article. In acceding to the Japanese minister's request, <1iin&
again showed her sincere desire to expedite matters and to meet Japan's wishes even
at the sacrifice of a point in her faivor, to which Japan had alreuly agreed.
At the eleventh conference, held on March 16, China agreed to give Japan preference
in regard to loans for railway construction in South Manchuria.
At tJie thirteenth conference, held on March 23, China agreed (I) to the amendment
of the Kirin-Changchun Railway loan agreement; (2) to give preference to Japan if
the revenue of South Manchuria were offered as security for loans; (3) to give preference
to Japanese in the event of the employment of advisers for South Manchuria: (4) to
grant to Japanese the right of mining in nine specified areas in South Manchuria.
In its original form tiie demand with reference to mining in South Manchum
tended to create a monopoly. for Japanese subjects, and, therefore, was entirely incon-
sistent with the principle of equal opportunity. The Chinese Government explained
that they could not, in view of the treaty rights of other powers, agree to this monopoly,
but they readily gave their acceptance when Japan consented to the modification
of the demand so as to mitigate its monopolistic character.
In connection with the Kirin-Changchun Railway, the amendment agreed to
involves a fundamental revision of the original agreement on the basis of the existinc
railway loan contracts concluded by China with other foreign capitalists, as well as an
engagement on the part of the Chinese Government to extend to this railway any better
terms which may be hereafter accorded to other railway concessionaries in China. Th«>
capital of this railway was originally 50 per cent Chinese and 50 per cent Japanese.
The effect of this undertaking is to transfer the capital originally held by the <^hinese.
as well as the full control and administration of the railway, to the Japanese.
At the twenty-first conference, held on April 10, (^hina agreed, in r^ard to the
demands concerning Fukien province, to give Japan an assurance in acconlance with
Jf^n 's wishes at a future time.
As regards demands 2 and 3 in the Manchuria Group, relating to the ownership of
land for trade, manufacture, and agricultural enterprises, as well as for the right of
settlement in the interior of South Manchuria, the (Chinese Government, after discussion
at several conferences, agreed to them in principle, but desired to introduce certain
amendments concerning the control and protection of the Japanese subjects who
might avail themselves of these rights. The course of the negotiations in connection
with these amendnients will be referred to subsequently.
IN THE MATTER OF THOSE DEMANDB TO WHICH CHINA COULD NOT AORKE.
Of the IM original demands there were 6, as previously mentioned, to which China
ciuld not agree on the ground that thev were not proper subjects for international
negotiation, conflicting as they did with the sovereign rights of (^hina, the treaty right?
of other powers, and the principle of equal opportunitv.
Thus, Tor example, the second article of the Hanyehping question in the original
third group in particular seiiously affected the principle of equal commercial oppor-
tunity.
The proposal that there should be joint administration by China and Japan of thf
police in China was clearly an interference with the Republic's domestic affairs, and
consequently an infringement of her sovereij?nty . For that reason the (^hinese Govern-
ment could not take the demand into consideration. But when it was explained h\
TBBAXT OF PISACE WITH GERMANY. 605
the Japanese minister that this referred only to South Manchuria, and he suggested
that hiB Government would he satisfied if China agreed to engage Japanese as police
advisers for that territory, the Chinese Government accepted the suggestion.
The two articles relating to the acquisition of land for scnools, hospitals, and temples,
as well as to the right of missionary propaganda, would, in the opinion of the Chinese
Government, have presented grave oostacles to the consolidation of the friendly
feeling subsisting between the two people. The religions of the two countries are
identical and, therefore, the need for a missionary propaganda to be carried on in
China by Japanese does not exist. The natural rivalry between Chinese and Japanese
followers of the same faith would tend to create incessant disputes and fnction.
Whereas western missionaries live apart from the Chinese communities among which
they lalior. Japanese monks would live with the Chinese; and the similarity of their
physical characteristics, their religious garb, and their habits of life would render it
impossible to distinguish them for purposes of affording the protection which the
Japanese Government would require should be extended to them under the system of
extra-territoriality now obtaining in China. Moreover a general apprehension exists
among the Chinese people that ^hese peculiar conditions favoring conspiracies for
political purposes might be taken advantage of by some unscrupulous Chinese.
The demand for railway concessions in the Yangtze Valley conflicted with the
Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo Railway agreement of March 6, 1908, the Nanking-
Changsha Railway agreement of March 31, 1914, and the engagement of August 24, 1914,
givinff preference to British firms for the projected line from Nanchang to Chaochowfu.
For this reason the Chinese Government found themselves unable to consider the
demand, though the Japanese minister, while informed of China's engagements with
Great Britain, repeatedly pressed for its acceptance.
In reepect to the demand for the appointment of influential Japanese to be advisers
and instructors in political, financial, and military affairs, the policy of the Chinese
Government in regard to the appointment of advisers has been similar to that which
has presumably giuded the Japanese Grovemment in like selectiDn of the best quali-
fied men irrespective of their nationality. As an indication of their desire to avail
themselves of the services of eminent Japanese^ one of the earliest apnointments
made to an advisership was that of Dr. Ariga, while later on Dr. Hiiai ana Mr. Naka-
yami were appointed to the ministry of communications.
It was oonsidered that the demand that Japanese should be appointed in the three
most important administrative departments, as well as the demand for the joint con-
trol of Gnina's police, and the demand for an ens^agement to purchase a fixed amount
of arms and ammunition from Japan or to establish joint arsenals in China, so clearly
involved the sovereignty of the Republic that the Chinese Government were unable
even to consider them.
For these reasons the Chinese Government, at the very outset of the negotiations,
declared that they were unable to negotiate on the demands; but, in deference to
the wishes of the Japanese Minister, the Chinese delegates consented to give the
reasons for declining to enter into a discussion of them.
IN' THE MATTER OP THE QUESTIONS OP DISPUTE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE FOREGOING
DEMANDS.
The demand by Japan for the right of her subjects in South Manchuria to lease or
own land, and to reside and travel, and to engage in business or manufacture of any
kind whatever, was deemed by the Chinese Government to obtain for Japanese sub-
jects in this region a privileged status beyond the terms of the treaties existmg between
the two nations, ana to give them a freedom of action which would be a restriction
of China's sovereignty and a serious infringement of her ad ministrative rights. Should
Japanese subjects be granted the right of owning land, it would mean that all the
landed property in the region might tall into their nands, thereby endangering China's
t«nritonal integrity. Moreover, residence in the interior was incompatible with the
existence of extra- territoriality, the relinauishment of which is necessary to the
actual enjoyment of the privilege of inlana residence, as evidenced in the practice
o{ other nations.
Japan's unconditional demand for the privilege of inland residence accompanied
with a desire to extend extra-territoriaUty into the interior of China and to enable
Japanese subjects to monopolize all the interests in South Manchuria, was also pal-
pably irreconcilable with the principle of equal opportunity. For this reason the
Chinese Government were, in the first instance, unable to accept this demand as a
baaifl of negotiation. Their profound regard for the friendly relations of the two
countries, however, persuadea them to exert their utmost efforts, in spite of all the
inherent difidculties, to seek a solution of a question which was praottically impossible
606 TBEATY OF PBACE WITH GBRMAinr.
to solve. Knowing that the propoeal made by Japan was incompatible with treaties,
thev nevertheless sought to meet her wishes within the limits of treaties. Accord-
ingly they submitted a counter-proposal to open more places in iSouth Manchuria
to international trade and to establish Sino-Japanese joint reclamation companies.
This su^estion was made in the belief that the places to which Japanese subjects
would desire to resort for purposes of trade, could not be other than important locali-
ties; if ^1 these localities were opened to commerce, then they could reside, trade,
and lease land there for joint reclamation. Thus Japanese subjects might enjoy the
esselice of the privilege of inland residence and would still be able to reconcile their
position with China's treaties and the principle of equal opportunity.
After the Japanese Government declined to accept tms suggestion, China with-
drew it and replaced it with an amendment to the original articles. It was proposed
in this amendment to grant to Japanese subjects the extra- treaty privilege of inland
residence with the provisos that Japanese subjects in places outside of trade marts
should observe Chinese police regulations and pay taxes in the same manner as
Chinese; and that civil and criminal cases involving such Japanese subjects should
be adjudicated by Chinese authorities, the Japanese consul attending: merely to
watch the proceedings. This suggestion was not an innovation; it was based upon
the modus operandi now in force as regards the Korean settlers in inland districts
in Chientao. But the Japanese Government again declined to accept it.
The Chinese Government thereupon made a third proposal alouR the line of what
constitutes the present practice in Turkey, making a distinction, nowever, in fsvot
of Japanese subjects, in the exercise of jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases.
This was once more objected to by the Japanese Government.
Then the Chinese Government proposed to concede still another step — the fourth
endeavor to meet Japan's wishes. They proposed to agree to the full text of articles
2 and 3 relative to the question of inland residence, except that ''the right of owning
land" was changed into "the right of leasing land'' ana to the phrase "cultivating
land" was added this clause: "the regulations for which shall be determined sepa-
rately"; and, further, to add a supplementary article which embodied a moaua
operandi which the Chinese Government had constrained themselves to make, out of
a desire to come to a settlement over this question. The view advanced in this sup-
plementary article was based upon the Japanese minister's declaration made on
March 6, 1915, that a separate article embodying some compromise might be added
to the original articles 2 and 3 for the purpose of avoiding any conflict with China's
sovereignty or the system established oy treaties. These suggestions made by the
Chinese Government were not accepted by Japan.
As regards eastern inner Mongolia, not only nave no treaties been entered into with
Japan concerning this region, but also the people are so unaccustomed to foreign trade
that the Chinese (k>vemment invariably feel much anxiety about the safety of foreign*
ers who elect to travel there. The Chinese (k>vemment, therefore, considered tnat
it would not be in the interest of foreigners to open the whole territorv to them for
residence and commerce, and on these founds based their original refusal to place
eastern inner Mongolia on the same footing as South Manchuria. Still, their aestre
to meet the wishes of the Japanese Government eventually prompted them to offer
to open a number of places in the region to foreign trade.
IN THE MATTER OV JAPAN'S REVISED DEMANDS.
The foregoing is an outline of the negotiations up to April 17. It was hoped by the
Chinese (government that the Japanese Government, in view of the great concoBseioDs
made bv China at the conferences held up to this time, would see a way of effecting an
amicable settlement by modifying their position on certain points. In reg^urd to these
it had, by this time, become matiifest that China would encotmter almost insuperable
difficulties in making further concessions.
The Japanese Government, however, suspended the negotiations until April M
when they surprised the Chinese Government by presenting a new list of 24 demands
(which is nereto appended), and requested the Chinese Government to accord theb
acceptance without delay, adding that this was their final proposal. At the same time
the Japanese minister stated that the Japanese Government would restore the leased
territory of Kiaochow to China at an opportune time in the future and under proper
conditions if the Chinese Government would agree to the new list of 24 demands
without modification.
In this new list, although the term "special position" in the preamble of the Man-
churian sroup was changed to "economic relations," and although the character of
the articles in the ori^[inal fifth ^up was altered from demands to a recital of alleged
statements by the Chinese foreign minister, four new demands were introduced con*
TRBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 607
ceming eastern inner Mongolia. In deference to the wishes of the Japanese Govern-
ment, the Chinese Government gave the revised list the most careful consideration;
and being sincerely desirous of an early settlement offered new concessions in their
reph presented to the Japanese minister on May I. (Annexed.)
In this reply the Chinese Government reinserted the proposal in reference to the
retrocession of Kiaochow, which they advanced at the first conference on February 2,
and which was postponed at the request of the Japanese minister. This, therefore,
was in no sense a new proposal.
The Chinese Government also proposed to a^ee to three of the four articles relating
to eastern inner Mongolia. There was some difficulty in determining a definition of
the boundaries of eastern inner Mongolia — this being a new expression in Chinese
geocraphical terminology — ^but the Cninese Government, acting upon a statement
made at a previous conference by the Japanese minister that the Japanese Government
meant the r^ion under Chinese administrative jurisdiction, and taking note, in the
list presented by the Japanese minister, of the names of places in eastern inner Mongolia
to be opened to trade, inferred that the so-ciUled eastern inner Mongolia is that part of
inner Mongolia which is under the jurisdiction of South Manchuria and the Jehol
Intendency, and refrained from placing any limitations upon the definition of this
term.
The Chinese Government also withdrew their supplementary proposal reserving the
right of making regulations for agricultural enterprises to be undertaken by Japanese
settlers in SouUi Manchuria.
In respect of the trial of cases involving land disputes between Japanese only, or
between Jaj^nese and Chinese, the Chinese Government accorded to the Japanese
consul the right of deputing an officer to watch the proceedings.
The Chinese Government also agreed to accept the suggestion of the Japanese
Government to modify the term '^ police law and ordinances^ into '' police rules and
regulations,*' thereby limiting the extent of control which the Chinese would have
over Japanese subjects.
As regards the Hanyehping demand, the Chinese Government accepted the draft
made by the Japanese Gfovemment, embodying an engagement by the Chinese
Govempaent not to convert the company into a State-owned concern, nor to con-
fiscate it, nor to force it to borrow foreign capdtal other than Japanese.
In respect of the Fukien question me Cninese Government also agreed to give
an aasuiance in the amplified form suggested by the Japanese Government that the
Chinese Government had not given their consent to any foreign nations, to construct
a dockyard, or a coaling station, or a naval base, or any other military establishment
along the coast of Fukien Province; nor did they contemplate borrowing foreign
capital for the foregoing purpcMes.
Having made these concessioiis which practically brought the views of China into
line with those of Japan, and having explained in a note accompanying the reply
the difi&culty for China to make further concessions, the Chinese Government hoped
that the Japanese Government would accept their reply of May 1, and thus brmg
the negotiations to an amicable conclusion.
The Japanese Government, however, expressed themselves as being dissatisfied
with China's reply, and withdrew the conditional offer to restore Kiaochow to China
made on April 26. It was further intimated that if the Chinese Government did
not give their full compliance with the list of 24 demands, Japan would have recourse
to drastic measures.
Upon receiving this intimation the Chinese Grovemment, inspired by the con-
ciliatory spirit wiiich had been predominant from the very beginning of the nego-
tiations and desirous of avoiding any possible rupture in the relations of the two
countries, made a supreme effort to meet the situation, and represented to the Japanese
Government that they would reconsider their position and make another attempt
to find a solution that would be more satisfactory to Japan, in respect to those articles
which China had declared could not be taken up for consideration, but to which
Japan attached great importance. Even in the evening of May 6, after the Japanese
minister had notified tne Chinese Government that the ultimatum had arrived in
Peking, the Chinese Government in the interests of peace still exerted efforts to save
the situation by offering to meet Japan's wishes.
These overtures were again rejected and thus exhausted the means at the disposal
of the Chinese Government to prevent an impasse.
It is plain that the Chinese Government proceeded to the fullest extent of possible
concession in view of the strong national sentiment manifested by the people tlirough-
out the whole period of n^^>tiations. All that the Chinese Government strove to
maintain was China's plenary sovereignt>r, the treaty rights of foreign powers in
China, and the principle of equal opportunity.
608 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
To the profound regret of the Chinese Government, however, the tremendous
sacrifices which they had shown themselves ready to make, proved unavailing, and
an ultimatum (the text of which is appended) was duly deuvered to them by the
Japanese minister at 3 o'clock on the afternoon of May 7.
As to the allegations made in the ultimatum against China, the Chinese Govern-
ment hope that the foregoing outline of the history of the negotiations constitutee a
clear, dispKassionate, and complete reply.
In considering the nature of the course they should take with reference to the
ultimatum the Chinese Government was influenced by a desire to preserve the Chinese
people, as well as the laige number of foreign residents in China, from unnecesaar\-
suffering. and also to prevent the interests of friendly powers from bein^ imperiled.
For these reasons the Chinese Government were constrained to comply in full with
the terms of the ultimatum (the reply being hereto appended), but in complying
the Chinese disclaim any desire to associate themselves with any revision, which
may thus be effected, of the various conventions and agreements concluded between
other powers in respect of the maintenance of China's territorial independence and
intesnty, the preservation of the status quo, and the principle of equal opportimity
for the commerce and industry of all nations in China.
Senator Bbakdegee. What was the date of that statement ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was issued — I can not say, sir, because printing
is so slow in Peking. It was somewhere toward the latter part of
May.
senator Bbandeqee. On what date was the treaty signed ?
Mr. Ferguson. May 25. It was somewhere about that same time.
Senator Brandegee. It must have been issued within a week after
the signature of the treaty.
Mr. Ferguson. I shouUl say somewhere along there. It may have
been in the first weeks of June. I do not remember exactly.
Senator McCumber. It was given publicity throughout Qiina ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you hear Senator McCormick's
speech yesterday ?
Mr, Ferguson. I did, sir.
Senator Johnson of Califorxiia. In the course of it he quoted from
an eminent Japanese statesman's construction of, or the future con-
struction that Japan would put upon, the Lansing-Ishii agreement.
Did you follow that particular part ?
Mr. Ferguson. Part of it. i could not hear from where I was sit-
ing in the gallery.
Senator Johnson of California. The only reason of my inquiry was
that if you were familiar with it I was going to ask you about it, but
if you did not hear it I will not refer to it mrther.
Mr. Ferguson. If you could state
Senator Johnson oi California. I do not want to state it. I might
not state it with entire accuracy. The substance of it as I gathered
was that some eminent Japanese statesman — here is the record, if
I am going to question you about it, it will be far better, I thinks to
get it accurately. If somebody will proceed with other questions, I
will ask that later.
Senator Knox. I ^as going to make a suggestion that we might
take the time to send out and get some of our Democratic brethem
to come in and help expedite this treaty.
Senator Swanson. I would like to have you give vour interpreta-
tion of the Lansing-Ishii text, as to its scope and its eftect.
Mr. Ferguson. May I do so first without its going into the recordi
Senator? I would like to ask as to the expediency of putting it into
the record. I should hate to put it in the record.
XBBATT OV nUGB WITH OBBlCAKTt 609
Senator Swanson. The reason I desire that is that in the question
of Senator Johnson he used the words that the agreement disposed of
the *' fate "of China, and I would like to have also in the record your
interpretation as to the effect of that agreement, the English text|
whicn was the official text.
Mr. Febquson. Personally, I regarded the Lansing-Ishii agree-
ment as a most unfortunate document, and out of keeping with our
traditional poUcy.
Senator Swanson. How about the Root-Takahira agreement ?
Mr. Febquson. That was perfectly right and perfectly in agree-
ment with all our previous treatment of China.
Senator Swansom, Was China consulted about that agreement?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator Swanson. That agreement was made without any con-
sultation with China ?
Mr. Febquson. Yes, sir; so far as I know.
Senator Bbandeqee. Have you finished. Senator ?
Senator Swanson. No. You said it was out of accord. What
special rights does that agreement^ve to Japan ?
The C^LiBifAN. You mean the Root-Takahira agreement?
Senator Swanson. The Lansing-Ishii agreement.
Mr. Febquson. Well, the primal difficulty in that is that it deals
with China without consulting her, whereas the Root-Takahira agree-
ment was following up by Mr. Hay's original plan of getting eyery body
to agree to recognize the territorial integrity and the "open door,"
the equal opportunity of all nations, and whether China was con-
sulted about it, or was not consulted about it, made very little
difference. But here it was a question of the attitude of the powers
that were in treatjr with China toward her.
The Lansing-Ishii agreement brings in something which directly
affects Chinaj by saying that territorial propinquity creates special
relations between coimtries. That is a statement which I think is
very broad.
Senator Swanson. Does that give Japan any greater interest in
China tlian China would have in Japan ? Their relations are similar
to each other, as a general statement of the general proposition.
Mr. Febquson. It states they are on the oasis oi territorial pro-
Einquity, and consequently that "the Government of the United
tates recognizes that Japan has special interests in China.''
Senator Swanson. Well, now, the declaration of that general
principle
Mr. Febquson. It is very different from what we have ever stated,
and is directly — ^how it can be possible to maintain on the one hand
the ''open door," equal opportunity, and on the other hand say that a
certain nation on accoimt of territorial propinquity has special
interests, is more than I can imderstand, sir.
Senator Swanson. Does that general declaration give Japan any
greater interest in China than Chma would have in Japan on account
of being so geographically situated toward each other — the general
declaration m principle ?
Mr. Febquson. No, sir; provided they were on an equal basis^
whidi they have not oeen for several years.
18654e— 19 89
610- TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY?
Senator Swanson. The general principle does not create any more
interest in one than in the other.
Mr. Ferguson. As a statement between Great Britain and France,
for instance, it would be a perfectly harmless statement. As a state-
ment between a strong nation and an adjoining weak nation, it can
have only one si^ificance as far as my judgment would go, and that
is a threateniiL^ mfluence.
Senator McCumber. How would it be between the United States
and Mexico ?
Mr. Ferguson. I should say it would have a very threatening in-
fluence there.
Senator McCumber. That we have a special interest by reason of
our
Mr. Ferguson. Of our territorial propinquity.
Senator McCumber. That we have a special interest in Mexico,
would you think that would be a harmful declaration or one that
would be anything but in accord with the facts ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well
Senator Swanson. Do we claim special interest in Mexico on
accoimt of its geographical position to us ?
Mr. Ferguson. I do not know what is claimed by the United States
Government in that respect.
Senator Swanson. You know, do you not, that it has been one of
our principles under the Monroe doctrine — ^nearness to us ?
Now, let me ask you, further, do you not think the Lansing-Ishii
agreement gives to China territorial rights in that regard ?
Mr. Ferguson. No more than she had.
Senator Swanson. But it is a reiteration of that, made by the
United States.
Mr. Ferguson. They made that reiteration, but in the same note
the other, *' special interest'' comes in the first time.
Senator Swanson. That is the only addition that was made in this,
above what was included in other notes ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Swanson. In that Japan also reiterates her adherence to
the open door poliCT ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. As I imderstand, in the Root-Takahira agree-
ment we agree that if there is any change in the affairs in China, the
United States and Japan shall consult before taking any action)
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Senator Swanson. Did that include also that they should consult
China at the same time, or was the consultation limited to those two
nations ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was limited to those two nations.
Senator Swanson. That is, there was an agreement that they
should consult each other, without any agreement that China should
also be consulted ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes* but that was to protect her interests.
Senator Swanson. Not to consult China was to protect her
interests ?
Mr. Ferguson. No; but the purpose of that note was the protec-
tion of China's interests.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 611
Senator Swanson. Do you not think that, if Senator Johnson was
right about that, China should have been included as a third party
to the consultation ?
Mr. Ferguson. It would have been a very courteous thing on the
part of both Governments; but as both Governments were simply
promulgating a benevolent pohcy toward China, which did not
affect China^ interests except favorably, such lack of consultation
did not at the time give any offense to China.
I may point out, Senator, in reference to this Root-Takahira
agreement that you are questioning me upon, that it is verjr clear
to my mind that the presentation of the 21 demands upon China by
Japan, without any consultation with the United States, was in
direct violation of the Root-Takahira agreement. That I feel per-
fectly free to say.
Senator Swanson. Those 21 demands were in violation of the
Mr. Ferguson. They directly affected the interests of China.
Japan promised, under the Root-Takahira agreement, to consult
with the United States before taking action. I should say that that
was in direct contravention.
Senator Brandegee. The Root-Takahira agreement, if I under-
stand your position, was an agreement to treat all nations equally
with reference to China, and to give them all the same privil^es —
to keep the door open — was it not ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. Was there anything in the Root-Takahira
fl^eement that intimated that Japan had any special interests in
(Siina?
Mr. Ferguson. Not a suggestion of it.
Senator Brandegee. Ana is it your opinion that because this
agreement, made subsetjuently to the
Mr. Ferguson (continuing). The Root-Takahira agreement being
on our initiative and the Lansing-Ishii agreement being on the
Japanese initiative.
Senator Brandegee. The Lansing-Ishii agreement having been
preceded, according to the testimony of the Secretary of State
which is in the record here, by a demand on the j)art of Viscount
Ishii that we should not only recognize their special interest, but
their
Mr. Ferguson. Influence.
Senator Brandegee (continuing). Influence, taking aU these
things into consideration, and that we reco^zed Japan's special
interest, does it not, in your opinion, precipitate a question as to
what that special interest is above and apart from aU other nations ?
Mr. Ferguson. Certainly, sir.
Senator Brandegee. And it must be construed to mean some-
thing different from the interests of other nations in China, must
it not «
Mr. Ferguson. Certainly, and it must be construed in reference to
the Question which Japan nas considered of paramount interest to
herself; that is, the Shantung question.
Scoiator Brandegee. And also, whether it shall be construed so or
not, at least it must be considered as to the effect which the Japanese
put upon it and the way in which they interpret it, must it not ?
612 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandegee. That is all.
Senator McCumbbr. Now, I would like to ask you. Doctor, just
what rights are given to Japan, in the Lansin^-Ishii agreement, that
are withheld in tne Root-Takahira agreement?
Senator Brandegee. That is the question. Nobody knows.
Senator McCumber. I know, but he must have an idea.
Mr. Ferguson. I can answer that question, I think, Senator
McCumber, by stating that the Root-Takahira agreement provides
for the open door and equal opportunity for all nations. The Lansing-
Ishii agreement states as follows:
The United States recognizes that Japan has special interests' in China, X)articularly
in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.
Senator Brandegee. What part would that be, Doctor ?
Senator McCumber. But what is there there about the open-door
policy ?
Mr. Ferguson. It goes on and states 'Hhe open door."
Senator McCumber. It goes on and reiterates what is in the Root-
Takahira agreement.
Mr. Ferguson. But you asked what, in addition to that, there
was, and I was just quoting.
Senator "McCumber. I know the words. I know that the wording
declares "interests" and "special interests;" but what I am trying
to get at is what you conceive that "interests" to be, different from
what is in the Root-Takahira a^eement?
Mr. Ferguson. The Root-Takahira agreement recognized no special
interests of any nation.
Senator McCumber. It recognizes the equal right of every nation!
Mr. Ferguson. Of all nations.
Senator McCumber. Does this recognize that Japan has any right
that is not accorded, in trade or in any other way, to all the nations?
Mr. Ferguson. To my mind it does, sir. It distinctly recognizes
Japan's special interests in Manchuria, which are contiguous, and
Korea; and it probably recognizes Japan's interest in the coast op-
posite Formosa, which is the coast of the Province of Fukien.
Senator McCumber. This coimtry has often declared its special
interest, for instance, by reason of our contiguous territory. That
declaration that we have a special interest in Mexico by reason of
our geographical situation does not carry with it, does it, any right,
conmaercially or in any other respect, with Mexico that is not ac-
corded to all other nations of the world ?
Mr. Ferguson. No; but we have not American soldiers in Mexico
guarding American concessions railways. We have no military rights
m protecting mines in Mexico. The situation is not on aU fours,
sir, in my opinion.
Senator Knox. We have no extraterritoriality there.
Mr. Ferguson. No extraterritorial privileges and no establish-
ment of special courts.
Senator McCumber. Have we soldiers in any other one of the
South American Republics ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is not a matter that is within my knowledge.
Senator McCumber. Have we had any kind of a protectorate over
Haiti, where we have our American soldiers ?
Mt. Ferguson. I think the Senator can answer his own question,
can he not ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 613
Senator McCumbeb. Yes; I asked it only to connect the matter up
with the theory that the fact that we claim a special interest does not
carry with it a commercial or other interest antagonistic to other
coimtries ' and that we ought to construe the Japanese special inter-
est exactly in the same way as we would construe a declaration of
special interest to the United States. That was all.
Senator Swanson. Doctor, have you any special knowledge that
these negotiations were begun at the instance of Japan ?
Mr. Febquson. You mean the 21-demand negotiations?
Senator Swanson. No. I mean the negotiations in connection
with the Lansing-Ishii agreement.
Mr. Ferguson. Oh.
Senator Swanson. Mr. Lansing, on page 223 of part 7 of these
hearings, when he was testifying before the committee, said this:
I suggested to Vificount Ishii that it would be well for the two Governments to
reaffirm the open-door policy, on the ground that reports were being spread as to the
purpose of Jppan to take advantage of the situation created by the war to extend her
influence over China — political influence. Ishii replied to me that he would like to
consider that matter, but that, of course, he felt that Japan had a special interest in
China, and that that should be mentioned in any agreement that we had; and I replied
to him that we. of course, recognized that Japan, on account of her geographical posi-
tion, had a peculiar interest in China, but that it was not political in nature, and that
the danger of a statement of special interest was that it might be so construed, and
therefore I objected to making such a statement.
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. Now, it would seem from that that Secretary
Lansing
Mr. Ferguson. Did not agree to the agreement which
Senator Swanson. That Secretary Lansing suggested these negotia-
tions in order to protect the sovereignty of China and the open-door
policy that he thought was being threatened by the conduct of Japan
m China, and he thought this would be a protection to China, con-
sidering the troubled conditions existing in the world at that time.
Mr. Ferguson. That* would not be my interpretation of Secretary
Lansing's remarks. My interpretation of the Secretary's remarra
is that when Viscount ishii came to America on his special mission
and had a consultation with the Secretary, he considered, in view of
what Japan had been doing in Shantimg, the large number of peti-
tions which had been sent to this country by the people of Shantung,
that it would be well for Japan to reaffirm her policy of nonaggression
in China; and that Viscount Ishii countered him by saying that they
would be quite willing to do that, but would like also to add a new
statement, that on accoxmt of geographical position Japan has special
interests there; to which Secretary Lansing objectea. But in the
final agreement, to which whether or not the Secretary was a party
I do not know, that was included; and I judge from this statement
that the Secretary made that it was included contrary to his advice
in the matter.
Senator Swanson. What I wanted to know is, if you know, if Ishii
came here personally with the purpose of opening negotiations, or
whether, wnen he came here, these negotiations were initiated by
our Government?
Mr. Ferguson. He camfe to make negotiation.
Senator Swanson. You are satisfied of that ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir; I think that is without doubt.
614 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. On page 193 of this record you will find that
Secretary Lansing apparently acquiesces in that view. I read as
follows from page 193 of our record :
Senator Borah. And just before Ishii came over here to get his agreement with
this country.
Secretary Lansino. No; Ishii
Senator Borah. No; it was in November, 1917.
Secretaty Lansing. 1917.
Senator Williams. That what took place — oh, that Ishii made his agreement?
Evidently Secretary Lansing acquiesced in that assumption.
Senator Johnson of California. The matter to whicn I was en-
deavoring to direct your attention in Senator McCormick s address
in the Senate was this. [Reading:]
The Russian minister at Tokio sent his Government a confidential report on the
Japanese view of the agreement. That was also published by the Russian revolu-
tionaries, and in part is as follows:
"To my question whether he (the Japanese minister of foreign affairs) did not fear
that in the future misunderstandings might arise from the different interpretations
by Japan and the United States of the meaning of the terms, 'special position' and
* special interests' of Japan in China, Viscount Motono replied by Ba}dng that — (a gap
in the original). Nevertheless, I gain the impression from the words of the minister
that he is conscious of the possibility of misunderstandings also in the future, but b
of the opinion that in such a case Japan would have better means at her disposal for
carrying into effect her interpretation than the United States."
Do you kno^v anything of the remarks of Motono concerninjr
the interpretation that might in future be put upon the Lansing-Ishii
agreement ?
Mr. Ferguson. I have seen that same statement quoted in the
press of Japan^ and I have a copy of it, also.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you enlighten us as to what
is the ^'better means'' referred to in that statement?
Mr. Ferguson. Japan is nearer China. It is much easier for
her to move troops, to move ships, than it is for the United States, hi
China. I do not know of any other.
Senator Johnson of California. That is all, sir.
The Chairman. Does anyone else desire to ask any questions ?
Senator Moses. What naeans was China permitted to employ in
presenting her case at Paris ?
Mr. Ferguson. She had free opportunity, so far as I understand,
I speak there only from reports given me by returned Chinese dele-
gates. So far as I know, she had every opportunity of presenting
her case.
Senator Moses. Was she limited in any way in her choice of counsel,
by suggestion or otherwise ?
Mr. Ferguson. Not officially; no official suggestion, so far as I
know^
Senator Moses. Do you know of any unofficial suggestion ?
Ml'. Ferguson. Yes; I think there were unofficial suggestions.
Senator Moses. Of what character?
Mr. Ferguson. That it would be inadvisable to have foreign
advisers there with her, in view of the complicated situation.
Senator Moses. Do you know of any other delegation that was
limited in respect to its advisers in presenting its case before the
peace conference ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir.
Senator Moses. What argument was employed in making this
unofficial suggestion ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 615
Mr. Ferguson. That it would be better for China's case.
Senator Moses. That was a simple assertion ?
Afr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Senator Moses. When the final decision was reached in the
Shantung matter, how was it communicated to the Japanese and
Chinese delegations ?
Mr. Ferguson. I can only quote hearsay in that matter. It came
to them, I might state, through the publicity department of the
American delegation, as I imderstood it.
Senator Moses. In writing ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, verbdly.
Senator Moses. Who was the messenger 1
Mr. Ferguson. I have only had that on hearsay. I should hate
to read into the record the name without being able to state it on my
own personal knowledge. I only know it from hearsay.
Senator Moses. Hearsay from whom?
Mr. Ferguson. From the returned delegate from the Chinese
Government.
Senator Moses. Would you mind giving his version of it as he
communicated it to vou 1
Mr. Ferguson. Tne facts were communicated to him by Mr. Ray
Stannard Baker.
Senator Moses. Did the communication contain anything except
a statement of what had been decided upon ?
Mr. Ferguson. No; that is aU; what had been decided upon.
Senator Moses. No further communication was ever had with
Mr. Baker ?
Mr. Ferguson. No, sir. I may also state that I have been
informed from that same source that it was the imderstandin^ of the
Chinese delegation that articles 156, 157, and 158 were drafted by the
Japanese member of the drafting committee of the Paris treatv.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions to be asked of
Dr. Ferguson? If not, that is all. Dr. Ferguson, and we are very
much obliged to you.
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you. I have handed to the oflGicial reporter
these conventions that you asked me to insert in the record.
The Chairman. Yes, very well.
(Thereupon, at 11.40 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Friday, August 22, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
FRIDAY, AUGTTST 28, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426 Senate Cffice Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lod^e (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Brande-
gee, Knox, Harding, Johnson of California, Moses, Hitchcock^
Williams, and Swanson.
STATEMENT OF PROF. EDWARD THOXAS WHLIAKS.
The Chairman. Prof. Williams^ will you be kind enough to give
your full name ?
Prof. Williams. Edward Thomas Williams.
The Chairman. Of Berkeley, Calif. ?
Prof. Williams. Of Berkeley, Calif. ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. You are now a professor in the university, are
you not %
Prof. Williams. Yes; I am professor of oriental languages and
literature in the University of California.
The Chairman. You have been in China ?
Prof. Williams. I lived in China for nearly 26 years, or about 26
years.
The Chairman. You were at Paris as one of the eastern experts,
were you not?
Prof. Williams. Yes; my commission read as technical adviser of
the American commission to negotiate peace.
The Chairman. You were one of the American experts ?
Prof. Williams. Yes, sir; technical adviser on far eastern affairs.
The Chairman. Prof. Williams, I am going to ask Senator Johnson
if he will go on with the examination, because he knows exactly what
we desire to get.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state about the time of
your residence in China ? You say you were there for about 26 years.
That was during what period, Doctor?
Prof. Williams. I went out in 1887, and in 1909 I returned to the
Department of State for 18 months, and then went back in- 1911 and
was there until February, 1914, when I returned to the Department
of State again, and was m the Department of St>ate until last Septem-
ber.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you, in your residence in
China, acting in any official capacity ?
Prof. Williams. I was.
Senator Johnson of California. What was your position ?
617
618 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBIC^LKY.
Prof. Williams. Not all the time, but from 1896 mitU 1898 I was
in the American Consular Service at Shanghai^ and from 1898 until
1901 I was in the Chinese Government service as translator.
From 1901 until 1908 I was Chinese secretary of the American
Legation at Peking.
From 1908 to 1909 I was consul general at Tientsin, and then came
home in 1909 and was Assistant Chief of the Division of Far Eastern
Affairs in the Department of State.
In 1911 I went back to Peking as secretary of legation, and was
charg6 d'affaires while Mr. Calhoun was at home; I was charg6 d'af-
faires when the revolution broke out, and was a^ain charge d'affaires
when he resigned and came home. I remained in charge during the
recognition oi the RepubUc and the coming out of Dr. Keinsch. In
1914 I returned to the State Department as Chief of the Division of
Far Eastern Affairs, and remained there until last September.
Senator Johnson of California And during that period as chief
of that division in the Department of State, was your residence in
Washington ?
Prof . Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Last September you imdertook
your work at the University of California ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Were you called from your work
there for any specific purpose ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; on the 3d of December I received a tele-
gram signed by Secretary Lansing, asking me to go to Paris, and he
was good enough to say that I was neeoed at the peace conference.
I left as soon as I could — ^lef t on the 7th of December and arrived at
Paris on the 3 1st of December,
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. You remained in Paris how longt
Prof. Williams. I remained imtil the 17th of May.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. During that time were you per-
forming the duties of the particular post of adviser ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. Adviser upon
Prof. Williams. Upon far eastern affairs.
Senator Johnson oi California. And while vou were in Paris were
you familiar with the proceedings had in reference to the Chinese-
Japanese matters in controversy?
Prof. Williams. Yes; to a certain degree. Of course I was not
present at the meetings of the council.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you been the author of any
books on far eastern affairs ?
Prof. Williams. Only pamphlets.
Senator Johnson of California. Pamphlets ?
Prof. Williams. No books.
Senator Johnson of California. Senator Moses asks whether the
proceedings of the cotmcU were communicated to you in your capacity
as adviser ?
Prof. Williams. Some of them were; yes. At times when ques-
tions relating to the Far East came before the council I was sum-
moned to the council meetings. I attended six meetings of the coun-
cils; five meetings of the council of ten and one meeting of the council
of five.
. TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAlSrY. 619
Senator Johnson of California. Was that during the period that
thev were considering the Shantimg matter ?
rrof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. What was the procedure in those meetings that you
attended. Doctor?
Prof. Williams. Mr. Clemenceau^ the French Premier, presided.
and two delegates from each of the five powers. They gathered
around the room and questions that were raised were put by Mr.
Clemenceau, and then there was a sort of informal discussion by
anybody that cared to speak.
Senator Moses. Was any vote taken at any of the meetings which
you attended?
Prof. Williams. I do not remember any vote to have been taken.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you called upon at any time
to render any advice concerning the Shantung decision ?
Prof. Williams. Not before the council, but by our own commis-
sioners I was asked several times for memoranda on various phases
of it.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you furnish any memoranda ?
Prof. Williams. I did; yes, sir.
Senator Johnson of California. Have you any copies of the mem-
oranda thus furnished ?
Prof. Williams. No; I have not. They were left in the files in
Paris.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you remember substantially
what you then advised ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Go ahead and in your own way
state your advice on the Shantung decision, will you ?
Senator Brandegee. And let him state what he put in these
memoranda.
Senator Johnson of California. Yes; I was going to have him char-
acterize in his own fashion the Shantung decision and tell about it.
T^en I was going to ask him concerning this advice and tc whom
given.
Prof. Williams. My own opinion is that the decision was an un-
fortunate one; that the leased territory of Kiaochow and the rail-
ways and mines in Shantung, which had been in the possession of
Germany ought to have gone automatically to China at the conclu-
sion of the peace; that they were taken from China by force, by an
act of piracy; that the fact that some other power had driven out
the Qermans from Shantung did not seem to constitute a title to this
property, and that they would naturally revert to the soverign of
the territory.
You remember that the conference was organized on the 18th of
January, 1919, and on the 27th this question came up before the
conference, when the disposition of the German colonies was brought
np.
On that day Baron Makino presented the claim on behalf of Japan
to have these rights formerly belonging to Germany in the Province
of Shantung transferred directly and unconditional^ to Japan. He
made his statement, and immediately one of the Oiinese delegates
arose and asked if China could be heard. M. Clemenceau said that
the question that morning was not so much about Shantung as about
the German colonies, and that China would be heard later.
620 TBBATY OF 3PBA0B WITH <aiBMAN7«
So they first discussed the question of the disposition of the island?
in the Pacific north of the Equator, and then passed to the Grennan
colonies in Africa.
The next day China was called upon for her statement. Dr. Eu,
the Chinese mmister to the Unitea States, spoke on behalf of the
Chinese delegation, made a very clear and forcible statement in
behalf of Chma's claim to have these rights handed directly to
China, and then Baron Makino arose and said that this matter really
had been already arranged for between China and Japan by the con-
vention of 1915, in which China had agreed that she would abide by
any arrangement made between Germany and herself with regard to
the disposition of these rights in Shantimg Province. He also re-
ferred to the fact that there had been some a^eements between China
and Japan with regard to the railways in Shantung. President
Wilson arose and asked if he meant that these agreements were to be
put on the table, and he said yes; and then he corrected himself and
said of course he would have first to consult his Grovemment, but he
thought' there would be no objection to their being put on the table.
The agreements to which he referred were those of last September
with r^ard to the joint operation of the Shantung Railway by China
and Japan and the turning over to Japan of the option which Ger-
many had for building certain extensions of railwa3n3 in the Province
of Shantimg.
Senator RrrcHcooK. What was that date ?
Prof. Williams. That was last September; I think September 24,
1918.
Then the question rested for a good many weeks. On the 9th of
April, or the 8th of April, I think it was, I received a telegram from
the Shantung legislative assembly, the legislative assembly of the
Province of Shantung, asking the delegation of the United States to
use its good offices to have these rijghts which had been taken by
Germany in Shantung transferred directly to China rather than to
Japan. This telegram was signed not only by the officers of the
Shantung legislative assembly, but by other prominent men, repre-
sentatives of the educational association of China and the provincial
chamber of commerce of Shantung.
On receiving this telegram I wrote another memorandum. I for-
got to say that in January I had prepared a memorandum on the
whole question, which was sent to tne commission, and this was sup-
plemented later by another memorandum on the question of the rail-
ways in Shantung. I do not remember the exact date of that; but
on the 9th of April I prepared a memorandum calling attention to
the fact that in our treaty with China of 1858 we were pledged to China
to use our good offices in case any country acted unjustly toward
China — that we would use our good offices to try to make an amicable
adjustment.
I called attention to this, and suggested that we ought to draw up
a clause for the treaty which would provide for the transfer of these
rights directly to China. This was sent to the commission, and the
next day I received instructions to draw up such a clause and to con-
sult with Dr. James Brown Scott of the American delegation, who
was our international law expei't. I did this, and saw Dr. Scott, I
think it was the next day.
TBBATY OF FBAOB WITH GEBMA2!rr. 621
Dr« Scott suggested as an alternative that instead of transferring
the rights directly to China they might be transferred to the five
powers, in trust for China. That that might be a compromise that
would be satisfactory to Japan.
This was discussed, but I do not know how much, by the council.
At any rate I heard nothing definite until the 22d of April, in the
evening, when I received a telephone message that the President
would like to see me.
I went up, and President Wilson was in conference with some one.
I was waiting only a few moments, however. He came in and said
that he wanted me to consult with the other far eastern experts of
the British and French delegations as to which of two alternatives
would be the least injurious to China, whether it would be less
injurious to China to transfer to Japan all the rights and privileges
formerly enjoyed by Germany in tne Province of Shantung, or to
insist upon the execution of the convention of May 25, 1915.
While in conversation with President Wilson he said to me that
unfortunately the British and French were bound by certain engage-
ments which*^ they had entered into with Japan to support Japan's
claim for the transfer of these rights to herself directly, and that
Lloyd George said lie was bound only to support the transfer of the
rights enjoyed by Germanv but no others — not the transfer of
anything else; and he said that the war seemed to have been fought
to establish the sanctity of treaties, and that while some treaties were
unconscionable, at the same time it looked as though they would have
to be observed.
Seoiator Knox. Lloyd-George said this ?
Prof. Williams. No; President Wilson said that to me.
I said, "Well, Mr. President, do you think that a treaty which has
been extorted from China by force and by threats of military opera-
tion ought to have any binding force ?''
He said, *' Well, pernaps the Japanese would not admit that it was
obtained in that way."
I suggested that the published documents seemed to indicate that
it had been in that way, and he said, "Of course if the documents
show it, then the Japanese would not deny it;" but he asked me,
however, to go and consult these experts about the question which
he had raised.
I asked if I might suggest an alternative solution, and he said
^'certainly," and I suggested that we might adopt a blanket article
in the treaty covering all German properties in China, saying that
Germany renounced dl rights and title to those government prop-
erties in China and that tney reverted automaticSljr to China, but
since the port of Tsingtao and the railways and mines in the Province
of Shantung had. been taken from Germany by Japan with the aid
of Great Britain, and were now in the possession of Japan, that in so
far as these government properties in Shantung were concerned they
would be transferred to China by Japan within one year after the
signing of the peace treaty.
He said that he had not considered it from that angle, and would
like me to write it out, which I promised to do.
This was the 22d; the neyt day was the 23d. The next day there
appeared in the papers the appeal which President Wilson made to
the Italian people with regard to Fiume and the Dalmatian coast,
622 TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANV.
which raised considerable stir in Paris; and on the 24th the far
eastern expert for Great Britain and the far eastern expert for
France ana myself met and signed a statement which was sent to
the council of tnree, President Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau,
with a signed statement in which we said that in our opinion it would
be less injurious to China to transfer all the rights formerly enjoyed
by Germany in the Province of Shantung than it would be to insist
upon the observance of the convention of 1915, and I told these two
gentlemen representing the British and French delegates that I was
going to send an independent statement trying to point out that
neither alternative ought to be adopted; that we ought neither to
insist upon the enforcement of the treaty of 1915 nor the transfer of
these rights; that I would make an argument against it. At first Mr.
Macleay, of the British delegation, said that he would not be able to
do anything in that line, but afterwards he changed his mind and he
also sent a statement— I never saw it, and I do not know just what
he said, but I believe it was along those lines — that we were not shut
up to these alternatives.
I sent a statement to President Wilson, in which I begged to call
attention to this fact. I can not recall the argument which I made
at the time, so that I can not say defimtel;y^ what I said except that
I must have pointed out that the convention of 1915 was extorted
by force; that Japan had already two divisions of troops in China and
had just transferred two more, and gave the Chinese Government 51
hours in which to reply to the xiltimatxmi, failing which she would take
such measuies as to her seemed desirable in tne premises, and that
theiefore a convention of that sort did not seem to me to have any
binding force. 1" mast have pointed that out, because afterwards —
if you will allow me, 1 will quote a statement here.
Just to return a moment to the inteiview with President Wilson
of the day befoie, I asked President Wilson if the settlement proposed
tiansferrmg these lights diiectly to Japan or insisting upon the
execution of the convention of 1915, was not contiary to the louiteen
points laid down as a basis of peace. He said unfortunately he did
not think theie was anything in the fouiteen points that exactly
coveied the case. But on looking over the addresses of Piesident
Wilson and the statement made by Secretary Lansing to the German
Government with regard to the bases of peace, I found this [reading]:
The unauaUfied acceptance by the present German Government and by a large
majority of the German Reichstag of the terms laid down by the President of the United
States of America in his address to the Congress of the United States on the 8th of Jan-
nary, 1918, and in his subsequent addresses, justifies the President in making a tnuxk
and direct statement of his decision with regard to the communications of the Gennan
Government of the 8th and 12th of October, 1918.
Now as to the subsequent addresses, although there is nothing
directly bearing upon the question of the 14 points ifientioned in the
address of January 18, one of the subsequent addresses was that on
the 4th of July at Washington's Tomb at Mount Vernon in which he
said:
No halfwav decision is conceivable. These are the ends for which the aasociated
peoples of tne world are fighting and which must be conceded them before there
can be peace.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 628
Then he mentions, one, " the destruction of anj arbitrary power
anywhere,'' and so on, and two is the one to which I want to call
attention. [Reading :]«
The Battlement of eveiy Question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of Qconomic
arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the basis of the free acceptance of
that settlement by tne people immediately concerned ,and not upon the basis of the
material interest or advantage of any otner nation or people TOich may desire a
different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.
I think it was in this memorandum to the President that I men-
tioned this point. I can not say positively that it was in that or
some other connection that I called attention to this statement and
said that my understanding was that all the powers who entered into
the agreement for the negotiation of peace after the armistice of
November 1 1 practically accepted the oases of peace as laid down
by the American Government and that this was one of the bases of
peace, and that no exception, no reservation, had been made to this
oy any of the powers, by Great Britain, France, or Japan, although
Great Britain did make reservations with regard to some other things,
and that therefore it seemed to me that any prior arrangement such
as these secret treaties between Great Brijtain and Japan and between
France and Japan ought not to be held any longer in force because
they were really abrogated by the acceptance of these bases of peace.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you state that to the President
or state it in the argument that you presented to him upon the
subject ?
Prof. Williams. That is my recollection; but, as I say, I am not
absolutely positive whether it was in a memorandum to the President
or in an argument to the commission, but I stated it in one of the
memoranda.
Senator Johnson of California. In either one or the other ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any response given you
in that regard ?
Prof. Williams. I received only a note from the President's secre-
tary thanking me for the memorandum.
Senator Johnson of California. Proceed, then, Doctor. After you
had reached a certain date
Prof. Williams. On the 24th of April and on the 30th of April I
was informed that the question had been decided; it had been aeter-
mined to transfer all the property formerly belonging to Germiany
and all the rights and privileges belonging to Germany in the Province
of Shantung unconditionally to Japan.
Senator Johnson of Califomia. Did you have any further connec-
tion with the splatter ?
Prof. Williams. No; nothing further. Well, perhaps I may say
that I did have a conference — no; it was before this statement that
I had a conference.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any other expert upon
oriental or far eastern affairs at Paris with you i
Prof. Williams. Yes,
Senator Johnson of California. Who was that ?
Prof. Williams. Dr. Stanley K. Hombeck.
Senator Johnson of California. Did his views coincide with yours ?
Prof. Williams. Entirely.
624 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you and he unite in any other
protest than that stated in your memorandum ?
Prof. Williams. I think we did. We sent at different times a
great many memoranda on various phases of the question between
China and Japan, in which we united. I can not definitely say when
thev were and what thev were.
Senator Johnson of California. You mean united in opposition to
the position taken ?
Prof. Williams. No. We did not niake any report after the
decision was rendered. We made no protest after the decision was
rendered.
Senator Johnson of California. Up to the time of the rendition of
the decision, you had protested against such a determination ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; we had objected very strongly to the sug-
gested transfer of these properties.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you explain anv more fully
the reasons of jour position and of your protest of the particular
decision re^ardmg Shantung? In your opmion has it violated the
14 points 01 the basis of peace?
Irof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. What effect in your opinion does
the decision have upon China or our relations with China ?
Prof. Williams. Well, I felt that it would raise a storm of protest
in China and it was tending to strife rather than peace, because I
knew or felt sure that the Chinese would not submit to it without
considerable protest, and that there was danger of -violence. Also
I felt that it was injurious to our interests, though I think that is a
matter of secondary consideration.
Senator Williams. Injurious to what?
Prof. Williams. To our own interest in China, because it would
raise a feelhig that China had come into the war on the invitation of
the United States and rather looked to the United States to help
bring about a just settlement of these troubles, and that now in turn-
ing over the whole situation to Japan, we were really injuring our
own standing in the Far East.
Senator Johnson of California. When did you cease your connec-
tion with the peace conference in Paris, doctor ?
Prof. Williams. The 17th of May.
Senator Johnson of California. Was that due to any particular
reason ?
Prof. Williams. No; I had already engaged my passage some six
weeks before, and before this question was decided, because my leave of
absence was about to expire. I would have come home in any case.
Senator Johnson of California. Are you familiar with the pro-
visions inserted in the treaty concerning the disposition of Shantimgl
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Will you state whether or not in
your opinion those provisions give more to Japan than either the con-
vention of 1915 or the succession to the German lease?
Prof. Williams. Well, I think they do. I am not quite certain
whether the clause of the treaty makes any reference to the leasing
of the railway. Does it?
Senator Johnson of California. I think not. I will show that to
you, however.
TREATY OF PBAOE WITH GEBMAlfTr. 625
Senator Hitohcook. May I ask a queation there 1
Senator Johnson of Caufomia. Surely.
Senator HrroHOOOK. In the treaty Japan gets nothing except what
Germany gives, does it? No other power transfers anything to
Japan?
jProf . Williams. No.
Senator Hitchcook. So it is only what Germany had that Japan
gets?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. I notice that specifically you did not mention
sovereignty. You mention only rights and interests ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Sections 156 and 157 are the
sections of the treatyrelating to the matter, I think.
Prof. Williams. Well, whether she got any more than Germany
fossessed depends somewhat on the status of the railway in Shantung,
t has been held by some of the Japanese experts that the railway m
Shantimg was German Government property and by other Japanese
experts that the railway in Shantimg was not government property
but belonged to a Sino-German corporation; so that this transier of
the railway to Japan would seem to be a transfer to government
ownership of a railway which reaUy was constructed by a Sino-
German corporation, and in my opinion it was a private corporation.
It did not belong to the government.
Senator McCumber. Germany could not renounce to Japan any-
thing that Germany did not own, could she ?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator McCumber. Therefore all that Japan could obtain from
Germany by this renunciation would be the Gferman rights ?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator McCumber. And nothing further ?
Prof. Williams. Yes. But I might point out that Japan, in order
to safeguard herself on this point, last September enterea into a secret
convention with the Chinese Government in which China agreed that
the operation of the railway in Shanttmg should be made a joint
Chinese-Japanese concern.
Senator McCumber. What we were considering is what this treaty
does.
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator Hitchcock. Was this arrangement between Japan and
China in September, 1918, also made under duress?
Prof. Williams. Not exactly, and yet it was. I will tell vou the
circumstances. After Japan took Tsingtao, in fact, before she took
Tsingtao, she took the railway not only in the leased territory but
the whole length of the railway clear up to the capital of the Province
of Shantung. That railway had never been policed by the Germans.
No German troops had ever been there. It was under the protection
of the Chinese and had been policed by them. But the Japanese took
the railway for 254 miles outside the leased territory, and after they
had taken the railway they began to establish civil governments
along at the stations.
The Chinese, particularly the people of Shantung, protested
strongly against tne usurpation of sovereign rights in Shantung, and
the protest was so strong that the Chinese Government, last Septem-
626 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMAKY.
ber, in order to get rid of the troops and the civil covemments,
entered into this agreement that they would make the railway' a
Sino-Japanese concern, and that Japan was immediately to with-
draw all her troops except a small guard at Tsinan, which is the capi-
tal of the Province, and was to abolish tiie civil government along the
line.
The Chaibman. Has she done that ?
Prof. Williams. I do not know whether she has or not.
Senator Hitchcock. Has China ever denounced these treaties of
1915 and the agreement of 1918?
Prof. Williams. Well, when she si^ed them it was under not
exactly formal protest, but she made objection at the time.
Senator Hitchcock. You spoke of the German acquisition of the
99-year lease and other rights in Shantung Province as an act of
piracy.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Was it any different from other acquisitions
by Grreat Britain and France in China 1
Prof. Williams. Yes; I think it was. It is true that Great'
Britain acquired territory, the Island of Hongkong, and Kowloon
opposite, but it was the result of war, for which China of course was
blamed, and in this particular case the Germans had had two mis-
sionaries murdered in 1897 in a small village in southwest Shantung,
not because they were missionaries, not because they were Grermans,
but because these robbers robbed the whole village, robbed the Chin-
ese as well as the foreigners, and these two unfortunate Germans
were killed. Inunediat^y the Germans landed marines and threw
out the Chinese Government and took possession of the ports and
held them imtil they obtained satisfaction for the murder, and com-
pensation to the families of the murdered men, and the erection of
two chapels in Shantimg, and then they demanded the lease for 99
years of the port.
Senator Hitchcock. That was in 1898 that that was consum-
mated ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; March, 1898.
Senator HrroHCOCK. Was that acquiesced in by the nations of
the world ?
Prof. WnxiAMS. I do not know whether they made any formal
protest, but it was that which led to the action of Secretary Hay
asking for the guaranty of the open door.
I beg your pardon, may I say one thing further, that when Ger-
many seized this, it seemed to be acquiesced in by certain other
powers because immediately Russia demanded the lease of Dalny
and Port Arthur, and Great Britain demanded the extension of
Kowloon, and the French demanded the lease of Kuangchouwan.
Senator Hitchcock. Did the others protest these concessions ?
Prof. Williams. China did.
Senator Hitchcock. But you regard this acquisition as more
extreme, and as you term it, an act of piracy and an imposition on
the Chinese Government ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. Now you say that in 1858 we made a treaty
with China in which we agreed to use our good offices in case of a
power attempting to impose upon China. Can you state what we
did about it ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 627
Prof. Williams. We did not do anvthing so far as I know.
Senator Hitchcock. We acquiesceci in it ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Hitchcock. This note that you spoke of from Mr. Hay
contained many compUmentary and con^atulatory phrases to
Von Bulow, the Grerman minister, for the manner in which Germany
was undertaking to administer the Province, did it not ?
Prof. Williams. I do not know that it referred to the administra-
tion of the Province. I can not recall just what it did say.
Senator Hitchcock. That was in 1899, as I recall it, when he com-
mended the German Grovernment in
Prof. Williams. In protecting their own citizens.
Senator Hitchcock. No; the method and means Germany adopted
with respect to the treatment of other nations, administering cus-
toms
Prof. Williams. And making it an open door.
Senator Hftchcock. So that it really was. an acquiescence in what
Grermany had done, and what you describe as an act of piracy.
Senator McCumber. Has that treaty of 1858 ever been put into
any kind of practical apphcation ?
rrof. Williams. Not to my knowledge.
Senator McCumber. Has Cliina ever made any request to us to
exercise our good offices tj protect her against the acquisition of
these concessions by other governments ?
Prof. Williams. I do not recall any.
Senator McCumber. When Germany took possession of Kiaochow
and obtained her rights in the Shantung Peninsula, did China ever
request this Government to intervene in any way?
Prof. Williams. Not that I know of.
Senator McCumber. And this Government never has intervened
in any of those matters or extended to China her good offices to
protect her against that.
Prof. Williams. I do not recall any such action^
Senator Knox. Doctor, do you not recall that whUe you were in
the State Department there wore certain concessions that Japan
demanded of Cliina of a monopolistic character, and China appealed
to us and we did intervene ana secured modifications of them i
Senator McCumber. Did they do that, Senator, under the pro-
visions of the treaty of 1858, or did they even refer to that treaty ?
Senator Knox. I do not recall whether they referred to the treaty,
but China asked of us our good offices to relieve her of the burden of
these monopolistic concessions, and we did intervene and did secure
a very decided modification.
Senator McCumber. She did not base her request, however, on
the treaty of 1858.
Senator Knox. I do not recall that. I do not see any other
ground on which she could ask for it.
Senator McCumber. I wanted to know if that treaty had fallen
by the wayside or whether it was considered a live treaty.
Prof. Williams. After the occupation of Kiaochow by Germany
and the signing of the convention by which she obtained not only the
lease of that territory but certain economic rights in the Province of
Shantung, we made a reservation, if I remember rightly, of our ow^n
rights in the case.
628 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Knox. And we put an interpretation upon the lease that
released it from a monopolistic character, in which Japan acquiesced.
Is not that correct ?
Prof. Williams. I think so. I do not remember the details.
Senator McCumber. But we did nothing in regard to the very
much greater and more serious menace to China in the matter of the
seizure by Germany of Kiaochow.
Prof. Williams. Apparently not.
Senator McCumber. May I ask one other question riffht here ? If
I understood you correctly, in your conversation with Wie President,
the President made some reference at least to Japan turning the
Kiaochow territory over to China within one year after the signing
of the treaty. Would you kindly repeat what you said ?
Prof. Williams. That was my own suggestion, as a compromise,
that, if Japan wanted these rights transferred directlj to ner ana
China wanted them transferred directly to herself, possibly we might
introduce into the treaty a simple blauKet clause that all government
propertv formerly belonging to Germany in the Republic of China
should be renounced by Germany and should revert automatically to
China; but with this qualification, that since the properties in
Shantung had been taken by Japan and were now in tne possession
of Japan, they should be transferred to China by Japan within a year
after the signature of this treaty.
Senator McCumber. What did the President say to that ?
Prof. Williams. He said that he had not thought of it particularly
from that angle and asked me to write it out, and I embodied that
in the memorandum which I sent to him the next day.
Senator McCitmber. Did you ever have any further talk with the
President with reference to that ?
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator McCumber. Do you know of any conversations between
the President and the Japanese representatives in reference to the
return of the German rights to China ?
Prof. Williams. I do not, I know that there were such conver-
sations, but I was not present, and I do not know what was said.
Senator Brandegee. May I ask the professor a question? I
was called from the room on business, ana you may have answered
this. If you have, just to say so and I will withdraw it. As I
recall it, the President in his interview with the members of the
Foreign Relations Committee the other day stated that he had
implicit confidence in the agreement or promise that Japan had
given to return these rights or concessions, whatever they may be.
which she gets under the treaty, to China.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Have you stated in your testimony exactly
what that agreement made by Japan consisted of?
Prof. Williams. No; I have not.
Senator Brandegee. Would you be kind enough to tell us whether
it was a verbal statement between the other representatives, and
which ones, and whether it appears at length in the procfe-verbal:
whether it is accessible to anybody so that they can see in what
terms it was couched ?
Prof. Williams. Well, you mean of a promise that Japan made
in Paris ?
Senator Brandegee. Yes, sir.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 629
Prof. Williams. I do not know. I do not know whether she has
made anything more than a statement that her agreement of 1915
would be carried out, and that to state it in the treaty would be a
reflection upon her bona fides. Therefore, it is not stated in the
treaty.
Senator Bbandeoee. So far as you know, was there any assurance
given by any representative of Japan in Paris, either to the con-
ference or any member of the American Commission, in addition to
what was contained in the treaty promise ?
Prof. Williams. I only remember ond case. I suppose that some-
thing of the sort may have been said in the council meeting. That
I do not know. But I do remember an interview between Viscount
Chinda and Secretary Liansing, in which Viscount Chinda said that
the convention of 1915 must be carried out exactly, and of course
that convention of 1915 has annexed to it, you remember, an exchange
of notes in which Japan agrees upon four conditions to transfer the
leased territory to China.
Senator Bbandegee. I have seen in the newspapers, I think, state-
ments to the effect thaL representations had veiy recently been made
by Japan or some of its spokesmen to the effect that while they would
get out, they would name no time when they would get out, and that,
and the conditions of their getting out, and the terms of their getting
out, were to be decided by agreement to be made at some time in the
future between Japan and CSiina.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Was that correct ?
Prof. Williams. I do not know. I saw the report, myself. But
the four conditions of transfer, you will remember, were these. The
lease only covered the waters of the bay up to high-water mark and
two little points at the mouth of the bay. That was all that was
contained m the lease.
The first condition was that the waters of the bay should be thrown
open to international trade — the whole area of the leased territorv.
The second condition was that Japan should have, somewliere
within the leased territory, a concession for a settlement under her
exclusive jurisdiction.
The third condition was that if the other powers wanted an inter-
national settlement, they should have it elsewhere on the bay.
The fourth condition was that the disposition of the government
properties in Tsingtao should be settled by agreement between Japan
and China ; and of course the fourth condition has already been settled
by the treaty, which transfers all these properties directly to Japan.
Senator Brandeoee. What is the extent of Kiaochow Bay? If I
get your idea, there are two points on opposite sides of the curve, and
then there is a zone of the waters of the bay up to hi^h-water mark
How much area, in square miles, would be contained within those
limits, in the bay ?
Prof. Williams. I do not recall the number of square miles.
Senator Bbandegee. I do not want you to be exactly accurate,
of course, but give us some idea.
Prof. Williams . The bay is horseshoe-shaped, and it is about 15
miles from the mouth of the bay to high-water mark on the opposite
side of the bay.
Senator Bbandegee. What is the width of the bay ?
680 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Prof. Williams. About the same. I do not remember exactly.
The point on the other side of the bay is very small. The water is
very shallow there. There is a bathing beacn there. The point on
the right is a little larser, and there has been, from ancient times^ a
little village there caljed Tsingtao, which means green island, and
that has now grown into a beautiful city. The Germans hav^ biiilt
a beautifid city there; they have bunt docks and wharves and
dredged.
Senator Brandeoee. Let me ask you this, and it is all that I care
to ask: If it be true that Japan has agreed to get out only] in accord-
ance with such conditions as she may agree upon with China, does it
not leave it practically within the sole power of Japan to get out or
to stay on ? That is, can she not refuse to agree with China and con-
tinue to stay on the groimd that China is unreasonable about the
conditions, and that the treaty provides that she need not get out
until they have agreed on conditions ?
Prof. Williams. Well, they have practically agreed, you see, in
this convention of 1915; but China's position was that that treaty
was no longer binding, not only because it was forced upon her, but
because, after entering into tms convention, China herself declared
war upon Germany and abrogated all her treaties, with Germany,
includmg this lease of Kiaochow. Therefore, there was not any-
thing to be discussed between Japan and Gtermany.
Senator Brandeoee. Have you any idea, from your knowledge
and experience of the situation there, why it is that Japan declines
to name a definite day — even a remote day — ^when she will get out ?
Prof. Williams. I should say probably it was because of the atti-
tude of China in refusing to sign the treaty.
Senator Knox. May I ask you a question here ? Having reference
to the topography of the bay and the surrounding country and the
Eeninsula, generally, what relation do these German rights that have
een transferred to Japan have, economically and politically, to the
entire peninsula and to China, generally?
Prof! Williams. The lease — or the convention, rather — of March,
1898, not only transferred, or gave Germany a lease of, the bay and
territory, but also the right to construct radways in the Province of
Shantung, and to operate certain mines there; and also an option on
all public works that might require foreign capital or skilled labor.
These now have passed to Japan, so that she not only has Tsingtao,
but she has the right to operate these mines; and she also has the
.option on all public works m the Province of Shantung.
Senator Knox. What relation does that give her to the economic
conditions in Shantung ?
Prof. Williams. It practically controls the economic conditions of
Shantung.
Senator Knox. And what relation does it have to the great outlet
to the northwest ?
Prof. Williams. It is very important, because Kiaochow Bay is the
best bay on the Chinese coast north of the Yangtse River, and bv
the railway which is already completed to Tsinan it connects with
the main fine to Peking and by the extension of that railroad will
connect with the other railway from Hangkow to Peking, and by
another extension which has been a^eed to it will connect with the
proposed grand-tnmk line the builoing of which was granted as a
TB£ATY OF FEACB WITH G£BMA^7. 681
concession to Belgium and which is to extend from the seacoast far
up into northwestern China towards Turkestan, so that they can
practically make it an outlet for all the trade of northern Ghina, and
not only tne trade, but it also taps the coal fields not only of Shantung
but of Shansi, one of the largest fields in the world.
Senator Williams. This railway you are referring to from Tsing-
taOy or whateyer it is, was that a State railway or was it built and
owned by a German corporation ?
Prof. WILLIAMS. As I stated awhile ago, that is a matter of dispute.
My own opinion is that it belonged to a priyate corporation, but it is
stated that it was a State-owned railway.
Senator Williams. I notice that the language in the treaty is
' 'all German rights in the Tsingtau-Tsinanfu Railway." That would
include not only German State rights but German corporation rights,
whicheyer they happened to be, would it, or would it not ?
Prof. Williams. I should not think so. I should not think that
the German Goyemment could transfer priyate rights.
Senator Williams. According to your interpretation that would
refer only to German State rights ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. If that is the case, and that is all that Germany
had, that was all she could giye, was it not ?
Ftoi, Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. I notice down below, when we come to sub-
marine cables, it uses the language ''German State submarine
cables," instead of saying "German rights in submarine cables."
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. Do you know how that distinction happened
to be made in the language of the treaty t
Prof. Williams. I do not.
Senator Williams. I notice still further down, in article 167, the
language, "the movable and immovable property owned by the
German State in the territory of Kiaochow.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. I notice about this entire matter here in
articles 156 and 157, that the first clause in article 156 has the
language "Germany renoimces." The second clause transferred
certain German rights in a railway. The next clause transferred
certain German States cables. The next clause transferred certain
" movable and immovable property owned by the German State."
Prof. Williams. What aoout it ?
Senator Williams. Now, if your interpretation is correct, the
second dause imder article 156 means German State rights and not
German corporation rights of various sorts; and then, of coiu^e, if
there were no German State rights in the railway none woidd pass
by this clause. But suppose it meant, contrary to your interpreta-
tion, German corporation rights established imder the German
power and transferred over to Japan when she took possession and
therefore become subject to her jurisdiction, just as alien property
here taken over by us becomes subject to us— although subject, of
course, to final treaty disposition. Now, coming down to where it
is all taken together, could it be possible that this would mean any-
thing except such rights as Germany already had, and could it be
682 TRRATY OF PBAOE WITH OEBMANY.
affected by any change in the status quo by any action of the
Japanese subsequent to taking them? Because I understood you
to say that Japan has made certain assertions of right which GreAinany
had not made, and they were afraid that those Japanese assertions
of right would come in under this treaty.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. I imderstand how those Japanese assertions
of right mi^ht come in under the treaty of 1915, if that was a proper
interpretation, but I do not see how tney would come in under any
possiole interpretation of this treaty^ if this treaty stood alone.
Prof. Williams. I think you are right.
Senator Williams. And as an agreement between us and Germany
it does stand alone.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Knox. When I yielded to Senator Williams I had not
finished my questions as to tne topo^aphical conditions, and I should
like to recur to them. You spoke m tne relatiye yidue of the harbor
at Eaaochow.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Knox. Is it correct that there is a permanent depth of
water there that will allow the largest ships to come right to the
docks ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; but that, I think, is due to the dredging
done by the Germans since they took possession.
Senator Knox. It is a permanent improyement, howeyer?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Knox. As compared with the remaining Uttoral of the
bay, how is it as to water there ?
Prof. Williams. It is the only place where there is a good depth
of water. When you go farther up the bay the water is yery shallow
and before any other settlement could be made there woula haye to
be some further dredging.
Senator E^ox. Ana as compared, say, with the harbor at Shanghai,
what is the relatiye yalue of the harbor of Kiaochow?
Prof. Williams. It is yery much more yaluable than the harbor at
Shanghai, because the large ocean-going steamers do not as a rule
go up to Shanghai unless they are first lightered. Shanghai is 14
miles up from the mouth of the riyer, and most of the large steamers
anchor in the mouth of the riyer. So here at Kiaochow you haye a
yery much more adyantageous port, because the largest ocean-going
steamer can go alongside the wharf.
Senatoi' Knox. So that in effect the possession and control of the
harbor at Kiaochow is the mouth, or the inlet, of the ereat trans-
portation lines that lead not only up through the peninsma itself but
on to Peking and then on to the northwest.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Knox. That is all I wanted to ask.
Senator Habding. Before you eet away from the inquiry made by
Senator Williams, is it your understanding that the language em-
ployed in the relinqtushment and transfer of rights was su^ested by
the Japanese commissioners.
Prof. Williams. I do not know.
Senator McCumber. I should like to ask FroL Williams a question
about the treaty, if the Senator from Ohio has concluded.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 633
Senator Habding. I am through.
Senator McCumbeb. The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Brande-
gee) in his question su^ested, at least as I understood him, that
there was a provision in the treaty between Japan and China whereby
Japan agrees to restore Kiaochow Bay on certain conditions, and
those conditions were to be agreed upon between China and Japan.
Are there any conditions that are to be agreed upon by China and
Japan as a condition precedent to the transfer of Kiaochow Bay,
either in the treaty or m the note i
Prof. Williams. There is none in the convention of 1915 or the
note. The conditions are expressly stated. They are not reserved
to be made thereafter.
Senator McCumbeb. I Mvish to call attention to that. That is, the
very first proposition is this:
When after termination of the present war the leased territory on Kiaochow Bay is
completely left to the free disposition of Japan, the Japanese Government will restore
the said leased territory to Cnina under the following conditions
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumbeb. The first condition is simply this:
1. The whole of Kiaochow Bay to be opened as a commercial port.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumbeb. The only condition there is that when it is
returned it is to be opened as a commercial port ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumbeb. And that means for the commerce of all
nations ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; that is all.
Senator McCumbeb. There is no string whatever tied to that?
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator McCumbeb. Let ns come back, then, to the first propo-
sition:
When alter termination of the present war the leased territory on Kiaochow Bay
is completely left to the free disposal of Japan, the Japanese Government will restore
the said leased territory to China.
*' After termination of the present war" would naturally be con-
strued to mean immediately after, would it not ?
Prof. Williams. I should think it would require the ratification of
the treaty before it could be terminated.
Senator McCumbeb. That would be the termination of the war by
the ratification of the treaty.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumbeb. Then your construction of the treaty would
be tJhat it would be the duty of Japan to proceed immediately — that
is, within a reasonable time — to retransfer the rights she ootained
frpm (jermany in Kiaochow Bay to China ?
Prof. Williams. Only the lease.
Senator McCumbeb. Yes; ihe rights that she obtained; and the
ri^ts were those of a lessee only.
Prof. Williams*. That, of course, does not carry with it the rail-
way and mining rights.
Senator McC^jmbeb. No; those are dealt with imder other sub-
diyisions.
634 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Prof. Williams. And I want to say right here that I have not the
slightest doubt that Japan will, when the war is ended, carry out her
promise; but that thepromise is wholly unsatisfactory, because while
she is to transfer to Cnina the lease, which has yet 78 years to nm,
she obtains a perpetual concession on the port, so that there is
nothing of any consequence handed back.
Senator MgCumber. What is that concession, that she obtains at
the port? I am asking you for information on this, because the
second proposition to me is very much clouded.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator MgCumber (reading) :
Second, a concession under the exclusive jurisdication of Japaa, to be established
at a place designated by the Japanese Government.
That signifies nothing to me, because I do not know what is meant
by it, and I would like to have your view of it.
Prof. Williams. In the Far East, especially in China, the word
" concession *' has a very definite meaning. For instance, there is in
Shanghai a French concession where there is a French settlement.
There is no limit to the lease. It is indeterminate. There is also an
international settlement there which includes the former British
concession, and territory which was offered to the United States for an
American concession.
Then at Canton there are two concessions, a British and a French
concession. At Tientsin there are several concessions; there are,
altogether, nine, I believe.
Senator McCumber. They are concessions covering what territory?
Prof. Williams. Covering territory for the residence and trade of
the citizens, I suppose, of the power concerned.
Senator McCumber. In each instance they would cover how many
acres or square miles, or whatever territorial unit you desire to use ?
Prof. Williams. In Shanghai — perhaps that is not a good illus-
tration, but I can use it — the French concession at Shanghai is about
four miles long by perhaps on an average a mile wide; about 4 square
miles.
Senator McCumber. It can be used for what purpose?
Prof. Williams. For the residence of French and other foreign
nationalities, and for their trade. There is a French municipality
there.
Senator McCumber. Then your view is that the concession men-
tioned in subdivision No. 2 of the note, is a concession similar to that
granted to the other powers?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. That is, a place for the residence of Japanese
for the purpose of trade ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; quite so.
Senator Borah. Senator, may I ask a question right there ?
Senator McCumber. Certainly.
Senator Borah. You speak oi this concession as a place of residence
and trade and so forth. To what extent does that exclude the Chinese
from control over that particular territory? Have thev any say with
regard to the policing of it, or the administration of tne laws of the
country over it, and so forth ?
Prof. Williams. We have three varieties of concessions in China.
There are those like Shanghai, which are policed entirely by the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 635
foreign mimicipality, having forei^ policemen. There are others
which are open to Cmna herself, wmch are policed by China. In this
case this is to be under the exclusive jurisaiction of Japan, and pre-
sumably the policingwould be by the Japanese.
Senator Borah. Then to all mtents and purposes — that is, as a
practical proposition — the Chinese would be excluded entirely from
that territory 1
Prof. Williams. No. Originally that was the meaning of these
concessions. When they first opened up five ports for foreign resi-
dents they did not allow the Chinese to reside in the concessions; but
during the Taipin^ rebellion there was such disorder in those settle-
ments that the Chinese were allowed to crowd into those concessions
for protection, and since that they have Uved in the foreign oonces-
sions, under foreign control, and they can go in there.
Senator Borah. In some of these concessions under the jurisdiction
of foreign Governments, have you not heard of places where there are
signs in the parks, ''Chinese and dogs not adnutted here'' ?
iVof. Williams. Yes; that used to be a sign in the park at Shanghai.
Senator McCumber. The concession will be the same, you under-
stand, as is granted to these other great nations i
Prof. Williams. Yes, except that it specifies particularly that it
is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Japan.
Senator McCumber. Yes, I understand; and the same as Great
Britain and France have exclusive jurisdiction over certain territory
within the confines of their concessions.
Prof. Williams. In these concessions, as a rule, the foreign resi-
dents have a vote if they pay a certain amount of tax, whether they
are citizens of the nationality owning the concession or not. They
have votes in the election of the council.
Senator Williams. Senator, are you through ?
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Senator Williams. Gk>ing back to the question I was interrogating
you upon when I quit, was this Tsingtao-Tsinanfu Railway built with
money out of the German treasury, or was it built with German
capitalists' money?
Prof. Williams. It is supposed to have been built with money
subscribed bv German capitalists and Chinese capitalists.
Senator Williams. It was, then, built by the joint capital of both
countries ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; but there is very little Chinese capital in it.
Senator Williams. That is what I thought.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. So that this railway owes its existence to the
men whoput up the money and paid for it ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. That being the case, independent of the ques-
tion as to who should guarantee them their property rights, or who
should secure them finally, somebody ought to do so, do you not
think so?
Prof. Williams. Do you mean to ^arantee their interest ?
Senator Williams. les; their capital property rights to the rail-
ways built with their own money.
Prof. Williams. No doubt that will be adjusted in the end, and
they will recover.
636 TREATir OF PEAOB WITH QBBMANY.
Senator Williams. I just wanted to get into the record the idea
that under any aspect of it, either yours or mine or that of anybody
else, ought these people who put up the money to build the railroad
to be robbed of trieir monev ?
Prof. Williams. Certainly not.
Senator McCumbsr. Then, Dr. Williams, it is your beUef that
Japan will carry out the provisions in the treaty and notes with
China?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. In other words, that Japan wiU rotransfer
the whole of Kiaochow Bay to China, to be opened as a commercial
port? You think that will be done?
Prof. Williams. Yes; reserving, of course, her own settlements—
her own concessions.
Senator McCumber. Yes; but I am speaking of that part of it.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. The only thing, then, that will be left which
you think is not just to China is that Japan will ask for this concession,
and insist upon this concession of a few square miles for a place of
residence for her citizens, the same as has been granted to the odier
great nations of Europe ?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator Borah. Who says it will be a few square miles ? How do
you know it will be a few square miles ?
Prof. Williams. Well, the whole leased territory is not very large,
and this concession is to be at some point within the leased territory,
so that it can not be very large.
Senator Borah. It mav be all there is of it, may it not ?
Prof. Williams. It win undoubtedly be all the port of Kiaochow,
because as you see the Treaty transfers all the public property there
to Japan, and most of it is public property.
Senator McCumber. Will it be any greater than that which other
countries hold there?
Prof. Williams. Hold at other ports ?
Senator McCumber. Yes.
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Johnson of California. Other countries do not hold any
concession at Kiaochow, do they ?
Prof. Williams. Not at Kiaochow, but in other parts of China.
Senator McCumber. But they hold them at other ports.
Senator Johnson of California. You said. *' there."
Senator McCumber. When I said ^Hhere I meant in China.
Senator Moses. There is no question in the Chinese mind as to the
point to be selected by the Japanese, is there ?
Prof. Williams. No doubt at all.
Senator Moses. Have not the Japanese already begun buying up
additional property near the town of Tsingtao ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; they have expropriated a laree piece of
property back of the^ town clear across tne peninsula, ^though the
peasants were unwilling to sell, they compelled them to dispose of the
property to them.
Senator Williams. How far does that run back?
Prof. Williams. I do not Imow. Not very far.
TBBAT7 07 FBAOB WITH GEBICAKY. 637
Senator Moses. And it is at that point, is it not, that all the
wharves and public property and the cable landing are?
Prof. Williams. They are in Tsingtao, yes ; and the railway termi-
nal is there also.
Senator Moses. All that property is transferred by the terms of
the treaty from Germany to Japan without charges, is it not?
Prof. Williams. Yes, without charges.
Senator Moses. Including certain specified cables ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. And in that respect that property is segregated
under the terms of the treaty from all other German property, is it
not?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. All other German property by the terms of the
treaty isput into a pool for the benefit of the allied powers.
Prof. Williams. That is so.
Senator Moses. While these specified properties are taken out and
deliyered directly to Japan without chaises of any character ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. There was a cable commission in the organization
of the peace conference, was there not ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; there was.
Senator Moses. Did that cable commission recommend the segre-
gation of these particular cable properties?
Prof. Williams. Not that I know of. I understood that all cables
were to go into a pool.
Senator Moses. Do you know the reason why these cables were
excepted ?
Prof. Williams. None except that Japan wanted them.
Senator Moses. Was Japan insistent upon that point ?
Prof. Williams. That I do not know.
Senator Moses. You spoke. Doctor, of a meeting of the conference
held on January 28.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. At which you stated also that the general subject
of consideration was the disposition of the German colonies.
Prof. Williams. That was on the 27th.
Senator Moses. Specifying particularly the islands north of the
Eouator and the German possessions ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. Was it then made known that prior arrangements
had been entered into for the disposition of those properties ?
Prof. Williams. I should haye said the islands of the Pacific, not
simply those north of the Equator.
Senator Moses. Was it stated at that meeting of the conference
that prior arrangements had been definitely made ?
Prof. Williams. No; I do not think it was stated in the conference.
I do not recollect hearing it there, but I had heard of it before that.
Senator Moses. That was the fact, howeyer.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. There was also a proyision with respect to direct
negotiations between Germany and Japan in the disposition of the
Kiaochow property, was there not ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
638 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Were any such direct negotiations ever had, to
your knowledge ?
Prof. Williams. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Moses. Were any negotiations ever had except such as
were had by the council of four ?
Prof. Williams. I do not understand the Question.
Senator Moses. In other words, the council of four having reached
a determination of what should be done with those properties, notified
Germanv of their decision, did they not ?
Prof. Williams. I do not think so, except that Germany was
notified when she received the treaty.
Senator Moses. I mean when she received the treaty.
Prof. Williams. Yes; that is correct.
Senator Moses. Did you ever see the letter lodged with the Presi-
dent by certain members of the American peac« commission with
reference to the Shantung matter ?
Prof. Willl4MS. Yes.
Senator Moses. Are you familiar with its contents?
Prof. Williams. I could not quote it. I only know in a general
way that it was advising against the transfer of these German rights
directly to Japan.
Senator Moses. Did they suggest an alternative ?
Prof. Williams. I do not remember that they did.
Senator Moses. Was the protest emphatic?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. Upon what ground ?
Prof. Williams. I should hardly call it a protest. It was an
argument against the proposed disposition of those properties.
I can not recall the argument now.
Senator Moses. Was it an argument of some length ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; it was I should think about three pages
of typewriting. .
Senator Moses. Was the communication wholly argumentative
in its tone ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. The President told us the other day that it was
not an argument, that it was an assertion.
Prof. Williams. Well, that might be a difference of opinion.
It seemed to me to be an argument.
Senator Johnson of California. Substantially what was it, Doctor?
Prof. Williams. I can not recall it, Senator.
Senator Johnson of California. Who were the signatories to it?
Prof. Williams. Gen. Bliss.
Senator Johnson of California. Did you participate in the prepa-
ration of that particular document, argument, protest, or whatever
you term it?
Prof. Williams. Well, Senator, Gen. Bliss asked me to come to his
office one evening and he read me an outline of it and asked me what
I thought of it, and I told liim I thought it was very good, and he asked
me if 1 had anything further to suggest, and I told him I would think
it over; and in the morning I did suggest one item only.
Senator Johnson of California. What was that ?
Prof. Williams. That was that we ought to explain to the council
what was meant by the restitution of the leased territory of Kiaochow.
TREATY OF PBAC^ WITH GERMANY. 639
What I meant was to call attention to the four conditions under which
the restitution was to be made.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. You mean you thought it ought
to explain to the coimcil that the restitution of Kiaochow did not
mean the restitution of Shantung ?
Prof. Williams. Not onlj^ that, but that it did not mean the entire
restitution of the port to China, because Japan would retain practical
control of the port by having its concession there.
Senator Johnson of California. Would she control the economic
rights which she had in Shantimg ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Therefore if she carried out her
promise in ftdl^ and yet retained what you suggest she would retain,
would she retam substantial control of Shantung Province ?
Prof. Williams. Economic control, yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Economic control would be sub-
stantial control, would it not ?
Prof. Williams. Well, of course the Chinese will be there in nominal
political control.
Senator Johnson of California. In nominal political control ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Do I understand from your answer
to Senator Moses that these particular portions of the treaty regarding
German property ^are drafted in a fashion diflFerent from the other
provisions of the treaty regarding the disposition of German property ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. That the property here disposed of,
instead of being put in a pool for the Allied and Associated Govern-
ments, as in t&e disposition of other German properties, is given
director to Japan ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Is that correct ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; that is correct.
Senator Moses. Mav I ask one Question right there ?
Senator Johnson of California. Certainly.
Senator Moses. These provisions of the treaty relating to Shan-
tung were drafted by the Japanese drafting committee, were they not ?
Prof. Williams. I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. Certainly our experts did not
draft them, did they?
Prof. Williams. They did not.
Senator Johnson of California. Were they asked to draft them at
any time ?
Prof. Williams. Not this particular clause, but we did draft other
clauses relating to German rights in China.
Senator Johnson of CaUfornia. In your opinion, whatever shall
transpire in future respecting this matter, in relation to the carrying
out of the promises that have been given to China, Japan will have
virtual economic control of Shantung in any event, will she not ?
Prof. Williams. I think so.
Senator Hitchcock. Doctor, wiU you let me refer to two or three
clauses in the treaty by which Japan cedes to China certain rights
which she had theretofore enjoyed in China ? I believe they begin
at article 128.
640 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Prof. Williams. You mean certain rights which Germany en-
joyed?
Senator Hitghoook. Certain rights which Germany cedes to
China. Can you give an outUne of what those are ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. May I ask relative to the value of those conces-
sions as compared with the concession made in Shantung ?
Senator Hitohoook. Let the doctor state it in his own way. I
am trying to get at how China benefits by that.
Prof. Williams. Article 128 of the treaty reads as follows:
Germany renounces in favor of China all benefits and privileges resulting from the
provisions of the final protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901, and from all
annexes, notes, and documents supplementary thereto.
That refers to the German share of the Boxer indemnity and the
right to maintain legation guards in Peking and along the railway
between Peking and the sea, and a share of certain territories in the
city of Peking .which were set aside for legation purposes.
Senator MoCcjmber. That is one thing that Cnina gets that Japan
does not secure ?
Prof. Williams. Oh, Japan does not get that, of course.
Senator E^nqx. Japan still has her own share in the Boxer
indemnity?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. And she still has her own compj^und in Peking?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator HrrcHcocK. Go on.
Prof. Williams. The last sentence in article 128 reads:
She likewise renounces in favor of China any claim to indemnities accruing there-
under subsequent to March 14, 1917.
•
That is, there will be no payment to Germany of any balance of
the Boxer indemnity after March 4, 1917.
Senator Hitchcock. Can you state in a general way the benefits
which China derives out of it ?
Prof. Williams. Yes. I do not remember how much has been
paid, but Germany's claim was about 90,000,000 taels. if I remember
rightly, and on that there has been paid, of course, tne interest and
amortization for some 12 or 13 years. I presume there must be
60,000,000 or 60,000,000 taels still outstanding. I do not know.
Senator Johnson of California. How much is a tael ?
Senator Williams. There is that much due still from China ?
Prof. Williams. I think so. I am only guessing, because I can not
make the calculation in my own mind.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you know the value of the tael?
Prof. Williams. The tael at present is worth a little more than the
gold dollar. Before the war it was worth about 70 cents gold.
Senator Knox. What taels are those — ^haikwan taels ?
Prof. Williams. Protocol taels, not ha^ikwan taels. Before the
war the value of the tael was from 60 cents to 70 cents somewhere.
Senator Hitchcock. Proceed with the next article.
Prof. Williams. Article 129 reads:
From the coming into force of the present treaty the high contracting parties shall
apply, in ao far as concerns them respectively:
(1) The arrangement of August 29, 1902, regarding the new Chinese customs tariff.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 641
In 1902 there was a revision of the customs tariff, which was to
bring it up to an effective 5 per cent ad valorem on the imports and
exports.
Senator HrrcHCOCK. Can you assess what that amounts to or give
any impression of the benefit derived ?
I^rof. Williams. I do not understand why that was put in.
Senator Hitchcock. You will see immediately following it that
Germany loses whatever advantage or privilege she had there, while
the other nations retain it.
Prof. Williams. It says:
(2) The arrangement of September 27, 1905, regarding Whang-Poo, and the pro-
visional supplementary arrangement of April 4, 1912.
Senator Hitchcock. Those were customs concessions to the
nations of the world ?
Prof. Williams. I have not finished the sentence:
China, however, will no longer be bound to grant to Germany the advantages or
privileges which she allowed to Germany under these arrangements.
That is, Germany will not have the benefit of the most favored nation
clause when it comes to paying duty on German goods going into
China. China can make her own tariff arran&:ements. Germany can
not have any share in the improvements of the Whangpoo River.
Senator Hitchcock. Then, article 130.
Prof. Williams. Article 130 reads:
Subject to the provisions of section 8 of this part, Germany cedes to China all
the buildings, wharves, and pontoons, barracks, forts, arms and munitions of war,
vessels of all kinds, wireless telegraphy installations, and other public property
belonging to the German Government, which are situated or ma^ be in the German
concessions at Tientsin and Hankow or elsewhere in Chinese territory.
I do not think that the wharves and barracks belonging to Ger-
many amount to a great deal, except that there are barracks in
Peking for the accommodation of, say, 500 men, and possibly a
similar barracks at Hankow.
Senator Moses. The Peking barracks are for the legation guard?
Prof. Williams. Yes; the Peking barracks are for the legation
^ard, but Germany is not to have a legation guard there any
longer, and the other public property belonging to the German
Government at Tientsin and Hantow — ^I do not know how much
that is, but I do not think it is very much.
Senator Hitchcock. Then article 131 speaks for itself?
Prof. Williams. Yes; under article 131 Germany undertakes to
restore to China within 12 months from the coming into force of
the treaty all the astronomical instruments which her troops carried
away from China in 1900-1901.
Senator Hitchcock. And in article 132 Germany agrees to the
abrogation of the leases from the Chinese Government under which
the uerman concessions at Hankow and Tientsin are now held ?
Prof. Williams. Yes. There are two German concessions in
China, one at Tientsin, which is along the water front about a mile,
I should think, in length, along the river and perhaps three-quarters
of a mile in depth; I could not say exactly. At Hankow there is
also a rather large concession. These are returned to China.
Senator Hitchcock. Is there any considerable value to these
concessions ?
135646—19 41
642 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Prof. Williams. Yes, they are valuable. Of course the property
in them is mostly private property, but it will no longer be controlled
by a German municipality. They will be imder the Cninese municipal
control and policing.
Senator Hitchcock. China recovers her whole sovereign rights in
these concessions ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
The Chairman. This abrogation of Germany's right to the most
favored nation treatment in the tariff would only benefit Germany's
rivals in trade ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; quite so.
The Chairman. In the Chinese trade ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Professor, may I ask you a question ?
Prof. Williams. Certainly.
Senator Brandeoee. You were advisor to the American commis-
sion?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Did I understand vou to say that you
attended the meetings of the plenary council ?
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Brandeoee. When vou attended meetings of the Ameri-
can commission you heard all that was said, did you not ?
Prof. Williams. I did not attend anv of the meetings of the
American commission. I only attended nve meetings of the council
of ten and one meeting of the council of five.
Senator Brandeoee. On those occasions were you where you could
hear all that went on ?
Prof. Williams. Oh, yes, I could hear everything that went on.
Senator Brandeoee. If you had been a member of the American
Commission, would you have voted to transfer Shantung to Japan t
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Brandeoee. What do you think would have been the
result if we had refused to vote in favor of transferring Shantung to
Japan ?
Prof. Williams. Well, of course it is very difficult to say what
would have happened. The Japanese delegation in Paris probably
would not have simed the treaty, and Great Britain ana France
felt that they were ooxmd to support Japan's claim. It would have
teen an impassfi. What would nave happened I can not say.
Senator Brandeoee. But what I want to get light upon is this:
Although you think the result nught have been an impass6, still you
would not have voted to give Shantung to Japan 1
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you think more damage would be done
by giving Shantung to Japan than would have resmted if Japan had
declined to sign the treaty 1
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. What do I imderstand you to mean by
"returning Shantung to Japan?*'
Prof. Williams. I shoula not have said Shantung. I should have
said the leased territory of Kiaochow.
Senator McCumber. The Senator spoke of returning Shantung,
Of coursei all there is in Shantimg is simply the right to the railway,
is it not ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKT. 643
Prof. Williams. The rights to the railways, mines, and the option
on all public works requiring foreign capital and skill.
Senator Bbandeoee. I simply wanted to say, Professor, for your
information and for the information of Senator McCumber as well,
that when I spoke of transferring Shantung, I merely used a briei
expression to indicate what was transferred.
Prof. Williams. That is the way I took it.
Senator Williams. Brief and comprehensive.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. In article 132 it says:
China, restored to the full exercise of her soverei^ rights in the above areas, declares
her intention of opening them to international residence and trade.
So that under article 132 China also grants to all of the coimtries
the right to obtain concessions at that point, does she not?
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator McCumber. That is, places for international trade. Is
not that included in the concession ?
Prof. Williams. It means that those places will not be closed, as
most Chinese cities and ports are, but that although they are taken
over by China they remain open for foreign residence and trade.
Senator McCumber. That foreigners may live there ?
Prof. Williams. That foreigners may live there.
Senator McCumber. And own property there ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. The same as Japan might have a concession
and ownproperty
Prof. Williams. No; it is quite different.
Senator McCumber. In Kiaochow Bay t
Prof. Williams. No ; it is different from that. These concessions
which have heretofore been administered by Germany in Hankow
and Tientsm will now be administered by a Chinese mtinicipality,
but, unlike other Chinese cities, they will be open for the residence of
Americans or Europeans.
Senator McCumber. But it will be opened for trade ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; opened for trade.
Senator McCumber. It will have the same commercial rights here
as Japan would obtain in Eaaochow Bay ?
Prof. Williams. The same right to trade, but not the same control
of the district.
Senator Harding. Doctor, are you in any way familiar with the
reaction in China as the result of this transfer of German rights to
Japan ?
Prof. Williams. I remember reading the telegrams, of course, that
came immediately after the treaty was read before the plenary coxmcil
on the 6th of May. Of course I was not present; but I was told by
the Chinese that they made certain reservations protesting against
the proposed transfer of these German rights at Kiaochow to cfapan;
but when the conference met the next day with the Germans to have
the treaty signed the Chinese refused to sign. Immediately in
Peking there was a great uproar, and a mob composed of several
thousand students tried to march into the legation quarter to appeal
to the American minister and the British minister, but they were not
allowed to enter the quarter, and they went to the home of Tsao
Ju-lin, who was the minister of commimications, and burned his
644 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
house and beat him up, and also met the Chmese minister to Japan,
who had signed the conventions of last September, and injured nim
very seriously. TTien, shortly after that, there began throughout
China an economic war, a boycott of Japanese trade.
Senator Harding. I want to ask particularly about that. What
do you know about the character and the extent of the Chinese
economic boycott ?
Prof. Williams. It is a very serious one if it lasts. We had some
experience in 1904 when they boycotted us over the exclusion treaty,
do you remember ?
^nator Harding. Inasmuch as the impelling purpose of this treaty
is the promotion of permanent peace of the world, do you regard the
situation in China as a menace to that peace ?
Prof. Williams. Yes; I think it is a menace to peace. I think
that so long as the question remains as it is there will be occasion
for strife between the Japanese and the Chinese, and outbreaks like
that which occurred a few days ago in Chang Chun in Manchuria,
where a number of Chinese and Japanese were Tolled.
Senator Harding. What hkehhood is there in such derelopment
of our involvement ?
Prof. Williams. There is no occasion for our being involved unless
there should be an attack upon the territorial integrity of either
power by some outside power. I suppose we would be mvolved in
that case, under the league of nations, provided there is such a league
of nations estabUshed, but I do not think that we would be involved
otherwise.
Senator Moses. Suppose there should be a general antiforeign
movement in China and some of our nationals should be killed or
their property destroyed ?
Prof. Williams. Such antiforeign movements are very unhkely.
The treatment of Europeans and Americans in China in the last io
years has been above reproach, and they have been very careful not
to attack foreigners.
Senator Harding. Going back for a moment to the economic
boycott, is it hkely to extend to those who are parties to this treaty
because they ignore Chinese rights ?
Prof. Williams. There has oeen talk of that, but my experience
with the boycott in China is that after a certain niunber of months
the people get tired of it and the thing peters out.
Senator Harding. You think, then, that that is only a temporary
expression of Chinese resentment ?
Prof. Williams. Yes. Of course, it may be more serious than I
think, because China, of course, has undergone a great change in the
last lew years. Since the repubUc has been established there is
much more interest being taken in pubUc affairs by the people gen-
erally than before, and it may result in something much more senous
than I think.
Senator MoCumber. One question, on another subject, I want to
et the sentiment of the Chinese people with reference to our exclusion
aw. Is there a feeling of resentment or enmity on account of that!
Prof. Williams. Almost none at all. There has been, in the past,
in the Province of Kwangtung, from which most of the Chinese laborers
have come to the United States, but elsewhere there is no interest
in it.
f
TBBATr OF PBACE WITH GERMANY. 646
Senator McCumbhr. At the time of the passage, of the act, there
was considerable opposition to it }
Prof. Williams, i es.
Senator McCumber. And ill-feeling t
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator McCumber. But you think that has gradually worn away ?
Prof. Williams. Yes. I think that the people generally in China
are very friendly in tiieir feeling toward the United States, because
they are tryine to establish a republic and they feel that we are a
sort of model pSr them.
Senator Williams. Prof. Williams, can you make any offhand
approximate estimate of the value of the general concessions at
Kiaochow and Shantung which were demanded of China, under this
treaty?
Prof. Williams. You mean the value of the real estate there ?
Senator Williams. The value of the property of every description.
Prof. Williams. No ; I could not give that.
Senator Williams. The value mainly consists of a return of
XX)litical jurisdiction.
Prof. Williams. That is right.
Senator Williams. Do you know what the value is of the German
ships which were seized in Chinese waters ?
^rrof. Williams. No; they seized six or eight German and several
Austrian vessels, but I do not remember what the values are.
Senator Williams. You do not know that i
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Williams. You think that the balance due on the Boxer
fund, due to Germany, which is released to China, comes to about
$60,000,000?
Prof. Williams. That is simply a suess.
Senator Williams. I understand that is only an approximate esti-
mate, as well as you can make it offhand.
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Williams. I notice the phrase here, *' international resi-
dence." I suppose that means a place of residence of nationals of
all the various parties to the treaty. It uses the phrase, "inter-
national residence."
Prof. Williams. That means that any foreigners who come to
China may reside there.
S»enator Williams. Yes. It is a rather peculiar phrase — ^'^ inter-
national residence." I suppose of course that is what it means.
Senator Moses. Do you regard, Ih*. Williams, that these provisions
in article 128, were inserted as a quid pro quo for the cessibn of the
Shantun^Province to Japan ?
Prof. Williams. No.
Senator Moses. They were merely settlements growing out of the
war, were they not?
Prof. Williams, Yes.
Senator Moses. There was no other coimtry to which these pro-
posed concessions could be returned except Chma, was there ?
Prof. Williams. No; and in the early draft of the clause we
included all German property in China.
Senator Moses. Including Kiaochow ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
646 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. When you say "we," whom do you mean?
Prof. Williams. The American experts.
Senator Moses. And at the instance of Japan, Eiaochow was
segregated from the others ?
Frof. WiLLL^MS. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Johnson of Califorma. Before you conclude let me ask
what were your particular duties as expert at Paris ?
Prof. Williams. My duties were of two sorts. As an expert on
far eastern affairs, I prepared memoranda for the American commis-
sion on any question that they might refer to us or on questions that
came up in tne correspondence with the commission. And secondly,
I was tnere largely as a chief of the far eastern section of the Secretary
of State, because a great deal of correspondence that came to the
Department of State here with regard to the Far East was referred
to Secretary Lansing in Paris, and all that correspondence had to
pass through my hands, and I would bring the matter to his attention
and draft replies and consult with him about the disposition of these
questions. They were entirely independent of the commission.
Senator Johnson of California. You were to advise as to what
disposition should be made of various matters in the Far East ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. And the most important matter
that came to you was the Shantung matter ?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator Johnson of California. And on that your advice was not
taken?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator Johnson of California. Was there any other matter of
any consequence there upon which your advice was asked ?
rrof. Williams. Oh, yes; with regard to the settlement of the
opium question and with regard to the disposition of German prop-
erties elsewhere, outside of Snantimg.
Senator Johnson of California. Do you mean the islands of the
Pacific?
Prof. Williams. The islands of the Pacific also.
Senator Johnson of California. They were divided in accordance
with a secret treaty, were they not ?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. So far as your duties were con-
cerned, they were superseded by the treaties that had been made
prior to the peace conference?
Prof. Williams. Not entirely, but practically so.
Senator Williams. With regard to the islands?
Senator Johnson of California. Not only the islands but Shantung.
Senator WilliaJhs. Kiaochow,
Prof. Williams. But it is Shantimg, Senator.
Senator Williams. It is a comprehensive term*
Senator Johnson of California. The treaty says ''Shantung," too.
So far as the settlement of the Far East was concerned, on which
you were the adviser and expert, the settlements were made sub-
stantially in accordance with secret treaties that had been made during
the progress of the war, and before our entrance into the war.
Prof. WILLIAMS. Yes; quite so. The islands south of the Equator
were not ceded to Japan, but she has been made mandatory.
TREATY OF PBAGB WITH GEBMANT. 647
Senator Johnson of California. Which gives her control over the
islands ?
Prof. Williams. Quite so.
Senator Moses. You say she has been made mandatory?
Prof. Williams. Yes.
Senator Moses. I have been informed somewhere that no manda-
tories have yet been issued.
Prof. Williams. I am subject to correction, but I read a state-
ment in the Paris papers in April that Japan was made mandatory
temporarily.
Senator Johnson of California. The statement has been made that
Britain has those north of the Equator and Japan those south of the
Eouator.
The Chaibman. That is stated in the dispatch of the British
ambassador at Tokyo.
Senator Williams. The Senator is technicallv wrong. Since then
it has been turned over to Australia and New Zealand.
Prof. Williams. You are right.
Senator Brandeoee. May I ask you a question ? Have you any
knowledge to what extent the opium traffic has increased, if it has^
increased at all, since Japan has nad the Shantung concession ?
Prof. Williams. According to the statement of the Chinee who
were at the peace conference^ it increased tremendously during the
three or four vears of Japanese occupation of Tsingtao. I have a
statement made by Liang Chi Chao, it you would care to hear it.
Senator Brandeoee. I would like to have it put into the record.
Is he a competent authority?
Prof. Williams. He is the greatest living Chinese scholar, and he
was one of the men, in 1898, who was condenmed to death but
escaped to Japan, where he has many friends.
The Chairman. You can put that in the record.
(The statement referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)
Contraband opium and mori)hia became common articles; it has been estimated that
no less than 12 tons of morphia and 65 tons of opium were smuggled into Shantung
in 1918 alone.
The Chairman. If there are no further questions, you can be ex-
cused. Prof. Williams.
Mr. Millard desires that a three-page memorandum that he has
submitted modifying his testimony may be printed as part of hiS'
testimony. If tnere is no objection, that will be done.
(Mr. mllard's memorandum is here printed in full, as follows:)
Memorandum by Thomas F. Millard, Submitted August 20, 1919.
''RSOIONAL understandings" and the shantung DSCIStON.
Definition of regional understandings. — Article 21 of the proposed covenant of the
leagae of nations validates *^ regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine " which
are in existence at the time the league is organized, and other such understandings
made later that are approved by the league.
Another article of the covenant provides that all members of the league must inform
all the other members of any and ail treaties, agreements, pacts, alliances, and regional
understandings (ot* the article is presumed to have that meaning) that exist among
members of the league, or between members of the league and nations not members
of the league.
648 TREATY or PEACE WITH GEKMAmT.
A reading of the various artdclee of the covenant bearing on this phase of intematioDal
relations under the league indicates that members of the league will have until a time
after the formal organization of the league to make and to declare whatever r^onal
understandinss they have, and that such regional understandinffs thus formally de-
clared to the league within that time shall be recognized as valid.
A point has been advanced that only regional understandings which properly ve
"like the Monroe doctrine'' will be made valid by article 21 of the covenant.
CoTiditiona affecting interpretation of article £/.— Only the Monroe doctrine is
mentioned by name in article 21 as being a valid regional understanding under the
terms of the covenant. But the language of the article expresslv indicates that it is
the purpose of the article to validate regional understandings otW than the Monroe
doctrine.
It may be that subsequent to the organization of a league a question may be raised
upon the presentation of some regional understanding, as to whether it is ''like the
Monroe doctrine. " If a difference of view develops on that point, it would be a
question to be decided by the governing body of the league. The decision of the
question in each particular case would depend on the alignment of votes in the gov-
erning body of the league.
For the purpose of the alignment, let us assume, for instance, that after the American
Government signs the treaty of peace and the covenant and an Anglo-French- American
alliance in the present form of those treaties, the league is formally notified of a regional
understanding covering Asia entered into mutuiuly by the British, French, and
Japanese Governments.
Let us further assume that that regional understanding would be regarded by the
American Government as not '^ike the Monroe doctrine,'* but, on the contrary, as
being subversive of the principles of the Monroe doctrine, and as destructive of that
counterpart of the Monroe doctrine in Asia, the Hay doctrine. In that case, the
American Government probabl}r would enter objection to such an arrangement as
being not in conformity with article 21.
In such a case, it is probable that the British and French and Japanese Grovemments
would take an opposite view of the meanineof article 21, whereupon the issue would
depend on a vote of the governing body of the league.
The constitution of the governing body of the league is such that it would be almost
certain that the American Government would be outvoted on such an issue.
If it was held (and accepted) that the four powers directly involved in the dispute
should be excluded from votii^ on the decision of it, and they were excluded, ana the
decision was left to the remaining members of the governing body, it also is practically
certain that the American Government would be outvotea, for these reasons:
(a) There are known to exist more than twenty recional imderstandings about
Asia, involving all the great powers except the United States. Also, it is suspected
that several other re^onal unaerstandings exist whose texts never have been disclosed.
(5) Outside of Asia, there are many known and probably also many secret reeional
understandings in existence, Involving all of the great powers except the Umted
States, and also involving a majority of the leeser nations that are expected to be
members of the league.
(c) That condition establishes a situation whereby almost all the members of the
lea^e except the United States have regional understandings which they may
desire to mase valid under the league. In that situation it is highly probable, and
it certainly is possible, that the members having regional understanding which they
want to sustain will combine to define article 21 as meaning to Include regional
understandings of whatever character that were made before the formal organization
of the league.
The application to China and the Hay doctrine. — Even since the Paris conference
met, there have been several distinct intimations of the purpose of some of the prin-
cipal powers to advance certain re^onal imderstandings about China as the basifl
for international action regarding China.
In connection with the newly formed international (four-power) financial poup
to operate in Chinaj it already is reported that the Japanese Grovemment will insiBt
that Manchuria and Shantui^f will be excepted from the operations of the group,
Japan reserving thoee regions for her exclusive economic exploitation.
If the Japanese Government has developed, or subsequently does develop this atti-
tude, it can be taken for certain that the British, French, and omer Governments which
have re^onal understandings about China bai^ on the ''sphere of influence" thesis
will insist in maintaining their exclusive rights under thoee re^onal understandinjp.
That would array three of the four members of the new financial group in opposition
to the American member of the group, and, since the United States has no '' sphere"
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 649
or any r^onal undentandin^; r^gaiding China or Asia, giving it any special privileges
in any region, such a situation will be tantamount to excluding America, and "will
•defeat the announced purposes and objects of the banking group.
Such a situation will effectively prevent any effort to relieve Cnina of the *^ sphere "
•condition, and will fasten it upon her more strongly than before.
NoTS. — ^The statements of tiie President at his conference with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee on August 19 i)ositivel}r demonstrated how the existence of
eecret re^onal understandings can compel, or induce, the American Government to
yield on important questions.
It, therefore, is possible that the American Government may find, after it has ratified
the treaty, the covenant, and the proposed alliance, that new secret regional under-
standings may thereafter be consummated which can be made valid under the league.
P. S. — ^By this means, Japan may secure the ''better means" to enforce her under-
standing of the Lansing-Ishii agreement, and of her promises to return Shantung.
The Chairman. Tlie committee will stand adjourned until to-
morrow at 11 o'clock, when it will meet in the committee room in the
Capitol in executive session.
(Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Saturday, August 23, 1919, at 11 o'clock a. m.)
MONBAY, ATraiTST 26, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D. C,
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lod^e (chairman), Borah, Brandegee, Knox,
Harding, Johnson of Cahfomia, New, Moses, Swanson, Pomerene,
and Smith.
STATEME17T OF HON. JOSEPH W. FOLK.
The Chairman. Gov. Folk is here by appointment to bring to the
attention of the committee the provisions in regard to Egypt.
Mr. Folk. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear
before you as the counsel for the commission appomted by the
legislative assembly of Egvpt to attend the peace conierence at raris.
A majority of the legislative assembly oi Egypt is elected by the
people of Egypt The commission was appointed by that assembly
and is composed by Messrs. Zaghlul, Armand, and Alfifi. Mr.
Zaghlul is the vice president of the legislative assembly, the highest
elective office in Egypt. He was formerly minister of justice, and
before that was minister of education for Egypt. He is easily the
first citizen of Egypt, so recognized, so honored and respected both
by Egyptians ana by all other nationahties in Egypt.
The other members of the commission are men of learning and
culture. That commission is in Paris to-day in virtual imprison-
ment. Through the influence of Great Britain they are not per-
mitted to come to the United States. They were not permittea to
send their representative to the United States. Great JBritain does
not seem to be anxious that the people of the United States should
know the story of Egjrpt.
The Chairman. Governor, perhaps you are about to do it, but
please tell us the origin of this legislative assembly.
Mr. Folk. Yes. This legislative assembly was established upon
the recommendation of Lord Kitchener in 1913. It is composed of
89 members, three-fourths elected by district electors, chosen by
popular vote in proportion to the population. Twenty-two members
are appointed. There are four copts, three Bedouins, two merchants,
one pedagogue, and one municipal representative. It is a repre-
sentative body, and actmally represents the people of Egypt.
This commission, through the legislative assembly, speaks for the
people of Egjrpt; and in speaking for this commission I may fairly
say that I appear before you in behalf of the people of Egypt.
651
652 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Is the legislative assembly an actively functioning
body in connection with the government of Egypt 1
Mr. Folk. Yes; it is a part of the regular government of Egypt at
this time.
The people of Egypt want a leaeue of nations to protect their
independence^ not to destroy their independence. They ask that you
do not deny them that self-determination which is guaranteed to the
peoples of all nations in the covenant. They ask that in the name of
self-determination you do not sanction the making of Egypt to be a
pendant to Britain s red girdle of the globe.
Great Britain has a Government that is just when it has no selfish
reason to be otherwise. In the case of Egypt it has a selfish reason
to be otherwise^ and it has been and is otherwise.
Egjrpty as history tells uS; was a part of the Turkish dominions until
1831. In that year war broke out between Egypt and Turkey. The
Eeprtian armies were victorious and Constantinople would have
fallen, but the powers interfered for the purpose of maintaining the
balance of power, and the Egyptian armies were denied the full miits
of their victories.
The Chairmax. That was the movement under Mehemet Ali ?
Mr. Folk. Yes. Later, in the treaty of London, Egypt was given
autonomy, practical independence, subject to a nominal Turkish sov-
ereimty and subject to tne payment of an annual tribute to Turkey
of about $3,500,000.
I will sketch the subsequent occurrences hastily, and later on I will
take them up more in detail.
In 1892 Great Britain occupied Egypt for the ostensible purpose
of suppressing rebels and of collecting debts due to Europeans,
arising out of the Suez Canal. She pledged to Egypt and the world
that tnis occupation would be only temporary, but she continued to
stay. Great Britain first enterea Egypt upon the pretext of pro-
tecting the khedive against rebels among his people. She continued
to stay upon the pretext of protecting the people against the tyranny
of the khedive. So at the beginning of this war England was occu-
pying Egypt in that way.
On December 18, 1914, Great Britain seized Egprpt, took over the
government of Egypt through the appointment oi a sultan of Egypt
by Great Britain, and now, contrary to the principles in the covenant
of the proposed league of nations, Great Britain asks that Egypt be
turned over to Great Britain without the consent of the Egyptians,
as a subject and conquered nation.
The status of Egypt arose out of the war just ending, and in that
respect — a very material respect — ^it differs from the status of many
other subject countries. The status of Egypt can not be an internal
question to Great Britain unless this treaty itself makes it so.
Now, Section VI, Article 147, provides:
Grermany declares that she recognizes the Protectorate proclaimed over Egypt by
Great Britain on December 18, 1914, and that she renounces the regime of the Capitu-
ations in Egypt. This renunciation shall take effect as from August 4, 1914.
You of course are familiar with the capitulation. I shall not dis-
cuss it here. It merely provides relations whereby foreigners in
Egypt who commit crime or offend in any way are tried by their
consular courts.
TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAK7. 658
The Chairman. I do not want to interrupt your argument. Of
course the committee knows all about the capitulations, but assume
for the moment that we do not, and explain the provisions briefly,
win you please ?
Senator Johnson of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Folk. Sidney Low, in his book '* Egypt in Transition," on
page 251, very clearly describes that in this way:
Most people know roughly what the capitulations are, but it is only the resident in
Egypt who is fully aware of the manner in which their — mostly baneful — ^influence
is exercised. The capitulations are the treaties and conventions which give Euro*
peans in the East the right of exemption from the local tribunals. * * * If a
foreigner commitB a crime he can not be arrested by the Egvptian police, nor may he
be brought up before an Egyptian judge and tried by the Egyptian law. The police
or the aggrieved party can only bring him before his own consular court. And before
he can be punished it must be proved that he has committed an offense not only against,
the law of Egypt, but against the law of his own State, or, at any rate, against such '
local law as the consular authorities agree to recognize.
Now, I understand that Great Britain proposes to abolish the
capitulation, but she proposes to abolish it by abolishmg the inde-
pendence of Egypt entirely.
It will be noted that this article in question merely purports to
declare the position of Germany. The United States and the other
parties to the treaty are not mentioned. But what would be the
effect of an unqualified ratification of this article? Would it not
have the effect of making the question of the status of Egypt an
internal question to Great Britain and therefore beyond the jiuis-
diction of the council of the league of nations i
But is the holding and governing of Egypt without the consent of
the Egyptians a protectorate in a legal sense ? I say it is not. This
occupation of Egypt up to 1882 was often spoken of by British
diplomats as a veiled protectorate. This thing tnat England has now
done to Egypt may be well characterized as a masked annexation.
A protectorate is a relation assumed toward a weak nation by a
strong nation, whereby the weak nation is protected from hostile
invasion or dictation. The situation in Egypt is that Great Britain
has taken over the government in part. The flag of Great Britain is
supreme in Egypt. Great Britain has appointed a sultan in Egypt
to rule over I^rpt. He represents, not the sovereignty of Egypt but
the soverei^ty of England. The Egyptians to-day are governed
without their consent by Great Britain. Great Britain has assumed
sovereignty over Egypt. This protectorate is the same character of
Erotectorate that a highwayman would proclaim over your pocket-
ook when he should hold a pistol at your head and demand that you
deliver over your valuables.
Senator Branoeoee. Will you allow me to ask you a question there.
Governor ?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. If a nation is under a protectorate, can it
make a treaty with a foreign power ?
Mr. Folk. Usually it can, but Egypt is not allowed to make any
treaties with foreign powers. Great Britain has expressly required
that all treaties and all dealings with foreign powers shall be through
Great Britain.
Senator Moses. Governor, may I interrupt you i
Mr. Folk. Yes.
654 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Moses. Are you intending at any time in the course of
your argument to show the development of tne power of the British?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Moses. Especially \mder the Cromer regime ? .
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Bbandegee. Do you desire to ' proceed without inter-
ruption at first ?
Mr. Folk. It is entirely agreeable to me to answer questions as I
[o along, or if you prefer, when I finish 1 will be glad to take up any
liscussion that you desire, but it does not discommode me at all to be
asked questions.
A bank robber in a sense proclaims a protectorate over the funds
of a bank. If that protectorate, so-called, be sanctioned, the act of
the robber is sanctioned even though it be called by the soft name of
protectorate rather than by the name of robbery. So if the so-called
protectorate of Great Britain over Egypt be recognized and sanc-
tioned, the act is sanctioned even thou^ as a matter of fact it is not a
protectorate, but a masked annexation.
The occupation of Egypt by British troops, as I have said, was
\mtil December 18, 1914, claimed by the British Government to be
merely temporary. After the begmning of the World War, Great
Britain seized Egypt and the proclamation seizing Egypt was pub-
lished in the London Times of December 19, 1914, page 8, column 3.
It reads:
In view of the action of his Highness, Abbas Helmi Pasha, lately Khedive of Er^yi,
who has adhered to the King's enemies, His Majestjr's Government has seen nt to
depose him from the Khedivate. and that high dignity has been offered, with the
^tle of Sultan of Egypt, to his Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living
prince of the family of Mehemet Au, and has been accepted by him.
The Elin^ has been pleased to approve the appointment of Prince Hussein to an
honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on the occasion of his accession
to the l^tanate.
This seizure of Egypt by Great Britain is shown on the face of ihe
proclamation to be a war measure. But how can a continuation of
Britain's assumed sovereignty over Egypt be justified now that the
war is over and the league of nations is to be established upon the
principle of the right of self-<letermination in all nations ?
Senator Johnson of California. What league of nations is that
that you speak of ?
Mr. Folk. I am speaking of the covenant of the league of nations
which is supposed to be based upon that ideal.
Senator Johnson of California. I think it is conceded now that it
is not based unon any such ideal as that.
Mr. Folk. Of course, there are two viewpoints. I am assmning
that it is. That is the theory on which the league of nations pro-
poses the right of self-determination of all people, and that govern-
ment everywhere must be based upon the consent of the governed.
The Manchester Guardian, in the issue of December 14, 1914, com-
menting on the seizure of Egypt, said that the action taken by Great
Britain with respect to Egypt was tantamount to annexation, and
did not differ in any essential point from the assumption of complete
sovereignty. The facts show this statement to be true.
The London Times, in the issue of December 19, 1914, has large
headline, saying ** Egypt Under the British Flag — ^Abbas Hilmi
TREATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 665
deposed — Appointment of a Sultan." But the TimeB in an editorial
in the same issue, with characteristic British diplomacy, naively
said:
All that is desired now is to defend Egypt against attack, and to keep the internal
adndnifltration running smoothly. Other questions can wait until peace is restored
as Lord Cromer implies in the letter which we publish to-day. It is purely a practical
administrative step, dictated by the appearance of Turkey as a belligerent.
The truth is that under the guise of a protectorate Great Britain
seized Egypt and swept away every vestige of Egyptian freedom or
independence. But the people of Egypt md not realize at that time
the full meaning of this action on the part of Great Britain. They
were told that this was a step towards their independence. They
were practically promised independence. His Majesty King George
in a letter to the oultan^ whom he had appointed to rule over Egjrpt,
which letter was widely published throughout Egypt and was pub-
lished in the London Tmies of date December 21, 1914, which I nave
here, said:
I feel convinced that you will be able, with the cooperation of your ministers and
the protectorate of Great Britain, to overcome aU influences which are seeking to
destroy the independence of Elgypt.
Of couTBe the Bitish idea, the idea of the British Government, of
independence evidently is to be independent of all other governments
except the British Government, but the Egyptian people accepted
that word as we have always accepted it. The word "independence"
was a word to conjure with with the Egyptians; To them the word
was as sacred and is as sacred as it was to our forefathers who fought
and struggled for independence from the very power that is now
seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt.
Senator Knox. Governor, what is the population of Egypt 1
Mr. Folk. 13,000,000.
Senator Knox. How many are Egyptians?
Mr. Folk. About 10,000,000.
Senator Johnson of CaUf omia. What races are the others ?
Mr. Folk. The races are English, American, Syrian, etc.
Senator Johnson of California. A great many British ?
Mr. Folk. A great many British. Of course the seizure of Egypt
being announced to be temporarilv, as a war measure, it was assumed
by tne Egyptians to be such. The Egyptian troops fought on the
side of the Allies to make, as they believed, the world safe for democ-
racy, and for the right of national self-determination in aU people.
The Chairman. They were loyal to Great Britain and the Allies?
Mr. Folk. They were loyal. More than a million strong- they
fought on the eastern front, and Gen. AUenby, not long ago, in a
speech to the Y. M. C. A. at some point in Egypt said that the
Egyptian troops were responsible for the allied successes in Palestine
and Assyria. When it came to making the terms of peace and the
formation of a league of nations, the Egyptian people naturally
concluded, since under the league of nations tney would be protected
and preserved from external aggression, that the protectorate of
Great Britain, the alleged purpose of which was to preserve them
from external aggression, would be removed. But they were
doomed to disappointment. England not only refused to give up
Egypt, but England asked the United States and the other nations
to indorse and sanction and to glorify the wrongs that she has done
and is doing to Escvnt.
656 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
If there should be a league of sations, to give the nations some
remedy^ other than war, to settle their disputes and to preserve the
right of self-determination in small nations, and to prevent one
nation from bleeding another, by what process of reasoning can it
be assumed that in the very treatv creating a league of nations for
the purposes indicated, there shoula be a clause recognizing the British
homing of them, which is utterly inconsistent with the principles of
the league of nations, and is based upon the doctrine of military
might not upon the principles of justice and right.
Egjrpt is a country of immense wealth. She contains more than
350,000 square miles and a population of something like 13,000,000.
She has millions of acres of agricultural lands. The valley of the
Nile is greater in value per acre and in producing power than the
richest Jtarming lands in Illinois or Missouri or Iowa. By the seizure,
then. Great Britain has added to her enormous acquisitions an area
of 350,000 square miles and 13,000,000 souls.
From her geographical position, Egypt has attracted the attention
of the colonizing powers more perhaps than any other coimtry in the
world. Lying heneath South Africa and the Mediterranean, as
between also the eastern and western worlds, Egjrpt is not only the
key to England's position in her vast project of colonization, but she
is moreover an important factor internationally in the affairs of
practically every European, Asiatic, and indeed American country.
The eyes of the covetx)U8 rulers of earth have always been upon
Egypt, and for illustration we need go no further back in history
than CsBsar and then come up to Napoleon and then to Great Britain.
In 1798 the French under Napoleon invaded Egypt. In 1801
the French were expelled from Egypt by the Egyptian troops, aided
by the Turks, and aided also at that time by Great Britain. In 1807
Great Britain herself invaded Egypt and attempted to conquer the
country, but the British troops were ejected by the Egyptian army.
Egypt continued to be a nominal Turkish province until 1831, when
in the war between Turkey and Egypt, Egypt being victorious, there
was a settlement brought about by the powers in order to preserve
in the balance of power whereby Egypt was given its autonomy and
practical independence, subject to the nominal sovereignty of
Turkey, and subject to the payment of the tribute that I nave
mentioned.
The title of the ruler of Egypt meant sovereign or king, without
quahiication. The government of E^ypt could maintain an army,
contract loans and make new political conventions with foreign
powers.
Things continued to run smoothly until the time of the Elhedive
Ismail m 1863 to 1879. He was an extravagant promoter by nature
and was surrounded by European usurers who were ready to lend him
money at ruinous interest. In seven vears Ismail raised the debt in
Egypt from something hke 3,000,000 pounds to 94,000,000 odd
pounds. This debt was largely contracted through the construction
of the Suez Canal. This canal was begun under trench auspices, but
Great Britain later secured control of it. The French had perusaded
Ismail to grant a concession for the building of the Suez Canal« This
canal was not to cost Egypt one cent, and Egypt was to get 15 per
cent of the revenues. But the French interests could^not miance the
undertaking and finally they went to Ismail and persuaded him to put
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 65 T
up about $5,000,000 to finance it and then persuaded Ismail to sub-
scribe for $85,000,000 of the stock. Now Ismail had no money, so-
he gave his due bills, and these due bills were discounted in London
at about 50 cents on the doUar, and these due bills constituted the
beginnings of the troubles that Egypt has had. Later the stock of
Ismail for which the due bills were given was bought by Great
Britain for $20,000,000 through Disraeii, and through the purchase
of this stock for $20,000,000 Great Britain secured a voting control
of the Suez Canal Corporation, and that is how she secured control
of the Suez Canal; and as I will show a Uttle later, the fact of the Suez
Canal being there, and the fact of Egypt being the entrance and the
highway to India, is the reason why Oreat Britain refused to get out
of Egypt and why Great Britain intends to stay in Egypt under any
and all circumstances.
The debt owing to Europeans growing out of the construction of
the Suez Canal offered an opportunity or excuse for the interference
by England and other nations in the affairs of Egypt, whereby there
was a supervision of the revenues by the agents of Great* Britain
for the ostensible purpose of collecting the debts contracted by
Ismail. Great Britain attempted not only financial control but
political control as well. Originally there was what was known as
dual control, control by France and Great Britain, but Prance
afterwards withdrew.
In September, 1881, a revolution broke out in Cairo which had
for its chief object the emancipation of Egypt from European
influences.
In May, 1882, a British fleet appeared before Alexandria. In
June, 1882, serious disturbances took place in Alexandria and a
number of Europeans were killed.
On July 11 and 12, 1882, Alexandria was bombarded by the
British fleet and British soldiers began to occupy Egypt. Great
Britain solenmly pledged tDe world that this occupation would only
be temporary. Some of these pledges are illustrated by these docu-
ments.
Lord Granville, who was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
on November 4, 1881 (to be found in Egypt No. 1 (1882), pp. 2 and
3), said:
The policy of His Majesty's Government toward Egypt has no other aim than the
prosperity of the country, and its full enjoyment of that liberty which it has
obtained under successive firmans of the Sultan. * * * It can not be too clearly
understood that England desires no partisan ministry in Egypt. In the opinions of
His Majesty's Government a partisan ministry founded on tne support of a foreign
power, or upon the personal influence of a foreign diplomatic a^ent, is neither calcu-
lated to be of service to the country it administers, nor to that in whose interest it i»
supposed to be maintained.
•
In a protocol signed by the Ambassador to Turkey for Great
Britain, Lord Dufierin, together with the representatives of five
other great powers, on Jime 25, 1882 (to be found in Egypt No. 17
(1882), p. 33), it was provided:
The Government represented by the undersigned engage themselves, in any arrange-
ment which may be made in consequence of their concerted action for the regulation
of the affairs of Egypt, not to seek any territorial advantage.
135546—10 42
4B58 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Sir Charles Dilke, who was under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in
the House of Commons, on July 25, 1882, said:
It ifl the desire of His Majesty's Government, after relieving Egvpt from military
tyranny, to leave the people to manage their own affairs. * • * We believe that it is
better for the interests of their country, as well as for the interests of Egypt, that
Egypt should be governed by liberal institutions rather than by a despotic rule.
Mr. Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister, said in the House of
Commons on August 10, 1882 (reading) :
I can so so far as to answer the honorable gentleman when he asks me whether we
'Contemplate an indefinite occupation of Egypt. Undoubtedly, of all things in the
world, tnat is a thing which we are not going to do. It would be absolutely at variance
with all the principles and views of Her Majesty's Government, and the pledges they
have given to Europe and with the views, I may say, of Europe itself.
And again, Lord Dufferin, in a dispatch dated December 19, 1882,
to be foimd in Egypt No. 2 (1883), page 30, stated:
In talking to the various persons who have made inquiries as to my views on the
Egyptian riuestion I have stated that we have not the least intention of preserving
the authority which has thus reverted to us.
And Lord Granville, on December 29, 1882, foimd in Egypt No. 2
<1882), page 23, said — and this was an official dispatch:
You should intimate to the Egyptian Government that it is the desire of Her Majestjr's
Government to withdraw the troops from Egypt as soon as circumstances permit;
that such withdrawal will probably^ be effected from time to time as the security of
■the country will allow it, and that Her Majesty's Government hoi)e that the time 'will
be very ^ort during which the full number of the present force will be maintained.
And Lord DuflFerin^s dispatch of February 6, 1883, Egypt No. 6
<1883), pages 41 to 43, said:
The territory of the Khedive has been recognized as lying outside the sphere of
European warfare and international jealousies.
The Valley of the Nile could not be administered from London. An attempt upon
our part to engage in such an undertaking would at once render us objects qi liatred
and suspicion to its inhabitants. Cairo would became a focus of foreign intrigue and
conspiracy against us, and we should soon find ourselves forced either to abandon our
pretensions under discreditable conditions or embark upon the experiment of a
complete acquisition of the country.
And Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on August 6, 1883,
being Prime Minister at that time, said :
The other powers of Europe * * * are well aware of the general intentions
^ntertaincKi by the British Government, intentions which may be subject, of course,
to due consideration of that state of circumstances, but conceived and held to be in
the nature not only of information, but a pledge or engagement.
And on the 9th of August Mr. Gladstone said:
The uncertainty there may be in some portion of the public mind has reference to
those desires which tend toward the permanent occupation of Egypt and its incorpora-
tion in this Empire. This is a consummation to which we are resolutely opposed,
and which we will have nothing to do with bringing about. We are against this
doctrine of annexation; we are against everything that resembles or approaches it;
And we are against all language that tends to bring about its expectation. We are
against it on the ground of the interests of England ; we are a^inst it on the ground
ot our duty to Eg>''pt, we are against it on the ground of the specific and solemn manner
and under the most critical circumstances, pledges whicn have earned for us the
confidence of Europe at large during the course of aifficult and delicate operations, and
-which, if one pledge can be more solemn and sacred than another, special sacredness
in this case binds us to observe.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERM AST Y. 659
And Lord Granville's dispatch on June 16, 1884 (to be found in
Egypt No. 23 (1884), p. 13), stated:
Her Majesty's Government * *. * are willing that the withdrawal of the troops
shall take place at the beginning of the year 1888, provided that the powers are tiben
of opinion that such withdrawal can take place without risk to peace and order.
Lord Derby in the House of Lords, February 26, 1885, said:
From the first we have steadily kept in view the fact that our occupation was tempo-
porarily and provisional only * ♦ *. We do not propose to keep Egypt perma-
nently * * *. On that point we are pledged to this country and to Europe; and
if a contrary policy is adopted it will not be by us.
Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, June 10, 1887, said:
It was not open to us to assume the protectorate of Egypt, because Her Majesty's
Government have again and again pledged themselves that they would not do so
* * *. My noble friend has dwelt upon that pledge, and he does us no more than
justice when he expresses his opinion that it is a pledge which has been constantly
present to our minds.
And Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, August 12, 1889, said:
When my noble friend * ♦ * asks us to convert ourselves from guardians into
proprietors ♦ * ♦ and to declare oiu* stay in Egypt permanent ♦ * » i must
say I think my noble friend ps^yB an insufficient regard to the sanctity of the obliga-
tions which the Government of the Queen have undertaken and by which they are
bound to abide. In such a matter we have not to consider what is the most convenient
or what is the more profitable course; we have to consider the course to which we are
bound by our own obligations and by European law.
Mr. Gladstone again on May 1, 1893, said, in his fom'th ministry:
I can not do otherwise than express my general concurrence * ♦ * that the
occupation of E^ypt is in the nature of a burden and difficulty, and that the per-
manent occupation of that country would not be agreeable to oiur traditional policy,
and that it would not be consistent with our good faith toward the suzerain power,
while it would be contrary to the laws of Europe. * * ♦ •! certainly shall not
set up the doctrine that we have discovered a duty which enables us to set aside
the pledges into which we have so freely entered. * * * The thing we can not
do with honor is either to deny that we are under engagements which preclude the
idea of an indefinite occupation, or so to construe that indefinite occupation as to
hamper the engagements that we are under by collateral considerations.
The text of the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, pro-
vides [reading]:
The Government of His Majesty declares that it has no intention of altering the
political status of Egypt.
The French Government was obiecting to the occupation of
Egypt by Gieat Britain, and finally France and Great Britain made
a secret treatjr whereby Great Britain was to be permitted to do
certain things in Egypt without interference bv France, and France
was to be permitted to do certain things in Morocco without inter-
ference by Great Britain.
Senator Johnson of California, About what was the date of that —
the year?
Mr. Folk. 1904. I have the clause right here in I^rd Cromer^s
report of March 3, 1907, Egypt No. 1 (1907), page 2:
There are insuperable objections to the assumption of a British protectorate over
Egjrpt. It would involve a change in the political status of the country. Now, in
Article I of the Anglo-French agreement of the 8th of April, 1904, the Briti^ Gov-
emment have explicitly declared that they have no intention of altering the political
status of Egypt.
660 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
In an interview with Dr. Nimr, editor of the Mokattam, October 24,
1908, acknowledged as official by Sir E. Gray in the House of Com-
mons, Sir Eldon Gorst was asked :
It has been said that Great Britain proposes shortly to proclaim the protectorate
or the annexation of Egypt to the British Empire. Will Sir Gordon Gorst permit me
to ask him whether this rumor is well foundea or not?
Sir Eldon Gorst, who was diplomatic agent of Great Britain in
Egypt, answered:
The rumor has no foundation and you may contradict it categorically. Great
Britain has engaged herself by official agreements with Turkey and the European
powers to respect the suzerainty of the Sultan in Egypt. She will keep her engage-
ments, which, moreover, she reiterated in 1904 at the time of the conclusion of the
Anglo-French agreement. England stipulated in that agreement that she has no
intention to change the poUtical situation in Egypt. Neither the people nor the Gov-
ernment wish to rid themselves of these engagements.
And so it is clear that up to the beginning of the war the status of
Egypt was not an internal question, but the war gave an excuse for
Great Britain to break her plighted word.
Senator Johnson of California. Could I ask you a question there
without interrupting you ? You refer quite often, Governor, to
internal questions. Do you mean by that that now with the recogni-
tion of that protec orate established and with the league of nations^
it would be no longer an internal question t
Mr. Folk. No, sir. I say, the way this annex reads, with the
recognition of the territorial protectorate, which is not a protectorate,
but a masked annexation, Egypt would be made an internal question
and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the coimcil of the league of
nations.
Senator Johnson of California. Your position is that by the recogni-
tion of this masked annexation we are parties to a wrong 1
Mr. Folk. We are parties to a wrong.
Senator Johnson of California. And then in the league of nations
we rivet that wrong for all time ?
Mr. Folk. Particularly, what Egypt desires is independence.
Possibly the United States can not recognize her independence, but
she would be glad if the United States could do so. But she asks
this, that there be a clause in section 6 making it clear that the status
of Egypt shall be within the jurisdiction of the league of nations
council in order that at least Egypt may go there and nave her right
to self-determination adjudicated.
Senator Johnson of Cfalifornia. You construe the league of nations
to mean that with the recognition of the situation now existing in
Egypt, it would be the duty of the United States hereafter, in case
Egyptians rebelled under tne league of nations, to refrain from aid,
if they saw fit to aid ?
Mr. Folk. To refrain from aiding the Egyptians ?
Senator Johnson of California. Yes.
Mr. Folk. My point is this, that as the annex now reads, Egypt
would be precluded from appeahng to the council of the league of
nations. We want Egypt to nave uie right to go before that coimcil
and to have her case adjudicated. Now with me recognition of this
condition unquaUfiedly, undoubtedly if Egypt should go before the
council as she intends to go, if a council is formed, she would be met
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 661
bv the plea from Great Britain, '* Why, Egypt is an internal question."
The United States has recognized the protectorate over them and in
doing that has recognized me present status, and it is not a matter
over which the council of the league of nations has any jurisdiction.
Senator Johnson of CaUfomia. The fact of the matter is, we did
recognize the protectorate, not in the treaty but by an independent
recognition some time later, did we not ?
Mr. Folk. I understand about a month ago there was a recognition
by the State Department.
Senator Johnson of California. Some of it was before that, while
the President was at Paris, and the Secretary of State was at Paris.
jMr. Folk. I think there was a recognition then.
Senator Johnson of California. It was then that the recognition
occurred, was it not ?
Mr. Folk. And this was written into the annex of the treaty.
Senator Swanson. Would it interrupt you to ask you a question ?
Mr. Folk. Not at all.
Senator Swanson. I would like to get it clear in my mind. I have
read some articles on this. Before the war, Egypt had as her
sovereign, Turkey.
Mr. Folk. Nominally.
Senator Swanson. 15'ominallv, and the ruler was called a khedive t
Mr. Folk. He was khedive then.
Senator Swanson. He was simpljr the governor of the Province ?
Mr. Folk. Ejgypt waspractically independent, subject only to this
nominal sovereignty of Turkey.
Senator Swanson. I have read an article somewhere, and I want
to see if I get it clear in my mind; that before the war the governor
of Egypt, the khedive, was simply the governor of a province.
Mr. Folk. No.
The Chairman. That is historically wrong.
Mr. Folk. He is absolute sovereign, subject only to this nominal
sovereignty of Turkey.
Senator Swanson. As I understand, the flag in Egypt was really
the Turkish fl^, was it not?
Mr. Folk. les.
Senator Swanson. Did not the money carry the stamp of the
Sultan of Turkey ?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Swanson. I have seen it stated that since then they
changed the name of the ruler from EZhediv.e to Sultan, and that the
word *' Sultan "is a radical term, indicating complete sovereignty,
while the Khedive was more or less of a subordinate.
Mr. Folk. No; *' Khedive" means sovereign or king, and the word
''Sultan" was used by Great Britain in appointing Prince Hussein
in order to distinguish his office from that oi the BLhedive from which
the other man was ousted.
Senator Swanson. I noticed an article written from a British
standpoint which indicated that the word *' Sultan" meant complete
sovereignty over Egypt by the Sultan, free from anybody else.
Mr. Folk. Yes; it does.
Senator Moses. That is to say, free of annual tribute.
Senator Swanson. And that the money there is now Egyptian
instead of Turkish t
Mr. Folk. Yes.
662 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
Senator Swanson. And that the flag of Egypt floats over every-
thing except the British consulate and the places where the British
are?
Mr. Folk. The Egyptian flag floats over everything except the
British flag, which is supreme.
Senator Swanson. I have seen it stated that the British flag floats
only over the British Embassy and where the troops are. Is that
true?
Mr. Folk. No; I do not understand it that wav. The British
flag is supreme in Egypt. They have an Egyptian flag, like the flag
of Virginia, or the flag of any State.
Senator Swanson. Three crescents and three stars ?
Mr. Folk. That is the flag of Egypt; like the flag of Virginia.
. Senator Swanson. Do you know why the three crescents and the
three stars were adopted ?
Mr. Folk. That was adopted as the form of the flag.
Senator Swanson. This article stated that that fla^ floated
supreme, except that the British had their flag over their canton-
ments or posts where the troops were, and over their embassy; but
that outside of that the Egyptian flag was supreme, and that the
money now had the stamp of the sultan, and that that evidenced
sovereignty, and it gave them more sovereignty than they had imder
Turkey. Is that true?
Mr. Folk. Great Britain has assumed sovereignty over Egypt,
and is practically annexing it to the British Empire.
Senator Swanson. Have vou put into the record the proclamation
in which she establishes tne protectorate, saying she will defend
and protect Egypt ?
Mr. Folk. 1 will come to that in a moment.
Senator Swanson. As I understand, there were two proclamations,
one proclamation dethroning the khedive
Mr. Folk. Yes; I have read that.
Senator Swanson. And the next one establishing the protectorate.
Mr. Folk. Yes ; I have that here and will read it in a moment.
In order to have it clear as to just what Great Britain had
Senator MosES. The khedivate was a hereditary oflSce in the
Egyptian royal family ?
Mr. Folk. Yes ; it was hereditary.
Senator Swanson. They have dethroned one ruler and put in
another, and call him the sultan ?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator SwAnson. Does the term *' sultan" indicate more sov-
ereignty than "khedive'^?
^fr. Folk. Not at all.
Senator Swanson. This article stated that it did.
Mr. Folk. ''Khedive'^ stands for sultan or king, and the term
"sultan'' stands for practically the same thing.
Now, in order to have it clear as to just what Great Britain did,
I will state that in an ofl&cial report of date November 1, 1914, it was
stated:
His Imperial 'Majesty the Sultan of Turkey has forwarded a circular to the great
pDwers directing their attention to the fact that the presence of the English troops in
£gypt does not permit him to exercise his suzerain ri^ts. Acting upon this basis,
the Khedive of Egypt, Abbas II, has also invited the English Government to with-
draw her troops from his country.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 66S
Again, on November 2, 1914, the report stated:
The Turkish ambassador at London, Tewfik Pascha, has presented to the foreign
office an ultimatum from the Khedive of Eg>'pt demanding the immediate evacua*
tion of Egypt by the English troops.
And so on December 18, 1914, England proclaimed the removal
bv her of the lawful Khedive of Egvpt and the appointment by
ffngland of Price Hussein, uncle of tne Khedive, as oultan of the
Throne. England's Sultan of Egypt is maintained on the throne of
Eeypt to-day, s^ainst the will of the Egyptian people, by the power
01 England's military forces.
In the London Times of December 19, 1914, appears the proclama-
tion, proclaiming the protectorate. It is rather long, and I will not
read it.
The Chairman Insert it in the record.
Mr. Folk Yes; I will ask to insert it in the record.
The proclamation referred to is as follows:
In view of the action of his Highness Abbas Hihni Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt,
who has adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's Government have seen fit to
depose him from the khediviate, and that high dignity has been offered, with the
title of Sultan of Egynt, to his Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living-
price of the family of Mohomet Ah, and has been accepted by him.
The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Prince Hussein, to be-
an honorary Knight Grand Cross of tne Order of the Bath on the occasion of his acces*
sion to the sultenate.
The King has been pleased to give directions for the following appointment to the*
order of St. Michael and St. George.
His Excellency Hussein Rushdi Pasha, president of the council of ministers of
His Highness the Sultan of Egypt, to be an honorary knight, Grand Cross of the Order.
The following notice is issued by the foreign oflSce:
"His Majesty's Government having been informed that the Government of the
French Republic have recognized the British protectorate over Egypt, His Britannic
Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs hereby elves notice that Hia
Maiesty's Grovemment adhere to the Franco-Moorish treaty of March 30^ 1912.
*^The foreign office communicates the following letter addressed to Prmce Hussein^
by the acting high commissioner in Egypt:
"Cairo, December 19, 1914'
"Your Highness: 1 am instructed by His Britannic Majesty's principal secretary
of state for foreign affairs to bring to tlie notice of your Highness the circumstances
preceding the outbreak of war between His Britannic Majesty and the Sultan oi
Turkey and the changes which that war entails in the status of Egypt.
"In the Ottoman cabinet there were two parties: On one side was a moderate
party, mindful of the sympathy extended by Great Britain to every effort toward
reform in Turkey, who recognized that in the war in which His Majesty was already
en^^aged no Turkish interests were concerned and welcomed the assurances of Hib
Majesty and his allies that neither in Egypt nor elsewhere would the war be used as
a pretext for any action injurious to Ottoman interests. On the other side, a band of
unscrupulous military adventures looked to find in a war of aggression waged in
concert with His Majesty's enemies means of retrieving the disasters — ^muitary,
financial, and economic — into which they had already plunged their country. Hop-
ing to the last that wiser counsels must prevail, His Majesty and his allies, in spite
of repeated violations of their rights, abstained from retaliatory action until com-
pelled thereto by the crossing of the Egyptian frontier by armed bands and by the
unprovoked attacks on Russian open ports by Turkish naval forces under German
officers.
**His Majesty's Government are in possession of ample evidence that ever since* the
outbreak of war with Germany His Highness Abbas Hihni Pasha, late Khedive of
E^pt, has definitely thrown in his lot with His Majesty's enemies.
** From the facts above set out it results that the rights over the Egj'ptian executive
of the Sultan or of the late Khedive Are forfeited to His Majesty.
*'Hi8 Majesty's Government have already, through the general officer commanding-
Hifl Majesty's forces in Egypt, accepted exclusive responsibility for the defense of
Egypt during the present war. It remains to lay down the form of the future govern-
664 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
ment of the country freed, as I have stated , from all rights of suzerainty or other
rights heretofore claimed by the Ottoman Government.
**0f the rights thus accruing to His Majesty, no less than of those exercised in
Egypt during the last 30 years of reform, His Majesty's Government regard themselves
as trustees for the inhabitants of Egypt. And His Majesty's Government have de-
cided that Great Britain can best fulfill the responsibilities she has incurred toward
Eg3rpt by tl^e formal declaration of a British protectorate and by the government of
the country under «uch protectorate by a prince of the khedival family.
"In these circumstances I am instructed by His Majesty's Government to inform
Your Highness that by reason of your age and experience you have been chosen as the
Prince of the family of Mehemet Ali most worthy to occupy the Khedivial position,
with the title and style of the Sultan of Egypt; and in inviting Your Highness to
accept the responsibilities of your high office, I am to give you the formal assurance
that Great Britain accepts the fullest responsibility for the defense of the territories
under Your Highness against all aggression whencesoever coming. And His Majesty 's
Government authorizes me to declare that, after the establi^ment of the British
protectorate now announce, all Egyptian subjects, wherever they may be, will be
entitled to receive the protection of His Majesty's Government.
'*With Ottoman suzerainty there will disappear the restrictions heretofore placed
by Ottoman firmans upon the numbers and organization of Your Highness s Army and
upon the grant of Your Highness of honorific distinctions.
"As regards foreign relations, His Majesty's Government deem it most consistent
with the new responsiMUties assumed by Great Britain that the relations between
Your Highness 's Government and the representatives of foreign powers should be
henceforth conducted through His Majesty's representative in Cairo.
'*His Majesty's Government have repeatedly placed on record that the system of
treaties known as the Capitulations, by which Your Highness 's Government is bound,
are no longer in harmony with the development of the country; but I am expressly
authorized to state that in the opinion of Mis Majesty's Government the revision of
these treaties may most conveniently be postponed until the end of the present war.
^ ' In the field of internal administration I am to remind Your Highness that, in
consonance with the traditions of British nolicy . it has been the aim of His Majesty's
Government, while working through and in tne closest association with the con-
stituted Egyptian authorities, to secure individual liberty, to promote the spread of
education, to further the development of the natural resources of the country, and in
juch measure as the degree of enlightenment of public opinion may permit, to asso-
ciate the governed in me task of ^vemment. Not only is it the intention of His
Majesty's Government to remain faithful to such policy, but they are convinced that
the clearer defiinition of Great Britain's position in the country will accelerate iHt)greaB
towards self-^vemment.
* * The religious convictions of Egyptian subjects will be scrupulously respected, as
are those of His Majesty's own subjects, whatever their creed; nor need I affirm to
Tour Highness that in declaring Egypt free from any duty of obedience to those who
liave usurped political power at (x>nstantinople His Majesty's Government are ani-
mated by no hostility toward the Idialifate. The past history of E^pt shows, indeed,
that the loyalty of Egyptian Mahomedans toward the khalif ate is mdependent of any
la.a 1* « n A T^ J _ J /^ A. — A.1. — 1
Your Highness will be specially concerned, and, in carrying out such reforms as may
be considered necessary, your Highness may count upon the sympathetic support of
His Majesty's Government.
" I am to add that His Majesty's Government rely with confidence upon the loyalty,
good sense, and self-restraint of Egyptian subjects to facilitate the task of the general
officer commanding His Majesty's forces, who is intrusted with the maintenance of
internal order, and with the prevention of the rendering of aid to the enemy.
**I have, etc.,
"(Sd.) MiLNB Chbbtham."
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 665
. The New Era.
end of an anomalous situation.
[By our special correspondent.]
Cairo, December 18.
The Ottoman suzerainty over Egypt has at last given place to a British protectorate.
The proclamation announcing Great Britain's decision and explaining the cause is
just published, and the thunder of 101 guns has laid the ghost of Turkish rule.
Only the madness of Egvpt's ex-suzerain has compelled Great Britain once for all
to cozmrm and regularize ner position in the Valley of the Nile. Until the Anglo-
French agreement of 1904 our very occupation was not officially recognized by Europe.
That agreement, though it involved the recognition by France, ana subsequently oy
other powers, of our predominant interests in Egypt, was yet a self-denying ordinance
in that we bound ourselves therein not to make any change in the status of the country.
Neither the Turkish adventure in 1906 nor the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
by Austria-Hungary, whose foreim minister, the late Count Aehrenthal, undoubtedly
believed we should follow his lead and annex Egypt, nor the proclamation of a French
protectorate over Morocco in 1911, induced us to alter the status of Turkey's vassal.
It was not till the maintenance of the status quo had been rendered impossible by
Turkey's gratuitous attack on Great Britain and her allies that the British Govern-
ment took the one step, short of annexation, that she could take with justice to herself
and the E^'ptians.
Such a situation, with England in beneficent occupation of a Turkish vassal State
and at war with the nominal suzerain, who had never recognized our occupation, and
had never conferred the slightest benefit upon Egypt, was aUke intolerable and absurd.
A solution which might have placed the Egyptians in closer relations with the
British Empire might have been adopted. But nothing has impressed more the
intellectual elements among the Arab peoples, whom the ran Islamists of the Levan-
tine elements of Constantinople and Jewish Salonika were striving to combine against
us, than our unremitting efforts to prepare the Egyptians for self-government and our
al^tinence from all action calculated to repress the development of local institutions.
Again, we are at war on behalf of small nationalities. None can deny the growth of
Egyptian racial feeling, and this racial feeling — ^particularism, call it what you will —
monts respect all the more so when it is remembered that the Egyptian people, with
insignificant exceptions, have shown good sense and good feeling in the present crisis.
More drastic action, while simplifying the problem of how to deal with the foreign
jurisdictions in Egjrpt, would have hurt the feelings of many Egyptian Anglophiles
and might have put a weapon into the hands of our enemies.
None can doubt that under the British protectorate, proclaimed on a day which
Moslems regard as auspicious, Egypt will prosper and advance even more rapidly than
it has yet done, and will be all thehappier for the disappearance of Ottoman suzerainty.
Once a cruel reality, that suzerainty bad long become a shadow, but it was a shadow
that still troubled some men's dreams in Egypt.
Senator Swanson. What is the date of that ?
Mr. Folk. December 14, 1914.
We are told that the league of nations will apply the same prin-
ciples between nations that have long been applied between indi-
viduals by municipiJ law. If an individual were to appoint himself
trustee oi your property and take your property by virtue of his
appointment, that would, imder municipal law, land nim behind the
bars. England appointed herself trustee, and under that self-
appointment took over Egypt. Now, as a war measure, that was
accepted and not objected to, and the Egyptian troops fought on the
side of the Allies- but the war is now over. Shall Egypt be handed
over to Great Britain as spoils of war contrary to the declarations in
the covenant of the league of nations and of the principles for which
America fought? When Great Britain's pledges of altruism are set
down side by side with the treatment of Egypt by Great Britain the
result must be awesome to the democratic mind. Of aU the coim tries
at war the aims and motives of Great Britain and America were
stated to the world with the greatest clarity and in the most impressive
666 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
way. On November 10, 1914, Mr. Lloyd- Greorge in a spjeech called
the world to witness the utter unselfishness of Great Britain in the
war. *'As the Lord liveth,'' he declared, ''England does not seek
a yard of territory. We are in this war,'' he said, ''from motives of
purest chivalry, to defend the weak."
On Februarv 27, 1915, Premier Lloyd George asserted with dra-
matic fervor tnat the suggestion that England desired "territorial or
other aggrandizement'* was an infamous Tie of the enemy.
Senator Johnson of California. What was the date of that?
Mr. Folk. Februarv 27, 1915.
Senator Johnson of California. Where do you find those speeches ?
Mr. Folk. In any daily newspaper, in the Associated Press reports.
Aside from '| making the world safe for democracy," the reasons
given for America's entrance into the war were, "For the right of all
who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government,"
and "for the rights and liberties of small nations."
President Wilson, in his great address at Mount Vernon, the home
of Washington, on July 4, 1918, said — you are familiar with it, but
I will read it again lest we forget— and the ideals expressed in this
speech and in the 14 points, I believe, had more to do with winning
the war than a thousand cannon or a million men. President
Wilson in his Mount Vernon address said:
There can be but one iasue. The settlement must be final. There can be no
compromise. No halfway decision would be tolerable. No halfway decision is
conceivable. These are the ends for which the associated peoples of the world are
ftehting, and which must be conceded them before there can be peace. ♦ ♦ ♦
The settlement of everj^ question, whether of territory, or sovereignty, or economic
arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that
settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis of the material
interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different
settlement for the sake of its own influence or mastery. ♦ ♦ ♦ What we seek Ib the
rei^ of law based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized
opinion of mankind.
Shall Egypt, without the consent of the Egyptians, be turned over
to England for the sake of England's influence or mastery ? Let us
be true to the ideals expressed in President Wilson's Mount Venion
address.
In the 14 points advanced by President Wilson we find the following
pertinent and applicable provisions :
Point 14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants
for the purpose of affording mutual guaranties of political independence and terri-
torial integrity to great and small States alike.
This principle allied to Egypt would lead to a conclusion directly
opposite from the indorsement of the British seizure of Egypt and
destruction of Egypt's independence.
Applying the principle of the seventh point to Egypt and only
substituting the word ''Egypt" for '' Belgium," the seventh point
would read :
Egypt, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any
attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free
nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among
the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the govern-
ment of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure
and validity of international law is forever impaired.
How can it be justly said that Egypt is outside the realm of the
principles of the 14 pomts, and that England may deny the right of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 667
self-determination to Egypt? If Great Britain's holding of Egypt
by military force shoula be indorsed and ratified by the very instru-
ment which condemns that character of international aggression,
would not the * Vhole structure and validity of international law''
be forever impaired ? Would not the covenant as to the rights of
all nations to self-determination and to freedom from aggressions
by other nations be made a hollow mockery? Shall the principles
of democracy, so beautifully set forth in the league of nations cove-
nant, be repudiated in Section VI of the annex to the treaty ?
Senator Knox. Governor, do you claim that this treaty in any
other way, except inferentially making it an internal question,
ratifies it?
Mr. Folk. No, sir; I do not find anything else in the treaty, and I
charge that Great Britain intends to keep Egypt, that Great Britain
will not give up Egypt. If Great Britain will announce that she
intends to give up Egypt, that she wiU turn Egypt over to the league
of nations or to a mandatory, that will be a different proposition,
but there has been no such announcement, and from the circumstances
which I will detail in a moment it is not likely that there wiU be any
such announcement.
Senator Johnson of California. The only part of the treaty with
which you deal is that portion of article 147 whereby Germany de-
clares that she recognizes the protectorate proclaimed over Egypt
by Great Britain ?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. On December 18, 1914?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Johnson of California. Independently of the treaty the
United States some few months ago recognized this protectorate as
well. Now perhaps vou are going to reach that point, but I wish to
ask you, what can he done so far as this treaty is concerned, to
accomplish the object which you suggest?
Air. Folk. By mserting the words 'Hhe status of Egypt shall
be within the jurisdiction of the council of the league of nations."
That one sentence inserted in section 6 would relieve any question.
Senator Johnson of California. But do you consider the treaty
as dealing with the status of Egvpt ? Does it not simply require the
recognition by Germany of the British protectorate ?
Mr. Folk. It merely provides that Germany recognizes this pro-
tectorate; but when that is indorsed without qualification, we like-
wise recognize and indorse it. It is not a protectorate. If it were
a protectorate actually, that would be one thing, but it is a masked
annexation. We would recognize the condition. We would deliver
over Egypt to British bondage forever if there were no qualifications
there.
Senator Johnson of California. We have done that already by our
recognition, have we not ?
ilr. Folk. What I want you to do is to put in the treaty a clause
providing that the league of nations shall nave jurisdiction. If we
nave done it, then let it be undone, as this clause would undo it.
Senator Knox. Do you recognize this proposition, that we migh.t
be estopped from denying that status ? By otu* treaty with Germany
we seek recognition of the status of a protectorate over Egypt. That
668 TBEATT OF PEACE WITH QEBKAKY.
is the thing that we made Germany do. Would we not be equitably-
estopped from denying that status ourselves ?
Mr. Folk. I think unquestionably we would. We could not deny
that status. In other words, God seems to be in the covenant, but
the devil in the annex to this treaty. '
Permanent |>eace can not be founded on injustice. If Great Britain
seeks the turning over of Egypt to her as a condition defining the
covenant, then we may well Question her sincerity in signing the
covenant. If Great Britain really intends to turn ESgypt back to the
Egyptians, or over to the council of the league oi nations, Great
Britain should not object to a clause specifically giving jurisdiction
over Egypt to the council of the league of nations. If Great Britain
does not intend to tiurn Egypt over to the Egyptians or to the council
of the legaue of nations, then Great Britain has no right to object to
such a clause. If Great Britain was not sincere in proclaiming the
beautiful principles of democracy in the covenant, then the sooner
we find that out the better, and it were better to find it out before
the knot is tied and it is too late.
Senator Hakding. Governor, vou overlook the point that the council
of the league of nations is maae up by the very powers that have
made this treaty.
Afr. Folk. Yes, I know that very well ; but when you put in this
clause
Senator Harding. Would not the cure be to leave Egypt to her
own fortunes, without putting her under the control of the league ?
Mr. Folk. That would be the maximum. That is the desire, the
hope, the prayer of the Egyptians, to be independent. They would
like to be recognized as independent, but they ask at least that they
be not precluded from going before the league of nations.
Senator Knox. What is goLog to become of your theories if there
is to be no league of nations ?
Mr. Folk. If there is no league of nations then, of course, that is
a different proposition. I do not think we could assume to act with
reference to Egypt except through a possible treaty.
Senator Knox. But tnere is opposition to the league of nations.
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Knox. Suppose the league of nations is stricken out, how
are we going to help you then in this treaty ?
Mr. Folk. You could if you should recognize the independence
of Egypt, but that would possibly be going beyond what you might
desire to do.
Senator Knox. The executive branch of our Government has
recognized the protectorate ?
Mr. Folk. Yes.
Senator Knox. And it has exclusive jurisdiction of such matters.
Mr. Folk. Undoubtedly, except when it comes up in a treaty, as
it does here. But I am speaking only upon the assmnption that
there is to be a league of nations estabhshed and that this treaty wiD
be adopted with the covenant of the league of nations. Then upon
that assumption we ask for the insertion of this clause so as to give
Egypt the right to go before the council of the league of nations. If
Great Britain merely intends to keep Egypt until the creation of the
league of nations, so that Egypt shall be saved from outside aggres-
sion, that is one thing; but if that were the intention of Great Britain,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 669
why should she ask that the seizure and holding of Egypt by her be
recognized and approved by the other nations f Is it not apparent
that the purpose oi Great Britain is to keep Egypt permanently as a
part of her dominions, and to do this if possible with the approval of
the civihzed nations oi the world ?
Mr. Frederic Courtland Penfield was consul general of the United
States to Egypt, and wrote a book entitled ''Present-Day Egypt/'
In that book, on page 315, he gives some reasons why Great Britain
would probably not want to give up Egypt. He says:
Great Britain has well-nigh made an English lake of the Mediterranean; the outlet
of this lake, the Suez Canal, is the key to the whole scheme of British rule in India and
the East. To control the canal, by force of arms if necessary, is the predominant
reason why England remains in Egypt. It serves her purpose perfectly to have 5,000
redcoats within a few hours' journey of the great international waterway and a guard-
ship at each terminus of it. Without the absolute control of this connecting link
between Occident and Orient, 36,000,000 people in Great Britain could not expect
long to hold in subjection 400,000,000 in India and to govern a quarter of the globe.
And again, on page 316, he says:
An incidental reason why Great Britain retains her hold upon Egypt is that the cotton
crop of the Nile Valley reduces more and more each year the dependence of British
spindlers upon the cotton fields of the United States. .
dearly, if the principles of the covenant of the league of nations
are to be made impartially effective, the status of Egypt should be
declared to be a matter of adjustment by the league of nations, when
the league of nations shall have been formed and in active operation.
What title has Great Britain to Egypt? Ordinarilv a country
acquires title to territory by discovery, oy purchase, or by conquest.
England did not discover Egypt, did not purchase Egypt, and it has
made no lawful conquest of Egypt. Entering Egypt for the purpose
of collecting debts and promismg the world to withdraw after tem-
porary occupation; seizing Egypt as a war measure by reason of the
appearance of Turkey as a combatant; that is the title of Great
Britain to Egypt. Now the war is over, and the league of nations is
presumed, supposed, or assumed to be estabUshed, and government
is to be based upon the consent of the governed, and this being so,
shall the title of seizing nations to their plunder be recognized?
If so, the war will have f afled of its chief purposes and victory will have
been robbed of her most precious jewel.
The league of nations, we are told, would apply the same principles
between nations that have long been applied between individuals by
municipal law.
If an individual were to forcibly intrude into the home of another
for the ostensible purpose of collecting a debt and then should assume
proprietorship and direction over the entire household upon the
theory that it is best for the owners of the house, and then should ask
that his title to dominion and control of the house be recognized, he
would, under municipal law, land in jail as a trespasser.
If, under the league of nations, the same principles are to be
applied between nations, Great Britain would have to get out of
the land of Egypt, where she is a trespasser by force and without title.
Great Britam holds Egypt not by right of any title, but by might
of military force.
The Government of Japan has announced that Japan will not
hold Shantung in violation of the rights of the people there; that
670 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
she will give Shantungback to China. She may not be sincere in
that announcement. That is not a question to discuss here. But
there has been no announcement that Great Britain will be even
that imselfish as to Egypt. Indeed, Great Britain's occupation of
Egypt imder pretense of collecting debts or protecting the Egyptian
Government from *' rebels/' and her continued occupation in viola-
tion of her promises to withdiaw and the later seizure and present
holding of Egypt in violation of the rights of the people of jEgypt,
do not lend encouragement to the hope that Great Britain wifl act
imselfishly toward Egypt. There is no defense, in any of the books,
as to Great Britain's holding of Egypt. It is a stain upon the history
of England and is so recognized. They only say in defense, "Well,
Great Britain has given good government down in Egypt." We
might have good government in this coimtry imder a kin^, but that
would be no reason why we would be satisfied with a King. We
want more than good government — we want self-government. And
so do the Egyptians. No amount of good government can com-
pensate for the loss of self-government. England's seizure and
continued holding of Egypt, not by right but by might, is out of
keeping with the world's new temper.
(Jnly by the exercise of the gospel of force can the holding of Egypt
be maintained. The cruel disappointment of the Egyptians wno
fought so bravely with the Allies to overthrow autocracy and to sus-
tain democracy throughout the world, only to be denied the things
for which they and America fought, and to be placed under the steel
of the military autocracy of England, means oittemess that ill ac-
cords with that spirit of the league of nations hich speaks for right
and justice to all people, and that no people shall be governed with-
out their consent.
The inevitable outcome is recorded in the daily press. Most of
the news from Egypt is suppressed by Great Britain, We hear very
little. Once in a while something leaks through. For instance,
there was an Associated Press dispatch of July 25 last, and I quote
from the headlines of the St. Louis Republic of July 25, 1919:
Eight hundred Eg^'ptians die, 1,600 wounded, when British put down revolution.
Is there any wonder ? Would not Americans fight under the same
circumstances? Would not Englishmen do the same? Shall the
same instrument guaranteeing the right of self-determination to the
people of all nations approve the denial of self-determination to
Egypt? Is the world to continue to be ruled by might, or are we
really in the dawn of a new day when right and justice shall reign
throughout the earth ?
The Egyptians fought on the side of the Allies, beUeving that they
were fighting for the right of self-determination and for the principle
that no people should be governed without their consent. When the
armistice was signed the Egyptians rejoiced, even more than we re-
joiced, for they were glad that the military autocracy had been over-
thrown, that the world had been made, as they believed, safe for
democracy. They were glad further because they thought it meant
the independence of Egypt. They did not doubt that they would
have the right of self-determination, and that the time of their being
governed without their consent was about to end. The lemslative
assembly of Egjrpt then appointed this commission to go to raris to
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 671
■
the peace conference, thinking that there would be a leaeue of nations,
and that Egypt would be a part of it. There was joy throughout the
land of Eg^pt. A song of gladness was heard up and down the Nile.
This commission went on its way to Paris, but when it reached Malta
the members of the commission were astounded when they were
arrested by order of the British Government and interned in jail.
Senator Johnson of California. Where?
Mi. Folk. At Malta. The British Government did not intend that
Egypt should be heard before the league of nations, or before the
peace conference. Not only that, but the British Government did
not intend that the cause of Eg^pt should be heard in the United
States, for upon order of the British Government this commission is
interned in raris to-day, and passports have been denied not only to
members of the commission to come to the United States, but to any
representative of the commission to come. If you are to consider
this treaty long enough, I wish you would send tor Mr. Zaghlul, the
first man of Egypt, and let him tell you the story. Great Britain
can not claim tnat he is a mere agitator and not reliable, for in every
book upon Egypt written by Englishmen there are comments upon
Mr. Zaghlul, and compliments upon his record. For instance, from
the book by Mr. J. Alexander, page 64, called ''The Truth About
Egypt," I read from page 64, as follows:
The appointment, in October, of Said Bey Zaghloul as minister of public instruc-
tion was one of the most opportune events of the year, and one of the very few which
received the approbation of all parties. The appointment of Mr. Dunlop as adviser
to the ministry some months earlier had raisea the fury of the Anglophobe papers;
but the selection of Said Bey Zaghloul — a man of Egyptian origin and tried abili-
ties— emphasized the readiness of the British agency to support the genuinely pro-
gressive element among the Moslem natives of the country . It refuted the arguments
so often repeated by Mustapha Pasha Kamel that no Egyptain of independent judg-
ment and progressive views ever received the due recognition imder the '4ron rule
of the occupation'*; and it called forth the unanimous hopes of the native papers that
it signified the beginning of a much-needed reform, and was in answer to their criti-
cisms of Lord Cromer's past policy.
It was he who instituted the reforms for the education of women
in Egypt. He is the head of this commission. He is detained in
Paris Dy order of the British Government. The British Government
does not intend that you shall hear him. You may get him if you
can. I do not know whether you can or not. But if you would like
to hear a story, the story of Egypt's wrong, you can have no better
witness than Mr. Zaghloul.
In behalf of the commission and as counsel for the commission we
ask that Section VI, articles 147 to 154, of the annex to the Versailles
treaty clearly state that the status of Egypt shall be within the jur-
isdiction of the council of the league of nations.
Whether Egypt shall be turned over to Great Britain as spoils of
war can not be an internal Question unless it be made so by the
treaty itself fixing the status ot Egypt as internal to Great Britain.
America has always been the refuge of the oppressed of every land,
and freedom of discussion of complaints of aggression has been a
matter of course. The condemnation of Egypt without a hearing, to
British bondage and subjection would mean continued mowing
down by British guns of these liberty-seeking people who fought
with America to make the world safe from military autocracy.
If, on the other hand, the Egyptians are assured of a hearing of
their case by the council of the league of nations, or some interna-
672 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
tional tribunal, there would, no doubt, be peace and quiet in Egypt,
in the knowledge that an international forum will be open to them to
determine their status and for the adjustment of their ffrievances.
Thus the league of nations will have justified one of the sublime
purposes of its conception in affording a remedy to oppressed nations
and enabling them to obtain an adjuoication of their right to national
self-determination by appealing to justice rather than to force.
There can be no permanent peace based upon a foundation of
injustice. Peace can only come to the world permanently through
the application of the principles of self-government and of democracy
to the peoples of all the world. Not only in the covenant should they
be expressed, but they should not be repudiated in the annex to the
covenant. When peace between the nations shall be based upon
justice, then and not till then may we confidently look forward to the
coming of the day foretold by the prophets of old, when there shall be
peace on earth and good will in the hearts of the children of men. I
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I would be
glad to answer any questions.
Senator Swanson. Egypt, as I understand, has a legislative body.
Do you know to what extent it functions; what authority and power
it has ?
Mr. Folk. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. What authority has that legislative body?
Mr. Folk. Until 1913 the authority was very limited. Lord
Kitchener in 1913 recommended the present legislative assembly of
Egypt. A majority of that body is elected by the people of Egypt.
They now have authority to maKe laws.
Senator Swanson. I understand that three-fourths are elected and
one-fourth appointed. How is the one-fourth appointed ?
Mr. Folk. One-fourth is appointed by the Khedive. I read a while
ago how it was selected.
The Chairman. Gov. Folk put that in the record.
Senator Swanson. I was not in at the time.
Mr. Folk. Eighty-nine members — three-fourths — are chosen by
district electors chosen by popular vote in proportion to population.
Twenty-three are appointed. There are four Copts, three Seduoins,
two merchants, one pedagogue, and one municipal representative.
Senator Swanson. I wiU read that. Did you put in the record
what authority they have ?
Mr. Folk, i es. They have a legislative authority at this time.
Senator Harding. Governor, I want to ask you, was any voice for
Egypt deard at the conference ?
MT. Folk. Absolutely no voice for Egypt was allowed to be heard
before the peace conference, and this is the first time Egypt has been
heard in connection with the discussion of the league of nations and
the peace treaty.
Senator Harding. Do vou know if the American commissioners
and the special agents of hiunanity knew anything about Egypt's
cry for assistance ?
Mr. Folk. I have not heard whether they knew or not.
The Chairman. They recognized the protectorate.
Senator Johnson of California. Were the members of the commis-
sion in Paris during the deliberations of the peace conference, at any
time)
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEKMASTY. 673
Mr. Folk. They were interned at Malta, and when the people of
Egypt heard that Zagdul was interned — ^he is the idol of the people
oi Egypt — ^revolution broke out.
Senator Swanson. The real status of Egypt would have to be
fixed in the treaty with Turkey ?
Mr. Folk. Yes; I understand that the treaty with Turkey attempts
to turn over the title of the Sultan of Turkey to Great Britain, not
to Egypt. There would be injustice piled upon injustice; and of
course you want to see the treaty with Turkey before you can act
intelligently in regard to Egypt. You are quite correct, Senator.
Let me answer Senator tfohnson's question.
Senator Knox. Is there not every presiunption that they will
require the same recognition of the protectorate in the treaty with
Turkev that they have in the treaty with Germany?
Mr. Folk. Absolutely. I understand that is in the Turkish treaty.
Now, they were interned at Malta, and when the people of Egypt
heard that Zaghlul was interned, revolution broke out. It was
reported that 800 Egyptians were killed, but I am told by people of
Egypt that 30,000 were killed; that they used machine gims from
airplanes and mowed the people down. Finally, after Zaghlul and
his associates had been kept in Malta for a month, Gen. Allenby
advised the British Government that the commission ought to be
allowed to proceed to Paris. The commission thereupon was released
and went to Paxis; and they found to their horror when they reached
Paris that two days before this clause had been written into the
treaty. They asked for a hearing and it was denied. Then they
asked to see President Wilson, but he could ^ot see them. They
went to the American consul,. and asked for pa^ports to the United
States in order that their story should be tola in the land of the free.
The American consulate, said of course that they could have pass-
ports, but three days later the American consul and the .British
consul called upon the commission and advised them that neither
they nor any representative would be given passports to come to the
Umted States. And they are kept there to-day, imable to get
passports to any other coimtry.
That simply shows some injustice that Great Britain desires to
cover up. Aight does not fear the truth and light. Injustice always
seeks the dar^ess. Are there any further questions ?
Senator Swanson. As I understand, what you ask is to give juris-
diction of the league to the Egyptians.
Mr. Folk. We ask that in the event
Senator Swanson. Do the Egyptians favor the league of nations
to cover their case ?
Mr. Folk. They would favor it, undoubtedly, if they could get
before the league of nations. Let me say this, tnat they are entitled
to independence; as much entitled to independence as we were in 1776.
But if it is insisted that they must be imder a mandatory, under
Section XXII of the covenant, then the United States should be that
mandatory and not Great Britain. Great Britain can never rule
Egypt except by the utter extinction of every Egyptian. That is
what they say.
Senator Swanson. As I understand it, the Egyptians look with
confidence in presenting their case to the league of nations, and would
like to have the league of nations adopt it.
135546—19 43
674 TREATY OF PEAOB WITH GBBlCAinr.
Mr. Folk. If they are not prevented from going before it.
Senator Swanson. If they were permitted to appear before the
lea^e of nations, they would be pleased.
Mr. Folk. It offers them a remedy and a forum in which to plead
their case.
The Chaibman. Do you think the council of the league of nations
as proposed would be likely to change their status ?
Mr. Folk. Of course, they would like to reduce the vote of Great
Britain in the coimcil.
The Chairman. She has only one vote in the council, but have they
looked over the other countries and considered whether they would
be apt to change their status?
Mr. Folk. Of coiu*se, you can not tell about a court beforehand.
I notice here, in answer to Senator Fall's question 13, something
that I did not understand, where the President says:
There has been a provisional agreement as to the disposition of these overseas pos-
sessions whose confirmation and execution is dependent on the approval of the league
of nations, and the United States is a party to tnat provisional agreement.
Whether that includes Egypt or not I do not know. I presume
you have that agreement.
The Chairman. What agreement?
Mr. Folk. That he refers to in question No. 13.
Senator Swakson. Read it a^ain.
Senator Johnson of Califorma. Of coiu^e we have not the agree-
ments.
Senator Harding. On what ground do you assume that we have.
Mr. Folk. I have heard that you have oeen asking for them, and
the Bible says, '*Ask and you shall receive," and I assume that you
have received.
Senator Knox. Are you reading the question or the answer?
Mr. Folk. I am only reading the answer because the paper I have
only gives the answer.
^nator Knox. That is what I wanted to know.
Mp. Folk. These are the President's words [reading]:
There has been a provisional agreement as to the disposition of these overseas
possessions whose confirmation and execution is dependent on the approval of the
league of nations, and the United States is a party to that provisional agreement. "
The Chairman. I think he says elsewhere that it is not in his
possession and that he could not send it to us.
Mr. Folk. Of course if that included Egypt, it would be like the
judges of a court getting together and decreeing how they would
decide a case beforehand.
The Chaibman. On that matter of the power of the league of
nations, the United States, which has the power of recognition^ has
recognized theprotectorate. It is estopped.
Mr. Folk. The Senate is not estopped.
The Chairman. I grant you the Senate is not estopped.
Mr. Folk. But unless you put that clause in, then
The Chairman. I know that point has been made before, but I
am getting back of that; but in the coimcil of the league of nations,
to wiich you ask us to give you access, the United States would be
estopped under that recognition.
Mr, Folk. It would be estopped imless you write into the treaty
this clause.
TREATY OF PEAGGB WITH GERMANY. 675
The Chairman. No; I am assuming that we do write it in, that
- the status is to be determined by the council of the league of nations.
When they get in theie they ^will find themselves in the presence of
'^' men representing the United States who are estopped by the Presi-
dent's recognition.
Mr. Folk. I do not think so, if you will write it in the treaty that
way.
The Chairman. All you write in the treaty is to give them the
right to go to the council.
^ lifr. Folk. And give the council jurisdiction. Great Britain would
then be estopned &om treating Egypt as an internal question. The
treaty expressly includes that idea.
The Chairman. The President could tmn around and say with
• great force, '*The authority of the United States, which has the power
to recognize — that is, the executive authority — ^has recognized this
protectorate.''
Mr. Folk. Absolutely. And the answer would be, ''Temporarily.''
And the treaty has expressly given jurisdiction to the council over
: Egypt, and the treaty is the oocument that covers the council and
not an executive temporary recognition.
The Chairman. I shoula be sorry to have to take that chance if
I was an EJgyptian.
Senator Swanson. And Egypt agrees with confidence to the
covenant of the league of nations ?
Mr. Folk. If you do not have a league of nations, Egypt would be
hopeless. She would be in the grasp of Great Britain to be ground
under her heel forever. Her only nope is through some sort of a
league. You gentlemen here would have no concern about Egypt if
you were about to make a treaty.
Senator Johnson of California. Is it not a fact that your only hope
in the league of nations is in the amendment ?
Mr. Folk. In the amendment.
Senator Johnson of California. And you have no hope in the league
of nations unless we amend this treaty ?
Mr. Folk. Absolutely. Unamended, Egypt would be worse than
hopeless because she would have no remray. She would have not
only Great Britain to contend with, but other countries, including
the United States. But with this amendment adopted she would
have some remedy.
The Chairbcan. Merely as a matter of speculation, if Egypt comes
into tiiat forum, the council of the league. Great Britain would not
/ vote to change her status ?
Mr. Folk. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think Japan would ?
Mr. Folk. Well, I would not like to go over the different members
of the court and try to determine in advance how they might vote.
Of course die league is founded on justice. You could not tell in
advance how each member is going to vote, and if this league is not
founded on justice, then it will be the greatest curse to mankind.
Senator Moses. You have already pointed out that Great Britain
and France already had an agreement with respect to Egypt. Would
not that prevent France from voting with the E^gyptians f
Mr. Folk. If that is true, then indeed they are hopeless. But
if the league of nations is to be formed on the basis of justice, that is a
676 TBEATT OT PEAOB WITH GEBHAHTT.
diflFerent proposition. Now we do not know what is in this agreement
spoken oi here, and we do not know what might be in secret agree-
ments. I have an article here in the Century Magazine, where the
writer says there are six agreements between Great Britain, France,
and Italy respecting these eastern countries.
Senator Johnson of California. Who is the author?
Mr. Folk. This is written by Herbert Adams Gibbons. He
discusses article 23 of the covenant.
The Chairman. Mr. Gibbons has sent to the committee and asked
to lay a mass of papers before them in regard to Egypt, which I
think you have covered.
Senator Moses. You feel certain about this provisional agreement ?
Mr. Folk. What provisional agreement?
Senator Moses. That you have been telling us about, for the
disposition of overseas possessions.
Mr. Folk. I do not know anything about it. I have never seen
it, but I merely called your attention to the clause in the answer of
the President to Senator Fall's question 13. I asked if you had not
seen this provisional agreement, and whether it included Egypt or
not. The chairman says he has not seen it. He does not know
that he will see it.
Senator BLarding. The President says there is such an agreement V
Mr. Folk. To use his exact language again [reading] :
There has been a provisional agreement a8 to the disposition of these overseas pos-
sessions whose confirmation and execution is dependent on the approval of the league
of nations, and the United States is a party to that provisional agreement.
Senator Moses. What date is that?
Mr. Folk. August 21.
Senator Moses. What is the date of the President's statement, in
the paper of August 21 1
Mr. Folk. His statement is dated August 21, and is published in
the afternoon papers of August 21.
Senator Moses. I call your attention in that connection, Gov. Folk,
to the stenographic report of the meeting held at the White House,
Tuesday, August 19. Toward the conclusion of it I spoke to the
President about otur taking only an undivided one-fifth part of the
German overseas possessions, and asked him if there had been any
plan made for the disposition of those overseas possessions, and he
said, ^^I have not thought about that at all." I tnen asked him:
You have no plans to suggest or recommendation to make to Congress?
And he answered :
Not yet, sir; I am waiting until the treaty is disposed of.
And yet the next day or two days after, he makes the statement
which you read, that tne United States is a party to a provisional
agreement for the disposition of the overseas possessions.
Mr. Folk. Of course I am not here to discuss the answers of the
President except in so far as he has mentioned a provisional agree-
ment, and to ask if that provisional agreement covers the case of
Egypt, and if it does, whether we would not be in this position, as
Senator Lodge has intimated, the members of the Supreme Court
might go outeide and agree on how they will decide a case, subject
merely to entering it up when they get on the bench, and then ask
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 677
for an argument. The litigant would have very little show. But
I assume tnat the character of the contracts the rresident is speaking
of is of a different nature. I asisume that. I can not believe that
he would have made a contract giving away these countries con.-
trarv to principles in the covenant.
The Chairman. Governor, do you regard the council of the league
of nations as a judicial body ?
Mr. Folk. If it is not judicial, then God help them.
Senator Moses. Mr. Chairman, my only purpose in calling atten-
tion to this is to show the tremendous contradictions which are
involved in all our attempts to get any information as to what has
been done, and what stipulations we are bound by in all these
numerous treaties and secret treaties and other documents which
have been made.
Mr. Folk. Of course you have to see the treaty made with Turkey
to see what has been done with Turkish territory. That is, I under-
stand, to be turned over to Great Britain. Of course you want to
see these agreements before you can decide.
The Chairman. Yes; they are closely bound together.
(Thereupon, at 12.05 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to
meet to-morrow, Tuesday, August 26, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., in
executive session.)
(Tlie following letters from Mr. Folk were subsequently ordered
printed in the record:)
August 30, 1919.
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge,
Chairman Foreign Relations Committee,
United States Senate.
(In the case of Egypt.)
Dear Mr. Chairman : The statue of Egypt which has arisen out of the war just
closing becomes properly a subject to he considered in any general treaty that may
be made. Supplementing what I said to your honorable committee the other day
and epitomizing the relief then asked for in behalf of the Egyptian commission, in
the alternative, the first relief being the most desirable, the second the next, and the
third next, that relief expressed in the alternative form is as follows:
1. Amend by inserting a new clause after section 6, article 147, to be known as
article 147-A, to read as follows:
"The independence of Egypt is hereby recognized, and the British Government
will withdraw the British troops. from Egypt within one year from the effective date
of this treaty.'*
Or—
2. Amend by inserting a new clause after section 6, article 147, to be known as
article 147--A. to read as follows:
"The protectorate proclaimed by Great Britain oyer Egypt is hereby declared to
be temporary, and this protectorate shall in no wise interfere with the independence
of Egypt, which is hereoy declared to be free to enter into diplomatic relations with
other nations."
Or-
3. Amend by inserting a new clause after section 6, article 147, to be known as
article 147-A to read as follows:
* The status of Kg>'pt is hereby declared to be a matter within the jurisdiction of the
council of the league of nations, and shall not be considered an internal question of
Great Britain."
In behalf of the Egyptian commission appointed by the T^i^islative .\s8euibly of
Egypt, consideration of your committee is asked for the relief abo^-e prayed for in the
hope that Egypt mav lie accorded that solf-detenaination for which the Egyptian
trut'{)8 fought and which has so far been denied.
Re8iK?ctfullv,
Jos. \^. Folk,
Counsel for the Coamission Appointed by the Legislafhe Assembly of Egypt,
678 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
AuausT 31, 1919.
Hon. Henry Cabot I<odg£.
Chairman Foreupi I^elatians Commiueey United States Senate,
Washington, I). C.
In the case of Egypt.
Df.au Mr. Chairman: In behalf of the comnxiasion appointed hv the Legislative
Afl<^einbly of Egypt, I mil your attention further to article 152, section 6, of the Ver-
sailles treaty. The first clause of this article reads as follows:
"Germany consents, in so far as «he is concerned, to the transfer to his Britannic
Majesty's Government of the powers conferre<i on his Imperial Majesty the Sultan, bv
the convention signed at Constantinople on Ortober 29, 1888, relating to the free navi-
gation of the Suez Canal."
This may mean almost anything from the transfer of the territorial sovereignty in
the Suez Canal to the transfer of sovereignty in Egypt. The convention signed at
Constantinople on October 29, 1888, is to be found in tne Congressional Library (T. 0.
791, G. 77). Sections 12 and 13 of this convention apparently recognize the terri-
torial sovereignty of the Sultan of Turkey in the Suez Canal. There appear to be no
specific powers conferred upon the Sultan other than the sovereign rights.
For reasons heretofore given, we ask that the words " His Britannic Majesty's Gov-
ernment" be stricken from the ijaragraph in question and that the words "the Eg>'^p-
tian Government " be substituted therefor.
Very tnily,
Jos. W. Folk.
THUBSBAY, AUQUST 28, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington^ D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10.30
o'clock a. m., in room 246, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge presiding.
Present: Senators Ix)dge (chairman), Brandegee, Ejiox, Harding,
New, and Moses.
The Chairman. The hour having arrived, and our time being
short, I will ask these gentlemen wno have come here to proceeo.
I want to sav this, that the committee gives this hearing on matters
relating to the treaty and for nothing else excepting matters relat-
ing to the treaty, and there is nothing else before this committee.
The time of the committee is limited. We can not sit beyond 12
o'clock. I have here the list which has been handed to me, and I
understand that 45 minutes are to be given to the Equal Bights
League and 45 minutes to the disposition of the German-African
colony. We will hear those for the Equal Bights League first.
STATEMENT OF MB. WHUAM KOimOE TBOTTEB, SECBETABT
OF THE NATIONAL EQUAL BIGHTS LEAOTTE, 34 COBNHILL,
BOSTON, MASS.
The Chairman. I understand the Equal Rights League proposes
an amendment to the treaty; is that correct?^
Mr. Trotter. That is correct. Do you object to that amendment
to the treaty being in the form of an amendment to an article, or
Part I of the treaty t
The Chairman. If you have an amendment to offer to the treaty,
of course you can offer it at any point.
Mr. Trotter. We have two propositions, because we wanted to be
in accord with the wishes of the committee as to whether we should
offer it to Part I or Part 11. In fact, we would like, if it is in order,
Mr. Chairman, to offer two amendments, either one of which would
be satisfactory to the league. Is that in order?
The Chairman. Certamly. Are these the amendments offered in
Paris on equal rights ?
Mr. Trotter. They are similar.
The Chairman. Cm what was called " race equality " there?
Mr. Trotter. Yes; and protection of racial minorities.
Senator Moses. You are a former Register of the Treasury?
Mr. Trotter. No, sir. My father was recorder of deeds in the
District of Columbia.
679
680 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The Chairman. Continue,Mr. Trotter.
Mr. Trotter. This World War was fought for a ^reat human prin-
ciple. The chief oflSicials of this country announced from the house-
tops that the purpose of the war was to procure universal security
of life and the protection of the weak from the strong.
When the United States for the first time in its history went to
Europe for an offensive war, the welkin rang with the official clarion
call, "We are fighting for universal liberty, for world democracy,
for humanity everywhere," and the banners bearing these mottoes
filled the heavens.
Every part of the executive branch of the Government that had
to do with furthering, prosecuting, or aiding the war and all semi-
official civilian agencies used these slogans freely and fully in seek-
ing to further the cause of this world war.
Furthermore, no branch of the Government and no officials or
functionaries of the Government of any consequence ever raised any
objection, or ever Questioned the right of the peace magistrates of
the country in declaring world democracy, universal liberty, uni-
versal humanity, as being the official and accepted purposes of the
war.
Not only that, but the other allied nations accepted the President
of the United States as the official spokesman, and their prime min-
istei^s and leaders adopted the same purposes as the object of the
world war. It was said on every hand by the magistrates of those
countries, by the constituted authorities of those countries, and by the
newspaper organs of those countries that if the forces that were
fighting Germany won the victory we should have the establishment
of a new order of things for the betterment of the condition of the
individual, and especially for the rights of the weaker peoples.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the Equal Eights League feels that it is
fit and proper, and that it is imperative, in order that the purposes of
this war may not fail of fulfillment, in order that those who died
on the field of battle — and among them were soldiers of every race
and color — may not have died in vain in the great struggle, and in
order that we may truly have now the reign of world democracy and
of universal liberty, that there should be an amendment to the peace
treaty as it has come from the conference at Paris. To that end
the Equal Eights League desires to submit two amendments for your
consideration, as follows. [Eeading :]
RESERVATION TO ARTICLE 23 OF PART 1 OF THE PEACE TREATY IN THE FORK OF
AMENDMENT TO SECTION B OF AFORESAID ARTICLE, OFFERED BY THE NATIONAL
EQUAL RIGHTS LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The s^tlon referred to reads as follows:
"The members of the league undertake to secure Just treatment of the
native Inhabitants of territories under their control."
The petitioners (the National Equal Rights League), representing and voicing
the sentiments of the 14.000,000 colored Americans, earnestly hope and fervently
pray that your honorable committee will give to the amendment (which we
herewith offer to be incorporated in the peace treaty) the distinguished con-
sideration which has characterized your dealing with the momentous subject
Your petitioners (the National Equal Rights League), profoundly grateful*
Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to be heard for their cau.se, in urging the
consideration and adoption of this amendment, are pleading for the Ufe^
liberty, and labor of 14,0(X),000 colored Americans.
J
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAN Y> 681
t
AMENDMENT.
In Article 23, section B, of part 1, after the word " control " add the follow-
ing words: "And agree to vouchsafe to their own citizens the possession of
full liberty, rights of democracy, and protection of life, without restriction or
distinction based on race, color, creed, or previous condition.*'
In lieu thereof, if that be rejected, the following is offered as
Part XVI.
The Chairman. Part XVI of article 1 ?
Mr. Trotter. No : to be added to the treaty at the end of it.
Senator Knox. Tne last part is XV.
Mr. Troiter. This is to be a new part. [Beading :]
AMENDMENT TO THE PEACE TREATY, PABT XVI, 0FI-*EBED BY THE NATIONAL EQX7AI*
BIGHTS LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMEBICA.
In order to make the reign of peace universal and lasting, and to make the
fruits of the war effective In the permanent establishment of true democracy
everywhere, the allied and associated powers undertake, each lu Its own
country, to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all their
Inhabitants, without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race, or religion,
and agree that all their citizens, respectively, shall be equal before the law
and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to
race, language, or religion, and all citizens of the members of the league who
belong to racial or religious minorities differing In race or religion from the
majority of the population shall enjoy the same treatment and same security
In law and In fact as all persons of the majority race or religion.
Senator Knox. Does this mean in their own country, or in all
countries?
Mr. Trotter. This is for each one of the allied and associated
powers to guarantee these things for their own citizens in their own
country.
Senator Knox. Not for citizens of other countries?
Mr. Trotter. Not for the citizens of other countries.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is hardly necessary to go into the ques-
tion of the great need of the protection of life and of equality of
rights for wie colored American minority^. In the treaty with
Austria, in the treaty with Poland, and with other countries there
are clauses similar to this, for the protection of the racial minori-
ties, adopted by the peace conference. There are none of those
racial minorities who suffer the denials of democracy and the in-
security of life and liberty which are suffered by the colored Ameri-
can minority in this country ; and we beg of the committee that they
will adopt one or the other of these amendments, in order that the
terrible condition, the deplorable condition, the cruel condition that
exists in this country for colored Americans, 98 per cent of whom
are native-bom citizens, shall be discontinued, and that they, with
all other nations on the earth, shall come into the enjoyment of full
democracy, of full equality of rights, of full liberty, of full protec-
tion of life, and that they may have a chance for the pursuit of
happiness.
Tne Chairman. The next name which you have given us here is
that of Mr. Allen W. Whaley, of New York.
Mr. Trotter. Yes.
682 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
STATEMENT OF MB. ALLEN W. WHALET.
Mr. Whauey. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Foreign Eela-
tions Committee of the United States Senate, it would seem that my
colleague has said sufficient upon this subject, and I simply want to
emphasize the justice, practicability, and absolute necessity for aa
amendment of this kind if the purposes for which we fought in
France and elsewhere were true.
I think the first reason why this amendment to the constitution
of the league of nations should be written into that constitution is
the gratitude that these signatory powers should show to those peo-
ple who sustained them in the hour of dire distress; for witnout
those black soldiers from all parts of the world helping England,
helping France, and helping tne United States, the outcome would
have been doubtful. That statement has been made by many a critic,
and I think everybody who is just will say so. I speak for Afro-
Americans. I am not hyphenating the black man, because he is a
real American. Most of the white Americans who are here can be
hyphenated, but the black American can not be. He came here
against his will in 1619, and just a little before that according to
critical history, and he has been here ever since, and there has not
been much immigration either, but he is here in much larger numbers
than it was expected perhaps that he would be at this time.
In order that the United States may obliterate some of the dis-
grace which has been brought upon it by the maltreatment of the
most loyal section of its citizenry, I think they should joyfully
adopt this amendment to the constitution of the league and en-
courage the hearts of 15,000,000 Afro-Americans.
I think that this would be a sign that the country wants to put
down mob violence and put down the lynching of black men, and
black women, and black children in the Southland. I think that
this would be a sign that she wants the escutcheon of America to
be without a tarnish. The escutcheon of this country has been a
reproach throughout the land on account of the awful, horrible
treatment of black Americans here. And this adoption would show
that the people who think well and the people who believe well
mean busmess.
This is an age of reconstruction. Mr. Lloyd-George said that what
is settled by the peace conference is settled in some particulars for-
ever, and he said if not forever it will be for a long time, for an
indefinite time to come, and that the peace conference was for the
Eurpose of reconstructing the world, and that reconstruction was to
e based upon fundamental justice. And just now the American
Government in every way that it can should try to right all the
wrongs of all the centuries toward the black American, because, of
course, the black American has already given notice that what he
suffered in the past he will not tolerate in the future. He means
business now. There can be no compromise. They are going to
hang the traitors among them and they are going to see that the
right men and the right women are in front, and the battle is going
to be fouo^ht for human liberty and for human rights.
The Declaration of Independence meant something to the white
Americans, but it did not mean anything to the colored Americans.
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 683
They were not included in that masterful parchment, but they are
going to strive to make the Declaration of Independence a signifi-
cant document for every citizen that breathes under the Stars and
Stripes. And also the three war amendments, the thirteenth, four-
teenth, and fifteenth amendments of the Constitution ; we are going
to have them effective in Mississippi as well as they are in Massa-
chusetts. And I am sure that this amendment to the constitution of
the league of nations would have a significance that would be an
encouragement to our people everywhere.
I know I speak drastically, but with justice. We want in this
country real justice, justice for all citizens, and we want our Con-
stitution, beautiful as the language is, beautiful as the sentiments
are, to be a real thing and not a mere sign of nothing.
We believe that this committee is willing to do what is right. I
believe that this committee is hearing us to-day because it wants to
know just what we want, and we are not representing only a few
people here. We are representing 15,000,000 black Americans in
the United States. You say, "Are there as many as that?" Oh, yes.
We have done a little work in taking the census ourselves. We have
not left it all to the United States Government. The Government
has not found all the black people in this country. They never
did get all of them. When the census was taken they were left out.
I thank you.
STATEMENT OF MK. JOSEPH H. STEWABT, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, the
Equal Rights League in coming beiore you on these two propo-
sitions have an object that is not only beneficial in its effect in the
United States, but it will benefit the world. We are endeavoring
as far as we possibly can to prevent the occurrence in other coun-
tries of what we have in this country, what we call the race prob-
lem. Now the race problem in this country resolves itself into this.
It is nothing more or less than this. It simply means that our ob-
ject at least is for the production of justice between the White man
and the black man, whenever and wherever they come in touch one
with the other. That is the problem, to produce justice between
these two men. And we want that problem — ^that is the point that
we are advocating, and that is what we want enforced through
those nations that signed the treaty of peace with the league of
nations. We know perfectly well what troubles we have had in
this country. There has been a great deal of confusion about this
problem. They call it a negro problem. It is not a negro problem
at all. It is a problem of effecting justice between white men and
black men whenever they come in touch one with the other. And,
Mr. Chairman, we urge upon the committee to take this matter under
serious consideration, considering this, that that is the object of
the Equal Eights League in this country, and we hope and pray that
you will see fit, after due consideration of the matter, that you will
annex either one of these amendments to the treaty of peace which
is to be Signed by the league of nations. I thank you.
684 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
STATEMENT OF MB. J. H. NEILL, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Neill. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have-
just one thought that I would like to give the committee on this
subject and that is with reference to the universal unrest among our
people in this country to-day. Now, for that there must be a cause,
and the National Equal Eights League has endeavored to find out
the cause of this unrest. I know that the gentlemen of the com-
mittee are conversant with some of the Negro publications, and they
have been able to discover somewhat the trend of thought among the
leaders of our people in this country. You will have noticed that
some of them are advocating that we join various movements relative
to labor, and social organizations, and other lines, but the Equal
Rights League believes that primarily and fundamentally the real
source of assistance and benefit to our people is the constituted au-
thorities of this country, who have in their hands the enactment and
enforcement of the laws by which we are governed.
Therefore we come before this honorable committee and we ask
that the amendments proposed, one or the other, be adopted as being
the most direct and easy way of effecting the results that we desire.
We do not believe that by indirect methods we can accomplish what
we can by direct methods, therefore we believe that if this committee,
in its wisdom and foresightedness, will go into this matter and think
of the colored citizens of this country as a part of the body politic
and not as a separat-e race, or as separate individuals, but that it is
a component part of this Nation, and that this Nation must rise or
fall, net by the advancement or achievement of a part of its citizen-
ship, whether that part be black or white or whatnot, but it is by the
united advancement of all the complex nationalities and racial units
that compose the citizenship of this country.
We therefore ask the careful and earnest consideration of this com-
mittee of the propositions proposed, believing that if they go into this
subject and looking at it not irom the Negras standpoint merely, not
from the white man's standpoint, but irom the standpoint of the
universal good that will come to this country, if not the suggestions
made by us then others, that will secure to us the things that we
desire, they will be encouched in this document which you are con-
sidering. I thank you. . .♦
Mr. Trotter, Is there a moment? "'■
The Chairman. I think there is, Mr. Trotter. Yes; you have
10 minutes.
Mr. Trotter. I would like to submit as a part of our hearing these
documents which were presented to the peace conference in Paris by
the delegate from this country, the secretary of the league.
The Chairman. Would you like to have those inserted in the
record ?
Mr. Trotter. Yes; included in the record.
(The documents referred to are here printed in the record, as
follows:)
National Equal Rights I.EAGtJE or United States of America.
36 RUE Ste. Anne, HOtel dtt Bon Pasteur,
Paris, 15 May, 1919.
Honorable Sir: As delesnte to Paris of the National Equal Rights Lea^ie of
the United States of America and secretary of the delegation of petitioners of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 685
the world peace conference for real and full democracy so notoriously denied
Americans of color, I have the honor to transmit to you for your consideration
and action thereon as a delegate of the world peace conference the following
protest and petition in brief for and in behalf of all colored Americans, a copy
of which was sent on May 7, 1919, to the president and secretary of the con-
ference, and the chairman of the delegations of the United States of America, of
Great Britain, and of Japan, at Versailles. A formal communication supple-
mentary thereto w^lll be transmitted later.
I sincerely trust you will be able to see the imperative need of recognizing
this claim for democracy. Please do me the favor of aclmowledging receipt of
this letter.
Respectfully submitted.
William Trotteb,
Delegate to Paris and Secretary of Petitioners to World Peace Conference,
Pasis, Fbance, H Mai, 1919.
Pasis, France, May, 1919,
Being informed that the world i>eace treaty ignores the petitions for abolition
of the undemocratic color discrimination National Equal Rights League of the
United States of America, the secretary of whose delegation of petitioners has
just arrived this afternoon, because of autocratic race restrictions, hereby de-
plores this grave injustice in behalf of 14,000,000 colored Americans who com-
missioned the league by a national colored congress held at the Federal Capital
of the United States of America, to seek fulfillment of the promises made during
the war of democracy for the world. The league protests this awful violation
of the war promises of the entente allies and Insists pledge should yet be kept
In final peace document.
William Trotteb, Secretary.
[Cople tradulte.]
Paris, 7 mai, 1919,
Etant inform^ que le traits mondial de Paix ignore les i)4titions tendant ft
Tabolltlon du pr^jug^ antld^mocratlque de couleur et le secretaire d*une Delega-
tion de petitionnalres etant arrive cet aprds-mldi & cause des restrictions de
race de caractere autocratlque, la Ligue Natlonale des Droits Sgaux des Etats
Unis d*Amerlque deplore cette grave Injustice falte au detriment de 14 millions
d' Americans de couleur qui ont charge la Llgue, ft un Congres National des
Grens de Couleur tenu dans la capltalle Federale des Etats-Unls d'obtenlr
Tezecutlon des promesses faites par les Allies pendant la guerre de la Demo-
cratle pour tons. Le Llgue proteste centre cette violation flagrante des pro-
messes faites pendant la guerre par les Allies et inslste pour qu'll dolve en
etre tenu compte dans Tlnstruiuent final de la Palx.
William Trotter, Secretary,
[Copy.]
Office of the Secretary of the National Eqital
Rights League Democracy Congress,
906 T Street NW.,
Washington, D. C.
This is to certify that the National Equal Rights League Democracy Con-
gress, representing the 14,000,000 colored Americans In the United States, In
convention assembled, did on December 18, 1918, elect and commission William
Monroe Trotter, of Boston, Mass., as one of the nine delegates elected for
similar purpose, to present the petition of said Congress to the world peace con-
ference, asking for the abolition of discrimination, proscription, and restricted
democracy based on race or color. In all countries where such discrimination,
proscription, and restricted democracy are practiced, and thus hasten the ush-
ering in among the peoples of the world and time when every man shall see in
every other man his brother and in God the Father of us all.
Done by order of the National Elqual Rights League Democracy Congress at
Washington, D. C, this 27th day of January, A. D. 1919.
James L. Neill, Recording Secretary,
686 TREATY OF PEACi: WITH GERMAinr.
COLORED AMERICA'S PROTEST AND PETITION FOR V;ORLD DEMOCRACY TO THE WOKLD
PEACE CONFERENCE — COLORED AMERICAN DELEGATE NOW IN PARIS REPRESENTS
THE ORGANIZED ACTION AND DESIRE OF COLORED AMERICAN PEOPLE AS A RACX> —
THE NATURE OF THE NATIONAL COLORED WORLD DEMOCRACY CONGRESS AND ITS
ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE WORLD PEACE AGREEMENT.
Paris, May 24, 1919.
At Chicago, III., September 17-20, 1918, the eleventh annual meeting of the
National Equal Rights League of the United States of America, in accordance
with the official call of the convention, and with 90 delegates from 22 States,
voted to call a national colored representative congress to select delegates to
proceed to the world peace congress at the termination of the fighting to ask
for the enjoyment of full world democracy by the colored people of the United
States. The date was set back because of the early surrender of Germany.
The official call was as follows:
" The time having come in the dispensation of Almighty God when, by, and
through a terrible world war of blood and devastation the doctrine of world
democracy has become the slogan and avowed policy of allied nations in two
hemispheres, and colored Americans being still the victims of caste discrimi-
nations of the most drastic kind with regard to civil and political rights and
even the right to life Itself, an historic and imperative call has come to colored
America to exhaust every peaceable means to bring to pass the end of the
undemocratic condition in which they alone, of all citizens, live in the country
which is the moral leader and military savior of the ailed nations. Hence the
National E^ual Rights League, to carry out the vote of this body to have the
cause for the enjoyment of full democracy by colored Americans presented
at the world peace negotiations and that such representatives may be the
chosen delegates of colored America, shall call a national equal rights repre-
sentative congress at the National Capital on or after January 1, 1919, to elect
such peace petitioners for this, the only group denied democracy in the United
States of America.
Delegates at this representative congress shall be elected on the following
basis: Every colored community is hereby invited and authorized to send
delegates through the organization of equal rights leagues. Every such league
already or hereafter organized shall be entitled to send one delegate to this
representative assembly and an additional delegate for each 50 members over
the first 50. Every local religious, labor, civic, fraternal organization of the
race may on request to the corresponding secretary of the league become offi-
cially an affiliated member and send delegates to this assembly, one for every
60 members.
Every national organization for the rights of colored Americans shall be
entitled and invited to send two delegates at large, each such delegate to be
entitled to one vote.
The executive officers of this league, the president, secretary, treasurer, chair-
man of executive committee of the District of Ck)lumbla branch, and the na-
tional executive committee shall issue the call and make the arrangements for
this representative assembly.
The registration fee for delegates shall be $1.
This representative assembly shall elect the race petitioners for the errand
to the seat of peace negotiations for full democracy for colored Americans.
N. B. — Race loyal citizens are eligible to form equal rights leagues and
notify the corresponding secretary, W. Monroe Trotter, 34 Comhill, Boston, Mass.
The GoMiciTTEE.
Wm. Monroe Trotter, Massachusetts, cliairman; Rev. A. A. BurnSr
Georgia, secretary; Lieut. J. T. M. Graham, Tennessee; Rev.
A. C. Powell, New York; Jos. H. Stewart, District of Co-
lumbia; Rev. B. J. Prince, Illinois; Rev. J. R. Little, Missis-
sippi; Dr. Wm. Howard, South Carolina; J. B. Ck>leman, Mis-
souri; Rev. B. P. Maddox, Illinois; N. S. Taylor, Mississippi;
E. T. Morris, Massachusetts; Rev. J. D. Gordon, California;
Rev. Wm. B. Baber, Michigan ; Lee L. Brown, Kentucky ; Bdw.
Richardson, Oklahoma; Rev. B. W. Moore, Ohio; Rev. H. D.
Prowd, California.
December 16, 1918, the Colored World Democracy Congress was held by the
league with 250 delegates from nearly 40 States. The following were elected
as race petitioners to the world peace conference : Rev. M. A. N. Shaw, Boston,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 687
Mass.; N. S. Taylor, Esq., Greenville, Miss.; Rev. W. T. Johnson, Richmond,
Va. ; Bishop L. W. Kyle, St Louis, Mo.; Rev. J. R. Ransom, Wichita, Kans. :
William Monroe Trotter, secretary, Boston, Mass.; Rev. R. H. Singleton, At-
lanta, Ga. ; Mrs. Ida B. Wells Barnet^ Chicago, 111.; Mrs. 0. J. Walker, New
York. N. Y. ; Rev. W. D. Carter, Seattle, Wash. ; Rev. David S. Klugh, Boston,
Mass.
The spirit and purpose and action of this congress and the duties of these
race petitioners were publicly declared in the following "Address to the World,"
which was unanimously adopted and given to the American press :
Address to the Cx>untrt and the Wobld, Adopted by the National Colobed
CONOBESS FOB WOBLD DeMOCBACY, UnDEB THE AUSPICES OF THE NATIONAL
Equal Rights League at Washington, D. C, Decembeb 18, 1918.
Colored America, through delegates assembled from 37 of the United States
of America, sore and bleeding with persecution because of race and color,
halls with hope, peace with victory, for the motto on the banners of the armies
of the victors was "Away with tyranny and its injustice everywhere." Speak-
ing for 14,000,000 colored Americans, the National Colored Representative As-
sembly for World Democracy, under the auspices of the National Equal Rights
League, congratulate their fellow countrymen and their Government on being
the instrument by which the God of Righteousness turned the tide of battle for
the forces of liberty.
WAB PUT on wobld BASIS AS TO THE BESULTS.
Two hemispheres and two oceans furnished without regard to race or color
the armies of this bloody and terrible war. Shameful it would be if its close
did not mark a new human era. To the President of our Republic, Commander
in Chief of our Army and Navy, it was given to name the principles on which
the winners fought this war, and its purpose. By his declaration, accepted by
France, Britain, and the rest openly before the human race, the principles and
the aim of this war were put upon a world basis. Secondly, these principles
and aims were for the wiping out of autocracy, inhumanity, and injustice, and
for the establishment of world Justice, world humanity, and world democracy.
WBONOS TO INDIVmUAL ON WOBLD BASIS FOB BXDBESS.
With the ushering in of the new year, 1910, the nations of the world are
assembled to settle the terms of peace for the world, for the establishment
everywhere of the principles for which this World War was waged by the
forces of democracy.
Therefore every denial or violation of Justice, humanity, and democracy has
become a matter for correction and abrogation on a world basis by a world
court.
Hence, colored America, which furnished 400,000 brave soldiers for this war
backed by over 14,000,000 loyal citizen-soldiers without a traitor, appeals to the
allied world for Justice and democracy in the peace settlement.
UTTERLY UNDEMOCBATIC TBEATMENT OF COLOBED CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES OF
AMEBICA.
Citizens by law of the United States of America, the famous Republic of the
West, we first appeal to the civilized world for the discontinuance of all race
or class discrimination in the world peace settlement. At this supreme moment
In the cause of universal humanity, when wrongs to man should be banished,
we must call world attention to the utterly undemocratic conditions under
which every person of color Is forced to live in this country. Because of race
autocracy, our color in the Nation's Capital deprives us of every civil right ex-
cept In public carriers and subjects us to rejection or to the restriction of the
Ghetto as employees of the Federal Government. Otherwise our color in many
parts of the country deprives us of every civil, i)olltical, social, and Judicial
right, subjects us to obloquy, imposition, deprivations, injustices, cruelties,
atrocities worse in degree than exist anywhere else in Christendom. Segrega-
tion in public carriers, disfranchisement, lynching, are essentially violations
of that world democracy for which the war was fought.
688 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
SELF-DETERMINATION FOB DABKEB NATIONS.
That the tremendous material and appalling human losses of this World War
may not be without result for good, we appeal to the peace conclave to grant
selfHletermination and rights without discrimination to all of the darker
nations.
APPEAL BT BACE PETITIONERS FOB UNI\'ER8AL ABOLITION OF COLOR PR08CBIFTI0N.
On our part we shall send race petitioners to the assembly of the representa>
tives of the civilized world meeting to make good the promise of the victors in
the World War, to petition for the abolition of autocracy of race against col-
ored persons everywhere, and to appeal to this world court for the discontinuance
of color proscription and all distinctions based on color, civic, political, and
.ludicial in every nation as an article of the peace agreement, that the world
may be remade truly on the basis of the liberation of the peoples of the earth,
and of the enjoyment by every human being of world 'temocracy.
ELSE THEBE IS NO " NEW DAY."
For without this there will not be the dawning of a new day of democracy,
nor of a new era of permanent peace after the most terrible and gigantic war
ever known, embracing two hemispheres in a death grapple between the forces
of autocracy and of democracy.
The Ck)MMiTTEE on Addbess.
William M. Trotter, Massachusetts, Chairman; Rev. P. C. James,
New Jersey; Dr. W. T. Coleman, Maryland; Rev. M. L. John-
son, Arkansas; G. W. Goode, Virginia; Rev. W. L. Gibbons,
Mississippi; Rev. W. McDonald, Connecticut, Atty, L, A. H.;
Mrs. Ida B. Wells Barnett, Illinois ; Dr. A. Walker. Louisiana ; l>r.
Porter Davis, Kansas; Rev. W. D. Carter. Washlngt'^n (State) :
Dr. Chas. Sumner Long, Florida ; R. W. Westberry, South Caro-
lina; J. W. Ross, Minnesota; Bishop G. C. Clements, Kentucky;
Atty. J. D. Bills, West Virginia ; Rev. C. V. Page, Missouri ; Rev.
Thomas W. Davis, Tennessee; Prof. L. B. Cash, Texas; W. C.
' BrowiL District of Columbia; Dr. R. A. Whltaker, Oklahoma;
Hon. Isaac B. Allen. New York ; R. B. James, Michigan ; G. W.
Boyer, Ohio; Bishop J. S. Caldwell, Pennsylvania: Rev. J. C
McDanlels, New York; Rev. H. H. Jackson, North Carolina;
Rev. John V. Goodgame, Alabama.
To all these delegates, the only ones elected by the colored citizens nationall.?
to proceed to the seat of the peace conference, the United States State Depart-
ment refused passports. The evident tyranny of the same magistrate who pp>
claimed world democracy as the object of the war refusing to permit the elected
representatives of the element denied full democracy to petition aroused indig-
nation, and so the Secretary refrained from applying to the State Departnient
for passports and, acting within the law, arrived only after an effort of three
months.
THE CLAUSE PETITIONED FOB.
Noting that the commission on the league of nations was to consider amend-
ments at sessions beginning March 22, the league cabled a i>etltlon to this
commission, on which the Secretary has written Mr. Trotter, the secretary, at
Paris as follows :
Amebioan Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Port*, 16 May, 1919.
Dear Sir : In reply to your letter received by me on the lOth I beg to state
that a cablegram petition of the National Equal Rights League of the United
States (without date) was received in Paris on the 24th of March.
An accurate copy of the cablegram as It was received Is Inclosed In accordance
with your request.
Sincerely, yours,
W. H. Shephardson,
Secretary of the Commiasion on the Leapue of Nations.
William Tbotteb, Esq.,
Hotel du Bon Pasteur, I'aris.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 689
The inclosure read: "X 264/24 New York 134 1/53. League of Nations
Ck)mmission Peace Conference, Paris."
Fourteen million colored Americans, soldiers and civilians, who helped win
war, through National Equal Rights League in national convention, December,
petition i)eace conference In fulfillment of w^ar promises of democracy for
everyone to incorporate In league covenant following clause: Real democracy
for world being avowed aim of nations establishing league of nations high
contracting powers agree to grant /their citizens respectively full liberty,
rights of democracy, protection of life without distinction based on race,
color, or previous conditions.
Elected petitioners: Matthew Shaw, Massachusetts; Nathaniel Taylor, Mis-
sissippi; W. Johnson, Virginia; Bishop Kyle, Missouri; J. Ransom, Kansas;
W. Trotter, Massachusetts ; R. Singleton, Georgia ; Ida Barnett, Illinois ; Madam
C. Walker, New York ; \Vm. Carter, Washington ; David Klugh, Massachusetts.
Committee: Thomas Walker, Byron Gunner, Allen Whaley, Maurice Spencer;
James Neill, secretary, Washington, D. C.
Delegate and Secretary Trotter arrived in France and reached Paris early
on the afternoon of May 7, 1919, to find on May 8 that the petition of colored
America had been denied by the peace conference in the preliminary peace
agreement delivered to the plenipotentiaries of Germany. On May 7 Secretary
Trotter telegraphed to Versailles to President Clemenceau and Secretary
Dutasta, of the peace conference; to Marshal Foch, to President Wilson, Mr.
Lloyd-George, Baron M'aklno, and Mr. Orlando, heads of peace declaration
of the five great powers, the following protest :
Pabib, Feancs, May 7, 1919,
Being informed that the world peace treaty ignores the petitions for abolition
of the undemocratic color discrimination, the National Equal Rights League of
the United States of America, the secretary of whose delegation of petitioners
has Just arrived this afternoon because of autocratic race restrictions, hereby
deplores this grave injustice in behalf of 14,000,000 colored Americans who
commissioned the league by a National Colored Congress held at the Federal
Capital of the United States of America to seek fulfillment of the promises
made during the war of democracy for the world. The league protests this
awful violation of the war promises of the entente allies and insists pledge
should yet be kept in final peace document.
WnxiAB Tbotteb,
Secretary.
On May 15 Secretary Trotter inclosed the above telegram In English and
French and a copy of his credential with the following letter to every delegate
to the peace conference:
National Equal Rights Lbagtte of United States of America,
86 Rus Saintk-Anne, Hotel du Bon Pasteub,
Paris, 15 May, 1919.
Delegate of to World Peace Conference,
Pari9.
Honorable Snt: As delegate to Paris of the National Equal Rights League
of United States of America and secretary of the delegation of petitioners to the
world peace conference for real and full democracy so notoriously denied Ameri-
cans of color I have the honor to transmit to you for your consideration and ac-
tion thereon as a delegate to the world peace conference the following protest
and petition in brief for and in behalf of all colored Americans, a copy of which
was sent on May 7, 1919, to the president and secretary of the conference and
the chairman of the del^ratlon of the United States of America, of Great
Britain, and of Japan at VerBailles. A formal communication supplementary
thereto will be transmitted later.
I sincerely trust you will be able to see the imperative need of recognizing
this claim for democracy. Please do me the fAvor of acknowledging receipt
of this letter.
Respectfully submitted.
William Trotter,
Delegate to Paris and Secretary of
Petitioners to World Peace Conference.
Paris, Prance, H Mai, 1919.
13554^—19 ^
690 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANy.
The copy of credential was as follows:
[Copy.]
Office of the Sbcbetaby of
The National Equal Rights League Democracy Congress,
906 T Stbebt NWm
Washington, D. C.
This is to certify that the National Equal Rights League Democracy Congress,
representing the 14,000,000 colored Americans in the United States, in conven-
tion assembled, did on December 18, 1918, elect and commission William Monroe
Trotter, of Boston, Mass., as one of the nine delegates elected for similar pur-
pose, to present the petition of said congress to the world peace conference,
asking for the abolition of discrimination, proscription, and restricted democracy
based on race or color in all countries where such discrimination, proscription,
and restricted democracy are practiced, and thus hasten the ushering in among
the peoples of the world the time when every man shall see in every other man
his brother and in God the Father of us all.
Done by order of the National £}qual Rights League Democracy Congress,
at Washington, D. C, this 27th day of January, A. D. 1919.
James L. Neill,
Recording Secretary.
Herein and herewith is heard the voice of this portion* of the American people,
in number more than one-tenth of the population, ever loyal, and giving men
and money freely for the Entente Allies, now petitioning for guarantee in the
world peace agreement of share in the promised world democracy for " Liberty,
Egalit6, Fraternlte."
William Trotter,
S6 Rue Sainte-Anne,
Paris, May 24, 1919.
AN open appeal TO THE COUNCIL OF FIVE.
To the supreme council of the five great powers of the allied and associated
nations, M. Georges Clemenceau, France, president; Wodrow Wilson, United
States of America; Hon. Lloyd-George, British Empire; M. Orlando, Italy;
Baron Makino, Empire of Japan.
Honorable Sirs: Greetings to the victors from the National Equal Rights
League of the United States of America.
In the name of the colored millions of America we address you in this an
open letter and appeal, and for the cause of world democracy and permanent
world peace.
From the official records of the Congress of the United States of America, the
House of Representatives, published in the Congressional Record, June 29.
1918, we quote governmental conditions for 14,000,000 Americans.
First. We are the victims of civil proscription, solely because of race and
color, in three-fourths of States and In the National Capital (Federal territory),
barred from places of public accommodation, recreation, and resorts — ^yes, from
such places within Government buildings.
Second. We are the victims of class distinctions based solely on our race and
color in public carriers in one-third of the States, segregated even when passen-
gers in Interstate travel and with the railroads under the control of the Federal
Government.
Third. We are the victims of caste and race prejudice in Government, mili-
tary, and naval schools and in officer schools \vith other citizens solely on the
basis of race and color, and in the Navy itself, except in the service below deck.
Fourth. We are the victims of proscrlptlve discrimination, based on our race
and color, in the executive departments of the Federal Government, refused em-
ployment in many after appointment through the civil service, s^regated at
work, in the appointments of health and comfort.
Fifth. We are the victims of political proscription In one-third of the States,
even In the election of Federal official. In violation of the Federal Constitution,
both indirectly by congressional representation based on disfranchisement and
directly through intimidation, trickery, or State statutes and constitutions.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 691
Sixth. We are the victims in many States, as consequence of the foregoing
civil and political proscriptions of imposition, robbery, ravishing, mob violence,
murder, and massacres, because of our race and color, denied protection of
police, of sheriffs ; denied trial by court and Jury, rendered impotent to protect
our daughters, wives, or mothers from violation by white men or murder by
the mob.
All these conditions, thus declared by the National Colored Liberty Congress,
assembled at Washington, and presented to the Congress by the present Speaker
of the House of Representatives, are still facts.
We quote further from the same Record : " Our President, Woodrow Wil-
son, now the moral lefider and spokesman of the allied nations who are resist-
ing German aggression, having officially declared that our country has * entered
the fight for the purpose of democratizing the nations of the world and liber-
ating free peoples everywhere ' ; that ' we are embarked upon an enterprise
which is to release the spirits of the world from bondage ' ; that we are * fight-
ing for the rights of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their
own govmment,' to ' make the world at last free,' for ' security for life and
Ul^erty,* to ' make the world safe for democracy.' "
To this add President Wilson's mes.sage to his country when the wur was
won: "The armistice was signed this morning. Everything for which Amer-
ica fought has been accomplished. It will now be our fortunate duty to assist
by example, by sober, friendly counsel, and by material aid in the establish-
ment of just democracy throughout the world,'' with his words to the French
nation in January, 1919:
"America in coming into this war thought that all the world had now be-
come conscious that there was a single cause of justice and of liberty for
men of every kind and place."
Add, also, the words in the message of congratulation to President Wilson
on the victory won by the Prime Minister of Great Britain :
" I feel sure that at the peace conference we shall be able to cooperate faith-
fully to promote the reign of peace, with liberty and true democracy throughout
the world."
Then add the noble words of the Premier of France, Monsieur Clemenceau,
to President Wilson on Memorial Day for the dead soldiers :
"Those sons of America w^ho succumbed in our common battle for justice
and for right repose in our fields where the liberty of the world was won."
Oh. honorable plenipotentiaries of an agreement for democracy for all, shut
not your eyes to this awful disgrace of democracy.
Honorable commissioners of perpetual peace, imagine not that with such a
scandal on humanity untouched your peace is just or w^iU endure. There will
be no peace secure until the color line in rights is effaced.
Hear ye our petition that the same protection of equal rights and life for
the ethnical minorities which you require for the Jews in vanquished Austria
and restored Poland you agree in your compact and league of nations shall
be vouchsafed to the citizens respectively of the allied and associated powers.
For so long as a woman advanced in holy pregnancy . can be hung with
Impunity, by her heels, to the limb of a tree by the mob, her abdomen ripped
open, and the head of the babe crushed under heels of the lynchers, as suffered
the late Mary Turner, in Georgia, in the last year of this world war, the world
has not been made a " fit place to live In." nor has f rightfulness vanished from
the earth with the Prussian empire.
Hear ye the petition of colored America.
Secretabt and Delegates to Paris.
10 Place de la Bourse, Paris.
June 21, 1919.
Mr. Trotter. I would also like to have included in the record the
petition of the liberty congress which will be found in the Congres-
sional Record of June 29, 1918, and which gives the desires and the
pleas and the demands of the colored Americans.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the discriminations and the denials of
democracy of which we especially complain, and for the abolition
of which we ask this amendment to the peace treaty. ( Heading ) :
First. We are the victims of civil proscription, solely becnnse of race and
color, in three- fourths of the States and in the National Capital (Federal ter-
692 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
ritory), barred from plnces of public Hccomniodatlon, recreatlcm, and resort;
yes, from such places within Government buildings.
Second. We are the victims of class distinction, based solely on our race and
color, in public carriers in one-third of the States, segregated even when pas-
sengers in interstate travel and with the railroads under the control of the
Federal Government
Third. We are the victims of caste and race prejudice In Government mili-
tary and naval schools and in officer schools with other citizens solely on tlie
basis of race and color, and in the Navy itself, except as to the service below
deck.
Fourth. We are the victims of proscrlptive discrimination, based on our
race and color, in the executive departments of the Federal Government refuseil
employment In many after appointment through the civil service, segregated
at work, In the appointments of health and comfort.
Fifth. We are the victims of political proscription In one-third of the States,
even in the election of Federal officials, In violation of the Fe<leral Constitution,
both indirectly by congressional representation based on disfranchisement and
directly through Intimidation, trickery, or State statutes and constitutions.
Sixth. We are the victims in many States, as a consequence of the foregoing
civil and political proscriptions of Imposition, robbery, ravishing, mob vl<»lence,
murder, and massacre, because of our race and color, denied protection of
police or sheriffs; denied trial by court or jury, rendered impotent to protect
our daughters, wives, or mothers from violation by white men or murder by
the mob.
Inasmuch as our country Is now engaged In the mo.st gigantic war In recorded
history, going to Europe to fight, our President, Woodrow Wilson, now the
moral leader and spokesman of the allied nations which are resisting Germanic
aggression having officially declared that our country has entered the fight for
the purpose of democratizing the nations of the world and liberating the free
people everywhere, that we are embarked upon "an enterprise which is to
release the spirits of the world from bondage," that we are "fighting for the
rights of those who submit to authority to have a voice In their own govern-
ment.*' to "make the world at last free'* for "security for life and liberty,** to
"make the world safe for democracy" which, meaning rule of all people, neces-
sarily carries the presun^ptlon of the same public rights for all without differ-
ence or distinction because of the accidents of race or creed, thereby not creating
class privilege, which means autocracy.
Inasmuch as American citizens irrespective of race or color are subject to
draft, or are drafted Into fighting, while all citizens regardless of race are ex-
pected to aid the Government by moral support by propaganda, by sacrifice at
home to help the Government all of which our racial element is now doing with
a loyalty unsurpassed by citizens of any race or color in every war, and, even
now, under present treatment, morally greater than that of others because the
only vicarious loyalty ;
In order that our country may not be weakened in moral position, prestige
and power by violations here of the noble pronouncements of its President ;
In order that the morale and esprit de corps in this war, both of the soldier
and of the civilian part of an element of the American, nearly one-eighth, may
not be weakened by the consciousness of the present denials to It at home of
those conditions and ideals which they are sacrificing or are risking life to se-
cure for others, with their soldiers witnessing the continuance of Indignities,
oppressions, and killing of their kin ere they leave for the battle front abroad,
and without assurance of protection of their family, their sisters, wives, moth-
ers from the lynching mob;
In order that, when this awful World War Is over and victory comes to the
Entente Allies, the condition of life of 12,000,000 human beings in the United
States of America may not prevent the awful sacrifice from accomplishing the
war's moral purpose — democratizing of the nations of the world — ^and that our
own Republic may not be a part of the world not safe for democracy ;
We do now petition you, the Congress of the United States of America, as an
act of justice, of moral consistency, and to help win the war for world de-
mocracy :
First To abolish and forbid all distinctions, segregations, and discrimina-
tions based upon race or color in places of public accommodation, recreation,
and resort In Federal buildings and in Federal territory.
Second. To abolish and forbid all distinctions, segr^^tlons, and discrimina-
tions based upon our race and color or upon prejudice of race or color In the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMANT. 693
emoluments, the rating, the promotions, the placement of employees in the facili-
ties provided by the Government for eating, rest, recreating, health for Govern-
ment employees, or for others in Federal Government buildings or in Federal
hospitals.
Third. To abolish and forbid any distinction, separation, or discrimination
based on race or color in any coach of any public carrier operated by the Fed-
eral Government.
Fourth. To open the doors of all schools of the Federal Government and all
branches of the Army and Navy to citizens on the same basis, without distinc-
tion or discrimination based on race or color.
Fifth. To exercise the mandatory powers of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
fifteenth articles of the Fe<leral Constitution, to the end that there shall be no
Involuntary servitude, no denial of the equal protection of law, no denial of the
exercise of suffrage because of race, color, or previous condition.
Sixth. To pass legislation extending the protection of the Federal Govern-
ment to all citizens of the Unite<l States of America at home by enacting that
mob murders shall be a crime against the Federal Government, subject to the
Jurisdiction of the Federal courts, for in the words of President Wilson, " De-
mocracy means, first of all, that we can govern ourselves."
Herewith endeth the petition of the colored Americans anking that the words
of the President of the United States of America be applied to all at home :
" As July 4, 1776, was the dawn of democracy for this Nation, let us on July
4, 1918, celebrate the birth of a new and greater spirit of democracy, by whose
influence we hoi)e and believe that what the signers of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence dreamed of for themselves and their fellow countrymen shall be ful-
filled for all mankind.'* '
Mr. Chairman, we ask this amendment to the peace treaty not
only for the protection of our own racial minority, but from the
standpoint of patriotic Americans. This amendment, Mr. Chair-
man, is in accord with the principles of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence and the principles of the Federal Constitution. In effect
it means that they ooth shall be carried out in letter and in spirit.
Mr. Chairman, we also ask this amendment in behalf of the se-
curity of lasting peace. We hate to say it, Mr. Chairman. We are
a peace-loving race of people, the most peaceable, the most long-
sunering on the face of the earth. But, Mr. Chairman, the oppres-
sion of colored Americans by their fellow white Americans is get-
ting to the point where unless the governmental authorities, State
and National, take hold of the situation and put their feet down
firmly against this continuance, you nor I nor none of us can be
assured that our own dear land shall be the land of peace, shall be
without violence, shall be without insurrection, and shall be without
war.
Mr. Chairman, that is true for two reasons. Now, when people
all over the earth are getting respect, are getting liberty, and are
getting equality, it becomes harder for any one race which is singled
out alone for repression and inequality to endure in tranquiUity
that humiliation and that repression.
Not only is that so, Mr. Chairman, but the very fact that for
everyone else there exist liberty and equality, increases the contempt
of those who have their rights for this one element who are without
their rights; and those two forces — an increasing contempt which is
accompanied by an increasing aggression and an increasing inabil-
ity of any race or class of people to endure humiliation and degra-
dation— must, Mr. Chairman, unless the best men and women of
this country, unless the Government itself, takes a stand against it,
lead to something in this country which will be a breach of the
peace of the world ; and therefore, Mr. Chairman, our final plea fop
694 TRBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
this amendment is in the interest of everlasting world peace and
the securitjr of the law-abiding citizen in his home and^ property
and possessions, everywhere,
Mr. Chairman, we wish to thank you for this hearing.
The Chairman. Those gentlemen who are here, who have come in
with regard to the disposition of the German- African colonies, we
will hear. The first name on the list given me is that of Dr. Joe T.
Thomas, of Cleveland, Ohio.
STATEMENT OF MB. JOE T. THOMAS, OF CLEVELAin), OHIO.
Mr. Thomas. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of the National
Eace Congress of America, I reel greatly honored by you allowing
me to discuss with you, in whose hands rests the destiny of our
Nation, the disposition of the German colonies in Africa.
I shall not touch German East nor German Southwest Africa,
but I am here asking you to throw the strong arm of Uncle Sam
around Kamerun, for 1 know our Government is the best prepared
Nation to assume mandatory over this particular territory of 191,000
square miles and 4,500,000 natives. '
The American Negro proved, as he has, that he is 100 per cent
American in this world's war. He did his duty, fought, bled, and
died for our country. He owes a duty to his African brothers in Af-
rica. America, the light of civilization, can by assuming mandatory
over Kamerun land, open a new world for the educated American
Negro, under the direction of trained white American statesmen,
soldiers, and diplomats.
We can start with, enforce national prohibition over the African
mandatory, which will give us a sober territory of black wards,
whose territory we need never to annex, nor whose subjects need we
ever to accept as citizens of these United States. Ten or fifteen
thousand American negroes could be i^cruited to police this manda-
tory and the trained American negro officers just out of the trenches
can be utilized there under higher white officers.
Ten thousand American teachers under our civil service could be
sent there to teach and instill American civilization in their minds.
Then the American white and black man can work to make the prin-
ciples of our Government paramount in that country of 200,000,000
blacks, which will ultimately give us commercial supremacy in Af-
rica and open a new world for our merchants, manuiacturers, farm-
ers, and lalborers.
These blacks will wear our cotton goods and thousands of mills
will spring up all over our country to manufacture goods to meet the
wants of these people, which will cause every available acre of cot-
ton land in the South to be utilized to produce that staple, and this
will cause labor in the field, mine, and factory to continue to be paid
A high wage, causing living conditions among the poor in our coun-
try to advance to a higher state of perfection.
We have^'not touched the treasures hidden in the hills nor the
<jaoutchouc oozing from the trees of the Kamerun. We will have a
free port to this vast, rich, undeveloped country. With our trained
American blacks we can capture the trade for our flag and country
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 695
and more speedily become the king of commerce, the mistress of the
seas, the guardian of liberty and justice, and the defender of democ-
racy.
Therefore, gentlemen of this committee, I ask to have the treaty
of the peace conference amended to this end, to strike out the name
of France as mandatory over the Camerom lands, and have the
name of the United States of America inserted as mandatory over
this particular African territory.
France has under her now over 50,000,000 Africans, and more
colonies than her strength can properly manage. Now, after the
£;reat toll taken from her in men and monev, she should not be
burdened with other African possessions, whicn she will not be able
to civilize and Christianize. 1 believe France would be grateful if
our countnr would help in this great hmnanitarian work, and I
know the United States would get the thanks and the sanction of
all the civilized nations of the world if we took the mandatory over
this African colony.
' STATEMENT OF MB. W. H. TEBVAOIN, OF WASHIHOTOir, D. C.
Mr. Jernagin. Mr. Chairman, the National Eace Congress of
America in addressing you believes that it is voicing the sentiments
of the 15,000,000 of negroes of this country, and many of the darker
races of the world.
The race congress desires that the natives of Africa shall have
the right to participate in the government as fast as their develop-
ment permits in conformity with the principle that the government
exists for the natives, and not the natives for the government.
They shall at once be allowed to participate in local and tribal
government according to ancient usa^e, and this participation shall
gradually extend, as education and experience proceeds, to the
higher o£Bces of state, to the end that, in time, Airica be ruled by
consent of the Africans; and we believe that it can 'best be done
under the protection of the United States. We desire that no par-
ticular religion shall be imposed and no particular form of human
culture. There shall be liberty of conscience. The uplift of the
natives shall take into consideration their present condition and
shall allow the utmost scope to racial genius, social inheritance and
individual bent so long as these are not contrary to the best estab-
lished principles of civilization.
We further ask it because the civilized negroes of the world
want better conditions, not only in Africa but in every country
and everrwhere, and hence k fs their desire that wherever per-
sons of African descent are civilized and able to meet the tests of
surrounding culture, they shall be accorded the same rights as
their fellow citizens ; they shall not be denied on account of race or
color a voice in their own government, justice before the courts and
^onomic and social equality according to ability and desert.
We desire that this great league of nations, this cbvenant, may
secure protection of life and property and the guarantee of national
and international labor legislation shall cover the native workers as
well as whites; they shall have equitable representation in all the
international institutions of the league of nations, and the partici-
696 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Eation of the blacks themselves in every domain of endeavor shall '
e encouraged in accordance with the declared object of article 19
of the league of nations, to wit : " The well-being and the develop-
ment of these people constitute a sacred mission of civilization and
it is proper in establishing the league of nations to incorporate
therein pledges for the accomplishment of this mission/'
Whenever it is proven that African natives are not receiving just
treatment at the hands of any State, or that any State deliberately
excludes its civilized citizens or subjects of Negro descent from its
body politic and cultural, it shall be the duty of the league of nations
to bring the matter to the attention of the civilized world.
Hence, we are making this prayer to you, gentlemen, because we
feel that you are trying to do the very best you can for the uplift
of humanity throughout the entire world; and we come to you, as
representatives, because we know of the unrest throughout the world.
There were many of the weaker peoples and darker races that met
us while in Paris, and we know their sentiments, and believe if you
will take under consideration these things it will bring about a
greater satisfaction everywhere where it Ties in the power of this
committee to urge protection of the people of this country that is
not receiving the protection; and these colonies — the colored people
of America — is very much interested in these colonies, and they are
willing to cooperate in the development of these colonies, and we
believe that if the United States will become a protectorate for this
particular colony, what better condition is going to exist.
STATEIIIENT OF MB. CHABLES SUMNEB WILLIAMS, OF INSIAH-
AFOLIS, DTD.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee
on Foreim Relations, as the president of the International Associa-
tion for the Freedom of Africans, their descendants and kindred, I
am grateful to you for this opportunity to present for your con-
sideration some things that we think might make clearer our national
position on the rights of weaker peoples and give added illustration
to our determination to see even-handed justice accorded all, weak
and strong.
It is our wish to see the treaty, with the covenant of the league of
nations, strengthened, and in this spirit I have come.
I might, before going further, Mr. Chairman, say that these three
organizations which are represented here never met before meeting
in this auditorium; and, strange to say, all of them voice the same
sentiments. If we are correctly advised, article 22 of the covenant
of the league of nations, embodied in the treaty, says those colonies
and territories which as a consequence of the late war have cea^d
to be under the sovereignty of the State which formerly governed
them, and which are innabited by peoples not yet able to stand bv
themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modem world,
there should be applied to them the principle that the well-being and
development of such peoples forms a sacred trust of civilization,
and that securities for the performance of this trust should be em-
bodied in this covenant.
It is again stated that the best method of giving practical effect
to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be in-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 697
t
trusted to advanced nations, who by reason of their resources and
exoerience, etc., can best undertake this responsibility and who are
willing to accept it. But we submit that some form of the principle
of seli-determination should apply even to these backward peoples
of Africa, even if many of tiiem are not prepared to signify what
nation should become their trustee. Surely their more enlightened
kindred in America, Haiti, Liberia, San Domingo, Brazil, and
Abyssinia could and would assist them in securing a mandatory that
would assist in the development of the coimtry by the development
of its peoples and not their exploitation.
We submit that a backward people can only gain actual knowl-
edge of government h^ experience. The development of the Philip-
pines and Cuba are shining examples of what might occur if America
would consent to act as a trustee for these African colonies. The
United States has the advantage of a large number of Americans of
color, and this would make it easy for this Government, through
sympathetic agencies, to aid the peoples of Africa to self-government
on the highways of civilization.
If you feel that America can nol act if selected, some way might
be provided to induce France, that is noted for the full and equal
opportunities that it gives to all under its domain. Ratify this treaty
with the construction that you approve of the tutelage of such peo-
ples by an advanced Nation which by resources and experience can
best undertake the responsibility. Save the natives of the former
German colonies from the supervision of the Union of South Africa,
which Government, considering its attitude toward natives on their
own soil, is not, in the opinion of our association, qualified by ex-
perience or resources to undertake this sacred trust of civilization.
We beg you to consider, first, that Africa, the ancient home of the
blacks, is now divided largely among other nations, and unless this
treaty is ratified in a way that will give them some place besides the
equatorial hotbeds to live and build for themselves and their de-
scendants, while other continents may live free and independent,
the world can not be safe for democracy. In our judgment, to award
the German colony in Africa to any government as an integral part
of them does not square with the view of self-determination, while to
award it to the United States outrages the very principle of democ-
racy for which so many of our sons died across the sea. This would
put the responsibility tor the maintenance of law and order and the
suppression of riots and other forms of lawlessness directly upon the
participating nations in the league.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we ask so strongly
that some safeguard be made is that we know that we are living now
in an age when a spirit of anti- Americanism is sweeping the country.
Many would have the Americans believe to-day that the people of
America are moved not by an American spirit but by the spirit of
greed and selfishness, and that is the cause of unrest; but I assure
you that that is not the cause of it, because the unrest is from an
un-American source and is a new imposition upon the race. When
I was myself striving to get a passport I came to this city, and I was
anxious to find the bureau of citizenship, and I inquired the way of
a man at the depot, and he said to me, " What do you people hope
for now that the war is over?" I said, "We hope for what all
698 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, g
Americans hope for." He said, " If there should come an altercation
between you and me, or between any American Neero and a white
afterwards he could not have been an American white man, but he
must have been an anti- American agent, and it is now the sincere
belief of many intelligent leaders that there is to-day a strong anti-
American propaganda to move the American prejudiced white man
in this country to new impositions upon the Negro, and to heap
humiliations upon him and to make his lot embarrassing and hu-
miliating, and against this his very nature speaks out, not in terms
of anarchy or violence but to the lawmakers, appealing that in jus-
tice his wrongs may be righted and that the tree of democracy might
shelter and feed all of its children.
We have been informed that in this article 23 it is proposed that
the members of the league of nations to be formed shall undertake
to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under
their control. We wish that to include all reference to race or color.
Lastly, we ask that race minorities in all the allied and associated
nations be granted, by special provisions, equal rights and oppor-
tunities.
Mr. Chairman, we have come, after our loyalty to the flag and to
the Government in every war in which this country has been plunged,
from Bunker Hill to the last struggle on the plams of Flanders, we
have come now, proud of the fact that we are Americans, and are
seeking to participate in the democracy that our brawn and our brain
have helped to found in this great land.
We wish that certain provisions shall be included in this treaty so
that at least the American Negro will be as safe in America as a
foreign foe who travels in our land. We come asking not for pity
or mercy, in the language of Joseph Benson Foraker, of Ohio, we
come not for pity nor mercy, in the language of that distinguished
American, but come asking for just consideration and for the rights
of American citizens, not because we are Negroes but because we are
Americans through and through.
We thank you on behalf of the International Association for the
Freedom of Africans, their kindred and descendants.
The Chairman. Mr. J. A. Lankford.
STATEMENT OF MB. J. A. LANETOBD, HEMBEE OF THE EXECU-
TIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL BACE CONOBESS, IN-
DIANAPOLIS, INB.
Mr. Lankford. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
think enough has been said along this line. I do not think I care
either to add or detract. I simply rise to ask you to make these peti-
tions a part of the record, and we thank you for the same.
The Chairman. We shall make them a part of the record, of
course.
I want to put in, in connection with the Shantung evidence, two
statements by Mr. William E. Macklin, who has been for 24 years in
charge of the school at Nanking, China, in regard to the opinion and
morphine traffic.
TBEATY OF PBACE WITH GERMANY. 699
(The statements referred to are here printed in the record, as
follows:)
SHANTUNG AND OPIUM.
Under the dominating Influence of Japan in China the opium business that
had been stopped by England and China is being fully reestablished.
In Asia magazine of March, 1919, Putnam Wenle says that the Japanese im-
ported 20 tons of morphine a year into China. The Shanghai North China Daily
NewF, the most conservative and reliable British newspaper and the mouthpiece
of the British Legation, quotetl in tlie Literary DIge.st of April 12, " In South
China morphine is sold by Chinese peddlers, each of whom carry a passport
certifying that he is a native of Formosa and would be entitled to Japan's
protection. There are Japanese post oflSces everywhere in China and they
carry the drug throughout the country, and the Chinese authorities are neither
able to investigate nor interfere. They are helpless under Japanese domina-
tion. Japanese drug stores throughout China carry large stocks of morphine,
and Japanese medicine venders look to morphine for their large profits
throughout Tairen. Morphine circulates through Manchuria and the Provinces
adjoining. Through Tsingtau morphine is distributed over Shantung Province,
Anhui and Kiangsu Provinces. From Formosa morphine is carried with opium
and other contraband by motor-driven fish boats to some point on the main-
land, from which it is distributed throughout the Province of Fuklen and
north of Kwangtung. Everywhere it Is sold by Japanese under extraterritorial
protection. While the morphine traffic is large, there is every reason to be-
lieve that the opium traffic upon which Japan is embarking with enthusiasm
is likely to prove more lucrative (18 tons of morphine sold in one year by
Japan to China).
" In the Calcutta opium sales Japan has become one of the considerable pur-
cha.«;ers of Indian opium; she purchases for Formosa where the opium trade
shows steady growth and where opium Is required for the manufacture of
morphine. Sold by the Government of India, this opium is exported under
l)ermlts applied for by the Japanese Government for shipment to Kobea and
is transshipped to Tsingtau. I^arge profits are made in this trade, in which
are interested some of the leading firms of Japan. It must be emphasized that
this opium is not Imported into Japan, but is transshipped in Kobea Harbor,
from which point assisted by the Japanese railroads to Tsinanfu and smuggled
to Shantung into Shanghai and Yangtsz Valley. Two thousand chests of opium
are smuggled valued at $20,000 per chest, or $40,000,000, and the Japanese
authorities recently taxed $5,000 a chest, or $10,000,000, which does not appear
In the estimates.
"The customs and post offices, where smuggling is done, are wholly under
Japanese control. Moreover, Japanese military domination would forbid in
both ports any interference with the traffic in which Japanese authorities are
interested, either official or unofficial."
Under the 10-year arrangement with England in 1907 the Chinese cleared
their Provinces of native opium in seven years, and then the Indian open trade
was stopped, though British merchants were still allowe<l tacitly to smuggle.
Lately the Chinese bought up the remaining fourteen million dollars* worth of
opium and burned it, and now under Japan's domination China must submit
again to this reestablishment of this vile trade.
Shall America indorse these Hunnish acts to\^ard a sister friendly allied
Republic by signing the treaty in its present form?
W. E. Mackun.
After many years of heroic efforts, the Chinese finally throw off the opium
traffic, finally purchasing $14,000,000 worth of the drug and burning it. After
all this sacrifice under Japanese domination, the opium trade Is being fully re-
established. From the North China Daily News, the most conservotive and re-
liable British newspapers in China, and the mouthpiece of the British lega-
tion, as quoted In the Literary Digest of April 12, says : " Eighteen tons of
morphine was smuggled into China in one year. Japanese post offices are in
every part of China and carry the drug everywhere. No customs Inspection by
Chinese authorities allowed by the Japanese. In south China morphine Is sold
by Chinese peddlers, each of whom carries a passi)ort certifying that he is a
native of Formosa, and therefore entitled to Japanese protection. Japanese
700 TBEATY OP PEACE WITH GBEMANY.
drug stores throughout China carry large stores of morphine. Japanese medi-
cine vendors look to morphine for their largest profit. Through Tarren mor-
phine circulates throughout Manchuria and the Province adjoining. Through
Tsingtan morphine is carried with opium and other contraband by motor
driven fishing boats to some iK)lnt on the mainland from whence it is distrib-
uted throughout the Province of Fukien and the north Kwangtwant. Every-
where it is sold by Japanese under extra territorial protection. While the
morphine traffic is large there is every reason to believe that the opium traffic
upon which Japan is embarking with enthusiasm is likely to prove more lucra-
tive. In the Calcutta opium sale, Japan has become one of the considerable
purchasers of Indian opium. She purchases for Formosa, where the opium
trade shows a steady growth, and where opium is required for the manufacture
of morphine. Sold by the Government of India, this opium Is exported under
permits applied for by the Japanese Government, is shipped to Kobe, and from
Kobe is transshipped to Tsingtau. Large profits are made In this trade. In
which are interested some of the leading firms of Japan. It must be empha-
sizetl that this opium is not imported into Japan. It is transhipped in Kobe
harbor from which point, assisted by the Japanese-controlled railroad through
Tslnanfu It is smuggled through Shantung into Shanghai into Yangtse Valley.
Two thousand chests are snniggled, selling at $20,000— $40,000,000. The
Japanese authorities levy a tax upon this which does not appear in the esti-
mates, equivalent to $5,000 a chest, a total for 2,000 chest of $10,000,000.
The customs where smuggling is done are wholly under Japanese control.
Moreover, Japanese military- domination would forbid In both ports any inter-
ference with the tratflc In which the Japanese are Interested, either officially or
unofficially."
From the Missionary Review of the World, May 19, E. W. Thwing, of the In-
ternatlon Reform Bureau, says : " Japan Imports 20 tons of morphine a year
Into China."
Many quotations in Mlllards Review and the Far Eastern Magazine.
Under 10 year arrangement with England In 1907, the Chinese cleared all
their Provinces of native opium in 7 years, and then the Indian opium trade
was supposedly stopped, but tacitly smuggling still allowed, and now under
Japanese domination, China must submit to the full reestabllshment of the vile
traffic. Shall America Indorse such Hunnlsh acts toward a sister, friendly,
allied republic by signing the treaty In its present form?
W. B. Mackliw.
The Chairman. The hearing is now closed. There will be an ex-
ecutive session of the committee this afternoon at the Capitol room
at 3 o'clock.
(Thereupon, at 11.30 o'clock a. m. the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Friday, August 29, 1919, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)
FBUVLY, AUGXrST 20, 1010.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington^ D. C,
The committee met, pursuant to adjourmnent, at 10.30 o'clock
a. m., in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot
Lodge presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Harding, John-
son, New, and Moses.
The Chairman. The hour for the hearing having arrived, the
committee are ready to hear the gentlemen who appear here in
behalf of the mid-European peoples. The time is limited. The
committee can not sit after 12 o'clock. I will call on Mr. R. T.
CaldweU, of New York, representing the League of Four Nations in
the American Mid-European Association.
STATEMENT OF MB. B. T. CALDWELL.
Mr. Caldwell. Gentlemen of the Committee on Foreign Relations
of the United States Senate, it is always a pleasure for an American
citizen to appear before any American tribimal or governmental
body of any kind on behalf of an oppressed nationality.
During the Great War, I had the privilege of knowing Dr. Thomas
G. Masaryk, the first President of tne new Czecho-Slovak Repubhc.
Through nim I first became interested in the struggling nations of
Europe who have been so long in subjugation. His sincere sympathy
with all aspirations for freedom deeply moved me. I esteemed and
admired his lofty and simple character and his great inteUect. With
his approval I participated in the formation of the Mid-European
Association with the object of fostering relations between the United
States and these suilering nations.
Later on I went overseas as the representative of the United
States Department of Labor to attempt to aid in establishing closer
relations between America and the European countries. I spent
many weeks in Paris. I came to know very well many of the prime
ministers and cabinets of these nations of Europe. My interest and
my sympathy grew with my knowledge.
And so I am to-day, on behalf of the American Mid-European
Association, and also on my own behalf as a citizen of the United
States, presenting to your committee the cause of these four coun-
tries— ^Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, and Ukraine.
To me, gentlemen, it is a matter of great satisfaction that these
peoples from remote places should turn by common consent to the
American Senate for sympathy and aid in the hour of their perplexity,
feeling as they do that here a friendly ear shall receive their petition.
If it is natural for these aspiring people to turn to the United States
Senate for strength and guiaance, it is no less natural for our Senate
to extend them the hand of encouragement and friendship, for they
seek the path our fathers trod.
701
702 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Our forefathers undertook, 3,000,000 strong, to carve a nation
out of a wilderness and in doin^ so planted the seed of national
aspirations which still flourish, and their adiievements find emulation
among peoples everywhere.
The appearance of these four nations belbre you is a direct result
of our own national achievements. Our generations before us have
each met their problems as they arose. We having to meet the
f)roblem of our day in helping to win the war, have set these nations
ree from the bondage which has long oppressed them. But to set
them free without means of sustenance is out to cast them adrift on
the tide.
They are living on our bounty, which is a trying ordeal for any
people worthy of their freedom. They are becommg more deeply
m debt and we continually more involved. We can not forsake them
nor can they or we continue as we are. We should arm them to fight
back the murderous Bolsheviki.
The independence of these peoples have been recomized by various
nations — Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, S\vitzerland and
Germany. Germany^s recognition of Lithuania bodes no good to us,
to the Lithuanians, nor to the peace of the world.
All these nations lie immediately between Germany and Russia.
They are now the prey of Germany who seeks to control them in
order to have an undisputed highway to the mastery of Russia, yet
they are intensely anti-German.
Again, the record of all four of these coimtries is clean in rendering
valiant service to the cause of the Allies in the defeat of the Bolsheviki.
No more vital link in the whole universal body politic of the world
exists for the peace of the world than Lithuania and these three
neighbors.
fi Germany is permitted to maintain a private highway to the
political and commercial conquest of Russia, it bodes ill to the future
of all. The steadfast refusal of the Germany Army to obey Foch's
command to retire from Lithuania speaks plainly Germany's inten-
tion to retain Lithuania at all hazaras. These Baltic Provinces are
flooded with German printed money and with German troops. Shall
we permit these anti-German allies to be Germanized agamst their
will and against our interests ? They have fought the fight and fight
it stUl, never despairing against overwhelming odds.
Though stripped of their resources, though attacked on all sides,
though poorly equipped are their armies and people, yet never once
have they grown laint-hearted though the peace conference per-
sistently passed them by, while besieged bv tne Poles on the south,
by the Germans on the west, and the Bolsneviki on the east. Shall
these brave people, all four of them, who have fought for their inde-
pendence, since ravaged by the Teutonic knights, be deserted b}' us
to whom they rightmlly look as to an elder brother? Until they
receive recognition by us who have the greatest nimiber of their
nationals who have departed from their own borders, they have not
the means of establishing their credit in the only quarter where
natural conditions are favorable. For of these combined peoples,
embracing in all in excess of 60,000,000, we have in this country* about
2,000,000. With recognition the people could sell a bond issue to
their nationals here which would reestablish their commerce and
create, employment in their respective countries and offer the best
TREATY OF PRACE WITH GERMANY. 703
offset to Bolshevism, and in turn render them good customers for
the world. So long as they remain prostrate they remain a menace,
and so long we must continue to feed and clothe them. Their com-
bined nationals in the United States bought in excess of $70,000,000
of Liberty bonds, showing them a thnfty, frugal, patriotic body
among us. These people have come among us and have become
part of us. They are good citizens and largely naturalized.
The Congress who made Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philip-
pines to prosper and freed them from the pestilence of foreign op-
pression, who has been the support and friend of South and Central
America, to such a Congress is it not on the record of history's pages
that so deserving peoples as these should ask for bread and receive a
stone?
Gentlemen, it is your privilege to render a great service to a vast
people and m doing so to render service to oiu* country and to the
wqrld distraught and torn. The world expects this tHing of us by
the record this Congress itself has established. A wondenul oppor-
tunity lies before us this morning. Will this committee give the
message to the world that the principles of self-determination shall
be applied to these nations and that Geimany after having lost the
war shall not win the peace ? Will we arm these nations to fight our
fight, which they desire to do? For myself I can not entertain a
doubt of the attitude of thLs committee on this issue.
These nations ask each for a separate resolution from your com-
mittee recognizing its national independence and expressing sym-
pathy with its national aspirations. These resolutions I hope may
DC considered as a matter entirely separate and distinct from the
covenant of Paris. It is not oiu' intention to intrude on the con-
sideration of that question by your committee, but we do most
eam^tly hope and pray that your committee will gi'ant to each of
these four nations the recognition they ask and which they deserve.
Mr. George Gordon Battte, of New York bar, who is coimsel for
the Mid-European Association and for the representatives of the four
nations, will briefly address you, and will then introduce the national
spokesmen.
STATEMENT OF MB. OEOBOE OOBDON BATTLE.
Mr. Battle. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I appreciate that the
time is limited, and shall proceed at once to the subject matter, and
promise to be extremely brief. I can not, however, enter upon the
actual discussion of what we have to say here this morning without
expressing my profound gratitude and the gratitude of these four
peoples wiom 1 represent here this morning for the opportunity of
appearing before this committee and of voicmg their national aspira-
tions before such a tribunal.
I appear, sir, as counsel for the League of Four Nations — the
Esthomans, the Letts, the Lithuanians, and the Ukrainians — and
also as counsel for the American Mid-European Association, and as
an American citizen interested in this subject, as all American citizens
are.
Let me first point out to the committee on the map iust where
these four nations are located. This map, which is behind the chair-
702 TEBATY OF PEACE WITH GEESIANY.
Our forefathers undertook, 3,000,000 strong, to carve a nation
out of a wilderness and in doine so planted the seed of national
aspirations which still flourish, and theu' achievements find emulation
among peoples everywhere.
The appearance of these four nations befbre you is a direct result
of our own national achievements. Our generations before us have
each met their problems as they arose. We having to meet the
Kroblem of our day in helping to win the war, have set these nations
■ee from the bondage which has long oppressed them. But to sot
them free without means of sustenance is but to cast them adrift die
the tide.
They are living on our bounty, which is a trying ordeal for aii\
people worthy of their freedom. They are becoming more docpl;
in debt and we continually more involved. We con notforanke tlic
nor can they or we continue as we are. We should arm them to !1l-!.
back the murderous Bolsheviki.
The independence of these peoples have been recomized by vai 1 ■
nations — Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzcrliuid
Germany. Germany's recognition of Lithuania bodes no go(i<I '
to the Lithuanians, nor to the peace of the world.
All these nations he immediately between Germany and Ti"
They ore now the prey of Germany who seeks to control tli'i'
order to have an undisputed highway to the mastery of Russia:
they are intensely anti-German.
Again, the record of all four of these countries is clean m it;-'
valiant service to thecauseof the Allies in the defeat of the Bi>l-''
No more vital link in the whole universal body politic of tli^-
exists for the peace of the world than Lithuania and tlii'-
neighbors.
If Germany is permitted to maintain a private higliM^i;
political and commercial conquest of Russia, it bodes ilTtu il
of all. The stciiiKiisl ti:U\<>\\ of thi> GornianyAriuv to i.'ui,,.
command to retire frimi Lithuania speiiks plainly Gcrmau;,
tion to retain Lithuania at all hazards. These Baltic Pn>' ■
flooded with German printed money and with German Ut>u[
we permit these anti-JGerman allies to be Germanized (!*!■.-
will and against our inUirests f They have fought the ligl ■
it still, never despainog against overwhelming odds.
Though strippei^'tfttieir resources, though nttackd
though poorly uCz^VB^ are their armies and people
have they gfMJ^Hul -hearted though the peace <
sistently pWO^^^BLliy. while besieged by tlie P<i!>'
these b]
dSjiiized by some fift«^ of the greater
..i.r- <.r EsUionia will tell you who they are,
■ - liiivt' been recognized by other nations.
i. . .(fiiii/.e(l by the United States, not only
..Mi ikJiil assistance to them in their struggle
.i^;;l(' f(ir their national liberty and in their
:h, Inil it will at once enable them to open
■ ouiitrv. It will at once enable them to
i ■ .\ii-iislve commerce with this country,
i 1 -uppliea from us. They have the means
'.<•:■<■ are the facilities on both aides to open
...iiiiifrce between this country and these
.11 ))(■ recognized and put on a stable and
.lil'iimiiv. fan you tell us what nations have
j.i.senlatives who are here can tell you
iiy. I can say that Ksthonia has been recog-
:iilii'i' of the nations.
ulifiiraia. But not by us?
1 iif them have been recognized by us.
.liifiiniia. The failure to recognize them pre-
;hi' c-oniniercial intimacy which you speak of,
■ I iiiilly. We can not have diplomatic
iniia. And there could bo profitable trade
!■>■ if they were recognized by this Govem-
ifornia. And its consequent effect, I pre-
iivinei
ililcdiy, just as every advancement of
>ou know, Mr. Battin, thjit llii- n'coj;-
.livi3 function.
stand that. It La entirely an cxi'ciilivc
lliJit I would respectfully make lo tlie
•tide [16 of thf treiity, which priiviiier.
part of the territories of the fonncr
1914. and it occurred to me thut in tlir
'the a<>ti<iu, I |)iv.-.iLnir, of this cniniiiitl.'c
Id l.c ma,!,' t(. this scctiuLi, uu,\ \],-
I U- e.tprcs.s<Hl. if it iicl.l tluit opnilim,
td I.r. ,l.-t.mfil to iiiihulc thi'M- fnur T,;aiu!is,
f.iiir luitions couhl wcU l.c rccot;iii/i'.i l.y
V, ,1 1 it si'cuif to nu' giTiniuic to the Irciity.
704 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
man, will show you at a glance what the four nations are who appear
before you this morning. The Esthonians inhabit the territory
marked in green on the map, just south of the Gulf of Finland,
between the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Riga, and this lake on
the east. The green area on the map represents the Esthonians.
The Esthonians are a different people racially from the other three
nations which are before you this morning. Tne other three nations
are SUvic.
The Chairman. The Lithuanians are Aryans ?
Mr. Battle. The Esthonians are closely akin to the Finns.
Below Esthonia is the country inhabited by the Letts, which is,
roughly speaking, bounded by that blue line. Then, south of the
Letts, IS tne State of Lithuania, which is, roughly speaking, bounded
by that blue line and having its outlet on tne Baltic Sea. Below
that is Ukrainia. Of course, these boundaries are indefinite. Thay
have not been definitely deliinited yet, but they are fairly certain,
and the Ukrainian boundary is the blue line running along here in
the southern and central part of Russia.
These are the four nations appearing before you this morning and
asking for recognition. Each of these nations in August, 1914,
at the beginning of the European war, farmed a part of the Russian
Empire. They had all been unwilling subjects of the Russian
Empire. They had always had national aspirations. Each of
them formed a separate national stock, with roots reaching back into
antiquity, with a romantic national history and national traditions,
with national literatures, with national artistic aspirations, strongly
national in their feeUng. Each of these four nations has set up and
established a substantial provisional Government. This Grovern-
ment in each case is repubhcan in its character, based and formed
along the lines of the French Republic, with a president and a
premier, a Government strictly republican in its character. The
Governments are not provisional in the sense that there is anything
uncertain about them. They are established and certain, they have
armies in the field. They are now fighting the forces of Bolshevism in
Russia. During the war these four nations fought bravely and with
the greatest devotion for the cause of the AUies. After tne collapse
of Russia and after the coming on of the Bolshevik rfigime in Russia
these nations were opposed to Bolshevism and their armies in the
field are fighting against Bolshevism. One of the principal reasons
why it is to the mterest of this coimtry, we respectfully submit, that
these nations be recognized, is that they complete the chain of buffer
nations running through central Europe and fornung a barrier
against the aggressions of Germany from the west and the attacks
of Bolshevism on the east. By a glance at the map you will see
how it is necessary to have this fidl chain of nationally mdependent
States if it is intended to separate Germany from Russia. The State
of Lithuania for instance, if it is recognizea and established, bars the
advance of Germany into Russia, bars the penetration of Germany
into Russia along the northern boundaries of Germany, just as
Poland bars it along the southern boimdaries of Germany.
Now, what we ask of your committee, Mr. Chairman, is that you
take such action as in your judgment will be appropriate and proper
to secure for these countries and for their governments the recogni-
TKBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 705
tion to which we claim they are entitled. As w^ say, the Government
in each case, while it is provisional, is stable and certain. These
nations have already been recognized by many of the great nations.
£}sthonia; I think, has been recognized by some fif tee^a of the greater
nations. The representative of Esthonia will tell you who they are,
and the other Governments have been recomized by other nations.
If these nations can be recognized by the United States, not only
will it be of the greatest aid and assistance to them in their struggle
for civilization, in their struggle for their national liberty and in tSieir
struggles against Bolshevism, but it will at once enable them to open
up trade relations with this comitry. It will at once enable them to
ffain a very valuable and extensive commerce with this coimtry.
They need most desperately supplies from us. They have the means
to buy the supplies, and there are the facilities on both sides to open
up at once a profitable commerce between this country and these
nations so soon as they can be recognized and put on a stable and
permanent basis.
Senator Johnson of California. Can you tell us what nations have
recognized these four ?
Mr. Battle. Their representatives who are here can teU you
definitely. In a general way^ I can say that Esthonia has been recog-
nized by a very large number of the nations.
Senator Johnson of California. But not by us?
Mr. Battle. No; none of them have been recognized by us.
Senator Johnson of California. The failure to recognize them pre-
cludes the possibihty of the commercial intimacy whidi you speak of,
does it ?
Mr. Battle. Yes; practically. We can not have diplomatic
representatives there.
Senator Johnson of California. And there could be profitable trade
and exports from this country if they were recognized by this Govern-
ment?
Mr. Battle. Undoubtedly.
Senator Johnson of Caliiomia. And its consequent effect, I pre-
sume, upon the high cost of living ?
Mr. Battle. Yes; undoubtedly, just as every advancement of
commerce will have that effect.
The Chairman. Of course you know, Mr. Battle, that the recog-
nition of a nation is an executive function.
Mr. Battle. I quite understand that. It is entirely an executive
fimction, and the suggestion that I would respectfully make to the
committee would be under article 116 of the treaty, which provides
[reading] :
(xermany acknowledges and a^eea to respect as permanent and inalienable the
independence of all the territories which were part oi the former Ruseian Empire on
August 1, 1914.
These four nations were a part of the territories of the former
Russian Empire on August 1, 1914, and it occurred to me that in the
report which will accompany the action, I presimie, of this committee
on the treaty, if reference could be made to this section, and the
opinion of the conunittee could be expressed, if it held that opinion,
that these territories shotild be deemed to include these four nations,
the independence of these four nations could well be recognized by
this Giovemment. In that way it seems to me germane to tne treaty.
135546—19 45
706 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Now, these nations not only deserve well of the world for the part
they took in the Great War and for the part which they are taking now
in the struggle of civilization against Bolshevism; they also have a
peculiar claim en this country, not only because of the traditional
attitude of this country as an asylum and an aid for all oppressed
nationalities, but because we have here within our borders great
numbers of the nationals from these four countries. We have about
3,000,000 or more of nationals from these four countries who are now
resident in our borders. They are among our most industrious and
valuable citizens. They aid us in the development of our mines.
Many of them are farmers, many of them are artisans — skilled work-
men. From every branch of fife you will find representatives of
these four nations contributing very largely to our American Army,
and I am informed that from the city of Chicago alone there were
3,000 Lithuanians in the American Army during the late war. They
have bought more than $70,000,000 of the victory and Liberty
bonds. They aided in all the war works of this country. They have
been in every respect patriotic, devoted, and useful citizens, and for
that reason they have a claim to ask the Government of this country
to recognize the country of their nativity and to give it aid now in it»
hour oi need.
We ask this in the cause of justice and in the cause of expediency*
To my mind it is one of the most important issues that now confronts
the world, because, unless these nations are given their independence,
there are going to be sown the seeds of future discontent, the seeds of
racial unrest, which will make another Balkan question along the
shores of the Baltic Sea, and now is the time to settle this question
and settle it right, and if these nations are given their independence,
if their national aspirations are recognizeo, if the principle of self-
determination about which we have heard so much is applied, then
their futiu-e will be peaceful, their future will be content, it will be
restful. If not, they will be a festering sore on the map of the world.
There will be trouble and discontent there, and for the sake of the
peace of the world and the prosperity of this country as well as for
the principles of justice and of right, we ask that this committee give
consideration to the request that we respectfully submit to you.
Now, in accordance with my conversation with the chairman, I
wish, in view of the short time that we have to submit our case, to
call upon four spokesmen first, one for each nation, and then we have
a number of witnesses who can answer specific questions along any
specific line. I will ask first to introduce to the committee the four
spokesmen representing each his nation, and taking up first Esthonia,
of which I have spoken, I wish to introduce to the Committee Lieut.
Commander Beall. He is an American citizen. He is the only one
of these spokesmen who is not a native of the country he represents.
Commander Beall has been in Paris in connection with the work of
the peace conference, and he has become peculiarly interested in
Esthonia. He knows them all, knows their problems at first hand,
and I think he can present their claims to the committee with better
force, perhaps, than a native of that nation. So I beg to present
Commander JBeall as the spokesman of Esthonia.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 707
STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COMMANDEB 0. A. BEAU, UinTED
STATES BAVY.
Commander Beall. The recognition of independence may be an
executive fmiction, as the chairman of the committee has pointed
out. Still we feel that the hope of the world lies in this committee.
That something unselfish and something free from hypocrisy may be
gotten out of tnis war lies in America, and, lying in America, must
express itself through this committee.
Rstlionia is a Republic. There has been an independent govern-
ment since the first day of the. Russian revolution. Kerenskv made
her an autonomous part of Russia. She had had her own diet and
her assembly. When the Bolsheviki came in the soldiers and sailors'
committee dissolved this assembly officially, though they did not
dissolve, but rem^ed in correspondence and in touch with each
other and kept their assembly intact. * When the Germans came in,
by virtue of having been sold out by the Bolsheviki, they fought the
Germans all the way through, even going so far as to make it a traitor-
ous act to sell land to any foreigner, Germany's scheme being to buy
up all the land. This country passed the act making it a traitorous
act to sell any Esthonian lanil to any foreigner, and passed that act
and publishea it in the face of the German occupation. They prom-
ised those who did this act that they would punish them as soon as
they could get hold of them. Thpy fought tne Germans all the way
through.
When the Germans left, an unquestionable pact existed so that
the Bolsheviki could follow in on their heels and seize the country,
but Esthonians, left without arms and munitions, raised an army
and drove the Bolsheviki out after bloody battles.
England saw fit to go into Esthonia with troops and into the Gulf
of Finland, and to have a naval engagement with the Bolshevik ves-
sels. She gave Esthonia every assistance possible, and gave her
nominal recognition, saying that she could go no further until after
the action of the peace conference. That same provisional recogni-
tion has been extended by a great many countries to Esthonia.
Let me impress upon you that Esthonia is a separate nation,
absolutely separate from any of her neighbors, more closely allied to
the Finns than to any others. Until the thirteeiith centiu*y she was
free. She then came under the domination of the Germans. Peter
the Great eventually took Esthonia from the Swedes and Germans
in 1510, and then Esthonia acquired two masters, the Russians
working through the existing German barons and German domina-
tion, and that is the condition under which Esthonia has labored
ever since. She has had two masters, not one.
Esthonia is racially different from the Letts and from any of her
neighbors except the Finns.
Esthonia has no religious problems. She has no Jews within her
borders. Her church is free. Most of the people are Lutherans.
She has no border problems. Her borders are well defined. Her
people are agricultiu*al, 79 per cent rural population. The popular
tion is something under 2,000,000 — between a million and a halT
and two million. It can be considered as 2,000,000 if the rural
population which has gone into the adjoining territory is considered
as jBsthonian, and being the majority of the population there they
708 TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMANY.
can be considered as part of Esthonia. It then runs up somewhere
around 2,000,000. But within her well-defined borders they claim
a population of 1^500,000, of which 96 per cent are Esthonians.
Senator New. What is its area ?
Commander Beall. Forty-seven thousand five hundred kilometers
is its area. It is not a very great State, but you can see by looking
at the map that it occupies the most important position of western
Russia. It is the gateway of Russia, particularly to Petrograd.
The port of Reval and the Baltic ports are very great ports. The
government of Esthonia has taken in 600,000.000 marks in revenue
m the last half year.
I want to reaa to you a memorandum in regard to Britain^s interest
in Esthonia by Sir Park Goff, M. P. I will read only excerpts
[reading] :
In sending a mission tu Esthonia and ships to defend her c^ts Britain has shown
strategic foresight. It is as essential to us as to the Esthonians that Reval, the chief
Sort of Esthonia, should be in the hands of the Esthonians and ourselves, ais it is the
oor to Baltic trade.
It goes on to say [reading] :
If Reval falls into German hands or into the grip of the Bolsheviki, Baltic trade will
be closed to Britain.
Esthonia desires Reval to be a free port. She does not desire to
throttle back Russia. From the very first her proposition has been
to make free all her ports. What tney want is their own personal
independence, not with the idea of throttling back Russia and fat-
tening upon her.
Mr. Goflf says further [reading] :
Esthonia desires Reval to be a free port, and with the port of Helsingfors, the capital
of Finland in the north, and port of Reval, the capital of Esthonia in the south, they
together can conunand the entrance to the Baltic and the Gulf of Finland.
A second mission under C'ol. Talents has been sent to Esthonia by the British Gov-
ernment, and Col. Percy Gordon is soon leaving with a diplomatic'miflsion to Reval.
This friendship beti^een the two countries will have a lasting effect on the develop-
ment of commerce, on which in these days of reconstruction depends the grealneM.
both of Britain and of ICsthonia,
To those whose bump of locality is not abnormally developed a glance at the map
will at once prove the enormous importance and strat^c geopraphical position of
Esthonia to-aay, which may have a most important and far-reaching effect on the
problems of the future.
Now the Finns and the Esthonians are very well sho^Ti here in
the same color. They have the same national anthem. That shows
how closely allied thev are. Their language is practically the same.
They constitute a real wall that is alreadv built, and it is to incline
your minds and hearts to something of the attitude of interest and
of friendship toward these Esthonians that I am speaking to you
to-da^.
It IS of the greatest importance commercially to the United States
to establish some connection with Esthonia. England has seen lit
to make her biggest effort in .Hussia in Esthonia. That surely is
rather a good guide to any one venturing on the
Senator Johnson of California. Commercial sea.
Commander Beall. UnknoMTi sea of foreign commerce. Mr.
Goff speaks as follows of the Esthonian race [reading] :
The Esthonian race is as stanch as it is slow. Once a friend is made, Esthonia will
Ber\'e him faithfully and devotedly through all time. Her friendship with Britain,
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 709
long since commenced, has been sealed by Britain's practical intervention on her
behalf in her struggle against Bolshevism. This alliance is likelv to spread to Fin-
land, which is on very good terms with Esthonia and Great Britain, and ready to
accept their friends as her own.
I vrish to impress this point on you, the most important, namely,
the position of Esthonia. It is so important that ner strong neigh-
bors have not allowed her to have independence for seven centuries,
but her stock is so sturdy that the minute she had an opportunity
she came out with a government that has stuck right through the
revolution, the Bolshevik government and the German occupation.
That same organization would be steady and dependable to any
nation seeing fit to ally herself with Esthonia.
I understand that my time is up. I have tried to keep to essen-
tials.
The Chairman. We are much obhged.
Mr. Battle. I wUl ask permission to introduce to the committee
the spokesman for Latvia, the land that lies just south of Esthonia.
This gentleman is a native Lett. The country of Latvia consists of
three Provinces, Courland, Livonia, and Latvia. The gentleman
who will speak to you is very well known in New York, a minister
of the gospel, the Kev. Carl rodin
The Chairman. Is he an American citizen ?
Mr. Battle. Yes, sir. He has been associated for years with the
Seamen's Church Institute there, and those of you who know condi^
tions in New York know the wonderfid work that that institute has
done for many years for our seamen. It is on South Street, and each
night it cares for 800 seamen. It has done a good work for these
seamen. Dr. Podin is associated with that mstitute. He is a
patriotic American citizen. He is a native of Latvia, and is w^ell
qualified to speak to you.
STATEMENT OF REV. CARL PODIlSr. OF NEW YORK CITY.
Mr. Podin. Gentlemen of the committee, it is a great privilege to
stand here before you this morning. My heart is touched with the
great possibilities that are before you and before my country this
present moment. The storv of my native land is very much like
that of Esthonia, about which the commander has just spoken to you.
Beginning with Ainazi and leading down along tne Esthonian bor-
der—which country I am proud to say is a very friendly neighbor to
the Letts— and then on the east side by Russia, and then 600 miles
of border line between us and our friendly neighbors the
Lithuanians. There lies the country of Latvia. For 700 years they
have preserved a national consciousness and a national soul and while
under the Polish, Swedish, Russian, and German dominion she has
still preserved her language, her morals, her purposes, and her religion.
It is located on that seashore which has been governed by all tnese
countries, and from time to time has been dominated by them, and
it has been a test for these people. Thev are strongs, but it took the
very soul of these people to maintain tneir integrity.
It is about 64,000 square miles large. It has 2,055,000 inhabitants.
Forty thousand of my native people are in this country, and for
25 years and a little over I have ministered to these people in the
710 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
great city of New York, and have been their friend and their pastor —
more a friend than a pastor — ^without a dollar of salary all these
years, for I am an American and want to do all I can for them.
In my experience I have learned that that country is worthy of
this great country's recognition. Our forefathers did not suffer as
much as these people have suffered. I was there as a boy and in the
revolution of 1906 and 1907, and I saw the refugees in my own home
and I know what they have suffered.
It is also a part of the wall of which the commander has just
spoken and it has resisted very, very strongly, and during tliis war
you will remember that Russia refused to give them any assistance
until they were all beaten back, and then the Lettish commander
assumed the responsibility and broke the advancing line and the
Letts saved their land from devastation. That country is in ruins.
Tlie greatest battles have been fought there. The country has been
devastated and it has been exploited to the utmost by the Russians
as they evacuated, taking all the macliinery and talcing the most
elligibfe people with them into Russia where there are thousands of
Letts unable to return, and of the 350,000 of my people thus taken,
many of them are forced by changing condition now to serve in
different parts of Siberia.
The Germans as they came in and captured everything gave
receipts which have never been paid for. So that the country,
between the two of them, has been cleaned out not only in property
but also the land, the most fertile, has been reduced to a wilderness,
and the people are removed or supplanted by Russia, exactly as the
commander has said.
In 1906 the Russians were forced out, and the released men were
imported on Good Friday. With my silk hat and Prince Albert I
traveled with this humble population without a seat, there being
only standing room in these cars.
From the commercial point of view that country has been wonder-
ful. I have statistics, but you would be wearied by statistics. It
is sufficient to say that millions and millions of dollars' worth of
businass has been done by this country; and may I say that even
now England has recognized Finland as an independent State,
and I come to-day for the purpose of beseeching this august body to
grant this same favor to the needy souls in order that they may be
saved. England, France, and Japan have recognized her inde-
pendence and Japan has already sent its ambassador there to repre-
sent its interests in that country.
Regarding the population, t&ere are 2,500,000, of which the ma-
lority are Lettish. The country contains 04,196 square miles. It is
larger than Switzerland, larger than Denmark, larger than the
Netherlands or Belgium. And therefore I claim that our country is
well able to govern itself.
in schools it is on a par with the Ignited States, in high-schools it
is higher than even Germany itself, in Uterature — Lettish language
books are produced in greater numbers than in other countries com-
pared with its population, in reUgion it is mostly Protestant, but
it is friendly with its Roman Catholic neighbors on the south. Russia
for all these years tried to force its reUgion on these people; tried to
Russianize this territory by force. The nation desired its own schools,
its own judges; yet Russia from the very outset forced the Russian
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 711
language, in 1889, on the people, and Russian judges who could not
speak one word of the I^ttish language, and forced upon us Russian
books and influence and Russian systems and by subtle camouflaged
bribes tried to induce the people to become really Russian. It is not
alone Germany that had the world dream, it was Russia as well.
She sought by force and coercion to get these people under one lan-
guage and one rule, one monetary system, and one government. And
that is not dead yet, sir. Even if she should become a republic, as
they desire, Russia is seeking forevermore to overcome that influence.
Wlien the passenger boats were commandeered, she could not find
any better men to command them than our own captams, while the
crews were of a different nationality. In all the higher posts of
intellectual life Russia has chosen our men, from the Baltic to Arch-
angel, and from Riga to Vladivostok. In all the posts where she
needed men of superior intellectual attainments she has chosen my
poor folk. ^Vmid struggles and privations, amid fierce persecution
under the Russian Government and under German exploitation, she
has still maintained a high standard of education and of integrity,
which can not be excelled for a long time.
I would be glad if any of you would interrupt me with any Ques-
tions which you may desire to ask, because my heart is very full on
this subject; and while I am an American, these people are very
dear to me, for I have a dear mother whose eye was torn out by
shrapnel, and I have a brother who had a house of 64 rooms, which
awaa destroyed. My brother was a prison worker to whom the
greatest liberties were given to visit the prisons, and he gave shelter
to 60 poor exiles. They imprisoned my brother and kept him in
chains for a long time, and burned the house which sheltered these
f>eople. No man has made a greater record in prison work than my
)rother. My heart is over there, and I know wnat these Esthonians
and Letts have gone through. They have at the present time a
government by a state council, and they are waiting for the time to
oome when a constitutional assembly can meet. They had their
representatives at the peace conference, and they are keeping abreast
with things there, but they have been oppressed, and to-day, contrary
to the great peace treaty, part XIV, section 2, article 433, which
provides:
And in order to insure the restoration of peace and good government in the Baltic
Provinces and Lithuania^ all German troops at present in the said territories dhall
reUim to within the frontiers of Germany as soon as the Governments of the principal
allied and associated powers shall think the moment suitable, having regard to the
internal rituation of these territories. These troops shall abstain from all requisitions
and seizures and from any other coercive measures, with a vnew to obtaining supplies
intended for Gennanv, and shall in no way interfere with such measures for national
defense as may be adopted by the provisional governments of Esthonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania.
That provision has not been carried out to this present moment.
I have a letter in mv pocket written on the 7th day of August stating
that the same bondage is upon the neck of my people. There is a
gentleman here, Mr. Johnson, who has some moving pictures, and
with your permission he will show you conditions as late as the 26th
of May. I remember that date very well because it was my birth-
day. That day was frai^ht and f uu of the most awful and horrible
thmgs. I will ask that Mr. Johnson be given the privilege of showing
these actual things. A clever American obtained the privilege from
712 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
a German officer who became intoxicated — I do not know whether
by Scotch or American whisky — to take these pictures which do not
lie and are not made up, but are real genuine things, so that you
may see what conditions there have actually been, l will ask that
Mr. Johnson be given the privilege of exhibiting these pictures. In
the meanwhile if there are any questions you wish to ask me I will
be glad to answer them.
As to the Bolshevik question among mv people, I will be absolutely
truthful and correct and will tell the whole truth. Between 20 and 25
per cent of my people are Bolsheviki, but these people never had any
rooting in any of our social, moral, or commercial life. They are
drifters and they are not accountable for themselves in any manner,
shape, of form. I have met them here and elsewhere. I know how
some of them have been embittered. They have seen their fathers
and mothers murdered. One boy just returned found six of his
brothers and his father slain, his house burned, his mother living in a
mud hut. Less than four weeks ago that man returned. His soul
was embittered, even as my own soul at times has been embittered.
Our Government is strong against this very thmg, and my people are
absolutely capable of coping with it in the eastern and southern parts
where the Bolsheviki are now. They are capable of holding their
own, providing they are given a free rein.
Mr. Battle. On behalf of the Ukrainians I want to present Mr.
Emil Revyuk.
STATEMENT OF MB. BMIL BEVTUK.
Mr. Revyuk. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I appear h^re on behalf
of the largest of the nationalities of Europe resurrected by this war.
My native country, where I was bom, is the first nationaUty of
Europe as regards it^ population. It is second among them as regards
its area. It is first as regards its natural resources.
My country borders in the south on the Black Sea. Then it bor-
ders "more or less on the Carpathian Moim tains, reaching as far as the
De.sna River, and going east, not shown on this map, as far as the
River Don. These are, more or less roughly speaking, the boundaries
of Ukrainia. Our neighbors are Roumania, Himgary, the Poles, the
White Russians, the Great Russians, the different mongoUan tribes
in the east, and the inhabitants of the Crimea in the south. Our
nationality is Slavic and our people are of the purest Slavic type.
There is hardly an admixture of any other race in an anthropological
respect in our nationaUty.
The population of Ukrainia is 50,000,000, of whom 38,000,000 are
Ukrainian. The rest are small minorities of different nationalities,
like the Jews, the Poles, Great Russians, White Russians, and so on,
scattered like islands in the great area of Ukrainia, which is 330,000
square miles, or about one and one-half times as large as Germany or
France, and seven times as large as the State of New York, 'that
area is not only large in extent, but it is also very rich in natural
resources. It is one stretch of black earth soil, especially well
adapted for the production of wheat. It has also all the mineral
resources which are necessary for the development of industry. It
has very rich oil deposits in the west, which is called Galicia, audit has
very rich deposits of iron ore and coal in the east, near the River Don.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 713
If to these natural resources of the Ukrainia you add her seaport of
Odessa and her rivers, navigable or which can be made navigable very
easily, like the Dnieper and the Dniester and the Don, you can see why
Ukrainia has been called the granary of Europe. And the very fact
that it was a granary, well stocked with these resources, was the reason
why we have never been let alone to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Our
history is one long fight for the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor
on that land. From the very dawn of history, when the Ukrainians
first settled on that soil, we had to fierht the nomadic tribes of Mon-
golia pouring into Europe. It was the Ukrainians who were first to
withstand the pressure of the Tartar invasion. At that time our
defenses around the city of Kiev were broken down and then we had
to enter into a union with the Lithuanians, our neighbors in the north.
That was the only union in which we were successful. They were
the only people with whom we lived peaceably, without tearing at
each other's throats, and that is the reason why we would like to have
that union also in the future. When Ukrainians entered into a union
with Poland, Poland proved to be an oppressor.
Then we Ukrainians organized a strong military power and organ-
ized in the seventeenth century the first republic in that part of
Europe. But that republic entered into a new union with Russia,
which proved disastrous to us. Then came the partition of Poland,
and for another century about nine-tenths of our population was
dominated by Russia and only one-tenth of the population was
dominated by Austria-Hungary, divided between the Province of
Galicia, which belonged to Austria, and the part within the terri-
torial limits of Hungary.
The Russian Ukrainians were strongly persecuted by the Russian
Government, which went even so far as to prohibit the use of the
Ukrainian language in the schools, in the public life, and in the
churches, and the Ukrainians organized the first popular government
in Russia after the Russian revolution. When the Bolsheviki came
into power, through Bolshevik intrigue with Germany, it was forced
to make peace with Germany several days before a similar peace was
made with the Bolsheviki themselves. The Ukrainians then had the
opportunity to know the Germans, and when the Germans came to
Ukrainia, then the Ukrainian peasantry rose in one uprising against
the German oppressor. There were as many as 200,000 Ukrainian
soldiers fighting the Germans, and the result was that Germany had
to keep an army of more than a million well-equipped soldiers in the
East, a fact wliich counted for very much in this war. When Ger-
many saw later that the Ukrainian Government was going to rise
against her, she overthrew that government and set up a government
headed by a Russian by the name of Kuropatzki.
When the German forces broke down in the west, then the Ukranian
party organized a new Government, the so-called directorate, com-
posed of the representatives of all the Ukrainian parties. That
directorate has remained until the present time the governing body
of Ukrainia. In spite of the great number of its enemies, in spite
of the fact that it is fought in the east by the Bolsheviki, in spite of
the fact that it is fought in the west by the Polish miUtarists, in spite
of the fa€t that it is attacked by the Roumanians in the south, it still
's holding the greater part of the Ukraine, practically the whole right
bank of the Dniester River. That government, wliich, as I said, is
714 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
composed of representatives of all the Ukrainian parties, composed of
representatives elected from all over the Ukraine, ^ave a special vote
to the representatives of the different national minorities scattered
all over tne Ukrainian territory. That government fought first the
Germans and drove them out of the Ukraine, drove out Gren. Kuropat-
zki who was the head of the German Government there, and then they
fought the Bolsheviki, and they are fighting them still, although
the Bolsheviki have several times offered them peace on favorable
terms.
The Ukrainian Government of the directorate never got any
recognition by any foreign power, and has not been so recognized
so far, but it is fighting and nolding the field against many enemies.
1 wish to mention in a few words another question, the question
of eastern Galicia, which is marked on this map here with a special
color, different from the color of the rest of the Ukraine.
The Chairman. Our tinae is very limited. Will you tell us exactly
what you want the committee to 3o ?
Mr. Revyuk. The eastern part used to belong to Austria. The
Poles were allowed to estabhsh there a civil government. It was
an exceptional case
The Chairman. It is utterly impossible to go into all these details.
Mr. Revyuk. In closing we demand that the Ukrainian Govern-
ment, which is now fighting against the Bolsheviki in the east and
against the Polish miUtarists m the west, be recognized, or that the
.^onerican Senate give as much help as it can in this respect, and that
the Polish Army be withdrawn from Galicia. That is our request.
Mr. Battle. On behalf of the Lithuanians, we want to present
an American citizen who is also the district attornev of Luzerne
County, in the city of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Hon. John S. Lopatto.
STATEMENT OF MB. JOHN S. LOPATTO.
Mr. Lopatto. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee
on Foreign Relations, it is indeed remarkable that the Lithuanian
Nation should have survived to this day. Ages of subjugation, cen-
tiu*ie8 marked by foreign intrusion and exploitation, have not caused
these people to surrenaer anything which was vital to their perpetua-
tion as a distinct people in language, customs, or traits. It has
been a very hard and incessant fight throughout. It has diverted
their forces from striving for things common and worth while to
mankind — self-preservation has alwavs been and still is the one
thing which preoccupied their every thought and act, and yet they
have, in remarkable manner, not only preserved tneir language,
customs, and traits throughout almost all of the land that they have
inhabited for ages but they have also been morally elevated. It
has been a people's fight throughout — and that means that they
have been fighting always for democracy.
What are the facts about Lithuania? It is one of the Baltic
countries occupying approximately 60,000 square miles, with nearly
6,000,000 inhaoitants. It comprises what were f onnerly the Gov-
ernments of Kovno, SuvaUd, Viina, Grodno, part of MinsK in Russia,
and the Lithuanian-speaking part of East rrussia. Starting from
near Libau on the Baltic Sea, it is contiguous with Latvia on the
north, with White Russia to the east, with White Russia and Poland
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 715
to the south, and with Germany to the west. It has fine tilled soil,
excellent forests, and is dotted with lakes. The people are tall, fair,
blonde, and very thrifty in nature. All the people of the country-
live in the basin of the river Niemen, a lai^e and the only navigable
artery of Lithuania, which is as Lithuanian as the Mississippi is
American. Indeed the geographical position and the seacoast offer
many opportimities for commercial and industrial development. It
is very lortimately located in this regard, inasmuch as it stands
midway between the avenues of commerce of Russia and of western
Europe.
American agricultural machinery, textiles, rolUng stock, and
finished products of aU sorts and kinds, would find ready and preferen-
tial market there.
It is worth noting that inasmuch as Lithuania produces yearly an
abimdant surplus of agricultural products for* which there is a ready
market on every hand — the country is well able to lay the foundation
of an excellent system of credit — ^which is the mainspring of com-
merce.
Prior to 1569 Lithuania was free and independent, taking those
words in their proper sense. It was a powerfiu country, and by the
atrength of its anus the Teutonic pressure toward the east was arrested
at Tannenberg in 1410.
Lithuania, moreover, saved western civilization from destruction
by repeatedly rolling back the Mongolian hordes.
In the whole history of this people one date stands out with sad
prominence — 1569 — the date of the Union of Lublin. Then Lithu-
ania and Poland were welded into a dual state, so in name only.
It was not a union of equals with equals and mutual good will, it
was effected over the protests of a large number of Lithuanian dele-
fates. After the union both States were presided over by one head,
ad one parliament, which convened alternately, first in one, then
in the other country. A single coat of arms was adopted with the
insi^ia of both countries incorporated in the seal. The customs
duties were entirely abolished. In spite of all this Lithuania was
able to maintain its own army, its own fiscal and judicial system, and
its own administrative officers. This union widened the gap between
nobility and peasants. The former curried favor with the Poles
and permitted Polish penetration. The latter were reduced to
serfdom. The Union of Lublin has a terrible meaning to ail Lithu-
anians— they shall never permit its recurrence.
The last of the three partitions is another vital period in the
history of the Lithuanians because it ultimately resulted in Lithuania
being flung into the jaws of Russian despotism. The union of the
two countries ultimately led to their subjugation because the upper
classa^ became separated from the common people, who always
remained faithful to their language, even if they were without schools,
rights, or access to wealth.'
Serfdom was abolished in Russian Lithuania in 1861, and that of
<50ur8e marked a new era in their national life. But in 1864 the
Lithuanians were prohibited from printing anything in their own
language and in the Latin characters, and this restriction lasted for
40 long years, which were deliberately used by Russian and Polish
imperialists to denationalize the common peopfe. And still they did
not succumb. In 1904 prudence led Russia to revoke the prohibi-
716 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GEKMANY.
tion and the Lithuanian question is being discussed in the I'uited
States Senate to-day because Lithuanian people have developed a
lar^e and fine literature, have studied and organized themselves
against all odds in a most remarkable manner within the short span
oF 1 5 years.
The Government enjoys the loyal adherence of every Lithuanian.
The Government's chief task is the convocation of the constituent
assembly, and this can not be done readily while parts of a country
are still in the hands of the Poles and Germans. The moment the
intruders leave the constituent assembly will be called.
The attitude of every Lithuanian was always anti-Prussian. His-
tory proves it, the knights of the sword, the forerunners of the Prus-
sians of to-day, were the deadly enemies of Lithuania, German occu-
pation was almost as unpleasant for the Germans as for the Lithu-
anians themselves, be<fause the latter strove in every open or secret
way to combat the vicious reauisitions, projects of colonization, and
economic subjugation of the plundering German army of occupation.
The fines, summarv courts-martial, and torturing oi peasants could
have hardly servea to endear the Germans to the Lithuanian people.
The Ldthuanian people can not and will not believe in Bolshevism.
They have the sense of property owning deeply implanted in them.
This is sufficient to insure their immunity from Bolshevism. When,
during the war, the Lithuanians were fighting single-handed against
Bolshevism, Germany, and Polish intrusion tney did not need to be
spurred into action by the Entente against the Bolsheviki, but warred
upon them immediately on their own initiative. After the armistice
it was the valor of the ill-equipped Lithuanian Army which prevented
the union of the Bolsheviki of ilussia with the Sparticides of Germany.
There are approximately 1,000,000 Lithuanians in i\jnerica, mostly
American citizens. • They have served America's cause well, they
have bought more than $50,000,000 worth of Liberty bonds, they
have sent over 50,000 men to fight for the cause of humanity. They
have done this gladly, whole-heartedly, for they desire to maintain
the prestige of America as a protector of the oppressed, as the libera-
tor of subject peoples.
Americans of Lithuanian descent believe in the things that the
people of Lithuania are to-day striving for. They rejoice in the
fact that Lithuania has a splendid democratic government, which
is built upon the foundations of an idealism anchored on the bed-
rock principles of fair play, decency, and economic betterment for
all tlie people. The guiding principle of the whole Lithuanian
administration and of every political parfor there is the greatest
good for the greatest number. They know that competent organi-
zation and reasonableness are essential to stability. Outside powers
could help toward such stability by rendering that country s busi-
ness relations easier. Heretofore the Lithuanians have shoAvn the
world what they could do in adversity. Lack of food, medictd sup-
plies, roUing stock, and every essential thing, lending stabilitv to
every .government, has not dampened their zeal for the establish-
ment 01 a free and independent stat^. If the barest necessities were
supplied them it woidd be a good thing for the rest of the world, for
they are even to-day holding back the flood of Bolshevism from the
rest of the world. The supplying of such necessities can be made
convenient and immediate only it their government be recognized.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 717
Business relations require authentic contracting parties. Vague
credentials lead to vague financial returns.
Another vital reason for the recognition of Lithuania is that very
many Americans of Lithuanian descent have urgent business with
their relatives in Lithuania. Five years of war with accompanying
deaths from violence and disease has hindered the business of many
American citizens. Property, real and personal, can not now be
sold, rented, improved, or profitably used as things now stand. And
yet all this could be set aright inmiediately if the present stable gov-
ernment of Lithuania be recognized. We can not see how this would
complicate any intemationJ matters. Indeed, it would improve
matters, for, in fostering business, one is fostering the economic wel-
fare of the world.
I have merely outlined the case of Lithuania. I hope that I have
sufficiently emphasized that the racial solidarity, rendered closer by
hardships of various degrees and kinds, the display of reasonableness
always, even when the rest of Europe seemed to have gone mad, the
singleness of purpose, and the desire to pursue its peaceful pursuits,
and develop its own peculiar culture, can lead only to recognition of
the Luthuanian Nation. They have fought like men always for the
establishment of their sovereign State. Th6y are fighting to-day for
the world. Will the world give them recognition m return?
The Chairman. Mr. Lopatto, did I understand you to say that
there are about 1,000,000 Lithuanians in the United States?
Mr. LoPATTO. There are about 1,000,000 as far as our calculations
can determine.
The Chairman. Where are they chiefly located ?
Mr. LoPATTO. In the coal mines of Pennsylvania, anthracite and
bituminous, and in the large cities, New York, Philadelphia, Balti-
more, Boston, and in the New England industrial sections, in Chicago,
and in the Western States.
The CHAIRMAN. I knew there were a good manv in New England.
Senator New. There are a few in northwestern Indiana.
Mr. LoPATTO. The largest number are in Pennsylvania.
Senator Johnson of California. Did these four peoples get a hearing
at the Paris conference ?
Mr. LoPATTO. As I am informed, and from my personal knowledge,
the Lithuanians had no hearing before the peace conference. They
had consultations with subcommittees on the Baltic.
Senator Johnson of California. Did they request hearings before
the peace conference, do you know?
Mr. Battle. My information is that they made that request, but
they were late in making it, and my understanding is that there was
no formal hearing before the peace conference.
Senator Johnson of California. Was the request denied ?
Mr. Battle. It was not granted. It was not given.
The Chairman. Mr. Lopatto, I should like to ask you a question
of historical interest. Were not the famous Jagellon princes
Lithuanians ?
Mr. Lopatto. Yes. One of them married a Polish princess and was
made King of Poland.
The Chairman. The time is short.
Mr. Battle. We should like to show to the committee the moving
pictures taken by Lieut. Johnson of the American Army showing the
atrocities committed by the Germans in Lithuania.
718 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The Chairman. Go right on if you are ready.
(The committee here suspended the hearing, and moving pictures
were shoAn.)
Mr. Battle. We have a number of witnesses on behalf of Lithuania,
on behalf of Esthoniii, and on behalf of the Ukrainians, who are
anxious to give their testimony, but I do not want to intrude further
on your time. May I ask permission to submit statements in writing i
'the Chairman. Certainly; they will be made part of the record.
Mr. Battle. May I supplement the statement made this morning
by memoranda in writing ?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Battle. Permit me to express my thanks.
(A document submitted and ordered made a part of the record is
here printed in full, as follows:)
To the Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senatf-.
Genltemen: We, the citizens of the I^Dited Statee of Lithaaniaii descent, remecU
fully submit this memorandum on behalf of Lithuania for your careful coiudderaction:
One of the constructive results of this war is the reapp^irance on both sides of the
Niemen River of the Lithuanian Nation in the form oi a republic at this time.
It is not an artificial creation, but a natural and inevitable return to national bcang
of a people whose history goes as far back as the historical works of the land itself.
The Aistici referred to by Strabo, 50 years before Christ, are the Tithuanians.
For a thousand years they lived a tribal life.
In the twelfth. century tfie LithuanianK formed the State which two centuries later
became one of the greatest powers in eastern Europe.
From the bc»ginning of the fifteenth to the middle of the sixteenth centur>',
Lithuania was in a perscmal union with Poland .
In the next century and a half the union be<'ame closer still.
From 1795 until 1915 Lithuania was enslaved by autocratic Russia.
A part' of Lithuania, too, has groaned under Prussia.
The union with Poland was not based upon the voice of the people of Lithuania.
Its subjection to Russia was the result of military violence.
Foreign conquests never succeeded in destroying the nation's desire for inde-
pendence— a desire based upon natural right.
America's voice proclaiming thd principle of self-determination of nations strength-
ened Lithuania's hope for achieving independence.
Lithuania rejoices in the knowledge that America has so spoken, and has full fadth
in America's declaration.
THE bonds between AMERICA AND LITHUANIA.
Lithuania two centuries ago could not have any official relations with the United
States of America.
When Lithuania became a subject race under a foreign yoke, then her son, Thaddeus
Kosciusko, gave his genius and his sword to America in her struggle for independence.
Now has come the time that the land of freedom can extend her liberty-carrying
hand to Lithuania, and commence the mutual relations between the two countries.
This relationship is made more desirable because hundreds of thousands of Lithu-
anians are American citizens, and numbers of them have shed their blood in Fiance
and Italy, Northern Russia, and Siberia for American ideals and her undertakings.
Lithuanians emigrated to America because it was a free land. Now the entire
Lithuanian nation lives in the spirit of liberty, and it is building the Lithuanian
Republic upon these principles.
This is the extension of American policy and it is for the benefit not only of Lithu-
ania but of America as well.
Just as America was a giver of freedom to individuals fleeing from autocratic oppres-
sors, so the act of justice asked now of the United States will be the carrier of freedom
to Lithuania as a nation. That is what we expect; that is what all of the people of
Lithuania talk, in the cities as well as villages; that is the unanimous voice of the
whole Lithuanian press.
The rebirth of the nation implies, without a doubt, the rebirth of production,
industry, and commerce.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 719
Economic relations of Lithuania with America will be more beneficial to Lithuania
than if she came under the economic supremacy of any European nation.
Lithuania will not be tempted by anything un-American because Lithuania and
America are bound by too many ties of spirit and culture in common.
Lithuania's ardent struggle against Bolshevism.
Understanding democracy as America understands it, and while or^nizing accord -
injrly, from the very beginning Lithuania suffered from contact with Bolshevism,
which spread the poison throughout Russia and which inevitably had to assail its
neijj^borB.
In Lithuania against Bolshevism stood her ancient culture, distinct from Russian,
and also the vital interests of the major part of her population— owners of small farms
and the honfe owners of the towns and cities.
Lithuania's convictions, opinions, experiences, and feelings are determinedly
opposed to Bolshevtsm. All of the parties in Lithuania have united in this opposition^
including the socialists.
The partial occupation of Lithuania by the Red Army and its evil and cruel work
in the short time before it was driven out quicklv fired an enduring anti-Bolshevik
spirit in all I Jthuania. Bolshevism can only be brought into Lithuania by force or
terror exerted from without. Independent Lithuania will be a power that wilt
weaken Bolshevism.
Bolshevism is the fruit of Russia. To subjugate Lithuania anew under Russia, be
it under the Bolshevik-Soviets or any Russian Government, might strengthen Bol-
shevism in the world bv giving it a new field for expansion.
At one time the Bolshevik masses unexpectedly entered and occupied almost half
of Lithuania. But this invasion raised a^^ainst them the ardor of the entire nation.
TTie Lithuanian Army drove the Bolsheviks beyond the boundaries of Lithuania.
Lately it has been reported that the Bolsheviks are concentrating forces near
Dvinsk.
The Poles, by using military force against Lithuania, are practically aiding the
Bolsheviks.
If at this moment Lithuania's efforts in her struggle against the Bolsheviks do
not receive actual and moral support from the anti-Bolshevik world, then the world
will witness the sad sight of a small nation vainly fighting for its strong ideals and
healthy culture — ^the same ideals which are the heritage of the great democratic
nations of the world. Shall Lithuania be left in this day of peril, while the Bolsheviks
are concentrating on her front, without the aid of these great nations?
polish invasion weakens LITHUANIA AGAINST BOLSHBVIKI.
Poland is taking advantage of the delay in granting indejpendence to Lithuania
and has already by force and arms occupied a considerable part of ethnographic
Lithuania.
Lithuania, being forced to defend the integrity of her territory, has been com-
pelled to weaken her forces by withdrawing troops from the Bolshevik front and
using them to meet the Polish invasion.
In the name of the peace conference Gen. Foch established a temporary line of
demarcation between Lithuania and Poland, advantageous to the latter. The Poles
violated this line. At present only the Lithuanian Army is defending the honor
of the peace conference by attempting to maintain this line. That army believes
that the voice of America will support it in this course.
LTTHUANIA SEEKS NO FOREIGN TERRITORY.
Lithuania does not seek from anyone any foreign territory.
Parts of historic Lithuania remain under Germany and still larger areas go to Poland.
But the new-bom republic justly will not suffer the severance from her of Lithuanian
inhabited territories of the cities and towns in purely Lithuanian districts that have
been artificially colonized.
GERMANY HOSTILE TO LITHUANIAN INDEPENDENCE.
Lithuania's independence is not desired by Germany, especially by its leaders of
political thought who want to maintain a bridge to the east and to keep an army
outside of Germany in order to protect East Prussia.
720 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
From its geographical location Lithuania is either an open gate or a closed wall
between Germany and Russia according to whether she is allowed to come under the
control of one or the other of these countries, or is enabled to set up a permanent,
independent national existence. Germany's next logical move is the exploitation
of Russia upon which she would like to depend for her supplies of both men and
material in ner scheme of future expansion. An independent Lithuania would be
an elective barrier against direct communication between Germany and Rus«k.
much OS Belgium is a barrier between Germany and France.
IMMEDIATE RECOONITION AN ACT OF JUSTICE.
The cultural world seeks to maintain and preserve from destruction that which
iflTare.
The Lithuanian nation differs from the Slavs, Germans, and others in* her ancient
language, with its distinctive peculiarities.
Added to the political there is thus the scientific necessity for the recognition of
Lithuanian independence. The denationalization of Lithuania under foreign oppreg*
sion would drive from the world this language, the nearest tongue to the ancient
Sanscrit now extant.
Lithuania now is a Republic. All parties, including the ethnical minorities, are
represented in the Grovemment. The peace conference has taken official cognizance
of the existence of Lithuania and its Government by conferring with the Lithuanian
commission to the peace conference, by appointing an interallied commission to the
Baltic Provinces and Lithuania, by makmg certam provisions regarding the River
Niemen and the port of Memel and by establishing a temporary line of dfemarkation
between Lithuania and Poland.
The United States individuallv has taken cognizance of the existence of Lithuania
and has negotiated with the Lithuanian Government by sending an American com-
mijssion to Lithuania, and by selling food and medical supplies to the existing
Lithuanian Government.
Recognition of the independence of Lithuania follows logically on these actions.
Recognition should not ne delayed.
Immediate recognition is dictated alike by motives of sound policy and of justice.
Signed on behau of the Lithu \nian citizens of America.
Lithuanian National Counciis.
B. F. Mastauskas, Pres\<lent.
C. V. Chesnul, Secretary.
M. J. ViNiKAS, President.
A. M. BaceviCe, Secretary.
The Chairman. We are sorry that we are so restricted in time.
I would say to the members of the committee who are here that
through a misunderatanding Mr. Dudley Field Malone, who was to
have appeared next week, is here to speak for India. He htis o
professional engagement and I suggest that we hear him now.
(The followmg statements and memoranda were subsequently
ordered printed m the record:)
Memorandum in the Case of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and L'kraine.
[Presented by the League of £sthoni&ns, Letts, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians of America.]
FRIENDLY RELATIONS OF THE FOUR PEOPLES.
In Europe. — From the Baltic to the Black Sea, occupying territor>' greater in extent
than Germany and France combined, are situated foiu- new and democratic republic«—
Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Their combined pouulations number
nearly 80,000,000. Their armies fighting side by side against the Bolshevist regime
have bound them into a league for defense of their homes and countries.
Jn America. — Their kindred in America, numbering about 3,000,000, have alsooome
to a close understanding with each other for purposes of mutual welfare and for tho
establishment of proper relations between their former countries and the democratic
peoples of the United States, Great Britain, France, Japan, and Italy, the powers
which are moat interested in bringing the whole of Europe to a normal and peaceful
condition. They have formed the League of Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanuns, and
Ukrainians of America. Their duly elected representatives take the liberty at this
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 721
time of presenting tlie case of their mother countries, and they petition that each of
these republics be accorded official recognition and justice in any and all treaties
which may be entered into affecting their political, economic, and territorial rights.
Natttralne88 of Ihe leaguf. — ^The formation of this brotherhood among these peoples
in the two hemispheres is entirely natural and can not in any way be construed as
superficial or temporary . 1 1 has been brought about in Europe by many circumstances
affecting their racial, economic, and political existence extending over many centuries.
Because of their territories, stretching all the way across Europe, and because of di£fer-
ences in race from the neighboring nations, they were obh^ed at various times to
conduct wars of defense against oppression and invasion of their territories and against
their national annihilation at the hands of Poles, Russians, Tartars, and Germans.
Each nation is composed distinctly of people of its own race, with its own language,
history , literature, traditions, and aspirations. Each has become independent through
its own efforts and each has established a government of its own strong enough to
defend its country against the Bolsheviki, Poles, and Germans.
Each nation ia composed distinctly of people oi its own race, with its own language,
history, Uterature, traditions, and aspirations. Each has become independent through
its own elforts and each has established a government of its own strong enough to
defend its country against the Bolsheviki, Poles, and Germans.
OPPRESBION BY THK NEIOHBORIMO IMPERIAU8TIC POWEK8.
By old Poland. — Generations ago the peoples of these republics tasted of a political
tie with Poland and found it anything but endurable. Their languages, religions,
national rights, and economic aspirations were ignored and abused b^ond measure.
Colonization by Poles, the imposition of the Polish language with a different religion,
as well as the unwarranted seizure at opportune moments of territories belonging to
Letts, Lithuanians, and Ukn4nians, were as much the order of the day as the Polish
duplicity. The political chicanery and snobbery of the Polish ^ntry and cleigy did
not at all end with the partition of Poland. Nor did the partition prevent the roles
from using their ill-gotten advantage in furthering the use of the Polish langua^
through religious channels and in oppressing economically their comrades in mis-
fortune.
Greed of the New Polish Government. — Since Poland's resurrection as an independent
state, the people of these four republics have found the new Polish Government as
insincere, arrogant, and imperialisUcally ambitious as in the past. Under pretense
of fighting the bolsheviki, where no Bolsheviki were present, the Polish armies have
occupied parts of Ukraine and territories of East Galicia and Volhynia, where the
population is almost entirely Ukrainian. Under the same pretense the>^ have occupied
the Liliiuanian territories of Grodno, Vilna, Minsk, and Suwalki. Lithuanian civil
ofiicials were arrested and replaced by Poles; persecution and abuse of all who spoke
the language of the country was inaugurated, and war was b^^un on the Lithuanian
people with the sole object of incorporating Lithuania into Poland. This was still
continued. In short, all of Poland's promised activity against the Bolsheviki has
proved to be a ruse for securing the help of the Allied Grovernments in her attempt
to acquire Lithuania, Esthonia, Latvia, and Ukraine.
By Germany. — German attempts to ^^ain a political foothold in Esthonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania in the last few centuries, as well as the activities of their notorious
landowning Baltic barons, have produced results among the natives of these countries
not dissimilar to the results produced by the Poles. The economic exploitation of
these cx>untries by the mail-fisted methods of the Germans, supported by the officials
and court camarilla at Petrograd, has served to make the people bitter enemies of
both Germans and Russians.
German military occupation. — Four years of military occupation of these countries
by German armies in this war and the abuse inflicted by their soldiers upon the
natives during that time have served to inspire a burning hatred in the heart and
soul of every native man, woman, and child. Not only did the Germans requisition
all available cattle, sheep, horses, agricultural and manufacturing implements, tools,
machinery, and supplies, but they even wantonly destroyed or carried away seeds,
hay, straw, grain, pillows, covers, blankets, sheets, mattresses, clothing, linen,
medical supplies, ana furniture. They left the people to starvation, exposure to the
inclement weatiiier, and ravaging diseases. They flooded these countries with irre-
deemable, worthless paper money, and they planted military colonies which now are
alliance with the Russians in order to secure these territories for Germany. With
the Poles and the Bolsheviki they bartered and traded the cities and territories of the
unfortunate republics. No such suffering, misery, and devastation were wrought in
Poland, Serbia, Belgium, France, or any other country by the World War as in
136546—11
722 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
these four republics, wfiose people fought and still are fighting so valiantly on the
side of the Allies. There never was and never can be any pro-German sentiment in
these four countries.
By RtLsna. — ^Russia ruled these four nations, each more enlightened than herself,
for more than a century. Her swav over Ukraine lasted three centuries. Her rule
was notorious, not only because of her political, racial, and economic persecution of
alien races, but because of her thorough corruption and the unparallelcKi short-
sightedness of her political policies. Her eagerness to denationalize and Russify the
subject nations led her to extremes. The most enlightened men of these nations,
whose only crime was their patriotism, served months in solitary confinement and
yesLn in exile in Siberia. Even Germans were given more rights than were the native
inhabitants. All the commerce was direc*ted into Gennany's hands, while the natives
were driven to despair, with emigration as tlieir only hope for betterment. Printing
in the native languages were prohibited, although all foreign languages were encour-
aged and protected.
Russia to-day. — ^The incompetence of the Imperial Russian Government is a ^miliar
story. The same bureaucrats and autocrats of that old regime, men like Admiral
Kolchak, Gen. Denikin, and their assistants, are tr3ring to assume control of the
country again, but they are not one whit more liberal now than they were under the
Czars. It is well known that one of the articles in the Kolchak statutes provides the
death penalty for all persons who advocate the {>rinciples of self-determination or
separation from the old Russian Empire. Russian factions supporting Admiral
Kolchak and his direct representatives have declared that as soon as Russia sh&ll
have established peace within her own proper territory, whether controlled by the
Bolsheviki or by the monarchists, she immediately will take steps to nullify the Treaty
of Versailles. Not only do the Russians intend to destroy the four republics of
Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine, but they plan to crush the independence
of Poland and Finalnd and to subjugate even Roumania. To carry out this scheme
successfully, Russians are prepar^ to enter immediately into economic, defensive
and offensive treaties with Germany. The unusual diplomatic activity of recent
date among Berlin, Moscow, and the Kolchak elements, as well as the militar\' under-
standing which seems to have been arrived at in the Baltic, is a bad omen for peace
in Europe for a long time to come.
THE POWER IN THE COOPERATION OP THE POUR REPUBLICS OP ESTHONIA, LATVIA,
LFTHUANIA, AND UKRAINE.
The four nations have no ties wliatever with Germany, Poland, and Russia. They
are independent, and their right to independence is. historically, racially, and by the
principle of self-determination, indisputable. Lithuanians, Letts. Esthonians.] and
Ukranians differ in langufi^ and race from all their neijj:hbors. They had their inde-
pendent States for centuries. They gave due protection to all creeds and peoples
and lived in peace and toleration among themselves. Together they now form a
force powerful enough to command the situation in eastern Europe.
Their Jiatural wealth. — Their territory, extending in a wide belt all the way from the
Baltic to the Black Sea, is the most productive in Europe. Even under Russian
domination and German economic influence, and at times when Russia proper had
famines, they exported immense quantities of wheat, rye, oats, barley, potatoes,
fruits, flax, linens, linseed oil, hemp, wool, feathers, bristles, hogs, sheep, poultjry,
horses, cattle, graphite, manganese, quicksilver, salt, oil, coal, hiurdwoods, building
materials, fish, amber, beet sugar, honey, beeswax, and many manufactures. They
have great waterways, railroads, and many ice-free ports within their own proper
territories. Their countries are ready for commercial expansion and development.
They know of no competitors in any' lines, with the exception of Germany, among
their turbulent neighbors.
The character of the people. — Tlie natives are democratic, industrious, and not given
to extreme radical views or to economic disturbances. Their farming and laboring
classes are the most enlightened of all the peoples of the former Russian Empire.
Their sons attend universities in all parts of Europe and have filled the most promi-
nent places in the professions, literature, industry, and the administrative aepart-
ments of former Russia. Many of them now have returned to aid in the reconstruc-
tion and defense of their native countries.
Capacity for self-aovernmenf . — There can be no doubt that these countries are capar
ble of conducting the administration of their own countries in a modem and peaceful
manner and independently of Russia, Poland, and Germany. They have shown
amazing power for organization in the development of their armies and in the admin-
istration of their countries for defense against the Poles and the Bolsheviki, though
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 723
the ruin and misery caused by the German armies of occu^tion has yet to be over-
come. Now that they stand"^ shoulder to shoulder there is no force in Europe bo
effective and so completely on terms of good understanding politically as these four
newly established Republics of Esthonia, Latvia. Lithuania, and Ukraine. All the^
seek at the hands of the principal allied and associated powers is recognition of theu*
respective Republics and just territorial boundaries.
EFFECT OF THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES.
Polish-Roumanian harrier inaieqi4ate. — The so-called barrier that has been con-
structed of Poland and Roumania for the purpose of separating 6erman>^ and Russia
is not only inadequate in population and territory, but it lacks strength in itself. It
is not composed of peaceful and homogeneous peoples and it is surrounded on all sides
bv enemies. Roumania has Bulearia on the soutn, Hungary on the west, and Russia
(should Ukraine not be independent) on the north and east. From all of these she
has taken away some territorv and thus has become an enemv of each.
Poland is in a far worse pi ight than Roumania . Although she has a difficult problem
in the reconstruction of her own country, she has eagerly started wars with her neigh-
bors for territories which, in some cases, belong and nave belonged to those neighbors
from time immemorial, with the exception of Posen, some parts of Prussia and Russian
Poland proper. She has a controversy with Czechoslovakia over the Bohemian dis-
trict of Teschen; with Germany she is contending for Posen, Silesia, and parts of East
and West Prussia. In Lithuania she is at war over the Districts of Suvalki, Vilna,
Grodno, and Minsk, which never were parts of Poland . In Latvia she claims Inflanty .
In Ukraine she is warring for all she can seize, especially for western Ukraine, or
eastern Galicia, which, until recently, was a part of Austria and were for centuries
the native inhabitants have been Ukranians (Ruthenians). Poland's greed would
not stop at conquering all Ukraine, Lithuania. Latvia, and Esthonia. The power in
Poland, as well as in Roumania, is in the hands of the land-owning gentry, while the
peasants present splendid material for the Bolshevik propaganda or for an economic
revolution.
The autocratic Russian anti-Bolshevik forces give even less promise for the future
peace of Europe than do Poland and Roumania. The United States has declared in
the words of Secretary Lansing that "this Government has announced its intention
to amist Admiral Kolchak and his associates to the extent that it may be found legally
practicable to do so and has reached this decision only because of its conviction that
assistance to Russia can not be rendered tlurough dealings with the Bolshevik regime
at Moscow, but also because of the liberal policy to which Admiral Kolchak has com-
mitted himself." Nevertheless, it can not be doubted that Admiral Kolchak who
calls his regime the "all-Russian Government is diametrically opposed to the inde-
pendence or self-determination of Esthonia, Lithuania, and tjla*aine. Admiral
Kolchak 's policy is anything. but liberal, and his declaration of "liberality" are
vague, evasive, and meaningless. His binding himself and his associates to safe-
guard free institutions in Russia by the earliest practicable meeting of the constituent
assembly does not in any way promise self-determination to the peoples who are in
no way Kussian and who are now free and independent.
Instead of supporting Poland, Roumania, and the anti-Bolshevik Russian imperial-
ists, it would be more expedient to support these four Republics of about 80,000,000
people, who are fighting the Bolshevua, not only without receiving any help, but
with much interference and open warfare against them on the part of roles, Germans,
and the Russian anti-Bolshevik forces, frequently in the rear of their fighting lines.
Poland in occupying Lithuanian and Ukrainian territories with permission of the
Supreme Council at Versailles on pretense of lighting the Bolsheviki is gradually
extending the line of demarkation laid down between Lithuanian and Polish troops,
and is occupying the whole of Ukrainian East Galicia. These invasions prevent
effective cam^gns by the Lithuanians and Ukrainians against the Bolsheviki.
These four Kepublics feel that not only are they being wronged by the support
given by the Allies to Poland in her occupation of territories not her own, but that
some provisions of the Versailles treaty encroach upon their inalienable national
rights. Articles (Navigation) 331. 332, 338, 342, and 345 provide for internationaliza-
tion of the River Niemen with its connections. This river flows entirely -through
territory inhabited by Lithuanians and before partition was owned and controlled
by Lithuania. Article 99 of section 10 does not provide for the ce^ion of the Lithuanian
port of Memel to the Republic of Lithuania. The territory adjoining Memel should
idflo be ceded to Lithuania, and northern East Prussia with native Lithuanian popula-
tion should be given the right of determining the government the inhabitants wish
to live under.
724 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Article 87, section 8. should not extend the boundary' of Poland into Lithuanian
territory. (See lines 11, 12, and 13.)
Article 94, section 9, does not provide a right of plebiscite for the Lithuanian
part of East Prussia.
CONCLUSION.
In order to promote cordial relations with these four democratic republics at an earl^
date and establish peace in Eastern Europe, it will be necessary to see that their
proper territorial rififhts are respected b}r their neighbors, and ^anmteed by treaties,
and that their respective republics are given recognition of their independence by the
principal allied and associated powers.
Willie representatives of these republics on many occasions have presented tlieir
demands for each country separately, and frequently jointly, at Vereailles, London,
and Washington, the present request and petition to tne principal allied and associ-
ated powers, the United States, (ireat IMtain, Italy, Japan and France, is to the effect
that:
1 . Independence of the republics of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukrainia,
respectively, be recognized at an early date, in each case with their national territori-
ties intact. '
2. The said four republics be accorded all necessary means for the reconstruction
of their respective countries, for the immediate establishment of commerce, and for
defense against invasion.
3. No neighboring country under any pretext be given consent or pernussion to
occupy temporarily or permanently any part of territory belonging to tliese four
republics.
4. All four above-menti(med republics be permitted to join the league of nations
at an early date, as independent and soveriffn States.
5. The privil^i^ and rights included in Article X of the covenant of the leaeae
of nations be extended only to such nations as will come to a peaceful undentancu]^
with their neighboring countries as to their proper boundaries with them and as shaU
have withdrawn all their troops from disputed territory.
6. Poland be compelled to withdraw at once her troops from all Lithuanian teni-
tories, particularly from Grodno, Suwalki, Vilna and Minsk, and from all Ukndntan
territories, particularly of East Galicia and Volhynia.
7. No Grovemment representing Russia or any faction thereof be given recoenition
or aid until it shall have definitely recognizea, without any reservation, full inde^
pendence of the republics of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania ana Ukrainia, respectively.
8. The Lithuanian inhabitants of the northeastern part of East Prussia, formerly a
part of Lithuania proper, be given, if not ceded outright to Lithuania, at least the
right to choose the government unaer which they shall live (see Art. 94, Sec. IX),
as has been done in the case of W^est and East Prussia which are partly inhabited by
Poles. ^
9. Articles (Navigation) 331^ 332, 338, 342. and 345 of the Versailles Peace Treaty
be so construed as not to permit internationalization of the River Niemen with all its
''connections, ' but to cede the same to Lithuania.
10. Article 99 of Section X of the Versailles peace treaty with Germany be so con-
strued as to cede the Lithuanian port of Memel, lately of the German Empire, not
to the associated powers, but to Lithuania, as well as the territory mentioned therein
as ceded to the principal allied and associated powers, and Article 87, Section VIII,
be so construed as to define Poland's border to the point of meeting of the southern
border of Gubemia Suvalki with the boundary of East Prussia.
11. German troops and all their military and civilian colonists be compelled to
withdraw from all territories of these four republics at once.
12. No territory, in whole or in part, properly belonging to these republics which
has been colonized by foreign elements or where a foreign language has been intio-
duced while the native population was under political disadvantage be given the
privil(^e of self-determination by plebiscite separately from the country to which it
properly belongs, nor be ceded outright to any neighlioring or other foreign power.
13. Germany and Poland be compelled to reimburse these countries for all damage
done.
14. All decisions be rendered solely upon the principles of equity and in accordance
with those aims as were proclaimed that this war was fought for.
Th^ Ukrainian Federation of the United States, which is a union of societies Vforking/or
Americanization o7i this stde and for a free Ukraine on the other side, begs to addarus the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate as follows:
Whereas we, the Ukrainian immigrants in North America (one million in number)
by reason of, among other things, our work in connection with war industries, and by
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 725
enlisting by tens of thoiiaands in the United States and Canada, in the Overaeas Expe-
ditionary Armies, hoped and expected that the victory of the allied cause would
bring palitical freedom to the oppressed nations of eastern Europe, including the
Ukrainian people, according to etliagraphical boundaries;
And whereas the Ukrainians were among the very first of the nations of the former
Russian Empire to organize for the purpose of keeping order and raising armies to pro-
test western Europe from the Bolsheviki invasion, thereby following in the footsteps
of their grandfathers, the Cossacks, who saved European civilization from Tartar
hordes;
And whereas the Ukrainian Government several times proposed to pay up one-third
of all debts of the former Kussian Empire if the peace conference recognized the
independence of the Ukrainian Bepublic;
And whereas the Ukrainian army, under Gen. Petlura, practically without muni-
tions and medicine, are in death grips with the Russian Bolsheviki armies which have
invaded Ukraine for the purpose of pillaging the Ukrainian granaries, and arousing
and stirring the fires of anarcny in middle Europe;
And whereas the present Polish administration, falsely pretending to fi^ht Russian
Bolshevism, received from the Allies ammunition and supplies and with soldiers
(including 50,000 American Polish volunteer soldiers) are not really fighting the
Bolsheviln, but, instead, endeavoring to conquer Lithuania, White Russia, and
Ukraine, massacring the civil population of those nations as well as the Jews in those
countries;
And whereas the Polish army of O^i. Haller breaking the armistice with the Ukrain-
ians in eastern Galicia (the armistice signed in Paris under the authority of the peace
conference), attacked the Ukrainian army when a majority of unite of that army had
already been sent by the Ukrainian authorities to assist the Ukrainian Gen. Petlura
against Bolsheviki armies within the Ukraine;
And whereas Gen. Pilsudsky, head of the Polidi army in eastern Galicia, as well as
the Polish Prenuer Paderewsky, have, notwithstanding so called "official reports"
from Warsaw, been proven to be utterly untruthful in tne claims made to the effect
that the Ukniinians were in sympathy with the Bolsheviki, and that they were massa-
cring Jews and in sympathy with Germans and Austrians;
And whereas the incorporation of Ukrainian lands into a Polish Republic would,
without a doubt, create anew the old Alsace-Lorraine question, and would be a menace
to the world peace for the future;
And whereas the occupation by the Roumanians of the northwestern part of Bukovina
settled bv Ukrainians, and eastern Galicia by Poles, does not give a joint front for
Poles and Roumanians against Russian Bobhevism, but is really a joint conquest of
Ukraine;
And whereas if the peace conference, misled by misrepresentation by Russian
representatives of the old r^me, fails to recognize and agree to the independence of
th« Ukraine Republic this will be without doubt resulting in great injury to Ukraine
and its permanent hostility between Ukraine and Russia;
And whereas the invasion of Ukraine in her ethno^;raphical boundaries means for
Ukraine the return of the Polish aristocrats, and Jesuits, and means further a return
to economic slavery when the Ukrainisii peasants were pressed to work 18 hours
daily on the Polish fields for a wage amounting to 20 Austrian or 4 American cents.
It means, further, the return of religious persecution which the Ukrainian people
snflered for centuries when the orthodox Ukraine Wfu9, fortimately, affiliated with
Roman Catholic Poland ;
And whereas in the newly created Polish State the Roman Catholic faith is the
State religion and there are many Ukrainians who are orthodox and Protestants and
only 3,000,000 Greek Catholics and about half a million Roman Catholic s, and then
observe with deep ^ief the Polish movement in Ukraine, remembering the Ukrainian
history, when religious wars with Poland wased ceaselessly — ^lasted three centuries —
and in this connection it is pointed otit that the recent return of the Poles into Galicia
wa0 inaugurated by their setting fire to 50 Greek Catholic churches, the closing of 500
Greek Catholic sanctuaries, by wholesale arrest of Greek Catholic priests, and the
occupation by the Roman Catholic Church of the See of Kolm by simply issuing a
proclamation declaring Greek (.^atholics to be Roman Catholics:
Therefore we ask the Committee of Foreign Affairs, in the name of righteousness, of
civilization, and the brotherhood of mankind, to propose a resolution that it is within
the sense of the Senate of the United States that this Government —
1. Recognir^e the Ukrainian Republic in its ethnographical boundaries:
2. Direct and command the Polish- Roumanian armies to forthwith withdraw from
Ukrainian soil; and
726 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
3. That in case of disputed territories settled or claimed by the Ukraixuans and
claimed by Poles and Roumanians, a plebiscite be taken in each case to deride by
vote of the populace the future of the territory in dispute.
MiROSLAV SiCHINSKT,
President Ukrainian Federatiion.
Memorandum in Regard to thk REcooNrriON of the Ukrainian Rbpublic.
{Submitted to the CommittwMiB K^^iIk Relations of the United States Senate by the Ukrainian Federa-
tion of the I'nitra States at the heaiinK held on Aug. 29, 1919.]
The Ukrainians, the largest of the submerged nationalities which this war is to
liberate, are a Slav people numbering over thirty-five million souls. Their land lies
between that of two better known »lav peoples, the Poles and the Ruseians, from
both of whom they are sharply distinguished in economics, language, character, and
history.
Politically Ukraine can be termed the cradle of democratic and republican ideas
in Slavdom* and the homeland of small freeholders.
Economically it belongp to the richest regions of the world. The Ukraine before
the war produced one-tmrd of the total Russian output of grain, five-sixths of the
sugar, most of the wine and fruit, one-third of the cattle, 60 per cent of the iron, 79
per cent of the pit coal, 90 per cent of the anthracite, 50 per cent of the salt, and all
of the mercury.
For long generations in the paut the Ukrainians maintained their own State, at one
period even under republican form of government, until in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries it fell before the expansion of Russia. A minor p»rt of western
Ukraine, the Province which is known at present as East Galicia, had been incor-
porated in the Kingdom of Poland in 1340 by force of arms and became subject to
the Austrian rule at Poland's forcible partition, in 1772. Therefore^ since then, both
Polish and Russian believers in historic rights have claimed the privilege of governing
over Ukraine.
After the final conquest of the Ukrainians, in the eighteenth century, the Russian
Government wished to absorb them into their own people, the Great Russians, and
did its best to destroy their institutions, their language, and their self-government.
It adopted the convenient theory that they were the lost brothers of the Great Rus-
sians and officially designated them as Little Russians. The Petrograd Academy of
Science, however, better informed, and, we may say, less disingenuous than the
Government, has ruled thac the Ukrainian language (the literary history' of which
shows many distinguished writers) is not a Russian dialect, but a separate tongue,
and that the Ukrainians must be regarded as a distinct national entity.
That in spite of unscrupulous and persevering suppression of Ukrainian nationality
by the Tz^om, the Ukrainian people did not become Russianized, and that the
leaders of the Ukrainian political tnought never abandoned the struggle for self-
government of their country, is amply shown hy the history of revolutionary and
nationalist movements in the Russian Empire during the last century. In 1905 there
were in the first Russian Duma (parliament) 63 Ukrainian representatives, 40 of whom
belonged to a Ukrainian parliamentary party. They clearly formulated the popular
demand for a complete territorial autonomy of Ukiainian lands within the Russian
federation which was hoped for, and started a great national movement for political
democracy in Ukraine.
At that time Ukrainian population of the Austrian Galicia was still — ^to quote the
Encyclopsedia Britannica — ^under ''an alien yoke both politicalljr and economicallv."
This was not a purely Austrian, but a combined Austro-Pobsh yoke. What has
enabled the Polian landed nobility and bureaucracy to remain absolute masters of their
Ukrainian fellow citizens in East Galicia was an old barsaiu, whereby the Polish
arlBtocracy undertook to support the Hapsburg dynasty as long as the Austrian Gov-
ernment did not interfere witn its exploitation of the Ruthenians, as the Ukrainians of
Austria were called.
Against {preat odds the Ukrainians of Galicia were fighting in the Viennese parlia-
ment and in the Provincial Diet for the autonomy of the territory ethnographically
known as Ukrainian in East Galicia, and East Bukovina as a self-poveming unit with a
National Ukrainian Assembly in Lembeig, and with a Ukrauiian administration,
within the Austro-Hun^Euian Empire.
The Great War and the following revolutionary period in eastern Europe have en-
tirely changed the aspect of the Ukiainjan problem, and after the break-up of the
Romanoff and Hapsburg dominions follows the natural demand of the Ukrainian
TREATS' OF PEACE WITH GERMAN'T. 727
people for the unification of its territoriee, and for their oiganization into a democratic
republic. This gave rise to great hox>ee for the liberation of Ukraine and the creation
of two Ukrainian States, the Great Ukraine and the Galician, which immediately
Xttoclaimed their union into one Ukrainian People's Republic.
rnie peace conferencei however, did not approach the subject from this point of view.
Not only did the great powers, until not now recognize the independence of Ukraine,
fighting against the government of Trotski, but, contitery to every consideration of jus-
tice and expedience, they have formulated their policy toward unification of Ukraine
in the following terms:
"The Polish uovemment is authorized to establish in eastern Galicia a civil gov-
emment, after having fixed with the allied and associated powers an agreement whose
clauses shall guarantee so far as possible the autonomyipf^tlus territory and the reli^ous
liberty of its inhabitants. This agreement shall be based on the right of free dispo-
sition, which, in the last resort, the iohabitants of eastern Galicia are to exerdse regard-
ing their political allegiance. The period at which such a right shall be exercised
shall be fixed by the allied and associated powers or by the organ to which these
delegate their power."
As against this, Americans of Ukrainian extraction expect that the United States
Senate will express the opinion that an end should be put to Polish occupation of
East Galicia, and that the Ukrainian people there ^ould be given the possibility of
becoming a part of the Ukrainian Republic. TMs demand is based on the undisputed
preponderance of the Ukrainian population in East Galicia, and their manifest and
strongly contested right and desire for union with Ukraine. There is scarcely any
American or British political student of authority who would favor the forcible annex-
ation of that province to the Republic of Poland. If this is done, then the hope of a
I>ermanent settlement of the Polish-Ukrainian problem must be despaired of, and
another great center of national dissatisfaction will have been created, not only to
the detriment of the Ukraine, but to that of Russia as well.
The independence of the Ukrainian State does not preclude the organization of
the United States, composed of free nations, occupying the territory of the former
Russian Empire, and as a matter of fact, the Ukrainian people have not been averse
to the idea of such a federation. Their political leaders have the credit to be the
originators of the above idea in the middle of the nineteenth century, and the Ukrai-
nian people approved of it during the revolutionary period of 1917. The modem
tendency- is toward the unification of states in the economic as well as other spheres,
and that tendency is rightly to triumph in the end,, but it must not be foreotten that
old Russia was not an organic unit, and both the Tzarist as well as Prince Lvoff 's and
Kerensky's, and subsequently, Lenin's regime, show that the Russian people are
not capable of organizing such a federal union from above. It requires a much greater
political ability than the Russian race can justly claim, and, tnerefore, it is much
safer to first recqgnize the independence of separate states as a basis for their union,
than to forcibly incorporate them in one assumably indi\asible Russia.
Once a series of strong independent states has arisen from out the ruins of the Russian
Empire of the past, says a tJkrainian statesman, these will then be in a position to
examine their relations, economic, social, and political, with one another, and to
build up a system of cooperation among themselves, whose foundations will rest
upon natural evolution ana spontaneous action.
Ukraine surely deserves credit for its tenacious struggle for liberty. Unaided and
unrecognized, attacked by the Polish and Roumanian Armies in the west, and bv Gen.
Denkin's troops in the east, ravaged by tj'phus, void of medicine, supplies, machinery
and munitions, the Ukrainian people have been able, after four years of war, and
without adequate preparation for self-government, to organize under Gen. Simon
Petlura a military defense against Bolshe\'ism and a democratic state for the people,
including schools, universities, and other educational institutions. Indeed, notwith-
standing its gallant struggle ajgainst repeated invasions by the Bolshevist armies of
Russia, the Ukrainian Republic until the present time did not receive any encourage-
ment from America, and even people suffering from typhus were not successful in
their appeals to the American Red Cross.
The American people of Ukrainian descent believed that the United States Senate
would pass a resolution in favor of the recognition of a free Ukrainian Republic.
While there seems to be a fundamental difference between the Governments of
France and Great Britain over this question, the American Government did not
formulate its policy with relation to Ukraine. Both France and England would like
to see the Ukraimans have to overthrow the Bolsheviki, but France apparently is
opposed to recognizing their independence afterwards.
ureat Britain, to the contrary, seems disposed to encourage the Baltic peoples and
probably also the Ukrainians in their struggle for independence. It is assumed that
728 TREATY OF PRACE WITH GERMANY.
the French bolieve that Germany would soon succeed in dominating the independfnT
staten which might be formed in Ukraine and along the Baltic. Great Britain, how-
ever, appear<4 to believe that she herself could dominate these states, if formed.
The people of America, by recognizing and cooperating with the Republic of
Ukraine, would, besides laying the foundation for a peaceful development of eta.-'t^n}
Europe, secure an open door for American crxnmeroe with a nation eoual to that cif
Italy in number, and occup>'ing a territory which is twice as large as tnat of Fmnc*'.
American machinery and enterprise, as well as such manufactured goods as boot^.
clothes, medicine, and others in great quantity would find a good market in I'kraine
as soon as the blockade of Odesaa has been lifted.
The Problem of Eastern Oaucia Bbpore the Peace Coxferexck.
By Pr. MiCH4Kr. Loznf«Kr, A.i«^stant Hecretary of Foreign Affairs, Western nistrict of the rkrainn
People's Republic, ChaimiAn of the Kxtraorainary relegation for Polish and Ukrainian Questirn.
I.
Beinff a member of the State secretariat of the Government of the Western Difltrict
of the Ukrainian Peopl^^'s Republic and the chairman of extraordinary mission on
Polish-Ukrainian question to the peace conference in Paris. I consider my duty to
present minutely the position taken by the peace conference in regard to the Ukrainian
part of Galicia.
It is well known that after the Austro-Hungary monarchy had been broken up. the
Ukrainian provinces of Austro-Hun|i;ar>' (the Ukrainian part of Galicia, the Ukrainian
part of BuKOvina, and the Ukrainian part of Hungary) united and constituted the
Western Ukrainian People's Republic.
On November I, 1918, the Ukrainian National Council, organized at the convention
held in Lemberg on October 19. 1918. and composed of the Ukrainian representatives
to the Austrian Parliament and to the provincial diet£, and of the delegates of the
Ukrainian parties, took over the control of the government.
According to the later organization, the government of the Western Ukraiman
People's Republic is as follows* The legislative power is vested with the Ukrainian
National Council, which is to be increased by the addition of elected delegates of
districts and cities. The sovereign power is exercised by the executive committee of
the Ukrainian National Council, composed of 10 persons. The executive power is
vested vdth the State Be(*retariat, composed of State secretaries, each administering
his special ministerial resort.
Immediately, during the first days of November, 1919, the Ukrainian National
Council decided that the State secretariat should prepare and carry out the union of
all the Ukrainian Provinces into the Ukrainian People's Republic.
After the matter had been prepared, the Ukrainian National Council, at the meeting
of January 3. 1919. by a unanimous vote enacted the law proclaiming the union into
one nation of the Western Ukrainilan People's Republic with the Ukrainian People's
Republic arisen on the ruins of the old Russian Empire.
On January 22, 1919, the union of the Ukrainian Provinces was solemnly proclaimed
and celebrated in the capital of Ukraine, Kiev.
In this manner, the Ukrainian Provinces of the old A ustro- Hungarian monarchy
became a part of the United Ukrainian People's Republic. Until the State constitu-
tion of whole Ukraine has been elaborated, they preserved an autonomy under the
name of the Western District of the Ukrainian People's Republic.
II.
Since the very moment the Western Ukrainian People's Republic was organized,
Poland proceeded with a war a^inst her in order to conquer eastern Galicia.
In this war, the Entente nations acted as mediators between Poland and Ukraine.
As early as the beginning of November 191S, when the war was still in progress in the
city of Ivember^, there appeared in I^mberg the official of the French embassy in
Jassy, Mr. Villain, declaring that he came with the purpose of getting acquainted with
the situation and that he would be glad if he could succeed in reconciling both sides
Mr. Villain came from Jassy accompanied by a Pole by the name of Sokolnicki, and
all the time he worked for the Poles. As is well known, Polish-Ukrainian negotiations
were going on in Lemberg. At one of the meetings, Mr. Villian was present. Here
he expressed himself so unreservedly in favor of Polish claims that i, acting as the
chairman of the Ukrainian delegates, was obliged to interrupt him and to call his
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 729'
attention to the fact that he was speaking not as if he were an impartial mediator, but
as if he were a Polish agent.
About the end of January 1919, there arrived in Lemberg the mission of Entente
nations, headed by the French Gen. Bartelmy, and composed of the representatives of
France, England, United States, and Italy. The said miesion stayed a long time in
I^mberg, taking part in the banquets to them bv Polish authorities, and toasting to
the honor of Poland. Polish newspapers wrote that this mission has for its object to
bring about an armistice between the Poles and the Ukrainians. To the general
astonishment, however, the mission were preparing themselves for this task only in
Lemberg and only in Polish circles. They neither tried to make any connections with
the Ukrainian circles in lemberg, nor did they go out into the Ukrainian territory with
the purpose of learning the Ukrainian problem.
Aoout February 20, the mission headed by Bartelmy demanded from the Ukrainian
chief commandants to stop fighting, declaring that they intended to carry on negotia-
tions with the object of bringing about Poli^-Ukrainian araustice, but they will not
carry the negotiations unless fighting will be stopped. At the same time the mission
declared that should the Ukrainian commandant in chief refuse to stop fighting, this
will be interpreted as meaning that the Ukrainian government rejects the mediation of
the Entente power*.
The Ukrainian commander in chief, after a conference with the State secretariat,
ai?reed to suspension of hostilities, which became effective in the morning of Febru-
ary 25.
Cn the evening of the same day, the delegates of the f^tate secretariat arrived in
I^emberg in order to carry on the negotiationis about the Polish- Ukrainian armistice.
The whole day of February 26 was spent in conference of the Ukrainian delo^tes
with the Allied mission: the mission were informing themselves on the Ukrainian
question.
After this the mission demanded that the Polish and the Ukrainian delegates hold
a common meeting, and declared it is tlie wish of the mission that (>oth sides should
reach an agreement. In case no agreement will be reached, the mission itself shall
present the parties with an agreement of armistice.
The conference which was held with the Poles on February 26, in the evening,,
accomplished nothing.
On February 27 the mission of Barthelmy passed into the territory of the Ukrainian
state, to the city of Chodorow, in order to meet Petlura, the president of the Ukrainian
directorate, who at that time came to the Ukrainian commander in chief in Chodorow.
On February 28 the mission presented both sides with their propoMl of armistice.
Accordin&r to this plan the line of demarcation between the two fighting sides should
pass to the east of the city of Drofaobyez. This meant that the Ukrainians had to
leave in the hands of the Poles not only this part of Ukrainian Galicia which was
occupied by the Poles, but also to cede to the Poles vast territory, together with the*
oil wells in the neighborhood of Drohobyez, which were then on the unthreatened
possession of the Ukrainian army.
Of course the Ukrainians could not accept such an armistice. The war went on.
The State secretariat, in a wireless message, presented to the Supreme Council of the-
peace conference the partisan behavior of the Allied mission and demanded an
impartial solution of the (question.
The Supreme Council discussed the question at its meeting on March 19 and decided
to appeal to both parties to sign an immediate armistice on the basis of the front line.
The Supreme Council went on to declare "that they are ready to listen to both sides
as to the territorial claims and to mediate in Paris between the Polish and Ukrainian
delegates or through some other representatives selected by both sides for the purpose
of amending the provisions of the armistice."
Having received this decision of the Supreme Council, the State secretariat imme-
diately answered that it has been accepted, and ordered Gen. Pavlenko,' the com-
mander in chief, to make suitable arrangements.
On March 27 the Polish and the Ukrainian representatives met in the city of
Chyrow. However, the armistice was not agreed upon, as the Poles refused to sign
the armistice on the basis announced by the Supreme Council in the decision of
March 19 and demanded that the armistice be made on the bases of the plan of the
Gen. Barthelmy.
The Ukraninian government notified the Supreme Council of this attitude of the
Poles.
Confident that the Supreme Council will force the Poles to sign the armistice, the
Ukrainian government repeatedly made offers of armistice negotiations, the last
offer dated May 19. The Poles, however, rejected every offer.
Thus the war, which the Ukrainians wanted to stop, conforming to the appeal of
the Supreme Council of February 19, was going on, due to the fault of the Poles. The-
730 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANT.
Polea. who just at that time received permiesion for pajasage of the Polish army of Gen.
Haller from France to Poland, decided to continue the war, hoping by means of tliat
army to occupy the entire eastern Galicia.
Beside their — as we have seen — unsuccessful endeavors on the spot purportimj ta
bring about the suspension of hostilities, the State secretariat, having in mind tlie
declaration of the Supreme Council that it is ready to mediate between the two
parties in Paris, dispatched to Paris an extraordinarv delegation for the Poliali-
Ukrainian question, composed of three men: Dr. Micliael Ix>zinsky, the assistant
secretary of foreign affairs, as chairman of the del Ration: Col. Dmytro Witowsky, the
late State secretary of military affairs, as a member of the delegation: and Mr.
Alexander Kulchitsky, the official of the Stat« secretariat for foreign affairs, as secre-
tary.
before the deltn^tes have arrived in Paris, the Supreme Council organized a com-
mittee for the Polish-Ukrainian armistice, connected with the peace conference and
composed of the representatives of France, England, the United States, and Italy
and neaded by the English Gen. Botha.
The said committee invited the Ukrainian del^atbn in Paris to a meeting for
April 30. This meeting was attended by Mr. Sydorenko, the chairman of the dele-
gation, and Mr. Shulgin, the member of the delegation, and they declared that a
special delegation for the Polish-Ukrainian question is due in Paris.
On May 8 this special delegation, having arrived in Paris, gave the committee such
information as was asked by the committee. Gen. Botha, the chairman of the com-
mittee, declaring that the conunittee receives only the information necessary for
arranging the armistice. Who lias the right to the Ukrainian Galicia, the Poles or
the Uicrainians. the Supreme Council shall decide only after the armistice has been
arranged; only then botJi sides will be given a hearing as to their respective rights.
On Mav 12' the committee presented to the Ukrainians and the Poles — each side
at a special meeting— the plan of the armistice. This plan fixed the line of demarca-
tion to the west of Drohobyez, so that the oil wells in tne neighborhood of Drohobyez
had to remain in the hands of the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainian delegates presented the committee with a memorandum in wliich
they declared their consent, in principle, to the plan of armistice, demanding at the
same time a whole series of changes as to the line of demarcation and military pro-
visions.
At its meeting of May 13 the Ukrainian delegation declared that it accepts the
draft of this armistice, expressing at the same time its hope that the committee will
take under consideration the demsinds laid down in the memorandum of the del Ration.
In this manner the question of armistice was settled, as far as the Ukrainian side
was concerned. The arrangement of armistice depended thus upon the Polish side.
The Polish Government, however, refused to agree to the plan of armistice, but
ordered a general offensive against the Ukrainian army in Galicia, using for this
purpose the army of Haller.
Seeing this, the Ukrainian delegation addressed a note, dated May 21, to the
Supreme Council, demanding the protection of the Ukrainian territory against the
Polish offensive.
As a consequence of this note, this very dav the Ukrainian delegation was sum-
moned before the Supreme Council to a hearing. The Ukrainian delegation pre-
sented the events in Galicia and demanded an order to stop immediately the Polish
offensive.
On May 22, the Ukrainian delegation was received by Clemenceau, the president
of the conference, who notified it that the Supreme Council addressed to tne Polish
Government a demand to give explanation in the matter of the Polish offensive.
The Polish offensive, of course, was going on. Then the Extraordinary Ukrainian
delegation sent a communication to Gen. Botha, the president of the committee on
the Polish-Ukrainian armistice, asking him how the matters stand ^th the armiB-
tice. Gen. Botha, in a letter dated May 26 answered that the Polish Government
rejected the plan of armistice, and that the question was referred to the Supreme
('Ouncil.
The Extraordinary' Ukrainian delegation then, on Mav 27, addressed a note to the
Supreme Council, presenting the course of events and demanding that the Supreme
Council stop the Polish offensive and force the Poles to consent to the annistice.
On June 5 it was reported by Paris newspapers that in answer to the inquiry of
the Supreme Council about the Polish offensive, Pilsudski, the chief of the Polish
State and the commander in chief of the Polish army, replied that the Polish
offensive was only a defense against the Ukrainian offensive.
This reply was a sheer mockery at the true state of affairs. As it was pointed out
by us, the Ukrainian army since the time the answer of the Supreme Council of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMAKY. 781
March 19 had been received, restricted itself all the time to the defensive, awaiting
the signing of the armistice. The Polish offensive was ordered by the Polish com-
niander in chief Pilsudski in consequence of the decision of the Polish Diet, which
protested against the armistice and demanded the offensive in order to occupy whole
Ukrainian Galicia.
To throw the true light upon the reply of Pilsudski the Extraordinary Ukrainian
delegation sent to the Supreme Council the note of June 6.
The Polish army, having received all necessary from the allied powers, began to
take the upper hand over the XTkrainian army, left to its own resources, and taken
up with the war against the Russian Bolsheviki.
In this way the Poles carried the war against the Ukrainians twice against the will
of the Supreme Council. The first time after the decision of the Supreme Council of
March 19, while rejecting the Ukrainian offer at armistice; the second time rejecting
the plan of armistice offered by the committee on Polish-Ukrainian armistice.
The Ukrainian Grovemment, having declared its consent to the plan of armistice,
had the full right to expect that from this moment it stands under the protection of
the Supreme Council and that the Supreme Council will order the Polish Government
to stop the offensive and to sign the armistice. But it happened otherwise. After
the Poles had occupied a greater part of Ukrainian Graliaa, the Supreme Council,
without asking at all the UKrainian delegation^ having carried the negotiations with
the Polish Government only, reached on June 25 the following decision:
"To protect the persons and the property of the i>eaceful population of eastern
Galicia against Bolsnevist bands, the Supreme Council has authorized the forces of
the Polish Republic to carry on the occupation of the country as far as the River
Zbrucz. The present authorization does not prejudicate in any way the decisions
which will be made later by the Supreme Council in reference to the political status
of Galicia."
To this decision by which whole Ukrainian Galicia was delivered to the Polish
occupation, the Ukrainian delegation entered a protest in the note of July 2. The
said note, after adducing the evidence to the fact that such an occupation of Ukrainian
Gralicia is a violation ofentity of the Ukrainian Republic and an outrage committed
on the Ukrainian people, protests against the sanction of the Polish occupation by
the Supreme Council.
The Supreme Council further decided that the subcommittee for Polish affairs shall
draw "an internal status for eastern Galicia." To the meeting of the said subcopi-
mittee, which, was held on July 3, the Ukrainian delegation received an invitation,
stating that they should send to this meeting delegates belonging to eastern Galicia;
i.e., bom and resident in the said Province. Thus the Utednian delegates were
denied the right to represent eastern Gralicia as a part of the Ukrainian Republic, and
only those members of the delegation who were bom and resident in Galicia were to
be heard by the subcommittee, therefore not as the representatives of the Ukiainian
populace of eastern Galicia.
For this reason the Ukrainian delegation refused to take part in the mentioned
meeting, declaring in a note dated July 3 that eastern Galicia although occupied by
force by the Poles is a part of the Ukrainian Republic.
On July 11 the Ukrainian delegation received an official notice that the Supreme
Council reached the following decision in the question of eastern Galicia: "The
Polish Government is authorized to establish in eastern Galicia a civil government,
after having fixed with the Allied and Associated Powers an agreement whose clauses
shall guarantee so f^r as possible the autonomy of this territory and the religious and
political liberty of its inhabitants. This agreement shall be based on the rignt of free
disposition, which, in the last resort, the inhabitants of eastern Galicia are to exercise
regarding their political allegiance. The period at which such a right shall be exer-
cised shall be fixed by the Allied and Associated Powers or by the organ to which
these delegate their power."
Against this decision of the Supreme Council the Ukrainian delegation entered a
protest in the note dated July 15.
Thus the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference decided the controversy for
eastern (Alicia in favor of the Poles. Such decision is opposed not only to those
possess the right to decide freely her own fate. It is also opposed
the Supreme Council of March 19, 1919, in which the Supreme Council promised to
mediate between Poland and Ukraine. Instead of mediating, the Supreme Council
made a partisan decision faivoring Poland.
732 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMANY.
Had Ukraine and Poland each left to her own powers carried a war for eastern
Galicia, and had Poland occupied eastern Gralicia as a victor of the war, such solution
would be unjust, but self -understood. Poland would occupy eastern Galicia "by
right of might. "
Here, however, the question was solved by the Supreme Council of the Peace
Conference, which has proclaimed herself as introducing a new order into the world
in the name of right ana justice.
We ask. Do right and justice require tliat the Ukrainian people, who number about
40)000,000, and are therefore one of the largest nationalities of Europe, should be
deprived of the right to build the State of their own and that they should be forced
again into subjection from which they had delivered themselves with their own
powers?
Do right and justice require that the Ukrainian people of eastern Galicia,, who
threw on the voke of Poland and declared their will to constitute with all Ukrainian
people one Ulbainian Republic should be forced again under the Polish dominion?
Do right and justice require that in the question of eastern Galicia should decide
not the will of the overwhelming Ukrainian majority, but the will of the negilgible
Polish minority?
Do ri^ht and justice require that the Ukrainian people of eastern Galicia be de>
livered into the dominion of very same Poland against which they have been at war?
Could it be justly expected that Poland, which for centuries has sought expansion
to the east, to subju^te the Ukrainian territory, which had already many a time
destroyed this land with fire and sword, that this Poland, having now obtained irom
the Supreme Council the mandate to occupy eastern Galicia, will rule hen n accord-
ance with right and justice?
The reality tells quite different story. Ha^'ing occupied Eastern GalioixL, the
Poles with lire and sword, with volleys and gallows, with jails and coercions, take
revenge on the Ukrainians for their refusal to continue under the Polish dominion,
for their desire to become free. Poland's object is to extirpate the Ukrainians of
Eastern Galicia in order thus to safeguard her control of the country.
Delivering Eastern Galicia under the Polish rule, did the Supreme Council take
under consideration the fact that thus it delivers all the Ukrainian people of this
country into the hands of their enemy, to be killed, tortured, persecuted, without
any possible protection in sight? Snould one even suppose that the Ukrainian
people have no right to freedom and independence, even then the consideration of
humanity should nave recommended to grant some prote-^tion to those millions of
the Ukrainians, with whom the Polish authorities may deal in the way they please,
pretending lief ore the Supreme Council that they *^are destroying Bolshevist Vmuds.*'
It is stated by the Supreme Council that it has authoriz^ed Poland to occupy Eastern
Galicia in order to protect the peaceful population minst Bolshevist bands. As a
matter of fart,, however, there was no BcMshevism in Eastern Galicia under the rule
of the Ukrainian Government. Quite the contrary, the Ukrainian army of Eastern
Galicia defending the country against the Polish invasion from the west, at the same
tijne took a prominent part in the war of the Ukrainian Republic against the mvasion
of the Russian Bolsheviki from the East. And after Russian Bolshevist army invaded
Ukraine, penetrating to the river of Zbrucz, it was here that the Ukrainian army of
Eastern CTalicia blocked their way and prevented them from uniting with Hun^^anan
Bolsheviki. This the State Secretariat of Western Ukraine has done, after it had
rejected favorable offers of the Bolshevist ^vernments of Russia and Hungary. It
was done in belief that the Supreme ('ouncil will protect Ukraine.
While in all surrounding countries, not only in Russia, whence Bol^evism has
flooded a part of Ukraine, but also in Poland, Roumania, Bohemia, Hungary, and
German Austria and Germany were considerable Bolshevist movements, just the
Direc*torate of the Ukrainian Republic was the power which stop]>erl the westward
march of the Bolsheviki, and Eastern Galicia has been the only country where no
Bolshevism existed.
This will be confirmed by future historians in contradiction to the lie spread broad-
cast by the Poles in order to obtain from the Supreme Council the permission and
assistance to root up the Ukrainian people under the pretense of the struggle against
Bolshevism.
Future historians will also corroborate our statement that had Ukraine been reallv
Bolshevist, then Bolshevism, not stopped by Ukraine, would have freely flooded ail
Poland, Roumania, and Balkans, would have joined hands with Bolshevism of Hun-
gary, Bohemia, German Austria, and Germany. Should this have happened, the
present situation in Europe would in all probability be different than it is now.
Future historians will have also to confirm that if this had not happened, it was
Ukraine's merit (from the standpoint of the Allied Powers, and her fault from the
standpoint of Bolsheviki).
TREATY OF P£AOE WITH GERMANY. 738
Ah a reward for this service, the Suj^reme Council intends to divide whole Ukraine
:among her neighbors, and has already delivered Eastern Galioia under Poland occu-
pation and control.
It is said by the Supreme Council that a treaty regarding Eastern Gialicia 10 to be
made between Poland and the Allied Powers, which will nave to guarantee *'a8 far
as possible*' her autonomy and the liberties of her inhabitants. We ask: Aren't the
peoi)le of Eastern Galicia a nationality which is entitled to the right to decide about
themselves, or are thev only an object which others have the rieht to bamin i^ith
without asking its wifl? Isn't Eastern Oalicia a part of the Ukranian Republic;
hasn't she her own government that the fate of the countr>[ is being decided without
the partic ipation of the lawful representatives of the Ukrainian people and the con-
trary to their ^111 de( lared in an unmistakable manner? And where are the guaran-
tees that the treaty will really safeguard the interests of the Ukrainian people and that
the Polish govoniment will actually carry it out?
The Supreme Couiu il promises the UKrainians of Eastern Galicia that the treaty
will be ba^ed upon the principle of self-determination to be carried out later.
Thus under the control of Poland, which is an enemy of the Ukrainian people,
which carriecl on a war against Ukraine to occupy Eastern Galicia, under the control
of this very Poland, the inhabitants of Eastern (jalicia, will have to assert their lights
of sehVletermination. Will not Poland use all her power to crush the Ukrainina
pHOpulation, to terrorize them, to break down all their efforts to gain independence,
tc Prevent them from declaring their real will? And after the Polish Government
will have prepared everything, c ould it possibly be supposed that it will issue an
order 'Ho exercise the right of selfKletermination," when Poland will be sure that
such action will de< ide the question, should Eastern Galir ia belong to Poland or not?
It is so clear that Poland, having gotten possesfdon of Eastern Galicia, will do all
in her poi»er to assure herself forever the control of the country — that it is simply a
wonder that the Supreme Council failed to take cognizanc e ci it.
It happened Eastern Galicia, a Ukrainian country from time immemorial, a part
of the Ukrainian Republic, has been delivered into the power of Poland. It is up
to the Supreme Council to make reparations for the evil done.
NoTi:s Upon the Ukrainian-Polish Relations in Galicia During the Last 25
YXABS (1895-1919).
Ily MictrAKL LozYNMKY, Dortor of Laws, iinder-secretsry of state for foreign aflain for West Ukraine*
Gaugia.
Area. — ^The area of Galicia is 30,311 square miles.*
Population. — Galicia had in 1900 a population of 7,295,538. The two principal
nationalities are the Poles (45 per cent) and the Ruthenians* (42 per cent), the former
predominating the weet and in the big towns, and the latter in the east.'
Galicia had in 1910 a population of 8,025,675; Poles, 4,672,500 (58.55 percent);
Ukrainians, 3,208,092 (40.20 per cent).
Seeming increase of Polish population from 1900 to 1910, 13.55 per cent.
Seeming decrease of Ukrainian population during the same decade nearly 2 per cent.
Rtliffum.—i'eimxB of 1910:* Roman Catholics, 3,731,861 (46.50 per cent); Jews,
871,906 (10.86 per cent); Greek (Catholics, 3,379,616 (42.11 per cent).
Since Ukrainians in Galicia are mostly Greek Catholic, Poles Roman Catholic, and
Jews are Jews, it follows that the official Polish census takers had to enter all Roman
Catholics, all Jews, and even some Greek Catholics as Poles^-in order to obtain ''the
official proof " that Poles are in the majority in Galicia.
History. — During the reign of Daniel Romanovich (1222-1266) and those of his inune-
diate successors the cx)untry (Galicia and Lodomeria) enjoyed remarkable prosperity
and attained to a hi^h degree of x:i\dlization. In 1340 tne house of Roman died out
and soon after Galicia and Lodomeria came under the sway of Cassimir the Great of
Poland, and except for an interval of a decade and a half (1370-1386) formed a part of
Poland till the first j)artition of that country in 1772.*
-4^rirM/^ure.— Galicia is more purely agrTcultural than any other of the Crown lands
of Austria, no less than 77 per cent of its population depending for a li\dng directly
•on the soil. The unequal distribution of the land (in Galicia) is shown by the fact
that while one-third of the cultivable area is in the hands of large landholders owning
estates of over 1,400 acres each, about one-half consists of holdings of lees than 14
» The New International Encvelopcdla, s^crmd elitlon, 1915, Vol. IX, pp. 407. 8. 9.
s The same Ruttaenians was iippliM to T^kraitiians livini; within the nord^rs of Anstria-HimgaiT, the
sune as the name Pennsylvanians Is applied to Americans livint; in the State of i'ennsvlvanla.
« Encyclopedia Brittanica, eleventh edition; 1911, Vol. XI. p. 401.
734 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
acres in extent. This state of affiiirs, together with the industrial backwardnesB of
the countnr, is chiefly responsible for the wretched condition of the agricultural
classes. Most of the peasants are unable to make a living from their small farms, and
consequently laige numbers are obliged to emigrate for a part of the year to Russia,
Russian Poland, and Germany. There they work for low wages, while their families
attend to the farms at home.^
All liurge landholders in Galicia are Polish.
Fierce struggle, — ^The ])eriod since 1848 has been marked b^ a fierce struggle between
the Polish and Ruthenian nationalities^ the former seeming to retain their almost-
absolute ascendancy, and the latter strivmg to win their share of political rights and a
voice in the Government.
Prbfacb.
In order to retain possession of the territories of Ukrainian Galicia now occupied b
their army^ the Poles have lately dared affirm that relations between Ukrainians an
Poles previous to the war were constantly growing better. That East Gralida "lib-
erated from the Ukrainian Government woula readily accept Polish rule and
occupation.
This assertion is completelv disproved by a simple expos^ of the facts that have
occurred in the course of the Last 2o years.
Paris, June f5, 1919.
Introduction.
About 1870 an amement was reached between the Poles of Austria and the Hapsbuig^
dynasty. The Poles agreed to support the dynasty and the monarchy; in exchange
for this support there was granted them unlimited power and authority over the
Ukrainian people of Eastern Galicia, which for this purpose was then united to West
Galicia.
This hct was followed by a score of vears of oppression on the part of the Poles.
Then, being persuaded that 20 years oi oppression had made the Ukrainian people
more conciliatory the Poles in 1890 proposed a Ukrainian-Polish agreement. The
Ukrainians were promised some concessions in the domain of public instruction,
some rights regardmg use of the Ukrainian tongue in the courts and in public offices,
participation m the administration and in the department of justice. It is evident
that all these concessions were reduced to a minimum — "That you may not get indi-
gestion,'' was the cynical remark to the Ukrainian deputies by the then governor of
Galicia, the Poljsh Coimt Casimir Badeni.
Weaiy of the difficult stru^le they had been obliged to wage in order to maintain
the national existence of their country, the Ukrainian statesmen accepted this agree-
ment. But disillusions followed rapidly. It became clear that the Poles had no
intention of keeping promises, even though reduced to their simplest expression.
The Ukrainian deputies who had made this a^eement saw themselves forced to
again join the opposition. This then was the begmning of a period of 20 years (189&-
1914) of an Ukrainian- Polish strife wavering ever fiercer.
POLIPH METHhDS.
The aim of Polish policy in East Galicia ha? been :
1 . To annihilate the native element of this country which ban been TTkrainian for
centuries until it becomes a national minority.
2. So to hinder its developmc-nt that it may become a back^vard body deprivetl of
higher forms of life.
For the attainment of this end the following measures have been taken b> the
Poles:
I. Thk Political Power.
To render easier the suppression of the Ukrainian element, the Poles first seized
the political power in Galicia and also acquired the necessary influence over the
political administration in Austria. Leuislatinn itself aided thf»m The elect-oral
system in the Austrian Parliament, sls Arell as the electoral s>ptem in the Galicia Piet,
were based upon the reactionary systems of the higher privileged classes, CBpecially
that of the great landed proprietors. From the fact that the higher classee in (valicia
were Polinli the law itself tnus placed the authority in the hands of the Poles; but
even this did not satisfy them. Ukrainian opposition in the Austrian Parliament as
well &s in the Galician Diet was an obstacle in their path and they ac^cordinj^ly sup-
pressed it by very simple means.
>Tbe New Intematlanal Escyolopedla, second edition, 1915, Vol. IX, pp. 407, 8, 9.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 735
At the elections the Ukrainian electors were unable to get to the urns, and in caee
they insisted, they were thrown into prison and then condemned for the crime of
having; offered resistance to the authorities, and even shot upon the spot. The result
natunuly was tiiat both in the Austrian Parliament and the Galician Diet Ukrainian
in^uence was a mere cipher. All political power was usurped by the Poles.
II. The Department of Justice and Public Offices.
Possessing administrative power over all Galicia, the Polea held all -he positions
in the department ot justice and all other public oflices. From all admimstrative
positions tne Ukrainians were wholly excluded; the officials were all Poles. T^krain-
lans were admitted to some positions in the department of justice, but only in limited
number. The rule was that the highest positions were not accessible to the ITkrainiaxis.
The Ukrainian employee might take no part in iiaMonal life under penalty of dis-
missal or i*ecall.
In this way all exetnitive power remained always in the hands of the Poles.
III. Public Instruction.
(a) Primary schools.
In Ukrainian villages lower primary schools only were established, and even those
were few in number. The manuals, even those in the Ukrainian language, attacked
the national sentiments of the Ukrainians, glorifying Polish domination over the
Ukrainian nation. Teachers' positions were mostly reserve^^. for Poles. Everywhere
the Polish langua&re was obligatory. In the villages and cities there was not a single
primary st'hooT of higher grade with instruction in the Ukrainian tongue. In Polish
schools not any attention was paid to the Ukrainian childr«^n.
(b) The higher schools.
In 1868 the Galician Diet parsed a law in accordance with which instruction in the
high schools and in the technical schools of Galicia should be only in the Polish langu-
age and that the higher grade schools where instruction was given in Ukrainian might
be established only by special authorization of the Diet. At the time of the passage
of this law there was in Galicia only one Ukrainian school of higher grade, that at Lviv
(Lexnberg). Since that time the Polish majority in the Diet has authorized the estab-
lishment of but four Ukrainian higher schools: At Peremyshl (1888), Kolomea (1892),
Temopil (18d8), Stavislaviv (1895). It must be added that it was at the cost of a
struggle lasting for years that a single Ukrainian higher school was obtained from the
Diet.
During the half century of Polish administration in Galicia (186^1918), authoriza-
tion was granted the Ukrainians for the creation of only 5 higher schools, while in
the same space of time almost 100 Polish schools have come into being.
Attendance at these schools was made difficult for the Ukrainian children by two facts :
In the first place, instruction was given in a foreign language (Polish), and tne Ukrain-
ians were also submitted to unfair treatment.
(c) The university.
The University of Lviv, established by the Austrian Government, gave instruction
until the year 1860 in the German language; upon abolition of German as medium of
instruction, the Poles seized the university, leaving only a few chairs to the instruc-
tion ^ven in Ukrainian. Theoretically the creation of new chairs employing the
Ukrainian tongue in their instruction depended upon the decision of the council of
the university. In reality, however, the latter in the course of the last 25
years, has permitted no new Ukrainian chair. About 1900 the Ukrainians asked for
the establishment of an Ukrainian university separate from the Polish university.
All the Poles rose with the greatest fury against tnis request. The battle was waged
in the Austrian Parliament, in the Galician Diet, and by public manifestations; even
in the bosom of the university. They even dared to organize, under the placid eye of
the university authorities, combatant corps among the Polish students who were to
disperse by means of revolver shots the Ukrainian students' demonstrations in favor
of the foundation of an Ukrainian university.
Thus bv their policy in the domain of public instruction, in pursuance of a long-
nourished plan, the Poles thus hindered the educational development of the Ukrainian
pe^le.
When they now maintain that this race does not possess within itself sufficient
intelligence and intellectual strength to form a State, it should not be forgotten that
this ia directly the sad consequence of their premeditated policy consequentially
exercised in all their dealings with the Ukrainians.
736 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
IV. Religion.
The Ukrairuan people in East Galicia belong to the Catliolic re^liiou of the Greek
lite; the Poles also are of the Catliolic religion, but of the Latin rite. Dogmatic dif-
ferences between the two churches are nonexistent. There are ritual differences only
between them. The Greek Catholic Church bears the national Ukrainian character;
the Latin Catholic Church the national Polish character. The Poles have profited
by this to xnake of the Latin Church an instrument for Polonization.
The Ukrainians who, from the force of the situation, were completely dependent
upon the Poles (servants, agricultural laborers, factory liands, petty employees),
were compelled by the Poles, under penalty of losing their plac^es, to join tne Latin
Church. In this manner the Ukrainians, by joining the Latin Church, became Polon-
ized.
The Ukrainian Church and the Ukrainian cleipr in comparison with the Polish
clergy were continually kept in a state of humihation. The Polish administration
endeavored to undermine the authority of the Ukrainian priests among the Ukrainian
Eopulation. It has liappened that therolisli administration, aided by the gendarmes,
as dispersed the worshippers in attendance upon religious service (as for example
in 1907, at the inauguration of Narodny Dim, a national institution, in the little city of
Kopychynci^. The Ukrainian priests were always arrested in cases where they made
themselves defenders of the national interests of the people, as, for example, at elec-
tions, and these arrests were invariably conducted with great brutality; the priests
were put in bonds to lessen their authority.
V. Rights of the Ukrainian Language.
According to the laws of Austria the Ukrainian language had some r^hts in civil
administration. For instance, the Ukrainian citizen enpyed the right to address
himself to public departments of the civil administration m the Ukndiuan language,
either orally or in writing, and the officials were to use the Ukrainian tongue m the
exercise of their office.
But in reality every Ukrainian who attepmted to take advantage of this law found
himself beset by numerous annoyances. To demands written in Ukrainian the Polish
functionaries either did not reply at all or replied unfavorably. The answers were
ordinarily written in Polish. Sometimes the Ukrainians refused to accept them.
The Pohsh officials would then resort to subterfuge, typewriting the addressee in
Ukrainian, while the contents were couched in the Polish language. When verbal
information was in question, the official would angrily declare that ne did not under-
stand the Ukrainian laugauge, or, still more simply, that he did not wish to use it.
To demand of him tHat he use this language meant to set him against oneself and
against the business under consideration.
In short, although theoretically admitted, the Ukrainian language was as a matter
of fact but rarely used.
VI. Agrarian CoNomoNs.
East Galicia is a land of peasants. The peasants have too little land to be able to
cultivate their fields accoraing to modem methods, for a laxge part of the land is in
the hands of great landholders. The small proprietors are Ukrainians, the great,
Polish. A rational agrarian policy should aim at buying up the ^at estates and
parceling them out among the peasants in order to give tliem the size necessary for
rational cultivation. The agrarian policy of the Poles followed a diametricidly oppo-
site direction; it ruined the Ukrainian peasant in order to obUge him to emigrate and
make room for Polish colonization. The Poles hoped thus to obtain after a while a
numerical majority in East Galicia.
Taxes crushed the Ukrainian peasant, who was already so weak economically.
Every day he mortgaged his land more and more till he was obliged to sell it and to
emigrate to America. The Polish majority of the Diet did nothing and did not want
to do anything to help the Ukrainian peasant. Quite on the contrary, the Polieii
press rejoiced loudly whenever such emigration changed the numerical proportion in
favor of the Polish element. Moreover, the place given up by Ukrainian peasants
was at once taken by Polish settlers.
But the Ukrsdnian intellectuals have at last succeeded in oi^nizing the peasant
class and impro\ing their economical status. Ukrainian credit associations were
formed in order to assist them in acquiring new land. And so the Poles listened only
to this command : Do not sell any land to Ukrainian farmers. When some great landed
proprietor consented to sell his land to Ukrainian peasants the Polish press >'ilified
him, calling him traitor and reproaching him with having hande<l over the land to
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBRMAKY. 737
the enemy . With the asabtance of the Polish administration, Polish credit associations
were formed for the purpose of buying back the lai^ rural estates and colonizing them
by Poles.
Thus the way was barred which might enable Ukrainian peasants to acquire land.
The latter were condemned to economic ruin, to emigration to America, or seeldne
means of support in the citv, to accepting an inferior position, with the great Polish
proprietors or with the well-to-do Polish farmers.
VII. Industry and Commerce.
In Galicia, as evenrwhere in Austria, commerce and industry were subject to the
system of licenses. It was almost impossible for an Ukrainian to obtain a license.
As we have said, there was a steady emigration from last Galicia. Hundreds of
emigration offices exploited the Ukrainian peasants frightfully. Nevertheless, the
Polish administration would never permit the creation of an Ukrainian emigration
office, for it might have been helpful to Ukrainian peasants.
When an Utarainian succeeded in establishing an industrial enterprise, the Polish
population boycotted him. Polish enterprises accepted Ukrainian workers or clerks
only when they lacked Polish help. But even in that CJise they were compelled to
work on Ukrainian holidays, to join Polish societies, to send their children to Polish
schools, to contribute to Polish national institutions, to change their religious rites, etc.
He who refused was discharged. It was especially the municipal countnl of Lviv
which applied this s>'stem to the Ukrainian workers.
VIII. The Polish Political Parties.
Precisely during this period, from 1895 to 1914, the first place among the Polish
political parties was occupied by the Pan-Polish partv of ^SIt. Dmowski. Since 1902
this party controls the greatest Polish paper — Slowo f olskie. It announces that the
sacred duty of the Polish policy, with reference to the Ukrainian people is to enlarge
the * ^ Polish possession " in East Galicia and means by that Polish dominion politically,
culturally and economically. The reinforcement of such a position was to make,
ultimatelv, of East Galicia a Polish land with an Ukrainian minority. The means
employea by the Pan-Polish party to attain this end were the most brutal. The Pan-
Polish press declared openly that it was necessary to adopt Prussian methods in the
fight against the Ukrainians. One of the theorists of this party, Mr. Balcki, invented
for the promulgation of his ideas the philosophical doctrine of ''national egoism" as
the supreme guiding principle of national politics. This principle has become the
national basis of all Polish parties with reference to the Ukrainians. The rivalry of
parties consisted in proving that only a party with such principles could fight success-
lully agunst the Ukrainiaiis and in reproaching the other parties for their spirit of
conciliation with reference to the Ukrainians. This philosophy of national egoism
was adopted bv all parties, not excepting the Socialists. The last 10 years preceding
the war, the Polish Socialists tried m every way possible to prevent the Ukrainian
Socialists from organizing the Ukrainian urban proletariat independently of the Polish
proletariat.
IX. SocLAL Relations.
Ukrainian and Polish societies live an entirely separate life. The Ukrainians meet
in Ukrainian societies and organizations and the Poles in Polish societies and organi-
zations. There is no connection between Ukrainians and Poles. Even in restaurants
and caf6s they avoid eacn other. During the last 25 years, there have been almost no
intermarriages ; if there have been some thev are truly unfortunate exceptions. Either
the Ukrainian must submit to the ideas of the Pole, or there results a conflict of nation-
alities between husband and wife and between brothers and sisters. There are families
in which the Polish father has, during the present war, sent his son against the Ukrain-
ians while the Ukrainian mother prayed for the military success of her native country,
or vice versa.
The Principal Facts in the Ukranian-Polish Struggle (1895-1914).
1895. — ^The Polish administration prevented the Ukrainian peasants from taking
part in the elections of the Galician Diet. For this purpose they resorted to whole-
sale arrests and political trials. In consequence only three Ukrainian deputies of
the oppooition were elected. In addition to these deputies, there were also elected
a few others who were in favor of the agreement of 1890, this with the help of the
Poles.
The exasperation which these electoral methods created among the Ukrainians
showed itseu in the sending <^ a very numerous deputation to Vienna. It was com-
185546—19 47
738 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
posed of several hundreds of peasants, priests, and intellectuals, and their purpose
was to present to the emperor a memoir in which the abuses of Polish autlionties
during the election period were set forth; but Casimir Badeni, who was then prime
minister, succeeded m preventing the reception of this deputation by the emperor.
1897. — ^The elections to the Austrian Parliament brought about a repetition of elec-
toral terrorizing in order to hinder the Ukrainian peasants from taking part in the
elections. The peasants, profiting bv their experience of 1895, began to resist in a
body. In many localities the gendarmes fired upon the peasants; several were
killed and many wounded. Amon^ the most notorious murders was that of Peter
Stasuk at Tchemief , district of Stanislaviw. After the elections, trials of Ukrainian
peasants took place, and the total of the prison sentences amounts to more than a
hundred years. These elections caused some lively debates in parliament and have
been called, in history, the "bloody' elections of Badeni.'* There appeared in parlia-
ment only three Ukrainian deputies of the opposition and a few Polish favorites of
Ukrainian nationality.
1900. — In 1900 elections for the Austrian Parliament took place. Again the same
methods were repeated. Ukrainian peasants are not allowed to vote; Ukrainian elec-
tors are arrested wholesale; political trials are instituted against them. Only four
Ukrainian deputies of the opposition appear in parliament and some Ukrainians who
are in the service of the Poles.
1901. — Elections to the Galician Diet proceed in the same manner.
At the University of Lviv takes place (November, 1901), an exodus of Ukrainian
students. At the beginning of the semester the Ukrainian students ask the president
for TKjrmiAnion to hold their meeting in one of the halls, in order to discuss the question
of the Ukruinian University. They are refused. The Ukrainian students paid no
attention to this refus-il. Then the president decided to have the meeting dispersed
by the janitors of the university and the Polish students. He issued thereupon a
proclamation in which he called the Ukrainian students "savages." As a protest
against this proclamation the Ukrainian students left the University of Lviv and
entered other Austrian universities.
1902. — All over East Galicia general agricultural strikes occurred. The Ukrainian
peasants refused to work on the land of the great Polish proprietors. The strikes
assumed a national character and turned into a tight of the Ukrainian peasants against
the Polish proprietors. The Polish authorities tried to stop the strike by force of
arms; gendarmes and soldiers were sent against the peasants. Arrests took place in
the villages; neither old men, nor women, nor children were spared. They were
handcuffed and led in long lines, tied together by long poles. These processions
recalled the methods of the Mongolian hordes who led the Ukrainian popiilation into
slavery in the same manner. The total of prison sentences amounted to several
centuries of imprisonment.
Similar strike agitations were repeated ever>' year. The Polish authorities sup-
pressed them by the same methods.
1903. — The manifestion of the Ukrainian students against Mr. Fialek, the presi-
dent of the university, was offensive on the part of the Ukrainian students. Being
provoked, they threw rotten eggs at him. The authorities of the univereity took
the matter before the courts and some Ukrainian students were sentenced to prison.
1904. — While Koerber, the president of the Austrian Council of Ministers, was in
Lviv (August, 1904), there took place in that city a meeting of Ukrainian delegates
of the whole country in order to protest against the Polish method of government.
After the meeting, a procession passed throuch the streets of the city, 'file governor
of Galicia, the Polisn count, Andrew Potocki, ordered the procession to be broken
up by the soldiers. The last act of those events took place before the courts.
1905-1907. — A great Ukrainian movement in favor of universal suffrage for the
Austrian Parliament takes place. The governor, Andrew Potocki, suppresses this
movement by the gendarmes and soldiers. He makes in person the tour of the coun-
try, assembling the peasant delegates and threatening tnem with the gallows. In
order to disperse the meetings of peasants, the gendarmes and soldiers used their
arms frequently. In the village of Ladske, in the district of Towmacz, five peasants
were killed by rifle shots.
1908. — ^This year saw demonstrations of Ukrainian students at the university
(March, 1906), provoked by the refusal of the president to permit meetings for the
purpose of establishing the Ukrainian University. These demonstrations ended in
a regular battle between the Polish and Ukrainian students. The same events wete
repeated in December, 1906.
1907. — In January, 1907, the protest of the Ukrainian students of the University
of Lviv was renewed. This time the Ukrainian students losing patience demolished
the reception hall and beat the professors. The president asked for the help of the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 739
police; the latter arrested all the Ukrainian students and threw them into prison,
where they were kept until the trial should take place. As the examination was
dragging on, the Ukrainians protested by a hunger strike.
Tne affair became known tnrouehout tne whole State and even beyond its borders.
Then the court decided to free the students. Later on, some of the students were
sentenced to severe imprisonment.
The Polish writer, Henry Sienkiewicz, wishing to disparage the Ukrainian students,
wrote in the Vienna paper'** Die Zeit " that the hunger strike of the Ukrainian students
had been a mere sham, and that in reality the students held banquets and guzzled
champagne. The Ukrainian students sued him before the court at Vienna, which
sentenced Sienkiewicz for slander.
1908. — At the b^nnin^ of the year, elections for the Diet of Galicia took place.
The Ukrainians nuSe a vigorous electoral campaign in which the slogan waa "uni-
versal suffrage for the Galician Diet." The Galician governor, Andrew Potocki,
decided to make the victor>' of the Ukrainian candidates impossible by every means
in his power. In the course of a conversation with the Ukrainain deputy, Eiigene
Olesnytsky, he declared that he would prepare for the Ukrainians a second "Bere-
stetchke" (during the war of Khmelelnytsky the Poles had defeated the Ukrainian
army near Berestetchko). The gendarmes prevented the electors from voting,
shooting some. The best known is the murder of Marko Kahanetz in the district of
Bouchach.
On the 12th of April, 1908, the Ukrainian student Miroslav Sichinsky obtained an
audience with the Polish governor, Andrew Potocki, and killed him with a revolver
shot. He gave a very concise and clear explanation of his deed: "The assassination
of Kahanetz called for the death of Potocki."
The whole Ukrainian society assumed the responsibility for the deed of Sichinsky
and the people glorified him like a national hero.
The Poles in their turn directed their wrath against the whole Ukrainian nation,
calling it a "nation of assassins." Wherever the Ukrainians depended in any way
upon the Poles, they were rigorously persecuted. At the risk of losing their positions,
the Ukrainians employed in public service, in private and public institutions, were
compelled to join the Roman Catholic Church and to become Polonized.
Sichinsky was sentenced to death. Thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian deputies,
the emperor pardoned him and commuted his death sentence to imprisonment for
20 vears. Later, Sichinsky escaped and lives now in the United States.
t'he mental condition oi that time may be shown by the following example: In
December, 1908, the rumor was spread that the government had the intention of
making a concession to the Ukrainians by making two Ukrainian assistant professors
full professors. The Polish students showed their dissatisfaction by throwing rotten
eggs at the Galician governor, Bobrzynski, an eminent Polish politician, at the occaBi( n
of hie official visit at the university.
1910. — On July 1, 1910, there occurred another demonstration of the Ukrainian
students who voiced their wish to see the foundation of the Ukrainian University.
The Polish students at the invitation of the president of the university got up a
counterdemonstration. Revolver shots were fired. The Ukrainian student Adam
Kotsko was killed. Others were wounded. The police surrounded the university
and arrested all the Ukrainian students.
1911. — In consequence of this demonstration, a lawsuit was started against 101
Ukrainian students. This lawsuit lasted a few months. The Ukrainian students
were sentenced.
1910-1914. — The Ukrainian deputies of the Galician Diet fight for universal suffrage.
Every year at every session of the Diet, the Ukrainian deputies block proceedings in
order to obstruct tie sessions. The purpose of such obstructions is to compel the
Polish deputies to accept universal suffrage. But the Ukrainian deputies are too few
in number to obtain any result; and so they accepted a compromise in 1014 which
compromise increases the number of Ukrainian deputies. The purpose of this com-
promise was to bring into the Diet a larger number of Ukrainian deputies who would
begin anew the tight for universal suffrage vrith increased ardor and vigor as their
chances of success would be increased.
The Poles Against the Ukrainians During the War 1914-1918.
The Poles of Oalicia wished to take advantage of the World War in order to deal »
death blow to the Ukrainian population. The Polish authorities declared the whole
Ukrainian population traitors to Austria because they considered them Russophiles.
and then began their per^^ecution. At the command of these authorities, Ukrainian
peasants, priests, and intellectuals were arrested wholesale and were sent to concentra-
tion camps where the majority found a frightful death as a result of epidemics. Alany
others, also arrested were brought before courts-martial at the denunciation of iho
740 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
civil authorities. In these courts-martial sat many Polish officers. One military'
judge alone, the Polish lawyer Zagorski, has pronounced more than 200 death sentences
against Ukrainian peasants and witnessed personally their hanging. The number of
the victims of the Polish authorities amounts to several tens of thousands.
All the authority which the Austrian Government had given to the Poles was used
by the latter for the purpose of exterminating the Ukrainian element by making them
appear traitors to the cause of Austria.
When the Austrians had taken Galicia back from the Russians and wanted to
restore the land that had been devastated by war. the Poles ruined the Ukrainians
economically. The money allotted by the Austrian Government to repair the de-
«truction was used by the Polish authorities in repairing merely the large Polish
landed estates and Polish city industries. As for the Ukrainian peasants, they
received nothing and had to seek refuge in cabins where typhus, the result of many
privations, caused many victims. The Ukrainian manufacturers were not included
m the distribution of the sums appropriated for restoration any more than artisans
and merchants.
During the war, the Austrian Government issued the following orders according to
which the land was to be cultivated: Local authorities were authorized to take any
measure to compel farmers and farm laborers to devote themselves to work in the
fields. The Polish authorities took advantage of these orders and obliged the
Ukrainian peasants to cultivate the estates of the great Polish proprietors. Gend-
armes gathered the peasant women (all men being at the front) canydng them off
from their own fields and for the moderate wage of 1 to 3 crowiis a day they compelled
them to work in the fields of the large Polish landowTiers. This violence caused in
the whole country revolts of the people which were repressed by arms and wholesale
arrests.
In general the Polish yoke weighed during the war more heavily on the Ukrainians
of East Galicia than ever. The roles, to wnom Austria-Hungary and Germany had
promised East Galicia, treated the Ukrainian people like cattle intended for eternal
slavery.
The Ukraxnian-Polish War.
The proclamation of Ukrainian rule in East Galicia and the union of our republic
with the Ukrainian Republic were acclaimed by the Ukrainian peasantry with the
liveliest enthusiasm because this signified liberation from the Polish yoke. To the
appeal of the Ukrainian Government, all, young and old, responded joyously, enrolling
themselves in the Ukrainian army to free their natal soil from Polish iuN'tision.
Ukrainian soldiers from the Austrian army, who for some years had not seen their
families, left directly, without first going home, the Russian front and the Italian
front in order to jMuticipate in the struggle which should drive the Poles, out They
passed an entire rigorous winter in the trenches, without clothing and shoes, repu sing
uie attacks of the Poles, often inflicting serious blows upon them.
For Uie Uloainian peasantry, this was a war against the hereditary enemy.
The Poles speak much of the atrocities practiced by the Ukrainian soldienB.
Against these accusations we must protest energetically; the Ukrainian army is
perfectly disciplined and has waged war in conformity with international principles.
The Ukrainian (jovemment has seen to it that no excesses have been committed by
the army.
If there was a single exception, we can only see in it the innate animosity of the
Ukrainian people against the Polish element.
And even one such exception would pale into nothingness compared with the plan
systematically employed against the Ukrainians upon their own territory by the
Polish civil and military aumorities. At Lviv, from the 22d of November, 1918, — ^that
is, from the first day — all Ukrainian societies and organizations were at uie mercy of
Polish soldiery. Nothing has survived. I cite, for instance, those schools which were
supported by the Ukraiman Pedagogic Society, which were so demolished that there
now remain but the four walls, bare and dilapidated, with broken window panes.
To the misdeeds of the soldiery, there followed the tyrannical orders of the ciWl
authorities. Upon order of the Polish Government, Ukrainian associations and
organizations were closed with the exception of the banks. The publication of
the newspapers was forbidden; then, a little later, they were authorized to appear
only upon the condition that the Ukrainian text should be accompanied by the
same text in Polish letters. The majority of the Ukrainian papers refused to sub-
mit to such humiliating restrictions and preferred to cease appearing. Soon but two
papers were appearing of the Ukrainian Social-Democratic Party, which cheridied
the hope that tne head of the Polish Republic, the Socialist Pilsudzki, would at last
show some justice to Ukraine. Vain hope. These papers were suspended in their
turn, their editors arested, and accused of gross crimes against tne safety of the
Polish State.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERBCANY. 741
From time to time there occurred on the part of the Polish authorities a systematic
hvokt after prominent Ukndnians, with subsequent deportation to concentration camps.
This terror was carried to such a degree that the Polish Commandant Rozwadowski
actually invited by means of a special letter, accompanied by the most violent threats,
the Metropolitan of the Ukrainians, A. Sheptytsky, to range himself, together with
his clergy, on the side of the Polish oppressors.
In short, Ukrainian life stopped completely.
In the country it was still worse. The enture population was a prey to the excesses
of the soldiers of Poland . Woe to the village that passes from the hands of the Ukrain-
ians into the hands of the Poles. The cottages are in flames, the air is rent bv the
cries of the peasants beaten with scourges. Thus it is that insurgents against Polish
authority are pimished. Military conventions, the rights of the people are trodden
under foot. To realize these scenes it is only necessary to read these lines appearing
in a Polish newspaper: ' 'Celuj zawsze w dom Fopa lub przynajmniej Diaka," meaning
* * Train your guns especially upon the house of the Ukrainian priest, or at least upon
that of his assistant.*'
Ukrainian soldiers falling into the Hands of the Poles were no better treated : To be
scourged until the blood came, often to be shot; such was their fate. Polish cripples,
the Imlt and the lame, were armed and made to use their weapons. But when the
Ukrainians in legitimate self-defense rendered blow for blow, Polish and foreign
papers raised cries of horror.
The Poles were intriguing among the Ukrainians at the front against the Ukrainian
Government. When it happened that their spies were discovered, that the guilty
were punished in conformity with military law, the Poles railed against Ukrainian
severity.
Up to the Polish offensive of May, their atrocities had affected onl^ an inconsiderable
part of the Ukrainian population. Now it is the whole land which is suffering; institu-
tions^ clubs, schools, churches, everythii:^ is closed and dissolved by superior orders
of the occupants. Ukndnian peasants are imprisoned en masse, even shot; the
educated classes, the priests are imprisoned, interned in concentration camps or shot.
Such then is the reality of ^e idyll of which the Poles have the audacity to dis-
course at Paris.
Conclusions.
We have thus seen that the Ukrainian-Polish relations have become more and more
strained, until the moment when the Ukrainian-Polish War resulted therefrom.
This development of Ulcrainian-Polish relations is thoroughly justified by history.
Galicia having been conquered six centuries before by Poland, the latter has always
tried and is still trying to create of it an organicallv Polish country.
On the other hand, during the entire duration ot Polish domination the Ukrainian
nation has sought to recover its independence.
Such relations must necessarily envenom the struggle between these two nations
until such moment as the Poles shall have suppresseothe Ukrainian element, or the
latter shall have receovered its independence.
In short, during the whole period of Polish domination in Galicia, the Ukrainian
nation has shownDy its conduct that it absolutely refused to remain under any form
of Polish sovereignty whatsoever, and that this sovereignty could be established
only upon the corpse of the entire Ukrainian people.
Such is the nature of the first truth. The second — this is that the Ukrainian people
of Esat Galicia, have maidfested their firm and unshakable determination to lead an
independent life in the Ukrainian Republic, one and sovereign, at first by founding
its own State upon tie ruins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and, later, uniting its
State to the Ukrainian Republic through the unanimous vote of the National Council
(Parliament of West Ukraine), on the 3d of January, 1919, and through the solemn
proclamation at Kiev, on the 22d of January, 1919.
To solve the question of East Galicia in conformity with the principle of the self-
determination o? nations, we must not lose sight of these two essential truths.
The Ukrainian people of East Galicia have shown their wish. Poland by declaring
war on West Ukraine has violated the will of the Ukrainian nation.
The commission for the Ukrainian-Polish armistice had declped that the party
which contrary to the will of the peace conference should continue to fight, would
assume a great responsibility.
Poland has not obeyed the injunctions of the commission, has not accepted the
project of the armistice, and has occupied by force of arms almosjt the whole of East
ualicia.
Therefore Poland assumes the responsibility referred to by the armistice commission.
Justice indicates but one way to adjust the question of East Galicia: Put an end to
Polish occupation, return to the Ukrainians the administration of their own country,
742 TREATY OF PBAC» WITH QERMA2fnr.
give the Ukrainian people the possibility of disposing of themselves — ^that is, the
possibility of beconiing a oart of the Ukrainian Republic.
Any other solution of the question, and, in particular, dependence upon Poland
under any form whatsoever, would force the Ukrainian people to fight to tne last drop
of blood for the integrity and the independence of the Ukrainian Republic.
The Ukrainian Republic, which at the beginning of its existence framed a law
furnishing guaranties for national minorities, \\ill be able to assure conditions for
national development to the minorities of P^ast Galicia.
Rut the Ukrainian nation can never consent to the subjugation of Fast Galicia by
Poland merely to safeguard the interests ot the Polish national minority.
Copy.
August 7, 1919.
Mr. J. G. Bailey,
Russian Division, State Department, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Sir: I wish to call to your attention the unrest created amon^ the resi-
dents of this country of Ukrainian parentage 'by press reports from Paris indicating
that the section of Eastern Galicia inhabited by Ukrainians is to be incorporated in
Poland.
A dispatch from Dr. Dillon in the Philadelphia Public Ledger stated that the
American delegation at Paris favored such action. An Associated Press dispatch in
the Washington Star further asserted that the conference commission on Polisn affairs
will recommend to the supreme council that Ukrainian Galicia be put under the
dominion of Poland. An arrangement of this character would violate the right and
the claim of the Ukrainian people to self-government. It would perpetuate the
elements of instability in eastern Europe and, I fear, nullify the hope of tne world for
permanent peace.
But I desire now chiefly to report the harm already done in tlus country by the
spreading of the re^rts cited. During the war and subsequent to the armistice more
than 400 mass meetinjgs and parades have been held in this countrv bv the half million
Ukrainians resident in the industrial States. The purpose of all these has been to
inform the American people of the situation of the Ukraine, which on every considera-
tion of ethnography, history, religion, and economics are entitled to self-rule.
I need not, I am sure, recall to you the statements of President Wilson and of Secre-
tary of State Lansing, inade during 1918, which recognized the justice of the Ukrainian
claim to independence. No more is it necessary to revert to the fact that a recognition
of Ukraine's integrity as a nation was implicit in Uie terms of the armistice.
It is important, however, that I, as the president of the Ukrainian Federation of the
United States, should record the dangerous feeling of despair which would be engen-
dered among all Ukrainians if the future of their motherland were to be sacrificed to
Polish imperialism . At this state of the world, it is surely imperative that the natural
desire of a people such as the Ukrainians who have been so much of a bulwark of
civilization both against German imperialism and Russian Bolshevism be not frus-
trated. I can conceive of no action which wouM more effectually poison the springs
of true democracy and transform a right love of independence into that despair which
breeds Bolshevism.
In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hamp-
shire, Rhode Island. Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and elsewhere in industrial America
mass meetings have been held to protest against the sacrifice of the Ukraine to Polish
aggrandizement. Ukrainians know too well the horrors of Austro-Hungraian imperi-
alism to find reassurance in its substitution by a Polish hogonomy over the lil)erty-
loving peoples of Eastern Europe. The memory of ancient Polish Empire which
held sway over the Ukrai^ie and Lithuania in no less brutal fashion than did the
Hapsburgs and Ilohenzollerns after a partition of Poland in 1772 still rankles. How
deeply and securely rooted is this feeling may be judged from the fact that many
Polish historians attribute Poland's downfall to the unscrupulous religious, national
and social oppression of the Ukrainian, freeholders and peasants, by the Polish
aristocracy.
A brief while ago even Premier Paderewski acknowledged and supported the validity
of the demands of the U krainian people. Following the mass meeting of the oppressed
nationalities of central Europe held in Carnegie Hall, September 15, 1918, Mr.
Paderewski presented the resolution of the meeting to President Wilson. In part
the resolution was as follows:
''Resolved, That since the majority of the inhabitants of Austria-Hungary, to wit:
Poles, Czecho-Slovaks, Ukrainians, Roumanians, Jugo-Slavs and Italians, have been
unjustly and cruelly governed by a ruling minority of Germans and Magyars, we
demand the dissolution of the present empire and the organization of its freed peoples
according to their own will."
TBEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 743
A year has not paased and yet Mr. Roman Dmowski, Premier Paderewski's repre-
sentative at Paris, is demanding not the organization of the freed peoples of Austria-
Hungary according to their own will, but the organization of a new Polish empire
on a purely Prussian pattern. He talks of annexation by forceful conquest, of eco-
nomic necessity, of the superiority of Polish culture, of the Polish mission in Eastern
Europe. The old German will to conquer, translated into Polish terms, is intriguing
for the reestablishment of a Polish empire, incorporating within its boundaries
recalcitrant millions of people of other nationalities.
The peace of the world can not be reared on that foundation. A poor peace will
it be which would shift Alsace-Lorraine from Western to Eastern Europe. President
Wilson expressly stated that Poland should be constituted of undoubtedly and gen-
uinely Polish territories. The peace conference months ago insisted that the Polish
attempt to subdue by force of arms Ukrainian Galicia be stopped and yet the unchal-
lenged word goes forth that now Ukrainians are to be delivered to the Government
of Poland.
It avails nothing that Poland talks of autonomy for Ukrainian Galicia. All groups
in the Ukraine from the conservative Catholics to the radical Socialist would reject
Ukrainian autonomy under Polish suzerainty as decisely as the French citizens of
Alsace would have spumed Alsatian self-government under Hohenzollern tutelage.
The self-government of a free republic, not the dependence of province alien in
language, literature, customs, religion, economics, ideals, is the aspiration of the
Ukrainian people.
It is not to be wondered that in the United States and in Canada, wherever men of
Ukrainian descent have access to the bar of unfettered opinion, appeals are being
made that the Ukraine be freed and that the tragedies of the past be not repeated.
Poland will gain nothing of permanent value from a conquest of the Ukrainians. The
safety of the world will be no whit strengthened. The solidarity of the United States
whien has been built upon the contentment of self-governing people will not be for-
tified. The subjection of the Ukraine will be a perpetual source of trouble, for as
America could not remain half slave and half free so eastern Europe will harvest dis-
tress and unrest while imperialism endeavors to enslave millions of freemen.
Yours, very respectfully,
MiROSLAV SiCHINSKY
President, Ukrainian Federation of United States.
The Imperial Academy op Sciences op Petroorad, on the Ukrainian Litera-
ture AND Language.*
the constituents op the committee that prepared the report.
" The Committee on the Abolition of the Restrictions of the Ukrainian Language,
presided by the Academician F. E. Korsh, and composed of the Academicians V. v.
^lensky, A. S. Lappo Danilevsky, S. F. Oldenburg, A. S. Famintsin, Ph. F. Fortu-
natov, and 0.0. Shakhmatov.' after a thorough examination of the question proposed
by the Council of the Ministers, arrived at the conclusions herewith submitted to the
general session . "
1 The Imperial Academy of Sciences on the Repeal of the Restrictions of the Little Russian Printed
Literature. St. Petersburg, 1905. Printed bv the order of the Imperial Academy of Sclent es, V art h, 1015.
> Fiodor E. Korsh (1813-1915). renowned kussian linguist, professor of Roman language first at the
University of Odessa, later at the University of Moscow; ordinary member of the Russian Academy;
author of many linguistic and philologic works. " He possesses a* prominent erudition not only in his
spe^Halty but also in the history of European literatures and the philology of Indo-European and Asiatic
dialects." (The Ru'»ian Encyclopaedic Dictionary of F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron!)
Vladimir v. Zalensky (1H4&- ), professor of natural science at the University of Odessa, since 1893 an
ordinary member of the Imperial Acadeniy.
Alexanders. Lappo Danilevsky,famous Russian hlstorian,profcssor of Russian history at the University
of Petn^rad. since 1894 an ordinary member of the academy.
Sei^y F. v. Oldenburg, authority on the history and literature of Asiatic people, permanent secretary
of the academy; member of the committee on the compilation of ethnographic map of Russia, of the Imperial
Russian Geographic Society; the correspondent member of the Liverpool University School of Russian
Studies.
Audrey S. Famintsin (1861- ), professor of botanies first at the Medical Academy of Petrograd, then
at the Universltv of Petrograd, since 1891 an ordinary member of the a^^demy. " He is not only the neatest
botanist-physioliM^t of Russia, but also the teacher of a whole generation of physiologists." The Russian
Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Breckhaus and Efron.)
Philip F. Fortunatov, prominent Russian philologian. since 1875 professor of Indo-European philology
at the UnlvBTsity of Moscow, in 1884 f >r his scientific works nominated by the Universities of Moscow and
Kiev "honoris causa doctor of comparative philology."
Alezsey A. Shakhmatov (1864- ), since 1890 professor of philology at the University of Moscow, 1894
nominated by the same university "dootor of Russian language and literature," since 1894 member of the
Academy, later elected president of the division of Russian language and literature of the academy and chief
librarian of the same oivision. " By the depth of his knowledge, originality and independence of his
opinions, and the copiousness of the scientific works of first rate, Shaklunatov. at present occupies one of
the most prominent places among our specialists on the history of the Russia ana Slavic languages. " (The
Russian En^^yclopaedio Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron.)
With the exception of V. V. Zalensky, all the above mentioned scholars are great Russians.
744 TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GBBMAKY.
HAVE THEY THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT A ''PAN-BU8SIAN" LANOUAOE?
There is no doubt that the ancestors of the Great Russians and the Ukrainians had
spoken one language in the time of yore; this language, which has not survived to our
times in written monuments, and which was reconstructed onlvhypothetically, is
generally called in science the '* Pan-Russian'' language. But ot courae, this is not
the language which those who contrast Ulaiainian with ''Pan-Russian" have in view.
As early as the prehistoric epoch, the ''Pan-Russian" language exhibited in its indi-
vidual branches such pronounced dialectic peculiarities as to furnish a foundation for a
hypothesis that the Russian race, from time immemorial, has been divided into three
groups: North Russian, Middle Riusian, and South Russian. The South Russian
monuments of our old literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as it was proved
for the first time by our fellow member, the academician, A. A. Sobolevsky, display a
series of typical peculiarities of the Ukrainian language; from them one can surely
convince oneself of the considerable remoteness of the South Russian (Little Russian)
dialects from the Middle Russian as well as from the North Russian dialects in Uie
very period preceding the Tartar invasion. This remoteness could not be remedied
by the political union of the Russian tribes in the tenth and eleventh centuries; on
the contrary, the breaking up of the Russian lands into independent principalities, the
growth of a new political center in the basin of the Oka River, the tributary of the
Upper Volga, the downfall of Kiev in the second half of the thirteenth century— all
these served considerably the Southeastern Russia, and the Tartar invasion completed
the separation. Later, within the Russo-Lithunian Empire, the South Russian tribes
found the basis for a closer connection with other Russian tribes, namely, that western
branch of the Middle Russ^n tribes which grew to be the foundation of the White
Russian nationality. On the other hand, the eastern branch of the Middle Russians,
united by the Muscovites with the North Russians, became a part of the Great Russian
nationality. Only the more recent colonization of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries brought more closely the Great Russians and the Ukrainians in the basins of
the Seym, Donets, and Don Rivers. Thus the historic develop^nent contributed
towards the creation of two nationalities: The Qreat Russian and the Ukrainian.
The historic Ufe of the two natioalities failed to develop a common language; quite the
contrary, the very life strengthened those dialectic varieties with which endowed the
ancestors of the Ukrainians, on the one hand, and the uicestors of the Great Russian,
on the other hand, made their appearance at the beginning of our history. And, of
course, the living Great Russian idiom, as it is spoken by the people of Moscow.
Riezen, Archangel, Novgorod, can not be called "ran-Russian" language as apposea
to the Ukrainian of ''Poltava, Kiev, of Lviv (Lemb^)."
''But do we possess perhaps, some |;round to consider our (Great Russian) language
as the Pan-Russian lan^age? Was it, perhaps, created by the common efforts of all
the Russian nationalities? Has it reflected perhaps, itself, the varieties of all the
Russian dialects? According to the views so often repeated by some publicists, the
Ukrainians have played an important part in creating and elaborating our literary
language. To prove this^ it is deemed sufficient to mention the influence of the
Ukrainian writers and scientiBts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, first
upon the Muscovite enlightenment, then also upon the reforms of the star Peter the
Great. To be sure, this influence reflected itself also in our literature, but it was of
a merely passing character; the efforts of our great writers were bringing our written
language more and more closely to the vernacular, and so far nothing has stopped this
current, which made our literary language fully Great Russian in its character as
early as the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries,
when it became emancipated, among other things, also from the Ukrainian accen^
which, according to Prof. Buada, was not foreign to the lang[uage of Lomonoaov and
Sumarkov. The Great Russian literary lai^uage, which in its origins constituted a
gaudy mixture of church-Slavonic elements (in lexical and partly also in grammatical
respect) with the vernacular of the Gteat Russian tribes, was receiving since the old
feriod, it can be said^ since the sixteenth century, a more and more popular tinge.
ts development in this direction was stopped twice; the first time, in the fourteenth
century, when it had to struggle against otner Slavic elements, which, due to Serbian
and Bulgarian scientists, had come from the South Slavic countries; the second
time, in the seventeenth century, when it was permeated with the peculiarities of
the Ukrainian literary language. Both times, however, the Great Russian element
came out victorious, and for this reason our literary lan^age, the language of our
educated class and the language of our literature of all kinds, should be considered
fully Great Russian language. We can see no basis to call this language Pan-Russian,
since it constitutes no amalgam, in which could reflect themselves, however unequally
it may be, the peculiarities of all living Russian idioms.'*
TBBAT7 OF FBAGB WITH GHBHAVY. 745
HOW THB UKRAINIAN VERNACULAR BECAME A LITERARY LANGUAGE.
<<.
Our Great Ruasiaii language attained a Pan-Russian significance. To a consider-
able extent this was due to the fact that by virtue of circumstances it became a state
language; but that is mostly to be accounted for by the cultural growth of the Great
Ruflsian nationality, by the development of its literature and its school education.
Peter's the Great reforms, that brought Russia and the West into a closer connection,
strengthened the eduCittional significance of the Great Russian centers, Moscow and
Petrc^ad, and brought into the channels of a common life Great and Little Russia.
The latter had nothing to place against this secular education, which, thanks to the
movement inaugurated by Peter, spread in a broad stream all over the country united
by the Muscovite tsars. Because of this the Great Russian langua^ penetrated to
the south, into Ukraine on both sides of the Dnieper. The Ulouiman written lan-
gua^ had developed in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries on the
basis of two literary languages; the church-Slavonic and the West Russian, the latter
of which was saturated with Polish elements; it has assimilated itself to the vernacu-
lar in a considerably smaller degree than did the Great Russian literary language,
and this, more than anything else, explains the fate it met with in the second half
of the eighteenth century; it was gradually forgotten and without a struggle gave
place to the Great Russian literary language.
" In this way the growth of culture and education culminated in a natural dis-
placing of the written Ukrainian language by the Great Rui«ian language. But this
growth railed to life factors which in the previous epo>ch had hardly found any lawful
expression. The Great Russian becomes enthusiastic for the secular education so
much that he can not any more be witisfied with what his anceptors had conceived
from the ecclesiastical education, which left unanswered a considerable part of the
needs of a thoughtful and sensitive being, that he (ran not be satisfied with the use of
the bookish church language, remote from native toneue. With the appearance of
secular education, the literature, without c'easii^^ to satisfy religious wants and material
interests, reveals for the Great Russian a i^ossibility to express his thoughts and feelings
in new forms, different from those used by his ancestors. And this finds its expression,
before all, in the growing assimilation of the written language to the language of every
day's feelings and thoughts. We see how quick wa^ the Great Russian literary
language to free itself, thanks to the secular education, from the foreign elements,
foreign accents, and unusual words. In Ukraine, where the written language was
alrea<iy foigotten and neglected, the very same secular education had to produce
another though similar phenomenon, the livingvemacular idiom becomes the literary
language. The thoughts and feelings of the Ukrainian force themselves irresi<9tibly
upon the pax>er, there is no other way out for him left than to express them in the
common idiom of his own, because the Great Ru<vdan language, foreign to him, can
not become a guide to the native ton^e, can not and bv its nature should not be
assimilated with or approximated to it. Peter the Great s reforms have led Russia
upon the road of secular education. As a result of that, on the one side, the Great
Russian written language assimilated itself to the vernacular of the Great Russian.
On the other hand, the vernacular of the Ukrainians became the vernacular of the new
Ukrainian litemtiue. Not to admit the legitimacy and natiuralness of such a result
would mean to admit that secular education left the ITkrainians untouched; it would
mean that in the north, in Moscow and Petrograd, secular education should bring into
closer similarity the vernacular and literary language, with the predominance of the
fonner, while in the south, in Kiev, the same secular education should only exchange
the old literary language for a new one, still more dissindlar from the \ernacular,
still more forei^.
" The publicist's who <leny the Ukrainian literary language to right to exist are prone
to refer to 'White Russia; tney frightened the Russian Government and the Pvussian
Eublic with the prosj^ective of the demand of freedom for the WTiite Russian written
inguage. WTiat the future has in store we do not know; the past, ho«rever, testifies
clearly that the WTiite Russian educated class became Polonized while the Great
Russian and the Ukrainian kept in sacred veneration their respective literary lan-
guage. The White Russian educated class experienced no desire, nor did they possess
any basis, to return to the vernacular, while the Ukrainian did it out of sheer neces-
sity."
THE LEOimiAOT AND NATURALNESS 07 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN LTT-
ERARY LANGUAGE.
"The legitimacy and naturalness of the origin of the Ukrainian literary language
explains also the Intimacy of its whole furmer development. Its sources, as we
have seen, was the uving colloquial language of the Ukrainian educated class, that
746 . TBKATY OP PEAGS WITH GERMANY.
^ew lip amidst circumstances altogether different from those amidst which grew the
ureat Russian educated class. Not only in the eighteenth, but also later, in the nine-
teenth century, the former absorbed the Polish culture, which neither Moscow nor
Petrograd was able to suppress, in spite of the very strong influence of the Great
Russian culture, supportedf by common religion and common State interests. Thus
in that colloquial language ot the Ukrainian educated class, which became the lit-
erary language at the oeginning of the nineteenth century, there made their appear-
ance, in the form of assimilated foreign elements, on the one hand, Polish, on the
other, Great Russian words and phrases. In the future, too, both named literary
languages, the Polish and the Great Russian, should serve a source of enrichment of
the Ukrainian literary language. To turn to these sources is only too natural a course ;
which of the two will get the upper hand will depend upon the Question which of
them will succeed in attaching to itaelf the Ukrainian literature witn close, brotherly
ties. It seemed that the influence of the Great Russian language upon the Ukrainian
was fuUv insured under those circumstances under which the new literature grew; to
write iTkrainian began men who knew perfectly the Great Russian language, the
Ukrainian books were published in the centers of the Great Russian learning, the
literary works of the Ukrainians are printed in the Great Russian mtu^zines aud
geriodicals. The repressive measure of the censorship of 1863 and 1866, however,
ave transferred the literary activities of the Ukrainians to that part of the nationality
that lies beyond the frontiers of Russia. There it developed under a strong influence
of the Polish elements in the lexical and syntactic parts. Objections are being raised
against the Ukrainian language of the Galician literature because of this foreign,
non-Ukrainian tinge it had received in Lviv. But the Polish elements have only
taken place of these Great Russian elements displacing of which would be a matter
of course if the Ukrainian literature were given in Ukraine a chance of wide and free
development.
'^The enrichment with foreign linguistic elements — this is the common lot of all
literary languages; the west European elements in our own Great Russian language
prove that even very highlv developed literary languages are not insured against
foreign influence. Absolute! v inevitable becomes the influence of neighboring Ian-
guai^e when these languages belong to akin races; thus the Polish literary language
exhibits the influence of the Bohemian, and the PoHsh purists canv on a useless and
difficult struggle against the Great Russian influence; thus the Slovenian langua^
has become permeated with Serbo-Croatian elements; thus the Bulgarian language is
thoroughly overwhelmed with Great Russian elements. In the same manner it was
not possible for the Ukrainain language to escape the Great Russian or PoUah influ-
ences. The understanding to utilize foreign linguistic elements, absence of all appre-
hensions of them, a bold handling of the new lexical material very often testify to
the power and resisting force of tHe new literary language, which irresistably aspires
to a great and greater range in the domain of the expression of human thoughts and
sentiments.".
18 THE UKRAINIAN LFTERATURE NECESSARY?
"Many Great Russian publicists questioned whether the Ukrainian literature is
altogether necessary. Others wanted to limit its domain witliin certain prescribed
boundaries; they admitted its natural life; they considered it proper to collect popular
songs and fables: finally, the Ukrainian language was granted even the whole domain
of fiction. But to pass beyond these boundaries, it was forbidden; and such restric-
tions were considered by the publicists who followed the government's regulation to
be necessary in the interest of the Great Russian literature. The answer to that hollow
after all question whether the Ukrainian literature is altogether necessary gave the
life itself; we saw a l)road development of this literature even during the period of the
sixties, that is at the time when the reforms of the tsar Alexander II had revived the
Great Russian nationality to new forms of life, and we discovered, that the creature of
that literature were men of various social classes, of various opinions, and of various
education. The Ukrainian literature evidently has satisfied, by its appearance,
matured needs, and its origin was influenced neither by a political intrigue nor an
unsound tenden'^v. Let the facts answer this question that arises in our country as a
result of the constant assertions of some publicists: is it reallv possible to limit, in one
way or another, the extent to which a literary langua^ shoula be used? * * * , Is
it possible to stop a germinated thought, a thought animated, moreover, by the native
tongue? What is there to stop it at popular jokes and verses, what is there to prevent
it from incarnating itself in new forms of poetr>% from permeating the romance and
scientific research, from finding its way to the past of its own people, from taking care
for the people's future, and passing finally into the domain of religion and focussing
itself on the translation of the rioly Scripture and the production of books for moral ana
.TREATY OF PEAGS WITH GERWAKY. 7^7
spiritual reading? No. The creative thought can not le arreeted by artificial
ooBtacles. Such artificial obstacles are only to impress upon it an unnatural and ten-
dential development."
COULD THE UKRAINIAN USE THE GREAT RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE AS THE IDIOM
OP THEIR LITERATURE?
'* It should be pointed out with special stress that it is difficult for an Ukrainian to
understand Great Russian books dealing even with most elementary subjects because
of the fact that the Ukrainian language, like any other language, has a peculiar but
characteristic way of designating the oojects of every day use in a wav different from
that of Great Russian; words like ♦ ♦ * and other words are either entirely un-
intelligible or very little intelligible for an Ukrainian. The most eloquent example
of this constitute the difficulties experienced even by educated Ukrainians who know
perfectly our iiterar\' language; about these difficulties have spoken many scholars be-
ginning with the thirties and sixties of the past century. And for this reason, there is
no wonder that the Ukrainians have so gladly turned to their native ton^e whenever
thev wanted to express, in a written language, their thoughts and sentunents."
The Provinces to the east of Poland proper which belonged to the Kingdom of
Poland but where the bulk of the population is of nonPolish origin and speaks either
Lithuanian or White or Little Russian.
On this territ/>ry, only a small part of which (Eastern Galicia) belongs to Austria,
while the chief portion Uhe so-called North— and Southwestern Provinces) is in ^e
posseasion of Russia, and which represents an area of about 200,000 square miles with
30,000,000 inhabitants, the Poles form only a more or less considerable minority — 25
per cent in Eastern Galicia, and a very small percentage in the easternmost districts
oelonging to Russia — but there are no reliable statistics concerning nationalities.
This vast stretch of territory, whose inhabitants are non-Polish by race, is nevertheless
to a certain degree a country with a Polish civilization. By R. Dmowski. Quota-
tion from a lecture " Poland Old and New, *' delivered at the University of Cambridge
in the fall of 1916 and collected in the volume issued by the Cambriilge University
members under the title of ''Russian Realties and F^oblems. "
Ukraine's Recent Sthuogle fou Independence.
Submitted by Emil Revtuk.
•
A.t the banning of the World War the Ukrainian territory was divided between
two empires— a smaller part, with some 4,500,000 Ukrainians', was ruled by Austria-
Hungary, '1 ,000,000 in tne Provinces of Galicia and Bukovina, some 500,000 in the
Kingdom of Hungary; the larger part, with about 32,000,000 Ukrainians, was ruled by
Russia.
Under each of these dominions the Ukrainians suffered persecution and oppression.
In Hungary, the Magyars tried to Magyarize them; in Russia, the Russian Tsars made
all efforts to Russify them: in Galicia, they were delivered under the domination of
the Austrian Poles, who tried to Polonize them.
All these efforts at the denationalization of the Ukrainians were futile. Not only
did the Ukrainians preserve theii* national character, but, moreover, their culture,
through its originality, antirjuity, homogeneous character and poetic conception of
life, proved a great temptation to all neighbors of Ukraine: so that their common
people in large numbers adopted Ukrainian culture and with it imbued themselves
with Ukrainian national feeling. The Ukrainians of Hungarv, known as Uhro-Rusins,
never became Magvars, though deprived of all opportunity tor cultural development.
The Ukrainians of Eastern Galicia, in spite of the oppressive rule of the Polish nobility,
built up a SATitem of private primary and secondary schools, covered the whole of
Eastern Galicia with a network of various economic cooperative associations renowned
for their efficiency and the integrity of their officers, organized strong political paities
inspiring admiration even among the enemy. The Ukrainians of Russia, since 1876
deprived of the free use of their native tongue in public life, schools and literature,
preserved through their cooperative societies, their national entity and the sentiment
of racial distinction from Great Russia.
After the Russian revolution of March, 1917, had overthrown the Tsars, the Ukrain-
ians set up an autonomous government to rule Ukraine on the basis of federal union
with Great Russia. The unwillingness of Kerensky's government to grant any rights
to Ukrainian people, emanating from the Centralist tendencies of the liberal circles
of Great Russia, antagonized the Ukrainian people toward these circles and rendered
748 TBBAT7 01* PBAGB WITH GEBMAlinr.
the union of Ukraine with RufisLa more nominal than actual. When Bolahevist com-
munists came into power in Moscow, Ukraine broke off all political connection with
the central government of Russia and proclaimed herself a free, independent, and
sovereign nation. The young nation immediately found herself in a critical condi-
tion, as she was threatened by the forces of anarchy in the east and the Teutonic
militarists in the west. Similar to Roumania, the Ukrainian Government, the
Ukrainian Central Rada, tried to emeree from this dilemma by making peace with
Germany and Austria. The people of Ukraine never accepted this farce of a treaty
and rose in one rebellion when the Germans began to requisition food and cattle.
When the Germans realized that they could not make of the Central Rada an obedient
tool, they overthrew this government and set up a new government headed by Gen.
Skoropadsky, a Ukrainian by birth, but thoroughly Russified. This coup d'etat
still more embittered the Ukrainian people against the Germans. The Ukrainian
peasantry rose en masse. There were peasant armies numbering hundreds of thou-
sands, and as a result of these upriaingB 60,000 Germans were killed in Ukraine. More
than 1,000,000 German soldiers had to stay in Ukraine at the time when Germany
needed them most in the west.
All Ukrainian parties combined to struggle against the Germans with every means
at their disposal. This revolutionary booy, composed of representatives of all these
parties, as well as delegates of the Ukrainian cooperative associations, was called the
Ukrainian National Union. The ^errilla conducted by it went on until Gen. Skor-
opadsky and the Germans were dnven from Ukraine.
In November, 1918, the Ukrainian National Union set up a new government, the
so-called ** Directorate," headed by the leader of the peasant armies, Gen. Petlurt,
and composed of representatives from all Ukrainian parties. The new govemmena
which has imdergone hardly any change in its personnel since that time, has for its
main object the preservation of the union of all Ukrainian territory and the safe-
guarding of Ukrainian independence. In January, 1919, the General Ukrainian Con-
vention was held at Kiev and approved the policies of the Directorate.
The government had to stand the most trying circumstances, fighting on all sides.
The hsurdest struggle of all was that against the Russian Bolshevists. In the opinion
of the Bolshevik government, the oiganization of the Ukrainian Directorate as the
supreme executive of the Ukrainian Republic was a classical manifestation of the
national spirit as opposed to the principle of international class struggle. Although
the Russian Bolshevist government proclaimed the principle of self-determination of
nationalities, it allowed this self-determination only so far as it proceeded slonf the
lines of Bolshevist experiments. The Bolshevist government of Russia, in spite of
its international phraseology, was totally Great Russian in the meaning that nation-
alities composing {lussia mould be ruled by the Great Russian element. As* such
it appealed to Russian chauvinistic elements scattered in Ukraine, who never failed
to manifest their preference of Russian Bolshevist tule to demorcatic Ukrainian gov-
ernment. The Ukrainians in organizing their government have rejected the Soviet
formula and retained the democratic basis of the representative government, and
this was another reason why the Bolshevist government of Russia considered them
enemies. At the bottom of war between Gre»t Russia and Ukraine, however, was
the misery of the Russian masses due to Bolshevist experiments, resulting in disor-
ganization of public life and disint^;ration of industries.
In Ukraine s struggle for her independence carried against the Bolshevists the
Ukrainian Government was hampered oy the lack of war materials, due to the refusal
of the allied powers to give Ukraine any kind of recognition. This was the cause of
the reverses suffered by the Ukrainian armies during tne first half of the year 1918.
Another cause was that the Ukrainians had to fignt at the same time on two more
fronts — aj^nst the Roumanians in the southwest and the Poles in the west. The
Roumanians occupied the northwestern part of Bukovina, populated by a compact
mass of Ukrainians. In like manner the Poles, against the will of the population,
occupied Eastern Galicia. This was done with the full sanction of the peace con-
ference at Paris, which authorized the Poles to occupy the predominatingly Ukrainian
coimtry east of the River San for the alleged purpose of fighting BoMievist bands.
As a matter of fact, however, the Ukrainian part of Galicia was perhaps the only
country in Europe which possessed no Bolshevist movement to speak of j and Esat/em
Galicia has rendered a service for democracy and civilization in preventing the union
of Russian and Hungarian Bolshevist forces. The occupation of eastern Galicia by
the Poles was in the interest of a disappearingly small Polish minority, some 11 per
cent in all, composed of landlords and officials of the former Austrian monarchy, who
were anxious to continue their political ascendancy over 75 per cent of Ukranians
and 12 per cent of Jews. The Uxrainians of Austria oiganizea during the Austrian
collapse a separate government of their own and decided to unite with the remainder
TEEAT7 OF FBAOB WITH GEBMAHY. 749
of Ukraine. The Polish occupation, carried on with most outrageous practices, still
more anta^nized the two races and made a thorough separation of Ukrainian and
Polish territories a necessary prerequisite of lasting peace in this part of Europe.
Though unassisted in any way by the foreign powers and fighting on so many fronts
against the enemies of Uloraine self determination, the Directorate stood the test of
stability. The government not only rejected the peace advances of the Bolshevist
government of Russia, but stru^led successfully against them and forced them to
evacuate the whole territory west of the Dnieper River.
Kolchak's government has never enjoyed great popularity in Ukraine. Neither
the admiral standing at the head of this government nor his nearest adNdsers and
ministers have ever been known to take part in the emancipatory movements of the
Russian people. Some of them are known as reactionaries. The suspicion was only
strengthened by the manner in which this government came to power. WTiatever
social and political reforms might have been promised by the representatives of this
government, the oppressed nationalities of Russia failed to find there any promise of
their free and unhampered development. If self-determination of the nationalities
of the former Russian Empire were m the program of Kolchak's government, he wouhi
have undoubtedly declared so in unmistakable terms — so the nationalities reason.
His failure to do so has produced among the Ukrainians as well as among the Lithu-
anians, Latvonians, and other nationalities of former Russia, an impression that the
policies of Kolchak's government, at least in reference to these nationalities, are the
same as those of the former Tsar government; namely^ the policy of racial ascendancy
of the Great Russian element toward all non-Russian people of the vast empire.
Such policy, they understand, could not be carried out without a strong centralized
government which would sacrifice the free development of non-Russians to the
interest of the ruling nationality. Such conditions would, out of necessity, produce
strong irredentist movements along the frontiers of the nation and would necessitate
the maintenance of a large arm>r to keep the non-Russian nationalities in check.
This would subordinate even the interests of Great Russia herself to the interests of a
small disciplined group with militaristic and monarchistic tendencies and might lead
Russia into alliance with other nations ruled by similar tendencies. The whole zone
along the border of the former Russian Empire would become one boiling pot of
national unrest and turmoil. Russia would become new Balkans, differing from the
latter only by its size. In the opinion of the nationalities of the former Russian
Empire, the fate of these nationalities should be decided in accordance with the
wish of the population. The struggle of the peoples of Ukraine, Finland, Esthonia,
Lithuania, Latvonia, a^inst Bolshevist efforts to decide the destinies of these nation-
alities without consulting them, shows clearly and unmistakably what other Russian
groups have to expect if they follow Bolshevist examples. Any attempt to dispose
of the fate of the nationalities of the former Russian Empire without opportunity
having been given them to declare their free and unrestricted will shall meet with
opposition from the vast masses of the population.
Should Eastern Europe enjoy permanent peace, should stable commercial relations
be established with the industrially advanced countries of the world ^ the nationali-
ties of the Russian Empire must be granted the right of self-determination and be
allowed to organize their government according to the undistorted will of the masses.
The Russian Empire such as it existed under the Tsar's regime, Russia with oppres-
sion of the various nationalities composing the 'nation, is dead in the opinion of these
nationalities firmly resolved that the old conditions should not be allowed to return.
To reconstruct the old Russian Empire would be synonomous in the opinion of the
nationalities with the reconstruction of the former Austrian-Hungarian monarchy or
the late German Empire, which too were based upon the policy of racial ascendency
of one nationality or one group of nationalities over the nationalities situated along
the border. The nationalities of the former Russian Empire expect that no demo-
cratic country in the world will adopt such policy and still less do they expect such
policy will be incorporated into the treaties made by the countries wmch wrote the
principle of self-determination of nationalities in their program when they went into
the war a^inst Austria and Germany. They can not possibly expect that the allied
and asBoaated powers, having broken Austria, Hungary, and Germany, will recon-
struct a new Austria or a new Germany in the east of Europe.
The people of Ukraine, from the River San in the west to the River Don in the east
and from tne River Pripet in the north to the Black Sea in the south, are resolved to
become one and undivided, free, and sovereign nation. They have struggled for
this ideal; they have sacrificed their lives for itj and they now appeal to the demo-
cratic powers of the world to give them recogmtion. They hope that this country
will be the first to extend her hand and that the Senate of the United States will do
all in its power to aid in securing the recognition of Ukraine.
750 . TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
STATEMENT OF MB. DUDLEY FIELD MALOITE.
Mr. Malone. Senator Lodge and gentlemen of the committee, I
am very grateful to you. I nave an imperative court engagement
on Tuesday and can not return.
I came nere, sir, to-day not as counsel in any technical or legal
sense to speak for the people of India. I come as an American
citizen; I come, however, as their chosen representative, largely
because it has been decreed, I understand, by this committee that
onlv American citizens are to come here as representatives.
'The Chairman. That is in conformity with the Senate rule.
Mr. Malone. Otherwise, I should ask you to hear the most dis-
tinguished citizen of India in this country, Mr. Raspat Rai, w^ho is
here to-day. So if my discussion of Indian affairs is inadequate, it
is due to the fact that I have only the casual understanding that an
American citizen could have of affairs in India.
However, I s])eak to-day for a people who represent one-fifth of the
population of the world, who are 350,000,000 in population, and who
nave a territory about two-thirds the size of the United States. And
there is no question of political expediency, of advantage to America,
and at the present time surely no question of commercial advantage
to America. So that the plea that i make is based upon the humani-
tarian purpose for which we are supposed to have gone into the war,
and the humanitarian purpose whicn is alleged to be the purpose of
the covenant of the league of nations, and I do respectfully submit
that if the co^ enant in its present form is passed it may break the
hearts of the world. The hearts of 350,000,000 people in India and
millions in Ireland and millions in Egypt will be broken if it is passed
in its present form, and we come here with a specific request and that
specific request is this, that this distinguished committee so amend
tne league of nations as to make it obligatory on every signatory to
the covenant and to that treaty to provide democratic institutions
for the people who live under the government of any signatory.
Ireland, Egypt and India are very much in the same position with
relation to Great Britain in these circumstances, and yet, though as
a man of Irish origin I regret to say it, India has a strategic position
superior to that of Ireland in this respect, that England asked — and
the request was granted — that India should be permitted to sign the
treaty; and England designated Mr. Montagu and an Indian citizen
to act as signatories for India. Therefore, India is one of the nations
whose signature is on the treaty. Therefore, India is in a better
position, strategically, than Ireland or Egypt, who do not appear on
the treaty.
Now I have no illusion about England wishing to grant any demo-
cratic advantage to India in giving her this distinction. I am per-
suaded that England merely wanted to get one of her six votes down
•on a document, and India provided one of the six. I can not speak
for England for many reasons, but I believe that she wished to get the
vote and she did not ask India to choose the representatives to sign
the document. The Government of India is only the agent of the
Grovernment of England. In the Montagu-Chelmsford report, issued
by the authority of the British Parliment in 1918, it is specifically
admitted that the Government of India by England is an absolute
despotism. The chief body which actually represents the people of
TSSSSkTS'OT^ nS^OE WITS aEBHIAKT.:' 751
India is the Indian National Congress, which of course under the
circumstances is unofficial. It met, however, very completely and
very fully but unofficially last December after England had ap-
pointed two representatives, and passed the following resolution
[reading]:
That this congress urges that in justice to India it should be represented by an
elected representative or representatives, to the same extent as the self-governing
dominions, at any conferences that may be held to deliberate or settle the terms of
peace or reconstruction.
Pursuant to that resolution, the congress appointed three men to
represent the people of India at the peace conference. One of them
applied for passports, and England refused the passports. Then this
representative of the three delegates, appointed by the national con-
gress for India and the Indian people, wrote to the president of
the peace conference, Mr. Clem'enceau, which letter, it may be said
in passing, received no replj^. In that letter he had a paragraph
that I think is cryptically significant of the whole situation. He says:
It is unnecessary for me to dwell upon the imperative importance of solving the
Indian question for the purpose of insuring the future peace of the world and the
progress of the people of India. India is self-contained, narbors no design upon the
integrity of other States, and has no ambition outside India. With her vast area,
enormous resources, and prodigious population, she may well aspire to be a leading
power in Asia, if not in the world. She could therefore easily be a powerful steward
of the league of nations in the east for maintaining the peace of the world and the
stability oi the British Empire against all aggressors and disturbers of the peace whether
in Aeda or elsewhere.
And if there be anything to the suggestion of a *' yellow peril" at
any time, a happy, contented, self-governed India, an India that
has proved her worth to civilization in the present war, would have
a stabilizing influence if she had her institutions self-chosen.
[Reading :]
But with India politically enchained, it is impossible for her to occupy her proper
place among the nations of the world or to develop and realize her potentialities, so as
to be able to render decisive assistance to the league of nations in enforcing the supreme
object of its creation, viz, the peace of the world.
Gentlemen, India will be either stable, contented, and happy and a
bulwark against any possible yellow peril — if there be such a thing,
which I doubt very gravely — she will cither be that or else continue
discontented, with growing poverty, with growing suffering. Six
million Indians died in the last three months of 1918 from devitaliza-
tion and from influenza because of the exploitation of India by
England, not for India but for England, the drawing of resources out
of India making it impossible for her to maintain an adequate food
supply.
.We face the world to-day with two alternatives, either a stable,
happy nation, a bulwark against any menace, or a discontented
India, the basis of future exploitation. And then there will be
turned upon a region about India God knows how many wars that
she may have, because I remember in one of the liturgical hymns
there is a description of war, which, when translated literally, means
a desire for cattle. The coinage of India at that time was cattle, and
the native population very Uterally in describing war gave the
definition of war as a desire for cattle.
Now if there should be a desire in the minds of the growing nations
of the world to use India as a ground of exploitation, India, dis-
762 ZBBAXT 07 VEAXm WITH QDBICAVY.
contented, unstable, unhappy, and unfree, will provide a fine field
for future trouble.
Now, gentlemen, it has been said pubhcly and privately that the
question of India is a domestic question for England to decide.
No Question, gentlemen, to my mind, of any nationality, of any
people, whether they be 1,000,000 or 350,000,000, can be a domestic
question, if the whole world is called upon in more or less common
council to decide upon it, and it has the machinery which will make
the hberty of mankind not a domestic but an international question.
But in the second case, specifically the case of India can not be a
domestic Question since England has made India a signatory to the
treaty. Tnerefore the Government must consider their situation.
Now either she is to be an honest-to-God signatory to the treaty or
she is not. If she is, what is her position? Why, gentlemen, her
position is as good as any country under a mandatory. I do not
know just exactly what a mandatory is, I have not been able to find
out, but it is supposed to be some land of a trusteeship, a guardian-
ship, for other people until they are able to stand on their own feet
and govern themselves. But ii India is a territory — is to be looked
upon as a territory, not a mandatory — she is a territory and not a
mandatory because she can never speak under present conditions
except through England. If she had a dispute with Canada she
could not appear and appeal to the machinery of the lea^e in its
present form, because she could speak only through England. She is
merged in England. She could not speak except through En^and.
So if she had a dispute with Canada, England could, if she wished,
have her appeal before the council under 9ie present machinery, but
India herself could not do it. So she is neither fish nor fowl, in the
present circumstances. She was signed to that treaty for English,
not for Indian, purposes.
But we wish to take advantage of the strategic position which
England has given her to claim the rights of an honest-to-God nation
that has signed the treaty, and it does seem no extraordinary thin^
in America after the war that we should ask that every nation signea
to the treaty with the altruistic purposes which those nations claimed
to have, should free every people servmg, Hving, and trying to live
under their government.
I am not here in any anti-British spirit. I surely am not. Mr.
Chairman, I am not here making any argument against the English
people. I am making argumenti against the present government of
England over 350,000,000 people.
1 should like to point out in conclusion what India did during the
war. India gave 1,475,000 men to the war. She contributed
$1,000,000,000 in money, more than any other dominion of England.
Besides untold quantities of stores and provisions, she suflFered war
losses of 100,000 men. The vitality of the people was so low, as I
said, that during the last three months of 1918 she lost 6,000,000
people.
The average income of an Indian citizen is $10, and his taxes are
$1.60. There is not much opportunity for accumulating wealth in
India, under these conditions, with an income of $10 and taxes of
$1.60, virtually 20 per cent.
That the Bntish Government is not prepared to apply the principle
of self^etermination to India is proved by recent events. The
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 758
system which England has already spoken of as the system of democ-
racy which she purposes for India is not even a physical autonomy
for India. It is not even a provincial autonomy for India. And
while the forms are highly altruistic, the substance is very practical
and leaves India just exactly where she is.
The people of India ask that, having served in this war substan-
tially, having given billions of their resources, having suffered death
on the battle field and death at home, and having believed that the
purpose of the Allies was democracy, we shall stand in the interna-
tional court of equity, all of us, with clean hands, and that we of
America who meant what we said shall see that England stands also
there with clean hands. And the specific request that we make of
this honorable committee is that there be such a change in the cove-
nant as will make it specifically imperative on every signatory to the
document that all people under each signatory shall be provided
with democratic institutions.
I beg to read a resolution which Mr. Rai has handed me and which
I omitted, passed by the Indian National Council in December last.
[Reading:]
''In view of the pronouncement of President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd-George, and other
British statesmen, that to insure the future peace of the world the principle of self-
determination be applied to aU progressive nations, be it
' ^Rtaolved, That tnis Congress claims the recognition of India by the British Parlia-
ment and by the peace conference as one of the progressive nations to whom the
principle of selfnietermination should be applied."
There can be no justification whatever for withholding the application of this prin-
ciple to India. The plea of unfitness, usually advanceaby i^;norant people or vested
interests, is untenable and untrue. Tne civilization of India is admittedly much more
ancient and venerable than that of Rome or Athens. British statesmen themselves
have often declared that India was civilized centuries before the modem nations of
Europe emerg;ed from barbarism. Indian society has been held together for thousands
of years without foreign aid or intervention. Peace, order, and good government
existed in India for hundreds of years, and its annals compare favorably with any
period of European history. Even democratic forms of ^vemment fiourished in
various pax%s of India centuries before Alexander the Great invaded Hindustan. All
educated Indians passionately protested aeainst the imputation of unfitness as a
calumnious libel upon their capacity for self-government on democratic principles.
I am thoroughly convinced that the pressing problems of the poverty of India, physical
degeneration, industrial regeneration, economic development, technical ana primary
education, and delicate questions of caste and custom cui never be solved oy men
exclusively wedded to western civilization, but can be successfully surmounted by
Indians alone. I submit Europeans are disqualified for the task; Indians alone are
fit for it.
Gentlemen, you know what is said. There are so niany accusa-
tions that India is not fit for self-government. India is not, under
those circumstances, fit for self-government such as the English or
western civilization would impose upon her. But India is fit for
self-government, for governing her own institutions, her own people.
speaKing through England, u vou will, an England which would
recognize the culture, the conditions, and the diversitv of institu-
tions of India. The only barrier to self-determination, An*. Chairman,
in India, is the continued rule such as India has been given. The
fact that men speak different languages is no barrier to self-deter-
mination of India through self-chosen institutions. That does not
})revent their coming together in a comity, in a desire for political
reedom. The wonderful work that has been done in the Philippine
Islands in 20 years by the United States in preparing that people
substantially for self-government makes the present treatment of the
135646—11
764 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERHAKT.
people of India, with their thousands of years of culture and litera*
ture and art and character, tintenable.
And, gentlemen, I submit that this is not a fiction — this ai]^-
ment. You deal with a concrete situation. You are now at a critical
time, and may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am at least one American
who sees no reason whataoever why a piece of machinery like the
league of nations, which it is hoped by its chief advocates wiU provide
the machinery for the peace and the liberty and the comfort of the
millions of mankind for centuries, should be rushed through without
a complete discussion by the people of every nation; sm-ely not by
this country, who askea to do our share toward the completion of
that covenant without regard to any political considerations.
We should see that this document and every provision in it is
thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly discussed, completely opposed
and argued for. A year or two years spent on the discussion of a
piece of machinery wnich is supposed to guide mankind for centuries
would not be long, and we can then pause and think it over and stop
to consider the meaning of it. I have asked to-day merely the con-
sideration of this committee — and you have been very generous in
your time, sir — to the one problem of India. Will there be an India
content and free imder democratic institutions, which shall be de-
manded and re(][uired by our Nation, or will it be an India open for
future exploitation, for wars, and for graveyards for her sons?
I wish to leave briefs for all members of the committee.
(At the request of Senator Williams a memorandum by Mr.
Sidney L. Oulick and correspondence relating thereto are here
printed in the record, as follows:)
New York, AugiLtt tl^ 1919,
Hon. John Sharp Williams,
United Slates SeruUe,
WashingtoYt, D. C.
Mt Dear Senator: I am pleased to send herewith a letter which I have received
from my old friend, Dr. Sidney L. Gulick of the Federal Council of the Churches of
Christ in America. This letter I believe will commend itself to you as an impartial
statement of fact and I trust that it will serve a eood puipose.
Dr. Gulick has lived in the Orient for years and knows his subject well, and his posi-
tion as an ofRcial high in the councils of the church renders him peculiarly well adapted
to speak upon a much misrepresented subject. I know him to be a man upon whom
the utmost dependence can be put.
Pro-Japanese writer are as much out of order as pro-Chinese. As I see it the need
just now IS for statements which do not have as their premise an incurably pro an3rthiiig
out fact. It is with these considerations that I transfer to you his letter, inviting
vour attention to the fact that the author has recently been attacked by Hearst's New
York American, Mr. McClatchev of Sacramento and Senator Phelan of San Francisco
on the supposition that Dr. Gulick was a Japanese agent and being financed by the
Japanese Government. These conclusions are erroneous and I am persuaded to believe
that the^r are the result of a perverted and distorted perspective wnich has colored the
imagination into a state where reason and calm delioeration are not known and I am
sure that to you they will but serve to illustrate this fact and portray their obviously
unfair and one-sided character.
My dear Senator I most heartily congratulate you upon your worthy stand for fact
and information, and if I can further your efforts m any way I shall be most be pleased
to do so.
Cordially yours,
Milton B. MgIntosh.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAiNT. 755
Washinoton, D. C, AuguH 20, 1919,
Hon. J. S. WiLUAMS,
UniUd States Senate.
My Dbar 8bnator: I take the liberty of Bending you an article I have prepared on
the Shantung question. It might be entitled "The duty of America to China."
I conceive that duty to be the ratification of the treaty, including both the covenant
of the league of nations and the clauses dealing with the disposal of the so-called
German "rights" in China.
Contrary to the views of Thos. F. Millard aod other anti-Japaneee agitators, the
ratification of those provisions is essential to the establishment of right in international
relations in the Far Fast and the ultimate salvation of China.
Respectfully, yours,
SlDNBY L. GULICK.
Ahbrica's Duty to China.
[By Sidney L. OiiUck.l
War between America and Japan, Mr. Thomas F. Millard and others assert, will
surely come, if the treaty provisions regarding Shantung are accepted by the Senate.
For Japan, they insist, will keep Shantung indefinitely, whatever her promises may
be; she will organize, militarize, and capitalize it for her own selfish ana imperialistic
ends. ' .
Official spokesmen for Japan, on the other hand, such as Baron Maldno, peace dele-
gate at Pans, Viscount Ishii, late ambassador to the United States, Viscount Uchida,
foreign minister, and Premier Hara, have repeatedly declared that as soon as peace
is established, steps will be taken to return the political sovereignty to China, in
harmony with the treaty arrangements made between Japan and China in May, 1916.
These assurances are the most responsible that a country can make. They have
been made with utmost publicity and also directly to President Wilson and to the
prime ministers of England and France, Lloyd-George and Clemenceau. Yet the
anti-Japanese agitators in America have doubted, flouted, and ridiculed their assure
ances in terms of the utmost insolence. Insult has been heaped upon insult, so far as
wordfl could do it and they would fain have the American Senate lend the weight of
its authority and its action to these insults. These agitators are apparently taking
every means within their power to embroil the relations of America and Japan.
So far, however, from war between America and Japan being likely to result from
the ratification of the Shantung clauses of the traety, the probabilities are that this
act will be the surest means for maintaining friendly relations.
Consider the situation. England and France have much larger ''spheres of influ-
ence" and "interests'* and "rights'' in China than has Japan. These two nations
have recognized by formal treaties, in appreciation of Japan's services in the war,
Japan's right to succeed to the "German rights in Shantimg." Japan, moreover, has
practicallv declared to the world, that because of her own special needs and her near-
ness to Cnina she does not propose to permit further alienation of her territory bv
helpless China to any third power — the so-called Asiatic Monroe doctrine. She will
restore Shantung to China under conditions that will make it forever secure.
If now the United States accepts the arrangements made by Great Britain, France,
and Japan for the disposal of German "rights" in China, China wHl recover complete
sovereignty — and this some 70 y'Oars (and possible 700 years) sooner than if it had
remained m German hands. To be sure, according to the plans, German "economic
rights " will still remain in Japanese htuids. But if it is not wron^ for England, France,
and other lands to have "economic rights" in China, to maintain concessions,"
"compounds," "settlements," and various kinds of "interests" and "spheres of
influence," and to keep bodies of armed troops in China in* support of these rights,"
why is it wron^ for Japan to do so? Here is tne factor in the situation that few critics
seem to recognize.
Moreover, few anti-Japanese writers seem to realize that Japan's interests in China
are "vital " in a sense and to a degree that the interests of no other people are. Japan
is dependent on China for food, raw material, and markets. An embargo on exporta-
tion of rice or any other important staple mi^ht be fatal to Japan. Right or wrong,
she does not propose to allow such a possibility to arise. England and France have
recognized that jjolicy and propose to support her in it. The danger of war will arise
only if Ainerica undertakes by force to expel Japan from Shantung. This, however,
is inconceivable, however loudly such men as Mr. Millard and the anti-Japanese
merchants of Shanghai may clamor for it.
756 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
But what about China? Does not the treaty seal her doom? ^ill she not fall
under the strangling domination of Japan? That will depend on what China herself
does and also on what the nations do. First of all she must undertake thorough -going
measures with herself. All the nations in the world can not save her, unless she hon-
estly exerts herself. She must get rid of her traitorous and corrupt politicians who
continuously betray her. Her leaders must qualify for life in the modem world. If
they ^\'ill set themselves resolutely to do this, undertaking reforms in the administra-
tion of justice and in the honest conduct of government by honest men, she can in time
secure from the league of nations relief from the present onerous conditions. In no
other way can she hope for abrogation of the obligations she has undert^iken through
her bungling and inept diplomacy of the past.
If no league of nations is formed and if the restoration of Shantung to China by Japan
is not accepted by the nations, then Japan will no doubt stay in Shantung, tn tnat
case incalculable world turmoil is ahead of us all. The nations will plunge headlong
in a new race in armaments. China will be completely swallowed up by the competing
nations.
The only hope of peace for the world and of opportunity for China is the ratification
by our Senate of the treaty establishing a league of nations and providing for the
restoration of Shantung by Japan.
In regard to the provisions of the treaty dealing with Shantung the Senate might
well express in a clause its acceptance of the assurances given by the Japanese Govern-
ment that it will promptly restore Shantung to China. Japan's procedure along that
line will soon become the acid test of her honor and spirit of loysaty to the allies.
The real hope for the future of China, however, lies in a unified international policy.
Might not the Senate take steps to formulate and propose to the league of nations at
an early di^te a positive and constructive policy for a fundamental solution of the whole
far eastern proolem. Such a policy would make the rights and interests of China
herself paramount to those of all foreign nations. She should be given fair play and
opportunity to become a great self-governing democratic nation. As rapidly as pos-
sible, she should be given complete control of all her own affairs with judicial, and tariff
autonom^r. To these ends, not only Japan, but England as well , and France and every
other nation should undertake to restore to China their respective *' rights" — secured
in too many cases by force or fraud; they should withdtaw their troops and police.
But this IS a policy and program that no nation can enter on alone . Least of all is it
a policy that we can honorably ask Japan to follow and say nothing about it to England
and Fnmce as a policy that they too should adopt. It is a policy, possible and desir-
able only by joint arrangements of all the jnincipal nations.
In order, therefore, to make a good beginning along these lines, as soon as the league
of nations is under way, should it not create an international far eastern bureau to
deal with all these matters, to become so to speak the ''receiver" of all the special
I' rights " granted in past years by China to the various nations, and to put into practice
in tne name of the cooperating nations the principles outlined above?
The way out of the "Shantung tangle" is not the action suggested by Thomas F.
Millard. That is the surest way to brm^ on a war in the Far East and to force Japan
to keep, if she can, a strangle hold on Chma. The way to save Shantung and China ip
to establish principles and processes by which China will recover her rights. Japan
will be assured pf full access to food, raw materials, and markets, and the whole world
be enabled to share in the prosperity of a wholseomely developing China.
Does not this proposal commend iteelf to every lover of China and lover of peace and
good will among the nations?
The writer speaks for himself alone in these matters — not for any of the organizations
with which he is connected. He is, moreover, not ignorant of the wrongdoings of
Japan's representatives in Korea and in China. He oy no means condones them.
Nor does he defend all her policies and he diplomacy. In this article he is not seeking
to appraise the rights and wrongs of her procedures in foreign lands. He is concemea
only with suggesting a positive and constructive policy which he believes will solve
the problems ahead, not only of China and the United States, but of the whole world.
Such a policy is therefore a duty.
The hope of the world lies in the establishment of the league of nations and in a
fundamental and friendly international solution of the Shantung question.
The Chairman. The committee will meet in executive session
this afternoon at 3 o'clock.
(Thereupon the committee, at 12.20 o'clock p. m., adjourned
until to-morrow, Saturday, August 30, at 10 o'clocJi a. m.)
SATXTBDAY, AXJQITST 30, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington^ D. C, '
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodffe (chairman), Borah, Brandegee, Fall,
Knox, Harding, Johnson, New, Moses, Swanson, and Pittman.
The Chairman. The committee will be in order, please. Judge
Cohalan, we will hear you now. Unfortunately our time is limited,
and we can give only two hours, as we have to hear representatives
of Greece for an hour afterwards. Judge Cohalan, I leave it to you
to arrange the time for the different speeches.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAIHEL F. COHALAN, JUSTICE OF THE
STTPBEME COITBT OF NEW TOBK.
Judge Cohalan. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
acting on behalf of those who are here to represent the great bulk
of the 20,000,000 of the Irish element in this country, we have
arranged a program which with your permission we will carry
through in the order we have fixed, if possible, taking only the time
you have allotted to us. If we may have to call upon you for a few
minutes extra, we are going to ask you to indulge us in it if you will.
We are opposed to the proposed league of nations for many rea-
sons, all of which we believe are of great weight and importance to
tlie interests of our country. We object, in the first place, to the
proposal to establish what we believe to be a superstate to which
sliall be delegated or turned over powers that belong to the sovereign
United States of America. We believe that that is an infringement
upon the sovereignty of the country and is an interference with its
liberty, and because of that we most strongly oppose the establish-
ment of any such body.
We believe it to be an affront to America to suggest even that in
any such proposed league of nations as is cominj^ before us
that any country, no matter how friendly it may claim to be to
America, should have six votes as compared to the one vote of
America. We believe that would be an anront to the intelligence of
the people of America and a very decided injury to America if any
such scheme were to go through.
We are opposed to this proposed league of nations because of the
fret that under it we believe the old American doctrine of the free-
flom of the seas, for which America has stood all through its history,
is not taken care of in any way, but that, on the contrary, the matter
757
758 TBBATT OF FBACB WITH GERldAKY.
has been arranged in such manner as to turn over to England,
without protest, the control of the oceans of the world.
We call your attention to the fact that because of the extraor-
dinary development of our industrial conditions we manufacture in
less than 8 months of every year what we would consume in 12
months, and that as a consequence of that, for 4 months in the year
we are dependent for a martet, and for an output for our factories,
upon our foreign trade. We insist that under the conditions that
would obtain if this proposed league of nations were to go through
we would be left in a position where we could carry on such trade,
not as the matter of right which we now enjoy, for which we fought,
and our forefathers before us fought, and which we have always
enjoyed during the history of our countrj'^, but as a privilege extended
to us by the nation which controlled the sea. We say this in no spirit
of hostility to England. We would take the same position if any
otlier country were put in the position of controlling the sea. We
insist that for the interest of America it is absolutelv requisite that
no power should be able to control the ocean througii the system of
navalism any more than any country divided should control all the
land under the system of militarism!!
We believe we went to war for the purpose of ending autocracy
and all that that means, and that it means not alone militarism, the
control of the land, but also navalism, the control of the oceans of
the world. We say that if we could carry on our commerce only
so long as the opportunity to do so was extended to us as a matter
of privilege by any nation, no matter how friendly that nation
might claim to be, we could in no way build up our commerce
or l)uild up our industry on any permanent basis at all, because
our commerce would be subject to the whim, or subject to the
interest, or subject to the passion of the hour, as it might appeal to
any other nation, or to any combination of nations together; and
we point out with relation to that that we do not believe this war
will have been properly won ; that is, that the interests of America
will have been properly taken care of as a consequence of the winning
of the war as we insist that it was won, because of the contribution
made by America, in spite of all that may be said by the other coun-
tries and the contributions they made, and the interests of Amer-
ica and the interests of mankind will not be properly safe-
guarded so long as any one nation of any combination of nations
is left in possession and control of the sea, and able to interfere with
the commerce that should be carried on in a normal way between
all the free-trading countries of the world, all the countries that
want to carrjr on commerce with one another and to have friendly
business relations with one another.
We believe the British fleet in its position of predominantpower
to-day is a menace to the commerce of the United States. We say
that it no longer can be a weapon in the hands of England as against
Germany, because Germany has been put in a position where it can
in no wajr compete with England, where it has been deprived of its
navy entirelv.
We say the same thing with relation to Russia. We say that
it can not be held in any way to be used as a weapon against France,
because France, through the action of her statesmen and the stress
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 759
of circumstances, has practically been taken into the continental
vassalage of England. We say under those conditions that the Eng-
lish fleet can be directed or used as a weapon of menace against
nobody except the United States of America, an^ we point out that
even though, as many Englishmen contend, it is only a matter of coin-
cidence it is a fact tliat at any time when any country has put itself or
been put in the position of being an economic rival or being an indus-
trial competitor of England rum has overtaken that country in every
way ; ana we say in the interest of a just and permanent peace, if it
can be made under these conditions at all, it can be made only by
taking care to see that England should not be put in a position where
she can menace the commerce of the United States, and menace the
commerce of the world, whenever it suits her interest or whenever
it suits her whim to do so. We suggest with relation to that, that
in any peace that should be made precaution should be taken to
see that there be a general disarmament not only on land but
also on sea, so that there will be actual freedom of all the world and
not freedom simply of part of the world.
We point out the importance of Ireland in any scheme that, would
practically bring about the fredom of the sea. We say, again in no
spirit of hostility to England at all, but only taking conditions into
account as they exist, that England can not continue to be the domi-
nant power of the earth ; that England can not continue to control
the world unless she controls the sea, and that her continued control
of the sea is dependent upon her continued control of Ireland ; and
we say that she can make no better contribution to the general free-
dom of the world, she can give no better evidence of her desire to
make a just and durable and permanent peace, than by consenting
to the disarmament of this fleet, which now is so very much larger
than the fleet of any other nation or practicall}^ any combination of
nations^
Senator Brandeoee. Do vou object to being asked a question, or
do you want to proceed witnout interruption?
Judge CoHALAN. I do not mind, at all.
Senator Brandeoee. I wanted, if 'it would not interrupt the
continuity of your thought, to have you state a little more in detail
what you mean when you say that the continued supremacy of the
sea depends upon this control of Ireland by England. I did not
quite get it.
Judge Cohalan. For your consideration, I would present the geo-
graphical position of Ireland with relation to England, the thing to
which you remember George Washington referred when he said
that if Ireland were 500 miles from England there would be no Irish
question. When you think of the relation of Irelcuid to England,
you see it puts England in a place where she can control the ocean,
as she can not control the ocean unless she controls Ireland. While it
is true that England made last year $225,000,000 out of the control
of Ireland, the real secret for insisting upon keeping her control of
Ireland is that she wants to be able to control the seas. She can do
that because of the geographical position of Ireland only if she con-
trols Ireland. You will remember that you can not approach the
southern coast of England without passing the southern coast of
Ireland, and can not approach the northern coast of England without
passing the northern coast of Ireland. Under the circumstances,
England is going to insist on control of Ireland.
760 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKT.
As I say, she can make no greater contribution to the freedom
of the world, can give no greater evidence of the desire to bring
about a just and permanent peace, than to give her consent to having
the republican form of government which has been set up in Ireland
recognized by herself as well as the other nations of the world.
Passing from that we contend that we must as Americans take a
position m opposition to this proposed league of nations because of
what it does with relation to the Monroe doctrine. We insist that
the Monroe doctrine is one of the fundamental principles upon which
American power has been reared, and that our foreign policy has
recognized it as the great principle of American statesmanship, of
American interests, and if this peace convention is going to give its
attention to the settling of all problems in the future so as to do away
with the probability of some great war occurring in the world, it
ought to take into question conditions as they have existed up to the
present time, and then the interests of America are the first thing that
should be looked out for by those who represent and speak for
America.
We point out that under the Monroe doctrine, as it has been estab-
lished^ we have grown in wealth, prosperity, and power as no nation
in the history of the world has grown. And we say that the Monroe
doctrine if it is to be changed should be changed not in the way of
diminishing its power, but in tlie way of strengthening its power.
If there shall be a desire to make a permanent peace, the Monroe
doctrine should be extended so that it shall include any European
interests in the Western Hemisphere. Any European country which
is represented here by territory should depart. Since the Monroe
doctrine has been enunciated all the territory which is possessed in
western America by them has been given up by Denmark, France,
Russia, Spain, and Portugal, and the only power remaining in any
large way upon this hemisphere, the only European power possessing
territory of any extent in this country, is the British Empire, and we
say that if there is going to be a permanent settlement to come out
of these peace negotiations, the people of Canada, our great neigh-
bor on the north, ought to have submitted to them the question of
taking their place among the republics of the Western Hemisphere,
or even if an arrangement could be made of joining our country, and
in the same way the territory that England has in the West Indies
should be turned over to America or turned over to the people
of those islands in order that there may be no further menace of
American commerce, so far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned.
We Irish think that there should be no abandonment of the policy
laid down by Washington in his Farewell Address of keeping away
from permanent entangling alliances with any of the countries of
the Old World. We point out that this has been the policy which
has been followed strictly by America and has resulted probably
more than anything else in strengthening the extraordinary posi-
tion we occupy to-day. As the Senator from Pennsylvania said so
well yesterday, the only great solvent power left, practically, on the
earth is the United States, and it is the duty of those representing
America to continue this policy, and we urge that in acting for the
welfare of America care should be taken to Fee that that doctrine
should be upheld, and that the advice of Washington should be con-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 761
tinued and lived up to in such a wav that ^e should neither take
part in the quarrels of the Old World nor permit them to take part
m our quarrels.
Coming down to specific things, as far as article 10 of the proposed
league of nations is concerned, we most emphatically protest against
that. Under it we are asked to make the greatest oeparture from
American traditions of statesmanship that has ever been made.
We are asked to abandon the position that we have taken up to this
day, as we did in Cuba, to give aid where people have been struggling
to be free, and we would be unable to extend our sympathies to people
all over the world who are struggling to be free, if we guarantee the
territorial integrity of existing nations. Under the proposed league
of nations we should have to guarantee the territorial integrity of the
Japanese Empire, the British Empire, the only two empires remain-
ing, and guarantee to them the possession of all the spoils and the
loot that they have gathered up m their existence in all parts of the
world. No relief could be given Ireland as in the sixteenth century
Spain gave aid to Ireland in her fight against England, for we
would be compelled to make a fight, and would be compelled to
send our men mto Ireland, not for the purpose of helping them in
their struggle but in order to help England to rivet the chains upon
her.
We point out that if France should desire to assist Ireland as
she dia in the seventeenth century and the eighteenth century that
she would be unable to do so.
We say that it is utterly un-American, that it is against our best
interest, against our highest ideals and against our highest ambi-
tion, and we point out the facts so well known that if a league of
nations had been in existence at the time of the Revolution that
France could not have come to the asssitance of the 13 Colonies, or
if it had been in existence at the time of the Spanish- American War,
that we could not have gone to the assistance of Cuba, to help Cuba
to obtain the position that she now occupies among the Republics of
the world.
Now, so far as Ireland is concerned, of course we understand that
this discussion here should be very largely confined to the proposed
league of nations. But we want to point out some of the conditions
over there that show the state of affairs in the British Empire. We
say that no people on earth held in oppression, held practically in
slavery, have ever shown such an extraordinary political unanimity
in the expression of their desire to change the form of government
imder which they live, and to become again one of the &ee nations
of the world. Ireland is able to support herself — ^to stand upon her
feet. England last year made from Ireland $225,000,000. She gath-
ered in taxation, according to her own figures, some £34,000,000,
equivalent to $170,000,000; she spent for the government of Ireland
some £13,000,000, leaving a profit of £21,000,000, or $105,000,000, tak-
ing $5 as the value of a pound.
Last year by reason of her absolute control of the sea, by reason of
the fact that she shut Ireland off absolutely from contact with the
rest of the world, so far as commerce is concerned, compelling Ireland
to sell everything she has to sell through an English channel and
compelling her to buy everything she has to buy from the western
762 TT.EATT OF PEACE WTTH CEnMAKT.
world through an English channel, she did 95 per cent of the
business of Ireland.
Sir Horace Plunkett says that Ireland's business with the rest of
the world amounted to $820,000,000. The English statistics, so far
as we can get them, show that this amount was $860,000,000 instead
of $820,000,000. And we say that the English trader, who has no
peer in ability, has made profit on the turnover of $120,000,000. This,
together with the excess taxation, makes a total of $225,000,000.
We say that since the Act of Union the Childers Commission, which
was appointed by Gladstone in 1894, composed of 15 men (9 English-
men), after two years of investigation of English data, reported that
Ireland, instead of costing the English money, from January, 1861 to
1896, had overpaid into the English treasury in the form of overtaxa-
tion annually the sum of £2,715,000, or the equivalent of $14,000,000,
which means that for the 120 vears since the formation of the union
England had taken out of Ireland over $1,700,000,000. We call
your attention to that staggering sum even in these days. When
they wanted to destroy France they imposed an indemnity of
$1,000,000,000, but here they have taken from Ireland in overtaxation
a much greater sum.
In the last 70 years, between 1845 and 1915, the population of Ire-
land has been practically cut in two. In 1845 the population was
practically 8,500,000— between 8,250,000 and 8,500,000. According
to the census taken in 1915 by the British Government the popula-
tion was a little over 4,000,000. We say that you can not find any
parallel in the history of the world as that.
Senator Knox. From what years?
Judge CoHALAN. Seventy years; from 1845 to 1915.
Senator Knox. There is a parallel in Central America.
Judge CoHALAN. I did not imow that jou could find one.
Senator Knox. That is under very benighted conditions.
Judge CoHALAN, I would say, in relation to that, by way of com-
parison, that the peoples of the continent of Europe that were most
strongly tyrannized over — if you put it in that way, the nations
against whose governments the strongest complaints were made by
those over whom they were working and who suffered most under
such a condition of affairs, during the time that Alsace-Lorraine
was under German rule she grew and prospered in population;
Schleswig-Holstein under German rule grew and prospered!^; Poland
under Russian rule ; and there has been no parallel, except as Senator
Knox has indicated as to Central America.
We say that we are dependent for four months of every year upon
the foreign markets of the world to find some place in which to sell
our goods in order that our factories may run to their full capacity
and the men may be employed.
In 1913 the ousiness between England and the United States
amounted to $875,000,000. 'The exports from America to England
were $700,000,000, while the imports from England to America were
$175,000j000. The business between England and Ireland was $675,-
000,000 m that year, and the imports were around $350,000,000, so
that England found in Ireland a place to which to send her manu-
factured goods to the extent of twice that she found in this country.
In 1801 the population of England was 9,000,000 and the popula-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 763
tion of Ireland was 6,000,000. The size of England is 50,000 square
miles and Ireland 32,000 square miles, showing that the proportion
of population of Ireland should be two-thirds that of England.
That was the condition when the act of union, passed on the 1st of
January, 1801, which Gladstone characterized as the most corrupt act
ever passed in England.
We say that the proposed league of nations is un-American and
that it can not be depended on to guard tlie interests of America,
that it can not safeguard the interest of America. We speak for
people who are devoted to America above everything else, who have
done everything possible to stand by American traditions and ideals.
We urge upon you very strongly, speaking practically for one of
every five persons in America, that the Senate report against this
proposed league of nations and recommend that the Senate reject
it, and if under any circumstances any part of it should be accepted
that under no conaition should article 10 or article 11 be accepted,
or any other things from which there would be a curtailment of
American sovereignty and American independence. We are opposed
to the whole league of nations. We believe it is un-American, and
urge and insist that in it there can be no justice and no just and per-
manent peace, and that by adopting it you are only making for a
continuance of the war.
Senator Moses. Judge Cohalan, you spoke of your speaking for one
of every five persons in the United States. Do you mtend to imply
that there are 20,000,000 of inhabitants of this country who are of
Irish origin?
Judge CoHAiiAN. We think there are many more than that.
Senator Moses. And the views that you express are shared by that
20,000,000?
Judge Cohalan. Suppose I give you some evidence of it. I would
like to put in the record the reasons I have for that opinion. On
the 22d and 23d of February, in the city of Philadelphia, I had the
honor of presiding over the most patriotic gathering of American
citizens that I have ever seen. There were 5,132 accredited dele-
gates to the convention. The resolutions that were passed were of-
fered by Cardinal Gibbons, seconded by a distinguished Episco-
Ealian minister and by a distinguished Presbyterian minister and
y a famous Jewish rabbi.
Among those thousands of delegates were hundreds' representing
the Friends of Irish Freedom, hundreds representing the Ancient
Order of Hibernians, with its more than quarter million members,
and represented at this hearing by its national president, Judffe
Deery of Indianapolis, and its other national officers. Many i^eak-
ers there represented the Women's Auxiliary of the Ancient Order
of Hibernians, and that order is today represented here by its
national president, Mrs. McWhorter, ana its other national officers;
and present also were representatives from practically every Irish
American societj in this country. From compilations frequently
made from statistics as to the racial origin or the people of our
country, we feel that we are well within bounds in claiming that
without regard to religious belief, at least 1 in every 5 of our citizens
is of Irish origin.
Senator Moses. Can you explain, then, why it is that the Irish
Senators are so lukewarm ?
764 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Judge CoHALAN. Senator, I came here for the purpose of making an
argument showing our position to-day. I came here to make an
argument that would appeal to all the Senators, no matter what
races they represent, and when the hearing is concluded I hope that
the Senators will be convinced.
Senator Johnson of California. The difficulty is that you have
been addressing yourself thus far to members of this committee who
are of one mind upon this subject.
Judge CoHALAN. Looking around and seeing the number of them,
I am glad that that is so.
Senator Johnson of California. I wish it were possible for you
to address them all.
The Chairman. Are you ready to go on?
Judge CoHAi,AN. I am going to call upon Mr. Patrick J. Lynch^
of the Supreme Court of Indiana, to read the memorial on the behalr
of those who have come here. They have come from practically every
State in the Union, from all walks in life, and from all over the
country. We wish that it were possible to get people from the differ-
ent parts of the country to be heard, but we have prepared a general
memorial, and then later we will hand in the names of those who have-
signed.
(The following memorial was read by Mr. Patrick J. Lynch :)
MEMORIAL TO THE SENATE OF THE TtNITED STATES.
Senators: We, citizens of the United States, of Irish blood, but attache!
above /ill things to tills Republic and its Constitution, resi)eotfully pray that the
proposed treaty now before you be rejtvtecl as a direct violation of the prin-
ciples on which this war was fought, as they were defined by President Wilson
in these words, addressed to Congress:
" National aspirations must be respected ; peoples may now be dominated and*
governed only by their own consent. ' Self-determination '* is not a mere phrase.
It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore
at their peril."
And, again, in the President's address delivered at Mount Vernon July 4,
1918:
" The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of'
economic arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the basis of the free
acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned, and not
upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or
people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior
influence or mastery."
On these principles other nations which have claimed their right to inde-
pendence only during a period comparatively recent have been emancipated.
To them America was bound by no ties save that of sympathy for the cause of*
freedom.
Ireland has been asserting continuously her claim to independence for eight.,
centuries. America is bound to her by close ties of friendship and of obligation
for manifold services in peace and war. One-fifth of this entire population Is
of Irish extraction. In every war which America has fought Irishmen have-
shed their blood in a measure far in excess of their proportion to population.
We ask that Ireland be not the only nation excluded from the benefit of the
glorious principles enunciated by Mr. Wilson, as those which the great war
was fought to establish.
We especially denounce Article X of the proposed league of nations as a de-
vice to stlfie the conscience of civilization and render it Impotent to condemn,
and, by condemning, to end the oppression of weak nations enslaved by power-
ful neighbors. It Impeaches the most creditable page in our history and dis-
credits the circumstances and conditions In which our Republic was bom and:
our liberty achieved.
The conscience of civilization, the only force to w^hlch the oppressed can
appeal, would no longer be able to take effective jurisdiction of wrongs perpe- -
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 765
trated by powerful nations on weaker people. No struggling nation has ever
achieved its independence except through the aid of other nations. The strug-
i?]ing American Colonies could never have thrown off the yoke of Great Britain
without the aid of France. Cuba could never have been freed without the
intervention of this country, and one of tlie most creditable pages in human
history would never have been written.
Greece could never have escaped from the hideous domination of the Turk
but for the assistance of enlightened nations.
Under article 11 it becomes the right of the council of the league to prevent
an assembly of American citizens to petition their Government to afford relief to
an oppresseil nation. On this point article 11 specifically says :
" It is also declared to be the friendly right of each member of the league
to bring to the attention of the assembly or of the council any circumstance
whatever affecting international relations which threaten to disturb interna-
tional peace or the good understanding between nations on which peace de-
I>end8."
Under that clause our Congress could not express in the future, as it did
In the past, our sympathy with countries like Greece, seeking freedom from
the Turk; the South American Republics, seeking liberty from Spain; or
tender a welcome to Kossuth, of stricken Hungary; or PameU, pleading for
a self-governing Ireland.
The determination of Ireland to regain her Independence has been one of
the sources of every great war which scourged the world for four centuries.
Any question which disturbs the peace of nations is not domestic, but inter-
national. Its settlement is, therefore, an Imperative necessity of international
peace.
Through long centuries of oppression Ireland has maintained her national
spirit largely because she has always hitherto been able to cherish a hope
that she might receive from some well-disposed foreign power the assistance
which would insure her Independence. She looked to Spain for this aid at
the close of the sixteenth century; to France in the seventeenth, eighteenth,
and nineteenth centuries. She looks for It now in the twentieth century to
America, and we confidently hope and pray that the Senate will not allow that
light of hope to be extinguished.
Signed by —
Daniel F. Cohalan, Justice, supreme court. New York City.
Frank P. Walsh, Kansas City.
E. F. Dunne, former governor, Illinois, Chicago, 111.
Michael J. Ryan, Philadelphia.
John Archdeacon Murphy, member of American commission on Irish inde-
pendence, attending peace conference, Paris, Buffalo, N. Y.
Charles S. Bartlett, governor. New Hampshire, Concord, N. H.
W. W. McDowell, lieutenant governor, Montana, Butte, Mont.
John W. Goff, former justice, supreme court, New York City.
Bourke Cochran, New York City.
Daniel T. O'Connell, director, Irish national bureau, Washington, Boston,
Mass.
John E. Milholland, New York City.
James K. McGuire, representing Irish societies of Westchester County, N. Y.
Joseph F. O'Connell, former Member of Congress, Boston, Mass.
Rev. F. X. McCabe, president De Paul University, Chicago, 111.
Right Rev. Monslguor Gerald P. Coghlan, treasurer Philadelphia Friends of
Irish Freedom, Philadelphia.
Michael Francis Doyle, Philadelphia.
Mary F. McWhorter, national president Ladies' Auxiliary, Ancient Order of
Hibernians, Chicago, 111.
Peter F. Tague, Member of Congress, Boston, Mass.
C'nrnelius (^orcoran John McBride branch, Friends of Irish Freedom, Law-
rence, 3fas8.
Frank S. McDonald, John McBride branch. Friends of Irish Freedom, Law-
rence. Mass.
Michael F. Phelan, Member of Congress, Lynn, Mass.
Hugh O'Neill, committee of 100 for an Irish republic, Chicago, 111.
Richard W. Wolfe, committee of 100 for an Irish republic, Chicago, 111.
James R. Murray, representing Irish societies of Montana, Butte, Mont.
C. E. McGuire, Washington, D. C.
D. J. Carlin, New Orleans, La.
766 TREATY OF PBACE WITH GBBMAKT.
John P. Leahy, delegate. Friends of Irish Freedom, St. Louis. Mo.
W. J. O'Brien, M. D., Philadelphia. Pa.
Mrs. M. A. Gallagher, State president Ladies* Auxiliary of Pennsylvania,
Ancient Order of Hibernians, Philadelphia.
Louis E. Kavanaugh, president Omaha Association branch, Friends of Irish
Freedom, Omaha, Nebr.
P. M. Halloran, representing Irish societies of Anaconda, Mont.
J. W. Maney, president of Friends of Irish Freedom, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Horace H. Hagan, former assistant attorney general of Oklahoma.
Dennis Meehan, York, Nebr.
Thomas Dnrragh MuHins, member national council, Friends of Irish Freetlom,
Pittsburgh.
Dudley Field Malone, Croton on the Hudson, N. Y.
Martin Scully, former mayor of Waterbury, Waterbury, Conn.
Joseph P. Mahoney, president United Societies of Cook County and Chicago.
Chicago, 111.
Rev. James Mattan Mythen, representing national council, Baltimore, Md.
Patrick Lee, secretary American commission on Irish independence, Rich-
mond Hill, N. Y.
Hon. David J. O'Connell, Representative, Congress, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Very Rev. Edward C. O^Reilly, representing Catholic clergy of diocese of La
Crosse. Baraboo, Wis.
P. J. McGarvey, Philadelphia, Pa.
Hugh McCaffrey, Philadelphia, Pa.
Bernard J. Rocks, Newcastle, Pa.
P. T. McCourt, committeeman, F1*iends of Irish Freedom, Akron, Ohio.
T. A. Clancy, Hartford delegate, Hartford, Conn.
Patrick J. Lynch, Indianapolis, Ind.
Margaret T. Mulvaney, State secretary Ladies* Auxiliary Ancient Order of
Hibernians, Providence, R. I.
M. E. Smith, treasurer, St. Louis, Mo., St. Louis.
Robert Emmett O'Malley, delegate, Michael Davitt branch. Kansas City, Mo.
P. J. Ryan, member of executive council, Washington, D. C.
M. 0*Neil, president. Friends of Irish Freedom, Akron, Ohio.
James A. Kelly, Danville, N. Y.
Katherine Hughes, secretary, Irish national bureau, Washington, D. C.
Joseph T. Brennan, secretary Federation of Catholic Societies, Boston, Mass.
John R. Haverty, director John McBride branch, Lawrence, Mass.
Timothy P. Donohue. treasurer, John McBride branch, Lawrence, Mass.
Rev. Walter P. Gough, director of Columbus, Philadelphia, Pa.
Margaret L. Brosnahan, district president Ladies' Auxiliary, Ancient Order of
Hibernians, Washington, D. C.
Margaret Buckley, district treasurer Ladles* Auxiliary, Ancient Order of
Hibernians.
Thomas J. Blewett, representing Thomas Francis Magher branch, Bridge-
port, Conn.
H. B. Cassidy, Syracuse, N .Y.
Edward Ryan, president Friends of Irish Freedom, Syracuse branch Syra-
cuse, N. Y.
John B. London, secretary Ancient Order of Hibernians, Philadelphia, Pa.
E. J. Devlne, delegate Norfolk branch. Norfolk, Va.
James O^Nelll, president John McBride branch, Lawrence. Mass.
Rev. Joseph Byrne, D. D., president St. Mary's College, Darlen, Conn.
Matthew Donovan, District Council 40, Philadelphia, Pa.
James O. Rellly, Ancient Order of Hibernian delegate, Philadelphia, Pa.
Henry J. Phillips, secretary Robert Emmet branch, Philadelphia, Pa.
Patrick King, Young Men's Union, Philadelphia, Pa.
Joseph P. O'Neill, Federation of Irish County Societies, Philadelphia, Pa.
O'Neill Ryan, St. Louis, Mo., former Justice supreme court.
Michael Heffernan, Chester, Pa., Thomas Clarke branch, Friends of Irish
Freedom.
William J. Hurley, New York, N. Y., secretary MaJ. John McBride branch.
Friends of Irish Freedom.
John J. Buckley, New York, N. Y., president Roger Casement branch. New
York City,
P. J. KildufT, Hoboken, N. J., State organizer.
Dr. T. C. McNamara, Hoboken, N. J., State organizer. Friends of Irish Free-
dom.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 767
Thomas O'Brien, New York, N. Y., president St* Oolumcille branch, Friends
of Irish Freedom.
Rev. William T. McLaughlin, Jersey City, N. J., State president. Friends of
Irish Freedom.
•Michael J. O'Connor, New York, N. Y., Innisfail branch. Friends of Irish
Freedom.
Thomas J. Maloney, Jersey City, N. J., president P. Lorlllard Co.
Kate M. Kelly, New York, N. Y., Irish Women's Council.
John Regan, New Bedford, Mass., president Thmas Clarke branch.
Rodger Power O'Neill, M. D., New York City, N. Y., National committee.
Thomas McNamara, Jr., Youngstown, Ohio, chairman Ohio committee.
Shaemas O'Sheel, New York, N. Y., William Pearse branch, Friends of Irish
Freedom and William Rooney Society.
Thomas F. J. Connolly, Port Chester, N. Y., Friends of Irish Freedom, Port
Chester and Rye, N. Y.
Roderick J. Kennedy, New York City, N. Y., confidential attendant Supreme
Court, State of New York.
W. E. Hogan. Bridgeport, Conn., vice president of De Valera branch, Bridge-
port, Conn.
John O'Dea, Philadelphia, Pa., national secretary Ancient Order of Hi-
bernians.
John J. O'Neill, Bridgeport, Conn., president T. F. Meagher branch. Friends
of Irish Freedom.
Attorney Thomas D. Shea, Nanticoke, Pa., local council, Luzerne County;
headquarters, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Secretary, Matthew O'Connor Ford; vice
president, T. R. Callam; treasurer, R. R. Fitzpatrlck; trustees, P. J. Calligan,
J. V. Moylan, C. A. Judge, M. D.
John Stratton O'Leary, New York, N. Y., member of grievance committee,
Bronx Builders* Protective Association.
Cornelius F. Murphy, Shelton, Conn., president of P. H. Pearse branch.
Friends of Irish Freedom.
Rodger Power O'Neill, M. D., New York City, N. Y., member national com-
mittee.
James D. O'Nell, Jenklntown, Pa., organizer.
Thomas McCourt, New York, N. Y., Con Colbert branch, Friends of Irish
Freedom, Sunburst Club.
Frank Hague. Jersey City, N. J., member Jersey City branch.
Charles F. H. O'Brien, Jersey City, N. J., member Jersey City branch.
Eugene F. Kincaid, Jersey City, N. J., former Member of Congress.
Thomas Shea, Nanticoke, Pa.
Michael J. Enright, Chester, Pa.. Thomas Clarke branch. Friends of Irish
Freedom.
James B. Mulherin, Augusta, Oa., delegate John F. Armstrong branch.
Friends of Irish Freedom, Augusta, Ga.
Margaret Bowles, New York Citbr, N. Y.. Bishop D. Dwyer branch, Friends
of Irish Freedom.
Peter J. Fleming, M. D., Boston, Mass., medical committee.
Daniel Foley, Wlnthrop, Mass., professor of economics. Trade Union Col-
lege, Boston, Mass.
John Morton, Dorchester, Mass., advisory committee chairman, Boston, Mass.
Rev. Edward S. Brock, S. J., Washington, D. C.
Joseph J. Hall, Naugatuck, Conn., assistant purchasing agent of Rubber Re-
generating Co.
James O'Sullivan, Lowell, Mass., treasurer of two important corporations.
Jeremiah Flahavan, Ansonia, Conn., president of James Connelly Club,
Friends of Irish Freedom, Ansonia.
Francis B. McKinney, Boston. Mass., lecturer Jbseph Plunkett branch.
Friends of Irish Freedom.
John G. Fitzgerald, Ansonia, Conn., vice president.
Michael B. McGreal, New Haven, Conn., City Board Ancient Order of Hi-
bernians, New Haven, five divisions, three auxiliaries; Division No. 7, Ancient
Order of Hibernians; Sftrsfield G. A. Club, Friends of Irish Freedom, New
Haven, Conn.
Matthew Cummlngs, Boston, Mass., president Boston Council, Friends of
Irish Freedom.
John H. H. McNamee, Boston, Mass., banker and manufacturer.
Hon. Edward W. Quinn, Cambridge, Mass., mayor of Cambridge.
768 TREATY or PEACE WITH QEBMAKY.
Richard Dwyer, national vice president Ancient Order of Hibernians, South
Boston, Mass.
Paul F. Spain, Cambridge, Mass., treasurer bench and bar committee,
Boston, Mass.
James A. Dorsey, Boston, Mass., chairman finance committee, bench and bar
committee, Boston.
Michael I^. Faliey, Boston, Mass., secretary committee bench and bar.
Daniel H. Coakley, Boston, Mass., chairman committee bench and bar.
Joseph C. Pel let in, Boston, Mass., bench and bar committee.
Edw. F. McSweeney, Framlngham, MaBs., member national council, member
advisory committee, Boston.
John J. McDonagh, New Y^ork, N. Y., delegate from the Archbishop Plunkett
branch, Friends of Irish Freedom.
H. Miller, New York, N. Y., Archbishop Plunkett branch, Friends of Irish
Freedom.
James E. Deery, Indianapolis, Ind., national president Ancient Order of
Hibernians.
E. F. White. Chester, Pa.
Rossa F. Downing, Washington, D. C, Washington branch. Friends of
Irish Freedom.
Wm. J. Boyle, Central Labor Union of Philadelphia, Pa<
N. J. Sinnott, Member of Congress from Oregon.
Daniel J. Moran, Lynn, Mass., recording secretary and director of publicity.
(Mrs.) Honor Walsh, Germantown, Pa., editorial staff, the Standard and
Oulld.
Robert E. Ford, New York, N. Y., editor Irish World.
Patrick King, Catholic Young Men*s Union, Philadelphia, Pa.
Patrick Fitzgerald, United Irish Societies of Western Pennsylvania.
Patrick Cronin, Duquesne University.
Thomas Lee, New York, N. Y.
William J. Noonan, 37 Raleigh Avenue, Richmond borough. City of New York.
Thomas Rock, Central Federated Union, New York City.
Louis D. Kavanagh. president of Irish Self-Determination Club, Omaha.
James O. Reilly. Philadelphia, Pa.
Joseph McOarrity, Phil.ndelphia, Pa., chairman Irish Volunteer Committee.
.John J. Liddy, Indianapolis, Ind.
William H. Foley, Indianapolis, Ind.
P. J. Conway, president Irish- American Athletic Club, New York City.
John H. Dooley, .535 West One hundred and twenty-flnst Street, New York,
N. Y. ; representative position. National Executive Committee, New York City.
Annie Lester Lyons, delegate Yorktown branch, F. O. I. F., Norfolk, Va.
Lawrence Craddook Lawless, delegate Yorktown branch F. O. I. F., Norfolk,
Va.
Margaret EhA*ard Lawless, delegate Yorktown branch F, O. I. F., Norfolk, Va.
James C. Gordon, president Yorktown branch F. O. I. F., Norfolk, Va.
M. J. Lyons, vice president Yorktown branch F. O. I. F., United States deputy
marshal's office, Norfolk, Va.
Henry MrXally, president of Patrick Henry branch, Friends of Irish Fi-eedom,
Girard, Ohio.
Thomas F. Martin, secretary of state of New Jersey.
John Mannix, Glens Falls, N. Y.
Patrick O'Hagerty, Springfield, Mass.
Patrick J. Kennedy, Glens Falls, N. Y.
Rev. .Joseph O'Keefe, Akron, Ohio.
J. B. Shannon, Kansas City, Mo.
Casinn J. Welch, Kansas City, Mo.
Martin Owens, Newark, N. J.
Rev. Thomas J. Hiirton, Philadelphia, Pa., St. Enda's Gaelic School and
St. Edna brai^ '^ of the Gaelic League.
H. J. Phillips, Philadelphia, Pa., Robert Emmet branch. Friends of Irish
Freedom.
J. T. Lawler, Norfolk, Va., member national committee, Friends of Irish
Freedom.
Hugh Montague, Passaic, N. J., general contractor.
Roderick J. Kennedy, clerk Supreme Court State of New York.
D. J. Lawless. Marcellus Falls, N. Y.
R. E. D'Malley, Michael Davitt branch, Friends of Irish Freedom, Kansas
City, Mo.
TBEATY OP PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 769
J. D. Turner, Baltimore, Md.
W. C. Walsh, Cumberland, Md.
Joseph B. Fitzgerald, member Wolfe Tone Club, Jersey City, N. J.
Jerome 0*Keeffe, Jersey City, N. J.
John G. McTigue, New York, N. Y.
K. T. B. Kelly, Gardner, Mass.
James Tumulty, 646 Bergen Avenue, Jersey City, N. J., president of Wolfe
Tone Club, Jersey City, N. J.
P. J. O'Donnell, Detroit, Mich.
D. Lynch, Utlca, N. Y.
Miss Margaret Bowers, New York, N. Y.
John B. Burke, Gary, Ind.
William J. Maloney, Gary, Ind.
M. C. Ford, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Senator Brandegee. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the absence of a
quorum. I would like the record to state the names of those present.
The Chaibman. The clerk will call the roll.
The clerk called the roll and the following members answered to
their names : Senators Lodge, Borah, Brandegee, Fall, Knox, Hard-
ing, Johnson, New, Moses, Swanson, and Pittman.
The Chairman. There are 12 Senators present, a quorum. Judge
Cohalan, you may put on your next speaker.
Senator Borah. jBefore that is done, Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a suggestion with reference to the gentlemen who are still to
address the committee. The argument has been made by the ad-
vocates of the league and by some of our colleagues that under the
league of nations Ireland would have a better opportunity or a .l;).^<ier
chance of haying her affairs settled in harmony with her aspira-
tions than without it. You gentlemen having Kept close tab, un-
doubtedly, upon the debate along that line of argument, will ap-
preciate what I say. I would like to have some one address his at-
tention to that feature of the question.
Judffe CoHAiiAN. That will be done during the course of the hear-
ing. Mr. Chairman, I want to put in the record a memorial, with
certain figures.
The Chairman. They will be printed, and as our time is limited,
we will not take the time to read them now.
Judge CoHAiiAK. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I am also going to
file Ireland's declaration of independence along with other omcial
documents, and some extension of my remarks.
(The extension of Judge Cohalan's remarks and the declaration
of independence referred to are here printed in full, as follows:)
The great trouble with the mass of the people of America on the question of
Ireland is their viewpoint on the Irish question. Without intending to be
unfair, they takfe for granted the justice of the English view. They find Eng-
land, largely the mistress of the world and in many ways admitted to be the
leader of modern civilization, in possession of Ireland.
They find, according to histories mainly written by England's friends, that
she has been thus in Ireland for centuries, and they take it for granted that she
mast be there legally ; that she is there as a matter of right. They take for
granted, too, that in the evolution of civilization, in the making of history, that
conditions required her to be there, and that England's claim to the overlord-
ship in Ireland is a valid and just claim.
This view is strengthened by all the literature which most Americans ever
read. The so-called English literature with which Americans come in contact
usually rates England as the one great power which, through the centuries
past, has been carrying aloft the torch of justice and progress into the dark
comers of the world. So, it is not to be wondered at that many Americans are
prone to think of England as the guiding star of civilization, educating and
136546—19 49
770 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
lifting up downtrodden, suffering people that have been tyrannized over by their
national tyrants.
This is the view of England that Englishmen like to have the world take
of their country. Because of this viewpoint, it is extremely difficult to get
before the American jury— fair as it intends to be — the actual facts of history,
not to speak of the present-day conditions as they exist In Ireland.
THE DOMINATING FIGURES IN ENGLAND.
The ordinary American, accustomed to giving almost all of his time to a
Study of the internal conditions of his own country, so far as his Interests
leads him on, has not learned to differentiate between the England which Is
and the England that, according to her writers and poets, seems to be.
He has not come to understand that the English democracy of which he
hears and reads so much has little reality in fact, and that England still con-
tinues to be governed by a handful of men, representing, with but few excep-
tions, the same small group of titled land-controlling families that have gov-
erned England since the days of Henry XIII, If not, in fact, much longer. Since
the downfall of continental aristocracies this is true of England more than of
any other country.
The dominating figures in England to-day — those in actual power — are the
Cecils and their relations. Lloyd-George or some other figure that has come to
represent democracy or radicalism, If you will, in the eyes of the world, is put
forward as the premier of governing authority. • But the will that dominates,
controls, and finally directs the policies and actions of England is that of the
master spirit Cecil, no matter which member of that family or its connections
it may happen to be.
In the last generation it was the Marquis of Salisbury, former premier
of England, the man who said, some forty years ago, that England and America
were natural rivals in every court and in every port ; the man who more than
ariy'*6Ther — with the exception of Joseph Chamberlain, the great radical who
rattM^flnd joined the forces of conservation — was responsible for the destruc-
tion of the two little Republics in South Africa.
It was this same Salisbury who said, in the days when the Irish were car-
rying everything before them in the Parliamentary fights in the House of Com-
mons, that the Irish were no better than the Hottentots and should receive the
same treatment. It was the same man who represented England in the Con-
gress of Berlin and of whom Bismarck said — ^because he quit when opposed
by superior force — that he reminded him of a lath, painted to look like iron.
Salisbury was aided and was succeeded by his nephew, Arthur James Bal-
four, who became Premier of England, first Lord of the Admiralty, and a num-
ber of other high-sounding things, but who has never been able to wipe out the
title of " Bloody Balfour " conferred upon him by the people of Ireland when he
was chief secretary for Ireland, and, among other things, ordered the shoot-
ing, if necessary, by the troops, in cold blood, of the defenseless, unarmed people
of Mitchelstown.
Balfour Is still to the fore and is probably the chief governing force In Eng-
land to-day, except in so far as he is displaced by his cousin, Lord Robert Cecil,
son of the Marquis of Salisbury and father of the proposed League of Nations—
which would, if it became effective, undo the work of the revolution and put
us in the position of again being a vassal state of England, subject to the con-
trol of the Cecils or any other landed aristocracy that might, in the future, con-
trol the destines of England and the world.
These are types of the men who dominate England, and, through her, con-
trol the British Empire. The little King George V, first cousin to the late
Emperor of the Germans and the Czar of the Russians, at present represents the
German royal family as King of England and Emperor of India.
He rules over every third person on earth and over almost every third square
mile of land on earth. He is actually master of all the seas and Is at the head
of a government more powerful than any which ever before existed in all the
history of mankind.
Englishmen like to say that King George reigns but does not rule. That is
true. The real ruling force is that handful of aristocrats who represent the
landed feudal aristocracy of England and who form the most absolute, most
arbitrary and most powerful autocracy the world has ever seen.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 771
ENGLAND MAKES OTHEB NATIONS SUPPLY THE SOLDIERS.
The history of England differs from that of every other country. No other
country before her has reached her dominant place among the empires of the
earth. Rome approached nearer to England than did any other country in
similarity of methods by which she acquired world control. Her imperial!
motto, "Divide et Impera/* marked the policy by which she subdued almost
the entire world of her day and ruled the known world without a rival for
centuries.
But Rome acquired most of her power through her own soldiers. The gen-
erals who led her armies to victory were of Roman blood; the soldiers who
swept everything before them on the field of battle were Roman legions, who
found few who could stand before them. They risked their own lives, their own
blood» for the quarrels of their country, in order that her will might be imposed
upon other countries.
England has improved on all this. She follows the Roman motto, but be-
cause England leaves the control of the policy of her government in the hands
of her diplomats, other nations, other races, are made to supply the generals
who win the battles, and the soldiers who bleed, in order that England may
grow great.
ENGLAND'S POLICY TAKES ADVANTAGE OF FRIEND AND FOB.
The policy which had its beginning under Henry the Eighth has been con-
sistently carried forward, subordinating every other interest to that of the
growth of England and the extension of her power. It has been carried on
through all the ages by every government which comes into power in England,
no matter what its domestic policy may have been.
Englishmen may differ upon domestic problems — ^upon questions of taxation^
of education, of religion — ^but as against all foreigners they are a unit and their
policy is always consistently to take advantage of .all openings given them
throug;hout the world, to make and unmake alliances, to make and break
treaties, to take advantage of friend and foe in order to add to the wealth
and power of England and to break down those who have stood against her.
One of the results of this policy is seen to^ay in the proud boast of England
that the sun never sets on .the British Empire. Her flag flies in triumph over
territory in every continent and in most of the important islands of the seas.
It is carried aloft as the flag controlling the power of every sea of the world.
Her forts guard practically all the great narrow waterways of the earth,
with the exception of the Panama Canal. Yet here, by reason of her extraordi-
nary influence over American legislation, England has acquired for her com-
merce all the rights and privileges enjoyed by American commerce, although
the Panama Canal belongs to us, was biiilt by America and paid for by Amer-
ica's treasurea
MOLDING PX7BIJC OPINION Ot THE WOBLD.
Another and, if possible, more important result of this policy of England is
the extraordinary control she has gained over public opinion in every country
in the world. Her soldiers have won battles for her on land, her admirals
have won fights at sea, but these are as nothing when compared to the triumph
of her diplomats. No group of men In the history of the world can compare Id
skill, in adroitness, in finesse, in influence, with the diplomats of England.
The visible British Empire is an external monument of their triunliph, but the
invisible British Empire, with its control of influences in every government
on earth, its thousand and one ways of making opinion through the press^
the magaznes, the pulpits, the schools, of every race and in every clime, is a
vaster, more far-reaching monument of their finesse, their adroitness, their
ability to make black seem white.
The Romans were satisfied with their triumph at arms. When their soldiers
had beaten down those of the opponent, the generals and princes of the van-
quished were brought to Rome and made to walk sub jugo through the streets,
chained to the wheels of the chariot of the Roman Consul.
The English diplomat, more skilled in human nature, more subtle, more far-
reaching in his plans, is not satisfied with such outward marks of triumph.
He carries on a campaign throughout the world, to Justify his actions, and^
if possible, to ease his own conscience. As an example :
^72 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
ENGLAND ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY THE SOUL OF IRELAND.
Even though England by brute force has been In possession of the body of
Ireland for centuries, the English diplomat continues his fight to destroy' the
soul of Ireland. Even though he has proclaimed, at the birth of each succeed-
ing generation, that he has again conquered Ireland, he still keeps looking in
vain for a declaration from the people of Ireland that they have been conquered.
He tells himself that he has beaten the Irish because of the thousand and
one cruelties he has practiced upon them, but he knows in his heart that he
can not conquer the Irish people while one man and one woman of Irish blood
survive.
He knows — if the world does not know — that the people of Ireland want
absolute Independence. He has been able with a thousand subterfuges to con-
fuse the thought of the world on the question of what Ireland wants, but he
■can not deceive himself.
The Balfours and Cecils of this generation know, as well as Burleigh, their
relative, in the days of the reign of Elizabeth knew, that what Ireland wants
is to have England get out of Ireland, bag and baggage, and leave the people
of Ireland to govern their own country In their own way.
IRELAND IS UNITED FOR ABSOLUTE INDEPENDENCE.
In the last analysis, the question between England and Ireland Is simplicity
Itself. There are two nations, each of which wishes to rule, govern, own Ire-
land. One Is the Irish nation, to whom Ireland belongs, for whom It was set
apart by God Almighty Himself from all the rest of the world.
The Irish people have dwelt In Ireland for thousands of years, distinct and
separate in a hundred ways from all other peoples, set apart In nature, in
thought, in language, in custom from the rest of the world, marked by the hand
of God with an individuality all their own.
The Irish people have their own strength, their ovra virtues, their own gifts,
their own weaknesses, but differ from and are different to any and all other
races of men. The Irish people have absorbed all other strains of blood that
have gone into the strange country of Ireland so as to have made strangers
who have gone there, after a few generations, an Integral part of themsetTes^
or, as an old writer phrased it, ** more Irish than the Irish themselves.'*
The other nation that wishes to own, govern, and rule Ireland is the TCngtlsh
nation, belonging to England but foreign to Ireland. A nation of great gifts,
great f aiUngs ; a nation that may yet, in the providence of God, reach the point
where it can be made to see that it will be greater to conquer themselTes than
to conquer a city or a world ; greater to bring peace, contentment, and oppor-
tunity for decent living, not to some portion of itself but to all its people, so
that it may not be said In the future, as It was said In the past in a recent
report of a British commission, that one-third of the people of England did
not have a week between themselves and starvation.
'.^.
IRELAND ONLY WANTS WHAT BELONGS TO HER.
If the question between Ireland and England were between two individuals,
no jury sitting In any part of America would have any difficulty In disposing
of the matter. Ireland does not ask anything of England except to be let alone.
She wants only what belongs to her. She wants only that which was her own.
She wants to govern herself and her own people in her own way, according to
her own standards, and with absolute religious freedom and political equality
for all of her children.
Ireland does not ask one inch of territory that Is not contained within
the four seas of Ireland. She does not ask to Impose her will upon a single
person who dwells beyond her shores. She appeals to the free people of the
earth for the opportunity to go her own way, in peace and harmony with all
the rest of mankind. She offers not alone to forgive, but so far as she can,
even to forget past dealings with England and to dwell in peace and amity and
concord with England as a neighbor.
But she refuses, as she has refused for 750 years, to permit the stranger —
England — ^to govern her, to control her resources, to shut her off from contact
with the other nations of the earth, to keep her out of her high place among the
nations. She says, with the voice of a united people—not in a quarrelsome
way, but in the quiet voice of reasoned Judgment— that as she has fought for
TREATY OP PEACE WITH QEBMANY. 773
750 3'ears for her independence, so she is prepared to fight, if necessary, as
long again in order to attain that independence, and to resume her place among
the independent nations.
Her sons say for her, quite calmly, with knowledge of the fact that though
scattered all over the world, they yet remain a great race, that England with all
her power, with all her subtlety, with all her barbarity, can not destroy then>
or wipe them out. That the fight which England waged through so many cen-
turies can only end when England shall withdraw her last soldier from Ireland
and leave that country, which she has been robbing for centuries, to govern and
rule herself.
The diplomat of England has succeeded in many parts of the world as has no
other diplomat in the history of mankind, but he has failed in Ireland as
absolutely and completely as any diplomat has failed in other parts of the
world.
It may be said without exaggeration that England has tried for centuries
every form of tyranny, of cruelty, of inhumanity in her treatment of the people
of Ireland. Her chief spokesman, Lloyd-George, admitted in the House of
Commons last year that England had made an absolute failure of her govern-
ment of Ireland, and that to-day she was as unpopular with the mass of the
people of Ireland as she was in the days of Oliver Cromwell.
BELGIAN ATBOCrriES DUPLICATED A HUNDBED-FOLD IN IBSLAND.
In the early stages of the late Great War, the world was made familiar
with the story of the treatment the Belgians received in their own country at the
hands of the invaders. It was but the recital and summary of England's treat-
ment of Ireland. Not an atrocity was charged against the Germans in Belgium,
not a cruelty was practiced, not a crime committed, which could not be dupli-
cated one hundred-fold In England's treatment of Ireland.
Proof of this fact need only be taken from the admissions of English his-
torians; from the declarations of English statesmen — the only difference be-
tween Belgium and Ireland being that the atrocities In Belgium extended over
a period of three or four years, while the atrocities of England In Ireland
have extended over the centuriea •
Belgium to-day, with a chorus of thanksgiving from all over the world, has
resumed her place among the free nations of the earth and is to be indemnified
in so far as money can indemnify a suffering country for losses sustained.
Ireland to-day, after seven and a half centuries of greater suffering still lies
prostrate at the feet of E2ngland, while English statesmen, with a smug hypocrisy
all their own, dilate with well-stimulated astonishment on the dreadful fact
that England can not leave Ireland to be governed by Irishmen, because, for-
sooth, the Irish can not agree politically among themselves.
NO SUCH POLITICAL UNANIMITY EXISTS EL8EWHEBE IN THE WOBLD.
The fact is, however, that there is in Ireland to-day a degree of political
unanimity greater than exists in any other country on earth — ^very much
greater than that which exists In England, where Lloyd-George and his con-
freres are kept In power through a political coalition between eight different
groups* and much greater than exists In our own country.
Ireland is the only country in the world In which a plebiscite has been taken
since the armistice was declared last November. The result of that plebiscite
was that the people of Ireland, by a vote of more than three to one, declared in
favor of absolute separation from England and in favor of the establishment of
an 'Irish republic.
This was on the 14th of last December. On the 21st day of January of this
year the elected representatives of the people of Ireland met in convention at
the Mansion House in the city of Dublin, declared the existence of the Irish
republic, and made an appeal to the free peoples of the earth for its Interna-
tional recognition.
In furtherance of that appeal, Eamon de Valera, president of the Irish repub-
lic, and several members of the Dail Elreann (Irish congress) are now in this
country. They seek to lay before the people of America actual conditions as
they exist In Ireland to-day. They ask a hearing in order that America may
understand that what the people of Ireland are asking Is full recognition of
their status as a free and Independent people.
774 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
They seek not some redress of gn^levftnces, large or small, but they demand
that England take her grip oft Ireland and leave the country to be governed by
Its own people in its own way. The opinion of America has been aroused within
the last year as it never has been before in favor of Ireland.
ENGLAND AIMS TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
But the English diplomats with their accustomed skill are seeking to confuse
the issue, to prevent our people from getting a clear understanding of what is
at stake between Ireland and England.
It is their task, their duty at this time, not to simplify but to complicate
the issue; not to clarify, but to confuse the situation. Because of that, there
appear in a hundred forms, a hundred suggestions from England as to a way
out of the difficulty.
One group talks of Dominion home rule, while others talk of a dozen varie-
ties of the same form. Carson talks of having conditions remain as they are,
while Smuts — the " slim " South African who believes all peoples should con-
tinue to be swallowed up by the British Empire — comes forward with that
latest suggestion that Ireland should receive the same recognition as that given
to Bohemia.
But all ask for Ireland something which England wants — none offers to Ire-
land that which Ireland demands; because at bottom — ^let them explain as
they may — in any one of the hundred devious devices English statesmen and
liistorians have used in attempting to explain it — the fact is that England re-
mains in Ireland for England's profit, security, and power, and does not intend
to get out of Ireland until, she is persuaded, either by force or by the prospect
of greater profit in some other form, that it is to her interest to do so.
England says she remains in Ireland only for two reasons: Firet, because
Irishmen can not agree politically, and, second, because Ireland can not flnan-
<;ially stand alone. Neither statement has the slightest foundtion in fact.
PLEBISCITE TAKEN IN DECEMBER REFUTES FIRST CLAIM.
The plebiscite taken in Ireland last December, under the most adverse con-
ditions, shows that the people of Ireland have reached a degree of political
unanimity practically without parallel. With the great English army of occu-
pation and with all the machinery of the Government in possession of the Eng-
lish garrison, the people of Ireland, by a vote of more than 3. to 1, decided in
favor of total separation of Ireland from England.
According to the standard American histories, Washington and his associates
-were never able to rally to their support more than a majority of the coloni>ts,
If, In truth, they ever had so large a proportion of the colonists on their side.
Even in the so-called convention presided over by Sir Horace Plunkett
and hand picked by Lloyd George, there was a majority of 40 to 29 in favor
of the proposed plan then given, which would have gone beyond the scheme
of so-called settlement now proposed by many responsible spokesmen for Eng-
land. This is the more remarkable when it is considered that a large number
of the members of that body were selected by Lloyd George and his associates
for the express purpose of having them fail to agree to any settlement.
If the situation were not one of so much importance It would be farcical to
hear Lloyd George talk about the failure of the Irish to agree, when he himself
remains in power in England, through a coalition made up of eight different
groups, and was the direct cause of the so-called failure to which he refers.
ENGLAND REMAINS IN IRELAND FOR HER OWN FINANCIAL GAIN.
England dares not to say that she remains in Ireland, because Ireland can
not financially stand alone. This, in spite of the fact that last year England
made at least $225,000,000 fron^ her control of Ireland. She collected from
Ireland and on Irish goods, during the preceding year a revenue of more
than 34,000,000 pounds. She spent on what she Is pleased to call the
*• government " of Ireland, about 13,000,000 pounds, leaving a profit to herself
of 21,000,000 pounds, an equivalent of about $105,000,000 profit gathered to
herself through taxation of Ireland.
Ireland did with the rest of the world the previous year a business of
^820,000,000, according to Sir Horance Plunkett, though other spokesmen for
England say this estimate is entirely too low. Of the foreign business done
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKT. 775
by Ireland, more than 95 per cent was done with ESngland. Why? Because
England has so completely cut Ireland off from the resjt of the world that she
Is unable to send goods abroad except through Elngland, or to buy abroad ex-
cept through England, thus being compelled, against all economic law, to sell
in the cheapest market and to buy in the dearest market.
It is only fair to presume, as a result of this, that the English tradesmim,
^Krho is as shrewd, as adroit, as far seeing in his own field as is the English
4llplomat in the field of Goyernment, made a profit of at least 15 per cent on
the turn over of this business with Ireland.
Ireland thus gives to ESngland, in addition to the taxation, the profit of
$120,000,000, thus making for England in a single year a profit of vast pro-
portions— a profit of $225,000,000 from her control of Ireland. That sum rep-
resents 225,000,000 reasons why England wishes to remain in Ireland. She
is there as a matter of profit. She is there as a matter of interest. But
above all other reasons, strong and selfish as they are, England remains in
Ireland because she regards her continued control of Ireland as vital and
essential to her continued control of the seas.
ENGLAND USES IBELAND FOK A GKEAT DAIBT FABM.
Much has been made by the spokesmen of England of the claim that Ireland
must remain attached to England because England is the chief market for
Irish goods, and the country through which Ireland's commerce with the world
must be carried on, if Ireland is to seek a world market.
No more damning Indictment could be brought against England than is
brought by this bit of English propaganda. The simple outstanding fact is
that England does not buy one dollar's worth of goods from Ireland which she
cou^d buy cheaper in any other part of the world. Further, because of her
absolute control of the seas of the world, and ' of her economic contact
with every other country on earth, England does not sell to Ireland one single
article, no matter how insignificant, for which she could find a better price in
any other part of the globe.
England uses Ireland for a great dairy farm, a broad grazing land, in order
that food may be provided at the lowest possible price, for the teeming millions
in the Industrial centers of England. She uses Ireland as a dumping ground
for the excess products of her factories — excess products which are turned out
by her manufacturers either to meet special competition in some other country
or in order to keep her industrial workers employed so that they may not have
time to think too much about the grievances and the industrial problems that
lead to revolution.
ENGLAND DESTROYED THE POPITLATION OF IBELAND.
The world recently rang with English propaganda in the form of stories of
the tyrannies of the Czar of the Russias and of the government of the Cen-
tral Empires. These empires have gone, and properly gone, the ways of every
other tyrant of past history, but the fact remains that at their worst these
powers did not keep the population of Alsace-Lorraine, of Schleswig-Holstein,
of Gallcia, from greatly increasing in numbers and in prosperity.
Nor did the brutalities and outrageous excesses of power of the successive
Czars of the Kussias prevent Russian Poland from growing greatly in popula-
tion and in wealth. Yet in the 70 years from 1845 to 1915, the population of
Ireland, under what English spokesmen are pleased to call the benign reigns
of Victoria, of Edward VII, and of George Y, has decreased from more than
eight and three-quarter millions to 4,390,219.
GOVEBNMENT-MADE FAlflNES TO DESTBOY THE PEOPLE OF IBELAND.
In that time. In spite of the cruelties and misgovernment practiced upon the
people of those continental countries, no charge has been made and has been
proved — as in the case of Ireland — of a government-made famine in which more
than one million starved to death in a land of plenty, and another two million
were sent across the seas to seek in foreign countries an opportunity to live, an
opportunity of which they were deprived in their own land by reason of the
inhumanity of an alien government.
England has systematically broken down every effort made to build up the
Industries, to develop the resources of Ireland, while her spokesmen sing In
chorus that all the wrongs of Ireland are ancient wrongs and that Ireland
is to-day governed by the same laws that govern England, and therefore the
Irish people should be contented with their lot and cease to cry for liberty.
776 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANT.
These assertions do not bear the slightest Investigation of an impartial
mind. Ireland has been turned into a grazing countiy by the laws of
England and by acts of the English Government. The system of laws made for
a highly complex industrial state like England are utterly out of place In a
country whose main pursuit is made to be agriculture.
GBEAT HABBORS OF IRELAND IN IDLENESS.
The shipping controlled by England cuts Ireland off from all contact with the
rest of the world and keeps in idleness 20 of the greatest harbors of Europe,
It prevents the modern development of the ports of Cork, Limerick, Galway,
Sligo, and Dublin, ports which centuries ago were great trading ports, carrying
on extensive commerce with the countries of continental Europe.
The railroads of the smaller and poorer country are controlled by the rail-
roads of the richer and larger country, so that it cost until recently as much
to send a barrel of flour across from Galway to Dublin as it would to send it
from Chicago to Liverpool.
Most of the banks in Ireland are bought up or controlled by the banks of
England, with the result that the deposits are not invested In Ireland for the
development of its resources or the upbuilding of its industries, but are placed
at the disposal of English manufacturers and business men to aid in their schemes
for exploiting the rest of the world and beating down the industrial rivals of
England In Europe and In the United States of America.
The Irish mercantile marine, which for centuries carried on a commerce with
continental Europe and America, has been wiped out of existence by adverse
English laws. It has been replaced only by ships which bring Ireland's goods
to England and England's goods to Ireland in such a manner as to make the
Irish market to all intents and purposes the private monopoly of England.
England, roughly speaking, is one and one-half times the size of Ireland in
square miles. When the act of union was laid upon Ireland, January 1, 1801,
the population of Ireland was almost 6,000,000 and the population of England
was less thon 9,000,000. To-day, the population of England is over 86,000,000,
and the population of Ireland, according, to the latest English census, is 4,^.-
219. At the same date which marks the application of the act of union to
Ireland, the population of Scotland was 1,700,000, while to-day, for the first
time in history, it is larger than the population of Ireland.
IRELAND VICIOUSLY MISREPRESENTED ABROAD.
If Ireland had been satisfied to become the contented province of England and
to abandon her fight for liberty and her desire for independence ; if she would
consent to become absorbed into England, to become a part of the English
people, she would undoubtedly enjoy a prosperity that would mean all that the
word implies.
It is because of the fact that she will not consent to such an arrangement, It
is because she regards the ideal as of more consequence, even in this life, than
she does the material, that Ireland must continue to be misrepresented abroad.
If England has her way, her rule will continue in Ireland until that day and
that generation when the British Empire, following all the other mighty em-
pires of the past, shall hear the hour of her doom strike and shall be compelled
to give way to the onward march of events which will carry its end into the
mighty empire and bring freedom to the peoples all over the earth who are
oppressed by it. Thoughtful observers the world over agree that that day Is
not far distant
England has time after time overrun Ireland with her armies, with her con-
flscators, but She has never conquered Ireland, and unless all signs by which the
future may be gauged fail, she never can conquer Ireland.
To-day England faces an Irish race scattered all over the world, totaling
30,000,000 of people. She may boast that the sun never sets on the British
Empire, but she must also admit that it never sets on the man of Irish blood.
Wherever he has gone, into whatever country he may have been absorbed, he
remains distinctively hostile to the British Government and the things for
which that Government stands.
He was, as American historians tell us, the first to raise the banner of revolt
against England in this country. According to that scholarly volume, * Hidden
Phases of American History," by Michael J. O'Brien, 88 per cent of the rank
and file of Washington's Army were Irishmen or sons of Irishmen— the most
determined, the most unfaltering enemy England had in America.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY. 777
He harbors no enmity against the English people. He pities rather than
condemns them for the Injustice under which they suffer. He understands the
economic slavery which Is imposed upon them — but he is the untiring, the un-
faltering, enemy of the conscienceless chicanery and corrupting materialism
which are the chief weapons of English diplomacy.
AMERICA WAS USD INTO THE WAS TO PUT AN END TO ATJTOCBACY.
England may control statesmen, she may thunder from the pulpits and she
may speals through the impersonal editorials of the press in various countries.
She may purchase poets, she may hire apologists, she may rewrite school his-
tories, but ever and always there will be men rising up throughout the world to
thwart her schemes, to prevent the consummation of her carefully laid plans, to
point out the facts of history, and to arouse the liberty-loving people of the
world to a realization of the fact that there can be no freedom on earth until
the autocracy which hides behind the mask of navalism is as completely broken
as was tliat which was covered by the garb of militarism.
England may succeed — as she has succeeded — ^in cajoling or outmaneuverlng
the spokesmen of free peoples at the conference of Versailles ; she may write the
terms of peace there as she wrote them at Vienna a century before — ^but she
can not stifle the conscience of the world. She can not satisfy America with the
assertion that the war has been won because German and Russian militarism
has been broken.
America was led into the war to put an end to autocracy, and that means
autocracy In every form. America entered the war to break down special privi-
leges in all Governments and to see that not only militarism, but Its twin
sister, navalism, was broken beyond repair.
If America had not gone into the war it would have ended in an entirely
different way. We threw our strength, our youth, our vigor, our Idealism into
the scales and we freely expressed our belief that when we won — ^for there was
no "If" about it once we went into the war — there would be an end to
autocracy.
We declared there would be self-determination for all peoples; that there
would be freedom of the seas — that freedom for which America through all her
history has contended and for which she waged one victorious war.
America won the war. Sir Douglas Halg's comments to the contrary not-
withstanding. America threw her soul, her honor, her ideals into the winning
of the war, and America will not now be satisfied until all the peoples of the
earth gather in the fruits of that victory.
There can be no Just or permanent peace if, after destroying one form of
autocracy, we leave another form more strongly entrenched than ever and
resting upon a firmer foundation. The plain people throughout the world
will not rest while two great empires remain, their strength buttressed and
fortified by a peace which able spokesmen of these empires, with superior
courage, superior diplomacy, with greater skill, Impose upon mankind.
America magnificently won the war. America has failed to make the peace.
America's spokesmen laid down splendidly the terms of peace which were to
satisfy the world and which were agreed to In advance by the spokesmen of
England, of France, of Italy. But America's spokesmen have been outplayed,
outclassed, by the veteran diplomats of the latter countries.
America was satisfied with the proposed terms of peace. She is utterly dis-
satisfied \vith the propo.sed peace treaty and Its accompanying league of
nations as drawn by Cecil and Smuts and now urged by the President of the
United States as something behind which he may hide the discomfiture result-
ing from his encounter with the skilled diplomats of the Old World.
Gloss over the story as one may, the fact remains that out of the conference
at Versailles there have emerged two great powers greatly strengthened — the
island empires of England and Japan. These two empires are now seizing
and taking to themselves the choicest spots on earth, adding tremendously to
their already swollen power.
THE WAB, FOUGHT FOR DEMOt'KACY, ENTHRONES AUTOCRACY.
England, whose spokesman assured us one hundred times during the war that
she sought no territory, has had, in her own accustomed style, forced ui)on her
"unwilling" shoulders huge strips of land which nominally belonged to the
German Empire but which really belonged to their inhabitants. These people,
778 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAITE',
as the result of the war, are simply transferred from one group of exploiters
to another, and a more experienced group.
Forty million Chinese Republicans were torn from their own country with the
Immense province of Shantung and turned over to the Empire of Japan, thus
making it larger, in point of population, than the United States of America.
England, which, before we entered the war, on the visit of Balfour to Wash-
ington, was in the throes of despair and on the verge of defeat, can now proudly
proclaim through her mouthpiece, Lord Cecil, that she emerges from the war
richer and stronger, actually and relatively, than any other country on earth.
The war, fought for democracy, may end with a peace which greatly increases
the power of autocracy. The war, fought to bring freedom of the seas, ends
with England in unquestioned control of all the oceans of the earth. The war,
fought to bring self-determination to all the peoples of the earth, has the doc-
trine of English pre-determination applied to some parts of the continent, in
order temporarily to break up and permanently to cripple her European rivals.
This doctrine is applied to Asia in such a way that the Japanese predetermina-
tion may apply to the continent of Asia to the end that she may eventually ab-
sorb China and be ready with her intimate ally and close friend, England, for
any emergency that may arise in any part of the world.
THE TWO GBEAT EMPIBES INSIST THAT AKEBICA GUARANTEE THEIB POSSESSIONS.
Not satistled with their own power to retain that which the self-satisfied and
temporary spokesman for America has permitted them to absorb, England and
Japan are insisting through Clause X in the proposed League of Nations that
America shall guarantee for all time the present territorial integrity of the
two remaining empires on earth.
One little knows the fierce passion for democracy which burns in the breast
of the average American if he thinks that such a scheme will ever succeed. For
143 years, America has been fighting with ever-increasing vigor the battle of
democracy.
America has ever been to the forefront In the struggle for human rights.
She has sought to put an end in every way to the special privileges of the few.
She favors the rights of the many and she will not now permit any man
speaking for her to reverse her position, to destroy her old ideals, or to
prevent her from carrying on the struggle until democracy shall finally
triumph and the last stronghold of autocracy be destroyed.
SHANTUNG A MONSTBOUS ACT.
The transfer of Shantung with its 40,000,000 people from the great young
democracy of China to the absolutist Empire of Japan is a monstrous act
indefensible, high-handed, un-American. The attempt to have us guarantee
the territorial integrity of England and Japan is a monstrous and a cowardly
act, an attempt not alone to truckle to the strong but to trample upon and
destroy the rights of the weak. It would make us a party to every act of
tyranny that hereafter was perpetrated throughout the world.
But history shows that even if it were possible for the great Senate of the
United States to be false and recreant to its trust a thing like this could not
be i>erraanently done. It is asking ua to do the impossible. All history
teaches, all experience shows, that nothing Is static in nature, that it is
impossible for one generation to so Impose its will on the world as to pre-
vent a change in the boundaries of countries or In the fortunes of nations.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE HOLY ALLIANCE.
A century ago a " holy alliance " undertook to do the very thing that 18
again being attempted to-day, but not only Is the "holy alliance" referred
to nowadays by words of contempt and contumely, but the very governments
which brought the treaty into existence are themselves but memories.
The old or little men who for the moment from time to time control the
destinies of mankind may think themselves able to stop the progress of man-
kind and impose their wills upon advancing generations. But history shows
that even the few great outstanding figures In the history of the centuries
were not able thus to act for the future. And the last half century, with
its seven great empires thrown Into the discard, shows how fate laughs
at the puny efforts of man to govern the future or control its destinies.
TRBATT OF PEAGB WITH GEBMAKY. 779
The world is Just entering upon a great era of growth and reconstruction,
3'et this Is the time when an old man, an older man and a very old man in whose
hands fate seemed for the moment to have whimsically placed the strings of
the future, chose to abandon the high-sounding battle cries upon which the war
was waged and won, and to make another lU-concelved and badly executed bal-
ance of power under the name of the league of nations.
To do this, Clemenceau has tried to turn the wheels of time backward, tried
to go back to the Europe of Louis XIV, breaking down the great peoples of tlie
<x»ntinent who* outnumber and outbreed the French, and to set up, all over the
CMmtinent, a series of buffer states that would prevent the growth of strong
rivals to France, and leave her in the position of being the dominant military
power of the continent.
England, running true to form, is entirely contented for the moment to have
France resume her old place among the nations, so long as she may see her
economic rivals on the continent broken into bits and reduced to the position of
lmx)otence and poverty.
England herself, true to her predatory instincts, seizes In the name of civiliza-
tion and justice, territories almost continental in area, rich in mineral and other
natural resources, to be added to her already immense empire. She emerges
from the war not only the greatest empire in extent that the world has ever
^nown, with a monopolistic control of articles essential to the comforts and con-
Tenlences of mankind, but, through her unquestioned control of the seas, she
will strive for a practical monopoly of the commerce of the world.
England emerges from the war with but one economic or industrial rival upon
^arth, these United States of America, whose public opinion she flatters herself
that she controls and whose activities she at least has been able to guide so far
as to make us forgive, if we did not forget, our previous experience with her.
ENGLAND SEEKS TO FLATTER AMERICA.
Tossing everything into the scales in the last great contest in which she broke,
at least for generations to come, the continental industrial rivals which were
ousting her from the markets of the world, England has won decisively and
absolutely, as far as empire is concerned, and now looks with complacency upon
the task before her of cajoling and flattering America.
Meanwhile she carries on an economic war against us which will shut us out
from the markets of the world, and which will gradually put us on the defensive
an the fight that England is waging to recover the financial supremacy of the
world, which she fondly believes we have but momentarily taken from her.
One plea that she has made calls attention to her tremendous sacrifices in the
•contest which she keeps reminding us was fought for our safety as well as for
her own interests, and which many of her spokesmen, like Sir Douglas Haig,
now remind us, since she is no longer in danger, was won by her and not by us.
England is shutting out the products of our manufacturers from her terri-
tories and so far as possible is shutting out our commerce in every comer of
the globe and is depending upon her control of the seas to eventually shut us
out from most of the foreign markets and leave us in the position where our
manufacturers must be content to sell their products in so much of our own
markets as Engand may choose to leave to us.
This is in no sense an exaggeration of what she seeks and of what she hopes.
She relies upon the skill of her diplomats to bring this state of affairs about. She
has very largely monopolized rubber, wool, and other essential products of the
world. She is seeking every day, with ever increasing chances of success, to
monopolize the oil fields of the world, while all the time, with sophisticated
•casuistry, she keeps, through a chorus of a thousand voices raised in the press,
the pulpits, and the schools of America, assuring us that she alone in all the
world is our constant friend, that but for her and her chivalrous, unselfish
efforts we would have been overrun by some of the continental powers which
were seeking this very world power which she now possesses to the full.
She would have us believe that she fought unselfishly in the war for the very
purposes for which our President says we entered the war, yet her first act
after the war was won by us to say that the doctrine of the freedom of the seas
-could not be even considered at Paris, and utterly unconsidered it was and still
remains.
She said she favored self-determination for all oppressed peoples and agreed
with the President when he said that no people must live under a government
not chosen by themselves. She must cynically smile to herself when she has
780 TREATY or PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the peace conference practically adjourn after having, with the help of that
self-determination cloak, broken her rivals into pieces without any effort having-
been made to apply that doctrine to Ireland, to Egypt, to India, or to any of
the other countries of which she is in possession with only the title that a
robber has to his prey.
ATTEMPTS TO MAKE OVEB THE MAP OF THE WOBLD IN THE DABK.
She said she favored open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, and yet
the " Holy Alliance " did not attempt to make over the map of the world witit
the same secrecy behind which these three gentlemen hid themselves at Paris.
And so one might go through all of the points and find that English skill had
escaped or English cynicism in arousing mankind to save England, but which
were In the way when an English peace had to be made.
The Englishman has a genius for diplomacy. Not content with being saved
from destruction, not content with unprecedented gains in territory, in
wealth, in prestige throughout the world, he now seeks to undo what he regards
as mistakes of the past and to recover by mental ability that which he lost a
century and a half ago by force of arms. In his self-satisfaction, he takes
no account of the fact that the thirteen colonies, if they had continued as
colonies, could not have begun to save him as the forty-eight States did actually
save him, as he himself must admit.
ENGLAND AIMS TO UNDO THE WORK OF THE BEVOLXmON.
He wishes, now that his peril is for the moment past, to undo the work of
the Revolution, to destroy, the great experiment in government which the
fathers set up upon these shores, and by one stroke set back the hands on the
clock of time for centuries. He wishes to do this in order that the special
form of privileged autocracy which governs England may regain control of
this country, and with its mighty strength and unlimited resources bring
about that Junction of the English-speaking races which his agents like Carnegie
and Rhodes have foretold and for which they have labored for two generations.
He has hoped, because of his easy control of things at Paris, that he would
find that the dead hand of Rhodes had actually won the victory. But he was
astounded to find not alone the Senate of the United States standing like
adamant against the proposed league of nations, but the public sentiment of
the people of America, aroused as never before, not only to defend American
rights, but to do what he complains of as an linsolent thing — to interfere in
" domestic *' problems of English politics.
WASHINGTON STILL THE SEAT OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
He is horrified to find that In spite of huge expenditures, that in spite of the
British propaganda of Northcllffe, Parker, and others of that ilk, America re-
fuses to be made again into a colony, and that Interest in the freedom of the
seas has been aroused In America as never before.
He had been brought to believe during the pressure of the war that American
public opinion was only the echo of English public opinion, and is astounded
now to find that his complete victory at Paris is likely to he turned into com-
plete defeat at Washington, where, in spite of his hopes to the contrary, and to
his utter consternation, he finds the real seat of American government still con-
tinues to be found.
THE REAL STRENGTH OF ENGLAND.
England, while hastening to assure us In a hundred ways that she had no
selfish Interest to serve In asking to have the league of nations made operative
and the integrity of the British Empire guaranteed by the power and re.**ources
of the United States, has unwittingly shown her own weakness. More and more
thoughtful observers throughout the world are able to read in that damand the
real opinion of English statesmen as to their own strength.
As a flash of lightning In a storm enables the observer In a second to see his
way through the darkness, so the request for such guarantee by Lord Cecil has
revealed the real weakness of England, Instead of the apparent strength which
he and his group have been teaching us to observe.
It Is at once made clear that the England which must call on the world to
guarantee its possessions is in a bad way both at home and abroad. It is an
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 781
admission that it can no longer hope to call upon the strength of other countries
In its hour of peril in order to preserve It, as It called the world into arms
against France under Napoleon and against Germany under Wilhelm.
In spite of Its censorship, the rumblings of industrial labor troubles
with miners and transport workers and railway men are being heard in
the land. The uprisings in India and in Egypt, the dissatisfaction in
Australia and in Canada, and, above all, the settled determination upon the
part of the people of Ireland to take at its face value the promises of Wilson,
Olemenceau, Lloyd-George, and Orlando, and to insist upon absolute self-
determination, are matters which are calling the attention of mankind to the
fact that there is and there can be no freedom on earth while this distended
and gigantic appetite called the British Empire continues to threaten and to
prey upon mankind.
AMERICA IS AT THE PABTINO OF THE WATS.
The parting of the ways has come for America. Either we remain true
te our ideals, true to the traditions of the past, still the moral leader of
mankind and the hope of the oppressed people of the earth, or we join with
the privileged class of England and become one of the predatory powers of
the world.
ESither we continue to lead the forces of republicanism, whether they
oppose the central empires of the continent, the Czars of the Russias, or
whether they stand against the Cecils and Balfours of England or the
Mikado of Japan, and bring hope and cheer to the downtrodden people of
Ireland, and we stand for the preservation of American rights or we Join
forces with Lloyd-George, that artful dodger of English politics, in his
efforts to further deceive the people and put off until another generation
the settlement of the question of Ireland. The question of Ireland, it must
be remembered, can only be settled right when Ireland regains her inde-
pendence and takes her place once more among the nations of the earth.
Like everything else human, America can not remain static. America must
either advance or retire. It must continue to lead the forces of democracy
In its onward march to absolute freedom, or it must Join the forces of
autocracy and seek to snatch liberty from the other nations of the world.
AHSUCA IS ASKED TO ENTER INTO AN BNTANOLINO ALLIANCE.
We are asked now to abandon the advice given us by our first, and one of
our greatest, Presidents against entering into entangling alliances with other
powers. Not alone should we refuse to abandon this advice, but we should
more than ever make clear to the world our unfaltering determination to
abide by It and to make it one of the fundamental planks In our foreign
policy. By standing by it in the past we have groiyn great and prosperous,
masters of our own destinies, arbiters of our own fate.
We have been free to enter wars and free to remain at peace, according to
the exigencies of the hour and according to what we conceived to be our own
Interest and the best policy for the protection of the liberties of mankind.
We have been free to govern our actions by the best light and information
which we could obtain upon questions at the hour of action.
Our liberty of action has not been foreclosed by reason of any commitment
made in advance by those who had passed off the stage of action or were no
longer in a position to speak for the majority of the people of our country. In
other words, we have always been in the position of being governed by the living
will of the present, rather than by the dead hand of the past.
Not along every mandate of interest, but the high call of idealism should
counsel us to remain in that position and not commit ourselves to any alliance
which, obeying the passion and meeting the whim of the hour, could commit
those who come after us to labors and sacrifices which they should not be asked
to undertake except at their own free will and upon good cause shown to them
at the hour of sacrifice.
We are asked now to be satisfied with a declaration of the Monroe doctrine,
which according to many thoughtful observers, weakens and Jeopardizes rather
than strengthens that cardinal principle of American diplomacy. In this hour
when a peace conference, called into existence for the purpose of making peace,
did not content Itself with settling the questions at Issue between the belliger-
ents, bat went up and down the world seeking problems it might settle, we
782 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Should extend and strengthen, rather than weaken, the doctrine laid down bx
James Monroe.
We should Insist that the Western Hemisphere be not invaded by any
power from the East; that no old-world possessions held here are to be in-
creased, and we should also insist upon the absolute withdrawal from ttiis
territory of the flag of every empire or monarchy.
THE BRITISH FLAG SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO FOLLOW THE OTHER FLAGS FROM OtTK
SHORES.
What is sacrosanct about the British Empire that it continues to rule vast
sections of the American continent after all other empires have left its shores 7
The flag of Russia, of Spain, of Portugal, of Denmark have been withdrawn
from this hemisphere. Why should we not now insist that the flag of England
should follow the others and leave here In this hemisphere, dedicated for all
time to liberty and republicanism, only the flags of the free?
Why should not our great neighbor on the north, which Cecil undoubtedly
hopes some day to use as a weapon to smite us, should the economic war now^
being waged between the countries ever reach the acute stage of military or
naval warfare, or if there ever should come a conflict between England's ally^
Japan, and ourselves — ^why should not that great country have an opportunity
of taking its place among the republics of the earth, or even, if it chooses,
of Joining our country and thus bridging the gulf which separates us from
our great territory of Alaska.
The ties which bind the people of Canada to us are every day increasing
in number and in strength. The ties of trade which bind us are natural and
are varied in form. The Great Lakes that lie between us are not intended
to separate us, but should, by a thousand ties of commerce, draw us more
closely together. Great numbers of our people come from the same racial
stocks and in the late war, according to reports coming from ever-increasing
sources through our returned soldiers, our own soldiers found a dozen ways
in w^hlch they resembled one another for every day In which either found that
they resembled the British soldiers.
CHAMBERLAIN HAS SAID THAT AN ADJOINING REPUBLIC IS A MENACE.
Thoughtful observers in the United States as well as in Canada realize
that our interests are in the Western rather than in the Ea.stem Hemisphere,
and that the views of an ever-increasing number of Canadians with relation
to the future of Ireland, the future of Shantung, are those of a majority of
the people of America rather than those of the governing body of England*
The people of Canada are essentially a freedom-loving people, aside from
what is pleased to call itself the governing class, which seeks for special'
privileges like the same class in England. Canadians desire liberty for them-
selves and would like to see the blessings of liberty given to every people.
More than that, if there be anything in the repeated declarations of Joseph
Chamberlain in his attempts to justify the rubbing out of the two little re-
publics of South Africa that republican institutions adjoining British territory
were a menace to Britain, the governing class in England can look upon the
continued existence of the American republic only as a menace to England
and we have now the right to ask of her, having saved England, that as an
evidence of her good faith in saying that she is a friend of liberty, that she
withdraw her flag from this continent and leave it to be entirely dedicated
to liberty and freedom.
MAN IS SIGHING FOR PEACE.
The late war aroused mankind to a realization of the fact that without
regard to the boundaries of a country or the lines of race, war is a curse ta
mankind; that It takes not only millions of a generation to death and leaves
other millions subject to sickness and disease as an aftermath, but it imposes
on the future generations a back-breaking burden of taxation which means
countless hardships and privations, while it brings only to the specially priv-
ileged peoples In every country immense fortunes which break down the founda*
tions of liberty and sap the principles on which freedom exists.
Without regard to race or religion, man is sighing for peace. He realises
that war is an abnormal condition, that peace is the normal condition, and
TBEATY OF P£ACE WITH GEBMANT. 783
men are seeking as they have never sought before, to insure a peace that will
prevent and destroy war.
HOPES BASED ON PEACE CONFERENCE VANISH LIKE A DREAM.
Mankind lived in the hope that the peace conference was to be a setting
fop the ending of all wars. Peoples were to be taken from the thraldom of
their aggressors, natural boundaries were to be established between Sutes,
armaments were to be destroyed, cannon were to be made into plowshares,
and the fourteen points of President Wilson were to be made the basis of an
enduring peace.
The peace conference has practically adjournd and all the hopes that were
based upon It are passing Into oblivion like the Illusions of dreams. But the
mass of mankind is more than ever insistent that there must be an end to
human destruction and to the awful butchery and suffering that modem war
spells for humanity. It has been driven into their minds that only by freedom
to the oppressed of all nations can peace come, putting an end to» the rule of
the few and by bringing about government by the many, bringing at once
liberty to man and an end to all war.
There may be for a short time a brief respite for those who remain in power,
though they have deceived the people who have seen promises solemnly made,
lightly broken. But no just or permanent peace can be made until the pur-
poses to which the American people set their hands when they entered the
war have been attained, until autocracy in all its forms has been destroyed,
until not alone the militarism that was breaking the back of Europe but the
navalism which is oppressing and controlling the whole world shall be de-
stroyed and the right of self-determination shall be given, not alone to some,
but to all the peoples of the earth.
A COURT OF NATIONS.
A court of nations will come In its own due time that will embrace all the
people of the earth, that will see to it that all peoples are free, and that will
see to it that the World War will actually bring a permanent peace. Such a
court will exalt justice and will destroy tyranny, but It will be a real court,
open to all peoples, and not an unreal league which is only another name for
an Anglo-American alliance, a Cecll-Smus plan to exalt autocracy and enslave
mankind.
Every red-blooded man favors such a court of nations as he favors the
brotherhood of man and the counsel of perfection, but the more intensely he
favors such an ideal the more he objects to and abhors the hypocrisy which
would steal the Ideal In order to cover a treaty of alliance that would fasten
the robber grip of England on all the world.
THE GUARANTIES OF IRELAND.
Having set forth the claims of Ireland to independence, her demand and her
right to be free; having exposed the hyi)ocrisy of England in her varied at-
tempts to confuse the issue, having torn away the mask behind which England
hoped to securely hide from the gaze of the world, let us see what Ireland offers
to the world as an evidence of her good faith.
The people of Ireland seek for themselves a form of government which would
do Justice to all the people within the four shores of Ireland. They seek to
set up a government representing equality to all, injustice to none. They de-
mand and will Insist upon political equality and religious freedom for all the
people of Ireland.
They insist that the majority must rule, but that the rights of political
equality and religious freedom shall be given to all members of the minority as
well as of the majority.
The people of Ireland believe that the minority is entitled to guaranties,
but not to control. They are ready to embody a guaranty of these rights in
their constitution, as they have been embodied in the Constitution of the United
States.
They are ready to adopt these things which made for success in America and
to avoid those things -which were found to be mistakes or errors.
784 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
CONTRASTS IBELA.ND AND AKEBICA.
As a result of the Revolution in America estates were confiscated and men
were exiled. The people of Ireland, however, are ready to say to the small
group in Ulster who say they can not remain as an Integral part of the Irish
people that they would part with them with regret, but will guarantee to them.
If they choose to sell, the full market value of all property which they own
in Ireland.
The people of Ireland ask every man of whatever blood, or whatever religion,
who is now in Ireland to remain in Ireland on terms which will insure abso-
lute equality for all. They point out that there is no instance In its history
of religious persecution or racial intolerance due to the majority of the people
of Ireland ; that wherever .there has been persecution it has been by the minor-
ity, urged on against the majority by the English Government.
The people of Ireland point out that in every section of the country, in
every generation, Protestants of different sect or religious persuasions have
been put forward as leaders by a majority of the Irish people, called to the
highest elective office within the gift of the majority of the people. They urge
that no fairer way of Judging the future can be found than that furnished
by the experiences of the past
They are willing at all times to accord to others the rights which they insist
upon for themselves. They demand, without further delay, that their present
rights shall be recognized by the world and that international recognition shall
be given to the republican form of government established in Ireland after a
plebiscite held on her shores last December, In the presence of the great Eng-
Ush army of occupation and under conditions which held the machinery of
government at that time in the hands of Great Britain.
All that any friend of Ireland asks of America is that present conditions
in Ireland be studied fairly and dispassionately. In no other part of the
world can there be found a parallel to the manner in which the population of
Ireland has been reduced by the English Government within the past 70 years.
Why should England that cried out with such strength against injustice in
Belgium, be permitted to maintain and continue her rule of might in Ireland?
Even her apologists admit that England's rule in Ireland is based only upon
her bayonets and cannon.
How can England satisfy the conscience of the world with her explanation
that what is wrong in Belgium and in Alsace is right in Ireland? She says
that the people of Ireland should not cry out for liberty because, forsooth, they
are to-day enjoying a larger measure of prosperity than they formerly had.
Why should they not have It? Is it not the result only of their own thrift,
their own industry, their own labors?
The apologists of England say that Ireland did an Immense business with
that country last year — that this is a sufficient answer to Ireland's cry that
she Is badly governed ! How typical was Clive of the English Government of
all times when he said, after he had been accused of robbing India of immense
treasure, that when he saw the wealth of the country he was astonished at his
own moderation ! England's statesmen feel that it Is right to steal Irish sheep
so long as they return a chop to the Irish owner.
The proposition is an insult to the Intelligence and conscience of the world
and in spite of the marvelous system of propaganda which the English diplomat
has built up, he can not prevent the cry of Ireland for freedom from resounding
in all parts of the world and coming back to plague him until It is satisfied
by having Justice done to Ireland.
The English governing class are the Bourbons of modem days. They learn
nothing, forget nothing. Let them beware lest the aroused public opinion of
mankind shall sweep them as It swept their German and Russian cousins Into
oblivion and break Into bits the British Empire, which is the last bulwark of
autocracy against the onrushlng tide of liberty and democracy.
Judge Daniel F. Cohalan, following the conclusion of his oral
argument, by permission of the committee was authorized to have in-
corporated as a part of the testimony presented the following :
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANT. 785
lBfXAND*s Declaration of Independence and Otheb Official Documents,
Including Letters to the President of the Peace Conference and the
General Mbmoranduic Submitted in Support of Ireland's Claim for Rbcoo-
NITION AS A Sovereion Indepf^dent State.
IRELAND'S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE — ^PROCLAIMED BY DAIL ElBEANN, JANUARY
21, 1019.
[Translation.]
Whereas the Irish people is by right a free people ;
And whereas for 700 years the Irish people has never ceased to repudiate and
has repeatedly protested In arms against foreign usurpation ;
And whereas English rule in this country is, and always has been, based upon
force and fraud and maintained by military occupation against the declared
will of the people;
And whereas the Irish republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday,
1916, by the Irish republican army, acting on behalf of the Irish people ;
And whereas the Irish people is resolved to secure and maintain Its complete
independence in order to promote the common weal, to reestablish justice, to
provide for future defense, to Insure peace at home and good will with all
nations, and to constitute a national policy based upon the people's will, with
equal right and equal opportunity for every citizen ;
And whereas at the threshold of a new era In history the Irish electorate
has In the general election of December, 1018, seized the first occasion to declare
by an overwhelming majority its firm allegiance to the Irish republic ;
Now, therefore, we, the elected representatives of the ancient Irish people, In
national parliament assembled, do. In the name of the Irish nation, ratify the
establishment of the Irish republic, and pledge ourselves and our people to make
this declaration effective by every means at our command.
To ordain that the elected representatives of the Irish people alone have
pow^er to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish parlia-
ment is the only parliament to which that people will give its allegiance.
We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our
national right, which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of
our country by the English garrison ;
We claim for our national independence the recognition and support of every
free nation of the world, and we proclaim that independence to be a condition
precedent to international peace hereafter;
In the name of the Irish people we humbly commit our destiny to Almighty
God, who gave our fathers the courage and determination to persevere through
centuries of a ruthless tyranny, and strong In the justice of the cause which
they have handed down to us, we ask His divine blessing on this, the last stage
of the struggle which we have pledged ourselves to carry through to freedom.
IRELAND'S MESSAGE TO THE NATIONS.
[Translation.]
To the nations of the world, greeting:
The nation of Ireland, having proclaimed her national independence, calls,
through her elected representatives In parliament assembled In the Irish capital
on January 21, 1919, upon every free nation to support the Irish republic by
recognizing Ireland's national status and her right to Its vindication by the
peace congress.
Nationally, the race, the language, the customs, and traditions of Ireland are
radically distinct from the English. Ireland is one of the most ancient nations
of Europe, and she has preserved her national integrity vigorous and Intact
through seven centuries of foreign oppression ; she has never relinquished her
national rights, and throughout the long era of English usurpation she has in
every generation defiantly proclaimed her inalienable right of nationhood down
to her last glorious resort to arms in 1916.
Internationally, Ireland is the gateway to the Atlantic. Ireland is the last
outpost of Europe toward the west; Ireland is the point upon which great
trade routes between east and west converge; her independence Is demanded
by the freedom of the seas; her great harbors must be open to all nations.
Instead of being the monopoly of England. To-day these harbors are empty
and idle solely because English policy Is determined to retain Ireland as a
135546—19 ^50
786 TBBATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY.
barren bulwark for English aggrandizement, and the unique geographical posi-
tion of this Island, far from being a benefit and safeguard to Europe and
America, is subjected to the purposes of England's policy of world dominion.
Ireland to-day reasserts her historic nationhood the more confidently before
the new world emerging from the war, because she believes in freedom and
justice as the fundamental principles of international law ; because she belieTes
in a frank cooperation between the peoples for equal rights against the vested
privileges of ancient tyrannies, because the permanent peace of Europe can
never be secured by perpetuating military dominion for the profit of empire,
but only by establishing the control of government in every land upon the
basis of the free will of a free people, and the existing state of war between
Ireland and England can never be ended until Ireland is definitely evacuated
by the armed forces of England.
For these, among other reasons, Ireland — resolutely and irrevocably de-
termined at the dawn of the promised era of self-determination and liberty,
that she will suffer foreign dominion no longer— calls upon every free nation
to uphold her national claim to complete independence as an Irish republic
against the arrogant pretensions of England founded in fraud and sustained
only by an overwhelming military occupation, and demands to be confronted
publicly with England at the congress of nations, that the civilized world
having judged between English wrong and Irish right may guarantee to Ireland
its permanent support for the maintenance of her national independence.
IBELAND'S democratic PBOGBAM — ^PBOCLAIMSD BT DAIL EIBEANN.
[Translation.]
We declare in the words of the Irish Republican Proclamation the right of
the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control
of Irish destinies to be Indefeasible, and in the language of our first president*
Padralc Pearse, we declare that the nation's sovereignty extends not only to
all men and women of the nation, but to all its material possessions; the
nation's soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth-producing
processes within the nation; and with him we reaffirm that all rights to pri-
vate property must be subordinated to the public right and welfare.
We declare that we desire our country to be ruled in accordance with the
principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all, which alone can secure per-
manence of government in the willing adhesion of the people.
We affirm the duty of every man and woman to give allegiance and service
to the commonwealth, and declare it Is the duty of the nation to assure that
every citizen shall have opportunity to spend his or her strength and faculies
In the service of 'the people. In return for willing service, we, in the name of
the republic, declare the right of every citizen to an adequate share of the
produce of the nation's labor.
It shall be the first duty of the government of the republic to make pro-
vision for the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the children, to
secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food or clothing
or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite
for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland.
The Irish republic fully realizes the necessity of abolishing the present
odious, degrading, and foreign poor-law system, substituting therefor a sympa-
thetic native scheme for the care of the nation's aged and infirm, who shall no
longer be regarded as a burden, but rather entitled to the nation's gratitude
and consideration. Likewise it shall be the duty of the republic to take
measures that will safeguard the health of the people and insure the physical
as well as the moral well-being of the nation.
It shall be our duty to promote the development of the nation's resources,
to increase the productivity of the soil, to exploit Its mineral deposis, peat
bogs, and fisheries, its waterways and harbors. In the interest and for the benefit
of the Irish people.
It shall be the duty of the republic to adopt all measures necessary for the
re-creation and Invigoration of our industries, and to insure their being de-
veloped on the most beneficial and progressive cooperative industrial lines.
With the adoption of an extensive Irish consular service, trade with foreign
nations shall be revived on terms of mutual advantage and good will; while
undertaking the organization of the nation's trade. Import and export. It shall
be the duty of the republic to prevent the shipment from Ireland of food
and other necessaries until the wants of the Irish people are fully satisfied
and the future provided for.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANT. 787
It shall devolve upon the national government to seek the cooperation of
the governments of other countries in determining a standard of social and
industrial legislation with a view to a general and lasting Improvement In the
conditions under which the working classes live and labor.
rXTTEB FROlf THE IRISH DELEGATES APPOINTED BT DAIL EIREANN TO PRESENT
IRELAND'S CASE.
Mansion House, Dublin, May 17, 1919,
Monsieur Clei^enceau,
President of the Peace Conference, Paris,
Sir : The treaties now under discussion by the conference of Paris will, pre-
sumably, be signed by the British plenipotentiaries claiming to act on behalf of
Ireland as well as Great Britain.
Therefore we ask you to call the Immediate attention of the peace confer-
ence to the warning which it Is our duty, to communicate, that the people of
Ireland, through all its organic means of declaration, has repudiated and does
now repudiate the claim of the British Government to speak or act on behalf
of Ireland, and consequently no treaty or agreement entered into by the repre-
sentatives of the British Government in virtue of that claim Is or can be bind-
ing on the people of Ireland.
The Irish people will scrupulously observe any treaty obligation to which
they are legitimately committed; but the British delegates can not commit
Ireland. The only signatures by which the Irish nation will be bound are
those of Its own delegates, deliberately chosen.
We request you to notify the peace conference that we, the undersigned, have
been appointed and authorized by the duly elected Government of Ireland to
act on behalf of Ireland in the proceedings of the conference and to enter into
agreements and sign treaties on behalf of Ireland.
Accept, sir, the assurance of our great esteem.
Eamon de Valera,
Abthub Griffith,
George Noble Count Plunkett.
IfTTEB FBOM THE IBISH DELEGATES APPOINTED BT DAIL EIREANN TO PRESENT
IRELAND'S CASE.
Mansion House, Dublin, May 26, 1919,
Monsieur Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference, Paris.
Sib: On May 17 we forwarded to you a note requesting you to warn the
conference that the Irish people will not be bound by the signatures of English
or British delegates to the conference, Inasmuch as these delegates do not
represent Ireland.
We now further request that you will provide an opportunity for the con-
sideration by the conference of Ireland*s claim to be recognized as an Inde-
pendent sovereign state.
We send you herewith a general memorandum on the case and beg to direct
your attention in particular to the following :
(1) That the rule of Ireland by England has been and is now Intolerable;
that it is contrary to all conceptions of lil)erty and Justice, and as such, on the
ground of humanity alone, should be ended by the conference.
(2) That the declared object of the conference is to establish a lasting peace
which is admittedly impossible if the legitimate claims of self-determination
of nations such as Ireland be denied.
(3) That incorporated with the peace treaty under consideration as a cove-
nant establishing a league of nations intended amongst other things to confirm
and perpetuate the political relationships and conditions established by the
treaty. It is clear that it is radically unjust to seek to confirm and perpetuate
what is essentially wrong and that it is indefensible to refuse an examination
of title wlien a confirmation of possession is intended such as that provided
by the draft covenant of the League of Nations.
Ireland definitely denies that England or Britain can show any Just claim
or title to hold or possess Ireland and demands an opportunity for her repre-
sentatives to appear before the conference to refute any such claim.
788 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
We feel that these facts are sufficient basis to merit for our requests the
<!ODsideration which we are sure you, sir, wili give them.
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of our great esteem.
Eamon De Valeka,
Abthub Griffith,
George Noble Count Plunkett.
LETTER EROM THE IRISH DELEGATES APPOINTED BT DAIL ERREANN TO PRESENT
IRELAND'S CASE.
Mansion House, Dublin, May 26, 1919,
To the Chairman,
Council of League of Nations, Paris,
Sir: The Irish people share the view that a lasting peace can only be se-
•cured by a world league of nations pledged, when a clash of interests occurs,
to use methods of conciliation and arbitration instead of those of force. They
Are consequently desirous that their nation should be included as a constituent
member of such a league.
Therefore, we, the delegates of the nation, chosen and duly authorized for
the purpose by the elected National Government of Ireland, desire to intimate
througli you that we are ready to take part in any conversations and discus-
sions which may be necessary in order that the foundations of the league may
be properly laid, and we ask the commission to provide us with an opportunity
for doing so.
Apart from the general grounds of light, the Irish nation has a special and
peculiar interest in the league at present proposed.
In the form in which the covenant Is now drawn up it threatens to confirm
Ireland in the slavery against which she has persistently struggled since the
English first invaded her shores, and to pledge the rest of the civilized world,
which has hitherto done us no wrong, to discountenance in future our Just
endeavors to free ourselves from the regime of implacable and brutal oppression
under which we have suffered so long.
Ireland is a distinct and separate nation with individual inalienable rights^
which any league of nations founded on justice is bound to recognize.
Accept, sir, the assurance of our great esteem.
Eamon De Valera,
Arthur Griffith,
George Noble Count Plunkett.
O'KELLY'S letter no. 1 TO premier CLEMEN CEAU AND ALL THE PEACE CONFERENCE
delegates.
Paris, February 22, 1919.
Sir: As the accredited envoy of the provisional government of the Irish
republic, I have the honor to bring to your notice the claim of my government.
In the name of the Irish nation, for die international recognition of tiie Inde-
pendence of Ireland, and for the admission of Ireland as a constituent member of
the league of nations.
The Irish people seized the opportunity of the general election of December,
1918, to declare unmistakably its national will ; only in 26 (out of 105) constitu-
encies of the country was England able to find enough "loyalists" to return
members favorable to the union between Ireland and Great Britain ; for the re-
maining 79 seats the electors chose as members men who believed in self-deter-
mination; of tliese, 73 who now represent an immense majority of the people
went forward as republican candidates, and each of these republican members
has pledged himself to assert by every means in his power the right of Ireland
to the complete independence which she demands, under a national republican
government, free from all English interferences
On the 21st of January, 1919, those of the republican members whom England
had not yet cast into her prisons met in the Irish capital in a national assembly,
to which, as the only Irish parliament de jure, they had summoned all Irish
members of parliament; on the same day the national assembly unanimously
voted the declaration of independence appended hereto and unanimously issued
the message to the free nations, likewise appended.
J
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 78^
The national assembly has also caused a detailed statement of the case of '
Ireland to be drawn up ; that statement will demonstrate that the right of Ire-
land to be considered a nation admits of no denial, and, moreover, that that
right is inferior in no respect to that of the new States constituted in Europe •
and recognized since the war; three members, Eamon de Valera, Mr. Arthur
GrlfHth, and Count Plunkett, have been delegated by the national assembly to
present the statement to the peace congress and to the league of nations com-
mission in the name of the Irish people.
Accordingly, I have the honor, sir, to beg you to be good enough to fix a date
to receive the delegates above named, who are anxious for the earliest possible
opportunity to establish formally and definitely before the peace conference
and the league of nations commission now assembled in Paris Ireland's indisput-
able right to international recognition for her independence and the propriety of
her claim to enter the league of nations as one of its constituent members.
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Sean T. O'Kellt.
Delegate of the ProvisUmal Government of the Irish Republic,
0*KELLY'8 LEriER — NO. 2.
Paris, March SI, 1919^
To Premier Clemenceau and all the peace conference delcffates.
Sib: On behalf of the Irish nation, whose accredited representative I am, I
beg to draw your attention, and through you the attention of the peace con-
ference, to the following statement with regard to Ireland :
Ireland is a nation which has exercised the right of self-determination in
harmony with the principles formulated by President Wilson and accepted by
the belligerents as the only sure foundation for a world peace. It is not only
in the past that Ireland, generation after generation, has striven by force of
arms as well as by all pacific means to regain her national freedom. At the
general election last December the issue, and the only issue, placed before the
Irish people was the independence of their country, and by a majority of more
than three to one the representatives elected by the constitutional machinery
of the ballot box are pledged to the abolition of English rule in Ireland. In
none of the small nationalities with which the peace conference has hitherto
occupied Itself is the unanimity of the people so great; in none has the
national desire for freedom been so great ; in none has the desire for freedom
been asserted so unmistakably and with so much emphasis. Following upon
the general election, an Irish National Assembly has met; an Irish Republic
has been constituted and proclaimed to the world; a President has been ap-
pointed, and with him ministers to direct different departments of state; a
program of domestic policy has been issued ; and an appeal has been addressed
to the nations of the world to recognize the free Irish State that has thus
been recalled to life. But while the national will has been declared and the
mechanism of free government is ready, the former is being stifled and the
latter paralyzed by England's ruthless exercise of military power. The Presi-
dent is a fugitive; the Irish Parliament is forced to conduct its business in
secret ; the most elementary civil rights are abrogated ; the courts-martial are
sitting at every center; and the gaols are filled with prisoners, victims of
every brutality and indignity, whose only oftense is that they have sought the
freedom of their native land. It Is in these circumstances that the Irish
nation, through me, addresses the peace conference.
Ireland manifestly comes within the scope of the principles that have been
indorsed by the civilized nations, and it is for the application of these princi-
ples that the peace conference is now sitting. Ireland is weak; England is
strong. Ireland in every possible way has asserted her right to freedom, which
England, by sheer militarism, is intent now. as always in the past, to destroy.
It is only by the exercise of tyrannical power that Ireland's right to freedom
can be denied. It is to the great principle of national freedom, represented and
embodied in the peace conference, that Ireland, exhausted by the cruelties of
English rule, her population annihilated by one-half within living memory, her
industries destroyed, her natural resources wasted, her civil liberties en(^»
her chosen leaders proscribed and treated as felons, now makes her appeal.
790 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Article 10 of the draft covenant of the league of nations Is framed to secure
national Independence against the aggression of an external i>ower. Its terms
are as follows :
"The high contracting powers undertake to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial Integrity and existing political Independence
of all States members of the league. In case of any eggresslon or In case of
any threat or danger of such aggression the executive council shall advise upon
the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
Ireland, as a nation that has declared its Independence and Is pledged to the
principles of freedom. Justice, and peace, desires to subscribe to the covenant of
the league and to claim as against England the protection of article 10. I
submit to the conference with profound respect that Ireland's claim is clear
and can not w^lth any shadow of Justice be refused. Should it be rejected, the
consequences would be as follows:
1. Ireland henceforth must rely for her deliverance wholly upon her own
efforts. No such rule has been laid down with regard to any other of the
smaller nationalities whose emancipation has been made the care of the con-
ference.
2. Nations which never have denied the right of Ireland to freedom will
deprive themselves for the future of the power of countenancing her claim*
and will in consequence be bound, for the first time in history, to leave her
unaided to her own resources as Indicated In the preceding paragraph.
3. Article 10 will imiK)se upon all nations as a condition of membership of the
league the obligation to guarantee to Great Britain a title to the possession of
Ireland and dominion over the Irish people.
Against the imposition of such slavery upon Ireland, and especially against
the giving of such a guaranty of title to Great Britain, I enter on behalf of the
people of Ireland, in whose name I have the honor to speak, the most emphatic
protest
Great Britain's title to Ireland rests solely upon "the military power of a
nation to determine the fortunes of a people over whom they have no right to
rule except the right of force."
The combined guaranty of such a title against the declared protest of Ireland
would constitute a definite denial of " the principle of Justice to all peoples and
nationalities and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one
another, whether strong or weak," and without the acceptance of that principle
*• no part of the structure of International Justice can stand."
The guaranty of such a title would be subversive of " the reign of law based
upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of
mankind."
The guaranty of such a title would constitute recognition of the right of a
strong power to serve its own material interest and advantage through the exer-
cise of its " exterior Influence and mastery."
The guaranty of such a title would give Great Britain a warrant to make a
nation weaker than herself " subject to her purposes and Interests." It would
confirm the claim of Great Britain to rule and dominate the people of Ireland
'* even in her own internal affairs by arbitrary and irresponsible force.**
Any guaranty under article 10 of territorial integrity and political Independ-
ence as affecting Ireland can rightly enure only to the benefit of the people of
Ireland themselves.
In the name, therefore, of the people of Ireland I ask that the Irish nation
may be Invited to give their adhesion to the covenant of the league of nations,
and that membership of the league — ^a membership available under article 7,
even to colonies who have freely and legislatively subscribed to the supremacy
of the English Imperial Parliament — shall not be denied to the government
of a free. Independent Irish republic.
I have the honor to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Sean T. O'Keixt,
Delegate of the Provisional Government of the Irish Republic,
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IRELAND'S CLAIM TOR RECOGNITION AS A SOVEREIGN
INDEPENDENT STATE.
Ireland is a nation not merely for the reason, which in the case of other
countries has been taken as sufficient, that she has claimed at all times and still
claims to be a nation but also because, even though no claim were put forward
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 791
on her behalf, history shows her to be a distinct nation from remotely ancient
times.
For over a thousand years Ireland possessed and duly exercised sovereign
independence and was recognized through Europe as a distinct sovereign state.
The usurpation of the foreigner has always been disputed and resisted by the
mass of the Irish people.
At various times since the coming of the English the Irish nation has exer-
cised its sovereign rights as opportunity offered.
The hope of recovering its full and permanent sovereignty has always been
alive in the breasts of the Irish people, and has been the inspiration and the
mainspring of their political activities abroad as well as at home.
English statecraft has long and persistently striven in vain to force the Irish
people to abandon hope. The English policy of repression, spiritual and mate-
rial, has ever been active from the first intrusion of English power until the
present day.
English policy has always aimed at keeping every new accretion of population
from without separate from the rest of the nation, and a cause of distraction
and weakness in its midst
Nevertheless, the Irsh nation has remained one, with a vigorous conscious-
ness of its nationality, and has always succeeded sooner or later in assimilating
to its unity every new element of the population.
The Irish nation has never been intolerent toward its minorities and has
never harbored the spirit of persecution. Such barbarities as punishment by
torture, witch burning, capital punishment for minor offenses, etc., so fre-
quent in the Judicial systems of other countries, found no recognition in Irii^
law or custom. Twice in the seventeenth century — ^in 1642-1648 and in 16S&—
when, after periods of terrible persecution- and deprivation of lands and liberty,
the Irish people recovered for a time a dominant political power, they worked
out in laws and treaties a policy of full religious equality for all dwellers in the
island. On each occasion this policy of tolerance was reversed by the English
power, which, on recovering its mastery, subjected the Irish race to further
large confiscations of property, restrictions of liberty, and religious persecu-
tions. More recently, notwithstanding the English policy of maintaining as
complete a severence as possible, when Irish Protestants became attracted to
the support of the national cause, the Catholics of Ireland accorded political
leadership to a succession of Protestant l^ders.
The Irish have long been a thoroughly democratic people. Through their
chosen leaders, from 0*Gonnell to Pamell, they have provided the world with
a model of democratic organization in opposition to the domination of privileged
classes.
If Ireland, on the grounds of national right and proved ability to maintain
just government, is entitled to recover her sovereign independence — and that
is her demand — the recognition of her right is due from other nations for the
following reasons:
(1) Because England's claitn to withhold independence from Ireland is based
on a principle which is a negation of national liberty and subversive of inter-
national peace and order. England resists Ireland's demand on the ground
that the independence of Ireland would be, as alleged, incompatible with the
security of England or of Great Britain or of the British Empire. Whether
this contention is well or ill founded, if it is admitted, then any State Is justified
in suppressing the independence of any nation whose liberty that State declares
to be incompatible with its own security. An endless prospect of future wars is
the natural consequence.
(2) Because England's government of Ireland has been at all times and
is conspicuously at the present time an outrage on the conscience of mankind.
Such a government, especially in its modern quasi-democratic form, is
essentially vicious. Its character at the best is sufficiently described by a
noted English writer, John Stuart Mill (Representative Government (1861)
chapter 18) : "The Government by itself has a meaning and a reality, but such
a thing as government of one people by another does not and can not exist.
One people may keep another as a warren or preserve for Its own use, a place
to make money In, a human cattle farm, to be worked for the profit of Its
own inhabitants. But if the good of the governed is the proper business of a
government it is utterly impossible that a people should directly attend to it."
Consequently the people of England devolve the power which they hold over
Ireland upon a succession of satraps, military and civil, who are quite irre-
sponsible and independent of any popular control, English or Irish, and repre-
792 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
sent no interest of the Irish people. Recent events show that the essential
vices of the government are as active now as in former times.
(8) Because the English temper toward the cause of Irish national liberty
produces atrocious and intolerable results in Ireland. Among the results are
a depopulation unexampled in any other country however badly governed;
wholesale destruction of industries and commerce ; overtaxation on an enormous
scale ; diversion of rents, savings, and surplus incomes from Ireland to England ;
opposition to the utilization by the Irish people of the economic resources of
their country, and to economic development. and social improvement; exploita-
tion of Ireland for the benefit of English capitalists; fomentation of religious
animosities; repression of the national cuiture; maintenance of a monstrous
system of police rule, by which, in the words of an English minister, all
Ireland Is kept "under the microscope"; perversion of justice by making
political service and political subservience almost the sole qualification for
Judicial positions ; by an elaborate corruption of the Jury system by the organi-
zation of police espionage and perjury, and the encouragement of agents provo-
cateurs, and recently and at present by using for the purpose of political
oppression In Ireland the exceptional powers created for the purposes of the
European war. Under these powers military government is established, some
areas being treated as hostile territory occupied in ordinary warfare; a war
censorship is maintained over the press and over publications generally;
printing offices are invaded and dismantled; the police and military are em-
powered to confiscate the property of vendors of literature without any legal
process; persons are imprisoned without trial and deported from Ireland; Irish
regiments in the English army are removed from Ireland, and a large military
force, larger than at any previous time, with full equipment for modem war-
fare, has been maintained in Ireland*; civilians are daily arrested and tried
by courts-martial and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
What are England's objections to Ireland's independence?
The one objection in which English statesmen are sincere is that which has
been already mentioned — that the domination of Ireland by England Is neces-
sary for the security of England. Ireland, according to the Ehiglish Navy
Iieague. is "the Heligoland of the Atlantic," a naval outpost, to be governed
for the sole benefit of Its foreign masters. This claim, if it is valid, justifies
not only the suppression of national liberty, but also the weakening of Ireland
by depopulation, repi^ssion ot industry and commerce and culture, mainte-
nance of Internal discord, etc. It can also be held to justify the subjugation of
any small nation by a neighboring great power.
The proximity of Ireland to England furnishes another plea. But Ireland
is not as near to England as Belgium, Holland, Denmark, etc., are to Germany,
Norway to Sweden, Portugal to Spain. In fact, it is this very proximity that
makes independence necessary for Ireland as the only condition of security
against the sacrifice of Irish rights to English interests.
A further plea is that England, being a maritime power, her safety depend-
ing on her navy and her prosperity depending bn maritime conunerce, the
domination of Ireland is for her a practical necessity — a plea Involving that
Ireland's natural harbors, the best in Europe, must be kept empty of mercan-
tile shipping, except for such shipping as carries on the restricted trade be-
tween Great Britain and Ireland.
Ireland can not admit that the interests of one country, be they what they
may, can be allowed to annul the natural rights of another counry. If England's
plea be admitted, then there is an end to national rights, and all the world must
prepare to submit to armed interests or to make war against them.
We may expect also to find the plea insinuated, in some specious form if not
definitely and clearly made, that the English rule in Ireland haa been and is
favorable to the peace, progress, and civilization of Ireland. We answer that,
on the contrary, English rule has never been for the benefit of Ireland and has
never been intended for the benefit of Ireland; that it has isolated Ireland
from Europe, prevented her development, and done everything in its power to
deprive her of a national civilization. So far as Ireland at present is lacking
in internal peace, is behind other countries in education and material progress,
is unable to contribute notably to the common civilization of mankind, these
defects are the visible consequences of English Intrusion and domination.
The Irish people have never believed in the sincerity of the public declarations
of English statesmen in regard to their " war aims," except in so far as those
declarations avowed England's part in the war to have been undertaken for
England's particular and imperial interests. They have never believed that
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 793.
I
•
IjQgland went to war for the sake of France or Belgium or Serbia, or for tbe
protection or liberation of small nationalists, or to make right prevail against
armed might. If English statesmen wish to be regarded as sincere they can
prove it to the world by adandoning, not in words but in act, the claim to
subordinate Ireland's liberty to England's security.
Ireland's complete liberation must follow upon the application of President
Wilson's principles. It has not resulted from the verbal acceptance of those
principles ; and their rejection is implied In the refusal to recognize for Ireland
the right of self-determination. Among the principles declared by the Presi-
dent, before and since America entered the war, accepted by the American
people and adopted by the spokesmen of the chief allied powers, we cite the
following :
"No peace can rest securely on political or economic restrictions, meant
to benefit some nations and cripple or embarrass others." " Peace should
rest upon the rights of peoples, not on the rights of governments — the rights
of peoples, great and small, weak or powerful; their equal right to freedom
and security and self-government, and to participation, upon fair terms,
In the economic opportunities of the world.'* " What we demand in this war
is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It Is that the world be made fit and safe
cO live In, and particular that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation,
which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institu-
tions, be assured of Justice and fair dealing by other peoples of the world,
as against force and selfish aggression." "An evident principle runs through
the whole of the program I have outlined. It is the principle of Justice to
all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty
and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak. Unless this
principle be made the foundation, no part of the structure of international
justice can stand."
Speaking on behalf of the American people at New York on the 27th of
September, 1918, President Wilson said :
" We accepted the issues of the war as facts, not as any group of men
either here or elsewhere had defined them, and we can accept no outcome
which does not squarely meet and settle them. These issues are these:
' Shall the military power of any nation or group of nations be suffered to
determine the fortunes of peoples over whom they have no right to rule,
except the right of force? ' * Shall strong nations be free to wrong weak
nations and make them subject to their purpose and interest? * ' Shall peoples
be ruled and dominated, even in their own internal affairs, by arbitrary
and irresponsible force, or by their own will and choice? ' ' Shall there
be a common standard of right and privilege for all peoples and nations,
or shall the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer without redress?'
' Shall the assertion of right be haphazard and by casual alliance, or shall
there be a common concert to oblige the observance of common rights?*
No man, no group of men, chose these to be the issues of the struggle. They
are the issues of it, and they must be settled — ^by no arrangement or compromise
or adjustment of interests, but definitely and once for all, and with a full
and unequivocal acceptance of the principle that the interest of the weakest
is as safe as the interest of the strongest. • ♦ ♦ The Impartial Justice
meted out must involve no discrimination between those to whom we wish
to be Just and those to whom we do not wish to be Just. It must be a Justice
that plays no favorites and knows no standards but the equal rights of the
several peoples concerned."
If England objects to the application of those principles to the settlement of
the ancient quarrel between herself and Ireland, she thereby testifies: (1) That
her international policy is entirely based on her own selfish interest, not on the
recognition of rights in others, notwithstanding any professions to the contrary.
(2) That in her future dealings with other nations she may be expected, when the
opportunity arises, to use her power in order to make her own interest prevail
over their rights. (3) That her particular object in keeping possession of Ire-
land Is to secure naval and mercantile domination over the seas, and in particu-
lar over the North Atlantic and the nations which have legitimate maritime
interests therein ; ruling Ireland at the same time on a plan of thoroughgoing ex-
ploitation for her own sole profit, to the great material detriment of Ireland,
and preventing the establishment of beneficial Intercourse, through commerce
and otherwise, between Ireland and other countries.
It is evident that, while Ireland is denied the right to choose freely and es-
tablish that form of government which the Irish people desire, no international
794 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
•
order can be founded on the basis of national right and international justice ; the
claim of the stronger to dominate the weaker will once more be successfully
asserted; and there will be no true peace.
It must be recognized that Ireland has already clearly demonstrated her will.
At the recent general election, out of 105 constituencies 73 returned republican
candidates, and 6 returned representatives who, though not republicans, will
not oppose the free exercise of self-determination by the Irish people. Nor is
there the slightest likelihood that this right will at any time be relinquished.
The Irish people are thoroughly capable of taking Immediate charge of their
national and international affairs, not less capable than any of the new States
which have been recognized since the beginning of the war, or which are about
to be recognized ; and by a procedure not less valid than has been held good for
other restored or newly established States, they have already formally consti-
tute<l a national government.
The effect on the world of the restoration of Ireland to the society of free
nations can not fail to be beneficial. On the part of the nations in general, this
fact will be a guarantee of the new international order and a reassurance to all
the smaller nations. On the part of England, if justice to Ireland be not
" denied or sold or delayed." the fact will be an earnest to other peoples, espe-
cially to those whose commerce is borne upon the Atlantic Ocean, that Eng-
land's naval power is not hostile to the rights and legitimate interests of other
countries.
Ireland's voice in the councils of the nations will be wholly in favor of i)eace
and justice. Ireland covets no possessions and makes no territorial claims
outside of her own well-defined geographical bounds. Her liberty can not
infringe on that of any other people. She will not make any war or aggression
or favor any. In remembrance of her unexampled progress and prosperity
during a brief period of legislative but not executive independence (1782-1798),
she looks forward confidently to the time when she will again be free to
contribute to the prosperity of all countries In commercial relation with her.
The longest agony suffered by any people In history will be ended, the oldest
standing enmity between two peoples will be removed. England will be
relieved of the disgrace she bears in the eyes of all peoples, a disgrace not less
evident to the remote Armenian than to her nearest continental neighbors.
In proportion as England gives earnest of disinterestedness and good will,
in like proportion shall Ireland show her readiness to join in with England
in allowing the past to pass into history. The international ambition of
Ireland will be to re-create in some new way that i)eriod of her ancient Inde-
pendence of which she is proudest, when she gave freely of her greatest treas-
ures to every nation within her reach, and entertained no thought of recompense
or of selfish advantage.
Judge CoHALAN. Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure of presenting
to the committee Hon Frank T. Walsh, who went over to the other
side as the chairman of the American mission on Irish independ-
ence. He appeared before the Paris peace conference with his col-
leagues, Mr. Ryan, of Philadelphia, and Gov. Dunn, of Illinois, for
the purpose of demanding the appearance there of the chosen repre-
sentatives of Ireland, President De Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count
Plunkett. The committee may remember that he was with President
Taft, the former joint chairman of the War Labor Board. I have
great pleasure in presenting to you Hon. Frank P. Walsh.
STATEMENT OF HON. FEANE F. WALSH.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, to
my mind the issue that is before the Senate and to which I have
the privilege of addressing myself this morning, transcends in im-
portance any issue that has ever been presented to us in our history
of nationhood. I do not except from that the great issues that
brought on the conflict between our own people, the question of
nullification, the question of black slavery, and the question of the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 795
right of secession, because I see in what is going on here a situation
of menace to us as a Nation — ^not as a power, but integral as a
Nation — ^such as we have never been confronted with before.
It was conceivable to the minds of the men who wrote our Con-
stitution that a situation might arise whereby a dictatorship might
be asserted in this country by soipe person who had secured the
favor of the people through the processes laid down in the Constitu-
tion of the United States. It was conceivable to them that men
might be weakened by flattery, that they might be carried away by
power and that, perhaps, especially in dealing with other nations of
different beliefs and different concepts, they might wander away
from the principles laid down in the Constitution of the United
States. And so I am profoundly thankful, and I say that on behalf
of those whom I represent, that this Senate Committee has given us
a hearing to-day. I am distressed to observe that there is not a
fuller attendance of Senators, and yet I feel that I should go on
with what I have to say notwithstanding, in the hope that as my
mind was brought to where I am to-day, perhaps the minds of
some of my fellow Democrats mav be so brought, and that we may
be preserved from the calamity which I believe is about to overtake
us, if it be not checked by the Senate. Our forefathers, with that
in mind, provided specifically against one-man power in the dealing
with other nations. They provided that the President of the United
States had authority to make treaties only with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, and then only when two-thirds of those present
concurred in the treaty. It is our hold, our democratic hold, on the
Constitution of the United States that I believe is going to save
US and save more than one-half of the world from being plunged
into wars such as have not been comparable in our history before,
and which will occur under any such proposition. We have now more
than one-half of the world in open rebellion against the other half
asserting repressive power, among which would be under the present
league of nations the Congress of the United States. So the people
of the world have been looking to this constitution, understanding
its strength and elasticity, and looking to the Senate to save them
from what they think will be the most calamitous event in the history
of the world.
Might I, without being thought to put a personal angle on what
I have to say, describe as briefly as I may how I am brought to
this conclusion, which I urge upon you. Although I am but one
humble citizen of this country, in appearing before you gentlemen
to plead the cause I do, I do so with a feelmg of solemnity which
I have never before felt in any presence in my life. Perhaps what
I say about myself may in a small way reflect an angle on the public
mind, and it might give your committee perhaps some sort of idea
if I can make myself plain, of what goes to make up the composite
mind. Prior to our entry into this war I might have been described
as a pacifist. I know that this finally in its last analysis will not
be a political question. I know that when this matter is settled it
is going to be settled by honorable men from motives of the loftiest
patriotism. Our reactions may first be excused, primarily and initi-
ally, for running along party lines, because we are a party gov-
ernment, but in great questions, we stand together. That is evi-
denced by the support that the gentlemen in whose presence I have
796 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the honor to speak gave the President of the United States, a mem-
ber of my party, during the dark days when he needed support in
the bitter conflict which cost us so many precious lives and billions
of dollars of our treasure. I say this because I have always been a
Democrat, and I like to call myself an independent Democrat, and
I have supported every Democratic President since I reached my
majority, trior to our entry into this war I was a believer in peace
to the point of being called a pacifist.
I believe I did thmk that I was a pacifist, but when brought face
to face with these questions I found, as we all found, that there
are so many things that we would fight for, there are so many things
that if physically brave enough we would die for, that the pacifist
so-called in this country was a negligible quantity. But I did have
that point of view to an extent that I was led to make somethinpr
like t8 speeches on the theme which the President of the United
States gave to us, that he kept us out of war, and I want to say to
you that throughout this land there was a great response to that
thought. On account of certain connections I nave had in an official
way — I suppose for that reason — I was sent through the great
Hockinff Valley of Ohio and Pennsylvania, the coal valley, and
practically with unanimity the people in that section responded to
the thought that we were traditionally opposed to war, that we were
historically opposed to entangling ourselves with any European em-
broilment ana entanglements. But our country saw fit through the
regular processes to declare war, and I say that I speak the com-
posite mind of the people who despise war in this country when I
say that they sprang to the support of the Government because under
the written Constitution laid down by our forefathers they agreed
in honor to do so. They knew, the intelligent ones of them, that
when war was declared by this country the President of the United
States became the most powerful potentate upon the face of the
earth. They knew or thought they knew that ne needed less legis-
lation in the freest country in the world to perform what was at
his hand, namely, to provide the means and opportunity for winning
this war, than did any man on the face of the earth, including the
late Emperor of Germany; and we did it purposely, gentlemen of
the committee — ^I believe our forefathers did — ^because it was thought
at that time that a democracy, a government founded upon Repub-
lican principles, could not stand against an autocracy where one
man had autocratic power, so it was provided, and wisely provided,
that along the paths of peace we should proceed as a democracy^
but that when war was declared we wanted all of the power, all
of the drive, all of the concentration that the most powerful po-
tentate on the face of the earth might have at that time.
So that we went into it without (question. I believe that nothing
that was done by any man in this war was a sacrifice. I stooa
among the 2500 graves of those American citizens at the edge of
Belleau Wood, with practically every name on eveiy cross showing
the boy or the man was of Irish or German origin, because there
were many German names on those crosses, andl knew that even
they, fighting in this spirit as they did, would not say, if their voice-
less lips could speak, that they had made any sacrmce. They did
it willingly, cheerfully, for the confederation of human beings that
got together more than 160 years ago to declare that this was one
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 797
Oovemment that would never foster tyranny ; that it was one Gov-
•ernment that would always remain the refuge of the principles of
right, and that when it was threatened or that when its representa-
tives thought it was threatened, their answer could be but one thing,
to give up all they had, even life, for this Government.
I had the privilege to serve my Government for about a year, or
over a year, m a capacity that brought me quite in touch with what
might be called the masses of the people of this country. Consider-
ing industrial disputes involving something over 3,000,000 people, I
saw that that same spirit existed among wie working people, what
we are pleased to call the masses, the common people of this country,
and that that same intelligent thought, even though perhaps they
could not define a section of the Constitution, actuated them, that
same spirit and genius, so that they were just like the soldier who
w^ent abroad. Therefore, when we threw the weight of our great
resources and our man power into the conflict, we obtained the re-
sults we did. I used the woTds "man power" as I do, although 1
despise the words, because I know that man power is talked about
by the Governments of Europe as meaning only the skull and the
brains of such as my boj^ who sits yonder. It means the disem-
boweling of the human beings; it means throwing men and women
to their death by the words usually of one or two men. But that
was the name they gave to it, and so I use it. We threw into the
conflict the man power of this country and the matchless resources
that won this war. I say that, gentlemen of the committee, not
because strategically our soldiers made a fight that kept the enemy
from Paris, not because with a dash that act least was as great as
that of the most seasoned soldiers, they won a battle at certain points
and turned the tide. I do not mean that, but I mean that when
we threw in our mighty resources that war was won. We have
enough gained to pay off the war in one year's productivity. We
have enough now, according to Government figures, to pay the whole
cost of the war in the increased value of our productivity since 1914 ;
so Uiat if a country marches on its stomach and wins by the last
pound of wheat or the last pound of meat, when we went in, we
won this war.
In addition to being opposed to war — and I want to say that my
opposition was stren^hened by walking through those devastated
fields in France — I want to add one other thought. No man could
see the bleaching bones of his own kindred, no man could look at
those rough brogans still with the flesh and blood in them of the liv-
ing men who walked in them a few months ago, and not despise war
with all his heart. I was a believer likewise in a league of nations.
I profoundly believed in a league of nations. I took my concep-
tion of a league of nations from what our great President has said,
and I want to say at this moment again, according him very great
respect for his great ability and for the work that he has done for
this country up until this time, that the best friend that he has in
the United States is the man who will stand up and preserve him
from the wreck of the great mistake that he seems about to make
after coming from Paris.
I followed his concept, and I was and am in favor of that
much-talked-of thing, a league of nations, a league of nations that
will let every nation upon the earth take part in it, to begin with
798 TREATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
national disarmament, the absolute freedom of the seas, and the
much-talked-of open covenants openly arrived at, and the abolition
of secret treaties. It was not an ideal thing. I say that it was the
whole basis of any league of nations that would prove effective* It
was the parting of the ways between secret diplomacy, and open
covenants that a free people could understand and act upon intel-
ligently, as I know you are trying to act upon this question to-day.
I believed that such a league of nations was possible, and I so
abhorred war that I ^ve what strength I had to the formation
of such a league. Having been a humble member of the Lea^e to
Enforce Peace, after the armistice was signed I accepted a position
upon the executive committee of that b^y, and took part in the
nation-wide tour for a league of nations.
Senator Borah. Did you travel with Mr. Taft for a while?
Mr. Wai^h. I did. I traveled as far as Chicago with him.
From there I went to St. Louis and he went in anomer direction,
and I will sav that I was in accord with Mr. Taft and Dr. Lowell
and others who spoke with him upon this general proposition, and
I believe at heart if I understand them I am in accord with them
to-day; and perhaps if I can get to it as I hurry through I may
show the point of departure, and hope that the rest of them will
depart at the same point. [Applause.Y
It was thrown in my way to go to JParis. I might say here, al-
though it is nothing to be proud of or to be aslutmed of, that I
have not given as much attention to the so-called Irish question
that formerly existed as some of these gentlemen have who appear
with me here to-day. I was not a memoer of any society that had
for its object help to Ireland, but I was called into tnis by the
gentlemen who organized the Irish race convention. My ancestry
was Irish, every bit of it This appeals to me as an American
proposition. It occurred to me that if the case of Ireland so
splendidly described by the President of the United States could
be given to the world, if it could be understood that that was what
we fought for, the greatest advance oould be made by our country,
and the greatest evidence could be given of our entire eood faith
in this enormous and awesome enterprise upon which we had
entered, so that I went in as the representative and as the chairman
of the committee of the American Commission on Irish Independ-
ence from the Irish race convention. We have here, gentlemen of
the committee, and have given vou a copy of, all the correspondence
that we had with all persons while in Paris. ^ We have given you a
splendid copy of the report on conditions in Ireland. We have
addressed a letter to your honorable chairman, a copy of which
is on the first pa^ of the brown-covered pamphlet m which we
have embodied this correspondence. In addition to that we had
interviews with every member of the American Commisfflon to
Negotiate Peace. Some of them we believe to be very significant,
and we wanted to give the full teiEt of those interviews in an
executive session of this committee, because I believed there were
matters in it that ought not to be made public, that would be
embarrassing to some gentlemen if they were made public, but we
will offer them to an executive meeting of this committee or to
the Senate of the United States, if called upon.
F.-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 799
Senator Moses. Mr. Chairman, I move that these communications
be received and printed as a confidential committee document.
The Chairman. If there be no objection it will be so ordered.
Mr. W^^^^' ^® y^ere sent to Paris and we went there wit^ the
commission of these 5,182 men and women, with this idea.
Senator Johnson of California. Just a moment, Mr. Walsh.
The Chairman. The Senator from California.
Senator Johnson of California. I want to suggest to you, Mr.
Chairman, that the hearings of this committee have all been open.
We have endeavored to make a departure from the rules that have
prevailed heretofore, and to act in the open; to observe one of the
14 points, that of open covenants of peace openly arrived at.
I think these communications, if printed, ought to be open to the
public as well as to the United States Senate. (Applause.) I want
to amend the motion made by the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. Moses) or to substitute for it the motion that the communi-
cations be received, be accepted, and be printed as a part of our
record of the proceedings.
Senator Moses. I accept that substitute, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The question is on the substitute.
Senator Borah. What are these communications?
Mr. Walsh. The communications are the interviews which we had
with the members of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
including the President.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, this commission waited upon the
President of the United States and there declined to receive from
him any confidential information which they could not impart to
the people of the United States. If the committee could riot con-
scientiously receive information of that character from the Presi-
dent of the United States — ^and I was one who would not have at-
tended the conference had it not been open, I must decline — and I
had intended to so state later — ^to keep anything confidential from
the people of the United States which it is their business to know.
Senator Swanson. Mr. Chairman, I submit that this matter ought
to come later, because it was understood that we would have nothmg
but hearing this morning. ^
Senator Fall. This is a part of the hearingj Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The question is on the motion for the printing
of these documents.
Senator. Fall. That will leave them at liberty to present them
under those conditions, if they desire to do so.
The Chairman. If they are submitted, I think they ought to be
published as a part of the record.
Senator Fall. I simply wanted to serve notice that I would not
regard the information as confidential if it was submitted.
Senator Knox. Put the question.
The Chairman. The question is, shall these documents referred
to by Mr. Walsh be printed as a part of the record, as submitted
by him.
(The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.)
(Other documents referred to are here printed in full, as follows:)
800 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERBfANY.
GORBKBPONDBNCE IN CaBB OF IRELAND'S ClAIM FOB INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN
American (Commission on Irish Independence — ^American Commission^ to
Negotiate Peace and Representatives of Other Governments.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Office of Chairman,
2142 Wooltcorth Building, August 26, 1919.
Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge,
Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United states Senate,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir : We beg to liand you herewith, for consideration of your honorable
committee, copies of all corrspondence between the American Commision on
Irish Independence, the American Commission to negotiate Peace, and the rep-
resentatives of other Governments, at Paris, betw^een the dates of April 16, 1919,
and June 27, 1919, Inclusive.
We likewise beg leave to Inform your honorable body that, in addition to this
correspondence, we had personal Interviews with all of the members of tlie
American Commission to Negotiate Peace.
Immediately at the close of such interviews, the substance of the same were
dictated to stenographers, and full transcripts of the important ones preserved.
On account of the subject matter of certain of them, w^e do not consider It
proper to offer the same at a public hearlnjr. If your honorable body desires
the information, however, we shall be glad to submit the full text of the Inter-
views to you In executive session.
With assurance of our high respect and esteem, we are,
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
Michael J. Ryan,
Edward F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Hotel Grand,
Pari*, France, April 16, 1919,
The President of the United States,
Paris,
Dear Mr. President : We beg to advise you that in pursuance of the commis-
sion given us by the Irish race convention held in the city of Philadelphia on
February 22, 1919, we were, among other things, Instructed to obtain, if pos-
sible, for the delegates selected by the people of Ireland, a hearing at the peace
conference.
The delegates so selected are Messrs Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and
Count Plunkett.
If these gentlemen were furnished safe conduct to Paris so that they might
present their case, we feel that our mission would be, in the main If not
entirely, accomplished.
May we therefore ask you to obtain from Mr. Lloyd George, or whomsoever
may be intrusted with the specific details of such matters by the English Gov-
ernment, safe conduct for Messrs. de Valera, Griffith, and Plunkett from Dublin
to Paris.
If you could see your way clear to do this, we feel sure that it would meet
with the grateful appreciation of many millions of our fellow citizens, would
certainly facilitate the object of our mission, and place us under additional
great and lasting obligation to you.
It would afford us the utmost pleasure to call upon you In person in order
that we might pay our respects as \vell as make a brief suggestion as to the
subject matter of this letter, provided such course meets with your approval
and convenience.
With assurances of our continued high consideration and esteem, as always,.
Sincerely, yours,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
Michael J. Rtan.
Edwabd F. Duzms.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 801
The President of the United States of America,
Grand Hotel,
Paris, April 17, 1919. .
Mt Dear Mr. Walsh : The President asks me to say, in reply to your recent
letter that he would be very glad to see you at his residence, 11 Place des Etats
Unls, at 5.30 o'clock this afternoon, Thursday.
Sincerely, yours*
Gilbert F. Close,
Confidential Secretary to ths President.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
Grand Hoiei, Paris,
American Commission of Irish Independence,
Grand Hotel,
Paris, May 17, 1919.
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary of State and American Commissioner to Negotiate Peace.
Sib: On behalf of and representing the Irish race convention held in Phila-
delpliia on February 22, 1919, we very respectfully request your good offices
to procure from the British Government a safe conduct from Dublin to Paris
and return for Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and G^rge Noble Count
Plunkett, the elected representatives of the people of Ireland, so that they may
in person present the claims of Ireland for international recognition as a
republic to the peace conference.
As you know, the British Government assented to our going to Ireland ; we
went there for the purpose of conferring with the representatives of the Irish
people* and ascertaining for ourselves at first hand the conditions prevailing
in that country. We have returned therefrom and are now more desirous than
ever that the authorized representatives of Ireland shall be givea the oppor-
tunity to appear and present the case of that country to the representatives
of the assembled nations.
Awaiting the favor of an early reply, we remain.
Very truly, yours,
Frank P. Walsh, CKadrman.
Edward F. Dunne.
Michael J. Rtan.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Suite 760, Grand Hotel,
Paris, May 20, 1919.
Dear Mr. President : Following the interview courteously accorded by you to
the chairman of our delegation on the 17th ultimo. Col. House made the follow-
ing request of Mr. Lloyd-George :
*' That safe conduct be given by the Government of Great Britain from Dublin
to Paris and return for Eamon de Vilera, Arthur Griffith, and George Noble
Count Plunkett the representatives selected by the people of Ireland to present
its case to the peace conference.**
Upon the day following Col. House conveyed the information to us that Mr.
Lloyd-George was willing to comply with such request, but desired nn interview
with the American delegates before doing so, and that it was the desire of Mr.
Lloyd-George that arrangements for the meeting with him be made through
Mr. Philip Kerr, private secretary to Mr. Lloyd-George.
After two tentative dates had been set by Mr. Kerr for the meeting with
Mr. Lloyd-George, and not yet having met him, we were advised by Col. House
to repeat our original request in writing to the honorable Secretary of State,
Mr. Robert Lansing, which we did upon the 17th instant.
At this moment we have been informed by the private secretary of Mr.
Secretary Lansing that our request has been referred to you.
May we not therefore respectfully ask of you that the undersigned, our full
delegation, be given an opportunity to present to you in person in as brief
manner as consistent with the importance of the case suggestions which Messrs.
de Valera, Griffith, and Plunkett, the representatives aforesaid, have asked us
to convey to you, together with certain facts of grave import now in our
possession.
18564&— 19 51
802 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT.
May we also take the liberty of suggesting, in view of existing conditions in
Ireland (wliich can not and will not be denied), that to foreclose its case by
refusing a hearing to its representatives at this time would be disconsonant
with the declared purpose for which the war was prosecuted nnd out of hariiM»ii\
with the common principles of democracy.
We would gratefully appreciate a response at your convenleuce. aiul \\U\»
assurances of our continued high regard.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Walsh, Chaimmn.
Edwabd F. Dunne.
BfiCHAEL J. Ryan.
To the President of the United States,
Paris.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, 21 May, 1919.
My Dear Mr. AVat^h : The President asks me to acknowledge the receipt of
the letter of May 20 signed by yourself. Gov. Dunne, and Mr. Ryan and to
say that he has taken the matter up with the Secretary of State, and tliat by
tlie President's direction, Mr. Lansing will reply to it.
Sincerely, yours,
GlUBBBT F. OlXMK,
Cwifldential Secretary to ths President.
Hon. FliANK P. Walsh,
Suite 760, Orand Hotel, Paris.
American Commission on Irish InvEPEHvmKOK^
Grand Hotel, Paris, May tt, 1919.
The original of the following letter was to-day handed to M. Clemenceau's
secretary at the foreign office, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, by Sean T. 0*Cea1laigh,
envoy of the Irish republican government at Paris, and copies were. handed
personally by Mr. Frank P. Walsh, chairman of the Ailierlcan Commission- on
Irish Independence, to President Wilson, Col. House, Secretary of State Lan-
sing, Mr. White, and Gen. Bliss, the members of the American Commission to
Negotiate Peace:
"Mansion House, Dublin, May 17, 1919.
" To M. Clemenceau,
'' President of the Peace Conference of Paris.
" Sir : The treaties now under discussion by the conference of Paris will
presumably, be signed by the British plenipotentiaries claiming to act on behalf
of Ireland as well as of Great Britain.
''Therefore we must ask you to call the immediate attention of the peace
conference to the warning which it Is our duty to communicate, that the people
of Ireland, through all its organic means of declaration, has repudiated and
does now repudiate the claim of the British Government to speak or act on
behalf of Ireland, and consequently that no treaty or agreement entered Into
by the representatives of the British Government In virtue of that claim Is or
can be binding on the people of -Ireland.
"The Irish people will scrupulously observe any treaty obligation to which
they are legitimately committed ; but the British delegates can not commit
Ireland. The only signatures by which the Irish nation will be bound are
those of its own delegates deliberately chosen.
"We request you to notify the peace conference that we the undersigned
have been appointed and authorized by the duly elected national government
of Ireland to act on behalf of Ireland In the proceedings of the conference and
to enter into agreements and sign treaties on behalf of Ireland.
" Accept, sir, the assurance of our high esteem,
" Bamon dk Valesa,
"Abtrub GRnrFTTH,
"CouHT Gbobqe Noble Plunkett."
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 808
AuEBiCAN Commission on Irish Independence,
Grand JSotel, Paris, May 22, 1919.
Deas Mk. Pbesident : The following communication has this day been trans-
mitted to M. Clemenceau, president of the peace conference :
" Mansion House, Dublin, May 17, 1919.
" To M. Clemenceav,
" President of the Peace Conference of Paris.
'* Sib ; The treaties now under discussion by the conference of Paris will, pre-
sumably, be signed by the British plenipotentiaries claiming to act on behalf
of Ireland as well as of Great Britain.
"Therefore we must ask you to call the immediate attention of the peace
conference to the warning which it is our duty to communicate, that the pe<^le
of Ireland, through all its organic means of declaration, has repudiated and
does now repudiate the claim of the British Government to speak or act on
behalf of Ireland,' and consequently that no treaty or agreement entered into
by the representatives of the British Government in virtue of that claim is m*
can be binding on the people of Ireland.
**The Irish people will scrupulously observe any treaty oblipitiaa to which
they are legitimately committed ; but the British delegates eim not commit Ire-
land. The only signatures by which the Irish Nation will be bound are those
of its own delegates deliberately chosen.
" We request you to notify the peace conference that we the undersigned have
been appointed and authorised by the duly elected national government of
Irland to act on behalf of Ireland in the proceedings of the conference and to
enter into agreements and sign treaties on behalf of Ireland.
" Accept, sir, the assurance of our high esteem.
"(Signed) Eahon de Valeba,
"(Signed) Abthxjr GaiFFrrH,
"(Signed) CJovNT George Nobtjc Plunkett."
At the suggesion of President de Valera, we desire to call the same to your
attention. . We trust that the justice of the ^lemand from the standpoint of de-
mocracy as well as of fundamental human 'rights, may lead you to throw the
weight of your Influence In its favor.
Sincerely,
Fbank p., Walsh, Chairman,
Edwabd T. Dunn,
Michael J. Ryan.
To the President of the United States.
Commissioner Pi^nipotentiaby of the
United States of America,
Pai-is, May 22, 1919.
Dear Mr. Walsh : I have duly received the letter dated the 22d which you
have been so good as to write me.
Yours, sincerely,
(Signed) Henry WnrrE.
Hon. Frank P. Walsh,
Grand Hotel, Paris.
American (Commission to Nbqotiate Peace,
Hotel de CrUlon, Paris, May 24, 19i9.
Sir: I have received the letter which you and Messrs. Dunne and Ryan
addressed to me on May 16th regarding the issuing of safe-conducts by the
British Government to E^amon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and George Noble
Count Plunkett, in order that they may proceed from Ireland to France and
return, and I immediately took steps to acquaint myself with the facts of the
case, which transpired before the matter was brought to my attention by your
above-mentioned letter.
I am Informed that when the question of approaching the British authorities
with a view to procuring the safe-conducts in question was first considered
every effort was made, in an informal way, to bring you into friendly touch
with the British representatives here, although owing to the nature of the
case it was not possible to treat the matter ofllcially. The British authorities
having consented that you and your colleagues should visit England and Ireland,
804 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
although your passports were only good for France, every fadUty was glFen
to you to make the Journey. Before your return to Paris, however, reports
were received of certain utterances made by you and your colleagues during
your visit to Ireland. These utterances, whatever they may have been, gave,
as I am informed, the deepest offense to those persons with whom you were
seeking to deal, and consequently it seemed useless to make any further
effort in connection with the request which you desired to make. In view of
the situation thus created, I regret to inform you that the American r^resenta-
tives feel that any further efforts on their part connected with this matter
would be futile and therefore unwise.
I nm, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Robert Lansing.
Hon. Fbank p. Walsh,
Grand Hotel, ParU.
NoTK. — This letter was received subsequent to the dispatch of our letter of
May 26, 1919.
American Ck>MMi8Si0N on Irish Indbpbnubnce,
Grand Hotel, Par^, May 26, 1919.
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary of State and American CommUHoner to Negotiate Peace, Paris.
Sib : Upon the 17th Instant we had the honor to hand to your private secre-
tary, for immediate transmission to you, a letter requesting your good offices
to procure from the British Government safe conduct from Dublin to Parts
and return for Hons. Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count George
Noble Plunkett, representatives of the people of Ireland, copy of which letter we
inclose to you herewith.
Upon the day following we were advised by the American press representa-
tives that you had communicated to them the fact that you had referred the
letter to the President of the United States. Later in the day this statement
was confirmed by your secretary In an interview with our chairman.
With this information, upon the 20th instant we addressed a letter of the
same purport to the President of the United States, and requesting a hearing
by him. We also Inclose copy of this letter to you herewith.
Upon the 21st instiint we were advised by Mr. Gilbert F. Close, confidential
secretary to the President, that at the President's direction you would make
reply to such letter. We have not been advised of further action, if any,
either by yourself or the President, upon our request
In view of the urgency and importance of the matter, the arrangotcntfl
which must necessarily be made by President de Valera and his associates as
an outcome of your reply, as well as the further steps which we may be csHed
upon to take in an endeavor to accomplish the objects of our mlsaloQ,^ may
we not ask that you be good enough to give us an answer to our request
With assurances of our high regard, we are.
Sincerely,
AiaaxcAN Commission on Irish Indbpendencx,
By Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
American Commission on Irihh Indefbhdenge,
Grand Hotel, Paris, May 27. 1919.
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary of State and American Commissioner to Negotiate Peace, Paris.
Sir: Your letter of the 24th instant conveying the refusal of the American
CommisHiou to Negotiate Peace to our request that they should use their good
offices to secure the issuance of safe conducts by the British Government to
Hons. Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and George Noble Count Plunkett
was duly received.
Your letter states that you have been informed that every effort was made,
unofficially, to bring us into friendly touch with the British representatives In
Paris. It is also stated in your letter that you have information to the effect
that certain utterances of ours made during our visit to Ireland ** gave the deep-
est offense to certain persons with whom you (we) were seeking to deal.*'
We beg to advise you that no person was authorized by us to make any effort
to bring us into friendly touch with any British representatives* here or else-
where.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 806
We also beg to further advise you that at no time, in Paris, or elsewhere,
have we sought to deal, privately or unofficially, with any persons relative to
the pui-poses of our mission.
In order to make the record perfectly clear, we submit the following:
On March 27, 1919, a letter in form following was delivered in person by
the undersigned to the Acting Secretary of State, in your absence, at your office
in Washington:
*«Pabi8, March 27, 1919.
•• Hon. Fbank L. Polk,
Acting Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
"Dear Sik: We respectively request the issuance of passports to France to
Frank P. Walsh, of New York, N. Y. ; Michael J. Ryan, of Philadelphia, Pa. ;
and Eklward P. Dunne, of Chicago, 111., who have been aiHK>inted by the recent
Irish race convention held in the city of Philadelphia, Pa., on February 22 and
28, 1919, and whose object in visiting France is to obtain for the delegates,
selected by the people of Ireland a hearing at the peace conference, and to
2>lace before the conference, if that hearing be not given, the case of Ireland ;
her insistence upon her right of self-determination ; and to international recog-
nition of the republican form of government established by her people.
"Very respectfully,
"Prank P. Walsh, Chairman."
We were informed by Mr. Assistant Secretary Phillips that he was acting
for you, in your absence, and that the request contained in the letter would
receive careful consideration. After a lapse of two days Mr. Assistant Secretary
Phillips informed Mr. Patrick Lee, our secretary, that the request contained
in the letter bad been granted, and that your office had ordered the passports
issued, which was accordingly done.
Upon our arrival in Paris a communication was addressed to the President,
signed by Messrs. Walsh, Dunne, and Ryan, the full commission, advising
him that we were acting in pursuance of a commission given us by the Irish
Race Convention held in Philadelphia on February 22, 1919, and that we were
instructed by said convention to obtain, if possible, for the delegates selected
by the people of Ireland a hearing at the peace conference, and containing
the following specific request :
"May we, therefore, ask you to obtain from Mr. Lloyd-George, or whomso-
ever may be intrusted with the specific details of such matters by the English
Qovemnient, safe conduct for Messrs. de Valera, Griffith, and Plunkett from
Doblln to Paris.'*
Following an interview between the President and the chairman of our
delegation, the matter was taken up with Col. E. M. House, and the identical
request was made through him.
The implications of your letter that any person was acting unofficially,
privately, or secretly, is therefore erroneous
Attempted negotiations on behalf of Ireland in snch fashion would not only
be violative of onr Instructions but obnoxious to the principle, to which the
steadfastly adhere with multitudes of our fellow citizens, that a Just and per-
manent peace can only be secured through open conventions openly arrived at.
For the verity of the record, which we are anxious to maintain upon this
important matter, will yon be 90od enough to give us the names of the persons
to whom we gave deep offense by our utterances in Ireland, and with whom you
have been informed we "were seeking to deal," as well as the name or names
of any person or persons who assumed to negotiate or promote any such secret
or unofficial dealings upon our behalf?
We likewise deem it pnaper to call your attention at this time to the fact
that we scrupulously refrained from any public utterances in England, and
that our statements to the people of Ireland as to the objects of our mission
were in strict conformity with the purposes stated to you in our written
application for passports and cherished and advocated by American citizens
since the foundation of the American Republic. We are confident that, if your
information is correct to the effect that our utterances gave deep offense, such
offense was not given to the Irish people or to their duly elected representa-
tives, In whose presence the utterances were made.
Awaiting your further advices, we are, sir.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Amebican Commission on Ibish Independence,
By Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
Note. — This letter was never answered.
806 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
AiUBHiCAN G0HICI8810N ON Irish Indepbndencs,
ParU, May 27, 1919.
The President of the United States,
Pari9,
Dear Mr. President: We inclose herewith copy of letter received last
evening from Mr. Robert Lansing, Secretary of State, together with copy of
reply thereto of even date. We submit this so that you may be fully advised
pending one further effort to carry out the purposes of our mission.
With assurances of our high esteem and respect, we are.
Sincerely, yours,
American Ck)MMiS8i0N on Irish Independence,
By Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
(Same letter sent to Messrs. White, Bliss, and House.)
Ck)HMissioNER Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
Parii, May 28, 1919.
Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your letter of the 27th Instant and hasten to in-
form you, in reply, that I have neither made nor associated myself in any way
with efforts to bring you and your colleagues into touch with the represeota-
tives of the British Government In Paris or elsewhere, nor had I, until within
the last few days, any knowledge of those efforts.
You, yourselves, have not at any time approached me in the matter, nor was
I aware, until quite recently, of the informal action to which yo urefer.
I may add that I was equally unaware, until a few days ago, of the com-
munication which you addressed to the President upon your arrival in Parts
from the United States.
I must, therefore, both personally and as a member of the American Oom-
mission to Negotiate Peace with Germany and Austria, decline all responsi-
bility in connection with the outcome of your mission.
Yours, sincerely,
Henrt Whitk.
Hon. Frank P. Walsh,
Grand Hotel, Paris.
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Paris, May 28, 1919.
Hon. Henry White,
Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States of AmeiHca, Paris.
Dear Sir : Please accept our thanks for your prompt and courteous response
to our letter of the 27th instant. Just received.
With assurance of our appreciation and respect,
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
By Frank P. Walsh, Chatrtnafu
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Patis, May 28, 1919.
To the President of the United States,
Paris.
Dear Mr. President : We have the honor to transmit to you herewith a large
number of cablegrams from different parts of the United States, Insisting upon
the securing of opportunity to present Ireland's case to the peace conference,
and protesting against article 10 of the covenant of the league of nations. We
trust that you will find time, even \v\th your multiplicity of duties, to give the
same careful consideration.
May we also take the opportunity to suggest that the fears of these peti-
tioners as to the effect of article 10, If adopted, seem to have a very substantial
basis of fact and reason. It occurs to us, as It doubtless has to them, that the
following evil effects might flow from the Inclusion of article 10 in its present
form:
1. That nations and peoples claiming age-old territorial integrities of their
own would, ipso facto, be forcetl under the authority of other nations or even
kingdoms, without a hearing.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 807
2. Thnt peoples, the vast majority of whom are devoted to the principles of
free governments such as our own, could be forced under the rule of monar-
chies or military autocracies.
3. That the signatories, including our country, would be bound, after the
iidoption of article 10, to prevent the glA-ing of aid by outside advocates of
liberty to oppressed nations, which practice has obtained among civilized
peoples from time immemorial.
4. That the powerful signatories, Including our country, might eventually be
compelled to wage war, for the preservation of " territorial integrity," no
matter how unjust and oppressive in any part of the world.
In view of the refusal to give the representatives of the Irish people a
hearing In Paris, and without consulting with them upon this particular sub-
ject, may we not offer the suggestions following, which might apply to the
case of Ireland and other nations under like disabilities and similarly situated :
First Before final adoption of article 10 that a full and open hearing
before the committee of four of the great powers at the peace conference be
accorded to any nation or people, In order that they may present any ques-
tions of fact which they may desire to submit to prove their own territorial
integrity, or to dispute the claim of any nation claiming territory to which
It is not entitled, or is, at the time of the signing thereof, attempting to
acquire or hold by force of arms.
Second. That in any event article 10 of the covenant of the league of nations
should be amended so as to read :
** The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political inde-
pendence of all members of the league. In case of any such aggression or
in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the council shall advise
upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled : Provided, however.
That the territorial boundaries of no country at the signing of the covenant
shall be deemed to include any other country or nation the boundaries of
which are natural ones, or clearly defined, inhabited by a homogeneous people,
a majority of whom by a vote of Its electorate has determined the form
of government under which they desire to live, and whose efforts to establish
the same and function thereunder are at the time of the signing hereof pre-
vented by an army of occupation or other form of forcible repression.*'
With assurances of our continued high regard, we remain,
Sincerely,
American Commission on Ijush Indbpend£nce,
By Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
(Copies of the above letter and cablegrams sent to Messra House, White,
Bliss, and Lansing.)
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, May 28, 1S19,
Mt Dear Mr. Walsh : I am writing on behalf of the President to acknowl-
edge receipt of your letter of May 17 Inclosing a copy of your letter to the
Secretary of State of May 27.
Sincerely, yours,
Gilbert F. Close,
Confidential Secretary to the President.
Hon. Frank P. Walsh,
Orand Hotel, Paris.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, May 29, 1919.
Dear Mr. Walsh: Thank you for your note of May 27 inclosing for my
information a copy of your recent correspondence with the Secretary of State
regarding the issuance of safe conducts for Messrs. de Valera, Grifilth, and
Count Plnnkett.
Cordially, yours,
E. M. House.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
Chairman, American Commissiwi on Irish Independence,
Qra/nd Hotel, Paris,
808 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
Amebican Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, May 29, 19t9.
Dear Sib: As representatives of the Irish race convention held In the city
of Philadelphia on February 22, 1919, we respectfully request an opportunity
of appearing before the members of the American Commission to Negotiate
Peace at as early a moment as may be convenient and meet with the pleasure
of the commissioners plenipotentiary.
With assurances of our respect and high regard, we are,
Sincerely,
Frank P. Wai^h,
E. F. Dunne.
Mr. J. C. Grew,
Secretary to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Paris.
American Ck>MMi8siON on Irish Independence,
Paris, May 29, 1919.
Dear Mb. President: We inclose you herewith copy of letter this day ad-
dressed to the secretary of the American (Commission to Negotiate Peace.
We were Informed by Ool. House that daily meetings of tibe commissioners
plenipotentiary are held at the Hotel Grillon, and he was good enough to say
that he would be glad to attend at any time b^ opportunity was given us for
a hearing.
We called at the headquarters of the commission at their regular meeting
hour this morning, but their meeting had adjourned. Mr. Secretary of State
Lansing therefore suggested to us, through his private secretary, that we
make this request through the secretary of the commission.
We wish you to be assured that we will occupy but a brief space of time,
and Indulge the hope that you may accord us this hearing at as early a
moment as will meet with your pleasure and convenience, considering your
other important duties.
With assurances of our great respect, we are,
Sincerely,
Frank P. Waush.
B. F. Dunns.
The PBBsinEif T or tbs Umm) Statss,
Paris.
(Letters of similar purport were sent to Messrs. Lansing, White, House,
and Bliss.)
AiaaxGAif OoicMissioN on Irish Iitdbpendbncb,
Paris, Maiy SI, 1919.
Dear Mr. President : We b^ to advise you that, in pursuance of the commis-
sion given us by the Irish race convention held In the dty of Ptailad^Kphia on
February 22, 1919, and following our letter to you of April Ift, 1919, every
effort has been made to obtain a hearing for the delegates selected by the
people of Ireland to represent them at the peace conference. Our information
is that the government of Great Britain has definitely denied safe conducts to
these representatives, and hence they can notappear. before the peace conffer-
ence or any committee thereof.
The resolutions and instructions under which we are acting provide that, if
opportunity be not given the regularly chosen representatives of Ireland, we
should ourselves present her case; her Insistence upon her rlfi^t of self-deter-
mination; and to International recognition of the republican form of govern-
ment established by her people.
We therefore petition you to use your good offices to secure a hearing for us
before the special committee of the four great powers, so that we may dis-
charge the duty imposed upon us by our convention.
In order to avoid misunderstanding we desire to state, and would thank
you to convey the information to the other members of your committee, that
we do not hold, or claim to have, any conunlsslon or authority from the people
of Ireland or their representatives; but desire solely and respectfully to pre-
sent the resolutions of the American convention with a brief argument In
support thereof.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 809
May we also point out that while the convention which we represent was
unofficial, and while we claim no official authority In the governmental sense,
nevertheless, it was a convention composed of 5,182 delegates; democratically
selected, representing every State in the American Union ; and the Individuals
who composed it may fairly be said to have. been men and women of all shades
of political opinion, of all religious sects, and of practically every trade, pro-
fession, and avocation which go to make up our national life.
We think it is likewise fair to state that this convention acted for many
millions of our fellow-cltlzens, who, in this representative way, respectfully
urge you to give favorable response to the request of this petition.
We will deeply appreciate It if you will be good enough to give us an early
reply to this letter, as the matter of our departure for home is pressing us.
With considerations of our continued great respect and esteem, we are.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
B. F. Dunne.
To the PRESIDBNT 07 THK IJNnSD STATES,
Paris.
American Ck)H mission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, May SI, 1919.
Gentlemen : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 29, requesting,
as representatives of the Irish race convention held in the city of Philadelphia
on February 22, 1919, an opportunity of appearing before the members of the
American Commission to Negotiate Peace at as early a moment as may be con-
venient and meet with the pleasure of the commissioners plenipotentiary.
The commission is led to believe that your object In requesting to be received
is to ask its good offices to obtain a hearing before the peace conference of rep-
resentatives of the so-called " Irish republic." On the basis of this understand-
ing, I am Instructed by the American commissioners to express to you their
regrets that they are unable to comply with your request, for the reason that
it Is not within the province of the American delegation to request the peace
conference to receive a delegation composed of dtiaens of a country other than
our own, when that country is officially represented at the conference, In regard
to a matter having no relation whatever to the making of peace with Gernuuiy
and Austria.
With assurance of respect, I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
J. 0. Grew, Secretary Oeneral,
Messrs. Frank P. Walsh and B. F. Dunne,
Orand HoM, Paris.
American Commission to NBoonAnB Peace,
Porto, May SI, 1919.
My Dear Mr. Walsh : I am writing on behalf of the President to acknowledge
receipt of your letter of May 28 with the Inclosed telegrams and to say that I
am bringing them to the President's attrition.
- Sincerely, yours,
Gilbert F. Close,
Confidential Secretary to the President.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
Grand Hotel, Paris.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 2, 1919.
Mt Dear Mb. Close: I am handing you herewith letter for delivery to the
President, which is quite urgent as to time. Would appreciate it deeply if you
would get it to his hand at the earliest opportunity.
Thanking you for all of your kindnesses, I am.
Sincerely,
Frank H. Walsh.
Mr. Gilbert F. Close,
Confidential Secretary to the President, Paris.
810 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Part*, June 2, 1919.
Dear Mr. President: Upon this morning Mr. J. O. Grew, secretary general
to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, handed Gov. Dunne and my-
self a letter, copy of which is inclosed to you herewith. He stated at the same
time that you were willing to accord personal interviews to us.
I am deeply i^ppreciative of the courtesy extended, and would be grateful if
you will be good enough to indicate at as early a moment as possible, consistent
with your great press of affairs, when I might see you.
Always, sincerely,
Frank P. Walsh.
The President of the United States,
Paris,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 2, 1919.
Mt Dbab Sib: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 31
answering ours of the 29th ultimo, handed to us by you in person this morning.
We desire to state that our object in requesting an opportunity of appearing
before the American Commission to Negotiate Peace was not to usk its good
offices to obtain a hearing before the peace conference of representatives of the
Irish Republic, as you state in your letter the commission has been led to be-
live. In order to remove this misapprehension, we respectfully submit the
following :
Our information is that the Government of Great Britain has definitely
denied safe conducts to these representatives, and hence they can not appear
before the peace conference or any committee thereof.
The resolutions and InstructlonR of the Irish race convention, under which
we are acting, provide that if opportunity be not given the regularly chosen
r^resentatlves of Ireland, we should ourselves present her case ; her insistence
upon her right of .«^elf -determination ; and to international recognition of the
republican form of government established by her people.
We wish to advise the conunisslon further that w^ do not hold, or daini
to have, any commission or authority from the people of Ireland or Uielr
representatives; but desire in appearing before the commission solely and re-
spectfully to present the resolution of the American convention with a brief
argument in support thereof.
May we also point out that while we claim no official status in the govern-
mental sense, nevertheless, we are the representatives of a convention composed
of 5,132 delegates, dei^ocratically selected, representing every State in the
American Union; and the individuals who composed it may fairly be said to
have been men and women of all shades of political opinion, of all religious
sects, and of practically every trade, profession, and avocation which go to
make up our national life.
We think it likewise fair to state that this convention acted for many mil-
lions of our fellow citizens, who in this representative way respectfully urge
the commission to grant us a full hearing.
We therefore renew our request, and trust that the commission may see \t»
way clear to fix a time, at Its pleasure and convenience, when we may appear
before It
Awaiting the favor of an early reply, and with assurances of our great
respect, we are.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. P. Dunne.
Mr. J. C. Grew,
Secretary General American' Commissiftn to Negotiate Peace, Paris.
American Commission of Irish Independence,
Paris, June 6, 1919,
Dear Mr. President: We have the honor to hand you herewith report on
conditions In Ireland with demand for Investigation by the peace conference.
On account of the serious and critical situation exiK)8ed by the report, we
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 811
beg that you will be good enough to give this document your careful considera-
tion, and also to present the same to the full peace conference or to the com-
mittee of the five great powers, whichever may be the proper course under the
practice of the conference. With assurances of our great respect and esteem,
we are.
Sincerely,
Amebican Commission on Irish Independence,
Fbank p. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
The President of the United States.
Paris,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 6, 1019.
Sib : Complying with you request of May 1, 1919, made through Sir Williuui
Wiseman and assented to by Messrs. Sean T. O'Ceallalgh and George Gavan Duffy,
the representatives at Paris of the Irish republican government, that we visit
every part of Ireland, and especially Belfast, to ascertain the actual conditions
esisting in that country.
We have the honor to inform you that we have, except where prevented by the
use of military forces of the English army of occupation, visited the four
Provinces of Ireland, including Belfast, as well as the other principal cities and
tovima
We have prepared a report covering the facts, with certain recommendations.
In order that the Government of Great Britain may be informed, we herewith
band you copy of this report which, in addition to the presentation of facts,
contains a demand for an investigation under the authority of the peace con-
ference.
We also wish to advise your Government that the original of this document
has this day been handed to the President of the United States and that copies
have been transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the
United States through the Secretary of State.
Respectfully,
Akerican Commission on Irish Indefendbnge.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
B. F. Dunne.
Hon. David Lloyd-Geobge,
Prime Minister of England, Paris.
American Commission on Irish Inobpbndknce,
Paris, June 6, 1919.
Sir : We have the honor to hand you three copies of document entitled " Re-
port on conditions in Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace confer-
ence," which we have this day transmitted to the President, with copy to Hon.
David Lloyd-George, prime minister of England.
In view of the fact that the Senate of the United States is now considering
the subject of a new treaty or treaties with the Government of Great Britain,
and on account of the further fact that the House of Representatives has here-
tofore passed a resolution in favor of Ireland's right of self-determination,
which has not been acted upon by the peace conference, unless in secret session,
of which we have had no advices, we respectfully request that you kindly
transmit one copy of this document to the Senate and one to the House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States, in conformity with the customs and practices
of the State Department. With assurances of our great respect and considera-
tion, we are.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh,. C/tairman.
E. F. Dunne.
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary of State of the United States, Paris,
812 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
American CJomicission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, June 7, 1919.
My Deab Mb. Walsh : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 6,
Inclosing the memorandum concerning conditions In Ireland and to say that I
have brought It to the President's personal attention.
Sincerely, yours,
Qilbebt r. Close,
Confidential Secretary to the President.
Mr. Fbank P. Walsh, -
Orand Hotel, Paris,
Amektcan Commission on Irish Independence,
' Paris, June 8, 1919.
Deab Mb. Pbesident: We Inclose you herewith paragraph Inadvertently
omitted from our *' Report on conditions in Ireland with demand for investiga-
tion by the peace conference," which we had the honor of sending you upon
the 6th instant. The same should be inserted under the subtitle " The revolu-
tion," on page 13 of said report.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. I>DNNE.
The President of the IJNrho) States, Paris.
(A similar letter and Inclosure also was sent to David Lloyd George, British
Prime Minister.)
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
Dear Sir : We Inclose to you herewith two corrected copies of our " Report on
conditions in Ireland, with demand for investigation by the peace conference.*'
Will you be good enough to have these substituted for the ones heretofore
transmitted, or have the necessary corrections made?
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Indepsndbncx.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. DaNNib
Hon. RoBBBT Lansing,
Secretary of State, Poris
American Commission on Irish iNincPENOBifox,
Paris, June 8^ 1919.
Right Hon. Ix>bd Birkenhead,
Lord'^ChanceUOr of'Ehgland, House of Lords, London, England.
Sib : Upon the 22d ultimo, during the proceedings in the House of Lords on
that date, as published in the London Times, you made a statement. In reply
to a question of Viscount Midleton, as to the intentions of the prime minister
with reference to giving publicity to the result of the findings of our investiga-
tion of conditions in Ireland.
We beg, therefore, to submit to you herewith for presentation to the House
of Lords this report, together with copies of letters addressed to Hon. David
Lloyd George, prime minister.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
E. F. Dunne.
J
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 818
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
Bditor London Times,
London, England.
Sir: We have the honor to hand you herewith "Report on conditions in
Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace conference," together with
copies of letters addressed to the President of the United States, the American
Secretary of State, and Hon. David Lloyd George, British prime minister, upon
the same subject.
As you are doubtless aware, charges have been made that matters deeply
affecting the peace of the world, such as the condition of Ireland, are habitually
suppressed by English newspapers. In order that your paper may be thor-
oughly advised, and that there should be no misunderstanding upon the subject
later, we take this opportunity to submit the inclosed documents.
Respectfully, yours,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. Dunne.
(Similar letters and inclosures were sent to all leading BngUsh Journals.)
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
Sir : Upon the 14th ultimo, during the proceedings in the House of Commons
on that date, as published in the London Times, you made an official statement as
to the intentions of the prime minister with referenee to giving publicity to the
result of the findings of our investigation of conditions In Ireland.
We beg, therefore, to submt to you herewith, for transmission to the cabinet,
this report, together with' copies of letters addressed to His Majesty, King
George V, and Hon. David Uoyd-Qeorge, prime minister.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. Dunne.
Mr. Bonar Law, Leader of the House of Commons, London, England.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
His Majesty Gidoroe V, King of Great Britain, London, England.
YOTJB Majesty : We herewith transdiit to you our " Report on conditions in
Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace conference," together with
copies of letters addressed to your prime minister, Mr. David Lloyd-George.
The original of this report has been delivered to the President of the United
States for presentation to the peace conference, and copies liave been for-
warded to Hon. Robert Lansing, American Secretary of State, for transmission
to the Congress of the United States.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June IS, 1919.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris.
Gentlemen : Following Mr. Lansing's letter of the 24th ultimo, conveying to
us the opinion of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace that further
effort to secure the Issuance of safe conducts by the British Government to
Messrs. de Valera, Griffith, and Plunkett would be futile and unwise, we pro-
ceeded, as you have been individually informed, to ourselves secure a hearing
before your full body upon the merits of the Irish case.
814 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
While niakhig this effort we are informed that the United States Senate hai;
passed a resolution requesting your honorable body to endeavor to secure a
hearing for the same gentlemen before the peace conference in order that they
might present the case of Ireland and expressing sympathy with the aspirations
of th people of Ireland for a government of their own selection.
In this situation we feel that further effort upon our part should be sus-
pended until the resolution is acted upon by your honorable body.
We most respectfully urge, both as American citizens and In our representa-
tive capacity, that early and favorable action be taken by your body upon the
Senate resolution.
If your commission concludes to so act upon the Senate resolution, and a
hearing Is granted by the peace conference to the Irish representatives nD<I
International recognition Is accorded to the republican government set up by
the people of Ireland, there will be no necessity for further demand by us upon
your valuable time.
Will you therefore t>e good enough to advise us of whatever action your
honorable body may see fit to take at the earliest convenient moment ?
With assurances of our appreciation for other courtesies, and indulging the
hope of an early response to this communication, we are.
Very respectfully,
Aherican Coif mission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
E. P. Dunne.
AMXBIOAN Ck>lCMIB8ION ON IrIBH iNDEPmHDBIfOS,
Parii, July IS, 1919.
Mr. J. C. Grew,
Secretary General American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Paris,
Dear Mr. Secretary General : We are taking the liberty of handing you here-
with letter of even date addressed to the American commission to negotiate
peace, which we request that kindly hand to them at once.
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
E. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, July IS, 1919.
Dear Mr. President : We inclose you lierewith copy of letter to-day addressee]
1o the American commission to negotiate peace, the original of which was for-
warded through Secretary General Grew, and to which we respectfully request
your early and kindly consideration.
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
The President of the United States, Paris,
(Slmibir letters were sent to Messrs. Lansing, Bliss, House, and White.)
American Commission to Negotiate Peace.
Paris, June Un 1919.
Gentlemen : I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 13, together
with the inclosed copy of letter to the American Commission to Negotiate Peaoe,
and to say that your letter will receive my careful consideration.
Sincerely, yours,
Tasker H. Bliss.
American Commission on Irish Independence, Paris,
J
TREAT/ OF PEACE WITH GTIRMANY. 816
Amebican Ooif mission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 17, 1919,
Ambeioan Com mission to Negotiate Peace, Paris.
Gentlemen : Inasmuch as the peace terms are so close to signature, will you
not be good enough to advise us at the earliest possible moment as to the
disposition by the full peace conference of the Senate resolution as follows :
'* Resolved, That the Senate of the United States earnestly requests tlie
American Peace Commission at Versailles to endeavor to secure for Edward
de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count George Noble Plunkett, a hearing before
said peace conference in order that they may present the cause of Ireland.
** Resolved further. That the Senate of the United States express its sympathy
with the aspirations of the Irish people for a government of its own choice."
In addition to the f^ct that we are receiving constant and urgent inquiries
in regard to the same, we wish to respectfully call to your attention that unless
action is taken verj* shortly, the delay itself will amount to a denial of the
request.
With assurances of our high regard and esteem.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, June 17, 1919.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
Chairman American Commission of Irish Independence, Paris.
Sir : The American Commission to Negotiate Peace has the honor to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter dated June 17 and previous correspondence re-
garding the resolution of the Senate of the United States in connection with
U^e -appeaniiiGe of Edward de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count George Noble
Plunkett before the peace conference and to inform you that the commission
will not fail to comply with the request stated in your above-nieiitione<l letter.
I am. sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. C. Grew. Secretary General .
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 17, 1919.
Dear Mr. President : On the 6th day of June, 1910, we had the honor to for-
ward you our " Report on conditions in Ireland with demand for investigation
by peace conference,*' the investigation to be conducted by an impartial body
appointed by the peace conference, and excluding from membership the inter-
ested countries; or a committee selected equally by the Prime Minister of Eng-
land and the elected representatives of Ireland, the chairman to be agreefl upon
by parties, or, in case of failure to agree, by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
We now beg leave to point out that in the report heretofore forwarded to
you the most revolting acts committed against the people of Ireland were not
included, for the reason that many of the details of evidence covering the same
are in the exclusive possession of the chief secretary for Ireland, Mr. Ian Mac-
Pherson, and military and other officials under his authority.
The substantia Inaccuracy of our report has been attested by some of the more
progressive and independent newspapers of England; but in view of certain
public statements by English officials and certain newspapers, we beg to make
the following additions to our report :
(1) Since the submission thereof, through use of an army of spies and
agents provocateurs, reprisals have begun against the persons and property of
those who are to bear witness to the truth of many of the atrocities reported ;
and men and women are being arrested upon trumped-up charges and trans-
ported to places distant from their homes and friends, so as to be deprived of
assistance or defense.
816 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
(2) The only charge in the report heretofore submitted to you which has.
so far as we know, received specific denial at the hands of any English authority
is the following:
" Police and soldiers are habitually permitted to enter the cells where political
prisoners are confined and to beat them with their clubs."
We are ready to substantiate this charge before the commission of inquiry,
(a) by the production of large numbers of witnesses who have been tlias
beaten; (&) by proof of witnesses of the highest standing, including American
citizens, who examined the cells of the prisoners shortly after the beatings
and found the fresh blood still covering the walls of the cells; (c) by the pro-
duction of prisoners whose injuries did not prove fatal, but who have t>een
maimed and disfigured for life by the beatings of the soldiers and police.
In view of the conditions in Ireland as herein and heretofore set forth, which
we earnestly insist can not be ignored if the peace of the world is to be ac-
complished, as well as the fact that if prompt action is not taken many more
innocent lives may be lost, and further brutalities committed, with the apparent
sanction of other nations; that evidence now in existence may be destroyed,
and witnesses placed beyond the reach of the commission of inquiry, we re-
spectfully request that you will be good enough to at once place these additional
focts before the peace conference and urge upon it the necessity and justice
of prompt acquiescence in the demand for a hearing before an impartial tri*
bunal such as heretofore described.
With considerations of our continued esteem and great respect.
Sincerely,
AlfSBICAN GOMlflSSION ON IbISH INDEPENDENCE.
Fbank p. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
The Pbesident of the United States, Paris,
AlfEBICAN Ck>MlCISSION ON IRISH INDEPENDENCE,
Paris, June 17, 1919.
Col. B. M. House,
Member of American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Paris,
Dbab Ck>L. House: We Inclose you herewith copy of letter which we are
to-day sending to the President, in reference to conditions existing in Ireland.
Sincerely,
AlCEBICAN OoifMISSION ON IRISH iND^nCNDENCE.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
B. F. DUNNBL
(Similar letters sent to Messrs. Bliss and White.)
American Commission on Irish Indefbndkncb,
ParU, Jnne 17, 1919,
Hon. Robert Lansing,
Secretary of State and American
Commissioner to Negotiate Peace, Paris,
Dear Sir: We inclose you herewith copies of letter which we are to-day
sending to the President, in reference to conditions existing in Ireland.
We respectfoUy request that you transmit one copy of this letter to the
Senate and one to the House of Representatives of the United States, in con-
formity with the customs and practices of your department
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 18, 1919,
Right Honorable Lord Birkenhead,
Lord Chancellor of England,
House of Lords,
London, England,
Sir: We hand you herewith copy of letter sent on the 17th instant to the
President of the United States, containing additional atrocities being com-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 817
mitted by the English Government In Ireland, so that you may be informed.
Copies of this letter have also been sent to Mr. Lansing, Secretary of State,
for transmission to the Congress of the United States.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independknck,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
Similar letters were also sent to Messrs. David Lloyd-George, Bonar Law,
the London Times, the Daily Mall, the Daily Herald, Manchester Guardian,
the Morning Post, and other widely-known EngMsh newspapers.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, 18, 1919.
Gentlemen: Gen. Bliss has received your letter of 17 June, 1919, inclosing
coply of letter of even date to the President In reference to conditions existing
in Ireland, and has asked me to acknowledge its receipt, with his thanks.
Sincerely, yours,
W. B. Wallace, Coloneh General Staff.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Qrand Hotel, Paris.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 19, 1919.
The American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris.
Genttamen : We inclose to you herewith copy of letter this day forwarded to
Hon. David Lloyd-George, British prime minister, relating to the case of
Conntess Markievicz.
If your honorable commission can officially or individually aid in securing
the release of this wortliy woman, we beg to assure you that the ends of
Justice will be served thereby, and that it will be an act of humanity for which
you will receive the kindly gratitude of many millions of people.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 19, 1919.
Hon. David Lloyd-Georoe,
British Prime Minister, Paris.
Sir: We desire to respectfully call your attention to the case of Countess
Markievicz, and to enter our most solemn protest against the conduct of the
British Government and its officials toward her.
On June 6, 1919, we had the honor to submit to you, for your official consid-
eration and action as Prime Minister of Great Britain a report of certain
atrocities and cruelties inflicted by the English army of occupation on the in-
habitants of Ireland, with a demand for the appointment of a special committee
of inquiry by the peace conference.
We have been advised that the Countess Markievicz, who is a member of the
Irish parliament and minister of labor in the Irish republican cabinet, has been
arrested and confined in jail upon an inconsequential charge; and that the
punishment now being inflicted upon her is in the nature of a reprisal and in
retaliation for giving information In regard to certain of the atrocities con-
tained in our report.
We wish to point out that the Countess Markievicz is a woman of refine-
ment, splendid Intellectual gifts, courageous spirit, and of spotless character,
and has a place deep in the affections of the people of Ireland as well as many
millions In the United States.
Daring our Interviews with the Countess Markievicz in Dublin a few weeks
Ago, we observed that while she is a woman of high spirit and strong wlU,
her health is not robust, and we greatly fear that the harshness of jnll life may
result in her death*
136546—19 52
818 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Our reasons for making the charge that the cruelties now helng inflicted upon
the Countess Markievicz are in the nature of reprisals by the British GtoTern-
ment are as follows:
(1) Muth of the detailed evidence of atrocities committed against women
prisoners in Ireland was furnished us by the Ck)untess Markievicz.
(2) She has in her possession the evidence of certain unspeakable outrages,
the details of which have not yet been published, but which we intend to sub-
mit to the commission of inquiry when selected by the peace conference.
(3) We have indubitable proof at hand that during the course of our in-
vestigation In Ireland the Countess Markievicz was shadowed by spies in the
employ of the British Government, and direct threats were made against her
during the progress of our inquiry.
(4) She was arrested on a frivolous charge after our report was sent to you,
and while publication of it was absolutely forbidden in Ireland, where the facts
were easily ascertainable, and during the time the same was being withheld
from publication by the £2nglish press.
(5) The sentence imposed upon her is for a length of time which would keep
her in jail during the inquiry that may be made by the peace conference.
(6) The alleged utterances for which she is now imprisoned were made a
month or more before her arrest, and no action had been taken upon them,
as we are informed, until after the receipt of our report on English atrocities
by the chief secretary for Ireland, Mr. Ian MacPherson.
(7) That during our visit to Ireland we heard many public utterances of the
same import as those for which the Countess Markievicz is in Jail, delivered in
and out of the Irish parliament, and upon which no action whatever was taken
by the Government.
We sincerely hope that, anlmateil by a decent regard for the opinion of man-
kind, which we know you cherish, and in view of the foregoing considerations,
especially having In mind the danger to the life of the Countess Markievicz
through continued suffering in jail, you will use your great powers and author-
ity as prime minister of Great Britain to secure the immediate release of this
worthy woman.
We have, moreover, reason to apprehend that arrests of other women who
suffered atrocities on their own persons while in jail, or who were witnesses to
them being practiced on others, are impending, and that it is the purpose of
the English Government to imprison in Ireland or remove from that country
men and women whose testimony may be indispensible to the proposed Investi-
gation.
We wish to assure you that we are not making this request at the instance
of the Countess Markievicz, nor at the suggestion of the representatives of the
republican government in Ireland, but on the grounds —
(a) Of our common humanity; and
(&) So that when the committee of inquiry is appointed tliose upon whom
atrocities have been practiced, or who have witnessied the same, will not be
dead, incarcerated in prison, or so broken in health as to be unable to attend
the hearing.
Respectfully,
Amebican Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
E. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 20, 1919.
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris,
Gentlemen : We beg to advise you that the American Federation of Labor
lit its national annual session now being held at Atlantic City, N. J., by unani-
mous vote adopted a resolution urging the international recognition of the re-
publican form of government now existing in Ireland and urging the peace
conference to give a hearing to Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count
George Noble Plunkett on the case of Ireland.
May we point out some of the reasons which we respectfully submit shoaW
move your honorable body to make every effort to have this resolution compliecl
with :
(1) The American Federation of l4ibor has enrolled in its membership more
than 3,000,000 men and women, with a sphere of legitimate influence embracing
many millions more.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 819
(2) The American Federation of Labor contributed a high percentage to the
overseas anny of the American Expeditionary Forces.
(3) The organization was t^e basis and strong bulwarli of the division of in-
dustry behind the military forces of the United States, without which the war
could not have been won.
(4) Mainly through the efforts of this great organization, its veteran leader,
and other officials the productivity of our country during the great World War
was maintained at the highest point, and not one day*s delay was occasioned in
tbe production of essential war materials by strikes or labor disputes.
(5) The American Federation of Labor, aside from its purely industrial
activities, is, we believe, without exaggeration, the most powerful force existent
in the world to>day for the maintenance of that democracy cherished and prac-
ticed by us, and for the universal establishment of which America entered the
World War; and to which the world must look for safety amid the clash of
conflicting governmental Ideas, ranging from the reactionary ambitions of mon-
archies and autocracies to the extreme dangers of unrestraint and chaos.
We also take this occasion to point out that since we made our original re-
quest to your honorable body on behalf of the Irish race in America, urging you
to endeavor to secure a hearing for the Irish case before the peace conference,
the United States Senate, with practical unanimity, has made the same request ;
and we have transmitted to you from bodies representing vast numbers of
American citizens of all shades of political belief, composing ail groups which
make up our national life, cablegrams to the same effect.
In view of the fact that the day is so close at hand upon which we all earn-
estly hope the terms of peace will be signed, with the greatest respect, but
with all urgency, we would ask the favor of a reply to the following questions :
(o) Has the American Commission to Negotiate Peace or any individual
member thereof made a request to the general peace conference for a hearing
for Messrs. de Valera, Grith, and Plunkett?
(6) Has your honorable body, or any individual member thereof, made a
request to the peace conference for the international recognition of the Irish
republic?
(o) Has your honorable body, or any individual member thereof, made
request of the peace conference for any person or persons to present title case
of Ireland, and Its right to self-determination, to the peace conference?
(d) If all or any such requests have been made, have the same been con-
sidered by the peace conference; and If so, has answer thereto been received
from the peace conference or any ofllcial representative thereof?
(e) If such requests have not been made, will your honorable body be good
enough, in view of the manifold petitions and appeals herein referred to, and
in the cause of humanity and Justice, make such requests, or any thereof which
you may deem proper ; and if so, promptly advise us as to the result or make
the same public, so that all of your petitioners may be advised.
With considerations of our great respect and esteem, we are.
Sincerely,
AifEBicAN Commission on Irish Independence,
Fbank p. Walsh, Chairman,
B. F. Dunne.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
ParU, June 20, 1919,
Dear Mr. President: We Inclose herewith, for your information, copy of
letter addressed to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, which was
this day delivered to Mr. J. C. Grew, secretaty general.
Sincerely,
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
B. F. DXTNNB.
The President or the United States, ParU,
(iSlmllar letters were sent to Messrs. Lansing, House, Bliss, and White.)
820 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERHCAKY.
AmUSICAN Ck)MMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PKACK,
Paris, June 21, 1919,
My Deab Sib: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of June 17.
which arrived .during the President's absence In Brussels, and to say that I
am bringing it to his personal attention.
Sincerely, yours,
QlLBEBT F. CUOSIE,
ConfldentifU Secretary to the President.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
Grand Hotel, Paris,
American Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Paris, Jvne 21, 1919.
Mr. Frank P. Walsh,
American Commission for Irish Independence,
Grand Hotel, Paris,
Sib: I beg to acknowledge, on behalf of the American Ck)mmis8ion to Ne^o
tiate Peace, the receipt of your letter of June 20, in which you advise the com-
mission of a resolution adopted by the American Federation of Labor at it^
annual session now being held at Atlantic City and ask certain questions with
regard to the recent Senate resolution.
In reply to your letter I beg to inform you that, in accordance with advice
which has already been given you, a copy of the said Senate resolution was
forwarded to the president of the peace conference, Mr. Clemenceau. Mr.
Olemenoeau, alone, is competent to bring this whole question to the attentioo
of the conference. Beyond this, of course — as you very readily will appre-
ciate— ^neither the American commission as a whole nor any of its indivldofll
members can take any further steps in the premises.
I am, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. C. Obbw, Secretary General.
[Copy of telegram.]
Pabis, June 25, 1919.
Ian MacPhkbson,
Chief Secretary for Ireland, Dublin Castle, Dublin, Ireland,
Proof has been submitted to us at Paris that you are using your official power
as well as the forces of the English Army of Occupation in Ireland to suppress
our full reply to your answer to our report on conditions in Ireland, which was
made on the 21st instant. Your answer, published broadcast, made denials of
certain portions of our report and serious personal accusations against uk. We
are also advised that through the same instrumentalities you are suppressing
altogether or causing to be printed garbled accounts of statements and afflda^1ts
made by individuals and officials in Ireland supporting the report of our com-
mission and challenging the accuracy of your answer. We most earnestly pro-
test against this unfair procedure and arbitrary abuse of authority as repugnant
to the modern conception of justice and fair play held by right thinking men
and women, which we had hoped applied to the English officials in Ireland as
well as to the rest of mankind.
American Comhission on Irish Independcxcx
Frank P. Walsh, Chairtnan.
E. F. Dunne.
Note. — This telegram was never answered.
Amekuan Commission on Irish Inokpendenck,
Paris, June 27, im.
M. Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference and Premier of France, Paris.
Monsieur le President : We have received formal notification from the secre-
tary general of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace that the whole
Irish question Is now referable to you alone.
^
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 821
We therefore beg leave, as the repreeentatlyes of the Irish race In America,
to submit to yoQ copies of the following docaments, 1. e. :
(a) The repudiation by the representatives of the Irish republic of the
usurped right of England to enter Into obligations or agreements affecting
Ireland.
ih) Official reiiort of the American commission on Irish Independence on
conditions in Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace conference.
Pending action by the full peace conference upon the request already sub-
mitted to you by, Messrs. Sean T. O'Ceallaigh and George Gavan Duffy, the en-
voys of the Irish republic at Paris, for a full hearing before the peace con-
ference, we desire to urge upon you the urgent necessity of the early creation
of an impartial commission of inquiry to investigate and report upon the actual
state of war now existing between the people of Ireland and the £2ngllsh Army
of occupation, with especial reference to the atrocities and acts of barbarism
still being perpetrated.
Since tlie filing of our original report with President Wilson and the Ameri-
can connnisslon to negotiate peace, the following acts of savagery are being
perpetrated by the English Army of occupation on the Irish people, which we
submit are in violation of the rules of civilized warfare, and which, If per-
initte<l to continue, will render impossible the Just pacification of the world
for whirl! its people are so earnestly striving:
( 1 ) Lives are being taken, or men and women are being maimed and wounded
dally.
(2) An organized effort to destroy the homes of the peoples of Ireland Is
being waged ;
(3) Orders of banishment are issued frequently against people, commanding
them to leave their homes at the risk of death and under penalty of Imprison-
ment ;
(4) Raids are being made upon peaceful towns and villages by aeroplanes;
(5) The homes and places of business of the Inhabitants are bellng invaded
and ransacked ; looting Is being carried on in n most shameful manner ;
(6) Property of great value Is being confiscated, for which reparation will be
iuipuHsible. unless; opportunity is quickly given to prove and Inventory the
losses ;
(7) Barricades and emplacements for artillery and machine guns are being
enacted, which menace the lives and property of the people ;
(8) The meeting places of the workers of Ireland are surrounded by ma-
chine guns, so that the workers are in imminent peril of death while endeavor-
ing to carry on the lawful and ordinary activities of their organizations ;
(9> Reprisals of a cruet and unusual character are being practiced in retali-
ation for the efforts to present the case of Ireland to the peace conference;
(10) Delicate and aged men and women are being confined in noisome and
insanitary jails solely on account of their political opinions.
As the president of the peace conference, to which the peoples of the world
are looking for the establishment of peace, and the adoption of instrumentalities
which will put an end to existing wars and prevent future conflicts, we most
earnestly urge upon you the immediate presentation of the accompanying docu-
ments to your honorable body, and the gi'eat necessity for early action thereon.
With considerations of our high esteem and respect, we are,
Respectfully,
American Ck)MHissioN on Irish Indkpendencc.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
E. P. Dunne.
[Personal and urgent.]
American Commission on Irish Independknce,
Paris, July 22y 1919.
AI. Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference and Premier of France, Paris.
Monsieur le President : We are in receipt of information from sources of
high authorities that, as president of* the peace conference, you have notified
American peace plenipotentiaries that, so far as further consideration of the
Irish question is concerned, the matter is one In which you will take no action.
We understand this decision covers:
822 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
1. That the resolution of the American Senate, offlclally forwarded to yon
by the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, and the recommendatioa«
contained therein expressing sympathetic support to the people of Ireland in
their efforts to obtain a government of their own choice, Is, by this action,
denied in a manner suggestive of your entire disregard of American public
opinion as rendered in the deliberate resolution of our highest legislative body.
2. That. the peace conference further Ignores the request of the Hon. Messrn.
Walsh and Dunne for the appointment of an international tribunal to Investi-
gate into the charges of barbarities and inhuman conduct. In violation of the
rules of civilized warfare, perpetrated by the British Government tibrough its
military forces in occupation of Ireland, and upon its defenseless people.
The knowledge of your decision in these matters, has been up to now with-
held from the American public. The results of the publication of this Informa-
tion win doubtless have very material weight at this time while the attention
of the United States Senate is occupied in matters of international importance,
in which, we feel France has a material Interest. Arrangements have already
been made for giving widespread publicity in America to this decision on your
part. But before taking this step, we respectfully suggest that an audience
may be granted by you to the undersigned to present the Importance of the
situation, particularly in this relation to the future Interests of France, of
America and of Great Britain
There are 20,000,000 citizens of Irish blood in the United States, and the
effect of this information, when published there, needs no characterization by
us to indicate how grave may be the danger to the continuance of those same
relations of amity and esteem that have marked the friendships existing be-
tween the French, American, and Irish peoples.
Trusting that I may be accorded the honor of this audience with you at
your earliest possible convenience, and, with assurances of high esteem and
respect, we have the honor to remain,
Sincerely, yours,
Ahebican Cohmission on Irish Independence,
John Archdeacon Murpht,
Commissioner in Charge.
Report on Conditions in Ireland With Demand fob Investigation by the
Peace Conference.
The IriKh race convention held In Philadelphia on the 22d and 23d of Feb-
ruary, 1919, provided by resolution for the appointment of a committee of 25
by the chairman, and Instructed It to use all honorable means to secure for
Ireland her right of self-determination.
This general committee selected from its own body Frank P. Walsh, of New
York, former Gov. Edward F. Dunne, of Illinois ; and Michael J. Ryan, of Phila-
delphia, as a special cH)mmlssion to go to Paris. The Instructions of this spedfll
committee were as follows:
" To obtain for the delegates selected by the people of Ireland a hearing at
the peace conference, and to place before the conference, if that hearing be not
given, the case of Ireland ; her Insistence upon her right of self-determination ;
and to International recognition of the republican form of government estab-
lished by her people."
Upon their arrival at Paris a letter signed by all the commissioners was
addressed to President Wilson asking him to obtain from the British Govern-
ment safe conducts for Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and Count George
Noble Plunkett, the representatives selected by the people of Ireland, from
Dublin to Paris and return ; and also asking him to accord an interview to the
American couiniission.
In r.esponse to this letter the President wrote to Mr. Walsh, chairman of the
commission, granting him an interview, and fixing the time.
The President gave an exhaustive hearing to the case as presented by Mr.
Walsh, and referred him to Ool. E. M. House with instructions to say that he
believed the request a proper one, and that it should be granted.
The entire commission waited upon Col. House, advised him of the sugges-
tion of the President, and presented the request In writing for safe conducts
for Messrs. De Valera, Griffith, and Plunkett. Col. House promised to take the
matter up with Mr. Lloyd-George Immediately and to use every effort to have
the safe conducts granted.
J
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 828
Upon the followiug day Col. House announced, to the commission, who again
called upon hJm in a body, that he had communicated with the prime minister
of' England, and that in all likelihood the safe conducts would be granted; but
tliftt Mr. Lloyd-George was very desirous of having an Interview with the
American commissioners personally and would be glad to have Chairman Walsh
take up the matter of fixing the time and place for the meeting with Mr. Lloyd-
George's confidential secretary, Mr. Philip Kerr.
The commission notified Col. House at once that they did not seek a confer-
ence with Mr. Lloyd-George; doubted very much the wisdom or propriety of
meeting him, but finally agreed to do so as a matter of courtesy.
Later in the day the entire commission called upon Col. House and stated
that, under no circumstances did they wish to be relegated to Mr. Lloyd-George
on the question of the Issuance of the safe conducts, but were relying upon him,
Ool. House, as one of the American commissioners, to secure compliance with
the request, if possible. With this clear understanding they would meet the
Prtme Minister.
Mr. Lloyd-George, on the plea of being closely occupied with the preparation
of the German peace terms, put off the proposed meeting with the delegates
from time to time, covering a period of something like two weeks.
The American commission finally called upon Col. House, explained once
more that no part of the duties of their mission called for a meeting with Mr.
Lloyd-George, and asked him to address a formal request for the safe conducts
for Messrs. De Valera, Grlfllth. and Plunkett, to Mr. Lloyd-George, and secure,
if possible, a prompt and direct answer to that request.
Upon the same day, and shortly before the Vljftt of the commission to
Col. House, Messrs. Sean T, O'Ceallaigh and George Gavan Duffy, the repre-
sentative of the Irish republic in Paris, conveyed an invitation from President
De Valera to the commission to visit Dublin, and gave, among other reasons,
the necessity for a conference upon matters of grave importance at the time
transpiring In Ireland.
When we arrived at the office of Col. House in the Hotel Crillon that evening
to receive au answer from Mr. Lloyd-George, we found Sir William Wiseman,
the liaison officer between the American and British embassies in Paris. He
presented the apologies of Mr. Lloyd-George for the delay, and said that Mr.
liloyd-George would like to fix a time for the interview upon some day of the
following week. Mr. Walsh, speaking for the commission, replied that if they
were to remain another week in Paris before receiving an answer to tiieir
request for the safe conducts, they wished to use the time in a visit to Ireland
for the purpose of meeting the representatives of the Irish people and of mak-
ing a first-hand investigation of conditions in Ireland.
As the passports of the members of the commission did not include England
and Ireland, it was necessary to have them amended, which was expeditiously
done, the amended passports reading that the members of the commission were
going to Ireland on an "unofficial political mLssion," and the forms of the pass-
ports were made diplomatic, which greatly facilitated their movements.
It should be noted that after the visit to Ireland demands were made in the
English Parliament for a full report from the prime minister as to whether or
not it was true that he Intended Issuing safe conducts to the Irish representa-
tives, and also If it was his purpose to have an interview in Paris with the
members of the American commission.
Mr. Bonar Law, leader of the House of Commons, made official answer for
the prime minister and stated that Mr. Lloyd-George had not and never had
the slightest Intention of granting safe conducts to the Irish representatives.
He said that Mr. Lloyd-George had agreed to the visit of the American commis-
sion to Ireland, hoping upon their return that he could press upon them the
** English point of view,*' to be used as propaganda in America.
The lord chancellor, officially replying to the same questions in the House
of Lords, likewise denied, on behalf of the prime minister, that there was ever
any intention to grant safe conducts to Messrs. De Valera, Griffith, and
Plunkett, and declared it was the purpose of the prime minister to have present
at his interview with the American commission upon their return from Ireland
all of the American newspaper correspondents, so that he (the prime minister)
might make a statement of England's attitude on the Irish problem which
would tend to allay the growing prejudice against England in the United
States.
When the passports were handed to the American commissioners on the morn-
ing of their departure for Ireland, Sir William Wiseman stated that Mr. Lloyd-
824 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
George wished the commission to go to all parts of Ireland, if possible and
it was his especial request that they should visit Belfast.
Upon repeating Sir William Wiseman's resuest to Messrs. Sean T. O'Oeallaii^
and George Gavan DuflCy, the envoys of the Irish republican government at
Paris, they Joined In the request that we should make a close investigation of
conditions in Ireland, and especially urged that we should visit the jails, par-
ticularly those in the larger cities, where, they asserted, hundreds of men and
women were confined under circumstances of the most shocking nature.
(Crossing the Irish Sea from Holyhead to Dun lea ry we came upon the first
evidence of the military occupation of Ireland. The vessel and wharves swarmed
with soldiers, fully equipped for the field, going to and coming from Ireland.
When we arrived in Ireland we found soldiers everywhere. A careful Investi-
gation made on the day before we left Ireland showed that the anuy of
occupation numbers considerably over 100,000 men. to which accessions are
being made daily. The troops are equipped with lorries, armored cars, tanks,
machine guns, bombing planes, light and heavy artillery ; and in fact all of the
engines of war lately employed against the Central Powers.
In addition to this there are approximately 15,000 members of the Royal
Irish Constabulary. The constabulary is a branch of the military forces. They
are armed with rifles, as well as small side arms, engage in regular drill and
field maneuvers. They are never residents of the districts which they occupy,
and have quarters in regular government barracks.
After our arrival In Ireland we conferred with President De Valera as to the
prisons which we should visit, and Mountjoy Jail, in the city of Dublin, wna
selected, for the reason that it contained a large number of political prisoners,
many of them men of the highest character and standing. Mountjoy, so far
as physical equipment and brutality of conduct goes, is not as bad as many of
the other jails in Ireland.
We made our demand for permission to visit this jail through the municipal
authorities of the city of Dublin. The governor of the prison, a resident of
England, who had been in office but a few weeks, refused us admission.
It was then explained to Sir .John Irwin, chairman of the visiting justicef^
of Mountjoy prison, that the commission was traveling on diplomatic pass-
I)orts and was investigating conditions in Ireland, partly at the solicitation
of the prime minister. With this explanation Sir .John Irwin, who is in su-
preme authority of the jail, overruled the decision of the governor and we
were admitted to Mountjoy.
When we appeared at the gate we were ushered into the office of the
jrovernor. where we found Sir John Irwin. The governor told us that we
were to be admitted to the prison, but with the understanding that we should
not speak to any prisoner nor seeK to fix the identity of any prisoner
exhibited.
Although Mountjoy is called a jail it Is, as a matter of fact, a comblnatioD
of jail and penitentiary. It Is surrounded by a stone wall 20 feet in height
and is larger than any of the midwestern American penitentiaries, such m
.TefTerson City or Jollet, and almost as large as Sing Sing. It has immeuM-
cell houses, built to accommodate approximately 1,000 prisoners. It is equipped
with workshops, where men convicted of serious crimes are confined at hard
Inbor. It is also used for the confinement of persons awaiting trial, as well
ns misdemeanants serving sentences for petty offenses.
Exclusive of the political prisoners, there were but 12 persona in confinement,
all of them undergoing sentence for petty infractions of law.
One of the men who accompanied us upon the visit was an official of the dty
of Dublin, well acquainted with all of the political prisoners, so that we had no
dlfliculty in identifying them. They were confined for the most part in groups,
the majority of them being locked up in steel cages built in the yards of the
prison, entirely outside of the buildings proper. These cages are exact
duplicates of those used for wild animals in the larger zoological gardens
such as Lincoln Park and the Bronx in the United States.
Statements had been made that unspeakable outrages were l)eing committed
against the persons of these men and the most barbarous cruelties inflicted
upon them. That they had been starved, beaten, confined in dark and noisome
underground cells, otherwise maltreated, and kept for days with their hands
handcuffed behind their backs.
We attempted to secure statements from the officers, either confirming or
denying the charges. We were permitted to talk to no one inside the prison
except the governor. He stated that no such barbarities had been committed
TRKATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 826
since he had taken charge of the prison a week or two before. He refused to
speak for any time prior to that. He at first denied that there were under-
irround cells In the prison. We had been furnished, however, with a plan
showing their location, and upon our Insistance we were allowed entrance.
We found a great number of cells underground too narrow for human occupa-
tion, without beds or covering for the prisoners, no ventilation, pitch dark, and
extremely cold, although the weather at the time was not severe. The chief
warden admitted that these cells were at times ocaipled by prisoners.
Our information, well authenticated, is to the effect that a large number
of political prisoners were taken out of the underground cells after we had
demanded admission the night previous.
We found one of the political prisoners still In solitary confinement. He
presented a pitiable spectacle. The miserable cell was cold and badly ven-
tilated. He was in an unkempt condition, highly nervous, palpably under-
nourished, and had a wild glare in his eyes, indicating an extremely dangerous
mental state. He tried to speak to us, but was quickly silenced by the warder.
The political prisoners In this jail, without exception, are men of the highest
standing — ^Journalists, lawyers, business men, skilled tradesmen, and laborers.
Many of them, confined for months, have not been informed of the charge
against them. All of them are denied the right of trial by jury. When charges
are made — often of the most trivial character — ball is denied. They were all
emaciated and appeared to be suffering from malnutrition. Of the thousands
of German prisoners we have seen in France none of them showed such wretched
pliysical condition or had countenances so marked with pain as the prisoners
In Mount joy.
As we were leaving the prison we were attracted by shouts in the rear of
t3ie main hall of the prison. Looking around we saw Pierce Beasley, one of
the political prisoners, an Irish journalist of the highest standing, and one
of tike most beloved men In Ireland, being hustled through the back door-way
by a burly prison guard.
Beasley cried out " I want to call your attention to the fact that this brute
who has me in charge is about to punish me for saying, 'Long live the repub-
lic.' " We Immediately protested against the assault on Mr. Beasley. The
urovemor of the prison hastened back to where the men were, and, after a
hurried whispered conversation with the guard, returned and snld that we
could be assured that no punishment would be Inflicted upon Mr. Beasley.
Upon our return from the prison we were furnished with detailed state-
ments of others who had been confined In the prison, exposing the vilest
atrocities committed against prisoners.
Having received information that there were a large number of prisoners
confined in a smaller prison in the town of Westport, County Mayo, which
place was invested by troops, we announced our Intention after leaving Mount-
Joy Jail, of visiting Westport. Shortly before the departure of our train upon
the following evening two policemen appeared at our apartments, and handed
us an unsigned typewritten letter, notifying us that we would not be per-
mitted to enter the town of Westport, the only reason given being that It was
" within a military area." We proceedetl, nevertheless, to Westport.
As we approached the town a company of soldiers met us about three miles
out, and the lieutenant announced, In a surly tone, that under no circum-
stances would we be permitted to enter. We demanded to see the colonel,
to whom we showed our passports, repeated the message of Mr. Lloyd-George
deliverer) through Sir William Wiseman, to the effect that he wanted us to
visit all of Ireland, explained that w^ were conducting an Investigation under
the authority of the Prime Minister. We advised him that we understood that
revolting conditions existed in Westport. The colonel, however, declared that
he would take the full responsibility of not complying with the request of even
so high a personage as the Prime Minister of England, though he stated that
he was acting on orders from the Government officials In Dublin.
Many of the persons we met in the vicinity corroborated the stories of brutal
treatment to which prisoners In the Westport Jail were being subjected, the
details being horrible, beyond belief.
During our visit to Ireland we witnessed numerous assaults In public streets
and highways with bayonets and clubbed rifles upon men and women known to
be republicans, or suspected of being in favor of a republican form of govern-
ment. Many of the outraged persons were men and women of .exemplary char-
acter and occupying high positions In the business and professional life of the
country.
826 Tr.KATV OF PKACE WITH GliRMANY.
We took statements covering hundreds of cases of outrage and violence com-
mitted by the officers and representatives of the English Government in Ire-
land, the details of which we set forth herein.
The excesses and atrocities detailed are either being actually committed at th«»
present time or have been committed within the recent past, as a part of u
scheme and plan to crush out and repress the effort of the Irish people to estab-
lish a republican form of government in Ireland.
Upon the basis of what we witnessed ourselves, as well as statements
of men and women of unimpeachable integrity, we make the following spe-
cific charges:
(1) Within the past few months at least 10 citizens have been killed by
soldiers and constables under circumstances which in a majority of the cases
coroners* Juries found to be willful murder under the laws of England; the
last man having been murdered in this way less than one month ago.
In all of these cases the perpetrators of the crimes have gone unpunished.
(2) Hundreds of men and women have been confined for months In the
vilest prisons without any charges being preferred against them.
(8) At least five men have died as the result of atrocities perpetrated
upon them while In prison, the post-mortem examination in some of the cases
disclosing marks of violence upon the bodies of the victims.
(4) Prisoners are confined in narrow cells with hands handcuffed beliind
them day and night In this condition they are fed by jail attendants.
They are permitted no opportunity of answering calls of nature, and are com-
pelled to lie in their cloUilng, befouled by human excrement, for days at a
time.
(5) Persons are confined in cells which are not large enough for one man.
They are not provided with beds or bunks of any kind, but are compelled
to sleep upon the bare fioors. There are no toilet facilities or receptacles to
contain the human offal, which necessarily accumulates upon the floors
where men are compelled to sleep in the filth night after night
(6) The food is insufficient and unwholesome. Prisoners, men and women,
are compelled to live for days upon water and poorly baked sour and stale
bread.
(7) Hundreds of men and women have been discharged from Jail with
impaired constitutions, and are in many cases incurable invalids as a result
of th^r treatment.
(8) During the past winter and spring streams of ice-cold water were
poured upon men confined in Jail, and they were compelled to lie all night on
cold fioors In unheated cells in their wet clothing. Many of them were after-
wards removed to outside hospitals suffering ^th pneumonia.
(9) Police and soldiers are habitually permitted to enter the cells where
political prisoners are confined and to beat them with their clubs.
. (10) Solitary confinement in most horrible form is generally practiced.
Numbers of prisoners have been taken directly from the Jails to insane
asylums, rendered maniacs by their treatment.
(11) Large bodies of political prisoners, in certain Jails, have beep kept
without any food whatever for days at a time.
(12) The right of privacy no longer exists In Ireland. The homes of the
people are constantly being invaded by armed men, and the occupants, in-
cluding delicate women and young children, cruelly beaten and otherwise mal-
treated.
(13) The children of suspected republicans, many of tender years, are kid-
napped and their parents kept in ignorance of their whereabouts for weeks.
(14) Women and children of refinement and respectability are arrested
without warrant, and in company of rough and brutal soldiers transported to
distant parts of Ireland and England, where they are confined in Jail with the
lowest prostitutes, some of whom are suffering from vile diseases, and are
compelled to use the same toilet facilities and thus expose themselves to the
danger of infection.
(15) The right of private property no longer exists in Ireland. Places of
business of republicans are invaded by soldiers and constables, fixtures de-
stroyed and property confiscated without comi)ensation. In many cases the
owners of such businesses and property are utterly impoverished.
(16) Heads of hundreds of families have been Jailed oY deported, leaving
dependent women and children without means of subsistence, and rendered
objects of public charity.
(17) Men and women on mere suspicion of having republican sympathies
are being taken from their homes and arrested upon the streets and hlghway.<i
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAN Y. 827
of Ireland; deported to England, or confined in jails In remote places, while
their distracteil families are kept sometimes for many months in ignorance
of their whereabouts.
Aiiioni; the leaders of the republican • movement In Ireland, many of whom
have had these atrocities practiced upon their persons, are lawyers, such as
Edward Duggan, George Nichols, and John Hanrahan. who rank relativelv
with such men In the United States as Morgan J. O'Brien. John B. Stanchlleld,
Levi Mayer, or A. Mitchell Palmer.
Some of the men whom we actually saw in jail, in a pitiable condition, were
newspaper men who rank with Henry Watterson. or the late Col William R
kelson, of Kansas City. This comparison is made because two of the prisoners
in Mountjoy. Messrs. Pierce Beasley and William Seares, are the owners or
principal stockholders of papers which they edit themselves. Manv others we
actually saw In prison are working newspaper men and correspondents of high-
class publications, such as Charles H. Grasty, Frank H. Simmonds. and Her-
bert Bayard Swope.
Among the men we saw in prison are stock raisers and farmers, business
men of large affairs, and literary men of brilliant parts and of the highest
character.
We witnessed while In Ireland a brutal and unprovoked assault by an Eng-
lish colonel and a crowd of soldiers upon the person of Prof. John Mac Nelll
Prof. Mac Nelll Is a member of the faculty of the National University, Is an
educator and publicist of the highest type, a member of Parliament, and occu-
pies relatively the same position hi Ireland that William Howard Taft or
Nicholas Murray Butler does in the United States.
EDUCATION.
If England ever had an educational system In Ireland It has completelv
broken down.
The Irish people are taxed more for the support of the police and con-
stabulary, although the country Is practically crimeless In the ordinary sense,
than they are for the maintenance of the whole educational system of Ireland,
including the upkeep of the National University, Trinity College, as well as all
the primary and other schools In the land.
School teachers In the primary schools are paid as low as $4 per week.
No system of hygiene or sanitation has been Installed. The teeth of practi-
cally all the children are In decay, and respiratory and throat troubles exist to
an alarming degree.
Lack of decent clothing and undernourishment Is keeping thousands of
children out of school.
ANTISOCIAL CONDITIONS.
In the city of Dublin alone there are 20,000 families, on an average of five to
each family, living In one-room tenements. Infant mortality Is appalling. ,
Destitution and hunger are rife.
Municipal bodies and private persons attempted to extend relief, but such
activities must have the sanction of the English Government, which is difficult.
If not impossible, to obtain.
LAND LAWS.
The much vaunted land laws have not appreciably aided in decreasing
poverty in the agricultural districts.
Leaving out of the question the manifold defects and hardships in the
operations of the law, all the farmer might gain by his ownership of the land
Is taken away from him by unjust taxes and monopolistic control of the neces-
saries of life.
When the first land law was passed in 1881 the direct per capita tax In Ire-
land was about $6 per head. At the present time the direct taxation. Imposed
by British law, amounts annually to tiie enormous sum of $45 per head.
Indirect taxation of the people can not be accurately estimated, but is
higher proportionately than in any other country in the world.
The age-old curse of absentee landlordism still cuts deeply into the economic
heart of Ireland. Hundreds of .thousands of its most fertile acres are owned by
foreigners. As quickly as the rich crops are garnered they are taken out of
828 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the country, and this immense food supply and almost Infinite source of wealth
is lost to her people forever.
England has cut off Ireland from the outside commerce of the world, allows
no ship to come trans-Atlantic to her ports, and thus controls the prices of the
necessaries of life for her inhabitants.
This combined system of taxation and monopoly automatically takes away
the legitimate profit from the farmer, no matter how fertile the land, propitious
the season, or energetic the individual, and sucks the life blood out of aP
industry.
LABOB.
Ireland has the best organized and most coherent labor movement in the
world. It is being thwarted and suppressed by the army and constabulary.
Wages of unskilled workers are below a line which means to them, hunger, cold,
and privation. The wage of skilled labor Is far below the minimum for decent
existence.
In many of the larger cities and towns the trade-unions have a 100 per cent
organization. We met and interviewed almost all of the national leaders of
labor. The heads of the National Irish Labor Party, which is in control of the
situation, are, without exception, ardent republicans, fully alive to their rU^ts
and insisting on self-determination for Ireland. They have all been the innocent
victims of atrocities against their own persons such as are enumerated herein,
in the Jails of Ireland and England.
They work along traditional trade-union lines. If their country is not freed
of foreign control and exploitation, and quickly, many of them declare that in
sheer defense of their own lives, they will be compelled to set up local Soviet
governments) and refuse longer to produce wealth for their oppressors.
THE BEVOLUnON.
Ireland for the first time in more than 100 years is absolutely cut off from
England, its regularly elected members of Parliament having with few excep-
tions refused to go to Westminster. They are attempting, under the guns of
the English soldiers, to hold orderly sessions in the Mansion House in Dublin.
There is a military organization of approximately 200,000 republican volun-
teers of fighting age, poorly equipped as to arms, and without artillery. They
appear to be well officered, and seemingly maintain a perfect organization, en-
gaging in daily drills and frequent maneuvers. Upon all sides may be heard
declarations that they are ready to fight and die for the right of self-determina-
tion, no matter how great the odds against them may be.
Guerilla warfare of the character which usually precedes major conflicts is
now going on In Ireland. Almost every day there are fights between small de-
tachmenfR of the army of oocupntlon and groups of republican volunteers.
One day the British soldiers prevail, with the result that citizens are killed.
In another day or two perhaps the republican volunteers are successful, with
• the result that soldiers are killed. Frequently the British soldiery wound and
<'jU)ture the volunteers, and In turn the volunteers kill or wound the soldiers
iuul retake the prisoners.
With a ferocity unparalleled even In the history of modem warfare, within
the past few days men and uomen have been shot down in the streets of Dublin.
The killing by the British Government of these republican volunteers would
not settle the Irish problem. Those below the fighting age, and even the chil-
dren of Ireland, are singing The Soldier's Song, shouting "Ix)ng live the re-
imbllc." and trying to enlist in the revolutionary movement.
ENGLISH TKSTIMONY.
^Ir. Ersklne Ohllders; an English writer of high repute, who served Great
Britain throughout the war In the Royal Naval Flying Corps, coming out a
major, made the follo\ving declaration In regard to the Irish situation in the
London Daily Herald of May 26, 1919:
" I could bomb a crowd from an aeroplane with a better conscience (and
more skill) than engage in this cold blooded systematic condemnation of
respectable people to the rigors and ignominies of Jail life — to loss of health,
loss of business and career, too often to loss of life ; not for breaking the moral
law, but in very truth or obeying that universal law which im^iels men worthy
of the name of men to become free."
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 829
Lord Cavendish Bentlnck, a Unionist member of the House of Commons,
within the last month tJeclared upon the floor of that body, that England was
not governing Ireland, but was engaged in a mere scuffle with the Irish people.
The lord chancellor of England, in an ofllcial report to the House of Lords
within the last fortnight, made the confession that the vast majority of the
people of Ireland were now in open rebellion against the rule of the British
CSovemment.
Right Hon. Herbert H. Asquith, former prime minister of Great Britain,
made the following statement upon June 2, 1919, which appeared in to-day's
London Daily Mail :
" Lord French is at present viceroy of Ireland, which to-day is the darkest of
the dark spots on the map, not of Great Britain, but of the world."
DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION.
All of the charges herein made are based upon the actual observation of the
signers while in Ireland, or upon the statements of men and women of unim-
peachable character, who are prepared to make direct legal proof of every
crime and atrocity set forth.
The Govenment of Great Britain, up to this time, has measurably succeeded
in hiding the details of these atrocities from the peace conference and the people
of the world. From time to time, when crimes and atrocities are forced into
publicity, they are met in three ways.
(1) Some distinguished English statesman or high official, usually one with*
out personal knowledge of the facts, solemnly denies the truth of the charges.
ib) The British press Impressively and unanimously denounces the charges
as false, and carries many communications from persons claiming to have
knowledge of the facts, and bearing testimony to their falsity.
(c) Government investigations before partisan judges, where testimony is
controlled by implicated ofilcials, resort often being had to Intimidation of wlt-
ne9s«es and subornation of perjury.
In order that the peace conference may act in the light of knowledge of the
Gondltifxis, and be fully advised as to the effort of England to keep the people
of Ireland in subjection by military power and violence, in contravention of
the principles for which the peace conference was convoked, we respectfully
ui^e the appointment of a commission to ascertain the facts and report the same
to the peace conference, and respectfully submit the following alternative sug-
gestions as to its formation and appointment :
(a) That an Impartial committee be appointed by the peace conference,
authorized to sit In the cities of Dublin and London, to take testimony as to the
alleged facts herein set forth.
None of the members of such committee to be residents or citizens of Great
Britain, Ireland, or any of the countries under the domination of Great
Britain, or over which that country claims to exercise a protectorate or control.
(&) That a committee of seven be selected Immediately in the manner fol-
lowing.
The prime minister of England shall select three members; the elected
representatives of Ireland, Including Unionists, Nationalists, and Republicans,
shall, by a majority vote, select three members of said committee; that the
six members thus selected shall agree upon a chairman, who shall be a resident
and citizen of the United States, France, or Italy. In case of inability or
failure to agree upon a chairman, the selection shall be made by the Supreme
Court of the United States. That the Government of Great Britain and the
elected members of Parliament from Ireland, as aforesaid, shall each have the
right to select its own counsel, to conduct the examination of witnesses and
assist In the Investigation, the only restriction being that counsel so selected
shall be reputable members of the legal profession in good standing In the
country of which he or they are citizens.
We sincerely urge that If the peace conference refuses a hearing to the
people of Ireland, In these circumstances, the guilt for the commission of these
monstrous crimes and atrocities, as well as for the bloody revolution which
may shortly come, must, from this time forward, be shared with Great Britain
'by the members of the peace conference. If not by the peoples whom they
represent.
Respectfully submitted.
Ambbican CoicicissioN ON Irish Independence,
Fbank p. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. DXTNNS.
Paris, June S, 1919.
830 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
AMESICAN Ck)KMI88ION ON IbIS^ INDEPENDENCE,
Paris, June 6, I9I9.
Deab Mb. President: We have the honor to hand you herewith report on
conditions In Ireland with demand for Investigation by the peace conference.
On account of the serious and critical situation exposed by the report, we
beg that you will be good enough to give this document your careful consider-
ation, and also to present the same to the full peace conference or to the com-
mittee of the five great powers, whichever may be the proper course under
the practice of the conference.
With assurances of our great respect and esteem, we are,
Sincerely,
AlCEBICAN Ck)lClCI8SI0N ON IbISH iNDEPENDE^fCE,
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman,
E. F. Dunns.
The President of the United States,
ParU.
Ahebican (Commission on Ibish Independence,
Paris, June 6, 1919.
Sib : We have the honor to hand you three copies of document entitled ** Re-
port on conditions in Ireland, with demand for Investigation by the peace
conference," which we have this day transmitted to the President, with copy
to Hon. David Lloyd-George, prime minister of England.
In view of the fact that the Senate of the United States is now considering
the subject of a new treaty or treaties with the Government of Great Britain,
and on account of the further fact that the House of Representatives has here-
tofore passed a resolution in favor of Ireland's right of self-determination,
which has not been acted upon by the peace conference, unless in secret
session, of which we have had no advices, we respectfully request that you
kindly transmit one copy of this document to the Senate and one to the House
of R^resentatives of the United States, in conformity with the customs and
practices of the State Department
With assurances of our great respect and consideration, we are.
Respectfully,
American Oommission on Irish Inhspkndrncb,
Frank P. Walsh, Ohairman,
B. F. Dunns.
Hon. RoBEBT Lansing,
Secretary of Staie of the United States, Paris.
Amebican (Commission on Ibish Independence,
Paris, Jime 6, 1919.
Sib: Ck>mplylng with your request of May 1, 1919, made through Sir William
Wiseman, and assented to by Messrs. Sean T. O'Ceallaigh and George Gavan
T>utty, the representatives at Paris of the Irish republican government, that we
visit every part of Ireland, an^ especially Belfast, to ascertain the actual con-
ditions existing in that country.
We wave the honor to* inform you that we have, except where prevented by
the use of the military forces of the English army of occupation, visited the
four provinces of Ireland, including Belfast, as well as the other principal dtie«
and towns.
We have prepared a report covering the facts, with certain recommendations.
In order that the Government of Great Britain may be informed, we herewftli
hand you copy of this report, which, in addition to the presentation of facta,
contains a demand for an Investigation under the authority of the peace con-
ference.
We also wish to advise your Government that the original of this document
has this day been handed to the President of the United States, and that copies
have been transmitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the
United States, through the Secretary of State.
Resoectful ly
Amebican Commission on Ibish Independencb,
Fbank p. Walsh, Chaimwn.
E. F. Dunne.
Hon. David Llotd-Geoboe, Prime Minister of England, Paris.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 831
Amebican Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
XouK Majesty : We herewith transmit to you our " Report on conditions in
Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace conference," together with
copies of letters addresser to your prime minister, Mr. David Lloyd-George.
The original of this report has been delivered to the President of the United
States for presentation to the peace conference, and copies have been forwarded
to Hon. Robert Lansing, American Secretary of State, for transmission to the
Congress of the United States.
Respectfully,
American Commission on Ibish Independence,
Fbank p. Walsh, Chairman,
E. F. Dunne.
His Majesty Geobob V, King of Great Britain, London, England.
Amebican (Commission on Ibish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
Snt: Upon the 22d ultimo, during the proceedings In the House of Lords on
tbat date, as published In the London Times, you made a statement, In rei^y to
a question of Viscount Mldleton, as to the intentions of the prime minister with
reference to giving publicity to the result of the findings of our investigation
of conditions in Ireland.
We beg, therefore, to submit to you herewith, for presentation to the House
of Lords, this report, together with copies of letter addressed to Hon. David
Lloyd-George, prime minister.
Respectfully,
American Ck>icMi88ioN on Ibish Indkpbndkngb.
Fbank p. Walsh, Ohairman.
B. F. Dunns.
Right Hon. Lord Bibkknhbad,
Lord ChanceUor of England, Bouse of Lords,
London, England.
American Ck>MMis8ioN on IbiIbh Indkfbndbncb,
Paris, June 8, 1919.
Snt : Upon the 14th ultimo, during the proceedings in the House of Commons
on that date, as published in the London Times, you made an official statement
as to the Intentions of the prime minister with reference to giving publicity to
the result of the findings of our investigation of conditions in Ireland.
We beg, therefore, to submit to you herewith, for transmlsBion to the cabinet,
this report, together with copies of letters addressed to His Majesty King
George V and Hon. David Lloyd-George, prime minister.
Respectfully,
Amxsican Commission on Irish Indkpbnmbnob.
Frank P. Walsh, Chairman.
B. F. DtTNNB.
Mr. BoNAB Law,
Leader of the House of Commons,
London, England.
American Commission on Irish Independence,
Paris, June 8, 1910.
Sib: We have the honor to hand you herewith "Report on conditions In
Ireland with demand for investigation by the peace conference," together with
copies of letters addressed to the President of the United States, the American
Secreary of State, and the Hon. David Lloyd-George, British prime minister,
upon the same subject
As you are doubtless aware, charges have been made that matters deeply
affecting the peace of the world, such as the condition of Ireland, are habitually
suppressed by English newspapers. In order that your paper may be thor-
834 TBEATY OF FEAGB WITH GEBMAKY.
gun emplacements have been erected and ^uns mounted thereon by the military
engineers of the Army of Occupation, so that Liberty Hall In Dublin, the head-
quarters of the Irish National Labcr Union, may be subjected to destructive
assaults at a moment's notice.
INDISPUTABLE PBOOF OF OTHER CHAB0B8.
These, as well as the other charges in the original and supplemental report
of the investigators, we are ready to substantiate not only by the testimony
of the victims, but by hundreds of disinterested witnesses, including past and
present members of the English Army and Royal Irish Constabulary, who,
sickened at the atrocious acts they were called upon to perform and witness,
either resigned their commissions or now stand ready to sacrifice their careers
in the interest of humanity and justice.
The issue now has been clearly made and formally submitted to the people of
the United States and the world by the official reports of the American CJom-
mlssion on Irish Independence and the formal reply of Hon. Ian MacPherson,
chief secretary for Ireland, representing Great Britain in the controversy. We
respectfully submit, not only in justice to the character of the signers of our
original report, which we assert to have been unjustly and maliciously a«-
sailed, but to the cause of a righteous and enduring peace, that unless the
English Government quickly agrees to the institution of an impartial court of
inquiry by the peace conference its case should go by default and England must
stand convicted by thinking mankind as a cruel marauder of human rights and
the one remaining government of the world imposing its rule upon others by
force of arms and exploiting weaker peoples by ugly might alone.
Frank P. Walsh,
Chairman American Commission on Irish Independence,
New York, August 4, 1919.
[Copy of cablegram.]
New York, August 8, 1919.
Ian MacPherson,
Chief Secretary for Ireland^
Dublin Castle^ Dublin, Ireland:
Am forwarding you by mail to-day reply to your statement denying facts set
forth in report of American Commission on Irish Indei)endeiioe, dated .June 3,
1919, so that you may be advised. Meantime I can not overlook the issue of
personal veracity and honor which you have injected into the controversy.
This is to Inform you that unless you immediately join in request for appoint-
ment of impartial committee of inquiry by the peace conference I shall publicly
stigmatize you as a falsifier and your answer to our report as a piece of willful
mendacity on the part of a high official unparalleled in the field of crooked
politics.
Frank P. Walsh,
Chairman American Commission on Irish Independence.
Mr. Walsh. I want to say, of course, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Fall, that we will be very glad to accede to whatever is the pleasure
of this committee.
Senator Johnson of California. We want nothing secret, Mr.
Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. I think it is a good idea. Neither do we want any-
thing secret. At the same time, there were certain elements about
it that we thought thev would prefer to have held confidential.
Senator Johnson or California. They were our delegates, were
they not?
Mr. Walsh. Yes ; and we claim, and I presented a legal argument
to Secretary Lansing on the proposition, that they had in no way
divested themselves of their official character; that they were sent
over there for this purpose; that they not only had the right to
TKEAXY OF P£AG£ WITH QEBMANT. 835
attend to the matter in hand, but that they had the right to hear
any representative American citizen in any sort of representative
capacity that had anything to present. We will be glad to submit
these documents under whatever rules you may be pleased to make.
(Subsequently the committee ordered the confidential documents
to be made a part of the record, and they are here printed, as
follows:)
Intebview Between President Wilson and Messrs. Edward F. Dunne and
Frank P. Walsh, at the President's House, 11 Place Dbs Etats Unis, Paris,
Wbdnbsdav, June 11, 1919.
Mr. Walsh and Gov. Dunne called upon the President by appointment at 2.15 p. m.
Gov. Dunne started by saying that Mr. Walsh would open the case concerning which
we called.
Mr. Walsh stated to the President that we had come to see him to ask him if he would
not secure a hearing for us before the ** Big Four," or whatever other committee might
be delegated to hear the case of Ireland. That we had made a formal request of Mr.
Lansing for safe conduct for Messrs. de Yalera, Griffith, and Plunkett, and had re-
ceived a communication from him to the effect that it would be futile to make the
request. The President intemipted Mr. Wali^ and said, "That is an official request,
Mr. Walsh.'' Mr. Walsh stated that he had not been able to disentangle this official
and unofficial business. He said, "What I am talking about is the denial of our
reqiiest that the Americans should intervene to set the safe conducts for these men.'^
The President said, "Well, of course, since uat time, gen^tlemen, you know the
Senate has passed a resolution upon the subject." Mr. Walsh said, "Well, the point
of our request to-day is that if we are to assume that these men are not goixig to be
allowed to come here, then we want to advise you that the people of Ireland are in
actual physical captivity; that those who would speak for tnem are not allowed to
cf>me here, and are restrained by the force of an army of occupation which is now
occupying the country."
We called the attention of the President to the fact that at the outbreak of the war
there was a home-rule bill signed by the King and which ought to have been put in
operation, but in violation of their so-called English law, it was not put into operation.
Later the time for its operation was extended for a year, and later again it was extended
until after the war. Lloyd-George then ^ve out a formal call for a convention. The
convention was ore^anized under the chairmanship of Sir Horace Plunkett. It began
to reach a stage wnere it looked as though there was going to be an agreement; as a
matter of fact when the Irish get together, north and south, they always almost agree.
When Lloyd-George saw there was {^ing to be an agreement, he wrote a letter to the
convention stating, among other things, that the English Government would recog-
nize nothing which they did that might interfere with the existing system of taxa-
tion and conduct of the army. This meant that no matter what the convention did,
England could still exploit Ireland and keep her under subjection by her army of
occupation.
Mr. Walsh further stated that England now has a blockade against Ireland as effective
as the Allies had against the Central Powers; that it amounts to an impost upon every
bite of food that the people of Ireland bring in from the outside, ana on everything
that they ship outside the island. Mr. Walsh told the President that no shipw were
allowed to touch at any port, trans- Atlantic, that the countrv could not trade with the
United States or other countries, and other countries could not trade with it. That
Ireland was the most lawabiding country on the face of the earth, with a great respect
for law and order and the rights of private property, but that unless some relief was
given that the workers there would have, in self-defense, to set ufp Soviet governments
or do somethmg else to relieve the situation.
The President said, "Of course, you should understand that no small nation of any
kind has yet appeared before the Committee of Four, and there is an agreement
among the Committee of Four that none can come unless unanimous consent is given
by the whole committee. '*
Grov. Dunne addressed the President, and said: "Has no small nation complaining
of injustice on the part of any of the victor nations ever appeared as yet? '* The Presi-
dent said, "There is no nation that has had its right considered by the peace confer-
ence except those that were actusdly concerned in the war. We have not attempted
to inquire into ancient wrongs. "
Mr. Walsh then ssdd, "Mr. President, it is the present injustice^ and the guerilla
warfare that now exists, that we think should receive consideration. Suppose we
present a case of this kind, a country in which a state of war actually exists. Do you
836 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANY.
mean to say, Mr. President, that you would just cloee the matter and let the war go
on?" The President replied, **I am only one of this conference, why should this
whole thing be left to me?" Mr. Walsh said, *'We are leaving it to you, Mr. Presi
dent, because you are the commanding figure in the peace conference, and because
it was vou who raised the hopes in the hearts of these people that they could come to
you. We come to you because we are asking you to use your powerful influence
with the other members of the committee to get us a hearing. "
Mr. Walsh further said, "In my conversations with the representatives of the Iri.«ih
republic, President de Valera asked me to ask you a question. I -will read from your
statements at the time we entered the war. " Mr. Walsh then read the following:
"Peace should rest upon the rights of peoples, not on the rights of government^*—
the rights of peoples, great and small, weak or powerful; their equal right to freedom
and security ana self-government, and to participation, upon fair terms, in the eco-
nomic opportunities oi the world.
***««« «
"It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to
live on equal terms of liberty arid safety with one another, whether they be strong
or weak. Unless this principle be made its foundation, no part of the structure of
international justice can stand.
"No man, no group of men, chose these to be the issues of the struggle. Thev are
the issues of it, and tney must be settled by no arrangement or compromise or adjust-
ment of interests, but aefinitely and once for all, and with a full and unequivocal
acceptance of the principle that the interest of the weakest is as safe as the interest of
the strongest. ♦ ♦ ♦ The impartial justice meted out must involve no diBcrimina-
tion between those to whom we wish to be just and those to whom we do not wish to
be just. It must be justice that plays no favorites and knows no standards but the
eoual rights of the several peoples concerned.''
Mr. Walsh continued: "Now, then, Mr. President, Mr. De Valera asked me to say
to you — inasmuch as you state these are the issues; that there must be no arrangement
or compromise, and tnat they muBt be settled definitely and once for all — ^to ask you
now where is the place to settle them definitely, once for all, and how shall his people
do it. Now that ne is to be denied the right to come here oy England, and you tell
us now that we can not appear, in effect, before the peace conference, he asks this
question, and I ask you. where will he go? Where shall his people go? If it is to
be settled definitely and once for all, and you say that the issue is made — and we
agree with you that it is made — now, where is it to be settled definitely and once
for all?"
The President said, "Mr. Walsh, do you think that any considerable number of
people, when they read my declarationa, thought that these settlements were to be
maae at some particular place, automatically, immediately?" Mr. Walsh replied,
"Mr. President^ I can speak first for myself. When I read it, I believed you meant
Ireland. I believe that practically all the people in Ireland believed that, and all
that I have met of our own people believed it.
Mr. Walsh continued, "Mr. President, I am afraid you do not understand the Irish
situation." The President replied: "If you think I do not understand the Irish
question, what did you come to me about it for?" Mr. Walsh replied: "I do not
mean, Mr. President, that you do not understand the general history of Ireland, but
I do say that you do not know what is going on in Ireland to-day; that is, its exploita-
tion by England, the shooting down of its people in the streets, the sea blockade
which England has in force against it — ^in short — all of the atrocities that are being
Fracticed upon its citizens at this very moment." The President said, "Of course,
do not claim to know the local and specific matters referred to." Mr. Walsh said,
"I believe you received an invitation to go to Ireland. I think it would be a fine
thing for yourself and for the peace of the world if you accepted that invitation. The
people would be delighted if you went to Ireland, and get an understanding of the
situation at first hand."
The President said : " Now, Walsh, if it is your intention to go back to America and
try to put me in bad, I am going to say when I go back that we were well on the way
of getting Mr. De Valera and his associates over nere; we were well on the way, when
Chancellor in the House of Lords and the statement made by Mr. Bonar Law in the
House of Commons, both officially speaking for Mr. Lloyd-George, in which they
stated that it was not his intention, and never had been, to grant safe conducts to
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBUXNY. 837
these men, and that it was his purpose, in having an interview with us after we came
back fro a Ireland, to state the 'English case' to the American press representatives
and serve England and not serve the people whom we were representing over here.
Did you read that? '»
The President said, *' Now, Walsh, I am not going to discuss anything that was said
in the British House of Commons or House of Loi^s, except to say this., that I was
making an effort, and Col. House was making: an effort, and that we thought we were
well on the way of getting de Yalera and his associates over here, but the speeches
of you gentlemen gave such offense that the whole thing had to be abandoned."
Mr. Walsh said, ''Mr. President, I have written a letter to Mr. Lansing, to which
we have received no reply, asking him what were the utterances that offended these
eentlemen, and who were the persons who were offended. Perhaps you may be able.
Mr. President, to answer it. Was it Mr. Lloyd-George?"
The President said, "I have not said anything about Mr. Lloyd-George." Mr.
Walsh said, "Who was it, then, to whom we gave offense?" The rresident replied,
"Well, I would say that you offended the whole British Government." Mr. Walsh
then said, *' Well, then, you do not accept what Mr. Lloyd-George said to the effect
that he was not going to allow them over in any event?" The President said, "Mr.
Walsh. I am not going to discuss Mr. Lloyd-George."
Mr. Walshjsaid, "Would you be good enough to see the gentlemen who were offended,
and if that was what stood in the way, if two others would come before them that had
not given such offense, would they answer their request?" The President said
"There is no use discussing that; I don't know what the British Government would
say, and I have said all I can say on the subject."
The President continued, " I want you gentl oen to understand that our position
is this: That we are dealing officially with these Governments. You would not want
us to make representations or engage in an effort that might involve the sending of
troops into Europe, and I know that our people would not want that. What I am
saying to you is that we can not, and under no circumstances could we have at any
time since we have been here, do anything in this matter of an official nature; but I
want to say to you that I have the deepest sympathy for Ireland and her people and
her catise . I know I speak for the others when I say that all we could do unofficially we
have been doin^ and will do."
Mr. Walsh said, "In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I ask if
any of your efforts have been directed toward anything except securing to these
people the right of self determination, and the right to hive a tree government just
like the Government of the United States?" The President said, "What I will say
to you IB this: That you know the lines that we were discussinp.*'
Mr. Walsh siad, "Mr. President, the Irish people believe in these principles that
you laid down, and believe that they come wholly within the descripUon of a people
whose people have determined their own rights with reference to their government.
And I want to call your attention to this fact: That no mediations or negotiations or
intercourse with the representatives of Great Britain can possibly accomplish any-
thing at this time. We do not desire to have any, and so far as we are concerned we
do not desire anyone else to have any for us. The attitude of the English Govern-
ment is this: Bv force of arms, by an army of occupation in Ireland, it is assuming to
legislate for Ireland. It can do anything to Irelana or for Ireland that its might gives
it the power to do. So that if England has anything that it thinks is good for the
Irish people it has the power to impose it at once. In addition to this the Irish people
have a right to say, 'We will die oefore we will live under any such law.' So that
no discussion or mediation or negotiation that you or anybody else would have with
the representatives of the English Government could do anything for Ireland. Mr.
President, you mentioned having your attention called to a resolution of the Senate
of the United States requesting safe conducts for Messrs. de Valera, Griffith, and
Plunkett." The President said, "Yes; you saw that." Mr. Walsh said, "Yes; but
I only saw the newspaper text of it; we wired for the text and did not get it. " " Well , ' '
the President said, "1 saw that; we have been advised of it." Mr. Walsh said, "Mr.
President, what action do you propose to take on the request of the Senate? " The
President replied, "That is a matter that has not yet been taken up by our full con-
ference."
Mr. Walsh said, "Now, then, we should direct our efforts, as I understapd it, to the
other representative on the committee of four and see whether or not we are going
allowed to meet you, how would you suggest that this or any similar matter could get
838 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
before your Committee of Four?" "Well,'* said the President, "I know of no way
except to take it up with them individually."
Mr. Walsh said to the President, " Mr. President, when you uttered those word?
declaring that all nations had a right to self-determination; that it was an issue that
had to be settled and once for all. and settled on the side of justice — ^those expressi^m?
I have read to you — ^you voiced the aspirations of countless millions of people that had
been saying them to each other, and begging governments that oppressed them t-
recognize tnem. When you, as the head of tne most powerful nation in the world,
uttered them, and they received the assent of the representatives of all the nati'>nii.
it became a fact, Mr. President. These people are imbued with the principle. They
may be killed trying to vindicate it, but they can no longer be kept in mibjection hy
the action of diplomats, government officials, or even governments. They are fr<H*
now. " The President said: "You have touched on the ^reat metaphysical tragedy
of to-day. My words have raised hope in the hearts of millions of people. It ia mv
wish that they have that; but could you imagine that you could revolutionize tIk'
world at once, could you imagine that those peoples could come into that at once? '
Mr. Walsh replied. '* I can imagine them, if anyone denied it. struggling to come int^ it
at once, if it were denied in the place where they expected they were to have it come
and to have it settled definitely once and for all. "
The President said, " Wlien I gave utterance to those words, I said them without the
knowl edge that national ities ex isted , which are coming to us day after day . Oicouiye.
Ireland's case, from the point of view of population, from the point of view of the stnie-
gle it has made, from the point of interest that it has excited in the world, and especi-
ally among our own people, whom I am anxious to serve, is the out^'tinding cap** oi a
small nationality. You do not know and can not appreciate the anxieties that I havr*
experienced as the result of these many millions of people having their hopes mi^ed
by what I have said. For instance, time after time I raise a question here in acc'ini-
ance with these principles, and I am met with the statement that Great Britain ^r
France or some of the other countries have entered into a solemn treaty obligation.
I tell them but it was not in accf)rd with justice and humanity; and then they tell
me that the breaking of treaties is what has brought on the greater pirt of the war?
that have been waged in the world. No one knows the feelings that are inside •'!'
me while I am meeting with these people and discussing these things, and as tho.^»
thinj^ that have been said here go over and over in my mind I feel it met pDfoundly
It distresses me. But I believe, as you gentlemen do. in Divine Providence, and I
am in His hands, and I don't care what happens me individually. I believe the^e
things and I know that ountleas millions of other people believe them. "
Gov. Dunne said: "Mr. President, do you know that the addresses made by us in
Ireland, which you sav have given offense to the British authorities, were along the6(^
nes: That we had enjoyed the blessings of a republican form of. government in
America for many years, and that we had grown great and prosperous as a republic;
that we were pleased to note that they had in a fairly held election determined that
they desired a republican form of government, and that we congratulated them upon
their choice and noped that their aspirations would be consummated, the very same
sentiments that we nad always held and thought in America, and to which the people
<5f Ireland had responded?"
The President replied, "Yes, Gov. Dunne, but suppose that during our war of the
rebellion an Englishman had declared that the South had a right to secede, or sided
with the South, nobody would have criticized him for that; but suppose that he had
gpne into the South while the rebellion was going on or immediately before the rebel-
lion, would not our Government have said that he was fomenting the rebellion?"
Gov. Dunne said: "There is no parallel here. Here is a people who, after the
armistice, held an election under the forms and securities of Bntish law, and declared
for a republic, and 1 don't believe the cases are in any way similar.*'
Mr. Walsh then interjected: "If you are drawing that comparison between the
Southern States attempting the exercise of that called *the right of secession ' acd the
case of Ireland, I am compelled to say, I do not see the parallel. Would you please
state in what way the cases are similar?"
Mr. Walsh continued: "Of course, Ireland has a separate nationality; it is a nation
that has alwajns asserted it^ nationhood except when repressed by o% erwhelming
force." and then asked the President where the parallel was. The I^resident replied
that he did not say it was a parallel case.
Toward the close of the interview the President said: "I wish that you would
bear in mind that 1 came here with very high hopes of carrying out the principles
as they were laid down. I did not succeed in getting all I came after. I should say—
I should say that there was a great deal — no, I will put it this way — there were a lot
of things that I hoped for but did not get."
TBEATY OF PSACE WITH GERMANY. 839
Mr. Walsh. Now, when we went over there we expected to meet this
situation : The President had said this fight was for the right of small
nations to control their own lives and to govern themselves. He said
that the issue was not made by .men or women, but was made by
events ; that this principle was to apply to those whom we did not
like as well as to those whom we did like ; that there was to be a peace
conference at the end of the war and that that conference was to
be composed not of diplomats, as such conferences had been before,
not of statesmen, not of governments, but of peoples through their
representatives; and so these people, meeting in race convention, a
homogenous people with their boundaries fixed by God himself, by
the sea, a people who had retained their culture through the cen-
turies, a people who had maintained their social institutions in spite
of all sorts of repression of armies of occupation, aye, may I say, a
people who shed their most precious blood at least once every genera-
tion in ah attempt to repel the invader who was occupymg their
country — these people met in race convention and sent us as their
representatives to the peace conference, and we believed that when
we got there we would find a conference of delegates. These people
had held a plebescite in December under the forms of English law,
under every disadvantage so far as they were concerned, and bv
an overwhelming majority had agreed to come under these princi-
ples for which so many of our soldiers died. When they did it they
separated from England. They refused to go to Westminster.
They set up their own congress, and I want to say to you gentle-
men, because I speak here as an American of America, that I give
the American thought when I say as an American of Irish blood that
if the great test was put between America and any other nation upon
this earth, including the one for which we have so deep a sentimental
attachment, that we would see Ireland go to the fatnomless depths
of the sea and disappear as compared to our own countrv, but I
want to say to you that when these men separated from England,
when this Irish people separated from England, they separated
forever. [Applause.] They have a volunteer army of 200,000
trained men, not well equipped, of course, but none will say in this
Sresence that they will not go out with their rude weapons and
ght to the death, because men are doing it in India, where women
and children are being bombed. They are doing it in Egypt, where
villages are being ravaged and people are being killed on the street.
They are doing it in 20 different countries among 20 different groups
at the very time that peace was signed. So we believed that under
tile declaration of the Jrresident of the United States, when we would
present our case, we would show that Ireland came strictly within
the definition which he gave and that automatically Ireland would
have the right to self-determination. But we found no such body
in Paris. We found that 70 men or more had assembled there; that
immediately upon assembling they had abrogated all their rights.
They were like the minority stockholders in a corporation that
appointed a board of directors, and they appointed a board of
directors of 10. The main body had met only four times in session
up to the time we left Paris. They appointed a board of directors of
10. That board of directors appointed a committee of four. One
of them was found to have no influence and was set aside, so they
got down to a committee of three. We found that there was no small
840 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMAKY.
nation given a hearing before that board. We found that there was
no abstract right contended for by any small nation laid down as
the principle of action by that committee of three. And from now
on for the purposes of this argument we will call them the Big Three
instead of the Big Four.
Senator Johnson of California. Were you present over there, Mr.
Walsh?
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Senator, I hung around the Hotel Crillon until
I wore out several pairs of shoes.
Senator Johnson of California. I want tiie record to show that
you are speaking from personal knowledge.
Mr. Walsh. I am speaking from personal knowledge, and I am
putting so much " I " m this case that I do not know whether I am
a witness or an advocate or what I am here ; but I was there, and the
record shows at least thepart that I took.
Senator Brandegee. Will you be kind enough to let me ask you a
question?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, indeed. Senator.
Senator Bkandegee. Of how many i>eople did this board of di-
rectors, as you call it, consist at the time vou were corresponding
with them with a view of getting the case oi Ireland laid before the
peace conference?
Mr. Walsh. There were 10 of the board of directors, blit it hac
vanished down to 3. I am just giving my view of it, of course, as I
looked at it at first hand, in a sort of a way. We were Kansas City
and Chicago diplomats, not Parisian diplomats. We had to take it
as we glanced at it, and we found that committee of three. Of
course, Japan could have sat in there, but it was the joke of Paris,
" What are the Japs going to do?" The other members were wishing
to the Almighty that they would do something besides just sit there
and blink; but England had winked at Japan, of course. Japan
went in there under that broad plan, the equality of Nations, the
equal recognition of all nationals ; but Japan already had her secret
treaty, she already had her understanding. She did not need to be
there. What she wanted was to maintain her grasp on Korea and to
get Shantung. Of course she dropped out. She was well attended to.
Now, instead of dealing with small nations over there they dealt
with reparations, they deSt with indemnities, they divided up terri-
tories, they creat-ed new nationalities, some of them, I understand, by
mistake. They drew lines and sometimes did not know what country
some of these nationals were put into. Around that place were all
of these peoples trying to get a voice. I believe that had we had a
little more practical statesmanship we might have organized the
small nations of the world on the principles of the 14 points and
started out and won it for the world. I really do [applause] ; be-
cause the Lithuanians were there, the Arabians were there, the Chi-
nese were there, the Esthonians were there, the Georgia republicans
were there, the East Indians were there, and all the others were
there. They called at the headquarters of the American commission,
to find out from us what was the reason why the 14 points were not
beijtig applied. So after they finished this work as far as it could be
finished — the departure of the President of the United States put an
end to it — we applied to the " Big Three." I am not going into our
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 841
correspondence, but I will say this, that they said that unofficially
they loved us, but officially they were ready to jump out of the win-
dow when we came in. I do not know what they were afraid of.
Surely they were not afraid of England. Let them look at Ireland.
Nine hundred soldiers held off 40,000 for over a week. Let them
look back to the history of our own country that fought so well
against unequal odds. Surely it was not fear. But as I say, un-
officially they loved us, but officially, I am sorrv to say, I do not
believe they liked to see us come into the Crillon Hotel.
In the interviews which we are now to submit under the request
of this committee we will give the interviews that we had with all
these gentlemen. Our correspondence will show — ^I want to speak
plainly — ^how they dodged us. It would have been, I may say, more
agreeable to us and would have called for our admiration to a greater
extent if thev had just said, " We don't want to have anything to
do with you"; but they did not do that. They recognized us just
as far as they could unofficially, and we claim, of course, officially.
So when the thing broke up
Senator Borah. Mr. Walsli, I suppose there must have been some
one, aside from the American delegation, that was objecting to your
bein^ heard, was there not?
Mr. Walsh. Oh, yes; let me tell you. Let me say this. Senator
Borah, as it will appear here, that we were prevented from being
heard by the representative of Greorge V directly, for this reason,
because now as I study this covenant of the league I see many
tingles that I did not see before, and I recall that when that com-
mittee of four went into session to settle the fate of the whole
w^orld they agreed that they would not hear anyone except by
unanimous consent, and we were the people — ^that is, the representa-
tives of the Irish race; when I say " we" I mean the representatives
of these other races — ^that had the great concern.
Now, when that committee adjourned by the departure of the
President, we for the first time got the league of nations. I say
here now, and I want to put it in this record, that that league of
nations was never assented to, even by the ones who signed it, in
the sense that we understand it. Anyone who was present at the
Quay d'Orsai when the covenant of the league of nations was so
splendidly and dramatically read by our President, and has seen
them jumping up all over the room, wanting to say a word — ^you
could not tell who they were — ^but Clemenceau, the lion of France,
blandly said, "There being no objection, the covenant of the league
is agreed to." We used to have what we called mob primaries out
in Missouri, and I guess some of you gentlemen had them, where
the chair would recognize only one man to appoint a committee of
10 to bring in a list of delegates to attend the convention, and the
committee of 10 always returned with a list containing their own
names, and then the meeting adjourned. [Laughter.]
Senator Brandeoee. You speak of these interviews you had. Did
you have a stenographer with you?
Mr. Walsh. No ; we did not have a stenographer, but the minute
we came away, every time, we dictated to a stenographer what had
occurred in the conference; and in the last one, the one with the
President, I had a gentleman present who, of course, could be a
842 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
witness, and there were two of us, Gov. Dunne and myself, and we
immediately dictated it, and I do not believe that there will be any
dispute about the facts. If so we would like to appear before this
committee again, and perhaps point out logically other things that
coincide exactly with what was said in that interview.
Now, as I say, I was for a league of nations such as I have tried
to set out here, but I was willing to take a bad league of nations.
I was willing to take one that was not a good league of nations
I had gotten the French thought — ^the thought of France — ^that this
is a rotten covenant for a league of nations; but it is not possible
to start unless you have some sort of a league, and vou can not have
a robust and a good league by strangling it to death in infancy.
I had a good deal of that thought. I studied that league covenant
coming back on the boat, and having studied that league covenant
I say, so far as my limited capacity goes and my ability to under-
stand it, it is not a league of nations to prevent war, but it is a
league of nations to foment war; it is a league of nations to put
the shackles of injustice on almost half the people of the world;
to embroil us in wars and in contests such as our country has never
known before.
In order to be plain — ^it is with regret that I will send my
resignation to the League to Enforce Peace coincidentally' with
the little effort I am making to-day — I hate to say it, but I sav
that that whole covenant of the league is so shot through with
injustice, that the subtle European minds have so covertly and
successfully planted their ideals in it in contradiction to the ideals
of the American people, that no interpretation and no amendment
can make it an honest document. [Applause.]
Now, if I may be indulged for a moment, about this league, we
have a certain concept. We have been reproached for wing a
material people. Over there I saw a cartoon that hurt my feelings,
portraying America something like Davenport's cartoons used to
do, with dollar marks all over Uncle Sam's clothes. We have been
criticized for being chasers of the almighty dollar and for not
having the high spirit that ought to animate people.
Senator Knox. That cartoon represented the dollars they
wanted.
Mr. Walsh. It represented the dollars they wanted; very good.
But that criticism, as I say, is being made, Mr. Senator. Now
we have certain ideals. This Government was founded upon them.
We believe that they have not only been good for us, but thev
have been good for the world. The great contribution that Presi-
dent Wilson made to this war was in his declaration upon going
into the war, in the addresses that he made to you gentlemen at
different times, and in public; because, as I had the privilege of
telling him, when he made those declarations of the right of every
man and women to control their own life destinies, he said what
was in the hearts and in the brains of countless millions of people—
all of them, practically, except the men who held mastery. He
declared principles for which thousands have died what might
otherwise have been ignominious deaths upon the scaffold, for
which countless millions have served time in jails and peniten-
tiaries; and are doing it, I may add, in Ireland to-day; and when
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 843
he did it, be ^ve utterance to the idea that set the world free* By
your action m the Senate of the United States you may cause
the butchery of many more thousands, but that ideal will live. The
people of the world have been made free, and they have been made
tree by us; and if our temporary servants — or representatives, to
be more polite, because we have no rulers — forget those principles,
then by tne strength of our intellects and by the power given by the
Constitution of the United States we will get new servants and
other representatives who will carry those principles to their final
consummation. [Applause.]
I will only try to urge the fundamentals of this plan.
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the time of the hear-
ing be extended indefinitely, until it is concluded.
Senator New. I second that motion.
Senator Fall. It is the first chance that the American people
have had for a hearing anywhere, as I understand, except in the
Senate. [Applause.]
Mr. Walsh. I do not like to take the time.
Senator Fall. Go on.
Senator Moses. Let us have the question, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Borah. We have got 25 days.
Mr. Walsh. I have all the rest of my life.
Senator Johnson of California. And so have the rest of us, too.
Senator Moses. May we have a vote on this motion, Mr. Chair-
man ? '
Senator Fall. I make that motion that the time be extended
three hours — extended more, if necessary.
The Chairman. The motion is that the time be extended three
hours.
Senator Brandegee. Before we vote on that let me ask
The Chairman. I want to say to the committee that we arranged
to hear the Greeks to-dav and to give them an hour, and as they
have come here from a long distance, I feel bound to give them
that hearing.
Senator Fall. The three hours additional need not necessarily be
consecutive. They may take their hour and then we may continue
this hearing, which is very interesting to me.
The Chahiman. Certaiiily. There is no need of a motion for
that.
Senator Brandegee. I simply wanted to ask Judge Cohalan if he
wanted three hours more.
Judge Cohalan. We would like it very much. Mr. Ryan gave
way, and he has first-hand information. Gov. Dunne gave way.
We would like very much to give them an opportunity to be heard.
The Chairman. We can hear the Greeks this afternoon, but of
course it would involve a break in your hearing. We can take it up
later.
Mr. Walsh. I am going to close as quickly as I possibly can.
There are a few things I would like to say yet.
The Chairman. Take your time, Mr. Walsh. The committee are
ready to hear you. [Applause.]
Senator Fall. Mr. Chairman, had we not better settle this by
voting on my motion for three hours' additional hearing? Then
we can take a recess and hear the Greeks later.
844 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
The Chairman. Certainly. I think we can give them all the time
they want.
Senator Fall. I will move to extend the time again, if they have
not completed.
The Chairman. The committee can arrange that. We have other
hearings, and of course we must maintain our engagements.
Senator Johnson of California. We can run these hearings into
next week.
Senator Borah. We can go ahead, and if nobody calls time on
them, they will not need to stop.
Senator Fall. Nobody will call time on them.
The Chairman. I will try and make an arrangement with the
Greeks for their hearing in the meantime.
Mr. Walsh. I will try as well as I can to address myself to what
I call the fundamentals of this proposed covenant of the league of
nations, to give you if I can what is in my mind and what is in my
conscience, because I will say again what I feel impelled to say, that
this whole covenant of the league of nations is a perversion of what
the men who really favored a league of nations intended and wished
for.
Senator Harding. Before you get away from it, I would like to
have you emphasize and give us a little more light on one thing:
You expressed the surprise of the assembled commissioners over toe
league when it was presented.
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Senator Harding. Was that marked ?
Mr. Walsh. Oh, it was very marked. They jumped up all over
the place to make protests. Man after man got up. You know
there was an awful censorship upon this whole business. We fol-
lowed the publicity very closely, on account of our own little em-
bassy over there. It was impossible at that time to get anything
about Ireland in a French paper. I am very happy to say that since
the Persian matter and since the developments at the White House
conference and other places a very distinctly different reaction is
going on in Paris. Our cable advisers tell us that the most reaction-
ary papers in Paris are in favor of the absolute independence of
Ireland, and think that Ireland was badly treated at the peace con-
ference, and looked to this Senate not to give any advice and never
to consent to the covenant of the league of nations as it is at present.
Senator Brandegee. Will you allow me to ask you a question?
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. At the time this covenant was accepted by
the plenary conference was there any attempt to elucidate its pro-
visions, to explain the various provisions in it, or any debate upon it»
other than the formal set speeches of the heads of the nations which
presented it to the conference?
Mr. Walsh. Not a particle. It had been presented before, and
there were some objections made to certain parts of it, and it went
back, and this meeting was called, and I talked to one of the most
powerful members of the conference outside of the Big Four. He is
a lawyer of very fine ability. As we are goine in to have everything
open, I will say that it was Judge Doherty, or Canada, representing
the Dominion of Canada, and the night before he did not know
what was in it.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAB^Y. 845
Senator Moses. He was one of the signatories to the treaty, was
he not?
Mr. Walsh. He was a signatory to the treaty.
Senator Brandeoee. I would like to have you or some other gen-
tleman who speaks for your side of the question state why this cove-
nant can not by amendment be made satisfactory. I understand you
to say that it is such a dishonest document that it can not be made
honest by amendment.
Mr. W ALSH. Yes ; I say that. I do not mean personal dishonesty.
Senator Brandeoee. I understand that.
Mr. Walsh. I mean intellectually dishonest.
Senator Brandbgeb. Such an undesirable thing for the United
States to agree to.
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. I want either you or some other gentleman
who addresses us to explain, in view of article 26, which provides
that amendments to this covenant shall take effect when ratified by
the members of the league whose representatives compose the coun-
cil, and by a majority of the members of the league whose repre-
sentatives compose the aasembly, why under that article it can not
be amended satisfactorily. I ask you that question in view of the
fact that one of the strongest arguments contained in the letters
which I receive in favor of the covenant is that, although the cove-
nant has its imperfections, no human document can be expected to
be perfect when it originates, that the Constitution of the United
States was not perfect, and that it was afterwards amended very
quickly, and that therefore this league covenant can be amended
satisfactorily if we will only go into it. I want you to give your
reasons why you say it can not.
Mr. Walsh. Very good ; I will try to answer that, Senator. First,
I look upon this document in this way : It is either a thoroughgoing
fraud from beginning to end, to which a respectable nation should
not give its assent ; it is either something gotten up intentionally and
deliberately to deceive, or else it has either the airect power or the
potential power to enforce every idea in it. That is my opinion of
this document.
I believe, if we surrender to this proposed covenant of the league
of nations, that in the very essentials of its structure, we can never
escape.
I pegin by my opposition to article 10, and, as I suggested, not
limiting it as far as Ireland is concerned, but that it should apply to
any country that had the fate of the people in its hands, and had
determined the form of government under which it should live and
which government was oppressed by an army of occupation. I
think it could be amended. But as you go through this, as has been
said, 11 i.s just as bad as 10, and 12 is just as bad as 11, and you
go a little further and you will find that 18 is as bad as 11, because if
a dispute arose, and believe me, gentlemen, a dispute is goin^ to arise
about Ireland mighty quickly, and a dispute is going to arise about
other matters as far as France is concerned, and ii this committee
has the power — and this committee has the power if it is a fair docu-*
ment and not a false document — ^it has the authority to lay down the
procedui^e from which we can never escape. And I took section 40
846 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
of the annex, because my first criticism was answered by a gentle^
man very high in authority who said that this vote had to be unani-
mous, the vote of the assembly, but I found under section 40 of
the annex that a majority vote, a bare majority of the council, carries
any proposition wiA it^ And'when it comes to arbitrament if these
nations, they know exactly what they want under this treaty, and
will never agree to arbitration, and it goes to this council stacked in
advance. I want to speak plainly — why ? Because they have secret
agreements entered into and signed by the representatives of the
United States dividing territory, and unless the chairman has re-
ceived them since I heard the argument on the case of Egypt the
other day, they are still undisclosed to the separate branch of the
treaty-making power, the Senate of the United States, and certainly
not to our knowledge.
The Chairman. Sfost things connected with this treaty are un-
disclosed.
Mr. Walsh. I would say now, if we are doing it all open, as soon
as you get the agreement mentioned by Senator Fall, that you send
it to us so that we may find out if Ireltod is in it.
Senator Borah. You were speaking about article 40?
Mr. Waubh. Article 40 of the annex.
Senator Brandeqee. You have not the committee print?
Mr. Walsh. I think I can find it.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you mean a majority of the council or
of the assembly.
Mr. Walsh. A majority vote of the council decides the whole
thing.
Senator Brandeqee. I wish you would read that provision.
Mr. Walsh. All right, I think I can find it. It is in the annex.
It is chapter 3, article 40.
Senatoi' Moses. That relates to the Saar Valley.
The Chairman. Top of page 93, article 40, section 4.
Senator Swanson. That relates to the Saar Basin, section 4.
Mr. Walsh. I think not, as I read it. Let us consider it, because
I tried to weigh it with great care, and I weighed this with reference
to what this council might interpret it to mean. Now, the league
contains a great many of the ideals expressied by the President, out
still I will say that an analysis of that will show that in some place
there is something that points out that this is not a covenant that is
going to bring peace to the world.
I get this from the Congressional Record. We have the covenant
and then we have the annex.
Senator Brandeoee. Just give the page and the date of the Record.
Mr. Walsh. Page 2479 of the Conjjressional Record of Thuraiay,
July 10, 1919. That was my first notion when I first read it, that it
referred to the Saar Valley, but I do not believe that it does.
Senator Brandeoee. I want you to put it in the record of the
hearing of this conunittee.
Mr. Walsh. I am going to put it in the record, and then try to
give you what follows, that makes me say that the interpretation of
this can be made to show that it refers to the whole annex.
Senator Brandeoee. Take your time and find it.
Senator Borah. I suggest that the gentleman proceed and that
when he has time to look this up he can add it to his remarks.
TRBATT OF PEAGB WITH OERMAKl. 847
Mr. Wamh. Yes.
Senator Moses. In other words, he will present a brief on it?
Senator Borah. No; he can present his remarks. We will stay
here until he gets through.
Mr. Walsh. Yes ; I will find the clause in there, if that refers to
the whole annex, and I think it does.
Senator Swanson. If you will look at page 67 of the annex, it is
named "Annex." Then it concludes.
On page 93, here is the way section 40 reads [reading] :
In all matters dealt with In the present annex the decision of the council of
the league of nations will be taken by a majority.
On page 67, if you will read through — ^it is named '''Annex " — it
shows that all that in the annex is limited to a majority.
Mr. Walsh. I did not so get it out of the Congressional Record.
I will try to come back to it. I took this Congressional Record in
my analysis and that is my conclusion. I will come back to that.
Now, then, to begin with, fundamentally I say that the setting up
of this assembly and council absolutely pushes us away not only
from the ideas of our government, but surrenders us in this way to
the conception of monarchy as opposed to a republican form of gov-
ernment.
We were present, as I say, in Paris. We were there at the time
when all of the experts were resigning. We were there at the time
when all of Paris understood that the ideals for which we entered
the war had been circumvented. We were there and heard the secret
treaties discussed. We were there and heard not only the facts, but
the intelligont men and women from many of the struggling nation-
alities, and all of them drawing the point of departure from democ-
racy to autocracy or monarchy just as I am going to try to draw it
here.
We start with this council, which consists of the representative of
the American Republic, the minister of the King or England, the
minister of the King of Italy, the minister of the Emperor of Japan,
the minister of the King of Belgium, the minister of the King of
Spain, the minister of the King of the Helenes, and the representa-
tive of the Republic of France, essentially different in form, of
course, from our own, and the representative from the Republic of
Brazil. So we started out with a monarchical institution essentially
to pass upon all questions the council of the proposed league of na-
tions has the right to pass upon.
We find as we look through this treaty, first, that the nations are
not disarmed. We find that we are entering into obligations our-
selves to increase our armament. We find that we are under a prac-
tical obligation to increase our armament fivefold. We find that
under the authority — and I am speaking of it now as absolute au-
thority— ^that this is a virile living thing that is intended to effectuate
its purpose, with all the influence and power that can be put behind
it by all of the powerful nations of the earth, and it is that sort of
institution.
Senator Harding. You have noted that the President has said that
we really have no obligation except to pass upon the orders of the
council in accordance with the conception of justice.
848 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Walsh. I have followed that, and in my slight study of meta-
physics, it is too deep for me. I read it over and over again and
tried to put it in the blunt way I have by saying that this is a docu-
ment of liberty and power or it is an essential fraud ; that if we ad-
mit there is such a thing as international law, under international
law it must have all the force that any other agreement has between
nations, or it has not any at all. That is my conception of it, and I
give it for what it is worth.
Now as long as we are a powerful nation and as long as the si^a-
tories with us have work to do for their kind of an imperialistic
character in the world, so long will they carry America along witli
them. If we furnish the men, if we furnish the treasurer, if we
spill the blood — and it must be done at once, as I will try to show
before I leave my remarks — ^then we go along with our fellow im-
perialists and we are full imperialist criminals with them. But if
our one man on that league of nations decides that we will not go on,
then it will be found that we did not need this large army, that we
will drop under a pledge that we have made to allow the council to
set the quantity of disarmament or armament that may be had. We
will then drop down into a small armed country. Why? Because it
is not necessary to police our country. Why ? Because if we refuse as
a matter of fact to join with them in their imperialistic aggressions,
and they have the power under it to allow Germany — we conjure
hatred with that name of old, and so I mention it — if we admit
Germany afterwards into the league, then England could right away
have a standing army or navy to conquer any country that they de-
sired to keep under subjection or to place under subjection, while we
would have a small army if they disarmed us on land and disarmed
us on sea, and we might have a navy half as large as England's, and
she could have a navy twice as iarge as she has at the present time.
And so I might go through this document. I will be glad to do
it. It can be done. But I know you gentlemen have done it.
I would do it if I had the power, which I doubt.
If this is not a covenant for a league of nations, what is it? Can
there be any dispute about it? It is a so-called covenant of a
league of nations proclaimed to the world, and honestly by its ad-
vocate— ^by its only advocate, who I believe has followed this thing
through, because there is a propaganda going on in this country
such as there never has been before. On Broadway, New York, \
heard a Government official connected with the Educational Depart-
ment in Washington. May I without offense to the gentleman say
that he has never read this league of nations covenant. But he had
a crowd around him and was speaking for it to the people of the
United States. I saw another man speaking for it and asking his
organization to indorse. I know this gentleman has not read it.
It is called a covenant of the league of nations. It is a catch-
word. It first caught my consciousness. It is a catch word, and
that will bring behind it those who abhor war and those who believe
that some start ought to be made with a league of nations. But
the truth ought to be written that it is a league to effectuate and
maintain permanently the divisions of territory, and the seizing of
ithe lives of men an^ women as contained in secret treaties about
which the President of the United States knew nothing when he
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 849
made these utterances, about which he knew nothing when he went
to Paris, and about which we knew nothing, and for the upholding
and maintaining of the principles of which 300,000 of our men were
killed, gassed, and wounded in foreign lands, which can not be denied
here. I have read the questions asked by Senators Borah and John-
son. It is in the minds of all of you that when that Big Three
sat, there were three dominating; thoughts. One was a man of ideals,
of honest ideals. I say that I believe that if our President could
have come back to this country with every one of them put in force,
his heart's greatest desire would have been met. I believe that. But
when he got there, as he expressed it, he had in mind all of the
principles for which we had gone to war, an end of secret diplomacy,
an end of back-door intrigue, an end of the power of one man to
get into a squabble with another and call to arms millions of people,
the young manhood of the country that he happens to represent,
that there was to be an end to this thing of dividing territory re-
gardless of the wishes of the people, that always and ever the rights
of nationalities were to be consiaered, that always and ever no man
hereafter should have a government imposed upon him that his
conscience did not approve of, but he found that secret treaties had
been made absolutely abrogating every one of his 14 points. What
became of the freedom of the seas?
The recognition, if you give it, and I trust in God you will not,
to England's protectorate over Egypt means that England takes
Turkey's right to the Suez Canal ; means, if I conjure the thought
correctly, that it ^ives England a grip on every quart of salt water
in the world; this country, attemptmg to enforce ideals, laying
down what is contained in some parts of the present proposed league
of peace, the present covenant. On the other hand, what do we
have? I must state it plainly. I do not believe from my observation
that the French people as a people have imperialistic aims. You
can not get the thought or the reaction I believe that would con-
vince you of that. At any rate, I believe that so intent were they
particularly upon getting reparation for the devastation of their
country, so anxious were they to have guaranties for their future
grotection, and so insistent was this demand, that it became, as the
^resident said, a state of mind, and nothing else so far as France
was concerned could be considered; and so all the press of France
sounded that one note; and so everything was censored that might
have anything to do with the enforcement of our ideals as expressed
in the messages to Congress, in the writings and speeches of the
President.
On the other hand was the representative of the King of Great
Britain, Mr. Lloyd-George. He neld his ey^ to high heaven and
said that England had no imperialistic aim in the war; that they
did not propose to gain 1 yard of territory. And when they were
urging us into the war, you remember how he denounced — ^how Mr.
Asquith denounced — what they called the lie of the enemy, that
they had any desire for any territorial aggrandizement. But Mr.
Lloyd-George was there, and there for that purpose alone. He
emerged with his mandatories or with his protectorates or whatever
you call them ; and I point to them and I point to Egypt and I point
13554C^— 19 54
850 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
to Ireland, and I say, whatever they call them, they are always the
same — and I say that at the very foundation .of it, it is the desire and
the purpose to economically subject the people of those countries:
to keep them in practical slavery — ^the producing masses of those
countries. The people who produce the cotton m Egypt are not
allowed to manufacture the goods into textiles in their own country,
but are compelled to send the raw material to England. If England
did not get that economic advantage, as they have in Ireland and a?
they have in every country into which they have gone, she would
have no concern in going in there.
I have no hatred of England. I am proud of her achievements
where they have been good. But I say in the very genesis of the im-
perialist idea is corruption, the very thought of holding their people
for economic advantage is, govemmentally and internationally, if
you enter into it, dishonesty.
Now, then, she emerged with an added control over something like
33,000,000 people, with an area in land, and valuable land, gold mines,
diamond mines, the richest agricultural land existing in the world, in
her own bag. Did she do it honestly and fairly? Can anjr league
be a good league that has this honestly as its genesis? Was it fair, I
ask — was it fair, gentlemen of this committee, let me ask — ^to take the
lives of our 300,000 men or to cripple them ; was it right to accept our
aid under the declaration we made; was it right to accept our aid
after Lloyd-George and Asquith had declared that they wanted no
more territory, wnen they absolutely had the obligation so far as it
could be international to hold that territory, and when they had in
their minds that they would do exactly what they did do with the
representative of the United States — tnat instead of following out
the principles for which we entered the war they would get an agree-
ment including among its signatories our powerful country, with its
great resources, to effectuate and to keep forever what they had
already gotten, a territory five times larger than the thirteen original
States of the United States ? As I say, I do not care what they call
it, a mandatory or what not: they have it, and by force of arms and
by the help what they think we can give them, they are going to
keep it.
I would like at this point to try to direct a few observations, that
may again be an answer to what Senator Brandegee asked, as to
the constitution, the constituent elements, of this league of nations,
and the way it is being gotten up. Some place in the world there
is a committee of seven men. I do not know whether there is a
democrat upon it — I mean democrat in its wide sense. I do not
know whether there is a man on it that believes in the representative
form of government. Has this committee been given a name— a
committee to organize a league of nations? Very well, some place
there is a committee sitting in the world. It may consist
Senator Johnson. Did anybody on this committee know that that
authority had been given ?
Mr. Walsh. I think Senator Fall knew it.
Senator Faix. I knew it.
The Chairman. When I shook my head, I meant that I did not
know the names. We know some of the people on it by reference to
the newspapers.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 851
Mr. Walsh. I have observed them. They all have been published.
The Chairman. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Walsh. Some place sitting m the world there is a committee
whose personnel is unknown in toto to the chairman of the 'Foreign
Hclations Committee. That committee has this important duty, if
you do not know
Senator Fall. Among its other duties, it has to control the agenda.
Mr. Walsh. They not only put down the primary organization,
but they named the agenda for the first meeting.
The Chairman.' And they also arranged the personnel and the
officers of the league.
Mr. Walsh. They have gone even further than that, anticipating
that the Senate would not perform its duty under the Constitution
und advise against this if they thought that it was wrong. You
will refuse to give your consent to it if you believe as I do about it.
Anticipating that. Sir Eric Drummond was appointed first secre-
tary general.
I want to say to you gentlemen who, I know, have had large experi-
ence in constitutingboards and bodies, that a general secretary with
the power that Sir Eric Drummond has, will have more influence upon
the conduct of that board than will a majority of the members. I
say that because he has the ability to and he will make the suggestions
as to the agendum. He is the one who will receive the protests of
people who claim they are being subjected or repressed. He is the
one at firet hand who passes primarily upon every act that that com-
mittee will be called upon to perform. So I say, knowing the little
that I do about constituting boards, and in cases where they are
brought from different parts of our own country, that a general sec-
retary of a board composed of different-speaking people from all
over the world is the man who will control that body, practically,
if not absolutely.
At the present time there are peoples subject to restrictions in all of
the countries of the world. As I heard detailed to you the other day,
the officers of the Government of Egypt have the right, so far as I
can see, to be diplomatically rejjresented in this or any other nation
on earth. They showed me their papers, and they came from their
own State Department, and they did not need to be viseed by Great
Britain. They came to Paris. They were shocked when they came
there to find that two days before they arrived the President of the
United States had given out an interview in which he recognized the
Protectorate of England over Egypt, and adjured the people of
l^pt not to commit any violence or do anything that would cause
pain and suffering to the inhabitants. And these men, precluded
from any effort to get into the conference, spent the balance of their
time attempting to see the President of the United States, and before
he left he advised Saad Pasha Zagloul that it would be impossible on
account of lack of time to see him. This covenant is set up under the
direction of Sir Eric Drummond in the United States. How is Saad
Pasha Zagloul to come in ? How is he to get in the building when he
could not get in the country ?
A Btstander. How did the Irish get in?
Mr. Walsh. Because the Irish people had the spirit, because those
Irishmen knew the genius of our country, knew that no mere pro-
hibitory law with reference to criminals could keep a man out of
852 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
there who was making a fight for liberty. That is how de Valera got
in. That is the spirit that brought him in. The people of Ireland
have representatives. They have sent their envoys, sent by the regu-
lar government of Ireland, to Paris. They have to go there on some
specious plea or on disregard for some restrictive statute or ordi-
nance or regulation. The Egyptians are a great people. There are
many millions of people there crying out against the dominion
which they despise, in order to come into the league of nations.
How did they get into the building? The answer is how did they get
into the country? I have said, and I say again, that there should be
no pretense that we are going to hear anyone or that we are going to
have any part in European affairs if the right of every decent man
to come and so freely across the earth's surface is not accorded to
him, holding him strictly amenable to the laws of every country in
which he may be, whether those laws are to his liking, good or bad.
But we can not talk about having an international body where we
have restrictive laws that would keep the men that are trjdng to get
a voice for their people from freely attending the place where the
conference is to be held.
Mr. Chairman, and Senators, this question, of course, to my mind,
is not an Irish question. I want to say to you that the people of
Ireland are better acquainted with our laws and our customs and the
interpretation of our constitution than any other people on earth,
and 1 say that without boasting, and they are convinced that tins
league oi nations would not only not furnish them any help, but
would be absolutely destructive to their efforts for independence, and
that they would not get their independence at all until the next war
between half and half of the world was settled and democracy
finally triumphs. That is the answer to the question.
What did we find there? We went through Ireland; we visited it
They have separated from England. They have set up a government
of their own. There is an English censorship that does not allow
news to get out. We got there, and what happened in Ireland? We
have it in that blue book. Gov. Dunne and myself. It can be backed
up by a wealth of evidence that will make every assertion so clear
that even Mr. McPherson, the chief secretary for Ireland, could not
deny it. We challenged them to appoint a committee of their own
to investigate conditions in Irelana. Why? Not that we would
embroil the United States in any contest that Ireland is having, but
in order that you may do nothing that will make the chains stronger
upon Ireland.
Senator Brandegee. Did you read the speech that Senator Walsh,
of Montana, made in the Senate the other day, in which he claimed
that the only hope for the Irish cause was in the lea^e of nations.
Mr. Walsh. 1 did not have the pleasure of reading that. There
is so much being published now that I can not read it all, but I say
this : I respectfulfy differ from the conclusions arrived at by Senator
Walsh. As I say, I just came from Ireland. Those are intelligent
people over there. We have referred to the small nations, and I say
that it warms my American heart to see the way those people
clamored around our headquarters. It was a sort of headauarters
for the oppressed people of the earth. They have an idea tnat the
President's 14 points are absolutely in the hearts of our people. They
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 853
have an idea, and have it very strongly, that in some way there is
some power tnat is never going to allow this division of territory to
be made. So we met these people; some of them splendid people.
They are called backward and subject peoples, and small, and all
those diminutive names. We found a state of war going on in Ire-
land. They have a volunteer army of 200,000. They have their
officers. They drill daily, practically all of them are mobilized, and
they have their maneuvers. The effort to repress them is an effort of
force. We ought to understand this thing and look at it plainlv.
We heard about the so-called murders, and I shall try to classify
them. Eeference has been made to the constables. They are not
constables such as we know. They are members of a standing army.
They carry rifles, and they drill with rifles. They have machine guns.
They live in barracks as soldiers do. They are never residents of the
community in which they operate as constables. So they are soldiers.
They act under the direct command of the commander in chief of the
English army of occupation in Ireland. They took prisoners, the
prisoners they took are republican volunteer soldiers and they were
taken not as assassins, but in bmad daylight, in the large cities of
Ireland.
These men met them, and they met them in a way which, if war
was declared and it was our country, because of the fight they made
against unequal odds, they would be entitled to a medal from the
Congress of the United States. They retake the prisoners of the
English army. In taking them, if they have to do it, they kill the
soldiers of the army of occupation, of course, and the soldiers of the
army of occupation try to kill them. Is it a state of war? There
is the most crimeless country in the world. There is jail after jail,
built to hold a thousand men, with 10 common-law prisoners in
them, misdemeanants, or men charged with felony, and hundreds
of men charged with nothing but being republicans. Are they
criminals? These fights and flurries at arms take place in the
large cities in Ireland. The Irish people retake their prisoners and
take them away — in one case with 10,000 people looking on. These
people are their soldiers and their heroes. They prot^t them and
they fight for them because they say that a battle is going on. The
English army is in Ireland to-day with every device of death
immediately at command. I saw them build the emplacements upon
which the machine guns are now firmly fixed, covering Liberty Hall
in Dublin, so as to send a deathly fire into the headquarters of the
national labor organization of Ireland. And why? Because I say
those men, the most conservative labor organization in the world,
going along lines approved of by all men, are likewise republicans,
and instead of treating them as citizens they treat them as criminals.
Those jails were created. We saw men confined in those jails that
would compare with the gentlemen whom I have the honor to ad-
dress this morning, as lawyers.
We saw newspaper men there. Senator Johnson, who compare
most favorablv with any that you know in California or with the
very best that I have known, who own and edit their own news-
papers. We saw men who have devoted a lifetime to doing Some-
thing for the people whom they represent — members of the Irish
Parliament — in solitary confinement. We saw the cells in which
854 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
they had been confined. They were taken out of them the ni^ht
before, we were advised, but we saw the underground cells in which
they were kept in solitary confinement, and when we asked the
question of tne governor of the jail, or made the assertion at
Mount Joy, he did not deny it. We heard the story at first hand of
the statement of the women, young and old, those whom I met, and
from whose lips I heard the story which I would not undertake in
this presence to detail because of its loathsomeness. I heard that
story from the lips of women as refined, as virtuous, as intellectual
as your wife and daughter and mine, and I can pay them no higher
compliment; and what I say is going on all througn Ireland to-day.
Talk about bolshevists ! I^roperty is absolutely unsafe in Ireland.
Raids are made on private residences and thousands of dollars'
worth of property are being taken, and not even what they call con-
traband. Every excess that applies to an army engaged especially
in an unjust war is being practiced upon the Irish people. Thou-
sands of dollars of ordmary mercantile establishments are taken
away. Everything is done to break the spirit of those people. Yet
we are asked to show that at a time a commission is undertaking to
establish peace they are trying to pass this covenant, intended, as
thev claim, to prevent war, while a state of war actually exists in
Ireland and in other countries, and at this very time they refuse to
listen to the Irish people.
We are here to state to you, gentlemen, that if this league in its
present form is consented to by tne Senate, 200,000 men, according to
their own statement — because I speak only by what they say — stand
ready to-day before the world to bring America back to the ideals
which it has always preserved.
Judge CoHALAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will now ask
Mr. Michael J. Ryan, of Philadelphia, another one of the commis-
sionei*s, to come forward and tell his experiences in Paris.
STATEMENT OF MB. MICHAEL T. BTAH.
Senator Swansox. Mr. Ryan, before you begin, I think I should
suggest to the other members of the committee that the Sergeant at
Arms of the Senate has sent for us to come and make a quorum.
Senator Brandegee. Why, we have the permission of the Senate
to sit during the sessions of the Senate.
Senator Swanson. Well, we can not break up a quorum.
Senator Brandegee. We have permission to sit here.
Senator Borah. Tell them to adjourn.
The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the chairman of
our conference to participate in a departure from our program upon
which we agreed this morning. It was then contemplated that Mr.
Walsh should speak, and then that the governor of New Hampshire
and the lieutenant governor of Montana should be heard, and that
the closing argument upon the legal propositions advanced by the
committee should be made by Mr. Bourke Cockran, to whom I am
sure it will be a delight for all of us to listen. I am asked merely
to rise for a moment and give an experience. I understand that
some of you have asked that those who visited Paris should make a
little statement.
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 855
We reached Paris — ^Mr. Walsh, Gov. Dunne, and myself— on the
12th or 13th of April. We immediatdy sought an interview with
the President of tne United States. We joined in a letter which
appears as the first communication signed by the three of us, ad-
dressed to the President, as^ng for an interview. We set forth
the purpose of our coming, to wit, that safe-conduct should be
granted to Eamonn de Valera, the president of the Irish republic,
Arthur Griffith, and George Noble, Count Plunkett, to Paris from
Dublin, so that they might present the cause of Ireland. We have
set it forth on page 2 of the document that is now filed with each of
you. Some days afterwards, the President, through his secretary,
caused a commimication to be sent to Mr. Walsh, aSdng Mr. Walsh
alone to visit him, which he did. We were then referred to Col.
House, and our communications during mv entire stay in Paris were
with Col. House. I left Paris on the 24tn of May, and I left when
we learned the attitude, as will be discerned from the communica-
tion printed in the pamplilet to which I have heretofore referred,
signed by Robert Lansing, in which he says :
I regret to inform you that the American representatives feel that any further
efforts on their part connected with this matter would be futile and, &erefore,
unwise.
Col. House I had never seen, nor had I read much of him. I
belong to the party, as Senator Knox Imows, of which President
Wilson is the official head, and I confess that I was curious to meet
the ffreat Col. House. He undoubtedly treated us most splendidly,
and ne deserves all of the commendation given to him in respect to
smoothness and velvetness of character, and I doubt whetner we
could at all find fault with the kindliness and courtesy extended to
us bv him.
I have listened to a summary of the proceedings of the peace con-
ference, and I would confirm tnat from our knowied^ of tnat which
took place in Paris, with this detail. I think we were all three informed
by the chairman of the subcommittee, to whom was theoretically
allotted the preparation of the league of nations draft, that the
perfected instrument was handed to him with instructions to present
It within 10 minutes.
Senator F Alii. Who. was that?
Mr. Ryan. I would rather not now state. I shall probably in-
form you later on in the day after a conference with our people.
Senator Fall. We would like to know.
Mr. Ryan. I am sure you would. And the draft was read. There
was no debate upon it. After its reading, the first man to interrupt
was the representative from Japan, who stated that it had been his
intention to present the question of race equality, but that he waived
it for the time without withdrawing it, or without being misunder-
stood as asserting it. The representatives of Belgium arose and
stated that they had hoped in view of Belgium's sufferings that
Brussels would nave been selected as the permanent place of meeting
rather than Geneva. Some representatives of the South American
Republics rose up, and then Chairman Clemenceau stated that there
being no further objections, the league of nations was adonted.
There was no roll call, and those of us who had heard of it, envied
the skill with which it was handled and adopted, and we marveled
at it all.
856 TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Borah. Is there any difference between the steam roller
in Paris and in the United States ?
Mr. Eyan. No ; we regard^ it with admiration. Some of us had
had experience in Kansas City, in Chicago, and Philadelphia, and
we thought that we had learned much in 1 ranee which we might use
profitably in America. At the last interview that I had together with
my colleagues, with Col. House, the suggestion was made that we
might present that which we had — our cause — ^to three of the Ameri-
can commissioners. We demurred. He then added that he would
join in hearing us. We were jocular with him, and as I say, every-
thing was exceedingly pleasant. He was most courteous, and we
suggested and he jomed in the suggestion, that it would be a great
pleasure to listen to us upon the Irish question, that he could join
three of his colleagues. There was a suggestion that we ought to have
the President, and I am very positive that he said that the five com-
missioners had never met, the five American representatives had
never met to consider any question. I mention these things hesi-
tatingly, but at the urging of Judge Cohalan, with the thought that
they might be makeweignts in the scale, to show to you men Uie
direct absence of consideration of the peoples pressing for hearings,
who sought to be resurrected into nations.
The interview which you have ordered to be printed, which took
place with the President after I had gone, showed some of the
reasons moving the President for his conduct, because he there
asseits that it was agreed that no hearing^s should be given to any
representatives of any small nations, without the consent of the
entire Big Four. Of course unanimous consent could not be ob-
tained, lou Senators heard the cause of Egypt presented yester-
day. It was to me a sad spectacle to see 20 men, magnificent in their
manhood — for, being somewhat undersized myself, I look with ad-
miration upon a 6-footer — ^treated in such fashion by the Paris con-
ference. Of those 20 magnificent specimens of Egyptian manhood
the chairman alone did not speak English. All oi the others spoke
many tongues, and it is curious that at least two of them, and I think
perhaps three, spoke Gaelic, although neither Mr. Walsh, Mr. Dunne,
nor Mr. Eyan speak a word of Gaelic. These men have been students
at various universities, and those of whom I speak specifically had
studied medicine in Dublin. They were at Paris, gentlemen, able
men, asking for a hearing, and a hearing was denied them.
Senator Brandegee. Do I undei'stand you to say that you wore
informed by the President that no hearings coula be had of tht
smaller nations except by the unanimous consent of the Big l^our?
Mr. Eyan. I was not present, but I read the interview, which you
have given permission to print, and that statement there appears.
Senator Brandegee. What I want to get at is this: Does this
interview show whether the President stated whether he had made
the request for unanimous consent that hearings be accorded them?
Mr. Eyan. I do not think so. I do not think he had made that
request. In fact, T think you can see that from Mr. Lansing's letter,
and upon the receipt of that letter I came to this country, believing
that our hope lay more in America than in Paris. He writes
Senator Brandegee. Who writes?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 857
Mr. Ryan. Robert Lansing. This is a letter addressed to Hon.
Frank P. Walsh, and it appears on page 10 of the pamphlet to
which I have heretofore referred. We addressed a letter to this
President on May 22, 1919, asking that the communication which we
inclosed be transmitted to Monsieur Clemenceau, president of the
peace conference, which letter will be found on page 8 of the
pamphlet heretofore referred to. I wish now to read the reply to
that letter which is signed by Robert Lansing, and which appears,
as I say, on page 10 of the pamphlet heretofore referred to. The
letter is as follows :
Ambbican Commission to Negotiate Peace,
Hotel de Crillon, Paris, May 24, 1919.
Sik: I have received the letter which you and Messrs. Dunne and Ryan
addressed to me on May 16 regarding the issuing of safe conducts by the
British Government to Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, and George Noble
Count Plunkett, in order that they may proceed from Ireland to France and
return, and I immediately took steps to acquaint myself with the facts of the
case, which transpired before the matter was brought to my attention by your
above-mentioned letter.
I am informed that when the question of approaching the British authorities
with a view to procuring the safe conducts In question was first considered,
every effort was made in an informal way to bring you into friendly touch with
the British representatives here, although owing to the nature of the case it was
not possible to treat the matter officially. The British authorities having con-
senteii that you and your colleagues should visit England and Ireland although
your pas8ix)rts were only goo<l for France, every facility was given to you to
make the journey. Before your return to Paris, however, reports were received
ot certain utterances made by you and your colleagues during your visit to
Ireland. These utterances, whatever they may have been, gave, as I am in-
formed, the deepest offense to those persons with whom you were seeking to
deal and consequently it seemed useless to make any further effort in connec-
tion with the request which you desired to make. In view of the situation
thus created, I regret to inform you that the American representatives feel that
any further efforts on their part connected with this matter would be futile and
therefore unwise.
I am, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Robert Lansing.
In this correspondence you will find that my colleagues challenge
the point that we had given utterance to any thought which gave
offense to anyone. We went to Ireland at the request of the repre-
sentatives of the Irish people and with the conseilt of Mr. Lloyd-
George. Our passports were amended, mine and Mr. Walsh's, upon
the application of the President of the United States. Gov. Dunne
liad the additional distinction, appearing in the record, of his pass-
S>rt having been amended upjon the application of the President and
r. Lloyd-George. Why this signal honor was given to him I do
not know. Probably the typewriter slipped up on the other two.
Senator Knox. Amended m what respect?
Mr. Etan. In this respect. We made application when we went
to Europe for France alone, for Paris. We did not contemplate a
visit to Ireland. Wlien we reached there suggestions were made to
us of meetings and time was being lost, and in the meantime we were
invited to go to Ireland. We then sought to have our passports
changed, and they were changed forthwith, although the State Office
said that such a thing had never happened, that it would take at least
three weeks by cable to effect the change. Nevertheless, they were
changed within an hour and a half and delivered to us ; changed after
that message had been received from the State Department. We did
858 TREATY OF FBAOE WITH QBBICANY.
go to Ireland, and we saw the conditions detailed there. We visited
all parts of Ireland.
At the request of the representatives of Lloyd-George, Gov. Dunne
and I visited Belfast, at the request of Sir William Wiseman, the
liaison officer between the two Governments. We visited all parts
of Ireland, and the conditions portrayed by our chairman are ex-
actly as portrayed. They present to different minds, of course, dif-
ferent phases, but you have a people there united to a degree un-
paralleled in their history. I have been connected with the Irish
movement during all of my life. There has never been such unanim-
ity amoni^ the Irish people, and there has never been such a unani-
mous desire for their recognition upon the part of the people of
Irish blood in the United States. I do not care what official
place men may hold, through whose veins flow Irish blood,
when they seek to uphold this tyrannous production, then I say
they fly in the face of the desires and the hopes of the Irish people.
We are one in this matter as never before in our history. I never saw
Ireland until I saw it in May of this year. They are a wondrous
people, a kindly people, yearning, yearning for betterment. By
every test that the President meted out, they have met the require-
ments. Under the forms of British law, 79 representatives are
hostile to English rule out of an elected 101. Seventy-nine out of one
hundred and one. Seventy-three of those seventy-nine were elected
as ultrarepublicans, saying they would not sit in the British House
of Commons if chosen, and upon that platform they were chosen.
There was division among tne people, because large masses of
them who are what are called nationa^sts still believed there was no
hope for a republic. Therefore they didived their vote. Men there
say that upon a plebescite, the nation, four to one at least, would vote
for an Irish republic. All Provinces in Ireland are as one. For 30
^^ears, may I call to the attention of Senators, every one of the four
l^rovinces in Ireland has been a nationalist Province.
For 30 years 17 out of the 33 representatives from Ulster have
been Nationalists. When men speak of this Ulster question and say
that it indicates hostility to the aspirations of the rest of Ireland,
they speak in ignorance of the history of Ulster. The best blood of
Ulster, the people of Ulster, have been the radical revolutionists
of Ireland. The united Irishmen who first proclaimed and sought
the establishment of a republic — that movement was originated bv
the Ulster men, not Catholics, in 1792. The greatest name in Irish
history, the one most loved, the one to whom the hearts of the
people go out in greatest enthusiasm, was the founder of that organi-
zation, Theobald Wolfe Tone, the man who died in the rebellion of
1798 with the Ulster Protestants. And need I say to you that
Robert Emmet was also a Protestant, though not an Ulster man.
Those of you who walk along lower Broadway in New York City
will see as you come up to Cortland street, at St. Paul's Church, two
great monuments, higher than from floor to ceiling of this room,
one telling of the life of the brother of Robert Emmet, the brother
who, fleeing from imprisonment, sought refuge in New York and
became its attorney general and one of the leaders of the American
bar.
The other is a monument of like character to Dr. McNevin, who
rose to the head of American physiciajis in the early days of the
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERBiANT. 859
nineteenth century. These men are typical of the long roll of
Ulster men who fought and died for Ireland. Why, Senator Knox,
your Pittsburgh district is filled with the names of the Pattons and
men of that character whose ancestors died in Ireland battling
against British tyranny. They gave to Pennsylvania so many of its
names, Coleraine, Donegal, Tyrone, and Dungannon, all resplendent
in its history. Those men brought these old names to their new
homes, and they helped to make that great American Commonwealth.
They reached out away beyond the Alleghenies, and they peopled the
West, and I doubt not the ancestors of many of you were of that
glorious strain. There is no religious question in this Irish move-
ment. Excepting O'Connell and Redmond, in the whole long line
of Ireland's history, when we call the roll of her mighty men, there
were only two or three Catholics. I mean in the last 150 years. Moli-
neaux and Swift and Wood and Grattan and Emmet, and Thomas
Davis, the National poet, Archibald Hamilton, Rowan and Curran,
and John Mitchell and Pamell in our own day. The men who make
up this splendid body of idealists, even thougn their writs run to no
foot of land, these men have been animated by a holy hope for liberty.
All three of us who went to Paris — Dunne, Ryan, and Walsh — ^were
born in this country. All our interests are here. The dust of our
fathers and the bones of our children are alike buried in America.
We love America above all other nations; three of my household
went into this war.
One of my kin is dead at Chateau-Thierry. I looked for his grave
over there. The French Government conducted me and Gov. Dunne
to find that grave. Our kin entered this war believing that the
United States meant what it said, that the right of self-determination
should be given to all peoples, and the Irish, no matter what their
feelings were that no war snould have been declared, when this Con-
gress spoke they rallied to a man ; they poured forth their blood and
their treasure, whether from Massachusetts or Missouri or Pennsyl-
vania or California. Wherever it might be, the Irish rallied to the
cause of the Stars and Stripes ; and I beg of you Senators to exercise
your rights and keep the pledged faith of America. Keep troth to the
living and to the dead, and save this Nation and save our sons from
engaging in wars to which neither the conscience nor the Congress of
the United States shall give its assent, by defeating this treaty.
[Applause.]
Those men brought these old names to their new homes, and they
helped to make that great American Commonwealth. They reached
out away beyond the Alleghenies, and they peopled the West, and
I doubt not the ancestors of many of you were of that glorious
strain. There is no religious issue in this Irish movement. Except-
ing O'Connell and Redmond, in the whole long line of Ireland's
history, when we call the roll of leaders of her mighty men, there
were few Catholics — ^I mean in the last 150 years. Molineaux and
Swift, and Grattan and Emmet, and Archibald Hamilton Rowan,
and Curran and John Mitchell, and Thomas Davis, the national
poet, and Pamell in our own day, were all Protestants. Regardless
of religion, regardless of creed, they were types and forerunners of
the splendid body of idealists, the men who, assembled in Dublin
to-day, speaking lor Ireland, even though their writs run to no foot
of land, are animated by the same centuries old holy hope for liberty.
860 TRKATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
All three of us who went to Paris — Dunne, RTan, and Walsh —
were bom in this country. All our interests are here. The dust of
our fathers and the bones of our children are alike buried in America.
We love America above all other nations. Three of my household
went into this war. One of my kin is dead at Chateau-Thierry. I
looked for his grave over there. The French Government conducted
me and Gov. Dunne to find that grave. Our kin entered this war
believing that the United States meant what it said, that the right
of self-determination should be given to all peoples, and the Irish,
no matter what their feelings were that no war should have been
declared, when this Congress spoke they rallied to a man: they
poured forth their blood and their treasure, whether from Massa-
chusetts or Missouri or Pennsylvania or California. Wherever it
might be, the Irish rallied to the cause of the Stars and Stripes; and
I beg of you Senators to exercise your ri^^hts and keep the pledged
faith of America. Keep troth to the living and to tne dead, and
save this Nation and save our sons from engaging in wars to which
neither the conscience nor the Congress of the United States shall
give its assent, by defeating this treaty.
Judge CoHAi^AN. I have the pleasure of introducing Gov. Dunne,
the third member of the commission that went to Pans, former gov-
ernor of Illinois, former mayor of the city of Chicago.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWABD F. DTTNNE.
Mr. Dunne. Senator Lodge and fellow Senators, I with my col-
leagues appreciate the great courtesy extended to ourselves and to
those who will address you after I have concluded my brief state-
ment, and I will not unduly trespass upon your most valuable time.
Permit me briefly to corroborate in general the statements made
so eloquently, so forcefully, and so truthfully by Mr. Walsh and by
Mr. Ryan. Let me tell j^ou gentlemen why we went to Paris. We
had read, as every American citizen has read, the aims and objects
of the American Nation as expressed by its Chief Executive in enter-
ing this World War. We believe that the aims and objects so lucidly,
so clearly, so forcefully stated by the President of the United States
would, when that war was consummated, be carried out at the confer-
ence in Paris.
We, with millions of our fellow citizens in this country, expected
that the Irish nation would not be made an exception among the
weaker nations of the earth. We waited with patience and with con-
fidence that at the conference in Paris the representatives selected
by the American people would embody in the terms of the peace that
was to be consummated there the aims and objects of the American
people as expressed by its President. We waited until the 1st of
February. We knew that in Paris the envoys of the Irish nation
were knocking at the doors of the conference and asking a safe con-
duct for the oiily elected representatives of the Irish people to Paris,
so that they could present to this conference the claims of the Irish
people to nationhood. So far as the papers of America were con-
cerned, and so far as the papers of the world were concerned, the
name of Ireland was not mentioned at that conference. We are citi-
zens of America, who were born here, who love and admire this coun-
try and believe in keeping its faith ; we happen to have Irish blood
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 861
•
in our veins, but all three of us, like Mr. Walsh, were born here, and
we all feel alike about this country. Like Mr. Walsh, I was not
identified in any way with Irish societies. For years and years be-
fore I was honored by that great convention with the appointment as
one of its commissioners, I had devoted all my life to American citi-
zenship solely, and had been honored by my fellow citizens as an
American citizen. I love this country above all countries, as they do,
and we would sink Ireland and every other country into the deep
rather than sacrifice the interests of this country.
We met at that convention. I think it was the most extraordinary
convention I ever attended. Over 5,000 people who felt as we did
gathered from every State and Territory in the United States, and
under the guidance and inspiration of that convention a committee of
26 were appointed for the purpose of assisting the Irish people be-
fore the American commission in Paris to obtain a hearing, and the
right of Ireland, as determined by an election held in December,
three months after the armistice was signed, under all the forms and
securities of British law, in which it was determined by three-
quarters of the Irish people, in round numbers, that an Irish republic
was born, and a declaration of independence was issued such as the
American people issued in 1776.
That committee of 25 honored Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ryan, and myself,
asking us to become a commission of three to go to Paris, to appeal
for what and to whom? To appeal to the representatives of the
American Nation in Paris for the right of the Irish people to be
heard in Paris along the lines enunciated by the President when he
advised the American people to enter this world-wide war. Before
we left Washington Mr. Walsh, in a letter to the Secretary of State,
told the Secretary of State the object of our mission. It was avow-
edly political. It was avowedly for the purpose of enabling us to
obtain a hearing for the Irish nation before the world peace confer-
ence. That letter is on file with the Secretary of State. After some
delay passports were issued. I believe there was a protest from the
British Government which delayed us 48 hours, but the Secretary of
State granted the passports upon that letter.
The Secretary of State and the whole world knew, through the
newspapers, the object of our mission, which was avowedly political.
We arrived af Paris. We were careful from the start t^ place the
objects of our mission in writing and address it to the President first.
The letter was addressed to the President and we were accorded a
long interview, and I think I can characterize it as an unofficially
sympathetic interview. The President referred us to Col. House.
We nad several interviews with Col. House^ who treated us with
extreme courtesy and acted with extreme diligence, but also unoffi-
cially.
I think Mr. Walsh interviewed every member of the American
delegation. I personally interviewed every member but one. Secre-
tary Lansing. We pointed out that we came as American citizens
to address five American citizens in their official capacity as the
representatives of the great American Republic, and all that we
asked of the official representatives of the American Republic was
to use their good offices officially to obtain for the duly elected repre-
sentatives of the Irish people, elected under all the securities of
British law, the right to plead their case before the tribunal in Paris.
862 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
That was the sole object of our mission. Col. House acted with
extreme diligence and courte^, as my colleagues have told you. I
think he interviewed Lloyd-(jeorge on the subject, and gave us to
understand that he believed we were going to get for them that safe
conduct.
The Chairman. Unofficially?
Mr. Dunne. Unofficially, but told us that Lloyd-George — ^I sup-
pose also unofficially — desired to meet the members of the delegation^
and we believed that our cause was so impregnably just from the
standpoint of American citizens that we coula afford to meet and
argue with Lloyd-George the justice of the Irish demand, and we
consented to meet him at any day he might designate, and a day
was designated to meet him. On the day designated it turned out.
and I think truthfully, that owing to the exigencies of the situation
in the preparation of the final draft of the peace conference and its
presentation to the German representatives, Lloyd-George was un-
able to keep the appointment for the interview with us, and we were
courteously so iniormed in the presence of Col. House, by Sir Wil-
liam Wiseman. It was then suggested, I do not know by whom,
that as the safe conduct was not to be given promptly, and as the
delegates of the Irish people were in Ireland and we were in Paris, it
was impossible for us to confer with them, if they could not come
to Paris, unless we could go to Ireland.
Thereupon, by prompt cooperation between the American officials,
French omcials, and British officials, we were given passports the
next day which stated upon their face that our mission was diplomatic,
and that we were going upon an unofficial political mission, and we
avowedly stated that our desire was to communicate with the repre-
sentatives of the Irish people and to become acquainted at first-hand
with the situation in Ireland. There was no disguise about the object
of our visit, and no restrictions or limitations of any character were
imposed upon us either by the British premier or by the French au-
thorities or by the American authorities, and we went to Ireland.
And this is what we found there in Ireland, a component part of the
British Empire, that the people of Ireland were without any of the
British constitutional securities which are thrown around the citizens
of .those Islands. We found that the habeas corpus was practically
suspended, because of the restrictions thrown around it by the ruling
of British courts, which made it an idle formality. We found the
right of trial by jury suspended. Any man charged with political
crime in Ireland could be tired only before a British court-martial
military authorities, or before a removable magistrate without a jury,
these removable magistrates being appointed oy the crown, many of
them from the police force, sent from Dublin and different districts
in Ireland, removable overnight, earning salaries of $4,000 a year
and amenable to the recall of the Government at any time.
Senator Brandeoee. Is there any appeal from the decisions of those
military magistrates ?
Mr. Dunne. None that I know of. Men were arrested without
warrant. We found that houses were searched without warrant,
and men when arrested were imprisoned in British jails or deported
to English jails, and not informed what charges were made against
them*
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 868
Senator Brandegeb. The previous speaker, Mr. Walsh, spoke of
men being taken prisoners in this fight oetween the populace and the
British constabulary. What sort of a trial did they get ?
Mr. Dunne. My information is that they got a trial before a court-
martial or a removable magistrate. If a man in Ireland makes a
speech in which he advocates the republic he is immediately brought
up. If he advocates or argues in favor of the recognition of the
Irish republic, they take that man up before a court-martial or before
a removable magistrate, who is paid $4,000 a year.
Senator Brandegee. Under the British law it is a crime to advocate
that, is it not?
Mr. Dunne. Yes ; notwithstanding the fact that 75 per cent of the
people have gone to the polls openly ajid voted for that. We found
that men's houses are searched without warrant; that men, women,
and children are arrested without warrant and confined at the pleas-
ure of the Government, either in an Irish jail or deported to an Eng-
lish jail. A boy, 11 years of age, was arrested there and kept in jail
for two months. No one knew where he was. Finally he was re-
leased when there was a threat of an investigation. That is the sit-
uation we found in Ireland.
The leaders of the Irish people, the men who were elected by their
constituents to the British jParliament, refused to attend the British
Parliament and organized the Irish Parliament — ^the Dail Eireann ;
many of them were in jail, not being able to attend the meetings of
the Parliament, with the result, of course, that the sentiment of the
people being so overwhelmingly with them that when they get them
in jail they can not keep them there. Robert Barton, owner of a
landed estate, 1,200 acres of the most beautiful country ever seen,
with a manorial residence, an officer of the British Government, was
compelled by the British authorities to take charge of Irish prison-
ers and saw such indecencies committed that he resigned his office
as a protest, becoming a Republican, and was elected to the Dail
Eireann. He made a speech during the campaign. He was ar-
rested and placed in Mount joy, remained there a couple of weeks,
and then managed to saw a bar, left a very polite and humorous
note addressed to the governor of the jail, saying that he did not like
his bill of fare or his sleeping accommodations, and would the gov-
ernor of the jail be kind enough to send his clothes to the address
given in Dublin. He was a man of such prominence and his case
excited so much interest that an official investigation was ordered,
and while the investigation was going on in the jail the deputy war-
den rushed in and said, " My God, there are 23 more of those fellows
gone over the wall." That is the situation in Ireland.
Let me tell you of two little incidents that I witnessed with my
own eyes. Three of four hundred soldiers under the command of
British officers surrounded the Mansion House in Dublin, and three
or four hundred policemen under official direction surrounded the
Mansion House at half past 5 in the afternoon, for the sole purpose
of preventing the Lord Mayor of Dublin from extending an official
reception to the delegates from America. While we were attempt-
ing to get in, some guns were fired. There were a crowd of 20,000
or 30,000 people around the house, brought there by the mere fact
that the military, with armored guns, were around the Mansion
House. People were laughing at them and guying that ridiculous
864 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
display of military force made for the sole purpose of preventing
a social function tendered by the chief executive of the great city of
Dublin to the three gentlemen who had come there from America.
A few hours before that the bedroom of the chief lady of Ireland
was desecrated by the police, seeking as they claimed, some es-
caped prisoners. That is the situation which we found in Ireland.
Now, it is my judgment that if this treaty be confirmed by this
body — and you are charged with the responsibility of approving
or aisregarding this treaty — if section 11 be approved you ^ntle-
men will be acting as partners in the enforcement of that kind of
law upon an unwilling people. We ask you to reject this treaty
as American citizens, not because we are Irishmen, but because the
Government over there as it now exists is an outrage upon consti-
tutional government, because there is a situation to-day that rivals,
if it does not exceed, the situation that prevailed years ago under
the most tyrannical conditions of that time.
The Chairman. The committee will take a recess now until 2
o'clock. We will hear the Greeks from 2 to 8, and then we will
resume this hearing.
(Whereupon, at 1 p. m. a recess was taken until 2 p. m.)
AFTER RECESS.
The committee reconvened pursuant to the taking of the recess,
at 2 o'clock p. m.. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding.
The Chairman. I have here a protest against the views expressed
in the morning session, signed by David W. Irvine, Henry Stewart,
John Kennedy, Lieut. Lewis H. Shaw, Albert E. Kelley, William
H. Cheney, and William Balfour. I told these gentlemen that we
could not give them a hearing to-day, but I would give them a hear-
ing next week. The gentleman who represented uiem said he de-
sired to file this brief and have it published in our hearings.
Senator Knox. It is a brief against what?
The Chairman. It is in opposition to what has been said here this
morning. It will be printed at the conclusion of this hearing.
Senator Knox. Mr. Chairman, I see no objection to including
within our hearings everything that we hear, but does the chairman
think that we ought to open flie door for people to file briefs?
The Chairman. That authority was given when we started the
hearings— that they would have a right to file briefs.
Senator Knox. The first thing we know they will be filing books
after a while. I think anyone who has anything to say ought to
heard.
The Chairman. This relates to the hearing which we granted
this morning. The other side has requested to be heard in this
way.
Senator Knox. I think we ought to hear them, if they are here.
The Chairman. We could not hear them to-day, and I thought
it would save the time of the committee to permit them to put in a
brief. We have done that on several occasions.
Senator New. The brief is in lieu of a hearing?
The Chairman. In lieu of a hearing; yes.
Senator Knox. I do not want to insist, but it does seem to me
that if they have anything to say that is worth hearing, we would
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 865
better hear them rather than give them an indefinite right to print,
because that is what it amounts to.
The Chairman. I think we can control the right to print.
Senator Knox. Perhaps we can.
(The brief referred to will be found at the conclusion of to-day 'a
proceedings.)
The Chairman. Judge Cohalan, I will ask you to present your
next speaker.
Judge Cohalan. Gentlemen, I have the pleasure now of present-
ing to you Lieut. Gov. W. W. McDowell, of Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. W. W. McSOWELL, IIETJTENANT OOVEBNOB
OF MONTANA.
Mr. McDowell. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when I came to
Washington from Montana on yesterdav morning with the seven
governors who were appointed to attencf the governors' conference
with the President and the Attorney General, 1 did not know I was
to have the pleasure and the honor of appearing before this com-
mittee.
I have been told by the gentlemen having this movement in charge
that I am expected to speak only a few minutes, and that they would
like to have me refer to the reception given to President de Valera,
president of the Irish Republic, when he came to Montana recently.
As my time is very limited, I will devote it to that angle of the
matter, as tending to show tne sentiment of the people on the ques-
tion now being considered by this committee.
I will state that as lieutenant governor of Montana my duty is to
pi-eside over the State senate, and as such presiding officer I am
familiar with the action taken by the legislature in its last regular
session held in January and February of this year, and also the
action taken at the special session held a few weeks ago.
At the regular session of the legislature last winter a resolution
was unanimously adopted, there being no dissenting vote in either
the senate or the house, asking the Senate and House of Represen-
tatives of the Congress of the United States to use their best en-
deavors to bring about the recognition of the independence of Ire-
land.
Before the special session of the Legislature of Montana met.
President de Valera, of the Irish republic, came to Montana. I live
in Butte, and as I was then acting governor it became my pleasure
to welcome President de Valera to Montana and to extend to him the
freedom of the State. The reception which he received there was
the most enthusiastic and the most spontaneous reception that I have
ever seen since I have lived in Montana during the past 24 years.
Our little town has a population of only about 65,000 i)eople, but there
were at least 10,000 people at the depot to greet President de Valera
when he got off the train. It was almost impossible for him to get
through the crowd to get into the automobile which was waiting for
him to go uptown. I had the pleasure and the honor of riding up-
town with the president, and I noticed that there were more re-
turned soldiers m uniform escorting that automobile uptown than I
have ever seen in uniform in Butte before or since the war started.
135646—19 55
866 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
I saw a great many horny-handed sons of toil break through the line
and rush up to the automobile to shake hands with the president of
the Irish republic, and there were tears in their eyes. The procession
that came up from the depot with him was at least a mile and a half
long. Every musical organization that we could get together in the
State was there, and the sentiment of the people of Butte and the
people of Montana is undoubtedly very strong in favor of Irish inde-
pendence.
At the special session of the legislature the matter of again pass-
ing a resolution came up a few weeks ago. This was after President
de Valera had been invited by me as the president of the senate to
make an address to a joint session of the legislature. He stayed over
several days so as to make this address. Some little opposition de-
veloped among some people in the legislature against inviting him.
However, he was unanimously invited to address the legislature,
which he did. He was then introduced to the crowd that could not
get into the legislative hall, waiting in front of the capitol, and he
received the same kind of an ovation in Helena at two or three meet-
ings that he had received in Butte.
Another resolution was introduced in the special session of the
legislature asking the Senate of the United States and Congress to
do what they could to bring about recognition of the Irish republic
and this matter was fought out on its merits, and finally passed both
the house and the senate by a good majority. I mention this to show
that, in my opinion, three-fourths of the people of Montana and
of the States around Montana are thoroughly and heartily in sym-
pathy with the movement for the freedom of Ireland.
Senator Knox. May I ask you a question right here? It was rep-
resented to us this morning that the fate of the Irish republic de-
pends upon whether or not we reject this proposed league of nations.
Now. you say the sentiment in Montana is m favor of an Irish re-
public. How is the sentiment there on the question of the league of
nations?
Mr. McDowell. I believe the opinion in Montana and in the sur-
rounding States is one of decided opposition to any clause in any
treaty or in any league of nations that will in any way stand in the
way of Ireland securing her freedom.
Senator Knox. Then if Mr. Walsh is correct in his statement this
morning that to adopt this league at all would defeat the Irish repub-
lic, your judgment is that the sentiment of the people of Montana
would be against the whole league?
Mr. McDowell. I think I have expressed the opinion which I wish
to express in what I said before.
Senator Knox. AU right, I will not press you further.
Senator Fall. Would you object to answering this question : Is it
the opinion there that any article in this propo^ league would pos-
sibly, affect the freedom of Ireland ?
Mr. McDowell. I think that amonjg practically all of the Irish
in Montana they feel that it would. There are a great naany other
people in Montana and in the adjoining States who are not of Irish
blood, who, I think, are in hearty sympathy with the aspirations of
Ireland, and would oe opposed to any clause in any treaty that would
stand in the way of Irish freedom.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 867
Senator Joh>'son of California. One further question: Do vou
think guaranteeing the boundaries of the British Empire will atfect
the question concerning which you are speaking here and the ques-
tion that we have before us to-day ?
Mr. McDo\v^LL. Senator, I have answered that question as far as
I am prepared to answer it.
Senator Johnson of California. I wanted to be perfectly fair on
the proposition and perfectly fair as to the position that you gentle-
men take in respect to this matter.
Mr. McDowell. I am approaching this matter from a somewhat
different angle from that of a great many of the gentlemen who
have spoken here this morning so eloquently on this matter. I am a
Protestant. My ancestors came to this country 250 years ago, and
I am thoroughly and heartily in favor of Irish freedom and in help-
ing them to obtain it. I think the great majority of the people of
Montana and the surrounding States feel the same way about it re-
gardless of whether they have any Irish blood or not, and they would
be opposed to any clause in any treaty that would stand in the way
of Ireland securing that independence.
Judge CoHALAN. I wish next to present Mr. John A. Murphy, of
Buffalo, N. Y., the fourth member of the American Commission on
Irish Independence, who has recently come back from Paris.
STATEMENT OF MB. JOHir ABCHSEACON MTJBFHT.
Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman and Senators, in accordance with the
i^equest of the committee having in charge the American Commission
on Irish Independence, I left on the 21st of June and reached Paris
on the 30th of June. During the week while I was sailing the peace
treaty had been signed and the I^resident and the presidential party
had returned to .Ajnerica. The colleagues with whom I expected to
fall in in the carrying on of the work, Messrs. Walsh and Dunne,
had also returned from Paris, and I did not meet them in France.
It is needless to say that for a while the situation in France, as a
stranger might sense it, was one of relaxation after the strain of
the peace conference. It was one of an intense amount of gossip and
whispers and reactions from the results of the peace conference.
During the most of the time I was there I was busily engaged in
presenting the case of Ireland to the editors of the French papei's
and in endeavoring to obtain a presentation of it before Mr. Clemen-
ceau, to whom it was stated the question of Ireland was referred in
his capacity as president of the peace conference.
After being in Paris for about two or three weeks I became ad-
vised that before the President and Mr. Lansing left France they
had been informed by Mr. Clemenceau in his capacity as president
of the peace conference that no action would oe taken upon the
question of Ireland. That was material news and in my judgment
it foreclosed any possibility that Ireland may have or mi^nt expect
to have of prosecuting her cause before the league of nations.
On June 22 I wrote a letter in the name of the American Commis-
sion on Irish Independence to Mr. Clemenceau, and if you will per-
mit me I will read the letter, or if you desire I will insert it in the
record. It is on page 65 of the brown pamphlet.
868 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The Chairman. The letter will be inserted in the record.
The letter is as follows:
[Personal and argent]
Amkbican Cokmisbion on Ibibr Indbpendbncb,
Paris, July 22, 1919.
M. Gboboes Cucmenceav,
President of the Peace Conference and Premier of France, Paris,
Monsier le President: We are in receipt of information from sources of high
authorities that, as president of the peace conference, you have notified Ameri-
can peace plenipotentiaries that, so far as further consideration of the Irish
question is concerned, the matter is one in which you will take no action.
We understand this decision covers:
1. That the resolution of the American Senate, officially forwarded to you
by the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, and the recommendations
contained therein expressing sympathetic support to the people of Ireland in
their efforts to obtain a government of their own choice. Is, by this action,
denied in a manner suggestive of your entire disregard of American public
opinion as rendered in the deliberate resolution of our highest legislative
body.
2. That the peace conference further ignores the request of the Hon. Messrs.
Walsh and Dunne for the appointment of an international tribunal to Investi-
gate into the charges of barbarities and inhuman conduct. In violation of the
rules of civilized warfare, perpetrated by .the British Government through its
military forces in occupation of Ireland, and upon its defenseless people.
The knowledge of your decision in these matters has been up to now with-
held from the American public. The results of the publication of this informa-
tion win doubtless have very material weight at this time while the attrition
of the United States Senate Is occupied in matters of international Importance,
in which we feel Prance has a material interest. Arrangements have already
been made for giving widespread publicity in America to. this decision on your
part But before taking this step, we respectfully suggest that an audience
may be granted by you to the undersigned to presept the Importance of the
situation, particularly in its relation to the future interests of France, of
America, and of Great Britain.
There are 20,000,000 citizens of Irish blood in the United States, and the
effect of this information when published there needs no characterization by
us to Indicate how grave may be the danger to the continuance of those same
relations of amity and esteem that have marked the friendships existing be-
tween the French, American, and Irish peoples.
Trusting that I may be accorded the honor of this audience with you at
your earliest possible convenience, and with assurances of high esteem and
respect, we have the honor to remain,
Sincerely, yours,
Amebican Commission on Irish Independence,
John Abchdeacon Murphy, Commissioner in Charffe,
Mr. MuHPHY. I was aware that the information I had received
had not been made public in America, and that it was held under the
the veil of secrecy from publication by request of the American
representatives. After the letter was delivered to Mr. Clemenceau,
the information was conveyed back to me in circuitous fashion that
if I were to make public the information that I had outlined in that
letter to Mr. Clemenceau it would not be wise or judicious, while
I was a guest in Paris. Therefore I refrained from making it pub-
lic until I returned to America; but it was known, not in one circle
but in many, that there was an effort made to conceal from the
American people and from the American Senate this action on the
part of Clemenceau until they had, as it was hoped, passed favorably
upon and ratified the league of nations.
Senator Brandegee. You speak of this information as having been
conveyed to you circnitously. Do yon know from whom it origi-
nated t
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 869
Mr. Murphy. You mean the information that it should not be
published ?
Senator Bra:ndegee. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. No ; I can not say that of my own knowled^, exeept
to say that one of the most important m^i who is accredited to have
the ear of the French Government, the foreign editor of Le Temps,
advised an associate and friend of mine, Mr. Erskine Chillers, a
former major in the British army, a man who has espoused the cause
of the Irish Bepublic in a wholehearted and unadulterated manner,
and one of the best known publicists in England. The foreign edi-
tor of Le Temps conveyed this information to him and I have rea-
son to believe tnat that was an inspired message. I did not say that
that was a message brought from Mr. Clemenceau, but either Mr.
Clemenceau or Mr. Tardieu were the only two who had knowledge of
it unless thev conveyed that knowledge to some one else.
Senator Brandegee. What I wanted to know was, in your judg-
ment, did that information represent the French opinion, or did it
represent the desire of the American commission ?
Mr. Murphy. I construed it as representing the French request,
in accordance w4th the action of the American commission.
Senator Brandegee. That is all I care to ask.
Mr. Murphy. There is one more incident that I would like to pre-
sent to you, and then I will give way to others. I am not ^ing to
occupy your time with the delivery of any argument on this ques-
tion. There is a short presentation of one phase of the question that,
with your permission, I will ask to insert in the record later;
At or about this time, bj^ reason of family connections and business
interests, I desired to visit England and Ireland. I made my re-
quest before Consul Seed in the ordinary manner, for an amendment
to my passport. My passport did not give me permission to proceed
anywhere except to France, as it stated, to attend the peace confer-
ence in the interest of self-government for Ireland. I was told my
request would have to be sent to Washington. After waiting two
weeks on the pleasure of Washington, as they explained to me, I had
called three or four times to ascertain if there was- any reply to my
request to amend my passport, and on August 8 I received the fol-
lowing letter:
United States Passport Bukeau,
Paris, August 8, 1919.
John A. Murphy, Esq.,
Grand Hotel, Paris,
Sib: Referring to your recent call at the passport bureau, you are infornie<l
that a telegram has beeii received from Washington instructing the bureau to
refuse to amend your passport for Ireland.
There Is Inclosed herewith the amount of 0.80 franc in stamps, which repre-
Bents the balance due you after the cable charges have 1>een deducted from
the .sum of 100 francs which you deposited.
I am, sir,
Respectfully yours,
E. C. Reed,
American Consul.
I felt surprised, Mr. Chairman and Senators, that in pursuit of my
private business as an American citizen my Government should deny
me the right to proceed to the British Isles. My request for a pass-
port was not to go to Ireland. My request for a passport was to
870 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAXY.
proceed to the British Isles. I had personally said that my purpose
was not political 5 that I desired no exemptions from the laws of the
land. I had desired to proceed there for family and personal rea-
sons. Now, Mr. Chairman and Senators, on the other matter which
I wish to present to the committee I wish to say that during a stay
of about two months in Paris, where I met many of the editors of
the French press and many of the public men of France, I have had
opportunity to get a vision of the proposed league of nations some-
what different from that which would naturally otherwise have been
given to me.
From my training and environment I have naturally paid most
attention to the economic and industrial aspect of the treaty. The
trouble with the treaty is that it is neither a treaty of vengeance nor
a treaty of justice ; it is calculated to maintain forever a commercial
supremacy to one or two of the high contracting parties. I regret
to say that America does not seem to be included as one of those
parties.
The condition of France at the present time, as admitted to me in
frivate conference by their thinking minds, is one of gravest import,
ts finances are in a depleted condition ; it has exercised its power of
taxation so far as it is believed the people of France will endure,
and still the income is more than a billion dollars below the abso-
lute requirements of its budget, even with its army demobilized.
I spent some days driving over the devastated regions of northern
France, and the paralysis of the country is appalling. The difficul-
ties of obtaining raw materials and coal are greater than I can
describe.
There has been no outlet for commercial development accorded
to it by this present proposed treaty. Even the commercial ad-
vantages which have accrued to France from its old protectorate
of the Christian people of the Orient is being imperiled by the
British control in Mesopotamia and the Near East, Fifty-five per
cent of the German indemnity which is supposed to be obtained by
France is incomplete and uncertain reparation. Many eventualities
may occur which would defer or avoid the payment of these in-
denmities, and neither France nor the world at large could ever be
called to arms for the purpose of enforcing at the point of the sword
payment which may or may not be beyond the will or the possibilities
of the central powers to pay.
On the other hand, the question of sovereignty over subject people
is imderstood in a more material way abroad than we generally
understand it in America. It is understood as the right of commer-
cial exploitation, and whether it be in the guise of mandatories for
itself or its colonies, the British Empire has most successfully ob-
tainod the control of countries and people which are more than a
commercial compensation for the losses endured even by the British
Empire in the prosecution of war. I refer to the control that Eng-
land now possesses under the terms proposed by this treaty, of almost
one-third of the earth's surface. 1 am not discussing the freedom
of the seas for the minute. Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Aiden, and all
the other strategic points held by England are solid answers in denial
of the assertion that the freedom of the seas now exists.
This present treaty proposes to subject forever the sovereignty of
Egypt, to condemn the oldest nation in the world to serfdom and
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 871
to c'oniniercial exploitation; Asia Minor, Arabia, Persia, Afghani-
stan. Thibet, Burmah, India, form an unbroken chain in the interest
of England to meet and to connect its links with the sphere of in-
fluence claimed, and by this treaty yielded to the Imperial Govern-
mont of Japan.
Japan, whose losses in this war were of a negligible quantity, is
to be confirmed in its control of Korea with its 20,000,000 of people,
nnd to be accorded the control of Shantung, with its iron, and coal,
and mineral resources, and its many millions of Chinese inhabitants,
and which must be regarded as the commercial jugular vein of
China ; by it^ and through its waterways and railways of the interior
of China, will be acquired by conunercial and treaty advantages.
It is not necessary to more than glance at the map of Africa to
see that from Cairo to the Cape it is to be dominated in the British
interest.
I point out these things to you gentlemen to call your attention to
the undying antagonism that exists between the principles upon
which a Government like ours is founded, of the people and for the
people, and the principles upon which an imperial government is
rounded, where the Crown is, if not the right divine, at least it is
the center around which rallies in support the commercial, the mili-
tary, and selfish oligarchies of privilege. All of this, which I believe
you will admit as self-evident, is to my mind trained and aimed more
especially against America than any other country in the world ; it
is asserted uiat our factories produce in eight months our domestic
reauirements, so that for four months of the year we are forced
eitner to seek foreign markets or to shut down our factories. Eng-
land well knows that it can not stop the fertility of our fields from
producing cotton and corn and the necessaries of life in bounteous
plenty; nor our mines in their production of raw material in prac-
tically unlimited quantities; nor can it fetter the energy ana the
power of American industrial and commercial development. It
therefore seeks, under the specious title of a league of nations, to
draw a wail of iron around the markets of the world, where, by a
preferential imperial tariff, the products of our factories will be
nandicapped in their efforts to obtain a foreign market; where from
time to time a slight concession here and there on their part may be
looked upon and exploited as an act of generosity on their part
toward their American cousins, and so through the aid of finance
and intri^e an invisible British Empire may be superimposed upon
the destinies of America.
We are asked to abdicate our sovereignty in favor of a sovereignty
of a composite body in which we have but one vote as against six
votes of tne British Empire^ and the six votes of the British Empire
are but a small portion of its influence. It will be in a position to
offer to every country in the world — France, Italy, Greece — special
concessions and considerations for their vote on every question that
arises wherein American interests might be circumscribed and im-
peded, .regardless of principle or regardless of the eternal right
in the controversy involved.
I have not attempted in these few words to enter into any discus-
sion of the question from the Irish point of view, because I wanted
it plain that my objections against this are American in the most
872 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERBiAKY.
intense and vital things. But I respectfully submit for your con-
sideration that the question of Ireland is interminably involved in
this whole scheme of operation. America is at the present time
engaged in the development of a mercantile marine to make it inde-
pendent of either the good will or capacity of any other pnower in
delivering to foreign markets the products of our factories, and
especially for our trade with Europe. Her ships must have a point
of debarkation as well as embarkation. In otner words, a line of
mercantile marine without harbors in Europe would be short lived
and unprofitable. The harbors of England are and will be insuffi-
cient for the British commerce; the harbors of Europe will be donai-
nated and controlled in the interest of their respective governments.
Ireland alone offers to America friendly, sufficient, and secure har-
bore for the termini of its mercantile matine in the European carry-
ing trade. From these harbors by packet steamships may be made
the quickest, the cheapest, and the best distribution in Europe of
American goods and merchandise.
What the attitude of England would be to bar the development of
Irish harbors in this connection was illustrated in 1918, when
Europe was at peace. The White Star Line, at the instance of the
British Government, discontinued Queenstown as a port of call. The
Hamburg- American Line announced that it would make Queenstown
a port of call, but before even one ship of that line made a call at
Queenstown, the British Government, in pursuance of its policy of
commercial isolation with which it has surrounded Ireland informed
the Imperial Government of Germany that making Queenstown a
port of call would be considered by the British Government un-
friendly, and it was undesirable.
I therefore submit for your consideration that the recognition of
the Irish Republic, the de jure government of Ireland is not only
right and desirable as reasoned by every standard of justice and of
American ideals, but that America has an enlightened self interest
in the doin^ of this commendable act.
The brevity of the space allotted to me compels me to deal in con-
clusions rather than in a presentation of the premises and the logic
of the case. But we are asked by this treaty to subscribe our fortunes
and the lives of our children and their cnildren's children to con-
tinuation in serfdom of hundreds of millions of human beings whom
God has created in freedom and equality 5 we are asked to lock the
door against ourselves as an American nation in our own commercial
development and while reservations and amendments may draw
many of the fangs from this thing serpentine of iniquity, the Ameri-
can answer should be to kill it and in its place erect a true league
of nations imbued with American ideals of justice and equality of op-
Sortunity for all. To lay these foundations securely and broadly and
eeply and from here, in America, to bring about a league of nations
that shall be of all things just to the wond and all its peoples, and
shall also kill this threatened encirclement of American commerce
that lies hidden but real in the terms of the proposed treaty you are
now asked to sanction.
Peace can onlj come and endure as a result of justice, and until
the fabric of this treaty is reconstructed and until the thought that
controls its reconstruction becomes American in its democracy, we
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 873
must cease to be a people following our traditions, if we support it,
and will be dragged down to the lowest levels of commercial greed.
For these reasons I submit that the defeat of the entire treaty is
the most American thing, is the most humanitarian thing, is the
most just thing that can now be done.
Judge CoHALAN. The last speaker before Mr. Bourke Cockran will
be Mr. Daniel C. OTlaherty, of Richmond, Va.
STATEMENT OF MB. DANIEL C. OTLAHEBTY.
Mr. O'FnAHERxy. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee:
In my opinion the matter which we are considering demonstrates the
wisdom of the fatKers when they created the Constitution of the
United States. I do not believe in the history of our country a more
momentous epoch has ever arisen than is now before you. It is the
question of the ratification, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, of a treaty that 1 think is more momentous in its con-
sequences to the people of the world, and especially to the people
of the United States, than anything that has ever come before the
United States Senate. I speak to you, gentlemen, briefly, not as a
politician, but as a Democrat, as a Virginian, as a Southerner, and
if I may say so, as a Protestant and a Mason. Some people have said
to me, and I have been told, even out in the hall here to-day, that
this is a religious question. I say to you that it is not a religious
question, it is not a political question, but it is a question which every
American citizen has a right to take into consideration. I repeat that
since the day when the Eiberty Bell rang in old Philadelpnia, pro-
claiming the Declaration of Independence, no more important matter
has ever been considered by the people of this country. I have not
time to go into it in the way of an argument, and after what has
been said here to-day it is not necessary to argue it to such dis-
tinguished men, constitutional lawyers, but I believe that the ratifica-
tion of this treaty, with articles 10 and 11 and with the other articles
that follow along after it, would not make the world safe for de-
mocracy, but it would make it safe for hypocrisy. [Applause.]
What is a treaty ? It is a contract between nations, and everything
that is put in it is put in for somebody's benefit. What is article 10
put in there for? Is it for the benefit of the United States? We do
not need it. For whose benefits is it to retain the integrity, for
instance, of the British Empire? Somebody says, "Well, how does
it do it?'' Let us take an illustration: Suppose Canada or Ireland
should desire to he free. Suppose Egypt should become free by the
volition of England, and England should try to help Canada or Ire-
land. With whom would we go? We should have to fight against
Canada in favor of England. Is not that true? I say as a lawyer
that in my humble opinion articles 10 and 11 of this treaty bind
Ireland and every other nation that is under the hoof of England,
hand and foot to the cross.
Why should we not speak out? I say to you, gentlemen, in my
opinion that if we do not speak out at this awful moment, the very
stones in the street should cry out for us.
I do not claim to speak for all the people of Virginia. I am glad
to say that you have on this committee one of our most distinguished
sons, who has his own opinion on this subject and I may differ with
874 TREATY OF PliACE WITH GERMANY.
him ; but we have the right to come and be heard, and I come to you
to-dav as a Virginian, as a Southerner, as an Irishman, as an Irish-
American, as a descendant of Irish ancestors back for a thousand
years. But I am first an American, and I believe that some of these
articles are the greatest blow that has ever been aimed at the Ameri-
can Constitution. [Applause.]
Mr. Chairman, I come to you to bear to you a message from a mass
meeting held in Richmond the other day, the capital of Virginia,
the capital of the old Confederacy, if you please, the home State of
our distinguished President. It passed this resolution unanimously.
Senator Braxdegee. Was it a large mass meeting?
Mr. O'Flaherty, Four thousand peoi)le, a large mass meeting for
a city of our size, and not a dissenting voice. It unanimously adopted
these resolutions :
Resolved, That we declare ournelves unreservedly In favor of the independ-
ence of Ireland, and demand that our Government recognize the Irish Republic;
and
Resolved J That we register our opposition to any proposed league of nations
which does not protect all American rights and ideals and which binds us to
guarantee the territorial integrity of the British and Japanese Empires.
This resolution was adopted at a meeting at which the mayor of
the city presided, and to wnich his excellency the governor gave the
honor of his presence. I believe that if a plebiscite of the people of
Virginia were taken without a word of discussion to-day vou would
find that the majority of them would be in favor of the n^eedom of
Ireland. [Applause.] And I am sure that if you were to go before
them and tell them what is being done and tell the trutn of the
matter they would be still more greatly in favor of it.
Gentlemen, I have been in a quandary. It is not my desire to
embarrass the administration. I believe in that great Virginian who
is the President of the United States, Mr. Wilson, but I believe that
any league of nations which perpetuates the British Empire in its
present condition, in which portions of that empire are in perpetual
thraldom, is un-American, unfair, and will never be ratified by the
will and the wishes of the American people. I believe I would be
unfair to myself as an American, untrue to the teachings of the
great Virginia patriots who did so much to establish this Kepublic,
li I did not raise my voice at least against articles 10 and 11, espe-
cially, of the proposed league of nations, which, in my view, rivet
the bands that bind Ireland to England, and would compel us to
assist England in keeping Ireland in perpetual thraldom. I trust
in the wisdom of this committee. I say reverently that I thank God
that unto men like these were committed by the fathers the keeping
of the ark of the covenant of this constitution, that we may he
saved — I hope I am not speaking like a school boy — ^that we may be
saved from the rocks ahead of us; that we remember what Greorge
Washington said when he warned us to keep out of entangling al-
liances. Why, this is a cobweb of such a character that the mind of
no human being can fathom where we will go under it. So I hope
that this committee will safeguard the rights of Ireland, that ancient
nation, so that she may take her place among the nations of the earth.
She is a nation ; she has been a nation ; she has every element of a
nation, the geography, the ethnology, the soil, the climate, every-
thing that goes to mafee up a nation. Why under heaven should Ire-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 876
land, the oldest of all the white nations on earth, be the only one that
is denied her freedom? [Applause.]
A favorite objection of those who are opposed to the independence
-of Ireland is what they glibly call the "Ulster question." Along
with this is also the other oft-repeated statement that Irishmen can^
.agree among themselves. The last and only election ever held in
Ireland in which the question of self-determination was in issue was
in December, 1918, in which outside of Ulster, which is only about
one-fifth of Ireland, not a single constituency, except a gerry-
mandered one in Dublin, was carried by the Unionists. So you
have the greatest unanimity in four-fifths of Ireland for a republic.
It is true that in Ulster the Irish do not agree on this political
-question, or rather those who claim not to be Irish, do not ajgree.
Without discussing the fact that we never a^eed upon any political
issue in our own country, and that at the time of the formation of
our own republic, there were many Tories, none Irish, however, and
we very often fail to agree and it is preferable that we should not
always agree.
It is quite interesting to analyze the Ulster situation from an im-
partial standpoint, taking the vote of December, 1918, as a basis.
I say an impartial standpoint because the writer of this article
belongs religiously to the faction that claims to be in the majority
in Ulster, and who are opposed to the independence of Ireland, but
one who does not share that view. I, as a Protestant, a Mason, and
•one with other than Irish blood in my veins, can not be accused
of being partial to the Catholic Irish, and certainly can see the facts
and analyze them fi-eely from the point of the Ulster people, if it
is a religious question.
The chief exponent, as is well known, of this Ulster bugaboo
is Mr. Carson, who himself until recently has never represented a
constituency in Ireland, but who attempts to speak for the Province
of Ulster, and his ideas have been widely disseminated through the
English press as those which should be accepted by the outside world.
Ulster consists of nine counties — Donegal, Londonderry, Antrim,
Tyrone, Down, Fermanagh, Mona^han, Caven, and Armagh. Th^e
nine counties in the election which was held for Parliament in
1918 were entitled to 25 seats. Out of these the Sinn Feiners car-
ried 10, the Irish party which was not with the Sinn Feiners but
opposed to the Unionists, carried 4, so that the Carsonites or Union-
ists, only carried 11, or a minority in Ulster. Four of these 11
seats were accredited to Antrim, in which the city of Belfast is situ-
ated, and all these repi-esentatives are Unionists. So that outside
of the county in which Belfast is situated there were only eight
Unionists representatives elected in the whole of Ireland, the seven
outside of Antrim, and the one in the gerrymandered district near
Dublin, as against 73 Sinn Feiners and 6 ot the Irish Party and 6
Nationalists. Since that election, just about a month ago, one of
the constituents in Antrim was captured by the Sinn Feiners in a
bye election showing the tremendous change in the sentiment in the
•onljr stronghold that the Unionists had, and this is the election at
which Mr. Carson said that if he didn't carry he would resigii,
which of course was nothing but a bluff, for he is simply the agent
of the English Government, and is not likely to resign his job so
876 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
long as he can hold it. The majority for the Unionists in those con-
stituencies last December averaged about 6,000.
These are the cold facts in the case, which are verified by the offi-
cial reports which I have before me as to the election of 1918. \\ e
then have a minority of a small section of the country, less than one-
fifth of it, asking that the will of the people of a great country in
which a million votes were cast be heard as against the rights of the
many.
Belfast in the last election cast about 79,000 votes for the Union
and 39,000 for the Independence. By some sanctity unknown to
Americans this 40,000 majority who claim they are not Irish but
Sotch-Irish, claim that they ought to rule over a million Irish
who are not only shamed to be called Irish, but glory in the dis-
tinction. When, therefore, you hear anyone repeat the statement
that Ireland can not agree as to what she wants, simply recall these
facts and ask yourself if such " twaddle " should receive any consid-
eration at the hands of the Americans who believe in majority rule.
But rest assured that Robert Emmet, a Protestant Irishman's
epitaph will be written some day, and monuments will be erected to
others without regard to religion or creed, but simply because they
were friends of Irish freedom; and further, that if England's fleet
was thrice as great, and her gold as many timies more potent in dis-
seminating false propaganda, the Irish Republic will live.
It is thus seen that the only part of Ireland which can't agree
among themselves are the Irishmen of Ulster, and even here many
have said that the will of the rest of Ireland should prevail.
The fact is that many of the people of Antrim, and especially
Belfast, are not Irish, but are Scotch, or as they are sometimes errone-
ousy called Scotch-Irish, whatever that means, for that teim is a
much abiisd one and ignorantly used, for as a matter of fact there
is no such a race as Scotch-Irish as a race.
The remedy would seem to be, if these people are Scotch or En-
glish and feel that they do not want to be ruled by the majority of
the people of the country, to take a boat and sail across to Glasgow
which is just a few hours' ride and let the great mass of people who
dwell in Ireland conduct the affairs of the country to suit themselves.
Belfast is nothing more than a mushroom manufacturing town,
which might succeed as well in building ships and making linen in
Glasgow as on the other side of the Irish Sea. As well might the
cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Newport News, which constitute
about the same proportion to the State of Virginia, say that we
won't play with you at all because we don't like you in other respects
and therefore we are not going to submit to the majority of the peo-
ple of Virginia. In other words, if you should move the shipyards
from Belfast, which 40 years ago had a population of less than
50,000, to the Clyde or the Firth, you would get rid of the Ulster
question and remove the only argument that England has. But
luckily this ancient nation has never recognized, and never will as
long as the blood of the Gael flows through Irish veins, the govern-
ment of England maintained at Dublin Castle by force of arms,
fraud, and bribery.
Another argument which is highly esteemed by these self-styled
" Better-than-thou " Irishmen, is that while we liave not the popu-
lation we have the wealth and intelligence. The facts in the case as
TREATY OP PBAOE WITH GERMANY. 877
to this canard are even stronger than as to the question of the ma-
jority in Ulster.
Lemster, in which the city of Dublin is situated, is a much
wealthier province than Ulster. The city of Dublin, with her -popu-
lation, which is really about the same as Belfast, is assessed with
property of the value of over £11,000,000, or Dublin is assessed about
twice as much as Belfast. Dublin pays an income tax of about £200,-
000. The whole of Leinster, taken together, is much wealthier
than Ulster, whose wealth is the lowest, except Connaught, which is
in the extreme western part of Ireland and much of its territory is a
wild and rocky, broken sea country which is not susceptible of culti-
vation or development.
But, say these same objectors, Ulster is Protestant and the rest of
Ireland is Catholic, and tnerefore the majority should not rule. That
is democracy with a reservation which American people can not
understand, for it announces that if the majority in Ulster are Protes-
tants they should rule, if Catholic they should not. Quoting, how-
ever, from the I'eligious census in the 9 counties of Ulster, there are
690,134 Catholics, 451,566 Presbyterians, 48,490 Methodists, and other
scattered religious denominations. The self-constituted ' guardians
of this part of Ireland are always talking of taking care of these
Presbyterians. This is wasted sympathy, for in the nistory of Ire-
land's fight for independence since the days of Hugh O'Neill down to
the present time the majority of the men who have foiight for Ire-
land\ independence have been of these same Irish Presbyterians or
Protestant. Wolftone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, O'Connor, and
Emmet were all Irish Presbyterians. John Mitchell, John Philpot
Curran and many other leaders were Protestants.
The only leaders that Ireland has had for generations who were
Catholics were Daniel O'Connell and Redmond, and it was O'Con-
iiell's fight that won for both the Catholics and Presbyterians the
right of suffrage. The j^at emancipation bill which freed the Catho-
lics, freed the Presbyterians, for in the days of O'Connell, no one but
the Church of England could vote or hold office, and the so-called
Irish Parliament, which voted to destrov Ireland and carried the
Union, was a Church of England body with not a single Catholic in
it. What then becomes of the foolish statement by men who are
otherwise usually intelligent that Ireland's fight for independence and
throwing off of the British yoke has been a religious one? In the
past 50 years and prior to the Easter rebellion many Irish Protes-
tants, for political offenses, have been hanged, drawn and quartered,
and dogs have lapped their blood in the streete of Dublin.
In Ireland's glorious future these names will not be forgotten,
though they are not heroes in the sight of Sir Edward Carson or
Bonar Law, they will in future generations be revered as men who
would not hug the chains that bound them, nor kiss the feet that
trampled upon them, content to be slaves if they could but eat and
driuK, for such a condition is natural asphyxia in which the breath-
ing " of the great dumb, stupid animal alone gives evidence that it
lives at all."
It was a religious question in a sense at one time, to give help to
Protestants and Catholics alike, the right of suffrage, without which
878 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
men are but slaves, and this was carried by Irish Catholics and
Irish Presbyterians, and the fight which is being fought out by
the Irish, not only in Ireland, -but in America and in Canada and
in Australia and in New Zealand and in South America by the
Friends of Irish Freemen, not as a religious question but as a ques-
tion of right, and the tide of public opinion of the world is such
that no man, no group of men, or no one nation can stop it«
As I have said on a former occasion, " Tell me what is the unseen
and mystic law that claims the fidelity of the compass and keeps it
ever pointing to the polar star? " Tell me this and I will tell you
why Irishmen, whether they come from the golden vale of Tipperary
or the picturesque hills of Connemara, whether smiling in the sun-
shine of prosperity or groaning under the load of adversity, are
drawn to the JPrince of Connla, of the Golden Hair, to
That sunny land
From drulds and demons free,
The land of rest,
In the Golden West
On the verge of the azure sea.
Some ask me the question, "What can Ireland do?" I reply,
" What can England do ? " She has reached the point where she must
respect the wishes of over 4,000,000 people in Ireland or shoot them
down with machine guns or starve them in prison. Does she dare
do it? Can there be any doubt of the outcome? Germany tried
it on Belgium and England will tread the same path as Germany
if she persists in her course. Not only has England to respect
the wishes of Ireland, but she now fully understands, I hope, what
she did not in 1776, that a decent respect for the opinions of man-
kind bids her halt.
It is no longer a fight between Ireland and England^ but a fight
between England and the enlightened opinion of mankind, and she
is fast learning that the world will no longer let her hide behind
the false cry of protection for Ulster.
Senator Mosbs. Mr. O'Flaherty, I want to a^k you a question or
two. You stated that in your opinion a plebiscite taken in Virginia
would show a vote of four to one in favor of the freedom of Ireland?
Mr. O'Flaherty. No ; I did not say that. I said a majority. Did
I say four to one?
Senator Moses. I so understood you.
Mr. O'Flaherty. I did not mean to say that.
Senator Moses. A majority of the people of Virginia would favor
the freedom of Ireland and would so express themselves?
Mr. O'Flaherty. I said they would if there was a plebiscite. I
believe they would so declare themselves. I have never seen a Vir-
ginian yet that was not in favor of freedom, and especially the free-
dom of Ireland.
Senator Moses. What attitude do you think they would take in
Virginia on 'a plebiscite on the league of nations?
Mr. O'Flaherty. I would not want to answer that. If you would
come around and ask me as a lawyer I would not want to answer that
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. Sl9
STATEHEHT OF HOH. W. BOUSKE COCKBAH.
Judge CoHALAN. Mr. Chairman, I desire now to present the last
speaker of the hearing:. I want to say first, a word of thanks, and to
reserv'e the right for filing statements, which you gave some time ago,
from a great many people from different parts of the country. I
shall not take up further time now, except to present one of thefore-
most men of the country and of the Irish race, a scholar, a student of
affairs, a statesman, and an orator, Hon. William Bourke Cockran, of
Xew York.
Mr. CooKRAN. Mr. Chairman and Senators, I would like to begin
by answering some questions that were Dropounded this morning to
gentlemen who appeared here in opposition to this proposed League
of Nations. One of the most important was that of Senator Borah,,
who asked if it were true, as some gentlemen have contended on the
floor of the Senate, that if this League of Nations be established it
would prove a very effective agency through which Ireland could
obtain her independence. I take it that Senator Brandegee's ques-
tion was put in ampUfication of Senator Borah's inquiry, because he
said Senator Walsh made practically the same statement in the course
of debate.
Senator Brandegee. I did ask such a question ; but I did not know
that Senator Borah had previously asked it.
Mr. Cockran. I shall, therefore, answer both Senators together.
I think that Senator Walsh supplied the answer to his own conten-
tion most effectively. He said, as I recollect, that there were three
means by which a subject nation could effect its independence. One
was bv consent of the governing nation, the other was by revolt of
the sulbject people themselves, the third was by outside intervention,
and he claimed great credit for the proposed League of Nations,
because it prohibited but one of those methods of relief, leaving the
other two open and available. The objection to this position is that
no nation ever did achieve its independence by consent of the domi-
nant power, or by naked action of its own people. Every successful'
revolution of which I have any knowledge was effected tnrough out-
side support. The American Colonies would not have been free but
for the intervention of France. Cuba would still be imder the domi-
nation of Spain but for the intervention of this country, and Greece
would still oe languishing under the heel of the Turk if it had not
been for the assistance of Christendom. So that when Senator Walsh
says that by this treaty subject nations are deprived of but one
avenue of escape from servitude, the answer is that they are deprived
of the only one through which escape can be effected.
There is another question which Senator Brandegee asked that I
think ought to be answered. He inquired whether appeals are
allowed from decisions by a single official committing Irisn men and
women to jail for long periods. At this time Ireland is practically
under martial law — ^wnich means no law at all — or what is virtually
its eouivalent, '*The defense of the realm" act. Everybody under-
stanos that martial law is suspension of law, substituting for law^
which is a regular fixed rule of conduct, the whim or judgment of a
single official. In Ireland, imder the present system; the people are
governed by two whims, either one oi which constitutes tne rule of
conduct for the population. One is the whim of the commanding^
880 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
military officer, and the other is the whim of an official called a resi-
dent magistrate, apparently for the reason that he is never a resident
of the locality in which ne officiates. The expression, '*R. M.,"
officially intended to signify resident mag;istrate, will describe him
much more correctly as '^removable magistrate." He is the only
magistrate imder the whole British system who is removable at the
pleasure of the Crown. I need not remind the chairman of this body
that the chief fruit gained by the revolution of 1688 was termination
of the system under which judees were removable by the Crown, and
under which they were, in the language of Lord Macaulay, not cham-
pions of truth and justice, but ' *greedy and ferocious butchers/' eager
to satisfy every demand of despotism.
The removable magistrate always dreads removal, and the only
way to avoid it is by delivering the Judgment which the prosecuting
officers desire. The effect is mat ii a mian mak^ a speech, as Mr.
Walsh told you, advocating the Republic — ^nay, if he utter a word
which the police dislike — he is promptly haled oef ore either a dnmi-
head court-martial or one of these resident magistrates and con-
demned without any chance of appeal to the hideous indignities
which have been described so forcibly here to-day. Nothing could
illustrate more strikingly the conditions against which Irishmen are
in revolt than this deliberate establishment in Ireland by the English
Government of a judicial system so fruitful of abuse that Englishmen
themselves rose in revolution to drive it from their own country.
When conditions somewhat similar, though I do not think they
were quite so onerous, existed in Cuba, the chairman of this com-
mittee, and I think many others of its members, were quick to insist
that intervention to stop those outrages became a task imposed upon
us by our primacy of civilization; that continuance of a government
which had become perverted from its natural functions (3 defending
peace and order to perpetrating the very outrages on justice which
govermnent is organized to prevent, was an injury to civilization
which all the forces of civilization should combine to remove. And
we, as chief among those forces, drew the sword and ended that
abominable system in Cuba. A worse system exists to-day in Ire-
land. It can be terminated, as far as we can see now, by no means
except the influence of this American Repubhc, and we are here to
protest against any treaty, League of Nations, or whatever it may be
called, that wiU exclude consideration of the monstrous conditions
that afflict Ireland from the jurisdiction of the conscience of civili-
zation, of which the Senate of the United States has always been the
foremost and best exponent.
I pause for a moment to say that if there be any other Senator
who wishes to ask me about present conditions in Ireland I will be
very glad to answer him. If nobody cares to put a question, I shall
proceed to discuss the treaty now before you purely from an Ameri-
can standpoint.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlemen who preceded me have all said, with
great force and leeUng, that while they are of the Irish race they are
of American birth, and that they love above aU other things the
country in which they were bom. I am an Irishman by birth as
well as by blood. And the reason I am here is that I do not want
the Government whose shelter from my earUest youth I was resolved
to seek, whose benefits I have enjoyed, to be emasculated, impaired,
TBSATY OF PEACE WITH QERMANT. 881
or destroyed, as I believe it will be, if this treaty is ratified. And in
saying this I speak not alone for myself — ^my race is well-nigh run —
but for ray entire generation and the generations that are to follow.
The lisht that inspired me and millions hke me to cross the seas I
hope tne Senate will not suffer to be extinguished, but that through
your action now it will be maintained strong and effulgent for all the
children of men throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, whether the right of this country to interfere — at
least so far as to exert its moral mfluence — ^for deliverance of Ireland
from conditions that are a scandal to civilization shall be preserved
or whether it is to be renounced and destroyed by ratification of
this treaty, is not an Irish question. It is not a question affecting
solely England's domestic politics, as some gentlemen have con-
tended. It is an international question, because it is a question
affecting the peace, and, therefore, the welfare of the entire world.
Judge Cohalan has told you there can be no peace throughout the
world until Irish discontent is composed. This is not — as many
might say — a mere expression of exaggerated rhetoric. It is the
sober, accurate statement of a fact which all history attests.
It is certainly one fact of history which none can dispute that
every great war which became general — every one became general
by England's entrance into it — and which has scourged the world
for the last four centuries, that is to say since the emergence of
modern civilization from the wreck of feudalism, has had ite begin-
ning in Ireland — every one, without exception.
This last war which has just closed, we all know was caused by the
German Emperor's belief that civil commotions in Ireland made 1914
the period when he could strike his long-meditated blow for world
dominion^ with the strongest hope of success. The great wars of
the French Revolution wnich culminated in the Napoleonic wars,
began with representations of the imited Irishmen tnrough. Wolfe
Tone to the revolutionarv TOvemment in France that the conditions
then prevaling in Irfelana-A)rought about by the deliberate recall of
Lord Fitzwilfiam and the refusal of concessions which had been
promised to the Irish people — had made the land ripe for rebellion.
The hostile manifestations by the French people and their govern-
ment which these representations provoked, were the chief causes
that led Pitt reluctantly to join the alliance against France. The
attempt of Hoche's expedition to land in Ireland, which was frus-
trated when his ships were blown by a gale out of Bantry Bay in
1796, marked the real beginning of that desperate struggle between
England and France, which after ravaging Europe for a generation
ended at Waterloo. At the close of the seventeenth century, it was
the intervention of Louis XIV in aid of the Irish attempt to maintain
James II in possession of his crown which brought about the Grand
Alliance against him, that afterwards as the war of the Spanish
succession plunged Europe in the disastrous conflict that was set-
tled by the peace of Utrecht. The great war between Elizabeth and
Philip II 01 Spain for control of the seas began with a descent of
Spanish and Portugese soldiers on the coast of Kerry, who were all
killed to a man after they had surrendered to Sir Walter Raleigh,
and whose massacre is the only cloud on the fame of that knightUest
figure among Elizabethan warriors.
135646—19 56
882 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBBfAKY.
Why is it that every world war, if not actuall]p[ caused by Irish dis-
content, has yet made Ireland the theater of its first be^nings?
This can not be due to a mere fortuitous combination of circum-
stances. My purpose is to show that the condition of Ireland has
been a constant invitation to every country with a grievance against
England to strike her at that spot where sne was believed to 1:^ vul-
nerable, and where she will continue to be vulnerable just so lon^ as
the oppressions against which the Irish people have struggled for eight
centuries are suffered to exist. So that the Irish question is not a
matter that affects England and Ireland alone, and one which there-
fore can be called domestic. It is one that has affected the peace of
the world for four centuries and which will continue to affect it — in
the very nature of things — so long as it is permitted to remain an
open sore in the side of Christendom. To compose this difficulty and
settle it is a task imposed upon the statesmanship of civilization,
and, therefore, it rests peculiarly on your shoulders, ^nators, chained
as you are at this moment with responsibility for the conditions imder
which peace is to be reestablished throughout the civilized world.
Probably the greatest difficulty in dealing with the Irish question
is to imderstand just what it is. It has been so misrepresented — and by
the greatest masters of ingenuity in misrepresentation that the world
has ever seen — that many men, ordinarily well informed, are in
doubt as to just what it is that causes the Irish complaints. We are
told that other countries have been conquered as Ii^eland has been,
and yet they have long since ceased to complaui of the conquest, or
even to thinK about it. We are told that Irisli grievances are fanciful,
not real : that they are not caused by injuries which are actual, but
hj recollection of ancient injuries springing from laws which have long
smce been repealed. We are told that XJlster is prosperous and con-
tended whUe the rest of Ireland Is discontented and poor because its
{leople are improvident, shiftless, idle; and that this demand for
rish independence merely embodies — ^while it disguises — the desire
of an improvident, shiftless, idle majority to Obtain — and abuse —
the power of taxation over a thrifty and prosperous Irish minority.
It is also said that there is a religious question involved; that
Ireland's refusal to acknowledge the authority of England is but the
intolerance entertained by one religious sect against another — the
disposition of Catholics to oppress and drive Protestants from the
coimtry. These, I think, are all the groimds on which are based
opposition to recognition of the Irish republic. They are set forth
in a brief submitted to this committee by certain persons claiming to
speak for Irish Unionists, which I have just been permitted to read.
Now, if these statements are true, if Ireland has been reduced to its
f)resent condition by the faults or vices of her own people, sympathy
or them would be useless. They are incapable of improvement.
They must inevitably disappear from the earth which they encumber
and discredit. But if the evils which afflict the Irish people be the
direct result of laws which have produced intolerable conditions, that
still exist although the laws themselves have been repealed, and if it be
true that England has shown she is incapable oi doing justice in
Ireland, even when a majority of the English people are really anxious
that it should be done, and the English Parliament solemnly resolved
to do it, then there can be but one outcome. Either English rule in
Ireland must be ended or the Irish people must be exterminated.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 883
That is the alternative, I think it is entirely capable of demonstra-
tion that the Irish people can not be exterminated, and extermination
being impossible, emancipation is imperative.
Let me explain to you why it is that although these oppressive
laws have all been repealed, the conditions thev produced still con-
tinue. All the history of Ireland ever since the nrst Norman invasion
has been an unbroken record of conquests, and seizure of lands — first
the devastation of land always followed by confiscation. But neither
conquests not confiscation sufficed to keep the country permanently
impoverished. From the first landing of Strongbow in 1172 down to
the final overthrow of Irish independence by William III, the Irish
people after each invasion and devastation restored prosperity with a
celerity and completeness that have been marvels to all historians.
Mountjoy, under Elizabeth, reported to the Queen that everything
capable of supporting life in Ireland had been burned to the roots,
that the whole Irish population had been exterminated, except a few
fugitives who had taken refuge in morasses where they could not be
reached, but where, for lack of food, they must inevitably starve.
And yet in the very next reign Ireland was blooming like a garden.
In the time of Charles I the prosperity of Ireland had already awak-
ened the envy and cupidity of Englishmen; but the Irish, with that
pecidiar sense of loyalty, which is one of their characteristics — often
misdirected because carried to excess — having embraced the side of
the King, fell under the vengeance of Cromwell. Again the island
was devastated with fire and sword. The whole of the land east of the
Shannon was confiscated. The entire native population outside of
many thousands Who were slain, and other thousands sold into cap-
tivity, was transported west oi the Shannon to a soil which was
believed to be so sterile that it could not afford subsistence to human
life. Cromwell's brief statement of his policy was that the Irish must
go *Ho hell or to Connaught.** Well, they went to Connaught, but
they did not go to hell [laughter], because there was always one Irish
champion whom, some way or other, the British arms could never
overcome, and that was the Irish girl. .Vny Englishman who re-
ceived land and settled upon it soon fell under her influence. That
was already so clearly apparent in the time of Richard II that he
passed the statute of Kilkenny forbidding any Englishman who had
received land in Ireland from marrying an Irish woman. But the
Irish girl was too strong for statutes. She continued to marry the
English settler in the teeth of all prohibitions, and the offspring of
those marriages were the strongest Irish patriots.
Although the land had been laid waste with a fury hardly ever
paraileled in the annals of mankind by the Englisn rarliamentary
forces, first under Cromwell and after him under Ire ton and Ludlow,
yet when William III in the next generation faced a patriot Irish
army, a large part of it was composed of the sons of those Ironsides to
whom Cromwell granted land in Ireland. After that dreadful Crom-
wellian devastation the recoverv of her prosperity bv Ireland in the
reign of Charles II is declared by Macaulay to be the marvel of all
historv. It is acknowledged even b}' Fronde — who will not be siis-
fected of any partiality toward Ireland — that in the reign of Charles
I practically the entire transportation of goods by sea from the Old
World to the New was carried on in Irish bottoms. Irish cattle and
horse^^ commanded the highest prices in English markets, and Irish
woolen products were considerea to be the very finest in the world.
884 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Almost immodiately after his accession this king for whose father
Ireland had incurred the resentment and fury of Cromwell, yielding
to representations by merchants of Bristol, excluded Ireland from
the operation of the navigation act. The effect of this was a total
destruction of the Irish shipping trade, from which it has never
recovered. Next, in obedience to a demand of English agricultural
interests, exportation of Irish cattle and horses to England was
{prohibited. That reduced property in livestock to one-tenth of its
ormer value. But the woolen industry remained, and probably from
the fact that the energies of the country were now mainly directed
to it, and the whole capital of the nation largely absorbed in it, the
manufacture of Irish cloth expanded to a degree unapproached in
any other country of the world.
But when William III finally established hLs authority by the
victories of Aughrim and the Boyne, and by his treason at Limerick
the surrender of which he accepted on terms that permitted the
garrison to march out of the city and the country, while at the same
time guaranteeing to the Irish people the right to practice their faith,
prosecute their trade and retain their property — a treaty that was
violated the moment the Irish army had departed from Ireland),
then the system was adopted which Edmund Burke has described in
words prooably familiar to every one of you. He said the Irish
penal code was '^as weM fitted far the oppression, impoverishment and
degradation of a feeble people and the debasement in them of human
nature as has ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man,''
That system produced the conditions which to-day afflict ana distress
the Irish people and which can be ended only by ending the dominion
of England over the country.
After all former confiscations and devastations the country
recovered rapidly because the people were allowed to resume posses-
sion of the land. But the devilishly ingenioiis system adopted by
William III and his immediate successors precluded any possibility
of an Irishman being able to obtain any part of the land on whicn
he lived.
A succession of statutes enacted during 50 years resulted in a body
of laws under which no Catholic — that is to say no native Irishman —
could hold land. The whole surface of the island had been confis-
cated. The original owners of the soil were allowed to dwell upon it
merely as tenants at will. The confiscated lands were not bestx)wed,
as in former cases, upon English soldiers who settled in Ireland, but
upon favorites of the English court in large areas of 5,000, 10,000,
15,000 and even 30,000 acres, who never lived in Ireland, who never
intended to live in it, who seldom if ever visited it. Every Catholio
was prohibited not merely from holding land but from leasing it for
a period longer than 5 years. He could not own a horse worth over
5 poimds. If a Catholic appeared in a public place mounted on a
horse any Protestant could take possession of the animal by tenderii^
the rider a 5-pound note. Beyond impoverishing the Irish people it
was sought to accomplish their degradation by forbidding the eauca-
tion of youth. The only element of the community capable at that
time of imparting education was the clergy, and the priest who taug\^t
a school was declared guilty of a capital off ense. The spectacle was
common of a priest's dead body hanging in chains, executed for no
other offense than that of having undertaken to instruct an Irish
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 885
boy. Not content with seeking to accomplish the intellectual degra-
dation of the people these statutes sought to corrupt their morals by
undermining the foundations of the family. The son who accused
the father of being a Catholic and proved it could at once take posses-
sion of the estate. The wife who informed on her husband was at
once accorded a separate and independent interest in his property.
So that wifely loyalty and filial piety; every emotion which in civilized
countries is considered necessary to the well-being of a conmiunity,
and therefore to be encouragea by government, was perverted in
Ireland to the injury of morals and the disruption of society.
Under this system the people hardly ever came in contact with the
owners of the soil. In almost every instance an agent represented
the alien landlord. The value and efficiency of that agent were de-
termined by the amoimt of rent which he could extort from the un-
fortunate occupants of the land. If a man by dint of arduous labor
improved the soil he occupied and made it more valuable, the agent
at once descended upon lum and raised the rent. Not merely were
all the fruits of his own labor confiscated but all his neighbors wore
promptly informed that unless they made their soil equidly fruitful
and raised the same amount of crops, that is to say, paid the same
rent, they would be evicted. And eviction was death. Not merely
was industry made improfitable by this hellish system; it was made
unpopular. The laborious man did not benefit himself, but he
brought disaster upon his whole neighborhood. The imfortunates
who were evicted were left to starve on the highways. There was
no other occupation in which they could find a livelihood because,
by a refinement or crueltv that is almost inconceivable, the only in-
dustry that survived the hostile legislation of Charles II — the woolen
industry — ^was entirely destroyed by William III. It was not taxed
out of existence. It was not made to bear burdens imposed avowedly
tor support of the State, which prevented it from bemg prosperous.
It was prohibited absolutely and unconditionally^. All existing fac-
tories were suppressed and the people were forbidden, imder heavy
penalties, from attempting to engage in the woolen trade. More
than that, the Irish wool, at that time — the Australian wool not yet
having become available for the wotWs necessities — was of a pecu-
liarly valuable character. Not merely was the manufacture of woolen
goods prohibited in Ireland but exportation of Irish wool was pro-
hibited to any place except six English cities, the idea being that the
English manufacturers oy these restraints would be enabled to
obtain Irish wool on his own terms. But there was an extensive
woolen industry in the low countries where a great demand arose for
Irish wool as soon as its manufacture was suppressed in Ireland.
Wool that would bring 6 pence at Bristol commanded 1 shilling and 7
pence in Ypres and in other Flemish towns. Quite naturally smug-
gling of Irish wool to the Continent became one of the chief occupa-
tions of the Irish people. But the worst feature of this oppressive
measwe was not the loss of money or of property that it entailed.
It was this: Wool being contraband, trade in it could not be prose-
cuted through bills of exchange and other devices of banking which
govern commerce. It could only be bartered for* some commodity
not easily discovered, for everywhere the Irish coast was patrolled
by British officers charged with the duty of preventing smuggling
where they could, and punishing the smugglers where prevention
886 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
was impossible. Wool was exchanged mainly for Flemish wines.
This extensive importation of wines was the cause and the beginning
of that intemperance that has been the curse, Senator [turning to
Senator Phelan], of your coimtry and of mine, of your race and
mine, for 250 years. Before the beginning of the seventeenth cen-
tury the Irish were a temperate race. But the example of the well-
to-do consiuning expensive wines soon caused a demand for coarser
and cheaper intoxicants by the less prosperous. To meet this
demand the manufactiu*e of illicit whisky became extensive and the
people gradually sank into that dreadful intemperance from which
they have suffered both at home and abroad ever since. Mr. Chair-
man, the curse of this intemperance has been Ireland's, the shame
of it is England's.
I am not saying this on my own authority. Here again, sir, I am
quoting from James Anthony Froude — the apologist of English
excesses in Ireland — who, indeed, seems to complain that if these
enormities had gone further the race would have oeen exterminated
and the Irish question settled finally and without appeal.
Now it is quite true that these proscriptive laws have all been
repealed. They began to disappear in the latter half of the eighteenth
century. And it is to the credit and jglory of this country that their
disappearance began when fugitive Irishmen — ^Presbyterians who fled
from the enforcement of the test acts and settled m Pennsylvania,
and Catholics who had fled from other parts of the Island — ^were
found fighting side bv side under the banner of Washington for free-
dom, justice, and right. Up to that time religious proscriptions were
not confined to Ireland. Tney were universal. They were based on
the assumption that anything like diversity of religious faith among
the people of a State weakened it, and therefore, it should be pre-
vented by the Government. The Hugenots were placed under senous
disabilities in France, so were the Catholics in England. But in
Ireland it was the distinctive feature of these proscriptive measures
that they were not intended to discourage Catnolicism or encourage
Protestantism, but to degrade the whole people by plunging them
into ignorance, and by corrupting every avenue through wnich could
be reinforced those virtues and qualities that are considered essential
to the well-being of every State. In Ireland the faith professed by
the people was proscribed with a violence which nowadays can
hardly be understood. And this fact must be borne in mindf when
you consider the Irish question. It is the only country in the world
where the people have remained steadfast to a faith that had been
proscribed, in every other coimtry the people adopted in a body
the religion that its Government established. England became al-
most uniformly Protestant, or at least non-Catholic under Henry
VIII; almost uniformly Catholic again under Queen Mary; Protestant
once more under Queen Elizabeth; and it was readv for another
change to Catholicism — according to the historians — ii James II had
but governed with a little more sense. And so the religious complex-
ion of the French people was decided by the result oi the religious
wars.
But in Ireland the majority of the people remained immovably
attached to the faith that was proscribed and prohibited under
drastic penalties, though they had to sacrifice for it not merely eveir
element of property they possessed but every hope of improving their
TBBATY OF FBAOB WITH OBBMAKT. 887
condition. The extraordinary thine about their tenacity in this
respect is that it was maintained, wiUiout those aids to fervor which
the Catholic liturgy affords. Such a thing as a great religious cere-
monial had not occurred in the country, at the time of which we are
speaking, for 150 years. Their lands confiscated, their faith pro-
scribed, thej practiced the rites of their church crouching in garrets
and hiding m out-houses. Driven from the towns and viUages, they
took refuge in some mountain glen, and there, under the broad
canopy of neaven, the rains falluig on them, oftentimes knee-deep in
mud, with sentinels posted at eadi end of the glen watching for the
priest hunter, who was an established feature of these conditions, all
cotemporary writers agree in saying they worshipped with a fervor
never shown in the stateliest cathedral ever raisea by the hands of
piety to the worship of God. Even after they had regained the right
to practice their faith it has been remarked that they showed very
little regard for its ceremonials. But nothing could swerve them from
attachment to its tenets and teachings. And as they remained immov-
ablv attached to their faith, so also have they always been unswerv-
ingly steadfast in maintaining their national life. It is a peculiar
feature of this determination to maintain their national existence that
it does not seem to be based on any hope for the future. This is
clearly reflected in their poetry, which is perhaps the most melancholy
in the world, as it certainly is among the most oeautiful. I am one of
those who beUeve that sorrow has always been tJie source of exquisite
poetry. I have never known a sublime note to be inspired by pros-
perity. Not merely is there a vein of profound melancholy through
all Irish poetry, but it never expresses any hope for the future. Yet
there is never a note of despair in it. Every line of it breathes the
detei-mination of Irishmen to love the old sod, maintain the old faith,
{)reserve the old race, though they never again should see the light of
reedom. Moore describing the Harp of Tara, silent, abandoned, the
chord alone that breaks during the night, telling the tale of its ruin,
concludes:
Thus Freedom now so seldom speaks,
The only throb she gives,
Is when some heart indignant breaks,
To show that still she lives.
Freedom has indeed lived in the hearts of Irishmen under all cir-
cumstances; imder the darkest skies without any hope of deliverance.
Even when there was no chance for Irish arms to nght for it, there
was always an Irish heart ready to break for it. Freedom, though
denied them as a possession, has always remained an aspiration from
which they never could be separated. Such a people can not be
seduced from their ideals nor aiverted from asserting their right to
nationhood. Such a people can not be dubdued, and, therefore, Sen-
ators, I submit to you with all frankness and perfect confidence that
the only alternative which the Irish question presents is extermination
or emancipation of the Irish people. You Senators, to whom is con-
fided the treaty-making power oi this Government, will not suffer the
destruction of such a race as this, and if you will not suffer it to be
destroyed, then you must insist that it be free. There is no alter-
native. [Applause.]
888 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Now, with respect to the religious question: It can not be d^iied
that Ireland has been torn by religious antagonism. But the cause
of this is perfectly simple. And it should be remembered that when-
ever the Irish succeeded in establishing control over the government
of their own country, as they did at intervals — ^in 1642 and again in
1688 — the first act of the Catholics when they became dominant was
to declare absolute religious freedom for all. The reason why religious
antagonisms have divided the Irish people is because in that country
religion was made the test of political rights and property rights.
When a man could be ousted of his property because he was a Camolic
(and that by a person bound to him by the closest ties of kinship) ;
when a man could be deprived of the horse he rode by a total stranger
on the tender of a 5-pound note because he was a Catholic; when ne
was excluded from every office under his government and denied the
right even to educate ms child because he did not profess the faith
established by law, it was inevitable that the victims of such oppres-
sion and the beneficiaries of it would be influenced by hostility against
each other.
I should add here, in order to explain why Ulster was prosperous
while the rest of the country sank into misery growing ever deeper,
that a totally different system of laws prevailed in the one place
from that which governed the other. In Ulster, ever since its
''plantation'' by James I, there was in force what is called ''Ubter
Tenant Right." Under it the occupant of the soil could till it and
improve it with a certainty that every improvement he made was
his propertv to enjoy it while he remained in occupation.
The landlords nad no longer any inducement to remain in the
coimtry. Again they became absentees, and the remarkable pros-
perity produced by tnat short period of independence was changed
to a long, unbroken period of progressive decay. Again the rack-
renting asrent drew from the soil everything which it yielded beyond
what sufficed to afford its cultivators the barest subsistence. And
for this chance to live there was the fiercest competition among the
members of the wretched population, each one eagerly bidding
against all others for the privilege of ciiltiva ting the land upon any
terms whatever. Under this competition conditions of life sank so
low that the Irish peasant never tasted meat from one year's end to
the other. The potato became the sole, support of ms existence.
And when in the years of '46 and '47 there was a general failure of
the potato crop throughout Europe it was a source of loss to the people
in other countries, but in Ireland it caused actual starvation. We
often hear of the "famine" in Ireland. But strictly speaking there
was no famine. WTiile the people were dying by hundreds of thou-
sands for lack of food, there passed before their eyes along the high-
wajrs droves of cattle, wagons laden with foodstuffs, all products of
their own labor sent out of the coimtry to be sold and tne proceeds
paid to alien landlords.
In any other country in the world these abundant supplies would
have been seized and the people would have used them to avert
hunger. In Ireland an exaggerated sense of property led the people
to perish of starvation rather then take what according to law belonged
to the landlord. But it is said, Ireland is governed by exactly
the same law as England with respect to land. Quite true, but the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 889
conditions established under these laws in the two countries are
widel}r different. The English landlord always lives upon his estate^
the Irish landlord seldom if ever. The English landlord has always
held himself to be the chief of an industrial family, the head of a great
industrial organization, dividing the whole product of the soil with
those who have aided in cultivating it.
I know of nothing more impressive in civilized life than the manner
in which these English lords of the soil exercise their ownership
over it for the benefit of the people who cultivate it and for the glory
of their coimtry. The manor house which to many casual observers
is a mere abode of elegant luxury is actually to the great agrioidtural
organization of which its owner is the head, what the countinghouse
is to a factory. From it the landlord directs all the energies of his
tttiants and dependents. This landlord is never ''off his job'' for a
moment. Even in his amusements he is always discharging his
dutv, fulfilling his task.
We often hear of the claret-drinking, fox4nmting sauire, as though
his whole life were devoted to the consumption oi wine and the
hunting of foxes, and he does spend a good part of his time in these
agreeable occupations. PL«aiaghter.] But ^en he is hunting ovet
his own fields and those of his neighbors he is scrutinizing his fences
and the condition of his farmers' and laborers' cottages andcomparing
them with conditions existing on the estates of other landlords.
When he is shooting he may be conscious of nothing except a desire
to kill partridge or snipe, but to reach this game he must walk
through the stubble in which the birds are concealed and there he is
necessarily informed of the manner in which the field is cidtivated hy
his tenant. If the fences are broken, cultivation of the field inefficient,
cottages dropping into decay, the tenant is required to ex|daia.
If that tenant can show that he is not responsible for these conditions
and could not avoid them the landlord nimself always feels bound
to repair them. If, for instance, the tenant by reason of a large
and growing family finds himself imable to continue paying the rent
he had |weviously paid, no English landlord would ever think of
evicting him. The opinion of fis own order would forbid it. To
throw a deserving man out on the highway who for reasons beyond
his control was no longer able to pay his rent would be an offense
against his obligations as a gentleman, almost worse then cheating
at cards. But while public opinion in England makes the landlora
a trustee for the benefit of those who under his direction cultivate the
soil, the Irish landlord, who seldom lived in the country or saw his
property, was under no restraint whatever in dealing with his tenants.
His sole object was to obtain and enjoy the uttermost penny that
his agent could extort from them. And thus it came to pass that
the very same man — and I am speaking now. Mr. Chairman, of
matters within my own knowledge-^who in England is the very
embodiment of paternal care for his tenants, would suffer an estate
owned by him in Ireland to be administered with a ruthless cruelty
which produced conditions difficult for us to conceive in this country.
The absentee Irish landlord, though he was oppressive, was not always
consciously cruel in the treatment of his tenants. The system made
him a tyrant or at least tempted him to tyranny even when ho
himself was naturally well disposed.
890 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERUAJSY.
One man of my own acquaintance who is still living, and who
occupies a very prominent position to-day in E^ilish public life,
the younser son of a great noole, became a naval oA^ct and received
from his father when he came of a^e, a property that yielded about
£ 1,000 a year. This property whicn he had never seen was managed
by an agent. He went on the turf and in the course of a few weeks
the thousand pounds which constituted his annual income passed
from his pockets into those of enterprising bookmakers. As was
usual with Irish landlords living out of the country, he wrote a
letter to his agent asking if he comd not send him some more monev.
The agent answered that the income from his property might easily
be doubled. ^*Why the mischief then don't you double it/' he
asked. ''I want to be sure/' the agent answered, ''that I will be
sustained." Now this man is quite an extraordinary person, gifted
with a mind singularly effective in analysis. Concluoing from the
agent's statement that there was something about the matter which
needed explanation, he resolved to visit the estate and ascertain
for himseli the real condition. The agent met him and escorted
him over the property, showing him various farms for which the
rentals paid he said were entirely inadequate, and finally reached one
which seemed to be particularly well kept ana prosperous. * * There, ' '
said the agent, '^is one of the best farms on tne estate. It is easily
worth 2 euineas an acre, and all that the tenant pays for it is 2 and
6 pence. When the landlord asked why the higher rental was not
obtained for it the agent asnwered that when rentals had been
raised on Irish estates the agents always incurred bitter enmity.
Tins they were prepared to face, but they had not always been sus-
tained by their principals. And this particular agent before he took
any steps to increase rentals wanted to be assured that he would
be supported by the landlord in any trouble that might ensue.
Now, this particular landlord from his entrance into the naval
service, had always made it a rule when anything under his authority
went wrong to go and ascertain the cause of it for himself. Even
after ho rose to oe an admiral — I may as well say that the man of
whpm I speak is Lord Charles Beresford — ^if an engine on anv ship
of his fleet was reported out of order he never contented himseu with
sending an eno;ineer officer to find out what was the matter. He
always orderecl a boat lowered and went and ascertained it himself.
And so when the agent made this statement about the farm renting
at what appeared to be such an extraordinarily low rate Lord Charles
concluded that he would go and see the tenant personally and get his
side of the matter. Tlie following morning he appeared at the
cottage door and was welcomed by the occupant, whose name I
think was Monahan. To enter a house in Ireland no introduction is
necessary. Anyone who appears on the threshold is sure of a cordial
reception. After exchanging a few pleasant words with Mr. Monahan,
Lord Charles made some observations on the excellence of the farm.
Now, an Irishman who receives congratulations on the farm he
occupies always discerns in the complunent a potential, if not prob-
able rise of rental. And so when Lord Charles asked liim how it
happened that he only paid 2 and 6 pence an acre for land easily
worth 2 guineas, the tenant said, *' And may I ask, sir, why you busy
yourself about my farm, or the rent I pay?" Whereupon Lord
Charles said, ^*I am your landlord." Ami then this man, well-nigh
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 891
80 years of age, broke down and wfept like a child. The dread stroke,
which every Irish tiller of the soil who has made it productive always
apprehends, seemed to have fallen. In piteous accents he sobbed,
^'Oh, mv lord, for the love of God, don't take the farm from me. It
is true I^am paying but 2 and 6 pence an acre for it, but when I came
here that land was not worth 6 pence an acre. The value it has
to-day is the result of work put into it by me and my boys during the
last 50 years." Four sons, the oldest nearly 50, the youngest over
40 years of age, had all spent their lives in helping him to eflFect this
improvement. ^'My lora,*' he said, ^'I will give you half of it, I
will pay 1 guinea an acre, but let me keep the rest," and Lord
Charles said, *'No, Mr. Monahan, I am sorely in need of money but
I would have to be much harder up before 1 could take away from .
you the fruits of your life work and of your four sons. Keep your
larm at 2 and 6 pence an acre as bng as vou live."
Now, suppose this particular landlord nad not taken the trouble to
ascertain lor himself just how his agent could have increased the
rentals of his property, that tenant and his four sons would have been
evicted, turned out on the road to die, unless they could obtain
enough money to buy a passage to this country. And in just that
way and under just such conditions hundreds of thousands — aye,
millions — of Irishmen, victims of this accursed system, have been
driven from their own hearthstone to seek asylums in this country
and other lands beyond the sea. But their love of Ireland instead of
diminishing, grew deeper by absence from the soil. That love they
have transmitted to tneir children, and to their children's children,
many of whom have never seen the country which they love with an
ardor that is unquenchable. It is this greater Ireland beyond the
seas which rises now to denounce that accursed system before the bar
of public opinion throughout the world. The conscience of Christen-
dom has already decreed that the system must end. And I pray,
Senators, that you will not, by ratifying the treaty, prevent the
United States from proving itself, through all the years to come, as
it has been in the years that are past, the most effective agent in
enforcing the decrees of civilization in favor of liberty and justice.
So you see the conditions produced by the abhorrent laws of the
eighteenth century have continued down to the present day. The
laws themselves have been repealed but the conditions they pro-
duced remain. It is true that in law Irishmen can now purcnase
property and hold it without any disqualification on the ground of
religion. But practically land m Ireland was, until very recent
years, absolutely unattainable; first, because the Irishmen, excluded
from all avenues of productive industry for generations, had not the
capital wherewith to purchase land. Ana if by any chance he
became possessed of sufficient means to purchase land, it was a point
of honor among the landlords not to sell. Thus conditions originally
produced by law have been perpetuated through custom. They
continued unbroken until the Wyndham act of 1902 was passed.
The results produced by that measure before the war were amply
sufficient to convince the most skeptical that the wonderful industrial
efficiency which enabled the Irish, after every devastation of their
country, to restore prosperity in an incredibly short space of time
so long as they were allowed to regain access to their soil, had not
892 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
deserted them or diminished in the slightest de23*ee. Just conaide^
for a moment the immediate effects of that Wislation. Remember
that by this measure the Irish land was not taken from the landlord
and given to the tenants without compensation of any kind as it
had been originally taken from its occupiers. It was taken at a high
valuation, and after this high valuation had been fixed by mutual con-
sent 12 ner cent in addition was given to the seUers as a bonus. That
was all cnarged upon the land, the occupier of which was empowered to
take possession and to become the absolute owner on paying the
total amount of the purchase price in installments extending over
62 years — I think that was the number of years. Under that law
one-half of the land of Ireland passed into ownership of its occupiers.
The transfer involved some twelve hundred thousand transactions.
And, what absolutely seems to transcend the possibiUties of human
capacity, there was not a sin^rle default, so far as I know, in fulfiUing^
any of tnese agreements. Never in the history of man have trans-
actions on a scale so stupendous occurred without a single breach of
agreement.
Not merely was the letter of every agreement observed by the
Irish, but they cultivated the soil thus restored to them with such
energy and efficiency that by 1914 they had already effected a won-
derful revolution in their condition. The cabins — the hideous,
noisome cabins which I myself remember, in which we would not
suffer a pig to exist now, where human beings, 9 and 10 in number,
and animals, if they were lucky enough to have a pig or two, dwelt
together promiscuously under a few sods placed against an upright
pcue, an open space at the top allowing smoke from turf ana such
articles as they burned, to escape — ^have all disappeared. Decent
white-washed cottages have replaced them. Implements of industry
are kept in excellent order. I never saw better horses anywhere
than in Ireland while I motored through it in 1913. It seemed as if
the Irish people were once more on the very threshold of a prosperity
such as had blessed the land between 1782 and 1800 — the monuments
of which are those beautiful buildings that ornament the city of
Dublin to the admiration of visitors from every part of the world.
At this time while prosperity was returning apace, and prospects
brightening steadily, the British Government undertook to pass a
measure of home rule, encouraged doubtless by the excellent use
which the Irish people had been making of their land. This measure
did not in fact provide for home rule at all. The body it proposed
to create was not a parhament, but a commission to propose measures
for the English Parliament. Certain subjects were relegated to
this new body but the power of the EngUsh Parhament over it was
supreme — so complete that not merely was the right reserved to-
set aside any act which the Irish Parhament might pass but where
that parhament had acted on a subject entirely within its jurisdiction
the British Parhament was free to pass a different act, and this act
of the Imperial Body was to prevail as the supreme law of the land.
Here surely was a measure which the most radical English opponent
of Irish home rule could well have afforded to accept. Though it
did not estabhsh an Irish Government in any sense of the word yet
the Irish representatives who then appeared to speak for the majority
of the people, accepted it. And there was every reason to beUeve
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 898
that its enactment might effect a complete settlement of this diffi-
culty which for centmies had disturbed the peace of mankind. But
a number of Ulsterites encouraged by leading politicians of EIngland
(openly by all the Tories and secretly by many of the' so-called lib-
erals) resolved to resist by amis the establishment of anything re-
sembling a government in Ireland even though the limitations of its
powere reduced it to little more than a shadow or simulacrum of
government. These men were among the most prominent of the
community. They organized regiments, paraded them in public
reviews and' audaciously imported 100,000 stands of arms to be em-
ployed against the British Government if it undertook to enforce a
home rule act.
Mr. Carson, who had been a high official of the crown, oreanized
what he called a provisional government and one, F. E. Smifli, who
is not an Irishman, who has not a drop of Irish blood in his veins,
who had no connection whatever bv nlood or property with the
island, came over to Belfast, visited various places in Ulster and
joined in arrangements to resist establishment of home rule. After
this rebellion had been proclaimed and its forces actually organized,
the Irish nationalists, wno, mind you, were maintaining m omce, the
British Government then in power (it did not command a majority
in parUament, except by the votes of Irish members) undertook to
organize a volunteer force for the purpose of supporting enforce-
ment of the home rule measure. And then what nappened ? This
Government, maintained in office by Irish votes, forbade by procla-
mation admission of arms into Ireland, after the Ulsterites had
•obtained arms sufficient to equip the regiments they had organized
for rebellion but before the nationalists volunteers were able to
obtain any military equipment whatever. But even this did not
satisfv these audacious rebels. Disregarding the proclamation of
the Government and flouting its authority they brought a carco of
arms into an Irish port and were suffered to land them without
molestation or interference. Their defiance of authority was in
fact treated as an excellent joke and became a subject of laughter.
Gxm running promised to become the favorite sport of these char-
tered rebels — chartered by the very Government they were defying.
But when the nationalists undertook to bring in a cargo of arms the
British soldiery appeared upon the spot and with bayonet and bullet
prevented them from landmg a single rifle, shooting down women
and children who happened to be spectators. And so sedition was
preached and practised with impunity in Ulster while Irish national-
ist volunteers when they attempted to sustain the Government
were prosecuted and dispersed by order of the very men they kept
in office. But even that was not all.
Under a new development of the British constitution a measure
may become law notwithstanding its rejection by the House of Lords
after it has been enacted three times in the House of Commons. This
home rule bill had been enacted once, and while the second enactment
was in progress the military authorities — ^not the volunteers — ^but
the regularfy organized military forces of the Empire encamped at
Kildare — ^were notified that possible violence in Ulster might reauire
intervention by the soldiery to overcome it. And forthwith all the
high officers, with the exception of Gen. Paget, resigned their commis-
894 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMAKY.
sions and announced they would not draw their swords to maintain
the authority of their Groyemment because it would be drawing them
in behalf of a cause which the Irish people supported and against
the Ulsterites who were their personal iriends and with whose openly
proclaimed intention to resist oy arms the operation of a law enacted
oy the British Parliament thev were in full sympathy. And these
mutinous officers, instead of being court-martialed, degraded, dis-
charged, and shot, were not even questioned. Not mereyr were they
suffered to retain their commissions, but most of them were actually
advanced to higher commands.
Can you wonder at what followed ? The Great War came on. Mr.
Redmond, acting for the nationalists, pledged the Irish people to
support the British cause. I think he made a capital mistake when
he said, that the Irish people would be satisfied to wait for enforcement
of the nome rule bill after the war was over. However, this may be,
certain it is that when the enlistments opened Irishmen went to the
colors in great numbers. The nationalist leaders asked that these
Irish soldiers be performed separately so that such deeds of valor as
they accomplished would redound to the glory of their race. The
request was denied. They were drafted into various regiments and
companies. But wherever the fortunes of war were desperate and
the casualties heaviest there Irishmen were found in numoers far in
exceuss of the proportion they bore to the entire body of the British
soldiery. And though they sulBFered heavier losses than any other
men in the English service, their sacrifices were allowed to pass unre-
warded and indeed unnoticed.
But worse was to follow. While Irish nationalists were dying by
thousands under the British colors, repeating the sacrifices and servicer
of their ancestors at Flanders a ceutiu'y earner, it was resolved by the
British Government to arrest the leaders of the nationalist volunteers
and seize such arms as might be found in their possession. That purpose
having become known it provoked immediate spontaneous resistance.
Without preparation or opportunity to rally even the scanty force
they could command these Irishmen arose in revolt. Numbering
less than 2,000 they held two entire British divisions at bay for over
a week. And when, after a display of gallantry at which the world
has wondered, and without having committed any excesses as their
bitterest enemies acknowledged they laid down their arms, the
leaders (some 17 in number), were snot in cold blood. These men
were the very flower of Irish life. The officials who took the lead in
butchering them or in directing their butchery were the very men
who had themselves preached reoellion and resistance to the Govern-
ment. Once more the very best in the land, men of resplendent
genius, of virtue personal and civic, absolutely unspotted and untar-
nished, were slaughtered, and over their dead bodies the basest were
rising to conspicuous positions. The same accimjed system that
raised Emmet to the scaffold and Norbury to the peerage has in
thase days sent the brightest ornaments of Irish life to stand before
a firing squad, and raised to the English woolsack the man who had
counsellea the coiu^e these victims pursued.
Now this simple narrative of facts which we all remember, demon-
strates, it seems to me beyond a question, the absolute incapacity of
England to do justice in Ireland. Everywhere else her rule may be
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QBBMANY. 895
beneficent. In her own country she maintains a government cer-
tainly better than any other in Exirope. Many think it the best in
the world. But in Ireland, by the confession of everyone, her own
statesmen included, her attempt to govern the country has been the
most wretched failure in the whole range of human annals. The
reason for it is plain. It arises from a difficulty that is insuperable.
For nearly 250 years all le^lation in Ireland nas proceeded on the
assumption that the Ulstente is a superior being, and that all other
Irishmen are his inferiors. This, though fantastically absurd, is not
to be wondered at. Because you can not very well rob a man and
then admit that he is yoxu* equal or that he is possessed of any
merit whatever. You must admit and declare him unfit to enjoy
either liberty or property at the same time that you despoil him in
order to justifv the spoilation. English writers and pohticians are
driven in self-defense to contend that the Irish are a shiftless, worth-
less, thriftless race, the Ulsterites embodiments of industrial effi-
ciency and frugality. In support of the misrepresentation they
quote the prosperity of Ulster, always omitting to point out that it
enjoyed the essential conditions of prosperous commerce while the
rest of Ireland was excluded from them. The different treatment
always extended by British Government (no matter what party con-
trolled it) to the different parts of Ireland, can not be explained
upon any other theory. Remember, it was not only English tories
wno have discriminated against one set of Irishmen in favor of the
other. Liberal Englishmen have done it in even a more marked
degree. It was a so-called liberal government kept in office by
Irish votes that persecuted and suppressed the Irish nationalist
volunteers who sought to support the measure of the British Govern-
ment and encouraged the Ulsterite recalcitrants who proclaimed their
intention to rebel against a law which aimed to do a faint measure
of justice in Ireland.
All of which shows conclusively that England can not do justice in
Ireland. She is absolutely incapable of it. Even when she has tried
to do it, she has failed signally and dismally. I believe that the ma-
jority of the English people were really anxious to establish home rule
in Ireland before the war. They had voted in favor of it. Their rep-
resentatives in ParUament enacted it, and yet when it came to
putting it in operation forces too strong for the Government were
able to prevent it.
And all of this, Senators, I believe, leads to one conclusion. Ireland
must be released from this incubus. She must be delivered from this
body of death, called English rule. She can not continue to exist
under it. She will not. She would not deserve to exist if she accepted
these conditions of degi*adation. She wiU never accept them. Her
whole history shows that. There is no way in which her national
spirit can be quenched. Efforts the most ruthless, backed by the
utmost power of England continued through centuries, have failed to
destroy Ireland's nationality. All the leagues of nations which might
be formed on this earth coulH not keep Ireland submissive to this wrong.
Thank God for it. In saying that for Ireland, I think I can say as
much for America, too. [Applause.] I do not believe all the powers
on earth, organized in a league of nations or otherwise, could keep
America submissive under a wrong. [Applause.] I do not believe
896 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
there is any chance that America will be reduced to a position where
her people must revolt against her Government in order that justice
may remain their birthright. And, therefore, I am as certain as I
can be of anything that tliis treaty will be rejected, root and branch,
as an abomination which the American people can not take to their
bosoms. There is but one thing necessary now to effect the emanci-
pation of Ireland and the regeneration of the world. It is that we
acknowledge and recognize the simplicities of tlie situation which
this war has created, as Senator Knox described tliem yesterday,
and then govern our course by this infallible guide. What is it that
the world needs? Everj^one will answer, ^' Peace." Of course, it is.
But, .what is peac^ ?
Peace is not merely the removal of contending armies from the
field of battle. It means deliverance of the nation from the pre-
occupation and obsession of wasteful preparations for war. For
years before the late conflict began the world was practically in a
state of war. It was paying the price of war. Notwithstanding a
great increase in the Production of commodities prices instead of
falling were rising. This increase in the cost of living could be
accounted for on no basis except the tremendous expense of suj>-
porting 5,000,000 of men in the very; flower of their productive
efficiency idle in barracks and equipping them with the weapons
which would make them effective in battle. That was a terrible
burden before the war. But now if that burden is to continue it
must destrov or at least imperil the solvency of the entire world.
And an insolvent world must necessarily be a starving world.
Remember that during the 100 years of peace which followed
Waterloo there was an enormous growth of population. That
growth was confined almost entirely to the cities; rural populations
declined rather than increased. In all those cities there is not &
single human being who produces the necessities of his own existence.
Five or six millions of people have established themselves on the
Hudson River and the East Kiver in what is called the great city of
New York. There they live on the contributions of workers from
all over the world. Everything that enters into their industry
must be contributed from outside the city. Anybody who has ever
looked upon those great chimneys and seen the smoke of manu-
facture rising to the heavens — ^incense with industry burns before
the throne oi God — must realize the close interdependence between
all human beings in the world to-day. Everything that enters into
manufacture, the very stones of the structure in which industry
operates, the very beams of the building in which it is sheltered, the
raw materials of manufacture, the clothing and food of the worker,
all come from outside. The dweller in the cities depends for his
subsistence upon the labor of all the world.
Before the war 4,000,000 of these 5,000,000 people lived literally
from hand to mouth. And the same is true of people in every other
great city. But now $250,000,000 of the capital by which industry
was formerly made effective has perished. Ten million human beings
in the flower of their industrial efficiency are dead, maimed, and
rendered inefficient. With this loss of capital and of productive
energy how are these mighty populations to continue to be fed,
clothed, and housed i There is but one way. The waste of war and
of preparations for war must be ended.- All over the world men must
I
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 897
put away weapons of conflict and take into their hands implements
of industry. If disarmament can be made universal, then this war
wiU be converted from the greatest scourge ever laid upon the backs
of the human race into the greatest blessmg which a Merciful Provi-
dence has ever extended to them. It is the unbroken lesson of
history that sacrifices imposed on one generation are the necessary
price of every great advance material, and moral, accomplished by
other generations. The French Revolution, which caused wars that
devastated the Old World for over 20 years, resulted in uprooting
survivals of feudalism which had seriously hampered industry, ana
it was followed by an improvement in human conditions so remark-
able that when we contrast the conditions of the world during the
last hundred years with its condition during any previous period, it
seems as if we were considering two separate planets peopled by a
wholly diflferent species of animated beings.
And after our Civil War, notwithstandmg its enormous waste, thf
substitution of free labor for slave labor opened a fountain of pros-
perity which more than repaired in five vears the terrible destruction
of battle. And now if we can absorb all the energies of mankind in
production of commodities necessary to human subsistence, the
ravages of this war will be repaired in five years, and the human
family will reach a plane of prosperity higher than it has ever
achieved. The world is at the parting oi the ways. Either it must
take, through disarmament, the path leading upward to prosperity
that will be immeasurable, or else through efforts to maintain huge
military establishments it must sink through confusion and disaster
to ruin which will be irretrievable. Which path shall be chosen?
Your action. Senators, on this treaty will decide. Mr. Chairman, if
we follow the path marked out by this attempt through a new cove-
nant to perpetuate the conditions from which we hoped that the war
would deliver us, if we increase armaments instead of abolishing them,
if in a word this proposed treaty is ratified, the league of nations,
which it establishes, which is a league not to promote peace but to
prohibit peace, as Senator Knox has well said, it will prove to be the
greatest curse that has ever blighted the prospects of humanity.
[Applause.]
but I have not the slightest apprehension on this score. Thank
God, a spirit of genuine Americanism survives in the Senate which
will deliver this country from the peril that threatens it and dispel
from our horizon the cloud that darkens it. I think I may say with
perfect confidence that since this treaty was laid upon the table of
the Senate the discussion which its provisions have evoked has raised
the standard of senatorial eloquence and senatorial statesmanship to
a plane higher than ever before attained in its history. [Applause.]
I can quote speeches delivered by men who sit around me that can
not be paralleled by any deliverea in the Senate since its organization,
and I ao not except even that much-lauded reply of Daniel Webster
to Senator Hayne, of South Carolina. When we realize the wealth of
information those speeches disclose, the high spirit of patriotic devo-
tion they attest, the stern resolution in the teeth of misrepresentations,
as ingenious as they are reckless, to maintain the integrity of our
institutions, which they establish, nothing in the past history of
13554e— 19 57
898 TREATY OF PI ACE WITH GERMANY.
Congress compares with them. But even if the Senate were indif-
ferent or inefficient there would remain the unerring judgment, the
infallible wisdom, the sensitive conscience of the .^jnerican people.
America has accomplished the greatest things ever achieved in the
history of mankind, things which have been so universally recognized
as of transcendent value to civilization that even if they could be
changed no himian being would venture to disturb them. If any-
body had the power to disturb them and should attempt it, the whole
conscience of Christendom would rally to preserve them as priceless
possessions of the whole himian family. Yet these great achieve-
ments were attained not through politicians or statesmen, but largely
in spite of them. The people have always done better than the poli-
ticians or statesmen had advised.
This war which we can all now see was absolutely essential to
f reservation of our civilization was not a distinctive policy of the
'resident who conducted it. He went into a campaign and sought
redection — with perfect sincerity as I believe — upon a proposition
that he had kept us out of war. He could not have mtended to advise
a declaration of war when he called the extra session, because he did
that only after failure of a measure recommended by him which did
not look toward war but merely to the arming of merchant ships. It
was essentially the war of the American people not of the American
President.
The War with Spain was forced upon a reluctant Executive, as I
think the chairman of this committee will admit, close as he was to
the administration of the very distinguished President who caused its
declaration. And the reconstruction of the Southern States after the
Civil War was not what anybody had suggested. It is now clear that
if either party had had its way the country would not yet have
recovered from its ravages. I remember when Mr. Tilden was — bs
I believed at the time and have not wholly changed my opinion —
cheated out of the office to which he had been elected, I thought it
was the end of this Government. I thought that the South must
remain indefinitely under the cruel heel of oppression, with rival
governments in three diflFerent States, and that all possibility of re-
construction on the basis of reconciliation had faded away into limit-
less distance. Looking back now, I can see that it was the providence
of God that put the task of withdrawing the Federal troops m>m South
Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida into the hands of a Republican
President, thus making it a common policy of the whole country,
which Democrats were delighted to welcome and which Republicans
were not in a position to criticize.
The War of 1812 was forced on President Madison. Senator Knox,
who has undoubtedly studied closely the archives of the State De-
partment, knows that the purchase of Louisiana as we understand it
was never contemplated by Thomas Jefferson. He sought only to
acquire the Island of Orleans. The purchase of the great territory
north of the present boundary of Louisiana wais^J orced on him. It
was accepted as a necessary condition by his supporters, and urged
as a reason for rejecting the whole treaty by others, on the groimd
that these desert wilds could never be of any value to us. But the
people builded wiser than the statesmen of those years.
And now, when the greatest emergency that has ever confronted
the country is upon us, I believe that the people's conscience, the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 899
people's judgment, and the people's wisdom, will reinforce the deter-
mination of these Senators who have already checked, and who I
believe will succeed in defeating, the attempt by this treaty to betray
the causes and purposes for which the war was fought. I do not
charge deliberate treason against anyone, but I do say that betrayal
of the causes for which this war was fought and won will be the net
result, if the pxu*poses of those who negotiated this treaty shall be
accomplished. We are told that even an amendment of this treaty
will lead to its rejection. Well, what of that? Suppose it is de-
feated, could we conceive anything more auspicious ? The league of
nations which it undertakes to establish is imperfect by the conces-
sion of everybody.
The Shantung provision is an abomination. Yet we are told that
we must yield to that abomination and make ourselves parties to it.
My God, Mr. Chairman, when did it come to pass that the word
"must" can be addressed to the American Nation? [Applause.]
When this Nation consisted of little more than a few villages strag-
fling along the Atlantic coast, the suggestion was made that for-
earance of the greatest military power in the world at that time
could be secured by a substantial advance of money. The answer
was given without an instant's hesitation: '^Millions for defense;
not one cent for tribute." [Applause.]
And, sir, are we now to pay not a tribute of money but a tribute
of infamv, by the confession of everybody, in order to establish a
lec^e wnich has not and can not operate for peace, but in the very
nature of things, as has been conclusively shown by Mr. Knox and
other Senators, must operate to make war freauent, if not perpetual ?
Is there in that treaty one single word of whicn any American should
be proud ? Does it liberate a sing;Ie people who seek emancipation,
except as an act of vengeance against the countries that were over-
thrown ? Does it hold out a word of hope to nations that are lan-
guishing in chains and determined to break them ? Far from that,
it creates new spoliations and makes us a party to them. Without
our participation they could not become effective. [Applause.]
But we are told that we can ratify this treaty and pass a resolu-
tion declaring that we don't like these infamies at tne very time
that we are perpetrating them. Now I can have some respect, at
least I can understand the attitude of a man who perpetrates an
infamy because he wants to, but I have no patience with a man who
after making himself a party to an infamy seeks to excuse himself
by saying that he dislikes it. [Applause.] One man is formidable
to justice, the other is contemptible in every sense. But thank God
the Government of the United States is not going to be contemptible.
[Applause.]
NoWy in all this, I do not intend the slightest reflection on
the President of the United States. I think I ought to say that.
[Laughter.] No, no; Senators, let me say this to you: I think the
Flace of the President in history is a high one, and I think it is secure,
think it is so secure that it can not be overthrown bv anything
except ratification of this treaty, and against that the Senate is, I
think, immovable. His definition of the cause which led us into this
war has become one of the priceless possessions of humanity. The
14 points are not dead. They are alive; they are here. [Applause.]
^00 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
We are appealing to them now, and the appeal will not be m vain.
They can never die.
I was one of those who sincerely deplored his going abroad. I
did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that the President of
the United States is ever justified in placing his person under the
1'urisdiction, or in the power of a foreign Government, especially when
le is engaged in a negotiation affecting the sovereignty of the United
States. While his person is under Foreign jurisdiction he can be
coerced in many ways. I think he was coerced in one way which
proved effective, and that was by threatening him covertly or openly
with some manifestation of disapproval or by withholding from him
the applause which they gave him in overflowing measure when he
first appeared on the European continent. It is impossible othen\^ise
to account for his acceptance of provisions in this treaty which he
himself declares to be objectionable. But I want to say this: The
world which heard the words he uttered when uring Congress to
declare war became that moment a different world from what it had
ever been before. I wrote Mr. Tumulty at that time, and I felt
deeply in mv soul that this address of the President would pass into
history as the most momentous utterance that ever fell from human
lips since Pope Eurban II preached the First Crusade at Clermont-
Ferrand, over 800 years ago. When he said this war was w^aged to
make the world safe for democracy, and men shed their blood to make
his declaration effective, it became impossible for the earth which
received that libation, ever again to tolerate, in Ireland or anywhere
else in the world, conditions those heroes died to overthrow. [Ap-
plause.]
After speaking these words it became as impossible for the Presi-
dent to come back and set up such a machinery of force to dominate
the world, as is embodied in this treaty, as it would have been for
Godfrey, of Bouillon, or any other leader of the Crusades to establish
Mohammedanism in his own dominion after his return from attempt-
ing to overthrow it in the Holy Land. Even though the President
has himself forsaken the 14 points, the principle embodied in them
remains to render the dominion of brute force impossible anywhere
within the limits of civilization.
How the reign of brute force will be abolished in Ireland I can not
teU at this moment any more than anyone at the close of our Civil
War could have foretold the splendidly successfid reconstruction of
the Southern States that foUowed it. I am sure the chairman of this
committee will recall that the leaders of the dominant party at that
time, men like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus M. Stevens and Oliver
P. Morton, patriots of the highest type, believed it would be necessary
to take the most drastic precautions against a renewal of secession.
On the other hand, the leaders of the Democratic Party in the South
believed that they were entitled at once to unconditional restoration
of their government and freedom to reestablish their social and
economic life as they pleased. A golden mean was struck between
the two. Their governments were given back to the southern people
when it became clear that there would be no attenrpt to restore
slavery or to fasten the Confederate debt on any part of this country.
And then those States which had been ravaged as no other land
had been ravaged before, whose industrial system had been sub-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 901
jrerted, whose cities had been burned, whose fields had been devas-
tated, where the last dollar of capital had been expended, rose fronx
the aahes of defeat almost in a nisht and marched forward to a pros-
perity greater than that which has blessed any other part of this
country.
So I firmly believe that out of all this discussion, contention, and
confusion of views, the thingwill emerge which the world needs.
And that is disarmament. When disarmament becomes universal,
then peace will be firmly established, for the very simple reason
that when all nations are disarmed there will not be any means with
which any of them can fight against another. Let us, then, insist that
the outcome of this war shau be disarmament of all nations. We
have the power to enforce this policy and we need not lift a finger to
do it. As Senator Knox pointed out yesterday, the whole world is
bankrupt. Many nations are still intent on mamtaining great arma-
ments, but they can not support them unless we give them the means.
It is certainly impossible lor any of them to reorganize its industry
and at the same time maintain a great military establishment. The
hope of each one is that we will advance it the capital essential to its
industrial reorganization, and then it will use its own resources to
maintain a great armament on land and sea.
I do not believe any American would object to aid the restoration
of stricken Europe, but I do think it is our paramount duty to insist
that before we extend the benefit of our resources to any other
country all its own resources be devoted to restoring its industry.
We should not aid it while it diverted one penny of its own posses-
sions to military enterprises. To force universal disarmament,
therefore, it is only necessary that this country resume the rdle
which it has played since its organization.
For the first time in the history of the world a great war has ended,
leaving one power able to maintain the greatest armaments on land
and sea ana that power does not want to establish them. That
power possesses the resources to resuscitate society, and it does not
want to exercise the power thus given it for any other purpose than to
benefit the whole human family. And now, while we are ready to
expend our treasure for the welfare of all the world, what is it that by
this treaty we are asked to do ? As Senator Elnox well said yesterday,
we are asked to use our resources for regeneration of the world, not
according to our own idea of what would be most effective, but by
submitting our judgment to that of other nations whose policies
have led them to the pass out of which thev are crying to us for deliv-
erance. Now, if there be in all this world any force, country, Gov-
ernment, or political system better qualified than America to employ
enormous resources for the benefit of mankind by enforcing justice
I am ready, for my part, to see our resources turned over to that
superior agency. But where is it ? Where can it be found ? Where
is there in the universe any force comparable to the United States
as an agency to use unlimited resources for the improvement of
human conditions? Such a power or force can not oe found. It
does not exist. And yet we are asked to subordinate our control
over our own resources to the judgment of nations which I think
nobody here will dispute are inferior to us in intelligence and in love
of justice. We are asked to give up the greater for the less, to abase
902 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
ourselves from the loftv position to which Providence has assi^ed
us and deliberately sink to a lower level. But it is said that 3 we
maintain control over our own destiny we are in danger of isolation.
Well, Mr. Chairman our isolation was decreed by Almighty God
when he gave us the first place in civilization. Eminence is always
isolation. But the eminence which we have always enjoyed is not an
isolation which we want selfishly to retain. No; no; no; America
invites all the world to end that isolation by coming up and sharing
the eminence which she has occupied since the organization of this
Republic. [Applause.] From the spirit that has oeen displayed in
this gathering here to-day, I have unbounded confidence that this
country will not terminate that eminence by coming down from it
and abasing itself to the prejudices and hostilities and cupidities of
those European powers that nave plunged the world into the welter
of blood from wnich we have iust delivered them, and from whose
consequences we now hope to snield them.
Senator Knox has stated, much better than I can state it, the true
policy we should pursue. When disarmament is secured the nations
can not fight. And then an unarmed world will naturally and
inevitably produce a lea^e of nations to adjust disputes. YPliile
imarmed nations can not nght without at least three years' preparation
there will be disputes as long as there are hxmian bemgs on the earth.
Now, there are out two things that men or nations can do when they
engage in disputes; they can either fight about them or they can talk
about them. If they have not the means to fight then there is nothing
left for them to do but talk about them. And when by disarmament
they are placed in a position where all they can do is to talk, they will
inevitably take measures to make that talk effective, which means
they will establish tribunals or bodies of some description before which
these disputes can be adjusted, if they are capable of adjustment.
Leagues of nations can not produce peace. But peace can and will
proauce a leag[ue of nations — a true league of nations— a league
capable of meeting the requirements of civilization. And with all the
world disarmed no nation can be held in subjection against the will
of its inhabitants tx) another. Ireland wiU be free and everv nation
now denied the blessings of liberty will obtain them. That, Mr.
Chairman, I believe will be the outcome of this situation. It may
not come immediately. But come it must and come it will. Any-
thing else spells not merely danger but ruin to civilization, ifr.
Chairman, tnese are the conclusions which I submit respectfully but
most hopefully to this committee. Peace— not merely cessation of
war, but cessation of preparations for war— is absolutely essential to
hxunan existence under the conditions which now govern the world.
Peace must be established in Ireland before it can be made nenna-
nent throughout the world. Peace can not be established in Ireland
by England. Eight centuries of history prove that. The Irish
people who have resisted foreign domination for nine centuries will
not submit to it, even though an attempt to force it upon them were
made by a thousand leagues of nations. The league of nations here
proposed is an abomination, an attempt to use the conscience of
Christendom to sanction and perpetuate wrones which morality and
justice condemn. But although judgment and good sense may have
departed from quarters where we have a right to expect that they
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMANY. 903
would be found, yet we feel profoundly confident that here in this
body the wisdom of the fathers will be vindicated by such a display
of patriotism, such an exercise of vigilance, as will insure to this
people the rights to which they were bom, the rights which some of
lis who cameliere from other lands have acquired through the opera-
tion of our constitutional system; and by maintaining tnis constitu-
tion intact, you Senators will become the effective instruments
ordained by rrovidence to keep trimmed and shining before the eyes
of idl men the lamp which will guide their footsteps, to freedom, to
justice, and to unending prospenty.
Judge CoHALAN. Gentlemen of the committee, we thank you on
behalf of those who have come here, and on behalf of those who have
had the opportunity of addressing you.
BRIEF OF PROTEST.
(The brief of protest heretofore referred to, filed in opposition to
the arguments submitted at the morning session, is as follows:)
The Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate of the United States.
Gentlemen of the Committee: We beg to present a formal protest to the
attempt of representatives of a faction in Ireland, known as the Sinn Fein
party, or of kindred organizations favoring this movement In the United States,
to have the 8o-cane<l Irish question thrust into the discussion in the Senate
of the peace treaty and the league of nations.
In presenting our brief of protest we do so as American citizens of Irish
birth, and not as agents of a foreign government, nor as local political faction-
ists with an ax to grind. We are just plain, hard-working American citizens,
engaged in various commercial and professional callings, prompted by a legiti-
mate sentiment for the land of our birth and by a whole-hearted devotion to the
land of our adoption.
We are not here, sirs, to argue either for or against the peace treaty and
the league of nations, but we are here through your gracious courtesy to de-
clare ourselves opposed to the thrusting of a foreign political issue Into the
discussion of that great subject.
Our opposition, gentlemen. Is based on the following arguments:
I. THE ABGUMENT OF BIGHT.
The league of nations Is a proposal to unite the forces of the allies who
fought during the late war to preserve the future peace of the world. This
faction in Ireland has no right to be considered in the discussion, for they failed
to support the allies In that war and failed to do their part in the struggle.
We present two simple statements in our argument :
A. They failed to support by sentiment. Their propaganda during the war
period was hurtful to the allied cause.
B. They failed to support by deed. They gave and comfort to the foe by
creating strife and turmoil at home. The British Government, in order to
quiet this faction could not and did not enforce conscription in Ireland.
Granted they had a real cause to present at the bar of American judgment,
they have no more right to be heard at this time, when they failed to support
the allied cause, than the foe has to be heard at this juncture.
n. THE ARGUMENT OF FACT.
It is Stated by this element that Ireland has not self-government and is
therefore entitled to be heard. We are prepared to testify by actual experi-
ence that Ireland has self-government on the following basis :
A. Ireland has the franchise — franchise in local as well as national govern-
ment.
B. Ireland has representative government. It has representatives of the
people, by the people, and for the people.
904 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
C. Laws are made by the Parliament In the same manner as for England,
Scotland, or Wales — the procedure is the same In each case.
It Is further stated by this element that Ireland is suppressed by Britain.
We reply :
First It is not suppressed religiously. Freedom of worship is granted to
all, and is enjoyed by all.
Second. It is not suppressed industrially. Ireland posses.'^es some of the
largest plants in various Industries to be found in the world, for example*
shipbuliding, linen, tobacco, rope, collar and shirt, distilling, etc. The lace
industry of Ireland is proverbial. Ireland is enjoying prosperity now to a
vast degree.
III. THE ABGUMENT OF HISTORY.
The claim is made that Ireland was and should be a nation. This claim \»
false and the assumption is without historical grounds. Ireland neither during
the Druidic nor the Christian periods has been one whole, undivided nation.
The four provinces represent the smallest areas of nationhood. Historically,
Ireland has had many kings and rulers at the one time, but never one king or
supreme chief. Only under British rule has Ireland ever approached unity
in these historic divisions. The present political divisions in Ireland are re-
ligious and not racial.
IV. THE ARGUMENT OF PRINCIPLE.
We are opposed, gentlemen, to the Irlfh question being thrust into American
politics for the following reasons:
A. It raises a racial question. American citizenship Is built not on foreign
nationality but by adoption of the principles of the Constitution of the United
States of America. The United States exists not for the foreignizlng of
America, but Americanizing the foreigner who seeks to live in our land. What-
ever arouses racial feeling in America is dangerous to our national consciou:$-
ness. We are opposed to hyphenated Americanism.
B. It raises a religious question. This is foreign to the principles of
American national life. The propaganda of this element is such as to arouse
sectarian animosity, denominational bigotry, and injects religious controversy
into American politics. We are opposed to the religious hyphenate as well
as the racial, whether it be Jewish, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Christian
Science, or otherwise. The Irish question at home is a matter largely of re-
ligious association, and this is its tendency abroad.
In conclusion, sirs, we feel tht the Irish question should not have official
recognition at this time, when in the interests of the democracy of the world
there should be fostered a friendly feeling between the two great English-
speaking democracies of the United States of America and the British Empire.
We desire to thank you In behalf of thoFe who think and feel as we do on
this question, not only of Irish birth, but also as direct American citizens, as
well as an appreciation of ourselves personally for your courteous treatment
and patient hearing. With absolute confidence we leave the matter In your care.
David D. Ibvii^e,
Hknbt Stewabt,
John Kennedy,
Lt. Lewis H. Shaw,
Albert E. Kelly,
William H. Chinny,
William Balfour.
(The following documents, numbered from 1 to 25, are printed as
a part of the hearing by direction of the committee :)
No. 1.
Statement of Uev. James Grattan Mythen, Assistant Ministeb Ghbist
Chitrch, Norfolk, Ya., as made to the Foreion Relations GoMMmsB
Saturday, August 80» 1919.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, your comooittee has served
notice that only American citizens shaU appear before you in relation to the
XBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 905
matters which you are discussing, and It Is, therefore, my privilege to appeal
to you primarily and, in fact, solely as an American citizen on the question
to which you have given a hearing to-day, namely, the freedom of the Irish
people in their motherland.
As you note, I am a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and as a
follower of the Nazarene my training has taught me to be a pacifist. I
could in no other way in conscience follow the Prince of Peace, however, when
in holy week the President of the United States In an appeal made to the
American people through his address to the Houses of Congress assembled
in Joint session, promulgated what to me seemed the most forceful Christian
utterance since the days of Apostolic inspiration, whatever difficulties had
previously been made manifest from the Christian ethical standpoint in
regard to war were swept away. As a man, as an American, then Mr. Wilson
convinced me as a Christian, it was my absolute and bounden duty to support
the great crusade of which he seemed to be the modem Peter the Hermit.
On Easter Day I preached a sermon in favor of the war, and when the
young men of my parish enlisted I felt that I, being unattached, economically
responsible for no one, that it was unbecoming of me to be content merely to
stand in the pulpit and urge other men to give their lives for the principles
which I considered worthy of life giving. And so, with countless numbers
of young men of the Nation I enlisted voluntarily, although I was exempt from
the draft on account of my clerical profession, and also since I was beyond
the draft age. I was content to serve in the ranks in the humblest capacity,
feeling that the menial tasks which fell to my lot were noble because even
in their small way they were aiding in achieving the high purport of the
sacred mission to which our country had conmiltted itself.
It was not at Belgium appealed to me so tremendously ; I could sympathize
with Belgium because I am of Irish extraction ; but it was the statements of
our President that the crusode which he had inaugurated meant enfranchise-
ment of the world; that all peoples everywhere were to determine for them-
selves the sovereignty- under which they might desire to live. When he spe-
ciacally told us that it was not against the German people, but against the im-
perial autocracy of Germany that we were to fight, I understood him as a clear,
logical and consequential thinker, and I knew that he did not mean alone the
new-born imperialism of Germany, but also the age-long Imperialisms of which
no student of history could possibly be ignorant, especially the author of " The
New Freedom."
From the textbooks of Mr, Wilson I had learned much, and so I gladly fol-
lowed him in the war in which we were to exemplify by the force of militant
argument the principles which he had enunciated.
During my career in the Navy I was charged with helping along the work of
morale. I addressed countless numbers of enlisted men; I wish to tell you
that on one occasion I preached in St. Johns' Church, Hampton, Va., to a
congregation composed almost entirely of men in uniform. I had to say in
defense of the President, because he was then b^lng attacked, that he did mean
all that he had said, and that imperialism everywhere was to go. I distinctly
mentioned Ireland, India, and Egypt in my sermon. A member of the Presi-
dent's wartime Cabinet was an auditor, and he sent for me — I mean Dr. Gar-
field, the Fuel Administrator — and he told me that I had echoed the thoughts
of the President. I was glad to hear him say that because in my sermon on
that day I had said that if the thing that I was preaching were not true, I
would gladly be taken out and put up against a wall and shot, because the
uniform I was wearing imder my priestly vestments would be a disgrace to
the world.
Now, gentlemen of this committee, if a treaty of peace, so-called, is ratified
by you as the coordinate treaty-making power, and the so-called league of na-
tions receives your sanction, I shall feel, ttcst of all, as an American citizen,
secondly as a minister of the gospel, and, thirdly, as an enlisted man in the
Navy, that I have been betrayed not only by the executive power who led us
to a victorious war and brought us to defeat in peace, but also betrayed by
your honorable committee.
However, I do not fear such results. The principles enunciated in the four-
teen points are more than Mr. Wilson's theories. He wrote them first in black
and white and we read them, but since that time they have been written in
red by my comrades, your sons, and your brothers in the fields of France, and
though Mr. Wilson may wish to erase the things he wrote, he can not erase
906 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the Indorsement of his priQdples which has been written In blood by the men
who fell In Flanders and France.
The Irish Issue might well be called the add test of our International hon-
esty. It Is an acid which, If properly neutralized will work well for the com-
mon weal, but If left In sullen despair will, without doubt, ally Itself with
every agency which makes for discontent and through which It may find a
voice. Is It the will of this honorable committee to throw the twenty millions
of our people into the already too large accumulation in the discard of discon-
tent?
It Is not necessary for me to attempt to convince your honorable body that
there Is no question of religion In the Irish situation as It is. The roster of
Irish Protestants who might well be called the Protestant saints of Catholic
Ireland answers that question for me; Grattan, Wolfe, Tono, Lord Edward
Fizgerald, John Mltchel — grandfather of the late Mayor of New York City —
Francis McKlnley, hanged and quartered uncle of the late President of the
United States; Robert Emmet, and Pamell. These Protestant leaders of
Catholic Ireland need no apologists.
There Is a religious question, however, which is international in scope when,
for Instance, from the interior of India, mercenary Gurkhas are Imported to
police Ireland. Those Gurkhas made themselves known in France when, strip-
ped to nothing but a gee>string, with oiled bodies, with a knife in either hand
and another in their mouths, disdaining the use of modem weapons, they
leaped like tigers at the foe. This, gentlemen, is England's contribution from
India to Ireland. And from Ireland the equally mercenary Sir Michael
0*D\^'yer, a man whom all Irishmen repudiate, was sent to rule over the
Punjab, and whose rule has been exemplified in these last few months by
suppressing particular demonstrations of unarmed Indians by the use of
machine guns and bombs from the airplanes, killing thereby in cold blood
hundreds of innocent men, women and children.
These are the ways of English imperialism which maufacture religious an-
imosities where none exist in reality. Thus, gentlemen, does England attempt
to keep her belligerent subjects from realizing the unity of purpose which they
should have in common in the destruction of her perfidious empire. She tries
to make the Irish hate the Indians and make the Indians hate the Irish.
So has she done in Ireland. She has created a fictitious animosity between
Protestant and Catholic which exists only as political propaganda. She
claims through Sir Edward Carson that the Protestant religion requires for Its
preservation the maintenance of British rule in Ireland. As a Protestant, sir,
and a clergyman of the Protestant religion, I resent the implication that Protes-
tantism requires the sustenance of British imperialism to maintain itself hi
Ireland or elsewhere. Were I convinced that this were a fact, that only
through the power of British arms could my religion maintain itself in
Ireland, then I would repudiate my religion at once. So, it Is quite true
that in this country we have heard the British propaganda that there is a
religious difficulty in Ireland.
I want to say to you, sir, and gentlemen, that as a Protestant Irishman,
whose family to-day in Ireland are representatives of the Protestant religion,
that we would all gladly have Ireland free under any religious leadership rather
than remain, as we are, the only white race still in slavery.
No. 2.
Statement by Fobmer Conobessman Joseph F. O'Connell, Refbssentino a
Delegation of the Bench and Bab of Massachusetts Before ths Sknatb
Committee on Foreign Relations.
August 30, ldl9.
Mb. Chairman: I have been authorized on behalf of the delegation of 25
lawyers sent here to-day by the bench and bar of Massachusetts to register oar
protest against the ratification of the peace treaty now under consideration in
its present form, and to say to you that the proposed league of nations Is In our
Judgment un-American, Illegal, and contrary to the Ideals of the American
Republic.
It was my great honor and distinction to sit as a member of Congress for
four years in the great Chamber at the other end of the Capitol, and every
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 907
time that I have viewed It in person or print my mind has traveled back to
Its beginning and history.
Sometimes, Senators, I am inclined to believe we forget the history of this
Tery building in which you will assemble in deliberation on this treaty. Can
you forget that in 1814 British troops marched from Annapolis on their errand
•of destruction and captured Washington, at that time an unfortified city! I
will not detain you to narrate all the violations of so-called civilized warfare
that were committed by the British officers and troops in that campaign, but
I do make bold to recall to your attention the infamous conduct and unfor-
getable incident committed by the British troops in destroying the seat of
^ur Government, because it carries with it the evil omen of what it will do
■agSLln if it ever secures the chance.
The story of the exploit of Admiral Oockbum should be burned into the
memory of this committee and every member of the Senate. Let me refresh
your minds on a few of the details. After capturing the city, Cockbum
marched with his soldiers into the Capitol building and, assembling them in
the House Chamber, addressed them as follows, as we are told by English
-and American historians:
" We have met to-day in the building dedicated to the liberties of the Ameri-
-can people — ^all in favor of burning this building to the ground, will say * Aye *."
The vote was unanimous, and the orders were given "Burn it." And the
original home of our Government, the emblem of our liberty and the original
house of our Government in this city was destroyed by the ruthless devastating
torch of the British soldier.
Ijet me warn you who are inclined to trust England that the same
«pirit of contempt for the American Republic still persists in the same quarters
that inspired the orders to destroy our Capitol. If England ever secures the
IM>wer of dominating American ideals, such as is contemplated in the proposed
league of nations, is there any of you who can guarantee to the American
X)eople that England would again not do the same, if not worse, than Cockbum
^id In 1814?
This incident of American history is not recalled to you in any spirit of hatred
against England, but only from the prudence of my American citizenship that
•can not still the fear that we will be taking a grave chance in entering into this
proxK>sed entangling alllnnce with monarchical powers, and as a lawyer repre-
senting a group of practicing lawyers I counsel and advise against taking any
chances with our historical and traditional enemy. A small leak can lead
to the destruction of the mightiest dam and your care should be to prevent
anything that might lead to a leak of American and republican principles
for if the dam that has been built to protect the American people and the
principles of liberty ever gives way the best minds of the world must agree
that no man can foretell the awful destruction that will follow.
The President may cling to his ideals, but as an American lawyer and on
Iwhalf of this delegation of lawyers from New Ehigland we deliberately assert
that the President has no right to entertain in his official capacity ideals that
Interfere or modify or control in the slightest degree the accepted and estab-
lished ideals of American liberty as laid down in our Declaration of Inde-
pendence and National Constitution. We in this delegation represent the tradi-
tions and teachings of James Otis, Samuel and John Adams, and Daniel Webster,
and we fervidly and earnestly appeal to you, most of whom are lawyers, in
their name not to forget the basic reasons that brought about the establishment
of the United States of America as a Republic separate and distinct from all
other races and governments.
We urge that if the principles of a republican form of government were suffi-
cient to justly the establishment of the American Republic in 1776 they are
just as sound in 1919 to justify the establishment of an Irish republic in Ire-
land. This Republic was established on the doctrine of majority rule and all
authorities agree that over 80 per cent of the Irish people have followed the
course of the American Republic and have established for themselves an
Irish republic, and hence we respectfully urge, that, having expressed to the
Irish people the sympathy of the American people on the efforts of the Irish
people to secure independence by a vote of 60 to 1, the consistent and proper
thing to do now is to officially recognize Ireland as a republic. You have heard
to-day from the lips of eminent Americans who have beien in Ireland enough to
justify you in acting immediately and stating to the world that you are satis-
fled that the Irish people have legally established themselves as a republic.
908 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
So much has been called to your attention to-day on this very important
matter that I will not tire you by recurring to any of the various points dwelt
upon by those who have already addressed you. But it does seem pertinent
to lead your thoughts to that old bogey and masterpiece of British propaganda,
the Ulster question, and, at the risk of taxing your patience, I ask your in-
dulgence to read an authoritative statement from Ernest A. Boyd, one of the
leading Protestant Irishmen of these days and an official of the British consular
service: Ulster is a purely geographical term which describes the northern
Province of Ireland containing the nine counties of Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan,
Tyrone, Armagh, Fermanagh, Down, Antrim, and Derry.
This region is Intimately and gloriously associated with the greatest tradi-
tions, literary and historical, of the Irish nation from the earliest time, when
it was the scene of the epic masterpiece of Celtic literature, down to the eve
of the union, when Wolfe Tone conceived his dream of the United Irishmen in
Belfast, and Grattnn founded at Dunegannon the volunteers of prophetic sig-
nificance. Evidently this Irish Ulster is not the "Ulster" which has called
forth the rebellious enthusiasm of Sir Edward Carson and his English friends.
The one Is a national, the other a political phenomenon ; yet, strange to say,
owing to the absence of inverted commas. It is on behalf of the political
" Ulster " that a plea for self-determination is often raised by those who argue
that she can not deny to Ulster the right which she claims for herself. In
other words, the demand of the Irish people for self-government presents itself
as indistinguishable from the claim of " Ulster *' to revolt against the laws of
national and political unity. If the principle of national be the test to the
right of self-determination, then it is Important to distinguish between Ulster
and ** Ulster." The history of the Plantation of Ulster need not be recapitu-
lated to-day. The facts are historical, and, whatever else may be said of them,
they are hardly the best foundation to a claim to special consideration at the
expense of the native population of the country upon which the settlers were
thrust.
The present obstacles in the way of any acceptance of the theory that Ulster
is a homogeneous entity are sufficient to dispense with a return to ancient
history in the manner of which we Irish are accused of being over fond. In
1911 the jtotal population of our northern Province was 1,581,696, of which
690,816 were Catholic Nationalists. Politically, this division was emphasized
by the return of 17 Nationalists as against 16 Unionist members of Parliament
Even since the last election, when a redistribution of seats and the spilt of the
Nationlist vote between Nationalists and Sinn Feiners affected these figures to
the advantage of the Unionist, there is still a majority in Ulster united with
the majority elsewhere in Ireland so far as the demand for an Irish Parliament
is concerned. Ulster is neither Unionist nor Protestant. Three counties, Done-
gal, Canan, and Monoghan, are almost wholly Catholic. Catholics and Protest-
ants are about equally divided in Armagh, Tyrone, and Fermanagh ; and it Is
only in the three counties of Down, Antrim, and Derry that there is a strong
Protestant Unionist majority. Even there Belfast has returned one Nationalist
member representing the Home Rule Catholic minority. If the four counties
known as Northeast Ulster are grouped together for electoral purposes, it is
found that 5 Nationalists are elected as against 14 Unionists. The remaining
five counties returned 12 Nationalists and only 2 Unionists. Clearly, it is im-
possible to consider Ulster as a political and religious unity. If the right of
Ireland to self-determination be granted, not only will a minority of the whole
country be coerced, but a minority in Ulster itself.
To do Ulster justice, those Interested have rarely dared to base their demand
for separate treatment on the ground of a majority right to self-determination.
Carsonla is frankly antidemocratic and partlcularist, demanding specal conces-
sions for a majority on the sole ground of local advantage, and without any
thought for the rights of the majority in Ulster or for the remaining Provinces of
Ireland. It is alleged that Ulster has prospered since the union, that it is pas-
sionately devoted to England — not the Empire, for colonial home rule is abhor-
rent— that its interests are opposed to those of the rest of Ireland, and tliat
these would suffer at the hands of a legislature representing an agricultural
community and dominated by Catholicism. The very arguments cited in favor
of Ulster are a proof of the particularism and purely local selfishness of their
champions. So far as the prosperity of Ulster is concerned it is limited to a
few industries in a restricted area.
The Province shows the second highest total of emigrati<Hi for all Ireland
between 1851 and 1911— namely, 1,236,872— and between 1841 and 1911 the
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANT. 909
population of Ulster had declined by 805.177 persons. Three Ulster counties
are on the list of Irish counties with the greatest number of emigrants, and two of
them are in the superprosperous, supercontented " northeast corner " — namely,
Antrim, with 207,605, and Down, with 162,571. And as showing that this de-
cline of man power is not a heritage of papal superstition, these figures are
higher than those of the third county, Tyrone, whose emigrants over the same
period numbered 149,243.
As for the pretense that a poverty stricken agricultural population would
victimize the " prosperous " industrial minority, it Is worth noting that the tax-
able revenue per head Is lower in Ulster than in Lelnster, being £3 9s. 8d. In the
former, £4 8s. 9d. in the latter, and that congested districts, with all the mis-
ery the words can note, are found in Ulster no less than in Connaught On per
capita valuation the highest northern country ranks only twelfth In Ireland. In
fact, what Ulster fears even more than it fears democratic government is demo-
cratic taxation. Its claim to self-determination is a claim for capitalist determi-
nation alike for Ireland and Ulster.
Every Irishman knows how profound is the indlflference of Ulster to Eng-
lish Interests or English sentiment whenever these threatened to clash with the
interests of Carsonlsm. The professions of undying affection for England no
more corresponds to individual sentiment than do the boastings of economic
independence to individual interests. Should northeast Ulster become Carson-
shire under separate English administration, nobody would be more seriously
disturbed than the Ulster bankers and the thousand and one business men who
do not own the few favored Industries independent of Irish support. In other
words, these purely selfish manifestations of loyalty to England and inde-
pendence of Ireland made possible only by exploiting popular religious bigotry
do not represent real political and social conditions. They are as remote from
the facts of Ulster^s life as are the panic fears of Catholicism which haunt the
Imagination of the Protestants where they are a dominating majority, but are
proved groundless by their absence in the scattered Protestant minorities out-
side of northeast Ulster.
" Ulster " is not, as has been shown, a geographical entity ; It is certainly not
a national organism ; it is not even homogeneous in religion and politics. It is
an integral part of the Province whose name it usurps, and its separatism flour-
ishes solely because a small portion of the community, led by strangers, has
not been exiiosed to the process of Incorporation into the national and economic
being, such as has everywhere resulted in political unity. We do not anticipate
civil war, which has in most cases preceded the welding together of similarly
divided communities, for we hold that the work of absorption will be painlessly
effected by economic pressure. At the worst, a trial of strength in war, as be-
tween the Federal and Confederate States of North America, would lead to the
definite establishment of a dominant majority. It ijs immaterial which side
should win, provided one were irrevocably defeated. The consequences of an
Irish civil war could not mean one-quarter of the misery, waste, and disruption
which a continuance of this unsettled problem has brought upon Ireland.
Fortunately, however, there are not even two parties of extremists who believe
!n the probability of civil war, and one set of extremists in a nation of essen-
tially moderate and well-disposed people will have some difficulty in making
Ireland follow the example of other countries faced with the same problem.
Irishmen plead that as the word *' Ulster " is misused in this connection, so
is the word ** coercion." The coercion in question is the same as that to which
all minorities have submitted. It does not stand for the forcible oppression of
an Independent people by an alien government, for, whatever their political
orl^^n, Ulstermen are self-confessedly and aggressively Irish. They are asked
to rid themselves of their hallucinations fostered by those who exploit them
brazenly. It is a peculiar fact that the people of " Ulster " have never yet
been allowed to speak for themselves. The Catholic peasantry became articu-
late in the person of Michael Davitt, the Catholic worker in James Connolly,
both notable spokesmen of the ideals of democracy, it is Interesting to state.
Orangelsm relies upon lawyers and capitalists for the expression of its views,
and these representatives have a consistent record of opposition to every pro-
gressive measure passed by the House of Commons and to every progressive
idea which has captured the Irish peoeple. To witness the savage carnivals,
the " annual brain storm," as it has been termed, in which " Ulster " renews its
barbarous hatred of the phantoms which blind the people to real issues, is to
understand the Imperative necessity of liberating the victims They can be
910 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERBfANT.
freed not by special recognition of their primitive tribalism, but by sharing
the common duties and privileges of Irish self-government.
Senators, if there be a free Ireland, there will be a free " Ulster."
No. a
Statement by James E. Deeby, Indianapolis, National President of the
Ancient Osdeb of Hibebnians in America.
To the Foreign Relations C!ommittee, United States Senate :
The Ancient Order of Hibernians, at their recent national convention held in
San Francisco, Calif., last month, adopted a resolution insisting that In the
event that a league of nations covenant was adopted that provision be made
therein for the recognition of Ireland as a member thereof. The Hibernians
feel that every nation in the world, and particularly America, was inspired to
victory in the recent war by the thought that when the terms of peace were
drawn up the world would be made safe for democracy and that aU small
nations would be s^ven the right to determine the form of government under
which they desired to live. The Hibernians are interested in this question now
before the Senate committee solely as American citizens and lovers of liberty.
The Hibernians are proud of the record for 100 per cent Americanism made by
the Irish in this country from the days of the revolution to the present time.
When America was looking for outside help, prior to the War of the Revolu-
tion, they sent Benjamin Franklin to Europe, and in no country did he receive
more encouragement and support in behalf of the America cause than from Ire-
land. They not only held meetings throughout Ireland but they raised funds
with which to help finance the colonies.
Recently the President of the United States, in asking the United States
Senate to ratify a treaty with France regarding her boundaries, urged that we
were but repaying our debt of the revolution. History records the fact that the
first troops in France to petition permission to come to the assistance of America
in the days of the revolution were the members of the Irish Brigade, a part of
the French Army, and the first French troops to land on our shores were 2,300
Irishmen under Count Dillion. Likewise, exiles from Ireland found their way
to America and fought throughout the war in the continental forces. It is esti-
mated that 50 per cent of Washington's Army was made up of Irishmen. In an
Investigation made by the English Parliament at the time of the revolution it
was shown that in some parts of the American Army the Gaelic language was
spoken more than the English. So that if we have any debts to pay for assist-
ance rendered us in the war of the revolution Ireland's claim should come first
As the league of nations now stands we feel that article 10 prevents America
repaying her debt to Ireland. The Hibernians sincerely trust that before the
terms of peace are ratified by the United States Senate that the Senate will
officially recognize the republic of Ireland as a free and independent nation.
No. 4.
Statement of Rev. F. X. McCabe, C. M., LL. D., President Depaul
University, Chicaqo, III.
I would like to present before your honorable body this short statement
The war was fought, according to the pledges made to the people of this
country by the President of the United States, to put an end to all autocratic
forms of government, and thus make the world safe for democracy; to
liberate the nations held in bondage by stronger powers and give them the
opportunity of selecting their own form of government. On the strength of
these pledges American men fought and died, and their sacrifices and valor
won the war. The time for making good the pledges has come. As American
citizens we have done our part and more than our part. We have a right
to demand that the pledges made be kept and can not tolerate post-armistice
interpretations made by the Chief Executive for the purpose of evading the
fulfillment of those pledges. We can not as American citizens tolerate a
league of nations that impairs the sovereignty of these United States. T^e
believe that your committee will stand firm and save our country from the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 911
catastrophe of being made the cats-paw in European politics. We feel that
you can see that both the treaty and the league of nations make the two
greatest empires of the world stronger than ever, and place our country
between them to be crushed by their combined force any time they see it to
their interest. The giving of Shantung to Japan and the refusal to recognize
the rights of the people of Ireland are crimes against the democratic Ideals of
our country, branding us before the world as absolutely faithless to the men
that died, to the men that fought, to the American people and to the
oppressed nations of the world. In the name of Justice and decency repudiate
the league of nations and demand the fulfillment of America's word of honor.
No. 5.
Statement of Mbs. Maby F. McWhobteb, National. Pbesident Ladies'
AuxnJABT, Ancient Obdeb of Hibebnians in Amebica.
Mb. Chaibman and Gentlemen : When the President of the United States
issued the call to American manhood to go to the battle fields of Europe to
vindicate American ideals of democracy none answered the call more readily
than did American boys of Irish blood.
During the time our country was engaged In winning the war the women of
the organization which I represent rendered splendid service to the Nation in
every line of war work. In order that tlie service rendered along this line
might be of the very best, it wap my duty to visit 33 States of the Union during
that time. During these visits I addressed gatherings of the members of this
organization in from two to eight towns in each one of those States. In this
way I had the privilege of meeting many of the mothers of the American boys
of Irish blood who were fighting In the trenches in Flander& The sacrifices
made by these mothers would wring tears from the eyes of the most hard-
hearted. Many of them are widows who had worked hard to give their boys
the necessary education to fiUl good positions. A soldier's pay was a very poor
substitute for the salary these boys were earning. I know well that in many
cases these widowed mothers had to go to work again in order to keep the
little home intact. They never uttered a complaint, because they felt that their
boys were given to a holy cause — that of freeing the enslaved peoples of the
whole world, among which they surely thought were included the people of the
land of their origin, Ireland. And so, as I have already said, they bore all
their privations cheerfully and uncomplainingly, and, besides earning their
daily bread by the sweat of their brow, they also gave splendid service to Red
Cross and other war-service societies.
During the war, while every member of my organization was actively en-
gaged in war work, you may know very little was accomplished in the way
of recruiting new members, hence since the signing of the armistice a period
of reconstruction has set in. This, too, has kept me constantly traveling from
one State to the other. I find a great change in the spirit of our members, in
which keen disappointment is the dominant note. The glowing words of our
great President uttered on our entrance into the World War have no longer
the power to Inspire and uplift, for the people have lost all faith in them. I
find this feeling of discontent not only among the American i)eople of Irish
blood, but among other Americans as well. The press of America, with but
few exceptions, make it appear that the great mass of the American i)eople
favor the league of nations. Gentlemen of the committee, there is a growing
spirit of opposition to this proposed league that it would be well for those who
sincerely and honestly love America and who wish to safeguard America's real
interests to heed. If is my honest opinion that If every American was made
familiar with what this league really means to America there would arise
such a storm of protest against it that it would be heard around the world.
Liberty loving Americans who have a just pride in our great Nation will never
stand to have this Republic made the tail of the British kite.
Speaking for the people of Ireland who have aroused the admiration of all
liberty-loving people the world over by their brave fight for their national
rights, I have this to say :
The contemplation of what these people are suffering to-day is the cause of
great agony of mind to those of their blood on this side of the Atlantic. The
sanctity of the Irish home is violated night after night. I ask you, gentlemen
of the committee, to picture the condition of the minds of the mothers in Ire-
912 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKT.
land — they never know from one night to another when their homes are to be
invaded and the children of their affection dragged out and thrown into prison.
Have pity on these mothers and refrain from an act that will continue this
suifering indefinitely, for the Irish will never give up their fight for freedom
while a remnant of the race remains.
The Irish republic was established according to the expressed sentiments of
our great President "the right of self-determination for all peoples" echoed
around the world at the time this now famous slogan was uttered — it even found
its way into Ireland despite the wall of silence England had built around that
unhappy island. The young men of Ireland were inspired with a new courage
and when they had an opportunity last December at the general election they
"self-determined" for an Irish republic, feeling sure they were carrying out
the wishes of the President of the United States. They still have faith in our
President despite .unfavorable appearances.
Eamonn DeValera, the President of the Irish republic, is in our midst to
make an appeal to the American peolpe. He has already won millions of
Americans to his cause. He is a young man who has made untold sacrifices
for the ideals which he represents. Life would be very easy and comfortable
did he but chose to abandon those ideals, but he has taken up the harder but
the nobler cause while his young wife and his six small children languish In
Ireland and sigh for the absent husband and father. Eamonn DeValera Is
typical of the young men of Ireland to-day — surely to the minds of all liberty-
loving Americans their cause is a Ju$^ cause, and surely this is the time for
America to pay her long-standing debt of gratitude to Ireland. The millions
of Americana of Irish blood expect this debt to be paid and they have a right
to expect it.
No. 6.
Statement submitted by District Attorney Joseph C. Pelletler, of Boston,
supreme advocate of the Knights of Columbus, and speaking in behalf of the
bench and bar committee of the Irish Victory Fund :
After hearing the wonderful presentation of the case against the proposed
league of nations set forth in such logical, powerful, and truly American spirit,
I feel the thrill of the schoolboy after first learing the story of Washington
and the patriot fathers who won our Independence and made possible this great
Republic.
Every man of Irish blood or descent, every man from the country of op-
pressed peoples felt that the 14 points laid down by President Wilson Justified
the last sacrifice and the greatest conceivable loss. We entered the World War
for humanity, for democracy, that men everywhere might be lifted from op-
pression and restored to their God-given right of self-determination. Whicih of
all the subject peoples of the world so nearly fell within the limitations pre-
scribed by our President, which of them all so clearly appealed to the American
heart and head and hand as the republic of Ireland?
Always a nation, ever protesting foreign oppression, more recently adopting
a free government by public vote, to-day as ever held in subjection by the armed
forces of the dominant aggressor of 700 years, Ireland claims her right to rec-
ognition, her right to the fruits of this great world confiict, and the American
people will not deny her rights. The league of nations as presented ignores
the declaration of President Wilson, ignores the right of the subject people of
Ireland, ignores the government of the republic of Ireland lawfully set up —
to adopt It as written is to deny the principles upon which we entered the war
and to say to subject peoples, unless the Big Four say so you shall not be recog-
nized, you must invoke bloodshed and war to assert your rights, and we will
use our Joint united forces to keep you down.
Gentlemen, let there be no league based on fraud, on the rule of might ! Un-
less the republic of Ireland Is openly acknowledged, let us refuse to Join In a
conspiracy to cheat the downtrodden of the world ! Let us insist that the 14
points be accepted as declared, not subject to hidden treaties and agreements
making them null and void.
No. 7.
Statement of Hon. Joseph P. Mahoney, Chicago, III., Fobmer State Senatob.
Mr. Chairman, a time has again arrived when the Senate of the United
States must exercise the power imposed on it by the Constitution for the
preservation of this great Nation. As president of the United Societies of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 913
Chicago, I am commissioned to attend the meeting of your committee to-day
to inform your honorable body of the views of some 750,000 people of Irish
blood who reside in Chicago upon the question of adopting or approving the
league of nations pendihg before your committee. As American citizens we
stand unalterably opposed to this measure, and we most earnestly call upon
your committee to report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that
the Senate refuse to concur In and approve of it ^ We brieve that the country
has greater cause to^ay in view of the intrigues, secret treaties, and decep-
tion on the part of the great nations who propose to be the signatories vTlth
US to this pro];)osed league of nations, to reftain from entering into any en-
tangling alliance with European nations than we did at the date of the
warning In Washington's Farewell Address. For more than a hundred years
we have prospered In attending to our own afEalrs; let us stick to the old
plan. Gentlemen, in the name of freedom, let us return once more to that
honorable and independent position among the nations under which we have
made such remarkable progress, that to-day we are the foremost Nation of
the world. Let us stand firmly for the struggling young republics growing
out of the recent war, and extend to them our early recognition and support
This Is the wish of the people of Irish birth or descent in the United States
and of all Americans who love their land.
No. 8.
■
Statement of Judge 0*Neiu. Btan, of St. Loms.
Senatobs: As I understand, you desire to hear our views on the league of
nations in so far as we represent public sentiment in our respective communi-
ties, and also what is our special viewpoint as to the effect of the league on
Ireland's right which she has determined to a republican form of government
Together with my colleagues from St Louis, I represent many thousands of
Americans of Irish birth or descent in various organizations; also we believe
we speak the sentiments of many more thousands of the race who are not In
any organized bodies, but who are profoundly interested In this question and
who believe that Ireland should be recognized by this Government as a re-
public. We may safely say that all for whom we speak are confident that if
this league is adopted in its present form and this Government becomes signa-
tory, Ireland will continue as she has been for centuries, a subject country,
and under a power that has never hesitated to drain her life's blood physically
and economically. Personally, I am absolutely opposed to my country becom-
ing a signatory to this league no matter what amendments or reservations
thereto may be made. I believe In its essence it strikes at and is antagonistic
to the Constitution of our country and the fundamental principles of human
liberty upon which that Constitution is rested. We have guaranteed by our
Federal Constitution a republican form of government to every State of the
Union. By this instrument we would undertake to guarantee the perpetuation
of forms of government which are hostile to our own both in their principles
and in their practices. That the United States should undertake to guarantee
with its blood and treasure the perpetuation of monarchies and empires should
be unthinkable to any sound American mind. I believe this sentiment against
any league of nations so far as our country is concerned is rapidly growing,
and that the great debates which have been going on in the Senate chamber
are informing and convincing the American people who have hitherto been
kept in ignorance of the facts and have been deluded by the specious pretext
that the league meant peace.
So far as its immediate effect upon Ireland Is concerned, I recall the ques-
tion of just this morning, that Senator Brandagee addressed to Mr. Walsh, in-
quiring If he had read the address of Senator Walsh and what he believed as to
his argument that this league would protect Ireland. Mr. Walsh answered he
had not read the speech. I read every word of it, as I have read perhaps every
word of all the addresses upon this subject in the Senate, as they have appeared
in the Congressional Record. The answer is that the argument of Senator
Walsh is absolutely fallacious. By article 10 we undertake In substance to re-
spect and guarantee the territorial Integrity and political independence of the
signatory powers, guaranteeing that territorial integrity against external ag-
135546—19 68
914 TREATY OF FBACE WITH GEBMAK7.
gresslon. No one but knows that Ireland unaided can not throw off by force
the yoke of British tyranny. But in one of two ways can the Irish republic be-
come de Jure facto as it Is now de facto. One is by its recognition by the United
States and the effect of that being to compel its recognition by England, and the
other is by revolution aided by outside power. Ireland to-day is an armed
camp. It is under a military despotism like unto that to which Belgium was
subjected by Germany, and Egypt is now subjected by England, and Korea by
Japan. If this league were joined in by this Nation, and Ireland sought to
overthrow that power which now dominates her by military force and there
was interference on her behalf by any other country so that die words "ex-
ternal aggression*' came into effect, if E^ngland needed or asked our aid it
would become our duty at once to give to her our military power to destroy
Ireland's efforts at freedom. In other words, It is absolutely impossible for Ire-
land unaided to successfully revolt against English power. We would guarantee
by this covenant that no foreign power could interfere on her behalf without
knowing that this Nation would with her money and men take England's side
of the conflict. That is the plain reading of the covenant.
However my own feeling, and as I said before, I believe the feeling Is grow-
ing enormously, is that in no circumstances and with no reservations or amend-
ments, should we become signatory to the league. Not even if Ireland were in-
dependent, if she were a republic, and her territorial integrity and form of
government guaranteed by this Nation, would it still be either Just or wise
for this Nation to become party thereto. That I say, in view of what we know
to be the gross injustices and flagrant violation of the rights of subject peoples
that have been perpetrated by at least two of the great signatory powers
and that we would guarantee if we became party, and we know not what other
secret arrangements have been made by which other peoples are plundered and
their countries divided like the vultures plucked at the vitals of Prometheus,
Ireland would not want her liberty at the expense of the liberties of other peo-
ples. The Senate alone stands between the people of this country and the Con-
stitution of our Government, and those who would destroy the people and vio-
late the Constitution. Many of you gentlemen have made a magnificent fight
against this league, and once again It becomes manifest that the people of this
country must turn to the Republicans to save it from desecration and division.
No. 9.
Statement of Daniel T. O'Connell, Dibectob of the Irish National BusEAr,
Washington, D. C.
The wave of spontaneous support of the cause of Ireland that has swept
America and finds voice at this hearing is convincing proof that the people
of the United States demand that Ireland be free.
The teachings of Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John and Samuel
Adams, John Hancock. James Otis, and the patriots who founded the United
States have not been forgotten. America is aroused in defense of the liberties
the Revolutionary patriots won for the colonists, their descendants, and the
millions of emigrants and their descendants who found under the Stars and
Stripes protection from oppression and all the privileges of human liberties.
The league of nations treaty now before the Senate must be rejected.
It is the product of British scheming. If ratified it will destroy our most
cherished traditions, and Ireland will be more fettered by British chains than
ever before.
No. 10.
Resolutions of Ibish National Assembly, Expressing Thanks to United
States Senate.
Dr. Patrick McCartan, envoy of the republic of Ireland in the United States,
August 25, 1919, handed to Vice President Marshall, as President of the Senate,
a parchment communication from the Dail Eirann (Irish national assembly)
expressing the thanks of the elected representatives of the Irish people for the
recent action of the Senate in requesting the American commission to the peace
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 915
confrenoe to secure for President Eamon de Yalera and his colleagues on the
Irish republic's peace commission a hearing before the peace conference at
Paris ; and for the expression of the Senate's sympathy with the aspirations of
the Irish people to govern themselves. The following is the text of the com-
munication in full:
To THE PBESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D, C,
Sib: We have the honor to Inform you that the subjoined resolution was
unanimously adopted by the Dall Eriann in session assembled in the Mansion
House, Dublin, on 17th June, 1919.
Accept, sir, the assurance of our high esteem.
Abthub Gbiffith, Acting President,
Sean O'Celleagh, Speaker,
" The duly elected representatives of Ireland assembled in legislative session
in Dublin, this 17th day of June, 1919, before taking up the business of the
day, desire to record their appreciation of the action of the Congress of the
United States in behalf of Ireland, and in particular of the following resolutions
adopted by the Senate of the United States:
" • That the Senate of the United States earnestly requests the American
peace commission at Versailles to endeavor to secure for Eamonn de Yalera,
Arthur Griffith, and George Noble Count Plunkett a hearing before the peace
conference in order that they may present the case to Ireland.
" *And, further, the Senate of the United States expresses its sympathy with
the aspirations of the Irish people for a government of their own choice.*
" It is tfverefore resolved, That the elected government of Ireland be, and is
hereby directed to convey the thanks of the Irish nation to the Congress of the
United States, to declare that the people of Ireland cherish no designs upon
the rights of territories of other nations, but ardently seek to live in cordial
peace with, and as one of, the free nations of the world; and to assure the
people of America that the ties of blood and friendship which subsisted between
both nations in the days of their subjection to one common oppressor hftve en-
dured and are indissoluble."
No. 11.
Statevient of Hon. Eugene F. Kinkead, Fobmeb Membeb of Congbess ani>
FoBMEB Majob, United States Abmt.
I appeal to the Senate not to accept any covenant which would prevent this
Nation from following its time-honored traditions In giving aid to peoples
striving for independence. The covenant, as framed, would keep Ireland,
Egj-pt, India, Korea, and colonies in South Africa in bondage. To accept It
would defeat the purpose for which we entered the World War and align u»
on the side of autocracy and against the right of peoples to determine for
themselves the character of government under which they shall live. This
light we concede to Germany. Shall we deny it to Ireland? We can only judge
the future by the past, and our knowledge of the Government of Great Britain^
as distinguished from its great people, should convince all fair-minded Amer-
icans that the adoption of article 10 of the covenant will rivet anew the chains
on Ireland. Seventy-five years ago President John Tyler declared that he was
no half-way man regarding Irish Independence. To-day 75,000,000 Americans
demand that the covenant that shall form the basis of any league of nations
shall embody the same principle.
No 12.
Statement of Kathebine Hughes, Sbcbetaxt Ibish National BinaBAu.
Mb. Chaibman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In 1916 hero hearts la
Ireland again rose In armed rebellion and proclaimed, ". In the name of God and
of the dead generations from which she receives her old traditions of nation-
hood," that Ireland had a God-given right to freedom.
916 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
They fell — Ireland's latest of hero rebels — ^bnt in the travail of 1916 the Re-
public of Ireland was born. This Republic lives to-day, as truly a Republic as
that of America in 1778, when Its Congress, through Its envoy, Franklin, pledged
Itself to aid In the liberation of Ireland If her oppression by England continued.
This Republic of Ireland has to-day the recognition of but one State — that of
Russia — as the American 'Republic in Its infancy had only the recognition of
France. The man who presides over the Congress of Ireland to-day was elected
to that position by the unanimous vote of all the representatives of the Irish
Congress, elected in their turn by the combined ballots of 75 per cent of the
Irish Nation.
There is not in the world to-day a government more essentially " of the peo-
ple, by the people, and for the people" than that of the Irish Republic, yet If
America ratifies the peace treaty with its component league of nations, guaran-
teeing the integrity of the British Empire as it exists In international dny.
America would be guilty of aiding to suppress this government of the Irish
people; it would be throttling Ireland's heroic expression of self-detenninati<)n
made by ballot last December In the face of an English army of occupation:
it would be reforging England's chains on Ireland by Increasing the ** right of
might " which alone keeps her bound to-day.
On the other hand, if America rejects this league of nations and its sections
buttressing British imperialism, America will be free to give official recognition
to the government of the Irish republic and so make Ireland to-day in the eyen
of the whole world an independent nation. This a free America can do without
a drop of bloodshed and with only a passing protest from England, so lately
America's associate in a war for democracy.
If, however, America ratifies this treaty and component league, she will not
be free to act as liberator of this gallant little country, which Is the motherland
of 20,000,000 In America — not free to be liberator of Ireland, which was first
to come to the aid of America In her struggle for liberty — not free to be liberator
of Ireland, whose president even now Is America's gift to Ireland, for Eamonn
de Valera was born under the folds of Old Glory.
This- Invaluable gift was renewed by America In 1916, when nothing but his
American l)lrth stood botw(H?n Eamonn de Valera and the rifles of the execu-
tioners, who had taken the lives of his comrades In arms.
America has lately been associated In a great world war and has exchangeil
views with many other States, but I can not believe that America has sacrificed
or win sacrifice one iota of its historic principles of liberty and the rights of
national freedom, which make America to-day the hope of oppressed peoples
everywhere.
America Is true to the America of the past, and America will, I firmly believe
soon give Eamonn de Valera to Ireland a third time — ^not as a child of destiny
nor as an imprisoned rebel, but as a victorious president. On that day America
will not only give Ireland her president. She will also give to Ireland the
priceless gift of freedom. She will reestablish Ireland In the eyes of the world
as a sovereign nation.
No. 13.
Statement or Ma. Patrick J. Lynch, of Indianapoijs, Ind., Clerk of the
Supreme and Appei^late Courts of Indiana.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, citizens of Irish blood are
appearing before your committee in the earnest hope that out of the great
world conflict recently ended there may come, as a part of the fruits of
victory, a fulfillment of the great principle of self-determination for all na-
tions, weak and small, as laid down by President Wilson.
Throughout all the annals of civilization there is no parallel of the stead-
fast and continuous courage shown by the Irish people for more than 700
years, cherishing without intermission the hope and national aspiration of
that freedom for which they have so often fought. Racially the Irish are
a separate people; theirs is a national spirit; their country is their own, and
has been wrested from them only by the power of might, not upon the great
Ood-glven principle of right.
At this time when the hopes and aspirations of all peoples, the world over,
especially those long oppressed, is to gain their national freedom, and in the
light of the charter enunciated by the President of the United States of tte
TREAT r OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 917
right of all nations, great and small alike, to live under that form of govern-
ment which they themselves want, and such hopes are being realized by
younger nations, surely Ireland may, in truth and Justice, ask that the
centuries-long struggle in this dawn of the new era of making the world safe
for democracy be ended forever.
No. 14.
Joint Statement of Rev. John J. Moban, of Younqstown, Ohio, and
Charles P. Moonet, of Cleveland, Ohio, Reporting in Behalf of the
State Convention of the Ancient Order of Hibernians of Ohio.
Gentlemen of the Foreign Relations Committee:
Ireland has, 'by its recent vote at the last parliamentary election held in
that country, given expression to Its demand for complete independence and
voiced its opi)osition to a union with Great Britain by a vote of 1,516,770 in
favor of an Irish republic as against 308,713 votes In favor of the union.
As the men who advocated complete separation had been leaders of the
revolution of 1916, and most of them had Just been released from British
prisons, because of their part therein, they squarely raised the issue of
complete separation in their campaign for election. There can be no ques-
tion raised that the Irish people misunderstood the issue involved in that
election. It was an overwhelming^ majority of the people of Ireland ex-
pressing the right of self-determination and expressing their desire to estab-
lish an Irish republic and govern themselves.
Since that election, the executive officers have been elected and are now in
a position to take over the government of that country and perform all of
the functions of government so that the question of separation of Ireland
from England is not one that may become a serious problem in thQ future.
It is the present existing condition — a condition which has resulted in the
occupation of Ireland by a large military force with all the paraphernalia of
war. Large districts throughout Ireland have been occupied and the free
movement of the people has been repressed in the same manner as the move-
ments of the Belgians were repressed during the invasion of that country by
Germany; in other words, Ireland to-day is itf a condition of insurrection
and England is using the same methods that were used by Germany when
they occupied Belgium. The right of self-government of Ireland and the
expression of the people for separation was supported by the American people
as enunciated by our President that small nations desiring self-government
and giving expression to that desire would have the protection of this great
Republic In establishing a government suitable to their desires and wishes.
The effect of article 10 of the covenant of the league of nations is to com-
pletely withdraw that promise of protection and to declare Instead that we
will not permit small nations, excepting such as were in possession of the
enemy, to etablish and exercise the rights and functions of independent
government.
The men who are fighting for the covenant of the league of nations as it now
exists with article 10 included therein are as false to the principles under which
we were asked to enter the war as a human being can be false to any princi-
ple, because in accepting article 10 we are doing the reverse of what we prom-
ised to do. You may ask what effect article 10 of the league of nations will
have on Ireland. This question Involves the present International status of
Ireland as distinct from the wishes of the people as expressed in the last
election. Under international law, Ireland is recognized as an integral iiart of
the British Empire and I presume In considering article 10 you are bound to
recognize her status as such. This being so, in adopting that part of article
10 w^hich reads as follows :
" The high contracting parties undertake to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence
of all States members of the league. In case of any such aggression, or in case
of any threat or danger of sucli aggression, the executive council shall advise
upon the means by which the obligaton shall be fulfilled."
In other words, you are undertaking to pledge this Great Republic to con-
tinue Ireland as a part of the British Empire, and under article 11 you are
placing in the hands of the countries party to this treaty, namely the United
D18 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6ERMAI7Y.
States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy, and such other countries as may
become a party to the league, the power of determining for this body the
necessity of entering into a war with any country that should attempt to assist
the Irish people in their struggle for independence. This is not a possibility,
as it has arisen in the history of Ireland in the last three centuries. In I61JI
Spain landed armed officers in Ireland for the purpose of assisting the Irit^
Ijeople in securing its independence. If there had been a league of nations at
the time, the league under articles 10 and 11 would be obliged to come to the
assistance of England, and had we, when we obtained our independence, become
a party to such league of nations, we would have been obliged to enter into war
with France In 1798 when Napoleon sent Gen. Humbert with 6.000 men and
landed in KlUala Bay in Ireland for the purpose of assisting the Irish in secur-
ing independence. International conditions may bring about a similar situation
at any time.
The effect of article 10 Is to take out of the hands of the Congress of the
United States the power to declare war and to place it in the hands of the
high contracting parties to this covenant. In other words, the adoption of the
covenant of the league of nations is a surrender or an attempt to surrender the
power to declare war which is vested in tlie Congress of the United States.
To ray mind the insuiK»rable obstacle of articles 10 and 11 Is that he takes away
from Congress the power of making war and places it in the hands of a b<xiy
other than the Congress of the United States. The granted power to Con-
gress by the States to declare war is a delegated one and is limited to the
power expressly grante<l for such powers as may be necessarily implied from the
granted power. The declaration in article 1, section 7, of our Constitution is,
" The Congress shall hove power, among other things, to declare war."
This section does not say that this body shall have power to delegate the
right to declare war to any other body. This can be done only by a constitu-
tional amendment. An amendment transferring the power to declare war
from Congress and give it to the high contracting iMirties in the league of
nations. *
I am here first as an American citizen to protest against the adoption of the
league of nations; as an American citizen, a citizen of the State of Ohio and
an accredited representative of the Ancient Order of Hibernians of Ohio, not
only on the ground that such action would be unconstitutional, but on the
larger ground that it is wholly immoral for this country, the leading Repablic
In the world, to endeavor to enter into an agreement which has for its object
the repression of the rights of a liberty-loving people to decide for themselves
the form of government under which they desire to live.
No. 15.
Statement of Matthew Cumminos, of Boston, Mass., Ex-National President
OF THE Ancient Order of Hibernians.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I
believe that it is admitted by fair-minded men everywhere that Ireland is en-
titled to her freedom. The Governments of Australia and Canada have passed
t'esolutions repeatedly in favor of Irish freedom. The labor organizations of
England have gone on record demanding that justice be done to Ireland an<l
that she should be allowed to determine her own form of government. The
legislatures of a majority of the States in the Tnion have passed resolutl<.ns
advocating Irish independence. The House of Representatives of the UnltoO
States Government and later on the Senate of the United States, by a vote of
iil to 1 advocated freedom for Ireland and asked our representatives In Paris
to see to It that Ireland got a hearing at the peace conference. The Irish ra.>?
convention, representing 20,000,000 in America of Irish blood sent three i-oni-
mlssloners to Paris for the purpose of having President Wilson and the Ameri-
can representatives at the peace coneference place the Irish question before
The President on this country entering the war stated repeate<lly that all
nations must be granted the right to determine their own form of goverinnc^nt.
and more than a million American boys of Irish blood fought under the Stars and
Stripes convinced that American success 'n the war meant also the freedom of
the land of their ancestors. If the pled>.t« made by our Government during the
war are not carried out, a stigma will rest upon the splendid traditions of this
TRBATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 919
country. Tlierefore we appeal to you as the treaty-making power under the
Constitution of our country to see to it that the pledges to small nations made
by the Chief Executive in the dark hours of the war are fulfilled and Tliat
Ireland should be accorded the right of self-determination. We earnestly pro-
test against the covenant of the league of nations and ask that it be rejecte<l
as a whole. We believe that it is impossible to amend it so as to protect Ameri-
can rights and sovereignty. We believe that in articles 10 and 11 of the cove-
nant of the league of nations is adopted Ireland would be deprived of her liberty
for all time and that the people of that long-suffering country should be given
an opportunity to lead their own life in their own way and under their own
form of government, at peace with the world and established as an independent
nation.
No. 16.
Statement Pbesented by the Advisobt Committee of the Ibish Victobt
Fund, Boston, Mass.
The delegates to this hearing from Massachusetts^, representing an over-
whelming majority of the 875,000 persons In the Irish racial group In Massa-
chusetts, wish to add their protest against the approval In any form of the
proposed league of nations.
The enactment of this proposed league will accomplish effectually what the
British Grovernment has In various ways been trying to bring about for more
than a generation, to wit, the creation of a supertreaty body, which will
nullify the power of the whole people, as represented In the United States
Senate, to pass on and approve treaties with foreign Governments.
We protest against this treaty because of Its certainty of economic enslave-
ment of the United States, with Its inevitable consequence In unemployment
and attending train of evils.
Because of its geographical Isolation from the sources of raw material and
the buying population of the United States, New England has a peculiar
interest in the failure of the Paris conference to even mention, provide for, or
to regulate the " freedom of the seas,*' and In thus doing has, as a result of the
victory over the Central Powers, substituted the menace of British sea control,
based on " navallsm " for the " militarism '* defeated through American Inter-
vention.
From the headquarters of Tory sentiment we appeal to the American spirit,
which In the first part of the nineteenth century opposed a similar British
attempt to control the seas and gave to the world the Monroe doctrine.
We appeal to the spirit which. In the forties, after the advent of the Iron
ship, met another English attempt to control the seas by building In 15 years
the largest merchant marine up to that time ever produced In the world, and
contrast this with this attempt In the proposed league of nations again to
enslave the merchant marine of this country.
We appeal to the spirit which built the Panama Canal that our surplus
products could have opened to them the markets of the Orient, and contrast
It with the action which In 1913 removed by law the preferences to American
shipping then obtained, and to-day in the Shantung outrage has closed to the
trade of the United States a market of a half-blUion souls.
We protest against British dominance over the cables and mall communlca-
tion^f the world, and refer the committee to the recent report of the United
State»Forelgn Trade Council on this subject.
We refer the Senate committee to the report of the Senate Investigation
committee of 1913 on the operations of the alien shipping trust, the conditions
then complained of and admitted to exist, which remain to-day to menace the
commercial future and economic progress of the United States.
We respectfully suggest to your honorable committee that they investigate
the stifling of American aspirations for freedom of the seas, through the in-
fluence In the various chambers of commerce and business organizations in
the largest cities In the United States, of the paid agents of steamship com-
panies, and others representing foreign shipping Interests.
We respectfully suggest that before coming to a decision on this question
your honorable committee make inquirj' Into the action during the war of the
British Government, which, through " orders in council " not sanctioned by Inter-
national law or the comity between friendly nations, committed numerous
920 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
acts obviously designed to cripple our commerce and trade during the war, and
especially with relation to the effect of these ** orders In council " as obvions
preparation for the proposed British league of nations now being considered.
We protest against any situation which permits British vessels to demand
and to get free wharves In practically all the cities on the Atlantic seaboard,
which represent approximately 5 per cent Interest on an American Investment
of $200,000,000, and which puts It within the power of the alien shipping
trust to deny American cities the right to do foreign business through these
ports, except at its pleasure.
This we do in the name of Justice, of honor, and In the American spirit of
Independence. While the United States remains on the seas by favor of any
foreign Government, this country is in economic slavery.
This is an American question. If America settles this question right and
the principles under which we entered the war are insisted on, Ireland, with
the rest of the world, will share in the resulting benefit.
We are Americans first, last, and always.
We aslc that the present proposal for the league of nations be opposed for
the honor of our country.
Boston Advisory Committer
laiSH Victory Fund.
John Morton, Chairman;
Edward F. McSweeney,
John H. H. McNamee,
Edward W. Quinn,
Daniel Foley,
Daniel T. O'Conneix,
James O* Sullivan,
^ Delegates.
No. 17.
Letter of Thomas F. Cooney and Others.
Washington, D. C, August SO, 1919.
To the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate,
Washington, D, €,
Sirs : The Irish race of Rhode Island, through Its duly-accredited represen-
tatives, In attendance at a meeting of your committee, held on Saturday^
August 80, 1919, to consider a proposed league of nations, hereby enters its
protest against the adoption of the proposed league in its present form.
The reasons for our protest are: That it is un-American in that it m^eans
the abandonment of the traditions and ideals for which this country has
always stood ; that it creates an alliance with European powers and forces us
to take part in the embroilments of those powers ; that it means- the enslave-
ment .of millions of people ; and that it denies to those people the right to de-
termine for themselves the form of government under which they want to
Uve; and that it means the absolute surrender of the principles for which
this country fought
Further, we protest against the ratification of the proposed league and peace
treaty, because it fails to recognize the government of the republic of Ireland,
a government that is the choice of 80 per cent of the people of Ireland, and
which is prevented from functioning In every department because of the
military power maintained by England in Ireland — a military that is brutal
and savage in its treatment of the Irish people.
Further, It condones and perpetuates a flagrant breach of the promises made
by the representatives of England in procuring the entrance of the United
States into the war.
The representatives of the Irish race in Rhode Island urge upon your con-
sideration, in support of this protest, the numberless and Invaluable contri-
butions of the Irish in establishing and maintaining the American form' of
government, to which they have looked throughout its history for encourage-
ment and support of the inalienable right of freedom — *'That government of
the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
The protest herewith presented la submitted by us primarily as American
citizens, mindful of the debt of gratitude owed by our country to Ireland, and
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 921
desirous of preserving the fuDdamental principles of our goyernment in their
pristine strength and purity.
The Isish Race of Rhode Island,
By Thomas F. Coonst.
OoRNEUus G. Moon.
Patrick J. Mubpht.
Daniel E. Dohebtt.
No. 18.
Telegram to Ck>NGRES8MAN Nolan Representing the Unanimous Sentiment
of the Irish Societies of California Against Section 10 of the League of
Nations.
San Francisco, Calif., August 29.
Hon. John I. Nolan, Washington D, C,
Please represent our San Francisco and nothern California societies and Irish
freedom fund committee of California at hearing before committee to-morrow
morning.
Andrew J. Gallagher.
No. 19.
Joint Statement or Michael L. Fahey, Paul F. Spain, and Joseph T. Bren-
NAN, OF Boston, Mass.
Ireland's claim for independence was given a new birth upon the declaration
of President Wilson when our nation joined in the contest for the defeat of Ger-
many. For centuries her patriots had waged the fight for freedom against a
world tyrant, against a people who dominated through force, a people who
ruled with an iron hand, whose hands were red with blood and who were guilty
of the most abominable crimes.
What country in all the world has suffered as Ireland in the contest to regain
independence? The most outrageous crime, and the one to which little atten-
tion has been given, which England perpetrated upon the Irish people occurred
during the nineteenth century, when, through its cruel laws, the Irish people
were scattered throughout the world. But that result, as shown to-day, strength-
ened her people, and to-day their power will be shown to be sufficiently strong
to compel England to grant to Ireland the independence her people have long
prayed for.
No. 20.
Statement of Hugh O'Neill, of Chicago, Speaking as a Representative of
THE Committee of One Hundred for an Irish Republic.
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee.
The Americans of the Irish race in the great Middle West, as in all other
parts of America, urge the defeat of the proposed league. of nations because it
impairs the sovereignty of the United States, violates the principles for which
w^e entered the war. creates an unholy alliance, nullifies the Declaration of
Independence, creates a superstate, endangers the Constitution, destroys the
Monroe doctrine, recognizes the breakdown of nationalism and the creation of
an International power, gives to England the control of the seas, and guarantees
to England the posse^?sion of Ireland against the wish of the Irish people.
The league of nations impairs the sovereignty of the United States because
it places the United States Government under the control of a superstate
operating through an assembly and a council, the United States in the assem-
bly having only 1 vote in 45, and England saving 6 and the practical control
of the majority of the other votes, and in the council only 1 vote in 9 and
no vote at all when her interests are at stake. Because it requires us to
maintain permanent armies upon foreign soil to police the discontented sub-
jects of bloated monarchies or crush the tumults of peoples Indulging in the
wild theories of socialism or anarchy.
922 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Because it takes away from the United States Congress the right to de-
clare war or conclude peace. Because it creates a supergovemmeDt that
would be an unrestrained and unlimited trust which would dominate our
international and domestic affairs. The league of nations violates the prin-
ciples for which America entered the war, and as the President, the spokei^
man of America, says, " We entered the war for the ultimate peace of the
world and for the liberation of its people; for the rights of nations great and
small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their own way of life
and obedience; for the reign of law based upon the consent of the governed;
for the rights and liberties of small nations ; for affording material guaranties
of political and territorial independence for great and small nations alike.
" We are fighting for the liberty, the self government, and vindicated de-
velopment of all people." (May 26, 1917.) "And that the people of the world
shall choose their own masters and govern their own destinies, not as we wish,
but as they wish."
The league of nations creates an unholy alliance and violates the doctrine
of George Washington as to no entangling alliances. Are we ready to admit
that Washington was a dreamer, that natlonlism has broken down, and that
a Bolsheviki internationalism shall be the form of our new freedom? An
alliance would be destructive of American liberty, and an alliance with Eng-
land in a league of nations would be abhorrent to the great body of the
American people.
The league of nations would nullify the Declaration of Independence because
it ignores the fundamental truth declared a.s the basis of good Government
that all just governments derive their powers from the consent of the gov-
erned. It Ignores the self-evident truth that all peoples are bom free and
equal, because it would leave the Irish in political servitude and seal their
doom by article 10, which guarantees the territorial integrity of the signatory
powers.
The league of nations endangers the Constitution because it suspends the
guarantees of the United Stntes and the State constitution. It limits the
functions of the Congress, limits the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts of the
United States, and dislodges the powers of both the legislative and judicial
branches and either assumes them or places them under the control of the
President, thereby making him a virtual dictator.
The league of nations destroys the Monroe Doctrine as it takes away from
it the character of a national policy and reduces it to the level of a regional
understudy.
For these reasons we are unalterably opposed to the league of nations.
No. 21.
Statement of Richard W. Wolfe, of Chicago, Formct Presideivt Cook
County Real Estate Board of Chicago, in Behalf of the Comiotteb of
100 FOR an Irish Repubuc.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am opposed to the proposed league of
nations because its provisions are in opposition to the great principles for
which our country fought in the big war, to make the world safe for democ-
racy and to secure the rights of small nations. This denial of the principles
for which we fought has filled the hearts of American citizens with dis-
appointment, dissatisfaction, and unrest.
I am further opposed to the proposed league of nations becaulte it would
doom Ireland to perpetual servitude to England. To do this would be a
grave injustice not only to Ireland but also a grave wrong to America.
You, gentlemen, have red blood in your veins, and you resent an Insult.
You are human, and you resist and strike back at anybody or anything that
robs you of your property, your rights, and opportunities.
It is because of these very human reasons that the Irish question Is an
American question. We of the Irish race in America resent insult and resist
and strike back at the enemy who would rob us and assassinate our char-
acter. England in order to maintain her hold upon Ireland thinks it desira-
ble to destroy the influence, assassinate the character and injure in every
conceivable way the Irish race in this country. So that it takes 10, 20, or 30
per cent more brains and more energy for a man of the Irish racs than for
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 923
a man of the English or Scotch races, or other races to accomplish the same
results in this country. Now, there can not be inflicted upon a part of the
community or a part of the nation a loss or Injury without corresponding
loss and injury to the community or the nation as a whole.
The stage Irishman was manufactured in the London music halls and
shipped to this country to aid the deadly work of the murderer of the Irish
character by that deadliest of weapons, ridicule. Newspapers, books, periodi-
cals, the lecture platform, and more recently the motion picture — every avenue
of publicity — has been used to besmirch the Irish race in America. Provost
Marshal Crowder has reported that the percentage of Irish who waived ex-
emption was much higher than that of English or Scotch or other races. But
the English propagandists would have us believe differently. England has
spent millions for propaganda, and the lies told about the Irish are enough
to curse the world. It is, I submit, sound American policy to remove the
cause of this friction, of this humiliation, Insult, and injury to American
citizens of the Irish race. The cause is the enslavement of Ireland by England.
A free Ireland would remove the motive for English attack upon American
citizens of the Irish race.
Besides, it would, more than anything else, help to bring about that which
every good American citizen wants to see, that It is a hamonious American
nation, all of the races coming together in the melting pot, and commingling
and uniting for the common good of the Republic. There should be no
friction between the English race and the Irish race in this country, and there
would be none If Ireland were free, because then the business of the propa-
jirandist was at an end. The paid lecturers spreading poison and hate against
the Irish race in America would be out of a job. The Irish question is an
American question, and we appeal to you to look upon it as such.
We went to war to right the wrongs of small nations, to make democracy
safe for the world. Ireland by a plebiscite has declared for a republic. Indeed,
Ireland is the only one of the small nations that has had a plebiscite and
expressed its self-determination. How can any American consistently deny
Ireland's right to a republican form of government? How can any American
deny a republic in favor of an empire with a caste system which is mediocre
where the law of primogeniture and entail persists, where a state church takes
part in government, where a house of lords rules with 'all its power of titles,
wealth, and prestige?
Ireland's case furnishes the supreme example of merciless profiteering and
exploitation. Let us take the figures on Irish population. I quote from a
British publication, the Statesman's Year Book. It shows that in the year
1800 the population of Ireland was 6,000,000, while the population of England
was 8,000,000. In 1850 the population of Ireland rose to nearly 9,000,000.
The population of Ireland to-day is less than 4,500,000. The population of
England is 36,000,000. John Stuart Mill, the English economist, has stated
that Ireland can support a population of 25,000,000. And everyone who knows
anything about it knows that Ireland can support a population of 25,000,000
to 80,000,000. Belgium has a poulation of 8,000,000 and is less than one-third
the size of Ireland. Belgium and Holland combined are not so large as Ireland.
The decline In population is an arrow sign as to Ireland's decay in other ways —
IndustriaHy, socially, educationally. Before the war Ireland was doing less
than one-third of 1 per cent of the export business of the United Kingdom.
The ruling class of England Is blind, as privileged classes have always been
blind. If it was not blind, this English ruling class would realize that Ireland
fully populated and prosperous would be a better customer and certainly a
better friend to England than Ireland depopulated and disaffected. Ireland
would be a profitable customer of this country, far more so than countries far
away whose trade we are eager too get. Ireland occupies a very advantageous
position in the highway of commerce, a position similar to that of important
business corners in the center of city life.
Ireland free would be a country of 25,000,000 to ^30,000,000, prosperous and
thriving, and of great potential value to America.
The question is asked. Would we go to war with England to free Ireland?
That is not a fair or honest question. That question is not now before us.
That question was settled when we went into the war for democracy and the
rights of small nations, and when England accepted our aid with that declara-
tion sent out to the world. To keep faith with our soldiers dead in France and
Flanders and other parts of the world, to keep faith with the crippled and
924 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
maimed, to keep faith with weeping mothers and sad firesides of America, that
is the question now confronting us. We ask you to save American honor.
It is not America, but England, that would go to war should you decide to
preserve the faith. England will not dare do It
No. 22.
Addbesb of Mb. Shaemas O'Sheel, Refbesentino the William Peabse Bbaitch
OF THE Friends of Ibibh Freedom and the William Roonet Socibtt, Both
OF New York.
Mr. Chairman and Senators of the committee, within recent months not only
have I been made aware of the sentiments of the two sodties which I have
the honor to represent here, but, having addressed 46 audiences in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, I have
felt the pulse of thousands of American citizens, and I am convinced that In the
two thoughts which are all I shall try to present to you I correctly represent
very widespread and deeply felt convictions.
In the first place, Americans of Irish blood oppose any such league of nations
as here proposed far more vehemently from a purely American standpoint than
from any thought for Ireland. A fact which is proved by the earnest and
thoroughgoing approval which every audience I have addressed has expressed
when I said that if Irish-Americans were to be offered the bribe of immediate
liberation of Ireland, with the repayment to Ireland of every penny ever
drained out of her by England as the price of their support of a league which.
would infringe American rights, there would not be a man or woman of all
the millions of them who would consider the proposition for a minute.
The other thought is this : Two or three Senators have asserted that Ireland*s
real hope for liberation must be found in paragraph 2 of Article XI of the
present league-of-nations covenant, which reads :
" It is also declared to be the fundamental right of each member of the
league to bring to the attention of the assembly or of the council any circum-
stance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb^
either the peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace
depends."
The idea advanced is that under this paragraph a member of the league
might befriend Ireland by bringing its condition under military rule to the
attention of the governing bodies of the league. That Is undoubtedly true —
so true that the English authors of the league covenant have guarded against
it by a paragraph which I think has not yet been noticed to-day, paragraph 7
of Article XV, as follows :
" If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them and is found
by the council to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely
within the domestic Jurisdiction of that party the council shall so report and
shall make no recommendations as to its settlement."
It has been proved here to-day beyond even the attempt to question that the
case of Ireland is not a domestic matter, but under all international law an
international matter ; but that is not the point ; the point is that the council shall
decide whether they will consider and promulgate it as a domestic or an Inter-
national matter. If they decide that it is domestic, that Is the end. If the
people of Ireland were being slaughtered and the American people were aflame
to help them, our Government could not even protest further after the council
shall have decided that massacre of the Irish people is an English domestic
concern. Surely it will be said the American members of council and assembly
would never in such circumstances agree to such an interpretation, but If they
did not and all others did, there being no unanimous decision, surely the
majority decision would necessarily prevail to the extent of estoppng all action
by the leage or Its members.
''And the final point to consider is that this paragraph was not in the original
draft of the league mnde public in February, but added entirely anew In the
revised draft — ^puri)osely, I believe, Mr. Chairman, purposely to further safe-
guard England against American sympathy for Ireland being expressed
through the league. I thank you."
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 925
No. 23.
Statement of R. E. 0*Malley, of Kansas Citt, Mo.
Gentlemen : I am here as the authorized representative of the Irish-Ameri-
'Can Societies of Kansas Olty, Mo., having a membership of more than 5,000
persons. I know of no better method of expressing their opinion on this im-
portant question than to file with you a set of resolutions adopted at the thirty-
second annual picnic of the Irish-American Societies, of Kansas City, Mo., held
in Fairmont Park on Sunday, August 17.
The majority of the people I represent are American born and of Irish
ancestry.
In addition to the sentiments expressed in the resolutions filed herewith, I
think I can say without fear of truthful contradiction that a great majority
of the people of my community are opposed to the document known as the
league of Nations and opposed to any document that might Involve this Nation
in entangling alliances.
(The resolutions referred to follow:)
Whereas there is now before the Senate of the United States for that body's
ratification or rejection an Instrument known as the league of nations
covenant; and
Whereas, article 3 of said covenant gives the British six votes In the league's
assembly to America's one, even in passing on America's questions. We,
with a hundred million population, are given only the same voting power as
the negro Republic of Liberia In Africa, the nondescript kingdom of Hedjaz
in Asia, and the semisavage island of Hayti In the Caribbean Sea ; and
W^hereas under article 8 the representatives of foreign nations advise us
what size fleet and army America should have; and, once the size is agreed
on, it can never be Increased except by the unanimous consent of those for-
eign nations; and
W^hereas article 10 binds us to make war for monarchies against smaller na-
tions seeking freedom from imperialism, militarism and tyranny, should
any one of said smaller nations in its struggle for freedom receive help from
outside sources such as was given our own beloved country by Prance in
the Revolutionary War, such as we gave the Republic of Cuba in its struggle
for freedom from the horrible atrocities Inflicted on it by the Spanish King-
dom. Under article 10 we are bound if China should ever attempt to recover
Shantung, which is under the peace treaty given to .Japan, to wage war
against a friendly people, who have patterned their Government after our
own, in the interest of a pagan monarchy. Likewise, should the recently
formed Irish republic resist further misrule by Britain and outside aid
is given her, we as Americans are compelled to send our boys acrostf the
seas to fight a people struggling for freedom from oppression, a people that
in America's struggle against the same nation that Is now the oppressor of
the Irish race gave their encouragement, sympathy, men and a sum of
$300,000, a large sum indeed at that time, for the cause of American inde-
pendence; Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Irish-American societies of Kansas City, Mo., gathered
at their thirty-first annual picnic, held at Fairmount Park, Sunday, August 17,
1919, gratefully acknowledge the patriotic service Senator James A. Reed
is rendering our country in his able and courageous opposition in the Senate
of the United States to this measure and respectfully urge Senator Selden P.
Spencer to join with Senator Reed in an unrelenting effort to prevent this
shameful abdication of this Nation's sovereignty and this unwarranted attempt
to make Great Britain a super-state with six votes, while out great Republic,
which is and should remain the leading Nation of the world, is ranked along-
side the petty kingdoms and barbaric nations of the world. Be it further
Resolved, That we most heartily approve the Mason resolution appropriating
necessary funds for the establishment and maintenance of diplomatic repre-
sentation to the republic of Ireland and that copies of these resolutions be
forwarded by the chairman of this gathering to the distinguished Senators
mentioned herein and to the Hon. William T. Bland, Representative in Con-
gress from this district ; also to the press of the State.
926 TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GERMANY.
No. 24.
Unanimously Adopteh by thb Dexyxiates to the Cektbal Labob Union of
Phiiadelphia, Pa., July 13, 1919.
Pbesented by Wiluam J. Boyle of Philadelphl^, Pa.
Resolved, That this Central Labor Union, representing upward of 300,000
workmen, record its protest against the adoption by the United States of the
league of nations as at present constituted. It has even been the policy of
America to encourage democracy everywhere and it is unthinkable that we
should now array ourselves on the side of autocracy by agreeing to article 10 of
the covenant of the league of nations^ which would compel us to aid in keeping
millions of the people of the world in perpetual bondage. We abhor the
thought that any group of men other than Americans be empowered to dictate
our policies in peace or war. Our slogan is, " America first," and we especially
approve that part of the resolution adopted by the delegates to the American
Federation of Labor convention held in Atlantic City, N. J., June 9-W, 1919.
which declares, "That nothing in the league of nations con be construed as
In any way interfering with the freedom of Ireland as recognized by the vote
of this covention."
No. 25.
Statement of Edwabd F. McSweeney, of Boston, Membeb of the ADv^soBY
Committee of the Irish Victoby Fund and National Officeb FaiENDa
OF Irish Fbeedom.
As I have stated in a series of articles published by the Boston American*
the desperate need of civilization today is peace — from armed strife; from
capitalistic oppi-ession ; from industrial terrorism ; to get the world back to a
semblance of brotherhood between men. Above all, the Americon people want
peace with honor. -Only two years ago a presidential election was won on the
slogan that " He kept us out of war." At that time Belgium had been occupied
for more than three years ; the richest parts of France were in the hands of
the Germans and the allied enemy was irresistibly pushing forward to control
of the channel ports; England was threatened with Invation and starvation.
For three years and three months the world was ringing with stories of atroci-
ties, outrages, barbarism; yet the American people were so opposed to war
that even with all the facts before them they decided the choice of the greatest
officer in the world on the antiwar issue.
Afr this time the German plans for world control were substantially consum-
mated, the Teutonic dream of centuries was about to come true. From Berlin
to the Persian Gulf the Central Powers were practically In mastery, and with
the ultimate victory which was admitted unless America intervened, Germany
would retain its control over South Africa, which, with Siberia, will in another
generation be the source of the world's food supply.
The imminent collapse of Russia assured German control of the wealth of
food and minerals of Siberia and the other undeveloped parts of the former
dominion of the Romanoffs.
gebmans fought without pretense.
Moreover, there was no German pretense about the rights of small people,
self-determination, freedom, or democracy.
German control was autocracy, based on the power of might over right.
When the presidential campaign was held in 1016 this was the exact situation
in Europe, yet a majority of the voters in the United States voted to reelect
the President who had asked for their support because "he kept us out of
war."
When, in response to the urging of the Allies, the President, in 1917, an-
nounced that American intervention was necessary, he laid down, in language
which seemed divinely inspired, a declaration of purposes which made partici-
pation seem a holy cause — ^another Crusade to save the world from sin; to
repeat in our generation the story of the American Revolution. With purest
altruism and without hope of reward, the United States entered the war to
insure for the world forever the things for which Washington fought and
secured by American independence.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 927
The war was won by the intervention of the United States, and to-day,
eight months after the signing of the armistice, the national delirium of joy
shown at its ending has not been justified. The great, patient, loyal heart of
America is uneasy. The end of the war has brought, not happiness and con-
tentment, but doubt and apprehension.
At the root of the national distress is disappointment at the failure of the
United States' delegates to the peace conference to fulfill the solemn promises
made to the nation when it entered and won the war; to the 4,000,000 young
men called into armed service, 75.000 of whom were killed believing that they died
for a high ideal ; and to the 250,000 more or less permanently maimed, each one
a living demand for redemption of our pledges.
The altruistic and unselfish spirit which fiamed into action with the Presi-
dent's declarations of the purposes for which he made the call for arms has
not changed in the slightest. The United States asks for nothing, wants nothing
but it has awakened to the fact that after defeaing German military despotism
it is now asked to abandon American ideals and repudiate America. Having
won the w^ar, the United States is denied the right to dictate any vital part of
the peace pledges to accept a monarchical dominance, based on " navalism." It
welcomed eagerly the idea of a league of nations which was in line with the
declaration which caused us to enter the war, but as the facts became known,
the people are determined to repudiate the proposed " league of nations,*' written
by Lord Cecil, which, in its lengthy preamble, does not even mention or hint at
"liberty." or "self-determination." while confirming mastery of the world In the
great powers. At its best, the proposed league of nations is a provocation to
war, and at its worst a buttress of imperialism.
ENGLAND BLAMED FOB OBEAT WAB.
The nation, willing to make full allowances for the necessary give and take
of conflicting national interests to achieve the main end in view, has been
reluctantly forced to believe that If the peace conference had insisted on a
peace based on our declaration of purposes made before we entered the war
the world would to-day be well on the road to peace, and that the seduction
of American ideals and pledges by allied flattery, intrigue, and power of per-
suasion will, if confirmed by the Senate, establish with crushing force the
secret treaty agreements ; regarding which, on April 7, 1917, at Leeds, President
Jowett, of the independent labor party of England, said: "The world war
came as the result of England's secret treaties."
It will perpetuate, the diplomatic intrigues and selfish balance-of-power
agreements with their inevitable consequences of human, racial, and economic
oppression, which it was the hope of the United States the war would remove
forever.
The league of nations, in short, will undo the work of the American Revolu-
tion. It will make Great Britain supreme in the world. Under the pretense
of friendship it is a carefully laid and skillfully worked out plan to retain,
hamper, and dwarf the power of the United States to progress to its manifest
destiny to be the leading commercial nation of tjie world, a consummation
urgently to be desired in the interest of civilization, because the history of the
United States has proved that Its progress has ever been accompanied by a
willingness to give equal freedom to all, as opposed to the repressive and arro-
gant overlordship which has been the distinguishing characteristic of British
control, which for centuries has made it a definite policy to cripple or remove
by whatever means at hand its business rivals.
It was British hatred of colonial progress and hope to destroy a potential
commercial rival that caused the American Revolution.
It destroyed the commerce of Holland, Spain, and France.
It has repeatedly tried to control or destroy the commerce of the United
States. Every time it has had opportunity it has shown its hatred of this
country.
It has now destroyed Germany and would again control this country.
It went to war with China to force it to accept the opium trade, and then
took Hongkong and If30,000,000 indemnity.
IBISH OPPOSITION TO PACT.
The Irish stock in America has found here economic, religious, and political
freedom. Their first allegiance is here. They are, above all, Americans.
Bitter experience for centuries of the economic, political, and religious degrada-
928 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
tlOD, due to English rule And Intimate knowledge of the various processea bj
which Qreat Britain reaches Its goal, has given the States Senate penults
our best friend among the nations to be wronged, stolen Its principal com-
mercial district from China to be exploited by Britain's partner In tlie Orient,
Japan, which did not send a soldier to Europe to aid the war.
While the nation abhors war, there Is a price which Is too high to be paid
for a shameful peace. This is a strictly American question, yet the commonest
defense of the league is that opposition to it Is stirred up wholly by Irish
hatred of England. That the American Irish are against the league proposed
is true, but not for the reason given. The first object of every person of Irish
blood in this country Is the safety, prosperity, and happiness of the United
States.
As they made the largest single racial contribution to the armed forces of the
United States during the war, they are to-day the largest single racial force
In the present stniggle to save America ftom the consequences of the surrender
of American liberty at the Paris conference.
APATHY ABBOAn BBOABDINO LEAGUE.
This much may be said in addition — ^If the persons of Irish blood in the
United States, who accepted without reservation the President's promises and
in every way met the call In men, money, and war service, not obtruding them-
selves, keeping quiet under a systematized campaign of falsehood and mis-
representation, would now consent to remain silent under the fact that they
are under this proposed league marked to be the only subject white race
on earth, they would In Justice forfeit the respect of all men — worse than
this — they would lose their self-respect, and thus prepare the way for an
automatic discrimination against themselves In every field of human activities.
As Americans first, however, they put the United States first. When Its liberty
and future are safeguarded, Ireland will Incidentally be benefited, because
there is no difference in the principle involved.
The astounding fact is that the United States is the only Nation where the
leapue of nations Is taken seriously. The apathy concerning it among the allied
nations is because it is known to be what it actually is : A British plan to get
dominance over the United States, which the other nations are satisfied to let
happen, while each (with the exception of Italy), shares in the division of loot
parceled out In secret treaties made during the war, and confirmed in Lord
Cecil's league of nations.
As the creditor Nation of the world, the only one witJi no ax to grind, the
United States was in a position to command compliance In the peace negotiations
with Uie ideal which forced it into the war. At the beginning every wish was
complied with. When President Wilson proposed the ridiculous conference In the
Sea of Marmora with the Russian Re<ls, the conference smiled, shrugged Ite
diplomatic shoulders, and consentwl, whereupon Mr. Wilson appointed as the rep-
resentative of the United States the Kov. Herron, whose peculiar notions re-
garding marriage and other long-observed American ideals are, to say the least,
liberal. Inasmuch as the Nation has since the war become familiar with the
Herron tvpe of internationalists, who have come Into prominence and power, it
loyally gagged hard and swallowe<l. The Prince's Island conference, as the wise
ones who voted for It expected, never was held.
EUROPEAN ** GRATITUDB " PATHETIC.
The gratitude of the people of the European nations to the United States as
represented in its Chief Executive was pathetic. They believed that he was the
magic worket — they wanted and expected him to give to them peace, three meals
a day, and a roof over their head, and got a Pandora's box, from which the
colony of mischiefs is escaping despite the assurance that It would remain closed.
The world, and the United States in particular, is beginning to realize what
Wellington meant when he said after Waterloo: "There is only one thing worse
than defeat — victory."
France has so little confidence in the league, as a power to restrain war. that
It insisted on and obtained a separate defensive alliance with the Unitetl States.
In the Belgian Chamber of Deputies on August 8 the premier said that the
league offered Belgium so little guaranty of peace that It forces that nation to
look to its own defense. Italy, which alone has been denied its secret-treaty loot,
Is defiant and resentful.
XBBATl OF FEAOE WITH GERMANY. 929
When the league was presented to the British Parliament, its reception,
according to the London press, was derisive laughter, the joke being at the ex-
pense of the United States. It was naturally not opposed.
The King of England paid unprecedenttii honor to Lloyd-George on his home-
coming from Paris because of his diplomatic victories for Britain, and well he
might. While the power of every other monarchy has been lessened, where not
abolished, Great Britain is in political control of every third human being on
^.arth, and is absolute on the seas ; its only formidable European rival is out of
the way; it has only one real business competitor left — the United States,
which it obviously proposes to subdue by the arts in which it has no peer —
diplomatic finesse, flattery, deception, intrigue.
To accomplish this end a campaign of British misrepresentation has been
permitted to be carri<»d on in this country and in South America, in which
-country it is designed to stifle, obstruct, ond control the competition of the
Uuited States. In the United States it has largely been directed to isolate the
Irish question from the other questions of British Imperial policy in their rela-
tion to American interests to force it forward as matter peculiar to the Irish
nnd by invoicing religious, racial, and personal passions, in the intensity of the
-controversy, to sidetrack discussion of matters of vital interest.
Decided on merit, there can be no permanent union between the government
theories of Britain and the United States. It is the marriage of the serpent
and the dove, doomed in advance to disaster.
" MIUTABISM " AND " NAVAUSM."
There is no difference to the future of liberty between " militarism " as repre-
sented by Germany and "navallsra," which is the power behind the Govern-
nient whose policy Is thus explained by Lord Thring:
**The means by which the possessions of Great Britain were acquired have
heen various as the possessions themselves. What is the link which fastens
«ach of these possessions to the mother country? The Inherent and indestructi-
T>le right to exercise Imperial powers; in other words, the supremacy of the
Queen and the British Parliament. What, again, is the common bond of union
between these vast colonial possessions, differing in laws, in religion, and in
the character of the population? The same answer must be given, namely, the
sovereignty of Great Britain. The mode in which the materials composing the
British Empire have been cemented together is exactly the reverse of the man-
ner of the construction of the American Union. In the case of the American
Union independent States voluntarily relinquisheed a portion of their sover-
eignty to secure national unity, and Intrusted the guardianship of that unity to
a representative body chosen by themselves."
Wliile Lord Thring is in error in his conception of the " guardianship " of
American sovereignty, which reposes in the people alone, he draws a correct
picture of the power of British sovereignty, the exact opposite of the purposes
of which the United States entered the war. With " militarism " temporarily
defeated, inevitably to grow again if the league of nations is approved by the
United States, the present fight is on " navallsm," the present and future
menace of world peace.
HOW KNOLAND HAS DOMINATKD THE WOBTJD.
With the exception of one decade In the nineteenth century, about the fifties,
when the United States awakened and took the control of the seas, only to
relinquish it again with the coming of the Civil War, England, by the power
of her navy, has absolutely dominated the world.
When the armistice was signed in November, 1918, the United States had a
quarter of a million more soldiers in France than Great Britain, the balance of
British soldiers necessary to equalize the number of United States forces at the
front having been diverted to police duty in Egypt, India, and Ireland.
The British Navy was strengthened constantly during the war. The United
States was permitted to build a merchant marine, but without freedom of the
seas, which was not even brought up for discussion at Paris. England retains
the power over the United States that it has exercised for a generation to
control rates, freights, sailings, and ports, which leaves this country in com-
mercial bondage to it. As a result the workingmen of the United States are in
imminent danger of being unemployed for four months of each year.
135546—19 69
930 TBBAXY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Secretary Lansing made two statements in his testimony before the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, either of which is sufficient to Justify the
defeat of the league of nations as being inimical to the future of Amerfcui
commerce.
One was that the " freedom of the seas was not discussed." While it later
appeared in President Wilson's belated submission of his draft that a weak and
innocuous mention was made of this subject, it did not even skim the surface
of '• navalism," the real menace of world peace. And the other, that the secret
treaty between England and Japan, by which England gave something she did
not own to a nation which had no right to receive it, was known before the
terms of the peace treaty were decided,. and objection was made against it to
Mr. Wilson, without effect, by himself and his colleagues.
When the nation contrasts the verbal chastisement which Mr. Wilson gare
Italy over the Flume claims, largely of academic Interest to this country, with
his concealment and final indorsement, against the advice of his colleagues^ of
the pro-English-antl-Amerlcan antihonor and decency Shantung deal, it must
be admitted that the American people have shown wonderful patience, althoni^h
there is little doubt of their resentment and determined opposition, which wUl
be shown in the final action of the United States Senate.
The President has decided, however, that the league must go through, what-
ever happens, and, \iith his marvelous skill in phrasing, dragged into his ad-
dress to Congress on the " cost of living " an appeal to wage earners to come
to his assistance. Before doing this, workmen and manufacturers should con-
sider the consequences to themselves, their families, and the Nation.
Sir Walter lialelgh said that the control of shipping meant control of world
trade, and this meant control of the world.
For more than 20 years the need of a foreign market for the surplus products
of the United States has been manifest. To facilitate access to the trade of the
Orient and the Far East, which Is thrown away by the Shantung steal, President
Roosevelt built the Panama Canal to ofCset the advantages to British shipping
of the Suez Canal. When it was completed, an advantage to American shlp^
using it was given by law. This displeased Great Britain, which protested with-
out effect until the Democratic administration came into power in 1913, when,
in violation of campaign promises, the law was repealed.
Britain was not only mistress of the seas, but could and did control adversely
the Internal policies of this country designed to encourage and extend our
power.
Under improved methods of production, tremendously stimulated by the
the workers of the United States can produce in eight months all that the coun-
try can consume in a year. The solution of unemployment and its accompanying
evils is in disposing of our surplus products of manufacture in the open markets
of the world. The neglect, as admitted by Secretary Lansing, even to discuss at
Paris the matter of the freedom of the seas is unexplainable, when we realize
that in a United States Senate investigation held in 1913, recorded in several
volumes of testimony, it was conclusively demonstrated, and admitted by the
representatives of the Shipping Trust, that under trust methods it was impos-
sible for the United States before the war to build or maintain a merchant
marine.
HOW F0BEIGNEB8 HIT BOSTON PORT.
A small body of foreigners sitting in an office in London could, and did, not
only determine the price and character of American freight, but could determine
and limit the ports in America from which freight and passengers could be sent
Means were provided where competition by independent American transportation
companies was made impossible. Baltimore, Boston, and Philadelphia were
forced to build and maintain expensive marine terminals, the use of which the
Shipping Trust received free, while the alien ships receiving these favors had
to pay for similar facilities in their home ports.
This was possible only because it was within the power of the Shipping Trust
to close to foreign trade any one of these ports refusing to comply with Its
demands.
Neglect of the United States after the Civil War to maintain its sea strength
left it at the beginning of the great war with its merchant marine only two-
fifths what it was in 1855 and substantially the same tonnage as the United
States had in 1810.
Under Shipping Trust control exports of the United States were restricted
largely to the food and raw materials which Europe could not get along witlKwt.
' TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANV. 981
As a result of this control, the price of products, such as cotton, copper, pot-
ash, food, meat, and grains was in most cases dominated in England* and In
some combinations by England and Germany together.
ENGIAND FLOUTS AMERICAN BIGHTS.
During the war England contemptuously disregarded and opposed our busi-
ness rights. It held up our ships dealing with neutral nations, blacklisted and
confiscated our products, and refused to permit our doing business with
neutral countries, while it sold the same kind of goods to these neutrals.
In its effort to get control of trade formerly done by Germany it shut us out
of South America. When our progressive manufacturers attempted to build
up the dye industry it put embargoes on exports to the United States of log-
wood and barks from Central America — ^all this through its control of the-
seaa
Cotton grown in the Southern States was sold by English middlemen to*
continental European manufacturers at a lower price than the same cotton <
could be bought by cotton manufacturers in New England. Of eighteen mil-
lions' worth of manufactured cottons imported into Argentina the year beff»r«^'
the war, the United States, the greatest producer of raw cotton in the world..
sold but $300,000 worth.
One can not read a daily paper without seeing various items which indicate
that England has her finger in every business pie in all comers of the world.
Further, nothing in the league of nations prevents — in fact. It encourages —
the right of England and Japan to prefer each other in their respective colonies
and thus automatically to discriminate against the products of the Unltedl
States.
Nothing in the league regulates or prevents shipping arrangements to be
carried so far as to create lower rates for Japanese and British shipping than
for United States commerce.
ANOTHICB BLOW TO AMERICAN TRADE.
In June, 1916, there was held at Paris an " economic alliance '* of the ESntente
Powers, whioh, while the purposes were disguised, was actually designed to sub-
stitute a system of trade preferences for the most-favored-nation relation upon
which the commercial Jntercourse of Europe and America rested before the war.
It w^as openly stated at this Paris conference that this would operate against
the competition of the United States, and carry its commerce below normal
^uity in world commerce.
The feeling of the British shipping interest toward the Unlt,ed States was
expressed in the following quotation under date of August 10, 1916, from Fair-
play, the lieading Journal devoted to shipping finance in England :
"America so far has evaded the fight, but she is bound to recognize two
things (apart from the fact that we are not out to be beaten) : Firstly, that the
nations who win this war, whether they be the Allies or the Central Powers,.
will not be in a temper to stand any nonsense from any neutrals ; that the win-
ning combatant countries will represent the main armed forces of the world,
and that no one else will be in the running. Secondly. America will appreciate
that the Allies, pace Mr. Asquith, do intend, where it pays them to do so, to put
up a tariff wall between themselves and neutrals. They mean to restore them-
selves and to become self-supporting — at some expense it may be while the
operation lasts, but certainly not for the benefit of neutrals. And if this be so,
then America has perhaps a somewhat awkwardly restricted market. She has
already experienced the pleasure of a Chinese boycott, but at the close of the
war she will be facing as a competitor a Japan which economically, financially,
and by treaty is a vastly different proposition from the Nation which could be-
openly flouted over California issues a few years back."
WRITTEN A>TER SECRET PACT WITH .JAPAN.
The fact that this friendly comment was written shortly after the secret
treaty between Japan and England was made is so significant that comment is
not necessary.
In January, 1917, at the very time when Balfour and Vivioni were in the
United States pleading with President Wilson for American intervention, a
great convention was being held at Pittsburgh by the United States National
932 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Foreign Trade Council, at which 1,000 delegates from the largest bnsineM
concerns in the United States were protesting against the action of the Parts
Alliance and devising methods to avert its threatened consequences.
It is believed by many that the growth in United States* exports during the
war is a healthy indication of progress and that we are on a firm foreign-trade
basis. It is, in fact, quite the contrary, because this increase has been brought
about almost wholly by the export of war needs, which substantially ceased
with the war. Our trade balance during the war on a peace basis went steadily
downward. We gained money during the last five years in our foreign trade,
but not business.
Nothing practical has been done by the United States Government to stabilize
our foreign commerce, and the league of nations threatens it with paralysis.
A most Important but little considered factor in British plans is its control
of the mechanics of news distribution. Through this power it could and did
during the war refuse to neutral nations the right to communicate with each
other on their strictly neutral business and iiersonal matters. Before the war
merchants in the United States complained repeatedly of interference wItJi
their mail and cables.
SO-C ALLED " LIBERTY *' MEANINGLESS.
While the world is compelled to get the consent of any one notion to sail the
seas or freely to communicate with each other, the liberty for which the waf was
won is a meaningless word. Under date of August 8, 1919, the United States
Foreign Trade Council announces the appointment of a committee to take up
the matter of American systems of cables and wireless. Present conditions are
described as '* intolerable."
Any nation that, in addition to contiorof the sens (which Oreat Britain ha8
under the league) can dominate the world's food supirfy of the earth. Is double
master of the world's destiny. In 1912 James J. Hill called attention to the
progressive diminution in food production of the United States, and looking
ahead not for a year, but a generation, there is no question hut that the United
States and Canada are fast getting in a position where they will not be much
more than able to fee<l themselves. The same conditions apply in South
America and Australia. If the peace treaty and league are approved, England,
which can not produce within Its own Island boundaries food enough to supply
It for more than two months In the year, Is In control of the future food .supply
of the world.
When the attempt was made by Cecil Rhodes to reduce the Boer Republic to
vassalage to Great Britain, afterwards successful, after one of the mnst
Iniquitous wars in the world's history, he oi)enly declared it his ultimate
purpose to paint the map of the world red. and as the first step to run a railroad
line from Cairo to the cn\ye.
The treaty of peace has actually palnte<l Africa red. and it is Important for
us in this country to know that in Africa there has been turned over to England
one of the largest potential food areas left In the world, and American assist*
ance is also being exert(*d to place Siberia, the second largest potential unused
food-supply area In the world under the control of Great Britain.
WHEN BRITISH ATTITUDE Wnj. CHANGE.
A Great Britain freed from dependence on the food supply of the United
States win be a vastly different nation to deal with than a Great Britain which
would starve without us.
Since the war the United States has become the creditor nation of the world.
If we gauge correctly the sentiment of the people of this country we are safe
in assuming that the tremendous debts due the United States by the rest of
the world will not be used as a source of exploitation, coercion, or oppression,
but since we are In the dominant financial position by virtue of our national
resources, there is no reason why we shall permit injustice to be done the people
of our country by allowing British financial manipulation to neutralize this
situation adversely to our national interest
England has a floating debt of twenty-seven billions, eight and a half of
which comes due this year. There is a balance in favor of the United States
of more than four billions. On the ordinary basis of business England is to-day
bankrupt, with internal, economic conditions making it worse.
TBEATT OF PEACB WITH QERMAKY. 989
There are signs and portents of a secret campaign now beginning, which ha»
for its object the purpose of repudiating not only the Interest, but the principal,,
of the United States war loans. It may be that somehing of this nature must
be agreed to by the United States to save the world, but whatever action is
taken must not be to restore England's lost financial leadership, but equally to
sustain the credit and economic security of all nations alilce. Only a rigid in-
quiry by the Congress into tliese questions, and especially as to the process by
which the exchange value of the pound sterling is being maintained at what
many believe to be an artificial ratio, at the expense of the United States, will
enable the people to deal fairly with debtor-nations, and in the real spirit of
w'orld peace determine the problems and responsibilities of the position of the
United States as a creditor for the world.
** onw vwwNrk ff
KAY CLOSE FAB EASTERN " OPEN DOOB.
Aside from the humiliating betrayal of China, our best friend and most
powerful potential partner among the nations, in its sacrifice to the commercial
ambition of England's ally and secret partner, Japan, the people of the United
States are vitally concerned in the control of the " Key to the Orient " by Japan
and England. Hong Kong, the other important entrance to China, is also in
control of Great Britain, whose Joint control with Japan of Klaochow will mean
the abandonment of the policy of the ** oi>eii door " established as a result of
American diplomacy. It will give monoiwly to the two principal competitors of
the United States to a market of a half billion people. While the principal
opposition to the Shantung pact is based on our betrayal of a friend, he commer-
cial consequences to America of approving any league which shuts it out of the
" open door " to the Orient merits serious consideration.
Other items might be added to this protest. The tremendous expansion dur-
ing the war of the United States merchant marine, on an oil burning basis,
frees this country from the dependence on English coaling bases throughout
the world, which have been the principal sources of her sea strength. The
change of motor power from coal to oil would have given opportunity, under
real " freedom of the seas," for the United States to compete on a basis of equal-
ity. British control of the oil fuel fields in Russia, China and Mexico should be
denied and these localities made free for themselves and the world.
These considerations are presented in the belief that they are American issues
vitally connected with the discussion regarding the league of nations, which, as
proposed, settles every one of them adversely to the United States.
If America is true to herself In this crisis, the decision of the United States
Senate will transform and purify the politics, policies, and business practices of
the whole world.
THE CASE FOR GREECE.
The Chairman. We will hear the case of the Greeks at this time,
whom we appointed to hear this morning. The hearing was un-
Avoidably postponed and we will give them one hour, which is as
much time as we can devote to their hearing, inasmuch as we have
to finish this other hearing subsequently.
STATEMENT OF MB. WILLIAM S. FELTON.
The Chairman. Mr. Felton, you reside in Salem, Mass.?
Mr. Felton. Yes.
Senator Knox. Wore you at the Paris conference?
Mr. Felton. I appear as president of the National Congress of the
Friends of Greece. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
a convention was held last week in Washmgjton comprising 350 dele-
fates from all over the country, representing 75 cities and towns,
hey gathered in Washington to express their views, and to bring
those views upon the question of the disposition of Thrace to the
President and to the Senate of the United States. There are ap-
proximately 500,000 Americans of Greek origin and descent in tliis
country, of whom 60 per cent are American citizens.
Interested in this convention and represented by what might be
called non-Grecian delegates are a very large number of liberty-
loving Americans, who sent delegates from their number to join
with the Grecian- American delegates. This convention left behind,
authorized to represent it upon this occasion, a committee of four
gentlemen, of which the chairman is Prof. George M. Boiling, pro-
fessor Greek language and literature at the State University of
Ohio, at Columbus. Prof. Boiling has also been professor of com-
parative philology and Sanscrit, and has contributed upon these sub-
jects a number of well-known technical articles and works. Mr.
N. J. Cassavetes, director of the Pan Epirotic Union, organized by
Americans of northern Epirotic origin, its purpose being to bring
to the attention of the American people the desire of the Christian
northern Epirotic populations for union with Greece. Mr. Cassa-
vetes is the chairman of the advisory committee of the Massachusetts
organization on Americanization. The third member of the com-
mittee is Mr. Constantine C. Moustakis, of Salem, Mass., chairman
of the educational committee for Greek immigration in Massachu-
setts. The fourth member of the committee is Paul Demos, a lawyer
of Chicago, a member of the faculty and board of administration of
the Chicago Law School, president of the American Association of
the Greek Community oi Chicago, and now chairman of the Greek
branch of the Americanization committee in Chicago, formerly sec-
retary of the Chicago Liberty loan committee, foreign language
division.
934
'XHYHUaO HXim SOYad i20 AXYSHX 936
Before presenting Prof. Boiling, Mr. Chairman, I desire to read
a brief letter, which I think will make its own appeal. It is from a
Qreek girl in the city of New York and reads as follows :
August 24, 1919.
Hon. WnxiAM S. Felton,
Chairman Delegation of the Committee of the Friends of Greece,
Washington, D, C
Honorable Sib : I am a poor little Greek girl, 16 years old. I have given to
United States all I had.
Bfy dear brother, Dannis Malfredas, before be volunteered in the Army, he
was with me in New York. He went to France and he died there for liberty.
He died in France; he never came back to me. He left me in New Tork all
alone. He died for liberty, justice, and democracy.
Please tell the Americans, tell the American women, tell the American girls
that lost their brothers like myself to help you, to speak to our President
to give Greece her rights. Please tell them to help the Greek girls and women
get their freedom from the Bulgarians and Turks.
I wish I was a man to come and speak to the President myself. The Greeks
and the Greek women of Thrace they prefer to die but not to go under the
Bulgarians.
From a little girl that lost her brother in the war for liberty.
EUGINIA MALFBEDA,
New York, N, Y.
Mr. Chairman, I now have the pleasure of presenting Prof. Boil-
ing, who will conduct the hearing from this point.
STATEMENT OF FBOF. GEOBGE U. BOLIINO.
Prof. BoLLiNG. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
Mr. Felton has just read to you a very touching; appeal, and he has
spoken of the congress that has sent us, and oi what it represents
directly. I should like to emphasize, first of all, that it represents
also, among others, Americans. Their number it is impossible to
compute, but I have in mind all those who recognize the indebtedness
of the modern world to ancient Greece, who admire and love the
heroic spirit of self-sacrifice with which the Greeks have thrown
themselves into our great strugrfe for liberty and who believe that
Greece, under the leadership of Eleutherios Venizelos, is pursuing a
policy characterized by wisdom and moderation and conducive to
the peace and happiness of the world.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are here above all as Americans. Our
friendship for Greece has given us knowledge of certain facts, has
enabled us to gain certain points of view which are not accessible to
all of our fellow citizens. We desire now to serve America by pre-
senting to you this knowledge and these points of view, believing
that you will find them of value in the consideration you are about
to give to our treaties with the Allies of the Central Powers, Bulgaria
and Turkey.
The question on which all hinges is the disposition to be made of
Thrace, and, with your permission, we shall confine ourselves to that
question.
To define sharply the conclusion at which we have arrived, I shall
quote the pertinent paragraph in the resolution introduced by Sena-
tor King on August 13 and referred to your committee :
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that in the treaties of pence with
Bulgaria and with Turkey western or Bulgarian Thrace, including Adrianoplev
936 TREATT OF ]PEACB WTTH GEBliAlfTT.
to the line from Enos, on the JEpenn Sea. to Midia, on the Black Sea, should be
awarded to Qreese, proper facilities for Bulgarian commerce to be reserved at
Salon ki, Ra valla, and Deleagatsb.
The solution there proposed is in substantial agreement with the
request of Greece as presented by Mr. Venizelos. In the peace con-
ference it is indorsed by the delegates of Great Britain, of France,
of Italy, and of Japan. It had the support, we are told, of the
first experts attached to our delegation in Paris. But the latest
report is that our new expei-ts have reached other conclusions, so
that our delegates to the conference are now urging, in opposition
to all of our Allies, a very different settlement of the question; and
one, too, which is open to the gravest objections.
We ask, Mr. Chairman, that you, your conmiittee, and the Senate
use all the powers intrusted to you by the Constitution to secure
such treaties with Bulgaria and TurKey as shall conform to the
spirit and substance of Senator King's resolution.
The Chairman. Do I understand you to say — and I know that
you are informed on the subject — that our delegates array them-
selves as against giving Thrace to Greece?
Prof. BoLLiNG. That, we understand, is the only hitch to the solu-
tion of the question.
Senator Knox. I think that is correct. That is the way I under-
stood it.
The Chairman. I want to have it appear clearly in the record.
Senator Brandegee. It was in the newspapers the other day that
Assistant Secretary Polk had arrived at a compromise of the ques-
tion. Do you know whether that is true or not*
Prof. BoLLiNG. Are you referring to the article published a week
ago in the New York Times?
Senator Brandegee. I think it was about that time^ yes; in which
compromise one-third of Thrace was to be given to Greece.
Prof. BoLLiNG. We have no direct information on the subject
We have no official connection with anybody. We have only the
sources of information that are open to American citizens, but we
do not believe that such a plan as outlined by Mr. Polk would ever
gain the firm support of Venizelos.
The first (}uestion involved is a question of fact — ^the character of
the population of Thrace. While we are not, of course, basing our
request upon historical considerations, we nevertheless believe that
an understanding of the way in which the present distribution of
this population was brought about will help to carry conviction.
A little more than 1,000 years B. C., the inhabitants of the Balkans
could have been classified on the basis of language into three well-
defined groups. The trunk of the peninsula was divided between
the Illynans on the west and the Thracians on the east, while its
southern extension was in the hands of the Greeks. All three wera
members of the Aryan family of languages and all were, relatively
speaking, newcomers in this part of the world. Two of these lan-
guages have passed awa^ without leaving any but the most insignif-
icant traces ; for of lUyrian and Thracian, practically nothing is left
save a few names of persons and localities. The future was in the
possession of the third group— of the Greeks. They were distin-
guished, among many other things, by a genius for colonization—
for an ability to go among other peoples and not only govern, but
XBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 937
lissimilate them — that is, make Greeks of them in language, ideals,
and feelings. They flowed across the islands of the JEgean, first to
the shores of Asia Minor.
Then the tide turned toward the northern coast of the JEgean
through the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora into the Black Sea,
reaching as far as Trebizond and the Crimea. The movement began
in the eighth century B. C, lasted through the seventh, and on into
the sixth century. The result, as far as it concerns us, is a fringe of
Greek cities running around the coast from Salonica to Constanti-
nople and beyond. These cities were then the outposts of civilization,
but by the middle of the fifth century they were equal to any part
of Greece in art, science, or general cultivation. How rapidly their
influence worked upon the natives of the hinterland is unknown
in detail; but promment Athenian families like those of Miltiades
and Thucydides were soon intermarrying with the Thracians and
proud of the connection. There is some reason for believing that
the frontier of Greek influence reached at this time a line drawn
v^est from Midia. A century later Philip of Macedon founded
PhilippoUis and other cities in the interior of the country and fought
his way to the Black Sea at Varna, spreading. Greek civilization as
he went. A few years later Alexander completed his father's work,
by carrying the frontier to the Danube. It is very significant that his
fighting seems to have begun when he reached the Balkan range —
the old boundary between Bulgaria proper and Eastern Rumelia.
Apparently that was then the limit oi the Grecian influence.
Under the Romans, the land remained Greek in language and civ-
ilization. Thrace being the last province (46) in this part of the
world to be incorporated in their empire. The Latin language never
gained south of the Danube a foothold comparable with that which
it won beyond that river. That points to the presence in all Thrace
of a more highly civilized people, of a Greek speaking population.
Coming to the retrogression of Hellenism in this territory, I need
not trouble you with the raids of the Celts, of the Goths, of the
Huns, and of the Avars. These marauding peoples came and went
without permanent results. But there was another great migration,
which I must mention — ^the coming of the Slav. Its effect is seen
even to-day in the presence of the Slovenes, the Serbo-Croates, and
the Bulgarians in the Balkan peninsula. The movement began from
the north bank of the Danube, early in the sixth century or our era
and lasted to the middle of the seventh century. It affected most of
the Balkan peninsula profoundly — ^but the remarkable thing is the
extent to which Thrace (in the modem sense of the word) escaped.
The situation may be seen at a glance on the ethnological map pub-
lished by L. Niederle (Slovanske Starozitnosti ii, 2, 1910, p. 296),
showing the status in the seventh and eighth centuries.
The red circles on this map represent the Bulgars proper. Like
the Huns and the Turks, they were a Tartar people from Asia. The
modern Bulgarian is a cross between them and the Slav — a hybrid
people with Tartar name, Slavic language, and mixed blood. Into
the combination the Bulgar put what the Slav had lacked — ^initiative
and organization. They established a kingdom in the region between
the Danube and the Balkan mountains — ^the territory that is Bul-
garian in the strictest sense of the word and was known as such from
988 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
1878 to 1886. It was a state with a checker career into which I shall
not go. It dreamed fitfully of vast dominion. The dreams took
shape at times and led the Bulgars to the walls of Constantinople
and Salonica. But these cities were never destined to be theirs. The
dreams vanished — ^the Bulgar could never establish himself upon
the shores of the Aegean. His subjection in 1893 to the Turk put
an end to such efforts. Bulgars then disappear from history until
the year 1877.
Senator Brandegee. What is the title of the red-backed volume
containing the map to which you have referred?
Prof. BoLLiKG. blovanske Starozitnosci, by Dr. L. Niederle, pro-
fessor of Ceske at the University of Praze.
I have told this story at some length to lead up to the question:
Must we expect to find in Thrace a Bulgarian population or a pop-
ulation that is part Turkish, part Greek? On the answer to that
question the whole issue depends. For, as Americans, we believe
tnat the most fundamental of all rights is the right of a people not
merely to good government but to self government. That is some-
thing entitled to precedence over considerations of policy and over
economic desires.
Who, then, make up the population of Thrace? The most reliable
statistics available are those of the Turkish Government for 1912,
which have been used both by Venizlos (Greece before the peace con-
gress of 1919, apnendix 2) and Prof. Sotariades (an ethnological
map illustrating Hellenism in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Mmor,
London, 1918). These figures come from an ally of Bulgaria, and
yet they show that in the whole of Thrace there are 957,(K)0 Turks,
730,000 Greeks, 112,000 Bulgarians, 183,000 Armenians, 65,000 Jews,
and 151,000 inhabitants of other nationalities.
The Turks are thus the most numerous element in the population.
But there is one thing on which all parties are agreed. Four and one-
half centuries of misrule, tyrannv. and oppression on the part of the
Turks have rendered it impossible to plan for any contmuance of
Turkish Government in Europe. The Turks must either leave Thrace
or accept the government of some other people. Their destiny is clear.
Of the remaining element the Greeks have a large plurality, and in
particular they outnumber the Bulgarians— the only others to be con-
sidered seriously — in the proportion of 7 to 1.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is possible to bring an objection to the form
of this presentation of the case. I wish to consider it in order to show
that the vital issue remains unaffected. It may be said that Mr.
Venizelos is asking only for a part of Thrace anS that our statistics
should refer only to that part. I recognize the force of such an ob-
jection and will attempt to present such statistics. They can not be
given with absolute exactness, because the figures are based on the old
administrative district and the new lines cut across them. The inex-
actness, however, shall not be permitted to work to our advantage.
I subtract, therefore, the vilayet of Constantinople and the Sandjaks
of Rodosto and Gallipoli, which lie in the main beyond the Enos-
Midia line, with a population of 489,000 Greeks and 9,000 Bulgars.
I subtract also four northern Sandjaks — ^Achi-Tchelembi, Kirdjali,
Mustapha-Pasha, Tymovo — ^not claimed bv Mr. Venizelos, because
they contain only 9,000 Greeks to 86,000 Bulgarians.
TREATY OF PEAOB WITH GERMAKY. 989
The result is 232,000 Greeks as against 68,000 Bulgarians, or a pro-
portion of over 3 to 1 — certainly a sufficient preponderance on
which to base a valid claim. It is to be noted also that the other
nationalities (except the Turks, 348,000) have practically disap-
pnered, there being but 5,000 Armenians and 13,000 Jews. In the ter-
ritory claimed, the Greeks are thus much more than double, the Bul-
bars, Armenians, and Jews taken together.
Senator Knox. Do you mean to say that the Greeks are willing to
give up the territory when the population is so disproportionate ?
Prof. BoLLiNG. That is the offer, for the nationalization of every-
thing beyond, and concessions so liberal surely entitle them to favor-
able consideration when they present other claims.
To attempt a similar calculation for the various divisions said to
be proposed by Mr. Polk for the partition of Thrace is impossible.
The details of his plan are reported too indefinitely and his lines
seem to conflict more seriously with the administrative districts.
You can form a better judgment bv consulting an ethnological map.
In this connection, I wish to call your attention to the character
of the authors of the maps which support our contention. I have
already cited the map of Soteriades. He is a professor of history
at the University of Athens. His map is based upon these figures
and so adds nothing more to our claim. But there is the map pub-
lished by Herman Hirt (Die Indo-Germanen, Strassburg, 1905-1907,
map 2). It is on a small scale, but clearly corroborates our position.
Prof. Hirt is the leading authority of the world upon the question of
the original home of the Aryans and their dispersion through Europe
and Asia. No scholar's opinion is entitled to greater weight. His
work has been largely with the Slavic languages — ^that fact, his Ger-
man nationality, the date of his book, all combine to free him from
any suspicion of prejudice in the case. Then there is the map facing
page 20 in the jBalkans, Oxford, 1915, written by four English
tscholars, Nevill Forbes, Arnold T. Toynbee, D. Mitrany, D. G. Ho-
garth, at a time when it was hoped that Bulgaria could be won to the
side of our allies. Of these, Toynbee and Hogarth are eminent
names in the field of classical scholarship. Another excellent map is
to be found in the Eise of Nationality in the Balkans, by R. W.
Seton-Watson, lecturer in East European history. King's College,
University London, London, 1917.
The Chairman. Mr. Toynbee is one of the great classical scholars.
Prof BoLLiNG. Yes; and Mr. Hogarth, as you will remember, is
the great explorer at Ephesus.
Then we have a book with quite a remarkable map by Amadore-
Vergilj, entitled La Questione Rumeliota e la Politica Italiana. The
map is ethnological, but it shows the distribution of Greek and Bul-
garian schools and churches. I would be glad if the Senators would
look at it, because it proves not only the population but it shows also
that the Greeks are better educated, more interested in education, as
well as more numerous than the Bulgars.
Senator Swanson, does that answer your question ?
Permit me to call the attention of the committee to the character
of the maps. We know that there are others that show a different
result — a Bulgarian population where a Bulgarian corridor was
wanted. Soteriades mentions one such ^^ issued under the auspices
940 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
of the Daily Telegraph by the firm of Geographia (Ltd.)," I have
not been able to consult it. Another was published by Leon Do-
minian; a third appeared in the National Geographic Magazine for
December, 1918. Of the last two, one was by a graduate, the other
by a former professor of Roberts College. Is there any significance
in this fact?
Senator Brandegee. Can you state briefly what conclusions you
draw from the study and consideration of the maps and the volumes
upon which you rely, what deductions you draw ?
Prof. BoLLiNO. That the population of the part of Thrace in ques-
tion is overwhelmingly Greek as compared with Bulgarian.
Senator Swanson. How is it as compared to the aggregate popu-
lation }
Prof. BoLLiKG. The Turks, as I said a few moments ago, have a
plurality over the Greeks, a substantial plural itv.
Senator Swanson. What is that substantial plurality?
Prof. BoLLiNO. In the whole of Thrace there are 957,000 Turks and
730,000 Greeks. In this particular part of Thrace there are 232,000
Greeks. I do not recall at the moment but I think it is 348,000 Turks.
Senator Moses. When you say Turks, you mean Mohammedans!
Prof. BoLLiNG. Very largely. I mean people who feel that their
national consciousness is Turkish.
Senator Moses. Many of them are not of Ottoman blood ?
Prof. BoLLiNG. Many of them are not of Ottoman blood.
I will not trouble you with the citation of authorities, nor with
the statement of what we could prove by the testimony of American
citizens familiar with Thrace and wath the nationality and senti-
ments of its population. Our opponents seem, indeed, to be inclined
to shift their position. Our statistics, they say, are right for 1912*
and our maps, also. But the Bulgars have held the country since
1913 — their troops have been there during the war — and the ethnol-
ogy of the country, they tell us, has changed. We should, they urge^
recognize the changed condition. In plain language, Mr. Chairman*
that means we should reward murder and frightfulness. Such an
argument needs no answer.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, our view of the situation is based upon
the principle of a people's right to self-determination.
In the part of Thrace asked for by Mr. Venizelos there are more
than three Greeks to every Bulgar. They represent a population
which has held to this land for over 2,500 years in spite of indescrib-
able cruelty and oppression. They desire ardently to covern them-
selves by uniting again with the land from wiiich their fathers came.
It seems to us, as Americans, a plain duty to place no obstacle in the
way of this desire.
Mr. Cassavetes wull now explain to you the plans suggested for
the thwarting of this desire, the reasons urged in their support, and
our reasons tor finding them unsatisfactory.
I thank you most sincerely for your attention.
Senator Brandeoee. Before you leave the stand, *will you allow
me to ask one question. You alluded in one portion of your remarks
to the books published by a professor — one by a professor, and the
other by a graduate of Roberts College, and made some suggestions
about that college. That college comes out in a good many of our
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. , 941
hearings on these matters. TSliat is its position there? Does it
wield any influence in its vicinity on political questions, or the deter-
mination of any such matters as we have been discussing?
Prof. BoLLixG. Senator, if you will recall in the article in the
New York Times to whicli you allude, it was claimed there that it
was Roberts College that was responsible for this new plan, and at
the same time it reminded us that it was Roberts College that kept
us out of the war with Bulgaria, and with Turkey. I have no per-
sonal information with regard to Roberts College. Some of the
inembei's of the committee may be able to inform you more definitely.
Senator Brandegee. I I'emember at the time the committee was
^considering the wisdom of the declaration of war against Turkey,
and Bulgaria, that several clergymen appeared before the commit-
too protesting against it, and that they were interested in Roberts
College. That was one of the reasons I asked the question.
Prof. BoLLiKG. We see statements such as were made in the New
York Times, which I have quoted, and I ask you gentlemen whether
it is not a strange coincidence that two maps giving a pro-Bulgarian
view of the situation should be that connected with Rooerts College?
Senator Moses. Did you at any time in the course of your state-
ment, before I came in, discuss the commercial question to show that
the outlets to the Agean, which the Bulgars desire, are not necessary
to their development?
Prof. Rolling. No; I have left that to the others who will follow.
Senator Brandegee. I do not know that it is germane to the sub-
ject, but for my own information, which is meager on this subject,
you spoke of the Bulgarians as being a cross between two nations ?
Prof. Bolling. Slavs and Bulgars.
Senator Brandegee. What is the origin of the Slavs?
Prof. Bolling. The Slavs are one of the Indo-European people.
Senator Brandegee. Are the Slavs Tartars?
Prof. Bolling. No, sir. The earlier homes of the Slavs would be
along the middle and the upper courses of the Dneiper, and going
back joining with the Lithuanians, and then closely with the Ger-
mans.
Senator Brandegee. Are the Tartars Mongolians ?
Prof. Bolling. That is not an anthropological but a linguistic
term, but I believe that is correct.
I thank you for your attention.
STATEHEirr OF MB. N. J. CASSAVETES.
Mr. Cassavetes. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
have the honor, together with my distinguished colleague, Prof.
Bolling, to present to you the sentiments of half a million Americans
of Greek descent. As an American of Greek descent, I desire to em-
t>hasize the fact that we have come before the Senate Foreign Re-
ations Committee only as American citizens to plead the case of an
allied and friendly nation which looks for justice at the hands of
America. Whatever the decision of our Government in the case of
Thrace, we wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it will in no wa^
affect the loyalty of the American citizens oi Greek descent to this
country, nor in any way interfere with the faithful discharge of their
duties to their adopted country.
942 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
My distinguished colleague has, I believe, established beyond
doubt the fact that the numerical, cultural, and economic supe-
riority of the Greeks in Thrace is in the proportion of 7 to 1 in
favor of the Greek element. This fact alone should be sufficient to
induce our country to decide in favor of Greece in the question of
Thrace. Unfortunately, we understand from the reports which
come to us from Paris that our American delegation, while admit-
ting the numerical superiority of the Greek element in Thrace, is
not prepared to allow Thrace to be united with the mother country
Grcej^e. What imperative reasons are forcing themselves upon our
delegates at Paris to disregard the principle of nationality m favor
of the aUy of our enemies and at the expense of one of our faithful
Allies? Mr. Chairman, permit me to trace on the map the latest plan
submitted by our American delegation at Paris in connection with
the solution of the Question of Thrace. According to this plan, the
entire Province of Tnrace is divided into two parts, eastern and west-
ern Thrace, separated by the river Hebrus or Maritza. Eastern
Thrace is further divided into two parts by a line running from the
Gulf of Saros to the town of Midia on the Black Sea.
That portion lying to the east of this line is to become international
with Constantinople ; the other part is to be given to Greece. West-
em Thrace is divided into three part, as follows: The territory in-
eluded between ttie old Greek frontier on the iEgean Sea and the
town of Maronia between a line running north of this town to a dis-
tance halfway between the sea and the old Bulgarian frontier and
between a line from this central point to the old Greek frontier is
given to Greece. The portion included between the Maritza River
and the Greek portion of Western Thrace is internationalized and
the rest of Western Thrace is given to Bulgaria. The most important
objection to this plan is, of course, the violation of the principle of
nationality and that of the economic unity of the Province of Thrace.
No less serious an objection is the fact that the portion of Eastern
Thrace given to Greece is absolutely disconnected from Greece proper,
remains suspended in the air, without harbors on the Black Sea or on
the -^gean, a temptation, inviting Bulgarian aggression, with Greece
absolutely incapable of rendering military assistance in case Bul-
garia should decide to invade the territory. What are the reasons
adduced by the American delegation at Paris in justification of this
plan? In the first place, it is contended that Bulgaria needs an eco-
nomic outlet on the ^gean. Secondly, it is argued that unless Bul-
garia has a guaranty of a free access to the JEgean Sea, she will not
cease from plotting and preparing for a Balkan war. Thirdly, it is
arj^ed that the American delegation is forced to oppose Greek
claims to Thrace, in order to discourage the desire of the Great
Powers for splitting Bulgaria between Roumania and Serbia. We
shall take up these arguments one by one.
Bulgaria iias no economic need of an outlet to the Aegean. Bul-
garia, a nation of four million and a half, has two excellent ports
on the Black Sea — Vama and Bourgas. Roumania, a nation of
15,000,000, has only one port on the same sea — Constanza. With the
internationalization of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, Bulgaria
can not be said to be barred from an acceas to the Aegean. The only
B)rt included in the international strip of Thrace is the port of th»
e-de Agach. This port is absolutely unavailable for commercial
TREATY OF PBAOE WITH QERMANY. 948
purposes. The De-de Agach is only an open roadstead, which will
take millions of dollars to render available for commercial purposes.
Bulgaria has held that port since 1913, and she not only has not seri-
ously attempted to use this port for commercial purposes, but she has
not passed any legislation providing for future improvement of this
Krt for commercial purposes. Sne has, however, provided the
j-de Agach with a verv small railroad line, which was meant to
feed the submarines. I^or is it possible to believe that with the
internationalization of this poi*t Bulgaria will avail itself of it
No Bulgarian government would be willing to make financial appro-
priations for the improvement of this port, which will not be in the
possession of Bulgaria. The eastern portion of Bulgaria, in which
the two great ports, Varna and Bourgas, lie, is the commercial and
industrial part of Bulgaria, and it so happens that it wields a pre-
ponderant influence in the politics of the country. It is impossible
to believe that this preponderant influence will permit an appropria-
tion in favor of improving the port of the De-de Agach, which is not
Bulgarian and which will mean the death of the ports of Varna and
Bourgas and the transference of the commercial and industrial center
of Bulgaria from that portion of the country to the internationalized
strip of Thrace. It becomes evident, then, that by internationalizing
a portion of western Thrace, Bulgaria's economic necessity, if there
be any, can not be satisfied.
We now come to the second argument, namely, the fear that un-
less we give a guarantee to Bulgaria of a free access to the Agean
Sea she will agitate for war in the Balkans. This argument may
be considered from two points of view. It is either an American
concession to a threat on the part of Bulgaria, or a fear on the part
of the American delegates and an attempt to placate Bulgaria. If
it is an admission of threat on the part of Bulgaria, the American
delegation by yielding to this threat is clearly admitting that there
is no moral force behind the forces of the Allies to enforce jus-
tice. If it is merely a fear and an attempt to placate the Bul-
garians, the American delegation shows that it ignores the lessons
of the events which have transpired since 1913, and also, it seems
to ignore the dreams and ambitions of Bulgaria. In 1912 Mr.
Venizelos, in the hopes of establishing the Balkan league, and in full
realization of the fact that Bulgaria would not consent to become
a member of that league without serious concessions on the part of
Greece, offered Bulgaria not only the whole of Western Thrace and
a very large portion of Eastern Thrace, but also the largest portion
of eastern Macedonia at a small distance from Salonica. Was Bul-
garia satisfied? In the summer of 1913 she treacherously attacked
both Greece and Serbia, in the hopes of seizing Salonica and Mon-
astir, and in the .hopes of reaching the Adriatic Sea. The Bul-
garian armies were completely crushed. At the treaty of Bucharest
Mr. Venizelos was disillusioned as to the possibility of pacifying
Bulgaria with any concessions lesser than the entire Balkan penin-
sula. This time he refused to repeat the error of 1912, and insisted
upon occupying Thrace, but Russia and Austria^Hungaryj each
vieing with the other for the friendship of Bulgaria as a military
power in the Balkans, imposed upon Mr. Venizelos the necessity of
yielding Thrace to Bulgaria. Was Bulgaria placated? Imme-
diately upon the occupation of Thrace the Bulgarian authorities
944 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
initiated the most cruel persecutions against the Greek element^ and
in 1914 Bulgaria concluded a treaty of alliance with Austria-Hun-
gary, Germany, and Turkey.
In 1915 France and England insisted that Mr. Venizelos should
make concessions to Bulgaria in Eastern Macedonia, in order that
she might be detached from the Central Powers. Mr. Venizelos,
while completely convinced that Bulgaria was already determined to
throw her weight on the side of the Central Powers in the expectation
of annihilating Serbia, of crushing Roumania, and of driving Greece
to the old boundaries of 1912, yielded to the demands of the allied
powers and offered Bulgaria the port of Kavala. We read in the
Echo de Bulgaria of January 1, 1916, the following editorial, repub-
lished in the Berliner Tagcblatt January 3, 1916:
These three instances in the course of six years show beyond doubt
the ambitions of Bulgaria in the Balkans ; that infinitely greater con-
cessions have been made to Bulgaria by Mr. Venizelos and have proved
futile, and that the thought of the American delegates that Bulgaria
would be satisfied and placated with the internationalization of a
strip of Thracian territory is undeniably erroneous.
In closing the reply to the second contention of our delegates we
should not fail to understand that an international strip of territory,
far from succeeding in placating Bulgaria, will only expose the east-
ern Thracian portion which will be given to Greece to constant dan-
gers from Bulgaria and will encourage Bulgaria to watch for an
opportune moment to invade this international strip. The unfortu-
nate events that took place between 1900 and 1906 in Macedonia
under the very eyes of the European commission of control will in-
evitably be repeated in this international strip of Thrace.
The Bulgarians will subsidize immigration into western Thrace,
and the Greeks, in order to counteract this movement for the alteration
of a national character, will do the same in their turn. Friction wUl
be inevitable; revolutionary and guerilla warfare will take place in
the international territory, in which the Greek element will side with
the Greek revolutionists and the imported Bulgarians with the Bul-
garian comitadgis. War will thus be inevitable. We have so far
?TOved that the plan of internationalizing a part of western Thrace,
ar from creating conditions which will foster permanent peace, cre-
ates the causes for inevitable wars. Bulgaria will not be satisfied,
no matter what concessions the peace conference is disposed to make.
The only plan which can be a guaranty of a permanent peace in the
Balkans is the plan originally suggested by Mr. Venizelos and sub-
scribed to at first by the American delegation at Paris. That plan
is. as indicated on this map, that Greece should occupy those portions
or Thrace west of the Saros-Midia line to such points in the north as
are preponderantly Greek, leaving the district of Moustapha-Pacha
and of Tirlove to Bulgaria, because here the Bulgarian element is
numerically superior to the Greek. This plan is a guaranty for peace
in the Balkans, because, in the first place, it is based on absolute
justice. The Greek Nation will be completely satisfied, and the better
elements of the Bulgarian Nation, which are not poisoned with im-
perialistic ideas, will be satisfied with this solution of the Thracian
question.
In case Bulgaria should think of disturbing the peace of the Balk-
ans, a strong Greece, with a united Thracian front, allied to Seri)ia
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 945
and to Eoumania will be a convincing argument to the practical Bul-
garians that it wiU not pay them to Uunch again upon the adven-
tures of 1913 and 1915.
Finally, we come to the last argument, that the American delega-
tion is forced to oppose the claims of Greece in order to discourage
the desires of the allied powers of Europe for the complete extinc-
tion of Bulgaria. We believe that American diplomacy can protect
Bulgarian integrity by other means more just and honorable. It
is not necessary to do injustice to Greece in order to defend Bulgaria
from foreign aggression. But if it is nex^essary that Greece should
give the first example of self-sacrifice and self-denial to the other
allied Balkan States, we may respectfully indicate that Mr. Venize-
los has already gone to the limit of such sacrifices. The Greek people
have dreamed for centuries for the reestablishment of Hellenism in
Ocmstantinople. That portion of Thrace which is to be inter-
nationalized and is to include Constantinople as its capital is Greek
in history, in population, in commerce, and in culture, and yet the
Greek people resign themselves to the abandonment of their claims
upon the most cherished portion of the Thracian Province in order
to satisfy the rivalries of the great powers and to contribute as much
as is within their power to the establishment of a permanent peace.
But Greece not only has made concessions in Thrace, but also has
offered willingly half a million Greel^ on the Black Sea to make
possible the creation of an Armenian State. Jn view of such sac-
rifices we hardly believe justifiable the insistence of our delegates
to force upon Greece the necessity of greater sacrifice, which may
exasperate the Grecian people and alienate their friendship for
America and for the allied powers.
In concluding, we wish to repeat that Bulgaria has no need of
economic access to the Aegean; that the internationalization of a
strip of Thrace is not only contrary to the principle of nationality,
but will also create causes for future wars in the Balkans; it fails to
placate Bulgaria and is certain to alienate the friendship of Greece,
it encourages Bulgaria to hope for a possibility of invading eastern
Thrace and the internationalized strip, and renders Greece abso-
lutely incapable of meeting a Bulgarian aggression. In other words,
it strengthens the enemy of yesterday, and the certain enemy of to-
morrow by weakening our allj^ of yesterday, who of necessity must
be our ally of to-morrow. Justice and sane policy dictate that Greece
should have those portions of Thrace which are claimed by Mr. Veni-
zelos. With Venizelos at the head of a strong Greece, we may be
certain that Bulgaria can be pursuaded to throw off her imperialistic
dreams and to recognize the community of interests between the Bul-
garian and the Greek nations, the one being an agricultural coun-
try, the other a commercial and industrial one.
Prof. BoLONO. Mr. Cassavetes has finished his argument unless
there is some question, which we will try to answer.
We feel that this is a simple matter of justice and have full confi-
dence in the action that the Government will take.
The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned until Tues-
day morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
Tuesday, September 2, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
13554»-~19 00
J
MONDAY, SBPTBMBBB 3, 1010.
United States Senate,
Committee of Foiusion Relations,
WcuihingUmf D. G.
The committee met, pursuant to adjourmnent at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Knox, New,
Moses, Swanson, and Pomerene.
The Chaibman. We will hear those who desire to speak in behalf
of Hungary. Our time is very short. We can give you gentlemen
only an hour, as we have another hearing set for this morning.
STATEMEXTT OF EUGEXTE PIViNY, XTATIOXTAL SECBETABY OF
THE HnXTGABIAXr-AMESICAXr FEDEBATIOXT.
Mr. PivAnt. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Conmiittee on
Foreign Relations, before presentii^ our case to you on behalf of the
Hungarian-American Federation, I wish to express our thanks for,
and appreciation of, the spirit of fair play evinced by the willingness
of your committee to have us testify before you in the case of
Hu^ary.
We feel that in appearing before you we are performing a civic
duty and are serving the best interests of our country as well as of
mankind, for —
(1) We endeavor thereby to prevent the United States of America
from becoming an active partner to the unwarranted, unjust and
arbitrary disintegration and annihilation of a country that has existed
in the territorial condition now to be disturbed for over a thousand
years and had become a recognized factor, of civilization;
(2) Bv placing at the disposal of your committee, the Senate
of the United States, and the American people the true facts of
the case, we endeavor to prevent that judgment be based on the
one-sided, or unreal, or fabricated statements which have been
spread broadcast by the claimants of Hungarian territory for several
years past;
(3) The fate of what had been known until tiie armistice as Hun-
gary is not a matter of indifference to the rest of the world, as might
be inferred from the lack of interest in the subject shown by various
factors ofpublic opinion in this country. On the contrary, the very
peace of Ekirope depends on it.
In order to add to the lucidity of our brief, we hes leave to give
first a concise account of the treatment accorded to Hungary during
the armistice, then present our data and ailments grouped as to (1)
the historical; (2) tne racial or ethnographic; (3) the religious: (4) the
economic; and (5) the political or international aspects of tne case,
and, finally, state our conclusions.
947
948 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
On the ni^ht from October 30 to October 31, 1918, after much
agitation lasting several months, a revolution broke out in Budapest,
the Capital of Hungary, which put Count Michael K&rolyi into power,
demanded the immediate cessation of hostilities and tne opening of
negotiations for the conclusion of a just and lasting peace. Shortly
afterward a republican form of government was adopted by the
Hungarian National Council based on tmiversal male and female
suffrage, and K&rolyi was elected temporary president. It was quite
, logical to have K&rolyi head this movement, for K&rolyi had been the
leader of the party Ia the Hungarian Parliament opposed to the alli-
ance with Germany, he had openly, and with considerable risk to bis
person, avowed his friendship for the Allies, and had been a radical
democrat and pacifist.
It is now universally admitted that had the Allies not unnecessanly
opposed, humiliated, deceived and driven into despair the decent and
orderly K&rolyi Government, not to speak of having given it some
well-deserved encouragement, most of the chaos, bloodshed, and
suflering still prevailing in Eastern Europe could have been avoided
and Bolshevism would never have come to power in Hungary. (We
refer, for instance, to Prof. Philip Marshall Brown's muminating
article in the magazine section of the New York Times for July 27,
1919. Prof. Brown had been one of our experts to the peace com-
mission.)
On November 7, 1918, Count Michael Kdrolyi, with a staflf of
experts, went to Belgrade to conclude an armistice with the French
feneral Franchet d'Esperey, commander of the allied forces in the
!ast. The general treated K&rolyi, the head of a noble nation, as
no gentleman would think of treatmg a servant; he told him he held
the fate of Hungary in the hoUow of his hand and could destroy her
by turning her neighbors loose on her (which he subsequenUy did);
and replied to Kdrolyi's request to facilitate the importation of coal
in order to keep the mills running with these historic words:
^^ What the h — ^1 do you want coal for? A 100 years ago you used
windmills. Why can not you get along with them now?*'
The armistice dictated by Gen. Franchet imposed very heavy obli-
gation of an economic king on Hungary. A very considerable part
of her military supplies, rolling stock, river boats, and live stock was
to be handed over to the Alfies. The Hungarian Army was to be
reduced to five divisions of infantry and one division of cavalry.
The territory south of the line of demarcation (which ran, roughly
speaking, along the River Maros and continued southwestward
on an artificial line across the Tisza and the Danube to the river
Drave), viz., one-third of Hungary, was to be open to occupation
by the allied or associated armies. The occupation was to be tem-
porary, and the territorial questions were to be settled finaUy by the
peace conference.
There was only one provision in the armistice not unfavorable to
Hungary, and that was to the effect that the civil administration,
even of the occupied territories, should remain in the hands of the
Hungarian Government, thus assuring the continuance of the cen-
tralized system for the distribution of food, coal, and other necessaries
of life. It is of importance to note that at that time Hungary had
enough food to last im til the next harvest; in fact, she had a little
surplus which she was willing to give to Vienna or Prague in exchange
of certain manufactures and coal.
TBEATY OF PBACE WITH GERMAKY. 949
Although the Hungarians have speedily fulfilled their obligations,
this provision of the armistice has been violated by the Allies and
their associates from the very first, which is the principal cause of all
the famine, idleness, and anarchy in Hungary.
The western part of the territory laid open to occupation was
invaded in November by the Serbian armj^, which was followed in
the eastern part by the Rumanian army in December. The Ru-
manians were somewhat late, because at the conclusion of the
armistice they had hardly any army worth speaking of. Their first
soldiers arriving in Hungary were very badly equipped, many of them
wearing straw hats in December and low moccasins instead of shoes
or boots. But they were not bashfid at all about helping themselves
to the military stores in Hungary, and soon looked spick and span.
The first thing the occupying armies did was to annex the occupied
territories, remove all the Hungarian officials who refused to take the*
oath of allegiance to the ruler of the invaders, denationalize the Hun-
garian schools, and discharge the Himgarian professors and teachers
who coidd or woidd not teach in the language of the invaders.
Exactly the same procedure was followed later oy the Czechs, who^
under the pretext of ''occupying strategically iinportant points,"'
overran ana formally annexea northern Hungary. Of course, all this
was contrary not only to the law of nations, but also to the specific
provisions of the armistice; nevertheless, the Allies approved of it
and paid no attention to K&rolyi's frantic notes of protest.
But the Roumanians were not satisfied with occupying and annex-
ing those parts of Hungary which lie south of the line of demarcation.
Having made sure of it that Hungary had disarmed herself, they
transCTessed the line of demarcation and gradually advanced to the
river Tisza, getting what they styled the ''imperium, " or sovereignty,
over all the coveted Hungarian territory except two counties in the
south held by the Serbians. This disgraceful war on a disarmed
country during a period of armistice is without a parallel in modern
history; it was illegal, dishonorable, and cowardly. Yet the Allies
approved of it, made Karolyi's position more anS more untenable,
and finally drove what was feft of Hungary into the arms of Bolshe-
vism, which could have been easily averted by the application of a
little horse sense, not to speak of justice and humanity.
Two of the many authentic reports of incidents illustrative of the
Roumanian idea of government and the rights of racial minorities
are given here.
A few days after last Christmas an Hungarian captain walked
with his wife on the main street of Kolozsvar, the capital of Transyl-
vania, which is a purely Hungarian city, rich in historical associations
dear to every Hungarian, and is, by the way, a good distance beyond
the line of demarcation. A Roumanian patrol was passing by, and
the lady observed to her husband in Hungarian that yesterday she
had seen these same fellows, who were wearing new Hungarian
uniforms and boots, in ragged clothes and worn-out moccasins,
whereupon the soldier in charge of the patrol, who had overheard
the remark, placed the captain and his wife under arrest and marched
them oflF to headquarters. There the lady and her husband were
stripped by soldiers, and 25 strokes of the birch were administered
on their bare bodies.
950 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
This was reported with full names and other data to Prof. Coohdge,
of Harvard University, who, as an expert attached to the American
feace commission, spent a few days in Budapest in January last,
t was further reported to him that the Serbians had also introduced
flogging as a punishment in those regions of Hungary which were
occupied by them.
The other incident is reported in a letter from a professor of the
University of Kolozsvar to the editor of the Lonoon Nation and
{►ublished among the editorials of that periodical on July 12, 1919.
t reads:
On May 10 the Roumanians, replying on military force, declared our univendty to
be the property of the Roumanian State, and invited our professors to take the oath o!
fidelity to Roumania and ita King. Rel>'ing on international law we tmanimourfy
refused to commit such an act of treason to the fatherland. Thereupon, 48 hou«-9
after the dispatch of their demand, our university was surrounded, during lesson time.
by armed forces. The professors were expelled from their chairs, our laboratory-
equipment was seized, and nearly 2,500 students were dispersed by the immediate
suspension of our university life. Furthermore, the assistant profeseorn and rtaff
were forced, on pain of immediate expulsion, to remain in their places and continue
their clinical work under the control of their old students of Roumanian nationality.
It is needless to add that all this is contrary to international law. It is enoujrh to
remind you that, at^cording to the fundamental principles of internatic^nal law, ever>'
militar>' occupaliun previous to the conclusion of peace is merely ten.porar\', and has
no judicial consequences. Furthermore, article 75 of the Hague Convention ex-
pressly for})ids an^ citizens of occupied territory from being invited or fon^ed to take
the oath of allegiance to the con<juering power, while article o<) provides that the
property of schools and scientific institutes, e\en if they belong to the State, must
oe considered to be private property.
The Czechs are reported to have acted in the same way toward
the Universities of Pozsony and Kassa, two large, important and
historically prominent Hungarian cities, in which tne olovaks form
only an insignificant part of the population.
Kdrolyi was an extreme pacifist who was opposed to armed re-
sistance, taking the grouna that the .occupation of Hungary was
only temporary and the iUlies would in the end right the wrong.
B61a Kun thought differently and organized a '*red" army — whether
in excess of the six divisions allowed in the armistice or not, we do
not know — ^with which he tried to regain some of the territory
illegally taken away from Hungary during the armistice. He ap-
Eears to have been successful against the Czechs, nevertheless ceased
is attacks when so ordered by the Allies. When his government in
Budapest was finally overthrown the '*red'^ army coUapsed, and
the Roumanian army, standing on the eastern bank of the Tisza
near Szolnok, viz., several hundred miles beyond the line of demarca-
tion, crossed that river, marched on Budapest and even crossed the
Danube into western Hungary. It was one of those easy Roumanian
'^conquests," for there was no armed force to resist them, and, as
has been reported, they made most unscrupulous use of their oppor-
tunities.
This outrage incensed even the supreme coimcil in Paris, which is
perhaps beginning to see that the sport with disarmed Himgary had
been carried too far. But Romnania, which at first was the ally of
Austria-Hungary, then went over to the Allies, then made a separate
peace with the Central Powers, and at the conclusion of the armistice
was a humblo supplicant before the Allies, snaps her fingers at them
now that she has plenty of food and a large army in the field with
nobody to oppose it.
TBBAT7 OF PEACE WITH 6EBMAK7. 951
There matters now stand. Hungary is still blockaded, she is cut
off from all communication with the outside world, famine and idle-
ness still continue in a naturally rich country, and whatever is left
there the Roumanians are taking away by force.
In judging the case of Hungary care snould be taken not to con-
found it witn that of Austria. The Empire of Austria, which has
never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary, came into existence
only in 1804, and was a conglomeration of former kingdoms, prin-
cipalities, and duchies, or parts of them, added by the Hapsburgs to
the original Archduchies of Lower aad Upper Austria through con-
quest, marriage, or fraud. Austria has never been a nation, has never
had a language of her own, and is now being dissolved into her con-
stituent parts, or into groups of such parts, which can hardly be
objected to on historical grounds.
Hungary, on the other hand, has been a homegeneous country
practically within her present boundaries for more than a millen-
nium, has had a distinct language of her own, and can not be dis-
solved into her constituent parts, because she ha^ no constituent
Earts, except Croatia which had been a separate crownland of
[ungary with a high degree of national autonomv or home rule.
This, however, did not satisfy the Croatians whose aspirations
were for complete independence which was freely granted them
by the recent K&rolyi Government. Hungary prover (viz, Hungary
without Croatia) can thus be only dismembered or partitioned
even as Poland had been partitioned in the eighteenth century.
Reference to ''the Maramouresh,'' ''the Krishana" (this
name is imintelligible to Hungarians), Transylvania, "the Banat,"
or "the Bachka'' are apt to mislead the iminitiated into the belief
that these terms denote separate provinces of Hungary, whereas
these regions are integral parts of Hungary and, with the exception
of the fist and last namea, which are two Hungarian coimties, they
form not even separate administrative imits.
The basin of the middle Danube, encircled by the Carpathian
Mountains, had been the tramping ground of a multjtude of races —
Celts, Teutons, Dacians, Goths, Slavs, Huns, Avars — during the
g'eat migration of nations. None of these races, not even the
Oman, succeeded in establishing a permanent government in that
region which nature itself has cut out to form one country. It was
left to the Hungarians, or Magyars, who under their leader Arp&d
conquered that country towardf the end of the ninth century, to
rear there a solid fabric of government which has withstood all
vicissitudes of fortune for a thousand years.
"The Himgarian constitution,*' to quote the words of the greatest
English authority on Himgaiy, the Hon. C. M. Bjiatchbull-Hugessen,
"which has been obscurea at intervals, violated at times, and sus-
pended for a period, only to prove its indestructibihty, is the product
of no charter or fundamental statute, but is the result of a slow process
of development, of a combination of statute and customary law
which finds its nearest parallel in Great Britain. It is remarkable
that two such different races should have proceeded on such similar
lines as the Anglo-Saxon and the Asiatic people, which, both as
regards language and primitive institutions, introduced an entirely
new element into Eiirope. The four blows with the sword directed
at his coronation, to the four cardinal points, by every Hungarian
952 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
King down to Francis Joseph are an emblem and a recomition of the
fact that the Magyar people has had to maintain itseOt by force of
arms against the unceasing attacks of alien neighbors; and the fact
that a tew thousand wanderers from Asia were able to preserve their
individuality and institutions in the midst of an ocean of Slavs,
Germans, and Turks, and obtained comparatively quickly a position
of eiiquality.with members of the European family , argues the pos-
session of exceptional military and political qualities, of exceptional
cohesiveness, of a stoical capacity for endurance, and of a rooted con-
fidence in themselves and in then* future which no vicissitudes of
fortune have been able to destroy. The alien jargon first heard by
European ears twelve hundred years ago has mamtained its exist-
ence in spite of the competition of German and Slav dialects, of
deliberate discouragement and temporary neglect, and has devel-
oped into a language which, for fullness and expressiveness, for the
purpose of science as well as of poetry, is the equal if not the superior
of tne majority of European tongues."
St. Stephen (§07-1038) was the first ruler of Himgary to be con-
verted to Christianity, and, having to choose between Byzance and
Rome, he wisely chose the latter, thereby saving his people from
absorption by tne Slavs and his country from sinlang to the level of
the Balkan States.
In 1222 the Hungarian Diet wrung from a weak king the Bulla
Aurea, or Golden Bull, which — in close resemblance to the Magna
Charta of England, which preceded it only by a few years — is a
fundamental charter of Hungarian liberty and one of the proofs of
the great political capacity of the Hungarian race.
After the extinction of the male line of the house of Arp6d (1308)
the country was ruled for 200 years by kings from various dynasties,
among whom Louis, the Angevine, suinaraed the Great, whose
dominion extended from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and Matthias
Corviuus, suriiamed the Just, son of John Hunyady, the Turk-
beater, were the most noteworthy.
The fight against the gi-owing power of the Ottoman Empire had
begun, and the* lion's share of defending (Christianity against the
onslaught of Moslemism fell to Hungary. It retarded her own pro-
gress, but facihtated the development of civiUzation in the West of
Eiu*ope. In 1526, after the fateful battle of Moh&cs, the country
was divided into three parts, to be reunited only after the final
expulsion of the Tm-ks at the beginnhig of the Eighteenth century.
One-third of the country fell under the sway of the Turks, Transyl-
vania (southeastern Hungary) was ruled by Hungarian princes, and
the rest was under the rule of the Hapsburgs.
Until 1867 the poUcy of the Hapsburgs had been twofold: To
Germanize and Romanize Hungary, and, acting on their motto divide
ut imperes, to play off one race against the other. In the latter they
succeeded only too well, but their other efforts failed against the
indomitable spirit of the Hungarians in defending their nationaUty
and religious freedom. There is only one absorbent civilization in
Hungary, the Hungarian, and, while more than one-half of the people
belong to the Catholic Church, Hungary is still the easternmost bul-
wark of Protestantism. The uprisings in the Seventeenth and
Eighteenth centuries, led bv Bocskay, Bethlen^ and R6k6czi, were
made just as much in the defense of religious liberty as of nationid
independence.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY. 953
Senator Brandegee. In your brief there is a ma}t labeled '^Map
of Hungary."
Mr. riVANY. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. What does the central white part of it
refer to ?
Mr. PiVANY. That is the little part which it is proposed to leave to
Hungary — only 20 per cent of the country.
Senator Brandegee. That is what I supposed. It is not labeled
on the map.
Mr. PiVANY. No. In 1848 the Hungarians rose a^ain against the
autocracy of the Hapsburgs, under the leadership oi Louis Kossuth,
the champion of Emropean democracy. The interest of the American
?eople in the gallant struggle of Himgary was so great that President
'aylor, in June, 1849, sent a ^'special and co^dential agent'' to
Hungary in the person of Ambrose Dudley Mann, of Virginia, who,
however, arrived too late, for Russia, the greatest military power of
the age, had intervened in favor of the Hapsbiu'gs, with Great Britain
and 5>ance looking on without a word of protest. (See Mann's
report in Appendix A.)
In 1851 Kossuth, who had been freed from internment mainly
through the efforts of Daniel Webster, was invited to the United
States as the guest of the Nation, and met with an enthusiastic recep-
tion, to which only that given to Lafeyette may be compared. His
tour of the United States failed in its principal object of securing
American support for the next uprising of the Hungarians, and is
now remarkaole mainly for the fact that he was the first to advocate
in America the very principles which President Wilson had been
propounding, viz, the right of self-determination, a league of nations
to protect it, the partakmg of America in the affairs of the Old World,
and the abolition of secret diplomacy as the root of all international
intrigue.
In 1859 Kossuth arrived at an understanding with Cavour and
Napoleon III to carry the Austro-Italian war into Himgary, where-
upon the Hungarians would rise a^ain to expel the Hapsbur^. But
Napoleon, getting frightened by nis own success, broke his word,
ana concluded the premature peace of Villa Franca, thereby shatter-
ing all hopes of the Hungarians.
Having been forsaken by the western powers three times, in 1849,
1852, and 1859, is it to be wondered at that Hungarv finally con-
sented to the compromise of 1867 with Austria and the Hapsbui^
which restored — at least on paper — her constitution?
Himgary's unfortunate connection with the Hapburgs forced ui>on
her by the attitude of the western powers and the threatening
Russian peril, led inevitably to the alliance with Germany. That
the Russian or Slavic penl to Hungary was not imaginary nas been
proved by recent events.
In the condemnation of Himgary for having entered the German
alliance these facts must not be lost sight of. It should also not be
forgotten that under the political arrangement between Austria and
Hungary, known as dualism, Himgary had no control of her foreign
policy and of her army.
Of the four claimants to Hungarian territory two, viz, Serbia and
German Austria, have— as far as it is known to us~not based their
claims on historical grounds.
954 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The BohemifknSy or Czechs, hare made some allusion to the semi-
mythical Moravian Empire of Svatpoluk, which is alleged to have
extended over parts of northern Hmigary and been disrupted by the
incursion of the Hungarians in the nmtn century. The Slovaks, it
is alleged, are the descendants of Svatopluk's Moravians.
The Rumanians have advanced a more definite claim to priority of
occupation in the theory of their descent from the Daco-Romans
who nad lived in Transylvania before the miCTation of the nations.
Both of these theories have been proved by nistorical reasearch to
be false. But even if they were not false, the principle of priority of
occupation has never been defined in the law ot nations. How many
years of occupation is required to establish a valid title to a country ?
One hundred years, or 500 years, or more ? If occupation f or^ a
thousand years is not acknowledged to be a valid title to a country,
then we may be called upon some day to relinquish our title to Texas,
and California, and other parts of^ the United States in favor of
Mexico, or Spain, or the Inaians, and the whole map of Europe may
have to be made over, too. And it is certainly the height of absurdity
to go back for a title to a country to a perioa before 9ie migration of
the nations even if the continuity of the race dispossessed stamped
their civilization on the whole country.
Senator Brandegee. Is there a pretender or claimant to the King-
dom of Hungary ?
Mr. PivANY. No, sir; there is not. According to the Hungarian
constitution, if the Hapsburgs become extinct, then the right of
electing another king goes back to the nation.
Senator Brandegee. There was a king of Hungary before Austria
absorbed it, was there not ?
Mr. Pivany. Yes; there were native Hungarian kings up to 1526.
Senator Brandegee. Is there any descendant of those who claims
the right to be king ?
Mr. PiVANT. No; they have ail become extinct.
Now, coming to the racial or ethno^aphical aspect of the case, 1 do
not wish to trouble the committee with figures. I beg, however, to
refer the committee to the statistical table which is attached to the
brief, and a glance at it will show these two things: First, that in all
the regions which it is proposed to wrest from Hungary that par-
ticular race in whose favor that region is claimed is in the minority.
That is the first. But the second fact is this, that by the proposed
dismemberment of Hungary more than one-half of the Hungarian
race, the prmcipal race which is in a majority in the country at lai^e,
would get outside of the new Himgarian Government and would have
to live under foreign governments. Now. to say that such a settle-
ment IS based on the self-determination oi races or nations I dahn is
sheer hmnbug. It is impossible to call that the exercise of the right
of self-determination, where the dominant race is being split into four
or five parts and only the minority of that race is to remain tmder
the old government.
Senator Knox. If I understand this map here, this shaded portion
represents Hungary as it was..
Mr. PrvANT. As it was without Croatia — ^Hungary proper.
Senator Knox. Before they began to trifle with her anatomy.
Mr. PrTANY. Yes.
TREAT7 OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 955
Senator Brandegeb. You say that this settlement in the case of
Hungary is not based upon self-determination, and that the claim
that it is is a humbug.
Mr. PivAny. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Have you looked through the treaty as to
other settlements?
Mr. PivAnt. The treaty has not been published yet.
Senator Brandegee. Oh, yes; it has.
Senator Kjjox. You mean the Austrian treaty ?
Senator Brandegee. No; the treaty of Versailles. Have you
looked through the treaty of Versailles?
Mr. PivAny. Yes; I believe in the treaty with Germany there is
really a small limitation of Germany rights by the boundaries of the
Central Powers which are to be settled.
Senator Brandegee. But so far as you are able to judge, has the
principle of self-determination been the rule adopted in the German
peace treaty ?
The Chairman. Do you mean the Austrian peace treatv?
Senator Brandegee. No; the treaty of Versailles, the allied powers
with Germany.
Mr. PivAny. I believe as a whole it is because I want to point out
this fact: Germany is going to be deprived of only 10 per cent of
her continental territory, and that 10 per cent consists of recent
conauests, or comparatively recent conauests, territories with over-
whelming non-German population, whue in Hungary they want
to take away not 10 per cent but 80 per cent of the country, and all
her territory has been in the possession of Hungary for a thousand
years. Is Hungary, which played a subordinate part in the great
world drama, to be punished eight times as severely as Germany,
which was the leading actor and manager? Is there any justice m
that settlement ?
Senator Brandegee. Do you think there is any justice in giving
Shantung to Japan ?
Mr. PivAny. I do not believe so. Senator.
Senator Brandegee. I was getting your idea of what self-determi-
nation is; that is all.
Mr. PivANY. I believe. Senator, that self-determination can be
exercised only through plebiscites. Now, aU the claimants to Hun-
garian territory are strongly opposed to plebiscites. What does that
mean ? That means that they know the weakness of their own case.
Senator Brandegee. You speak of the Magyars. What is the
blood and stock of the Magyars ?
Mr. PivAny. It is a non-Aryan race. It belongs neither to the
Teutonic nor the Latin nor the Slavonic root of races. There are four
races and the Magyars, I should say, destined to form a bufPer state
between those three races. , ^
Senator Brandegee. I do not want their destination, but their
origin.
Mr. PivAny. Their origin is from a non-Aryan stock.
Senator Brandegee. What are they; what stock? Are they an
Indo-European race 1
Mr. PivANY. They belong to the Fiim-agarian root of races. In
Europe the Finns are their linguistic kindrra.
956 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandegee. Are they related to the Mongolian race, or
Tartars ?
Mr. PivIny. I doubt it.
Senator Brandegee. Or the Turkish ?
Mr. PiVANY. To the Turkish they may be. The Turkish b the
southern branch of that race of which the Hungarian is the northern
branch of the big group of races.
Senator Brandegee. Very good. I b^ your pardon for inter-
rupting.
Mr. riVANY. I am pleased to answer your questions. I wish to
point out that in an attempt to justify the partition of Hungary the
argument has been advanced that the minor races or, rather, some
of the minor races of Hungary have to be liberated from oppression
by the Hungarians. The chaige of racial oppression by the Hun-
garians is not borne out by the fact, for whatever oppression there
has been in Hungary has been on class lines, and not on racial lines.
The masses of the Hungarians or Magyars had to suffer from it just
as much as had the masses of the non-Magyars ; and whosoever man-
aged to rise above the masses belonged to the ruling classes without
regard to race or creed.
The attitude of the Hungarian Government toward the non-
Magyars (who are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants)
had been the same as that of our own Government toward the non-
English-speaking immigrants: Perfect equality before the law, but
no recognition as racial groups or States within the State. What is
right if done bv the American Government in America surely can
not be wrong if done by the Hungarian Govermnent in Hungary.
As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Government had gone a ^at
deal further in its liberalism, for it granted considerable subsidies
for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical and educational establish-
ments of the non-Magyar races. There were thousands of schools,
in which the language of instruction was other than Hungarian, it
being stipulated only that the Hungarian language be also taught a<^
a subject of instruction three hours a week.
I will not read the figures now. I have them in the brief.
Senator Knox. Do you really think that it is necessary to do more
than to refer to your points tnat are sustained byyour brief? Of
course, we will read your brief, read it carefully. The ordinary rule
in the presentation of a case in court is by verbal argument to point
out the main point of the brief and not read the brief. This seems
to be pretty long. 1 only make the suggestion that perhaps you
might condense your points, as a guide .to the proper reading of the
brief.
Mr. PiVANY. Yes. I want to point out as one of the important
points that even if the charge of racial oppression were true, as it is
not, the principle that immigrants have the right to invoke the
assistance of the country whence they have immigrated against their
country of adoption, would hardly be recognized by our Government.
On that principle, the Germans of Missouri and Wisconsin, in which
States they were and perhaps still are in the majority, if that prin-
ciple should be invoked, they could appeal to the Kaiser himself for
the annexation of those States to Germany, or at least for their
liberation from American rule.
TREATY OF PEACE WTm GERMANY. 957
I wanted to point out further that Hungary had been the eastern-
most bulwark of Protestantism. East and south of Hungary there
is no Protestantism, and very little of Roman Catholicism. Now,
it is well known that in Roumnaia and Serbia the Greek Orthodox
Church is the State church, which is a very intolerant church, and
creed and race grow there together. The Catholics have a wonderful
organization which is able to protect them to a certain extent, but
the Protestant churches are national organizations and the partition
of Hungary would disrurt this national organization and condemn
them to practical extinction.
As to the economical aspect, I want to say that the little part of
Hungary which is to be left to Himgary is absolutely unable to exist
hy itsoli, because it is a purely agncultm^al part, a part of a great
plain. The different regions of Hungary are commercially inter-
dependent. Separately they can not e^st; together they form a
fine, self-supporting organism.
As to the political or international aspect of the case, I wish to
emphasize this, that the value of the settlement which is to be
amved at in Paris depends on this: Will it readjust the affairs of
eastern Europe so as to improve them or not. If they are not
improved, of course the settlement would not be of value, and would
be a permanent menace to peace. We claim that the Hungarian
race, the Magyar race, is the only one which is able to establish a
permanent government in that part of Europe. We claim that that
race has shown its quality, its fitness, its great capacity to rule that
part of the world, and that the other new States are at best only
trials. We do not know whether they will be able to do their part
or not.
So I beg to present now the conclusions.
1. Hungary nas existed as a State and nation for over a thousand
years, in a territory where no other race had been able to establish
and maintain a permanent political organization. Surely, possession
of such length and the demonstration of such political capacity ought
to secure a clear and indisputable title.
2. No other country has any claim on any part of Hungary that
could be based on '* historical fights.''
3. The distribution of the various races in Hungary positively
prevents any territorial readjustment, by which more homogeneous
conditions could be created than existed till now.
4. Hungary has always been the land of religious liberty and toler-
ance. Roumanian and Serbian rule over large parts of Hungary would
disrupt the Hungarian Protestant churches and threaten Protestant-
ism with extinction in the east of Europe.
6. Hungary is a natural geographic and hydrographic unit, to dis-
turb which could not possibly help in stabilizing conditions.
6. Hungary is also a most distinct economic unit, all parts being
interdependent. Separately they can not exist, together they are a
self-Bupporting organism.
7. Not only would the cause of peace not be promoted by the par-
tition of Hungary, but a new Balkan, or Macedonia, would oe created
right in the heart of Europe and become the source of permanent
strife and complications.
8. Should the foregoing facts and circumstances be considered as
of unsufficient force and importance to bar the claims of neighboring
958 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAlSfY.
nations, it certainly ought not to be permitted to have any part of
Hungary placed under a new sovereignty without giving the peoples
of such parts an opportunity to exercise the right of self-determina-
tion by plebiscites under fair conditions.
9. Hungary ought not to be dismembered in pimishment, because
this would not be warranted by Hungary's acts and deeds before
and during the war. Not only was she not able to keep out of the
war, but dev^elopments since tne armistice justified Hungary's claim
that her existence had been in constant peril.
Senator PoMERENE. Why was she not able to keep out of the
war?
Mr. PivAny. Because she was forced into the connection with the
Hapsburgs and thus into the German aUiance. It was not possible
for ner to keep out of the war.
I have explained before that they have tried to get rid of the
Hapsburgs several times, from 1849 to 1859, in three cases, and in
every instance Hungary was forsaken by the western powers so we
believe that the Hapsburg government was practically forced on
Hungary by the attitude oi the western powers.
The Chairman. The population of Hungary is about half Protes-
tant, is it not ?
Mr. PivAny. No; out of a population of some 18,000,000 a little
more than 4,000,000 are Protestant. Hungary has the largest unit
of the Calvanistic or the Presbyterian church of any country in the
world. There are more Presbyterians there than here.
Senator Brandeoee. What is the religious belief of the other
14,000,000 out of the 18,000,000? If only 4,000,000 are Protestant,
what are the other 14,000,0000?
Mr. PiVANY. About one-half of them are Roman and Grreek
Catholic, and I believe there must be over half a million of Hebrews,
and the rest belong to the Greek Orthodox Chiu*ch, mostly Rou-
manians and Serbians.
Senator Brandeoee. Are there no Mohammedans there at all ?
Mr. PivAny. Not worth taking into fwcount. In Bosnia and
Herzegovina there are large numbers of Mohammedans.
The Chairman. My question generally related to the Slav popu-
lation when I asked you about the condition. I was sneakm^ of
the pure Hungarians, that you call Magyars. About half of those
are Protestant, are they not ?
Mr. PivAny. Yes; in fact, the Presbyterian Church in Hungary
and the Unitarian Church consist almost exclusively of Magyars^
and the Unitarian Chm*ch, which is the mother of the Unitarian
Church in Europe, and has had a close connection with the English
and American cniu*ches for centiuies, would lose aU her congregatuHis,
except where the Ma^ars have retained control. But wou^hout
all tne territories claimed by Roumania that church would aunply
cease to exist. They would not allow that church to exist. We reel
that Hungary can be saved from destruction only by America, as the
United States is the only powerful country which has not been a
party to the inunoral secret treaties upon which the claimants of
Hungarian territory are pressing their claims.
In voicing oiu* protest, ther^ore, against the proposed partition
of Hungary as contrary to the demand of justice and incompatible
with the requirements of a just and lasting peace we respectluliy
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBKAKY. 959
ask the Senate of the United States to refuse to have our country
become a party to the annihilation of a civilized nation.
Senator Knox. Let me ask you a question. You speak of these
various territories as being claimed by the French, by Roumania^
and by Serbia.
Mr. PiVANT. Yes.
Senator Kjiox. What do you mean by '* claimed" ?
Mr. PivANY. They have advanced these claims at Paris.
Senator Knox. Have you any indication that they have been
allowed as claims ?
Mr. PivANY. We have two indications — first, newspaper reports,
and, second, that the Allies have allowed the invaders to go into that
territory.
Senator Knox. What I want to get at is, how accurate is this map
likely to bo, in view of the Austrian treaty; whether these claims
have been so far conceded that you are pretty sure they are going
to be allowed.
Mr. PiviNY. We know what each of the races wanted, and we
know pretty well what they did not get. Now, I do not believe there
is any exaggeration in this at all, because the Roumanians really
want to get down to this river Tisza. In fact, they have gone there
and have gone over there.
Senator Knox. Still, this will be subject to verification by the
treaty.
Mr. PivANY. Yes ; of course this is not final. This is merely an
attempt to show it graphically.
Senator Knox. Of course this question is not involved in the
German treaty.
Mr. Pivany. This question is not involved in the German treaty,
except that there is an allusion that Germany acknowledges all the
boundaries as they shall be set in the future.
Senator Knox. She agrees to be bound by whatever they do ?
Mr. Pivany. Yes.
Senator Brandeges. Have you anv information about what is
contained in the treaty between the Auies and Austria?
Ml*. Pivany. We have only what has been published in the news-
Eapers. On the map you can see this little part here south of the
Danube in western Hungary which has been demanded by Czecho-
slovakia. I understand From the newspapers reports that little part
has been awarded to Austria and not to Czecho-Slovakia. Of course
that is unofficial. We do not know. All we have is what is contained
in the new^^aper reports.
Senator jBrandeoee. Your organization is called the Hungarian-
American Federation ?
Mr. Pivany. Yes.
Senator Brandegek. Are you in communication with the people
in Hungary ?
Mr. Pivany. At present I am not, but I have been in Hungary as a
newspaper correspondent, from September, 1916, to the end of
January of this year; so I was there during the first revolution,
during the greater part of the war, and during the armistice.
Senator Bsanbeoee. As such newspaper correspondent did you
come into personal touch with prominent men in the Government of
Himgaiy t
960 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMAinr.
Mr. PiVANY. Yes; I did with practically all excepting, of courae,
the Bolsheviki. They were unknown people in my time there.
Senator Bbandegee. When I asked if "y^^" ^©re in communica*
tion I meant, if jour organization was in communication ? Do they
receive commumcations from the people of Hungary ?
Mr. PivANY. No; our organization does not. Our organization
is purely an American organization, started 12 years ago.
Senator Brandeoee. I did not mean to intimate that it was not
an American organization, but being the Hungarian-American Fed-
eration, I did not know but you had letters from people in Hungary
so that you would know what their attitude has been upon publfc
questions.
Mr. PivAny. Before the war we could get letters, but postal com-
munication has not been reopened with Hungary. That is one of
our complaints to the State Department; but we do get newspapers
from there.
Senator Brandeoee. That is what I was going to ask you.
Mr. PiVANY. And also we sometimes get letters through neutral
countries, not to our organization, but to us as individuals.
Senator Brandeoee. Inasmuch as we get no infoi-mation at all as
to what is in the proposed treaty between the Allies and Austria and
Hungary, we are compelled to rely upon newspaper reports, just as
you are.
Mr. PiVANY. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. 1 wondered if you knew whether the views
represented in your brief and in your statement before us were the
views of the great majority of the Magyar people in Hungary.
Mr. PiVANY. Yes; 1 am absolutely sure of that, because I know
their history, I know their sentiments, and I was there during the first
part of the armistice.
Senator Brandeoee. Does vour presentation of the matter h«^
represent simply your personal views as a newspaper correspondent
over there, or are there other people in the Hungarian-Ajnerican
Federation who know about Hungarian affairs ?
Mr. PiVANY. Yes; our president, Mr. Henry Baracs, is right here.
In fact, he collaborated with me in making up this statement.
Senator Brandeoee. What do you mean in the last statement you
made:
'*We feel that Hungary can be saved from destruction only by
America, as the United States are the only powerful country who have
not been a party to the immoral secret treaties upon which the claim-
ants of Hungarian territory are pressing their claims. "
To what secret treaties do your refer?
Mr. PiVANY. One secret treatv between the quadruple entente—
that is France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia, and Roiunania, con-
cluded sometime in August, 1916. The secret treaty between Rou-
mania and the Entente has been published, I believe, by the Lenine
government in Russia, found among the archives of Russia, and the
essence of that treaty was that the Allies tried to induce Roumania,
which was an ally of Austria-Hungary, to break her contract with
Austria-Hungary, to throw the treaty away as a mere scrap of paper;
and in return ^or that they promised to Roumania big slices of
Hungarian territory. They promised things that did not belong to
her. Roumania held back for a long time, and when she thou^t
TBB^TT OF FBAOB WITH GSBMAKT. 961
that Hungary had become exhausted, and there was a big victory of
the Russians in June, 1916, then she entered into agreements with the
Entente and in August, 1916, invaded the country.
Senator Bbandeoee. Are there other secret treaties than that,
which you have in mind?
Mr. FiVANT. I do not know. There must be some treaty between
Serbia and the Entente and there must be some treaty between
Czechoslovakia and the Entente, but the text of those treaties has
not, to my knowledge, been published; but as I understand our
country is not a party to the secret treaties and is not bound by them.
Senator Brandegee. There is no way of knowing how many
secret treaties there may be between these nations, is there?
Mr. PivAny. No, sir; I could not tell.
Senator Pomebene. Have you had any communication with the
Magyars who are now in Siberia ?
Mr. PivANY. We get letters from them.
Senator PoiiEBEKE. What is their attitude with respect to this
matter ?
Mr. PivANY. They have only one thing in mind. They want to get
away from there, because thev are starving, they are dying from dis-
ease and from hunger, and they have no clothing, no soap, and no
medical supplies. We have applied to the State Department to help
them and to the American Rea Cross to help them. We wanted to
send money and supplies to them. The American Red Cross an-
swered that they could not do anything and the State Department
answered the same. Then we asked the Danish Legation m Wash-
ington whether they would transmit our remittances to them, and
the Danish Legation do transmit our remittances to the Hungarian
prisoners of war. We received an order from the Post Office Depart-
ment just a few days go permitting the sending of parcels to Vladi-
vostok, where the American mail ends. Beyond Vladivostok there
is no American mail, but the mails from there are being forwarded
by the Danish consular agent.
STATEMENT OF D£. BELA SEEELT.
Dr. Sekely. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
appear on behalf of the Himgarian-American Press Association. I
am not here to plead for new territories, for spoils of war, or conquest.
I have come to ask of you justice, magnanimity, and fairness to a de-
feated people. A Hungarian by birth, but an American by choice
and by adoption, I ought to feel perhaps awed in the presence of the
honorable body before which I am now pleading the cause of a mar-
tyred and agonizing nation, but knowing your hi^h sense of duty
toward all mankind. I feel instead almost inspired to let thoughts
and feelings run hign and freely, so as to permit you to look down
deep into a human neart that is filled with sorrow and despair over
one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the world.
For the past 1,000 years, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com-
mittee, Hungary has had the same frontiers. For the past 10 cen-
turies Hungary has been and still is a nation with a gr.eat destiny,
the roots of which reach back to the very foundations of the State.
In 896, the first years of Hungarian history in Europe, Prince Arpad
solemnly promised for himseu and his successors that they would
185646—19 61
962 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
rule the country according to the advice and counsel of the chosen
chieftains of the nation. At a time when all of eastern Europe was
inhabited by half savage people, and when the rest of Europe was
ruled by autocratic kings, the Hungarians, yet heathens, had organ-
ized a constitutional government which in 1222, only a few years
after the English Magna Charta received its written guaranty in the
document called bun d'or, and signed by King Andrew II. They
remained not very long heathen, but in 1001 embraced Christianity.
Then Hungary began to play the double part she acted so honorably
and often so dramaticallv in European history. She joined western
civilization, and defended it against all attacks coming from the East.
For 150 years she fought the Turks, preventing them at the cost of
her own olood and flesh and liberty to conquer western Europe.
Senator Knox. Let me ask you a question right here. Geo-
graphically, what was Hungary a thousand years ago as comparetl
with this map which you have presented here ?
Dr. Sekelt. Practically it was the same geographically, and it
could not have been otherwise, because, as you gentlemen know,
Hungary is a geographical unit. It is the finest and most complete
and most perfect geographical imit in Europe. It is boimded by the
Carpathians, and on the south by rivers, and it is no mere cfiance
that this country was preserved for a thousand years; but the
valleys from the mountams go down to the center of the country,
the rivers all flow to the Danube, and by its natural boundaries it
was really predestined to be and to form a country.
Senator Knox. The point I want to make is that it is substantialh-
true, then, that the Hungary that is proposed to be dismembered is
the same Hungary geographically that was established a thousand
years ago ?
Dr. Sekely. The same country.
Senator Knox. That is all I wanted to know.
Dr. Sekely. And permit me, Senator, to give you this further
information, which is very important. Mr. Piv6ny mentioned it,
but I want to emphasize it, that at the time of the foundation of
Hungary, of the races that now claim territory from its living body
were only a very few of them present then. Neither Roumanians
nor Serbians nor any other nationality was there. There were only a
few Slovaks. The Roumanians and Serbians immigrated mostly
during the Turkish invasion. They came from TurKey and were
welcomed by Hungary, The Roumanians came into Hungary in
the thirteenth century, and the Serbians also, and multiplied and
increased afterwards. If they had been oppressed, how would it be
possible that they are still Roumanians ana Serbians ? In 700 or 800
years an autocratic government would have annihilated them, but
Hungary never wanted anything else except that they should be
Hungarian citizens and live their own lives otherwise.
In this connection Michelet, the great French historian, paid a
flowing tribute to the Hungarian people. In his '*Histoire de
Vance/' volume 8, page 346, in apologizing for not dealing more
extensively with Hungary, he says as foflows in a footnote:
It is a rruel sacrifice not to say anything here of the hero of Europe. I am speaking
of the Ilunearian people. Shall I die, then, always postponing to pay the debt history
owes her? Yet infamous and lying compilations appear everywhere. The Hun^rarians
are loath to answer them. When they do speak they speak to the whole worid. 1 hope
tiiiat our historiography will pay the debt of our hearts to this heroic people, which by
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 963
its deeds, by its sufferings, and by its noble voice elevates us and makes us greater.
It is generally accorded that the Hungarians are a valiant people, but this valiance is
simply the manifestation of a high degree of morality. In everything they do or say,
I always hear "sursum corda." The whole nation is an aristocracy of valiance and
dignity.
But despite the unceasing wars with Turkey, Hungary has at-
tained, in the fifteenth century, under' the leadership of its national
Bang Matthias Corvin, a higli degree of culture and civilization.
Scientists, writers, and artists from all over Europe flocked to Buda,
the capital of Hungary, which at the time was the center of intel-
lectual life in eastern and central Europe. In Pressburg, the ancient
royal seat of Hungary, where its kings were crowned, a great uni-
versity and many scientific societies were founded, as well as the
first printing shop established in 1473. The everlasting onslaughts
of the Turks, however, were bleeding the country to death, ana for
this reason Hungary elected in 1526 Ferdinand of Hapsburg to the
Hungarian throne. The country hoped to get from him material
help against the Turks and thus be able to continue the peaceful'
pursuits of its destiny. Unhappily the remedy was worse tnan the
iDness. Instead of helping Hungary to keep out the Turks, the Haps-
burgs meant to make a German rrovince of Hunga^ and taking
advantage of her exhausted condition caused bv the Turkish wars,
deprived her of her independence. Since then Hungarian history is
a story of unceasing effort to deliver the country from the Hapsburg
rule and to regain its freedom and liberty.
In the seventeenth and in the eighteenth century Hungary revolted
eight times against the Hapsburgs, three times with French aid,
but the prevailing European coalitions always crushed Hungary's
noble fignt for freedom. In 1848. under the leadership of Louis
Kossuth, Hungary once more revolted against the Hapsburgs, and
this time her armies were victorious, when the Russian Czar rushed
200,000 fresh troops to the help of the Austrian Emperor. Thus
Hungaiy again was crushed and defeated. But the glorious deeds
of the Hungarian revolution called the attention of the whole civilized
world to Hungary's plight. Louis Kossuth turned for help to the
western countries of Europe, to France and England and finally to the
United States of America. Who does not Know of the glorious
reception the great patriot was given in this country? Never in the
history of America was a foreigner received with greater honors than
Kossuth. Congress assembled in a joint meeting and was addressed
by the wonderful orator whose impassioned burning speeches were
tlie wonder of two continents. But though he got ail the sympathy
he could have wished for his cause, material help was lacking ana
none qf the great powers made it their business to interfere with the
Austrian Emperor in his treatment of Hungary. After Hungary's
defeat in 1879, an autocratic military rule was established in Hun-
gary, prohibiting the use of the Hungarian language, confiscating all
Bberties and privileges of a free people. This lasted nearly 20 years
when tlie country at last gave up hope to get help from France and
England and in order to lead at least the normal life of a State,
it submitted to the so-called compromise of 1867, by which Hungary
was granted in internal affairs an autonomy, but the direction of her
foreign policy and the control of her army was left in the hands of the
emperor king.
964 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAITY.
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this brief
survey of Hungarian history gives you the key to the state of mind
of the Hunganan people when the great war broke out in 1914.
The Hapsburg ruler bemg the absolute master of the Austro-Hunga-
rian army and the sole director of the monarchy's foreign policy,
Him^ary was handed over, bound hand and toot, to the shortsighted,
selfish interests of the dynasty, and the whole power of the country,
its men, its riches, its political future, were being sacrificed for t6e
dynastical aims and ambitions of the Hapsbui^. Western Europe,
which had refused Hungary its help in 1848 and forced it to submit
to the Hapsburgian yoke in 1867, saw in 1914 the resources of Hungary
used agamst her. But can you blame for it Hungary? No more
than you can blame the Croatians, the Serbians, the Slovaks and
the Roimianians of Hungary and of Austria that, though their hearts
were set against the Hapsbui^, they submittea to tne iron rule of
war which forced them by the power of martial law to join the coIofb
of the Hapsburgs.
Still even the compromise of 1867 was unable to stifle the Hun-
garian people's desire for deUverance. The Independence Party,
which did not recognize the dualistic pact, CTew constantly in number
and influence. Count Karolyi, the leader of the Independence
Party, went in January, 1914, to Paris where he had a conference
with President Poincare, asking his help for Hungary's struggle for
freedom. From Paris Count Karolyi went to the United States in
order to ask Americans of Hungarian descent to help him in his
fight for the justice of their native land. Three months later he
returned once more to the United States bent upon organizing
Ajnerican help for their fight for independence. The outbreak of
the war founa Karolyi in America, which he immediately left, and,
after having been interned for a brief period in France, he went back
to Himgarjr. He did not keep back his disapproval of the war. He
openly agitated against Germany. He frankly declared that his
sympathies were with the Allies. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of
tne committee, just imagine what this really meant. But though
in war times the life of one man does not count much, the powers
that were then did not dare to touch Count Karolyi, because they
knew that the people behind him would rise in anger and crush them
should they make an attempt upon his life. All intimidations
notwithstanding, he went on with the work of enlightening the
country and Ming frankly the responsibility for the world war.
And then, when the President of the United States sent his message
to the whole civilized world, people everywhere listened with rapture
and it seemed that a new Moses had amved who from the heifi^hts of
the Capitol at Washington announced the 14 new commanoments
of a Gfod of justice and righteousness. The self-determination of
the people and the principle that no territories should be shifted
from one State to another without the consent of the people who
live upon those territories, sounded like the bugle call of a new world
in which justice and fairness would rule.
To the Hungarian people President Wilson's 14 points meant the
materialization of their fondest hopes for freedom and independence.
If no people could be ruled over without the consent of the governed,
then the Hapsburg rule over Hungary had come to an end. And
its the Himgarians felt so did all oi tne nationaUties that belonged
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMA17Y. 965
to the dual monarchy. The fighting power of the Austro-Hxmgarian
Army, composed of three nationalities had suddenly come to an end.
The whole Austro-Hungarian Army began to dispand.
But, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, is it necessary
for me, after this exposition of the situation in the dual monarchy to
insist upon the fact that through the victory of the Allies the Hun-
garian people have been freed and made independent just like the
other oppressed people of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy — the
Czechs, tne Poles, the Jugo-Sla vs ? At last — ^at last Hungary has
been able to bring her revolution of four centuries to a happy con-
clusion and indeed she established, shortly after the proclamation of
the 14 points, a republican form of government and a real democracy.
But unfortunate is the destiny of some nations. The very day
that saw the birth of the new Hungary, free from her fetters and free
from the Hapsburg, threw her into the throes of another sort of
agony. Count K&rolyi, the head of the republican government of
!mingary, signed the armistice made at Belgrade, which stated that
the Entente powers should occupy Hungary up to a certain point,
but it was understood that troops of the neighboring countries,
which coveted Hungarian territories, would not form me army of
occupation.
As soon as the Hungarian Army disbanded, however, Czechs,
Serbians, and Roumanians flooded the country, passed the demarca-
tion lines, and two-thirds of the country was soon in their possession,
leaving only Budapest, and a few sturounding counties in Hungarian
bands. The armistice expr^sly stated that in the territories occu-
Eied by Entente troops the civil administration should remain in the
ands of the Hungarians and that the troops would not interfere with
the administration of domestic afiPairs, but the invaders drove away
Hungarian employees of the Government and put in their own offi-
cials and then declared the territories occupied by them a part of
their own country^ because they had established a government in
them. They prohibited the speaking of the Hiingarian language;
they closed up commimications from these districts to the rest of
Htmgary. The country was hermetically sealed by the troops of the
Czechs, Serbians, and Koumanians, unable to have any contact with
the outside world or even to communicate with two-thirds of her own
population. No one was permitted to go in or out. No mail passed
through. Transportation was cut o£F, with the result that the people
could not get food even from other parts of their own country and
they were starving and being driven to desperation.
Ooimt Karolyi protested to the Entente against the violation of all
the terms of the armistice and against the reign of terror of the troops
of occupation, which even b^an using corporal punishment. He
implored repeatedly the statesmen at raris to give him a hearing,
to permit him to present Hungary's side, to plead for her rights, U>
throw light upon tne true conditions of afiPairs. But an answer never
came.
Then people began to doubt that justice would be done to Hungary.
They lost their hope in the future. They received no word of encour-
agement from Pans; they saw only that the neighboring countries of
Hungary, not satisfied to have regained their freedom and independ-
ence, were carried away now by imperialism and coveted the land
the coal, the woods, the gold, the ore mines, and the most fertile
966 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
parts of Hungary. And the Hungarian people realized that thus dis-
membered this country would be unable to exist. And they asked
themselves what has become of those beautiful American principles
laid down in the 14 points of President Wilson? Oh, now tney
trusted America, how they believed in the sincerity of those enuncia-
tions, how they pinned their fate, their future, the whole existence of
their country to that wonderful messas^e from Washington, announc-
ing the beginning of a new, better world. And now, here they were,
victims of the violations of the armistice terms, their coxmtry overrun,
dismenibered, crushed under the very eye of the Paris peace confer-
ence and in the name of it.
No wonder, when on top of all this the Paris peace conference gave
permission to the Roumanians to advance still farther with their
armies, that the prestige of Count Karolyi, which was based upon his
trust and confidence in the Allies, crumbled to pieces in the teeth of
these facts, that he then threw up his hands, resigned his office, and
the reins of the Government were seized by Bela Kun, the Bolshevik
leader and former secretary of Lenine.
It would be useless for me to dwell upon the horrors of the Bolshevik
regime in Hungary. Tliey are known to you all. Senators. But
when, after having tolerated for four months the despicable rule of the
Bolsheviki in Hungary, the Paris peace conference finally sent a
message to the people of Hungary giving them one week's time to
overthrow the Bela Kun regime and to form a government acceptable
to the Allies, promising in that case the lifting of the blockade and the
begrinnin^ of actual peace negotiations, the Hungarians found yet in
spite of all their mistortunes lorce and energy enough to chase away
Bela Kun and his satellites and to form a government which was
entirely satisfactory to the Allies. But dicl they keep faith with
Hungary? IVentv-four hours after the constitution of the new
government, whicn immediately disbanded the Red troops, the
Koumanians took advantage of tne fact that Hmiffary once more was
without an armed force and they marched into Buaapest and occupied
the capital of Hungary. They overthrew the new government,
installed the Archduke Joseph, a Hapsburg, as governor of the
country, and then having allied themselves with the old reactionary
forces began to pillage and to plunder the country. The Paris peace
conference protested against Roumanian conduct, demanded that the
Roumanian troops should be withdrawn from Budapest. The
Roumanians, however, paid no attention to this and are still in Buda-
f>est. America sent a very strong protest, calling attention to the
act that robbing babies' hospitals and thereby causing the death of
18 sick babies on one day is not in harmony with the prmciples which
the world has been pretending it has been fighting for during the last
five years.
According to a cable dispatch of the New York Times dated August
26, a list of plunder taken out of Hungary since August 17 reached
Paris that day. It includes everytliing from typewriters to 1 10 race
horses, and many other animals from the Hungarian Government
stud farms. Thousands of Hungarian workmen have been thrown
out of work by the removal of all machinerv from the factories in
which they were employed. Four thousand telephones have been
taken from private homes. The Roumanians have taken 60 per
cent of the Hungarian locomotives, practically all the passenger
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 967
equipment, and 5,000 freight cars. All these items are taken as
samples from a much longer list of plunder removed only in four or
.five days. Before that had gone cattle and food. In other words,
adds tne Times correspondent, Roumania is doing to Hungary
exactly what Germany aid to Belgium.
With this difference, however, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the
committee, that whatever abominations were comnutted in Belgium
they accomplished in time of war, which is, of course, no excuse,
but an explanation. War is cruel, war is ruthless, war is brutality,
war is hell. But now — ^now the Paris peace conference has drawn
up a covenant of the league of nations which is supposed to guarantee
the peace of the world and deal out justice. Now — ^now there is no
war any longer, but an armistice, if not peace altogether. And yet,
Roumania, a cnarter member oi the league of nations, is violating
all the laws of nations as well as those of humanity, and she is not
f)revented by the other great charter members of this so-called
eague of peace, to pilfer and plunder and rob and crush an exhausted
and unfortimate nation.
The American press almost unanimously condemned Roumanians
behavior, one or two apologists remarking that Roumania was only
taking back what Gen. Makenzen has taken out of Roumania. Now,
let me tell you, Senators, that whatever Makenzen and the German
armies may have taken out of Roumania, they were not in the habit
of ever giving to Hungary anything they took. But even had Hun-
garian troops themselves during the war robbed Roumania — ^which
they never did — ^retaliation robbery during the period of the armis-
tice, with the peace conference sitting at faris and with the charter
of a league of peace ready for adoption, is against the new rules of a
virtuous worla.
What is one of the main rules of this new world ? The self-deter-
mination of people. Now, are the people of Himgary to be asked
whether they want to belong to another country? Are they to be
asked whether they want to give practically all tneir woods, all their
coal mines, all their metals, all their salt mines and the richest
wheat-growing parts of their country to foreign nations as it is
intended to take them from them. Are they to be asked whether
they want to tear to pieces their 1 ,000-year-old association ? Whether
they want to be subject to foreign rule? Is there going to be a
plebiscite in Hungary ? A plebiscite held under proper s^eguards ?
t mean by that that no army of the nations which means to profit
by territorial aggrandizement should be permitted in the territory
wnere the vote will be taken, but neutral, possibly American troops,
should look out for the free expression of tne will of the people.
In this respect it is important to bear in mind that the nationalities
of Hungary — ^with the exception of the Slovaks — ^have migrated into
the Hungarian territory. They were permitted to keep their lan-
fuage and nationality and all that was demanded of tnem was to
e good Hungarian citizens, and they were that, they are that even
now. Race is not everything; a nation means more than race; it
means geographical unity, common culture, common tradition,
common history, common ideals. Ask the Slovaks in Hungary
whether they want to be Czechs and they will answer no. In fact,
they have a few months ago founded in the city of Kassa a Slovak
968 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAITT.
republic which was suppressed by armed force of the Czechs. Ask
the 600,000 Magyars and Saxons (also Hungarians by feeling and
thought) whether they want to become Serbians or Roumanians.
Ask even the Roumanians of Transylvania whether they want to
become part of one of the most autocratically ruled countries —
Roumama — instead of being part of a free democracy and liberty-
loving country as Hungary. A plebiscite, therefore, is the only just
and equitable means of solving the problem of Hungary, and I pray
of you. Senators, do not give your consent to any Hungarian treaty
of peace which would shift Hungarian territory to another State
witnout the consent of the people who live upon those territories.
Now, this leads me, however, to the question of the league of
nations. Should any injustice be done to Himgary — ^it is not impos-
sible— ^will then this league fmnish the means of right in the future
wrongs done to Hungary ?
No, Senators. This ''league of injustice" intends to build an
impregnable and indestructible Chinese wall around the subjugated
races; a wall as high as to shut out all rays of hope for liberation; a
wall so strong through the united cooperation of the mightiest nations
of the earth as to imbue the peoples which had been caught in the
diplomatic net of the Paris peace conference, as the Hungarians, or
else had been ignored by it, as the Irish, with the paralyzmg knowl-
edge of their utter impotency to escape and to be free again. Instead
of loy it brings sorrow, instead of light it sheds darkness, instead of
rightmg wrongs it commits new ones, instead of .developing inter-
nationcd law it makes the law of egotism international instead of
heralding the dawn of a new world; it means the doom of all the
highest aspirations of mankind toward universal justice, fairness,
and square deal.
It does all that with a deceiving smile and with an abundance of
hypocritically sweet words. Some years ago The Devil, a wonder-
fully clever and highly successful play by a Hungarian author, was
shown throughout the United States. Tnis devil was different from
the evil figure as it lived in the imagination of the world. In looking
at him you would not know him, he had neither horns nor a pointed
beard, nor was he lame. On the contrary he was smooth-faced,
elegant of figure, showing the manners oi a polished gentleman,
wearing the finest clothes from a Fifth Avenue shop and saying
brilliant things, so briUiant, indeed, that he.finally succeeded in per-
verting the mind of a most virtuous lady into looking upon highlv
improper thmgs as the very pinnacle of angelic virtue. Yet, no
virtuous fair lady ever was seduced by more alluring phrases and
more high-soimding promises than a war-worn world is now tempted
to believe that this league of brutal force is a league of peace. This
league of nations indeed is Satan in evening clothes, Lucifer masquer-
ading as the Angel of Paris, but when you look closer to it you will
discover imder the dark shadows of the" white wings the hoofs of the
devil. And by Grod, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee,
you have looked close and you have discovered articles 10 and 11
and the oth>>r tmmistakable signs of his satanic majesty.
In closing I want to say a few words.
I understand, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that this body is not
making the treaty. As far as my ^owledge goes, the peace treaty
with Hungary is ready but not submitted yet. These territorial
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 969
spofls are claims of foreign neighboring countries put forth before the
peace conference.
It is understood that the most extreme claims have been granted.
Therefore, in looking at this map, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of
the committee, you will get a full knowledge, as exact and full a
knowledge as it is possible of what is going to happen. Our plea is
this: We congratulate you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com-
mittee, upon your firm stand upon the question of the league of na-
tions, and we implore you that at a time when the Himgarian treaty
will come before you and before the Senate you shall do justice and
be fair and magnanimous with Hungary.
STATEMENT OF ME. HEVET BAEACS.
If it please the committee, I would like to make just a few remarks
to complement Mr. Pivtoy's address.
Firstly, I would like to call your attention to the interesting fact
that it IS possible to get a glimpse of the true situation in regard to
the relation of the parte of Hungary to be taken away from her and the
racial make-up of their population, without having to go to Hungary,
right here in the United •States of America. We want you to know
that there are great multitudes of American citizens of Hungarian
extraction who, or whose parents or grandparents, hailed from
districts of Hungary that are now under tne rule of some claimant of
Himgarian territory, even though no formal treaty has yet sanctioned
the territorial changes, and that great multitudes of Hungarians,
hailing from such districts, reside in this country who, while not yet
fully naturalized have, at all times, done their full duty toward the
United States. A closer scrutiny will also reveal that from a great
many countries, included in the disputed areas, more Hungarians
emi^ated to America than people of other races.
Tne mere fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in
America alone who come from the very parts of Hungary that are to
be permanently annexed to other countries, and who are, undoubtedly,
of the Hungarian race, ought to serve and be accepted as a prima
facie evidence of the total lack of justification of the proposed terri-
torial changes. For the only acceptable rebuttal of this evidence
would be for the other side to claim that this numerical relation
between Hungarians and non-Hungarians from those countries exists
in America omy and that the numerical relation is auite diflFerent in
the countries themselves. This, however, would finally and com-
pletely dispose of the cry of Hungarian oppression in those sections
of Hungary, for who could be made to believe that the oppressors
leave their country in greater numbers than the oppressed ones ?
The fact I referred to ought also to act as a warning that no peace
of any duration can be established with such territori^ changes, and,
last tut not least, it ought to indicate that a close and fair scrutiny
of the fate of Hungary by the Senate of the United States will prove
of great force in strengthening the faith of great masses of good
Americans in the sense of justice and altruism of Aimerica, their
country.
As a second remark, I would like to call your attention to a feature
of the situation that to my knowledge has not yet received due cod-
sideration.
970 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
We have heard a good deal about the boon this peace is going to
prove for new Hungary which, though shorn of a.iar^e part of her
territory, will at last and at least be able to live the life of an inde-
pendent, self-governing, happy nation.
Mr. Pivdny has proved, conclusively, the impossibility of a satis-
factory physical existence of such a new Hungary, because she would
be without most of the indispensable economic requirements. But
nations are like human beings. Physical life alone is not worth
living without a spiritual life. Of what use is the strongest, healthiest
body, and how long can such a body exist, if there is no soul to direct
its actions ? Of wnat use is, as a nation, the largest area of land,
inhabited by the greatest multitude of people, if there is no national
soul, no national spirit to direct its career \
And it is the soul, the spirit of the Hungarian nation the proposed
disintegration of Hungary threatens with extinction. For most of
the places and regions to which are attached the most sacred tradi-
tions of the Hungarian nation, and which formed the comer stones
of her culture and civilization, would be lost to her.
To give just a few illustrations: Pozony (Pressburg), for centuries
the capital and coronation city; Kassa, the resting place of Rakoczi,
the hero of the greatest popular uprising against the Hapsburgs;
Monok, the birthplace of Ijouis Kossuth; Munkacs, a landmark on
the road the Magyars took when they entered their future home and
the buthplace of Michael Munkacsy; Komarom, the native town of
Maurus Jokai, are to be under Czecho-Slovak rule.
Kolozsvar, so closely connected with and symbolic of the glorious
part Transylvania played in the history of the Hungarian nation
and of the entire civilized world; Torda, where Himyadi, the Turk
beater, first saw the light, the land of the Szeklers, these heroes of
Hungarv's many fights for liberty; Arad. the Hungarian Golgotha,
where the 13 martyrs were executed on October 6, 1849, and where
most of them were buried, are to become the possession, and are
already occupied by Roumania.
Bacs County and other parts of southern Hungarv which are full
of reminders of the battles with the Turks and oi the revolution of
* 1848-49, are to be ruled by Serbia. The birthplace of Francis Liszt
is coveted by German Austria.
There would be no shrine left where Hungarian could go in pil-
grimage to pay homage to the glories of the past and to gain inspiration
for continued noble enorts. All those great traditions would be super-
seded by the one sad knowledge that they were all in vain, that tney
are lost forever.
I dare say, therefore, that to take away all this territory from
Hungary means the killing of the soul of the Hungarian nation. And
how long could and would it be a nation with her soul torn out?
And still, I do not hesitate stating that if the future of world's
democracy and the success of the plans to secure permanent peace
demand that the Hungarian nation and the State of Hungary be
offered as a sacrifice; if the best interests of civilization are served by
eliminating the Hungarian nation and the State of Hungary as its
factors and by replacing them by the Servian and Roumanian na-
^tions; if the triumph of the doctrine of the right of self-determination
of nations and nationalities can not be made complete and convincing
TKBATY OF PBAC? WITH GEBMANY. 971
^thout depriving the Hungarians and other races inhabiting old
Hungary, of exercising that right, in punishment for belonging to the
T-anquished participants of the world s war; if all these presumptions
and suppositions are well taken then, though with a bleeding heart
and an agonized soul, I recant all I said, wiui honest conviction, and
based iipon what I know to be honest truths in the cause of Hungary.
But I fear not that the verdict of this committee and the verdict
of the Senate will place me in such a position. I trust that this
verdict will be such as to give a new lease of life to old Hungarjr. As
long as the Senate of America refuses to sanction Hungary's dismem-
berment, there will be a Hungary, a Himgarian nation.
In conclusion I want to close my remarks with what Dr. Piv&ny
said in the beginning of his remarks. I want to thank you most
sincerely on behalf of the Hungarian- American Federation for the
courtesy that you have extended to us. We came here directly from
a convention of the Hungarian-American Federation, held in Cleve-
land yesterday and the day before, where several hundred delegates
assembled from all parts of the country, some of them old American
citizens of the second generation. As they bade us good-by they
gave us their blessing with the hope that our mission would oe suc-
cessful. Once more we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
STATEMENT OF MB. C. TELFORD ERIGKSON.
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman and Senators, you will understand
ivith what appreciation we appear before vou to-day, when we tell
you that during the eight months in which. the fate of Albania has
been hanging in the balance before the peace conference, this is the
first and sole opportunity we have had to present our case before a
deliberative body upon its own merits. Before the Greek commission
in Paris we were asked to appear in rebuttal of their claims to por-
tions of Albanian territory, but there was never a commission ap-
pointed in the peace conference to consider Albania's claims. There
was never an opportunity given the Albanian delegation to appear
before any other delegation as a bodv or any other commission. I"
say this in order to express more fully than I could otherwise our
appreciation for this opportunity this morning.
Senator Moses. May I interrupt you just a moment, Mr. Erickson ?
Will you be good enough to explain just who the Albanian delegates at
Paris represented. Did they represent the provisional government ?
^ Mr. Erickson. Yes.
Senator Moses. Who was the head of it ?
Mr. Eeickson. Turkan-Pasha was the head of the delegation and
Mehmet Bey was the minister of foreign affairs.
Senator Moses. Where was its seat of government ?
Mr. Erickson, At Durazzo.
. Senator Moses. Was that Government exercising governmental
f imctions through any portion of Albania ?
Mr. Erickson. No, because Albania was entirely occupied by the
military forces of Italy, France, and Great Britain, with small parts
by Greece, Serbia, and through this military occupation the civil
government was extinguished.
In the memorandum submitted to the three great powers, Great
Britain, France, and Russia, now known as the secret pact of
972 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBICAKY.
London, the following are the stipuhitions with reference to
Albania:
Article 6. Italy shall obtain in full ownership Valona, the island of Saaeno,
and territory of sufficient extent to assiire her against dangers of a military kind —
approximately between the River Voiussa to the north and east, and the district of
Gnimara to the south.
Article 7. Having obtained ♦ ♦ ♦ the Gulf of Valona, Italv undertakes, in
the event of a small autonomous and neutralized State being formed in Albania, not
to oppose the possible desire of France, Great Britain, and Russia to partition the
nortnem and southern districts of Albania between Montenegro, Serbia, and Greece.
The southern coasts of Albania, from the frontier of the Italian territory of Valona to
Gape Stylos, is to be neutralized. To Italy will be conceded the right pf conducting
the foreign relations of Albania; in any case Italv will be bound to secure for Albania
a territory sufficiently extensive to enable its nontiera to join those of Greece and
Serbia to the east of the Lake Ochrida.
From note 2: The following districts on the Adriatic shidl by the work of tlie
Entente Powers be included in the territory of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenej^
* * * to the south of the Adriatic where Serbia and Montenegro are interested,
the whole coast from Cape Planca to the River Drin ♦ * ♦ and St. Giovanni di
Medua. The port of Durazzo can be assigned to the independent Mohammedan
State of Albania.
Supplemental y to this pact must be included the rece it agreement
entered into between Italy and Greece, reported to be as follows:
Greece to support Italy's claim to Valona and Hinderland, and also has
aim to be mandator jr power over the '* Independent, Mahommedan
State of Albania;" m compensation for which, Italy supports the
claims of Greece to Southern Albania, or Northern Epirus, as the
Greeks call it. Presumably Jugo-Slavia will be oflFered the same
terms, Italy supporting her claims to Albanian territory to the north
and northeast as intimated in the pact above quoted.
That will leave to the '* Independent, Mahommedan State of Alba-
nia," an area of about 6,200 sauare miles (a little larger than the State
of Connecticut), and a population of approximatdy 400,000. The
cities of Scutari, Kortcha, Valona, Aigyrocastro, TepeUn, Delvino,
the ports of San Giovanni di Medua, Valona, and Santa Quaranta,
will be added to the long Ust of amputations (Vranje and Dulcigno by
the treaty of Berlin, the highlands of Hoti, Gruda, Plava, Gusigna,
the province of Kossova, containing over 800,000 Albanians, with the
cities and districts of Ipek, Jakova, Prisrend, Mitrovitza, Prishtina,
Ushkup, Dibra, Struga, Ochrida, and the province of Chameria, by
the treaty of London, 1913) which have been performed during the
last 50 years.
This Torso, labeled "The Independent, Mahommedan State of Al-
bania'' and consigned to Italy for a "painless death," constitutes,
gentlemen, a "Shantung" in the Balkans, which you will see upon
mvestigation is a more unscrupulous, cruel, immoral, and daiigerous
adventiu-e in national spoliation than is Japan's in China. Permit
me for a moment to draw a parallel: Shantung taken away from China
leaves 280,000,000 Chinese and nearly nineteen-twentieths of her
territory intact. If this pact is carried out in Albania, less than one-
third of^her legitimate territory and about one-sixth of her population
will remain, not free and independent, but under an Italian protec-
torate, against the protest ana in flagrant violation of the resolute
will of the entire Albanian population in the Balkans, numbering
2,500,000 souls.
In short, it contemplates the deliberate assassination of a race,
and that in the name of the most sacred principles of our Christian ,
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 978
civilization. Once more: Japan did not take Shantung from China,
but from Germany — an enemy in war. By this pact it is proposed
to sieze and dismember an independent State whicn had been created
and instituted by these very powers (plus Germany and Austria) in
December, 1912; they, themselves, assuming the solemn responsi-
bility of safeguarding the ** independence, neutrality, and temtorial
integrity of the Albanian State." Again, Kiaochow had been in
Grermany's hands for 20 years; she had acquired it by treaty with
China, to which the great powers had acquiesced. She had invested
large sums of money in improvements there, and Japan by her
treatv with the powers merely acquires these rights and possessions.
On the other hand, Valona is and always has been an integral part
of the Albanian State. No Italians had residence there; no Italian
or other foreign capital, enemy or otherwise, had been invested in
improvements. In short, there is not a shadow of right or justice
upon which to base Italy's claim, unless it be the '* Shade" of Julius
Csesar, for it did once pertain to his possessions, as did most of the
rest of Europe. In three particulars, however, the two Shantungs
are alike: Both are representatives of ancient civilizations, both are
rich in natural resources, and both are being despoiled in spite of
the fact that they have been absolutely loyal to the Allies — ^far more
loyal certainly tnan many others who to-day are sharing richly in
the spoils of war. Permit me a word of amplification on the last
two points : Just behind Valona is by far the richest and most exten-
sive valley in Albania with a large river flowing through the midst
for irrigation. Colonized by Italians and put under their intensive
cultivation it would be a gold mine of revenue. In addition there
are proven oil deposits, lakes of asphalt, coal, iron, copper, and many
other minerals, besides large and very valuable forests. The ex-
ploiting of these, with the customs revenues which can be easilv
concentrated at Valona, would be exceedingly useful to Italy'**
bankrupt treasury, provided America can be persuaded to loan hei
the necessary funds for operation.
I affirm, too, that Albania was, so far as her circumstances per-
mitted her to be, absolutely loyal to the allied cause. However,
bear this in mind, please: Tliat her neighbors — Serbia, Greece, and
Montenegro, with wnom she would naturally be allied, had less than
three jears before done their utmost to destroy the Albanian State
and divide it among them; that actually a miUion and a half Alban-
ians, and half their territory had been taken away from her and given
to these States by the Treaty of London, 1913; that the sufferings of
this population under their foreign master, thanks to the official
reports of the Camegie Commission and other eye-witnesses, had been
such as to stir the soul of Europe and America, as Belgium was
destined to do later; that Austrian and Italian ambitions in the
Balkans, of which Albania was to be the victim, were well understood
by every Albanian; that furthermore, their territory was early
invaded bv foreign armies, Italians, Greeks, Serbs, and Austrians,
who were fighting over their soil, while Essad Pasha and his reaction-
aries were terrorizing the central part much as Villa has done northern
Mexico. I ask you, gentlemen, how much could one in justice demand
of them under the circumstances — ^victims as they were, whichever
way the scales turned, facing the danger of further mutilation,
974 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QBRMAKY.
enslavement, and even death. Yet this is what happened there:
When the Serbians retreated through Albania, not only were they
not molested, but food and succor were freely bestowed bv tha
Albanians out of their own extreme poverty. When the French
came to Kortcha and encouraged the Albanians with hopes of
national freedom, by permitting them to organize the K!ortcha
Republic, one of their first acts was to recruit a battalion of Albanian
shfitrpshooters, which did valiant service for the Allies, as the follow-
ing citation proves: '^The First Battalion of Albanian Sharpshooters:
Alter having distinguished itself in the battles of Strelza, of Ostro-
vitza, and Kamia, as well as the battles of Bofnia, under the energetic
leadership of its commander. Major Holtz, nas shown the most
excellent military qualities and proved itself to be a troop of the first
class. Serving alwaj^s as the vanguard of our troops, it has always
been taking the lead in incessantly driving the enemy without giving
him time to breathe, and by capturing hundreds of prisoners and im-
mense quantities of war material." This citation was issued by
Gen. Henry, commander of the French Army of the Orient, and
Maj. Eevnard-Lespinasse, governor-delegate of the territory of Kort-
cha, adds this comment: **This distinguished recognition places the
battalion of Albanian sharpshooters among the best regiments of
France."
When America entered the war, hundreds of Albanians hastened
to enlist in her armies, many of whom lie sleeping to-day on the battle
fields of Finance. The Albanians of America likewise offered to raise
a large expeditionary force to fight for the allies and went so far as
to elect Lieut. Col. Aubrey Herbert, of the British Army, as their
commander, to which his Government gave assent; but at the last
moment Italy refused hers. Why ? Presumably she saw difficulties
in the way of carrying out her pact if Albania were admitted into the
circle of the allies: just as the Balkan States had refused theirs at
the time of the Balkan war. Had Italy known what little difference
that was to make (as witness Cliina's case), the allies might have had
the services of the Albanians in the Balkans at a time \dien it would
have meant the turning of the tide of war. The fatal weakness of
the Balkan campaigns was the lack of a strong native force, perfectly
acclimated and familiar with the territory and method or warfare
best adapted to it, as the Albanians were.
Another hundred thousand could have been easily recruited and
set to lead a campaign which would have saved the Serbian dLsaster.
cut off communication between the Central Powers and Turkey,
taken the Austrians in the rear, and perhaps ended the war a year
sooner. Natm*ally, Albania would have expected her independence,
and evidently thai was regarded as too great a price to pay.
I But this point should not be overlooked by those who are planning
* Ibania's dismemberment: That not only are those 100,000 men stiu
Albi
there as a fighting force, but scores of thousands besides, who are
J)repared to sried their last drop of blood that their country may be
ree. The 2,500,000 Albanians, occupying one solid block of territory
and constituting at least 90 per cent of the population, whatever flag
may be flying over them — and there are to-day six — are no more
reconciled to them than they were to the Crescent of the Turks. The
same spirit has turned theu* blood to fire that kindled the veins of
our forefathers when they forsook their plows and forges for their
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 97S?
flintlocks at Lexington and Concord; and nothing can quench it or
kill it till their country is free. Forty and eight years ago when the
European Powers heartlessly rejected her plea for independence at
the Berlin Congress, became parties to the Turkish tyranny which
ruled over them, besides giving portions of their territory away, the
^whole nation arose en masse in armed rebellion, and neither the
Powers nor the Turks could force them to surrender their territory,
nor Greece and Montenegro take it away. Finally Montenegro's
portion was changed to a coast town whicn the Powers could cover
with the guns of their fleet and* thus the Albanians were forced there
into a suUen surrender; but Greece never got hers till 1913 under the
Treaty of London. During these years the national sentiment in
Albania has grown by leaps and bounds and if the Italian Govern-
ment insists on pursuing her imperialistic policy there, as she seems
determined to do, it willmean "war to the Knife and the knife to the
hilt,'' so far as the Albanians are concerned. In fact the Albanian
people, weary of the endless uncertainty of the Paris Conference in
regard to their fate have already begun to take matters into their
own hands, as have those who wisn to despoil her, and there is fighting
all along the line to-day. Italy staggering under her colossal burden
of poverty and debt, from her two wars, desperately needs peace, but*
she will not find it by her present methods and policy. Her enemies
and rivals know this perfectly well, hence their bland acquiescence
to her demands is with the "arriere-pensee" that the troubles she is
brewing for herself will be so much gain for them.*
Had Italy pursued an open policy of befriending Albania, accepted
their program of independence, with ethnical boundaries, she would
have carried through the program at the peace conference with ease
and won the everlastinj^ gratitude and friendship of the Albanian
nation. A strong and mendly state on the east would have been an
infinitely better security to her political interests than all her entrenched
armies and fortifications over there plus the unrelenting hatred of the
entire population. Furthermore, with three short rai way Imes con-
necting up with those already built in Serbia and Macedonia, a very
large proportion of the trade of the Balkans would take its natural
course westward into the Adriatic, Italy, and Europe, instead of
south and east, as at present, a consideration of immense value to
Italy.
The true friends of Italy, of which I count myself one, know this
and are urging the Government to desist before it is too late. A very
large group in the Italian Parliament, supported by great numbers of
public men, have protested and are protesting against this policy
pursued by the former and present governments.
Gentlemen of the committee, I nave dwelt at length upon the
larger phase of the Albanian problem, because i^ is the key to the
whole Balkan situation, as any expert who has studied the question
at first hand will testify.
But I dare not close this plea without touching upon the Albanian
case for its own sake and on its own merits, apart from what Italy^
Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, France, Great Britain, or any other
power, great or small, may think about it, their plea for independence.
We base our right to this first of all on historical grounds. For
3,000 years of uninterrupted history and unnumbered centuries
076 TREATY OF PBAOE WITH GERMANY.
behind that — for there is neither record nor tradition of their coining —
the Albanians have lived in the land and defended it with their
blood. Submerged by the many waves of foreign invasions which
have swept over them — Vandal and Goth, Hun and Roman, Byzan-
tine and Norman, Serb and Bulgar, the armies of the Crusaders,
Saracen and Turk, and countless others — ^yet always surviving, main-
taining intact their language, customs, traditions, ideals, physical
type, and ethnical character.
Again we base her claims on grounds of racial worth.
The excuse which civilization has etnployed to justify their exter-
minating of the aborigines populations and possessing their lands
has always been that they were mere weeds encumbering the ground.
A tremendous propaganda has been systematicallv conducted for
many years to discredit the Albanian people bv tnose who would
dispossess her people. ''Brigands/' '^outlaws/' lovers of blood feud
ana rebellion, haters of one another, enemies of mankind, and Turks
at heart are some of the lurid characters by which they have been
described. As one who has lived among them with a wife and family
of small children for many years, I must characterize aU such state-
ments as calumnies and lies. I have seen them amid unspeakable
hardship and suffering, cruelty and wrong — they have been tried by
fire ana they are gold.
Among them are to be found to-day virtues enshrined which even
the more advanced and cultured nations would do well to possess in
e^ual measure. In Albania when a man gives his wora he gives
hunself with it in pledge of its fulfillment, and he will sacrifice nun-
self to save his word of honor.. In Albania the hearth is the altar
and throne of the nation's life, and she who presides in the home as
priestess and queen is inviolate and inviolable in her virtue where-
ever she ^oes. There is practically no such thing in Albania as a
dishonored home.
Sober, clean blooded, industrious, frugal, lovers of home and
children, keen intellectually, poets, dreamers — of one ^eat dream,
Albania free — given to hospitality, to the sharing of their last crust,
Sentlemen ana gentlewomen to the heart's core, faithful to the
eath, that is the type of people I have found and whom I am prood
and honored to represent at this time.
They have never had the opportunity to demonstrate their worth
as an independent nation, because they have never been independent,
but that genius is there is proven by the fact that wherever it has
been planted in congenial soil it has blossomed abundantly. If not
the first, certainly she was one of the first who passed through the
Balkan gate between East and West to begin laymg the foundations
of Europe's civilization. She gave to Greece many of her ancient
gods and her most •famous oracle, while no small number of philo-
sophers and poets which created the Golden A^e for Greece were
bom amons the Albanian Mountains. Out of her loins sprang
Alexander the Great, world conqueror; several Roman emperors were
Albanian bom, among them Diocletian and Constantino, Europe's
first Christian Emperor and first to proclaim our holy religion as
officidi throughout the Empire. St. Jerome translated the Bible
into the Latm tongue and it has remained the standard for the
great Catholic Church to this day. She has given popes to Uie
TRBATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 977
church and defended the faith against apostates and heretics at a
time when they were rending the church apart everywhere.
^ AlbaniaiuB fought for half a century, Europe's battle of Chris-
^^<uiij^ against Islam and prevented the Crescent from supplanting
the CJross in many a European capital. When their sacred leader
Skenderbeg, whom an historian characterized as '^a saint like St.
Lfouis of France, a diplomat like Talleyrand, and a general like
Alexander the Great, " was beating back the Janissaries of Mahomet
II numbering from ten to fifteen to his one, from the gates of Europe,
she applauded him; but when after 24 years of imdefeated battle,
he fell, not a hand was raised to help him: Albania was simply aban-
doned, forgotten, and left to sink into sucn oblivion that she became
one of the least known of all the races on the globe. Passing tmder
that cruel yoke, the gates of Europe were closed against her, while
for four and a half centuries she was ravaged and pltmdered. scourged
with fire and sword, maligned and defamed, her racial ideals, Ian-
gliage, national aspiration treated as some evil thin^ to be stamped
out at any cost; her enemies rewarded for their crmies against ner
and she ptmished for the criminal ; her sons drafted to fight me battles
of her oppressors or turned against each other in fratricidal war;
her people driven into exile by hundreds of thousands, where in
strange lands through lone and weary centuries, they have kept
their national vigils undimmed in the undying hope of a better day.
Yet their genius never died. They supplied meir ccmquerors with a
score and a half of grand viziers and most of their efficient and honest
governors. They helped Greece win her war of independence, and
what was their reward? Despoiled of territory and condemned to
further bondage under the Turks, by the statesmen representing
Christian Europe at the Beriin congress, to serve them as a barrier
between the Slavs and the Adriatic I
For Albania's ethnical boimdaries, I beg to refer to my colleagues,
who can speak with more intimate knowledge of the subject. I
desire to oner one or two suggestions for a solution of the problem
and I am finished.
We have presented to the State Department and the American
delegation at Paris a proposal that the peace conference appoint a
boundary commission to settle boundaries between Serbia, Greece,
and Albania. That said commission shall be composed of represen-
tatives of powers having no direct interests in the Balkans. That
they visit the territory, study the ethnical character of the people,
language, type, etc., airange for plebiscites wherever possible ana so
base their decisions on the will and character of the people them-
selves, their report to be accepted by the conference and league of
nations as a basis of settlement. Because of the marked individual-
ity of the Albanian race, this is not difficult and it is absolutely
essential, if peace is to be obtained.
We further propose, for the administration of Albania: The
appointment by the lea^e of nations of a commission consisting of
two Italians, two Albamans, and three Americans, one of the latter
to be appointed executive head of the commission. Thus Italy's
interests will be recognized and amply protected, Albania wiU oe
riven a voice, holding a balance of power, while the majority mem-
oets will represent a disinterested, benevolent power, concerned
136646—19 62
978 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY*
alike for the welfare of all the States concerned. The commissicm
would concern itself with the organization of an autonomous gov-
ernment, looking to its absolute mdependence under the guaranty
of the lea^e oi nations. This involves for America no responsi-
bilities which she does not assume upon becoming a member of the
league and yet it gives her an unequaled opportimity to lend a helping
hand in saving a race from destruction and laying the foundations
for a lasting peace in the Balkans. Millions of Albanians^ belea-
fuered with armies within their own land, or exiled in foreign lands,
ave fixed their hopes on America to save them. It was the con-
clusion of the American delegation at PariSj after months of careful
study, that America was the only power that could save Albania and
reconcile the Balkan peoples with each other. I am revealing no
secret, I think, for it was openly spoken in Paris, that both Mr.
Venezelos and Mr. Pascitch expressea themselves as willing in behalf
of their respective States, to submit the boundary and any other
issue involved, to America for settlement. With America assumiDg
the modest r61e which I have indicated, requiring neither a single
soldier from her armies, nor a single dollar from her treasury, such
is her moral force, such the respect and confidence in which she is
held by the Balkan peoples, that I venture to predict that within
five years, she would be able to remove racial frictions, reconcile
political differences, unite the peoples by railways, trade routes,
commercial enterprises, social, educational, and political interests,
and convert this '^cockpit of Europe" into one of the most peaceful
and prosperous regions of the whole world.
, Gentlemen, I do not wish to be selfish, or of narrow vision, but my
conviction is shared by many of the greatest experts in the world
who have studied the world situation and it is this: Unless the
Balkan situation is definitely and finally dealt with in wisdom and
justice another war within two or three years is inevitable. In the
name of heaven that would bless the world with peace and heal its
gaping wounds, in the name of humanity, bled wnite with war and
groanmg under its burdens, while filled with fears of still further
horrors impending, we beg you to lay hold on this supreme oppor-
tunity? Over yonder beyond the eastern horizon whence came a
man, divinely guided, as I believe, to discover this fair land for our
home and happiaess— just a little beyond — ^lies a Uttle child of the
nations, robbed of its patrimony, mutilated of its members, dis-
owned by those who stood sponsors at its christening — an abandoned
waif on the great international highway of the world. What is its
fate to be ? Will you in the name of our beloved America save her I
If not, I must ask on behalf of the present and coming generations,
for what have our biQions been spent ?
I must ask in the name of the laothers and the wives and the
orphans of those thousands of America's sons who have given their
lives in sacrifice for this course, why have they died ?
Senator Moses. In setting up these neutral Mohammedan states,
to which you have referred, does that division of Albanian territory
follow logically the religious division of the population ?
Mr. Ebickson. Not at all. It has no regard at all to the religious
population.
oenator Moses. Under that distribution, what becomes of the
Cathohc tribes in the north and the south ?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 979
Mr. Erickson. The Catholic tribes of the north for the most part
are turned over to Montenegro and Serbia. The tribe of the Merdite
numbers about 40,000. Tnat for the most part remained in the
Mohammedan state. There are no modifications in that at all.
Senator Moses. What is the total Mohammedan population of
Albania ?
Mr. Erickson. Which Albania do you refer to?
Senator Moses. Ancient Albania, the Albania that you and I
know of.
Mr. Erickson. About two and one-half million Albanians, the
population being 65 per cent Mohammedan.
Senator Moses. They are chiefly in the central portion are they
not?
Mr. Erickson. Yes; but very generally extended also in the north
and the south. In fact, up m the north, outside of the present
territory of Albania, the nrst boundaries of Albania, the great
majority of the population is Mohammedan, 90 per cent.
Senator Moses. That portion of Albania which was annexed to
Montenegro following the treaty of Berlin contained a considerable
amount of Mohammedans.
Mr. Erickson. They were entirely Mohammedans.
Senator Moses. Is there still mufti there ?
Mr. Erickson. Yes.
Senator Moses. That is the same mufti ?
Mr. Erickson. Yes. That indicates what they propose to make of
the Mohammedan faith.
The Chairman. A request has been made that this printed state-
ment in regard to Hungary be made a part of the recora. If there is
no objection, it will be done.
(The brief entitled "The case of Hungary," offered by Mr. Piv&ny
is here printed in full| as follows:)
The Case or Hungary.
|A brief submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate of the United States by the Hun-
garian American Federation, 404-406 Superior Buildtog, Cleveland, Ohio.]
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, before pre-
senting this brief to you we wish to express our thanks for, and appreciation of, the
spirit of fair play evinced bv the willingness of your committee to have us testify
before you as to the case of Hungary.
We feel that, in submitting this brief, we are performing a civic duty and are serving
the best interests of our country as well as of mankind, for (1) we endeavor thereby to
prevent the United States of America from becoming an active partner to the unwar-
xanted, unjust, and arbitrary disintegration and annihilation of a country that has
existed in the territorial condition now to be disturbed for over a thousand years and
had become a recognized factor of civilization; (2) by placing at the disposal of your
committee, the Senate of the United States, and the American people the true facts of
the case we endeavor to prevent that judgment be based on the one-sided, or unreal,
or fabricated statements which have been spread broadcast by the claimants of Hun-
garian territory for several years past; (3) the fate of what had been known until the
armistice as Hungary is not a matter of indifference to the rest of the world, as might be
inferred from the lack of interest in the subject shown by various factors of public
opinion in this country. On the contrary, the very peace of Europe depends on it.
In order to add to the lucidity of our brief, we beg leave to give first a concise account
of the treatment accorded to Hungary during the armistice, then present our data and
arguments grouped as to (I) the historical, (II) the racial or ethnographic, (III) the
religious, (IV) tne eoncomic, and (V) the political or international aspects of the case,
and, finally, state our conclusions.
4
980 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANT.
Hungary's treatment during the armistice.
On the night from October 30, to October 31, 1918, after much ^tation
several monuiB, a revolution broke out in Budapest, the capital of Hungary, whicj
put Count Michael K&rolyi into power, demanded the immediate cessation of hostili-
ties, and the opening of negotiations tor the conclusion of a just and lasting peace.
Shortly afterwards a republican form of government was adopted by the Hungarian
National Council based on universal male and female suffrage, and K^lyi was elected
temporary president. It was quite logical to have K&rolyi head this movement, for
Kdrolyi haa been the leader of the party in the Hungarian Parliament opposed to the
alliance with Germany, he had openly, and with considerable risk to his peraoo,
avowed his friendship for the Allies, and had been a radical democrat and pacifist.
It IB now imiversally admitted that had the Allies not unnecessarilv opposed,
humiliated, deceived and driven into despair the decent and orderly Kirolyi Govern-
ment, not to speak of having j^ven it some well-deserved encouragement, most of the
chaos, bloodshed, and suffermg still prevailing in eastern Europe could have been
avoided and Bolshevism would never have come to power in Uunjiary. (We ref^
for instance, to Prof. Philip Marshall Brown's illumiuating article in the magazine
section of the New York Times for July 27, 1919. Prof. Brown had been one of our
experts to the peace commission.)
On November 7, 1918, Count Michael K4rolyi, with a staff of experts, went to
Belgrad to conclude an armistice with the French general, Franchet d'Esperey,
commander of the allied forces in the East. The general treated K4rol>'i, the head
of a noble nation, as no gentleman would think of treating a servant; he told him he
held the fate of Hungary in the hollow of his hand and could destroy her by turning
her neighbors loose on her (which he subsequently did); and replied to J^£iol>i's
request to facilitate the importation of coal in order to keep the mills running with
these historic words: '*What the h ^1 do you want coal for? A hundred yeara ago
you used windmills. Why can not you get along with them now?"
The armistice dictated by Gen. Franchet imposed very heavy obUgafJons of an
economic kind on Hungary. A very considerable part of her military supplies,
rolling stock, river boats and live stock was to be himded over to the Allies. The
Hungarian Army was to be reduced to five divisions of infantry and one division of
cavaury. The territory south of the line of demarcation (which ran, roughly speaking,
along the river Maros and continued southwestward on an artificial line across the
Tisza and the Danube to the river Drave), viz^ one-third of Hungary, was to be open
to occupation by die allied or associated annies. The occupation was to be tempo-
rary, and the territorial questions were to be settled finally by the peace conference.
There was only one provision in the armistice not unfavorable to Hungary^ and that
was to the effect that the civil administration even of the occupied territories ^ould
remain in the hands of the Hun^prian Grovemment, thus assuring the continuance ol
the centralized system for the distribution of food, coal, and other necessaries of life.
It is of importance to note that at that time Hungary had enough food to last until
the next harvest; in fact, she had a little surplus which she was willing to give to
Vienna or Prague in exchanffe of certain manutactures and coal.
Although the Hungarians nave speedilv fulfilled their obli^tions, this proviaon of
the armistice has been violated by the Allies and their associates from the very fini,
which is the principal cause of all the famine, idleness and anarchy in Hungary.
The western part of the territorv laid open to occupation was invaded in November
by the Serbian Army, which was followed in the eastern part by the Roumanian Army
in December. The Roumanians were somewhat late, because at the conclusion of the
armistice they had hardly any army worth speaking of. Their first soldiers ani\ing
in Hungary were very badly eouipped, many of them wearing straw hats in December
and low moccasins instead of snoes or boots. But they were not bashful at all about
helping themselves to the military stores in Hungary, and soon looked spick and span.
The first thing the occupying annies did was to annex the occupied tenitories^
remove all the Hungarian omcialB who refused to take the oath of allegiance to the
ruler of the invaders, denationalize the Hungarian schools, and dischaj^so the Hun-
garian professors and teachers who could or would not teach in the language of the
invaders. Exactly the same procedure was followed later by the Czechs who, under
the pretext of *' occupying strategically important points,^' overran and formally
annexed northern Hungary. Of coune, all tnis was contnuy not only to the law of
nations, but also to the specific provisions of the armistice; nevertheless, the Allies
approved of it and paid no attention to Kdrolvi's frantic notes of protest.
but tibe Roumanians were not satisfied witn occupying and annexing those parts ol
Hungary which lie south of the line ot demarcation. Having made sure of it that
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEKMANY. 981
Hungary had diaarmed heneli, they tranflereaBed the line of demarcation and gradti*
ally advanced to the river Tisza, getting what they styled the *^imperium/' or sovor-
eignty, over all the coveted Hungarian territory except two counties in the south held
by the Serbians. This diseraceful war on a disarmed country during a period of
armistice is without a parallel in modem history- it was illegal, dishonorable, and
cowardly. Yet the Allies approved of it, made lUrol^'s position more and more
untenable, and finally drove what was left of Hungary into the arms of Bolshevism,
which could have heen easily averted by the application of a little horse sense, not to
speak of justice and human tiy.
Two of tiie many authentic reports of incidents illustrative of the Roumanian idea
of government and the rights of racial minorities are given here.
A few days after last (mristmas an Hungarian captain walked with his wile on the
main street of Kolozsvar, the capital of Transylvania, which is a purely Hungarian
city, rich in historical associations dear to every Hungarian, and is, by the way, a good
distance beyond the line of demarcation. A .Roumanian patrol was passing by, and
the lady observed to h«r husband in Hungarian that yesterday she had seen these
same fellows, who were wearing new Hungarian uniforms and boots, in ragged clothes
and worn-out moccasins, whereupon the soldier in charge ot the patrol, who had over-
heard the remark, placed the captain and his wife under arrest and marched them off
to headquarters. There the lady and heir husband were stripped by soldiers and ^
strokes ot tiie birch were administered on their bare bodies.
This was reported with full names and other data to Prof. Coolid|:e, of Harvaird
Unlvendtjr, who, as an expert attached to the American peace commission, spent a
few cbys in Budapest in January last. It was, further, reported to him mat the
Serbians had also mtroduced flogging as a punishment in those regions of Hungairy
which were occupied by them.
The other incident is reported in a letter from a professor of the Universitv of
Kolozsvar to the editor of tne London Nation and published among the editorials d
that periodical on July 12, 1919. It reads:
"On May 10 the Roumanians, relying on military force, declared our university to
be the propertv of the Roumanian State, and invited our professors to take the oath
of fidelity to tloumania and its King. Relying on international law we unani-
mously refused to commit such an act of treason to the fatherland. Thereupon, 48
hours after the dispatch of their demand, our university was surrounded, during lesson
time, by armed forces. The professors were expelled from their chairs, our labora-
tory equipment was seized, ana nearly 2,500 students were dispersed by the immediate
suspension of our university life. Furthermore, the assistant professors and staff were
forced, on pain of immediate expulsion, to remain in their places and continue their
clinical work under the control of their old students of Roumanian nationality.
''It is needless jto add that all this is contrary to international law. It is enough
to remind you that, according to the fundamental principles of international law,
every military occupation previous to the conclusion of p^e is merely temporary,
and has no judicial consequences. Furthermore, article 75 of the Hague Convention
expressly forbids any citizen of occupied territory from bein^ invited or forced to
take the oath of allegiance to the conquering power, while article 56 provides that
the property of schools and scientific institutes, even if they belong to the State,
must be considered to be private property."
The Czechs are reported to have acted in the same way toward the universities of
Pozsony and Kassa, two large, important and historically prominent Hungarian
cities, m which the Slovaks form only an insignificant part of the population.
E&rolyi was an extreme pacifist who was opposed to armed resistance, takinff the
ground that the occupation of Hungary was only temporary and the Allies would in
the end right the wrong. B^la Kun thought differently and organized a '*Red^
Army — ^whether in excess of the six divisions allowed in the armistice or not, we do
not know — ^with which he tried to re^un some of the territory illegally taken away
from Hungary during the armistice. He appears to have been successful agunst the
Czechs, nevertheless ceased his attacks when so ordered by the Allies. When his
government in Budapest was finally overthrown the ''Red" Army collapsed, and the
Roumanian army, standing on the eastern bank of the Tiszanear Szolnok, viz., several
hundred miles beyond the line of demarcation, crossed that river, marched on Buda-
pest and even crossed the Danube into western Hungary. It was one of those easy
Roumanian "conquests,'' for there was no armed force to resist them, and, as has been
reported, they made the most unscrupulous use of their opportunities.
This outrage incensed even the supreme coimcil in Pans, which is perhaps begin-
ning to see that the sport which disarmed Hungary had been carried too far. But
Roumania, which at first was the ally of Austria-Hungary, then went over to the
9<82 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
lAllies, then made a separate peace with the Central Powers, and at the concliMdon cii
the armiatice was an humble supplicant before the Allies, snaps her finders at th*»m
now that she has plenty of food and a la^e army in the field with nobody to oppose it.
There matters now stand. Hunp:ary is still blockaded; she is cut off from ail com-
mimication with the outside world; famine and idleness still continue in a naturally
rich country, and whatever is left there the Roumanians are taking away by force.
I. THE HISTORICAL ASPECT.
In judging the case of Hungary, care should be taken not to confound it with that
of Austria. The Empire of Austria, which has never lawfully included the Kingdom
of Hungary, came into existence only in 1804, and was a conglomeration of former
kingdoms; principalities, and duchies, or parts of them, added by the Ha|>sbiire8 to
the original archduchies of lower and upper Austria through conquest, marriajre, or
fraud. Austria has never been a nation, has never had a language of her own, and is
now being dissolved into her constituent parts, or into groups of such parts, which
can hardly be objected to on historical grounds.
Hungary, on tne other hand, has been a homegeneous country practically within
her present boundaries for more than a millennium, has had a distinct language of her
own, and can not be dissolved into her constituent parts, because she naa no con-
stituent parts, except Ooatifil, which had been a separate crownland of Hungary,
with a high degree of national autonomy or home rule. This, however, did not satisfy
the Croatians, whose aspirations were for complete independence, which was freely
granted them by the recent Kdrohi Government. IIungar\' proper (\dz, Huns;ary
without Croatia) can thus be only dismembered or partitioned even as Poland had been
partitioned in the eighteenth century.
References to "the Maramouresh." "the Krishana" (this name is unintellftrible
to Hungarians), Transylvania, "the Banat," or "the Bachka" are apt to miBlead the
uninitiated into the belief that these terms denote separate Pro\'inces of HunmLry.
whereas these regions are integral parts of Hungary and, with the exception of the
first and last named, which are two Hungarian counties, they form not even sepiuate
administrative units.
The basin of the middle Danube, encircled by the Carpathian Mountains, had been
the tramping ground of a multitude of races — Celts, Teutons, Dacians, Goths, Sla>'s,
Huns, Avar8--<iuring the great migration of nations. None of these races, not even
the Roman, succeeded in establishing a permanent government in that region which
natiu'e itself has cut out to form one country. It was left to the Hungarians, or Mag-
yars, who, under their leader Arpdd, conquered that country toward the end of the
ninth century, to rear there a solid fabric of government which has withstood all
vicissitudes of fortune for a thousand years.
"The Hungarian Constitution,'' to ouote the words of the ^eatest English authority
on Hungary, the Hon. C. M. Knatcnbull-Hugessen, '* which has been obscured at
intervals, violated at times, and suspended for a period, onlv to prove its inde8tructi>
bility, is the product of no charter or fundamental statute, out la the result of a dow
process of development, of a combination of statute and customary law which finds
Its nearest parallel in Great Britain. It is remarkable that two such different races
should have proceeded on such similar lines as the Anglo-Saxon and the Asiatic
people, which, both as regards language and primitive institutions, introduced an
entirelv new element into Europe. The four blows with the sword directed, at his
coronation, to the four cardinal points, by every Hungarian king down to Francis
Joseph, are an emblem and a recognition of the fact that the Magyar people has had
to maintain itself by force of arms against the unceasing attacks of alien neighbors,
and the fact that a few thousand wanderers from Asia were able to preserve their
individuality and institutions in the midst of an ocean of Slavs, Germans, and Turks
and obtained comparatively quickly a position of equality with inembere of the
European family, argues the possession of exceptional military and political qualities,
of exceptional cohesiveness, of a stoical capacity for endurance, and of a rooted con-
fidence in themselves and in their future which no \'icis8itudes of fortune have been
able to destroy. The alien jargon first heard by European ears twelve hundred yean
a^o has maintained its existence in spite of the competition of German and Slav
dialects, of deliberate discouragement, and temporary neglect and has developed
into a language which, for fullness and expressiveness, for the purpose of science as
well as of poetry, is the equal if not the superior of the majority oi European tonnes."
St. Stephen (9()7-l()3S) was the first ruler of Hungary to be converted to Christianity,
and, having to choose lietween Byzance and Rome, he wisely chose the latter, thereby
saving his people from a}>soriJtion by the Slavs and his country from sinking to the
level of the Balkan States.
TREATY Oi' PEACE WITH GERMANY.
m
In 1222 the Huns^arian Diet wmng from a weak king the Bulla Aurea, or Golcien
Bull, which — in close resemblance to the Magna Charta of England, which preceded
it only by a few years— is a fundamental charter of Hungarian liberty and one of the
proofs* of the great political capacity of the Hungarian race.
After the extinction of the male line of this house of Arpdd (130S) the country waa
ruled for 200 years by kings from various dynasties, amongwhom Louis, the Angevin^,
eurnamed the Gteat, whose dominion extended from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and
Matthias Oorvinus, surnamed the Just, son of John Hun^Tidy, the Turk beater, were
the most noteworthy.
The fight against the grooving power of the Ottoman Empire had begun, and the
lion's share of defending Christianity against the onslaught of Moslemism fell to
Hungary. It retarded her own progress but facilitated the development of ci\dlization
in the West of Europe. In 1526, after the fateful Battle of Mohacs, the country was
di\Tided into three parts, to be reunited only after the final expulsion of the Turks at
tJie beginning of tne eighteenth century. One- third of the country fell under the
sway of the Turks, Transylvania (southeastern Hungary) was ruled by Hungarian
princ^, and the rest was under the rule of the Hapsburgs.
Until 1867 the policy of the Hapsburgs had been twofold : To Germanize and Roman-,
ize Hungary, and, acting on their motto "divide ut imperes," to play off one race
against the other. In the latter they succeeded only too well, but their other efforts
failed against the indomitable spirit of the Hungarians in defending their nationality
and religious freedom. There is only one absorbent civilization in Hungary, the
Hungarian; and. while more than one-half of the people belong to the Catholic Church,
Hungary is still the easternmost bulwark of Protestantism. The liprisdngs in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, led by Bocskay, Bethlen, and Rdkoczi, were
made just as much m the defense of religious liberty as of national independence.
In 1848 the Hungarians rose again against the autx)cracy of the Hapsburgs under
the leadership of Louis Kossuth, the champion of European democracy.
The interest of the American people in the gallant struggle of Hungary was so great
that President Taylor, in June, 1840, sent a ''special and coftfideutial agent '* to
Hungary in the person of Ambrose Dudley Mann, of Virginia, who, however, arrived
too late, for Russia, the greatest military poweir of the age. had intervened in favor of
the Hapsburgs, with Great Britain and Fran ?e looking on without a word of protest?
(See Mann's report in Appendix A.)
In 1851 Kossuth, who nad been freed from internment mainly through the efforts of
Daniel Webster, was invited to the United States as the guest of the nation, and met
with an entiiusiastic reception, to which onlv that given to Lafayette may be com-
pared . His tour of the Umted States failed in its principal object of securing American
support for the next uprising of the Hungarians, and is now remarkable mainly for the
fact that he was the first to advocate in America the very principles whidi I^resident
Wilson liad been propounding, viz, the ric^ht of self-determination, a league of nations
to protect it, the partaking of America in the affairs of the Old World, and the abolition
of secret diplomacy as the root of all international intri^e.
It may be noted here, for its bearing on American history, that between three and
four thousand of Kossuth 's compatriots found an asylum in the United States, and when
the proposition of a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people, " was
on trial, nearly 1,000 of them enlisted in the Union Army, a proportion not equaled by
any other race. Their military prowess, intelligence, and devotion was proved by the
fact that out of this handful of Hungarians two reached the rank of major general and
five became brigadier generals.
In 1859 Louis Kossuth arrived at an understanding with Cavour and Napoleon the
Third to carry the Austro-Italian War into Hungary, whereupon the Hungarians would
rise aKiin to expel the Hapsbum. But Napoleon, getting frightened by his own suc-
cess, broke his word, and concluded the premature peace of Villafranca, thereby
shattering all hopes of the Hungarians.
Having been forsaken by the western powers three times, in 1849, 1852, and 1859,
is it to be wondered at that Hungary finally consented to the compromise of 1867 with
Austria and the Hapsburgs, which restored — at least on paper — ^her constitution?
Hungary's unfortunate connection with the Hapsburgs, forced upon her by the
attitude of the western powers and the threatening Russian peril, led inevitably to
the alliance with Germany. That the Russian or Slavic peril to Hungary was not
imaginary has been proved by recent events.
In the condemnation of Hungary for having entered the German alliance these
facts must not be lost sight of. It should also not be forgotten that under the political
arrangement between Austria and Hungary, known as Dualism, Hungary had no con-
trol of her foreign policy and of her army.
984 TREATY OF PEAOL WITH GEBHAKT*
Of the foxir claimants to Hungarian territoi^ two, viz Serbia and German
have — afl far as iB known to us — ^not baaed their claima on hiatorical grounds.
The Bohemians, or Czechs, have made some allusion to the semimythica] Moravian
Empire of Svatopluk, which is alle^^ to have extended over parts of northern Hun-
gary and been oisrupted by the incursion of the Hungarians in the 9th ceotiiry.
l^e Slovaks, it ia alleged, are the descendants of Svatopmk's Moravians.
The Roumanians have advanced a more definite claim to priority of occupatian in
the theory of their descent from the Daco-Romans, who had lived in Trani^lvaiiia
before the migration of the nations. The Roumanian claims are treated more folly
in Appendix B.
Botn of these theories have been proved by historical research to be false. But
even if they were not false the principle of priority of occupation has never been
defined in the law of nations. How many years of occupation is required to establish
a valid title to a country? One hundred years, or 500 ^^ears, or more? If occupation
for a thousand years is not acknowledged to be a valid title to a country, then we may
be called upon some day to relinauii^ our title to Texas, and California, and other parts
of the United States in favor of Mexico, or Spain^ or the Indians, and the whole map
of Europe may have to be made over, too. And it is certainly the heigjit of abaurdity
to go back for a title to a country to a period before the migration of the nations, even
if the continuity of the race dispossessed by several subsequent conquerors could be
proved*
At the time of the conquest of Hungary by the Hungarians, or Magyars, the country
was sparsely settled, and the non-Magyar races were speedily abeorbed by them. AD
the non-Magyar races now living in Hungary are later immigrants. The Magyars
have built up and maintained the State for a thousand years and have stamped their
civilization on the whole country.
On historical grounds^ therefore, only the Hungarians, and no one else, have any
right to Hungarian temtory.
n. TRB RACIAL OR BTHNOORAPHICAL ABPBOT.
Hungary proper covers a territory of 109,216 square miles with a total population
of 18,264.531
Badally the Hungarian, or Magyar, race predominates, making up 54.5 per cent,
i. e., more than one-half, of the population and being numerically more tram three
times as strong as the next race in numbers, the Roumanians. Of the urban ponula-
tion ftdly 76 per cent are Magyars. But it is not numbers alone that count, ana the
Magyars — to use the words of Daniel Webster — " stand out from it above their nei^
bois in all that respects free institutions, constitutional government, and a hereditary
love of liberty." (See Appendix A.)
The central plains of Hungary are populated almost wholly by the Magyan. Towaid
the peripheries their numbers diminish, although rig^t on the Hungarian-Roii manian
border there are three counties almost entirely Magyar. But they are present every-
where, and in the peripheries the various races are so intermingled that it is impossible
to cut out large territories on a racial basis without incorporating large minorities of
other races, which of course object to such incorporation.
The dismemberment of Hungary has been proposed in order to secure the right of
self-determination of small nations. The penml of the statistical table and map
attached hereto will easily convince everybody open to conviction that the claims
put forward by the imperialistic neighbors of Hungary, and apparently approved at
Fans, can not be justified on the basis of that principle. On the contnuy, those
claims are direct denials of the right of self-determinatiofi, for in each of the sections
claimed by the four neighboring countries the particular race claiming it is in the
minority. Neither is it in accord with the facts that by the proposed dismemberment
of Hungary the Magyar race would be confined to its ethnic limits, for in the territories
to be wrested from Hungary the Magyars would have a verv larse plurality and,
together with the German element, would form a majority. The ethnic limits of the
Magyar race are hard to define: they certainly reach beyond the boundaries of Hun-
gary into Roumania and Ooatia.
TREATY OF FEACB WITH GBBHAKT.
98fr
ClatBied by Roamanla
dolmedbytheCzeebs
Claimed by Serbia
ClaUood by Austria
Less-
Ill dlspnte between Romnaxila
and Serbia ,
In dispute between Austrians
^ andCxechs ,
T'^tal claims ? ,
Total of Hungary ,
Square
miles.
40,079
26,540
15,889
8,895
100,943
6,787
PofMikitioa.
Total.
0,841,879
4,079,515
2,950,457
574,343
14,445,604
1,116,
8,896 674,843
84,611
109,216
24,606
12,755,365
18,264,533
5,500,168
Magyars.
Nuinber,
2,429,446
1,677,015
1,220,560
367,746
5,504,767
867,746
5,018^656
9,944,627
4,925,971
Per
cent,
35.5
38.7
41.6
64.0
18.7
64.0
39l8
54.5
8014
Oermans.
Number.
742,655
468,796
680,644
144,708
2,036,803
331,662
144,708
1,560,433
1,903,357
."{48,924
Per
cent.
10.8
11.5
23.0
25.2
2a7
25.2
12.2
10.4
6.2
Slovaks.
Number.
127,088
1,658,341
50^248
1,364
1,831,901
10,228
1,304
1,811,404
1,046,357
134,053
Per
cent.
1.8^
4a IV
1.7
.8.
i.r
.8
14.8:
la?
2.6
Claimed by Rou-
mania
Claimed by the
Czechs
Claimed by Serbia. .
Claimed by Austria.
In dispute be*
tween Rou-
manta and
Serbia
In dispute be-
tween Aus-
trians and
Caecbfl ,
Total claimed
Total of Hun-
gary
Remainder
Square
miles.
49,979
25,540
15,829
8,895
100,243
6,787
8,895
84,611
109,216
24,605
Population.
Roomanians.
Num-
ber.
2,999,201
2,400
266,499
51
3,198,151
255,907
51
2,942,133
2,948,186
Per
cent.
43.0
8.7
22.9
23.0
16.1
6,053
.1
Rnthenians.
Num-
ber.
199,288
253,404
10,810
57
463,503
41
67
463,405
464,270
865
Per
cent.
2.9
6.2
.3
3.6
2.5
Croatlans.
Num-
ber.
5,762
57,834
113,822
55,206
232,624
4,553
55,206
172,866
194,806
21,943
Per
eeni.
0.1
1.5
8.8
0.6
Serblana.
JVttin-
6er.
291,008
388
427,876
28
710,385
.4
0.6
1.4
1.1
200,666
28
440,702
461,516
Per
cent.
4.8
14.6
366,470
24.2
8.5
2.5
.4
11,814
.2
Othan.
Numr
ber.
106^062
66,337
180,998
5,183
26,580
5,183
336,767
401,412
64,645
Per
1.6
1.6
6.4
.0^
2.i
.9
2.8
2.2
1.2
The Roumanians claim nearly one-half of the territory of Hungary, 26 counties out
of 63, with a total population of nearly 7,000,000, out of which not quite 3,000,000, or
43 per cent, are Roumanians, and many of them are disinclined to be ruled by the
boyars, as the Junkers of Roumania are called. In the 15 counties of l^ansylvania
(southeastern Hungary) alone the Roumanians have indeed a bare majority, but it
is right there on the southeastern border that large contiguous territories are peopled
by Sz^kely Magjrars and Saxon settlers.
In practically all the towns of 10,000 and over the Magyars are in the majority, and
in the few instances in which they are not, the majority is German. Yet the Rou-
manians claim such important M^;yar cities as Maros-Vasarhely, Nagyvarad, Szatmar,
Arad, and — ^last but not least — Kolozsvar, the capital of Trsmsylvania. Kolozsvar,
the Precious (Kineses Kolozsvar), as the Hungarians love to call it, is a beautiful city
hill of historical associations dear to the hearts of all Hungarians; it has a university,
several colleges, museums, and libraries, it is the center of the Unitarian Church in
Hungary, and a commercial emporium as well. All that has been created by the
Magyars through the work of centuries. The Roumanians have had no part in it,.
constituting only 12 per cent of the population.
986 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
It ifl an admitted fact that the Roumanian people of Hungary are on a much higher
level of civilization both aa to literacy and to wealth than their brethren in the Kin^-
dom of Roumania, where they surely can not complain of racial oppression. Tb^
same applies, even in a higher de^ee, to the Serbian people of Hungary as coropared
with the people in the Serbian Kingdom.
The claims of Serbia to Hungarian territory rest on a still more slender basiA th^-j
those of Roumania. Apart from the fact that the Serbians of Hungary are defl<"enHanT^
of refugees who had found there an asylum against Turkish oppression, they form oziIt
a small minority of the population of the regions claimed. Their claim embrac-e-
15,829 square miles with a population of nearly 3,000,000, of whom only 427,876, or
14.5 per cent, are Serbians, and 113,822, or 3.8 per cent, are Croatiana. Even if we
suppose all the smaller races collected in the census under the heading of "others"
to be Shokatses, Bunyevatses, and Slovenes, races kindred to the Serbians, the total
of all Jugo-Slavs in the regions claimed would be less than 25 per cent.
It is worthy of note that in the territory which both Serbia and Roumania claim,
the so-called Banat, neither the Jugo-Slavs'nor the Roumanians have even a plurality.
According to newspaper reports, in this r^on the city of Temesvar has been awarded
to Roumania and the city of Versecz to Serbia. In the former th^ Roumanians com^-
tute only 10.4 per cent, in the latter the Serbians constitute only 31.4 per cent of the
population.
The Czech claims, as originally formulated, were based on the principle of race.
and comprised only that part of northern Hui^ary in which the Slovak people were
numerically predominating. Even that was contrary to the right of self-determina-
tion, for the majority of the Slovak people of Hungary want no union with the Czechs.
They said so openly in their national meeting held at Kassa in December last, de-
clanng that the Slovaks are a nation free and independent hom both Bohemia and
Hungsuy. but recognizing the force of economical laws they would be willing to enter
into a federation with the rest of Hungary.
Later, however, the Czechs threw the ethnic principle overboard and increased
their demands so as to join hands in the northeast with the Roumanians, and in the
west, by setting up a ** corridor" with the Jugo-Slavs, no matter what foreign races
they would have to incorporate in their new empire. Thus the remcdnder of Huneary
would be surrounded by an iron ring of Slavs and Roumanians, and cutoff from direct
communication with western Europe. The Czechs claim from Hungary now a
territory of 25,540 square miles with a total population of over 4,000,000, of whom only
1,653,341, or 40.5 per cent, are Slovaks, hardly more than the Magyars in the same
regions.
^ They, too, want to incorporate in their new empire a number of imjmrtant Mag'var
cities, such as Pozsony and Kassa, for instance, both being Hungarian university
towns and the centers of culture and trade for large reg;ions. These two cities are
also rich in historical associations, the former having been the seat of the Hungarian
Diet for centuries, where many kings of Hungary had been crowned, and the latter
having been prominently connected with the war of liberation led by Francis R4k6czi,
whose earthly remains rest there in the beautiful old cathedral. The Slovak element
in these and many other towns is almost negligible.
It is worthy of note that in Bohemia the Czechs insist on the historical principle in
order to keep German Bohemia within their country. In Hungary, however, they
refuse to acknowledge the historical principle, for on the historical principle the
territorial integrity of Hungary would, of course, remain intact.
The ** corridor" in the west of Hungary coveted by the Czechs is claimed also by
German Austria, and, according to newspaper reports, will be awarded to the latter.
This territory covers 3,434 square miles, with a population of 574,343, of which only
144,708. or 25.2 per cent, are Germans, while 367,746, or 64 per cent, are Magyars.
Should all the claims be satisfied, tliere would remain to Hungary only 24,605' square
miles (out of 109,216) with a population of 5.509,168 rout of 18,264,533). Less than
one-half (4,925,971) of the Magyars would belong to this "New Hungary," while the
larger half of the race (5,018,656) would have to live in foreign countriee or be forced
to emigrate from what had been their homas for many centuries.
The statistical data used here were compiled from the Hungarian census of 1910,
there being no later figures to go by. Since the charge has repeatedly been made —
without producing any proof — that the Huiigarian statistics is unreliable, and that
the returns as to the mother tongue, or nationality, had been falsified to favor the
Magyar race, some authentic information on the subject is submitted in Appendix C.
In an attempt to justify the partition of Hungary the argument has been advanced
at the minor races (or, rather, some of the minor races) of Hungary have to bo ** lilier-
ted" from the oppression by the Hungarians. The charge of racial oppreeeion by
the Hungarians, however, is not borne out by the facts, for whatever oppression
there had been in Hungary, had been on class lines and not on racial lines. The
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH* GERMANY. 98T
masses of the Hungfarians, or Majj^yars, had to suffer from it just as much ss had the
masses of the non-Magyars; and whosoever managed to rise above the masses, belonged
to the niling classes without regard to race or creed.
The attitude of the Hungarian Grovernment toward the non-Magyars (who are immi-
grants or the descendants of immigrants) had beeivthe same as that of our own govern-
ment toward the non-English-speaking immigr^ts. Perfect equality before the law,
but no recognition as racial groups or states within the state. What is right if done
by the American Government in Americ9F, surely can not be wrong if done by the
Hungarian Government in Hungary.
As a matter of fact, the Him^rlan Government had gone a great deal further in its
liberalism, for it granted considerable subsidies for the maintenance of the ecclesi-
astical and educational establishments of the non-Mag>'ar races. There were thou-
sands of schools in which the language of instruction was other than Hungarian, it
being stipulated only that the Hungarian language bo also taught as a subject of in-
struction three hours a week.
In 1917 the Roumanians of Hungary had 5 theological seminaries, 6 preparatory
schools, 4 colleges, 1 high school, 1 commercial high whool, 1 manual-training school.
and more than 3,000 elementary" schools, for the support of which they received
7,767,765 crowns from the Hungarian Government, whicn in the same year'paid them
also 7,746,533 crowns for the support of their ecclesiasticid establishments, or aJto-
Kether about 15,000,000 crowns ($3,000,000), vvhile an equal number of Calvinists, or
i'resbj'terians — ^an almost purely Magyar comimunity — received only 11,000,000
<T€iwns.
if we take further into consideration that the Roumanian churches of Hungary
enjoyed complete autonomy and that the Roumanians in Hungary had also a chain
of prosperous banks, used to a* considerable extent for illegitimate political propar
^nda, it must be evident to everyone that the story of racial oppression in Hungary
IS a malicious falsehood.
This had been also the prevalent opinion in the English-speaking countries up to
the conclusion of the entente cordiale between Great Britain and France, or the
change of British foreign policy from anti-Slavism to philo-Slavism. About that
time, as if by a hinc from Downing Street, a series of attacks were launched against
Hungary by Scotus Viator (Mr. Seton Watson) and his followers, casting the shadow
of the coming world war before it.
A vindication of the Hungarians from the charge of racial oppression has come
recently from an entirely uneimected quarter, the supreme council of the principal
allied and associated powers. It is demanding certain guaranties from the new States
for th(^ protection of racial and religious minorities, embodied in articles 7, 8, and 9
of the treatjr with Poland, as published in the newspapers. Anyone familiar with that
most troublesome of questions, the "nationality question of Eastern Europe, " will see
at once that those articles are but an extract from the Himgarian Act 44 of 1868, com-
monly known as the nationality law. Their essence is: '* Cultural autonomy" for the
minor races, but only one State and one State language. Roumania refused to sub-
scribe to those articles. Evidently she does not intend to give her new Hungarian
subjects the same rights which the Roumanians have enjoyed in Hungary.
But even if the char^ of racial oppression were true, as it is not, the principle that
immigrants have the right to invoke the assistance of the country whence they had
immigrated against their country of adoption, could hardlv be reco^ized by; our Govr-
«rnment. On that principle the Germans of Missouri and Wisconsin, in which States
they were, aird perhaps still are, in the majority, could have invoked the help of the
Kaiser for the annexation of those States to Germany, or at least for their "liberation"
from American rule.
It is also to be noted that each of the four neighboring countries of Hungary is strenu-
ously opposed to submit its claim to the verdict of a plebiscite under fair conditions,
thus admitting the weakness of its case. Each wants the right of self-determination
to be applied only to its own race to the exclusion of the Magyars and of o^er races of
Hungary, whereas President Wilson, in his address to Congress of Febniary 11, 1918,
distinctly declared that " Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from
soverei^ty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game."
And in liis speech to the Diplomatic Corps on the 4th of July of last year President
Wilson solemnly announced that one of the foiur ends for which the associated peoples
of the world were fighting was " the settlement of every (question, whether of terri-
torv, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the
basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned,
and not upon the basis of material interest or advantage of any other nation or people
which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or
mastery."
988 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
It 18 evident, then, that the partition of Hungary on a racial or ethnographic
k not onl^ inexpedient and impracticahlef but is also in contradiction to the requB*-
ments of justice and morality.
m. THE REUOIOUS ASPECT.
Hungary has been the land of relieious liberty par excellence. Although the Ha|»
buigs for three centuries tried to Germanize and Catholicize Hungaiy, their efforti
failed against the indomitable spirit of religious and political liberty of the HuxigariaDs,
and it IS a remarkable fact that in the various uprising of the Hungarians against
Hapsbuiv autocracy the Catholics fought side by side with their Protestant brethren
for the liberty of conscience. In 1568, when Transvlvania was a separate Hunsariu
principality and not yet under Hapeburg rule, the Transvlvanian Diet at Tarda
enacted the legal equality of all Christian denominations in the country, thus creatiof
a TO'ecedent which was followed by western Europe only much later.
To Hungary fell also the lot of protecting Christianity against the onrush of Turk
and Tartar, and while through these wars her own progress was retarded, she helped
tiie development of Christian civilization in the west of Europe.
Hungary has to this day remained the eastern bulwark of rrotestantism. E^t and
south of Hungary there is no Protestantism and hardly any Roman Catholicifim, for
there the Greek Orthodox Church prevails, whose antagonism to western Chrietiamty
and whose religious intolerance are well known.
In Roumania and Serbia the Greek Orthodox Church is the state church, and creed
and race go there together. Roumania particularly has been notorious for her religious
intolerance both to the Protestants and the Hebrews.^
When we deal here more particularly with the fate'of the Protestant churches, it is
for the reason that the Church of Rome has a most admirable international oi^guuzation
which can do a great deal for the protection of her adherents. The Protestant
diurches. on the other hand, are national organizations which would be endrely
disruptea by the partition of Hungary.
In Hungary proper, according to the census of 1910, there were a little more than
four million rrotestants dividea as to denominations as follows:
Reformed (Presbyterians) \ 2, 603, 381
Lutherans 1, 306, 3S4
Unitarians 74, 275
Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, etc 17, 066
Total 4,001.106
The Presbyterians and Unitarians are almost exclusively Magyars, the Lntheraas
are about equally divided among the Magyars, Germans, and Slovaks. The Presby-
terians and the Unitarians have entertained close relations with their bl-ethren la
Great Britain and the United States for centuries, and the Reformed Church of Hon-
gary is also a member of the world alliance of churches holding the PresbyterisB
system of government.
In the 26 counties claimed by Roumania 1,526,597 people, or 22.3 per cent of the
population, are Protestants. In the 15 counties of Transylvania alone there are
d9o,089 Protestants^ or 26 per cent of the population.
In the 26 counties there are 25 colleges maintained by. or connected with, the
Protestant churches, besides a large number of grammar schools and elementary schools.
All these institutions would be in danger of losing their Protestant character, if not «!
total extinction under Roumanian rule. And countii^ in the losses of the Hun-
sarian Protestant churches in the other territories, which it is proposed to wrest from
Han^y, the remainder of the churches would be practicallv crippled and unable to
eontinue a healthy life, being stripped of more than half oi their educational insti-
tutions and congregations.
The Lutheran Church of Hungary would lose at once all of her theological seminaries
and colleges, those of Sopron, Pozsonv, and of Eperjes, institutions that have served
from the time of the Reformation for tne training of her ministers. This same churdi,
deprived also of the majority of her adherents, would see her very roots cut o£F.
A similar fate would befall the Reformed Church of Hungary. She would lose,
apart from her law-college at Marmaros-Sziget, the theological seminaries and coUeffes
at Sarospatak, Maros-Vasarhely and at Kolozsvar. The latter was founded ori^naBy
by the great Prince Gabriel Bethlen, the victorious ally of Gustavus Adolphui*
Among the teachers, who made it famous, we find Alstedius, Bisterfeld, Isaac Baim,
and other renowned men. The Sarospatak College was founded as a Ph>teBtaBt
institution at as early a date as 1550, and it was here, that J. A. Comenius, the grsat
reformer of education, taught. Alone in her Transylvanian diertrict the Refonded
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 989
Church would lose further 7 coUegeB, 3 preparatory schools, 1 girls' secondary school,
and about 600 primary schools. More than a thousand, that is half of the total number,
of the congregations of the Reformed Churdi would become scattered under the
foreign rule of different coimtries. It need not be said that this would completely
paralyze this hitherto most numerous unit of the Galvinistic Church in Europe.
The Unitarian Church would fare still worse, if possible. In spite of the fact that
heir members are exclusively Magyars, all of her congregations, with the exception
of three, would come under Koiunanian rule. This unit referred to in Britain and in
America as the oldest one of the Unitarian Church, holding always a leading part in
tbe cultivation of liberal thou^t, would be doomed to complete ruin. And what
could the Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, and other denominations, lees important
ia numbers tnan on account of their lively nussionary activity, except should they
come under the rule of Roumania and Serba? The priests of these countries never
ceased to emphasize that it was disloyal for a Roumanian or a Servian to follow any
other creed than the Orthodox.
"What this unfortunate situation means for Proteetanism, any one familiar with
church history will readily understand. It means danger to all the lofty principles
represented by Protestantism, and it means the triumph of empty rites, ceremonies.
and priestcraft represented by the Greek Orthodox Church. It means the victory of
eastern superstitution over the civilization of the West.
That the spirit of the East is not an imaginary danger to western civilization is shown
by the fact that one of the first things the Roumanians did after entering Transylvania
was to arrest and imprison the bishop, or superintendent, of the Hungarian Reformed
Church, Charles Na^, D. D. In many instances, when they occupied an Hungarian
town, they ordered the clergymen to offer thanksgivings in the churches. The
minister or priest who refused to comply with the order was simply thrown into prison.
And, according to the Manchester Guardian of March 17, 1919, the Roiunanian army
of invasion has made captive some other religious l^ulers of Transvlvania, including
Joseph Ferencz, the Unitarian superintendent, who is 87 years old; Samuel Barabaa
(Calvinist), Matthias Eisler and Morris Glasner (Hebrew rabbis). Prof. Alexius Boer
(Galvinist), and Julius Arkosy (Unitarian inspector of schools).
In the lights of these ^ts the refusal of M. Bratianu, the premier of Roumania, to
subscribe to the guaranties for the protection of racial and religious minorities is not
difficult to understand.
The partition of Hungary would sound the deathknell to Protestantism in the east
oi Europe.
IV. THE ECONOMICAL ASPECT.
The late French geographer and savant, Prof. Reclus, remarked in one of his books
that Hungary Ib the most compact geographical unit in Europe. A glance at the
map will convince everybody of the truth of this statement. The Carpathians form
a solid mountain wall around two-thirds of the country, and for the other third the
Danube, Drave, Lajta, and Morava Rivers are the natural boundaries.
The whole country belongs to one hydrographic s>'Btem, there being only three
unimportant streams which do not join the Danube or its tributaries witinn its
boundaries.
It is nch in natural reeoiutres which, however, are so distributed that the different
regions are economically interdependent. The great central plain is a most fertile
grain-prod uciug region, but has practically no timber and minerals. Northern and
northeastern I^ngarv Is rich in timber, coal, iron ore, and salt, but is a poor agri-
cultural country, ^utheastem Hungary has natural gas (which indicates the
presence of oil), coal, salt, copper, gold, and silver mines, but being mostly moun-
tainous, does not produce sufficient quantities of cereals. Each region needs products
of which the other regions have a surplus. Separately they can not exist, together
they form a fine, self- supporting organism.
The proposed partition of Hungary would leave to her only a part of the central
plain.
The only hard-coal mines, those around Petrozseny, would go to Roumania. The
next best coal mines, in the vicinity of Salgo-Tanan, are coveted by the Czechs; and
the coal mines in Baranya County are demandea by the Serbians. Hungary would
retain only the soft-coal mines around Eszterp^om, which can not produce enough to
supply the railroads, leaving nothing for heating and the lighting and manufacturing
plants.
All the iron-ore fields and the splendid iron works at Diosgyor, Ozd, and other
places, which owe their development to Hungarian brains and money, would be lost
to the Czechs. Eighty-six per cent of Hunfjary's wool industry would go to the
Czechs and nearly all of the rest to Roumama. The latter country would also get
more than one-half of Hungary's cellulose and paper factories.
990 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
While more complete statistical data are not at present at our disposal, it i^ cle&r
even from the above facts that the "new Hungary^' would be stripped of practical ly
all her resources of raw material and the greater part of her industries. She wotjl'f
have no outlet to the sea and, with no natural boundaries, would be condemned to
economic strangulation by her selfish and imperialistic neighbors.
It is also worthy of note in this connection that, while Germany was deprivo<l <^»f
only 10 per cent of her continental territory and that 10 per cent consists of coini>ara-
tively recent conquests, Hungary is to lose 80 per cent of her territory, all of wliich
she lias held for a thousand vears.
Is Hungary, which played a subordinate part in the great drama, to be punL=»h<Kl
eight times as severely as Germany, the chief actor and manager?
V. THE POLITICAL OR INTERNATIONAL ASPECT.
Coming to the political aspect of the readjustment of the world's affairs, in its rela-
tion to the proposed mode or disposal of Hungary's territory, there can hardly be any
dissent of opinion as to the truism that the permanency and stabilitv of peace de-
pends to a very large extent on the permanency and stability of the politically organ-
ized bodies; i. e., States, as they will emer^^e from the peace treaties.
The logical sequel of this truism is that in deciding if any political changes ought
to be made, the first and paramount consideration should be whether the propc^ed
changes ^411 add to the permanency and stability of conditions. It seems to oe quite
apparent, therefore, that even though the political status as it existed before and
during the war should be adjudged as unsatisfactory, no changes should be permitted
that will make matters worse instead of improving ihem.
Applying these truths to Hungary, this Question has to be faced:
Will the interests of mankind and of all involved races, and in particular the in-
terests of a permanent peace be better served by the disturbing of the territorial,
historical, political, and economic unity of Hungary and by the substituting for the
natural boundaries new boundaries that can not do full justice to everybody or to
anybody, no matter how carefully they are drawn, than by leaving this territorial,
historical, political, and economic unit undisturbed and by giving a new, tnily
democratic Hungarian Republic an opportunity to assure the free development of
all races, on the lines laia down by tne allied and associated powers in tne treaty
proposed for Poland and which lines are identical with the fundamental principles
concerning the protection of racial minorities as incorporated in the laws of Hungar>'?
In order to ^et the proper answer to this question, the following undisputable farts
are to be considered:
1. As hereinbefore shown, Hungary proved, for over a thousand years, her ability
to maintain a politically well-organizea state in a part of Europe where no other rare
succeeded in that task before.
2. The goal of Hungary has always Wn, as it has been demonstrated by her histoxv
and laws, to be a politically one nation, even though composed of many races, all
these races to enjoy all liberties and rights as long as they do not conflict with the
interests of the politically one nation. That this goal has been a just one is best proved
by the fact that in creating new nations the Pans conference tries to enable tnem to
reach that very goal. It may be added that whatever errors may have been committed
by Hungarv in the treatment of her nationalities, whatever wrongs the various races
may have been complaining of, were solely due to the zeal to realize such a goaU
such an ideal. New Hungary certainly profited by the errors of the past and has
learned that the old ideal must be adapted to the new conditions, J» the new thoughts
dominating the world.
3. Hungary has given the evidence of centuries of her total lack of imperialistic
tendencies and of her sole desire to protect her own national existence, with due
respect for all her neighbors and without any designs on any part of their territory- .
This is in sharp contrast with the decidedly imperialistic tendencias of her neighbor,
all of whom would like to aggrandize themselves not only at the cost of Hungary, but
also at the cost of each other. And inasmuch as the peace of the future demands,
primarily, the elimination of all imperialism, Hungary s territory can only be saved
trom becoming the battle field of imperialism by leaving it in care of the only nation
in that part of Europe which is absolutely free of all taint of imperialism.
The Claimants of Hungarian territory try to overcome this very apparent weakness
of their political aspirations by pleading that the disruption of Hungary is required:
(a) In order to establish democracy in that section of Europe, and (6) to erect a
wall against German imperialism.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 991
Both pleas are without any real foundation and can easily be disposed of.
(a) AlUiough the propaganda maintained by Hungary's neighbors in this country
in the last few years exerted all its efforts to make the American people believe that
the Hungarians are a race of oppressors, real *' Prussians, " who have no respect for the
rights of people, the fact remains and can be proved by all recognized books on his-
tory in all civilized languages, that no country and no race is better fitted, more able,
and better prepared to champion the cause of true democracy in eastern and south-
eastern Europe than Hungary and the Magyars.
It should not be forgotten that, next to England, Hungary has the oldest constitu-
tion. It should not be forgotten that, for many centuries, these two constitutions
were the only safeguards of peoples' ri^ts against the kings' prerogatives, and so
really were the forerunners of modem democracy. Neither should it be forgotten
that,' when in the sixteenth century the revival of Roman law in its Pyzantine form
brought an invasion of ideas of despotism and absolute rule all over Europe and so
crushed all the free institutions of the mediaeval nations, it left standing alone two
constitutions, the English constitution and the Hungarian constitution.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that this very reason caused these two nations
to \m among the last ones to adopt such suffrage laws without which no real democracy
is possible . History teaches that a period of autocracy led most everywhere (we speak
of Europe, of course) to the establishment of truly democratic institutions. There
were no periods of autocratic rule of sufficient length in the history of Hungary to cause
such changes, and as a result the introduction of modem democracy became a rather
slow process, which slowness, however, does not reflect upon Hungary's readiness,
adaptability for real democracy, and does not justify the recent attacks against the
Hungarian nation, accusing her of shamming aemocracy for the hidden purpose 6f
perpetuating what the accusers like to call the rule of the aristocratic classes.
A comparison of Hungary's history with that of her ndghbors. of Hungary's laws
and Institution with those of her neighbors, of the condition of tne tillers of the soil
and of the laboring men in Hungary and in the territories of her neighbors, of Hun*
gary's civilization witii that of her neighbors, will readily given the only possible
answer to the question: Which State, which race can best be intrusted with the
important task of making democracy safe in that part of the world?
(b) The plea of the Czechs, of Roumania, and Serbia that Hungary must be dis-
membered so that a solid wall could be erected against all possible future imperialistic
designs of Gr^many, is apparently making the deepest impression in not too well
versed circles, and yet this plea is the most futile, the most flimsy, the most ludi-
crous of all.
History shows that the Hungarian nation has been ever since its conception the
natural opponent and- counterbalancing ^tor of Germanism. In fact, while com-
pelled^ first by the Turkish peril, and in the second half of the nineteenth century
by the Russian danger and dv tike refusal of the Westem Powers to stand by her,
to accept the Hapsburg rule, Hungary had to keep on and did keep on a continuous
fight against the tendency of the Hapsbuigs to Qermanize Hungary and to make
her an Austrian, and thereby mractically a German Province with an autocratic
government. This attitude of Hungary and of the Magyars deeeves all the more
appreciation in the disposal of Hungary's ^te. as it is to be remembered that the
Croatians and Roumanians of Hungary have always courted the favor of the Haps-
bum, not offering any resistance to their Germanizing tendencies, and becoming
wilmi^ tools of their plans of absolutism.
The Hungarian wall has proved its worth for centuries. A Slavic and Roumanian
wall is an unknown and, therefore, uncertain factor. Only a strong and self-supporting
Hungary, independent from the German Hapsbuigs, can form a secure and stable
barrier against Germany's ^' r)nmg nach dem Osten.'' And such a Hungary would do
more. She would also be an effective bar, and the only possible bar, a^dnst all
imperialistic tendencies of her neighbors, which must be considered a very disturbing
element for the future.
Furthermore, the Hungarians belong neither to the Teutonic nor the Slavic nor the
Latin group of races, and seem thus to be destined to form a buffer State amongst them.
The deeper one delves into the political aspect of the entire situation the more he
must get convinced that the proposed disintegration of Hungary caii not possibly
ameliorate matters, and that it is the vital interest of mankind, of all involved races,
and of permanent peace tliat Hungary should emerge from the present cataclysm as
a strong, self-supporting State.
092 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
0ONCLU8ION.
To resume, we have eetablished by the fore^ing the following facts:
1. Hungary has existed as a State and a nation for over a thousand yean in a tmi-
tory where no other race had been able to establish and maintain a permanent political
csganization. Surely, possession of such length and the demonstration of such political
capacity ought to secure a clear and undisputable title.
2. No other country has any claim on any part of Hungary that could be baaed on
"historical rights."
3. The distribution of the various races in Hungary positively prevents any tarti-
tonal readjustment, by which more homogeneous conditions could be created than
-existed till now.
4. Hungary has always been the land of religious liberty and tolerance. Roumanian
and Serbian rule over large parts of Hungary would disrupt the Hungarian Plrotestant
Churches and threaten protestantism with extinction in the east of Europe.
5. Hungarv is a natural geographhic and hydrographic unit, to disturb which could
not possibly nelp in stabilizing conditions.
6. Hungary is also a most distinct economic unit, all parts being interdependent.
Separately they can not exist, together they are a self-supporting organism.
7. Not only would the cause ot peace not be promoted by the partition of Hui^^uy*
but a new Balkan, or Macedonia, would be created right in the heart of Europe and
become the source of permanent strife and complications.
8. Should the foregoing facts and circumstances be considered as of insuflkrient
force and importance to bar the claims of neighboring nations, it certainly ought not to
foe permitted to have any part of Hungary placed under a new sovereignty without
giving the peoples of such pftfts an opportunity to exercise the right of seli-detenni-
nation by plebiscites under fair conditions.
9. HungEuy ought not to be dismembered in punishment because this would not be
warranted by Hungary's acts and deeds before and during the war. Not only waa she
not able to keep out of the war, but developments since the armistice justined Hun-
gvcry's claim that her existence had been in constant peril.
We feel that Hungary can be saved from destruction only by America, as the United
States are the only powerful country which has not been a' party to the immorkl secret
treaties upon which the claimants of Hungarian territory are pressing their daima.
In voicing our protest, therefore, against the proposed partition of Hungary as con-
tniry to the demands of justice and incompatible with the requirements of a just and
lasting peace, we respectfully ask the Senate of the United States to refuse to have our
•country become a party to the annihilation* of a civilized nation.
Respectfully submitted.
Hungarian Aubrican FaDBRATioif,
Hrnrt Baracs, Preside fUj
Euoenb PivAny, StereUrry.
Olkvbland, Ohio, September i, 1919.
AFPBNDIX A. BXCBRTTS FROM STATEMENTS OV AMERICAN AND BRmSH P17SUC
MEN.
In June, 1949, when Hungary, under the leadership of Louis Kossuth was battling
heroically against fearful odds for freedom and ijciependence. President Zacharr
Taylor appointed Ambrose Dudley Mann, of Virginia, '* special and confidential
agent to Hungary,'' and instructed him to report on conditions in that country with
the view of acknowledging its independence. However, the dispatchingof the
American agent was of no assistance to Hungary which, abandoned by the western
Powers, had to succumb to the combined attaclra of the two greatest military powers
of the age, Austria and Russia.
In his message, dated March 28, 1850, transmitting the correspondence relating to
Mann's mission to the Senate, President Taylor wrote as follows:
My purpose, as freelv avowed in this correspondence, was to have acknowledged
the independence of Itungary had she succeeded in establishing a government de
focto on a basis sufficiently permanent in its character to have justified me in doine
so, according to the usuages and settled principles of this Government, and althou^
she is now fallen, and many of her gallant patriots are in exile or in chains, I am free
ctQl to declare that had she been successful in the maintenance of such a government
as we could have recognized, we should have been the first to welcome her into the
family of nations."
XBEATY OP PEACE WITH GEBKAI^'Y. 998
*
As CongreaBxnan Henry J. Steele, of PennBylvania, recently said in a public speech,
had Hungary then not been abandoned to her &ite, the development of democracy in
Central and Eastern Europe would have taken a different turn, and it would not liave
been necesssury in 1917 '^to make the world safe for democracy " by a sanguinary war.
The American agent sent to Hungary also felt that the abandonment oi Hungary at
that critical juncture was a fatal mistake. In his report to Washington, dated Vienna,
September 27, 1849, he said:
" In not formally expressing her disapproval of the policy avowed in the manifesto of
Nicholas of 14th May last, Great Britain either misconceived the nature of the obli-
gations imposed upon her as the most liberal and enlightened of the European powers
or was ignorant of the principles and interest involved in the issue. Had she pro-
claimed in emphatic language within 24 hours after this manifesto reached Downing
Street that she was prepared to resist an armed intervention by any power adverse to
Hun|2;ary, the Czar would scarcely have had the termerity to march his army across his
frontiers. The deplorable omission of such duty changes completely the relations of
power in European States."
Autocracy naving been victorious, Louis Kossuth, the champion of European
democracy, was interned in Asia Minor. In 1851 he was liberated, mainly through the
efforts of Daniel Webster, and brought to the United States in a national vessel as the
guest of the nation.
Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State for the second time, whose celebrated
Hillsemann letter had nearly led to war with Austria on account of Hungary, was the '
principal American speaker at the congressional banquet tendered in honor of Kossuth
in Washington, January 5, 1852.
''It is remarkable^" he said in the course of his speech, "that, on the western
coasts of Europe, political light exists. There is a sun m the political firmament, and
that sun sheds his light on those who are able to enjoy it. But in eastern Europe, gen-
erally speaking, and on the confines between eastern Europe and Asia, there is no
political sun in the heavens. It is all an Arctic 2^ne of political life. The luminary
that enlightens the world in general seldom rises there above the horizon. The
light which thejr possess is at best crepuscular, a kind of twilight, and they are
under the necessity of groping about to catch, as they may, any stray gleams of the
light of day. Gentlemen, the country of which your guest to-night is a native is a
remarkable exception. She has shown through her whole history, for many hun-
dreds of years, an attachment to the principles of civil liberty, and of law and of
order, and obedience to the constitution which the will of the great majority have
eslablished. That is the fact, and it ought to be known wherever the question of
the practicability of Hungarian liberty and independence are discussed. It ought
to be known that Hungary stands out from it above her neighbors in all that respects
free institutions, constitutional government, and a hereditanr love of liberty.
*******
''Gentlemen, my sentiments in regard to this effort made by Hungary are here
sufiiciently well expressed. In a memorial addressed to Lord John Russell and Lord
Falmerston, said to have been written by Lord Fitzwilliams and signed by him and
several other Peers and members of Parliament, the following language is used, the
object of the memorial being to ask the mediation of England in favor of Hungary:
' ' ' While so many of the nations of Europe have engaged in revolutionary movements,
and have embarked in schemes of doubnul policy and still more doubtful success, it
is gratifying to the undersigned to be able to assure your lordships that the Hunga-
rians demand nothing but the recognition of ancient rights and the stability and
integrity of their ancient constitution. To your lordships it can not be unknown
that that constitution bears a striking family resemblance to that of our own country. ' "
« * * « « * *
"Gentlemen, the progress of things is unquestionably onward. It is onward with
respect to Hungary. It is onward everywhere. Public opinion, in my estimation
at feast, is making great progress. It will penetrate all resources, it will come more
or lees to animate all minds, and in respect to that country, for which our sympathies
to-night have been so strongly invoked, I can not but say that I think the people of
Hungary are an enlightened, industrious, sober, well-inclined community, and I
wish only to add, tJiat I do not now enter into any discussion of the form of government
which may be proper for Hungary. Of course, all of you, like myself, would be glad
to see her, when she becomes independent, embrace that system of government which
is most acceptable to ourselves. We shall rejoice to see our American model upon
the lower Danube, and on the mountains of Hune^ary. But that is not the first step.
It is not that which will be our first prayer for Hungary. That first prayer shall be
that Hungary may become independent of all foreign power, that her destinies may
be entrusted to her own hands, and to her own discretiou. I do not profess to under.
135546—19 63
994 TBBATY or PEACE WITH GERBIANY.
stand the social relations and connections of races that may affect the public institu-
tions of Hungary. All I say is that Hungary can regulate these matters for herself
infinitely better than they can be regulated for her by Austria, and therefore, I limit
my aspirations for Hungary for the present to that single and simple point.
''Himgarian independence, Hungarian control of Hungarian destinies, and
Hungary as a distinct nationality among the nations of Europe.''
But let us turn to more recent utterances of authors still hvinjg. Mr. Archibald R.
Colquhoun in his book entitled The Whirlpool of Europe, pubhshed by Dodd, Mead
& Co. in 1914 (which is by no means too friendly to Hungary), wrote under the caption
Slav and Magyar, as follows:
"Although modified in appearance, in customs, and in character by the people
they have assimilated, the Maygars have retained, throughout all vicissitudes, an
extraordinary homogeneity. Hungary'- has been a sovereign nation and a kingdom
since 1000 A. D., and has never owe<i all^riance to any monarch who has not been
affirmed and crowned by her estates. Moreover, the Hungarian is the only complete
nation under the Austrian crown. Even Bohemia, claiming similar historic rights,
does not occupy the same position. Her people are not intact; Czechs are li^^ng
under Prussian nile, Czech territor>'^ has been reduced by the conquest of neighboring
states. Moreover, there is within Bohemia a second nationj the Germans, with equal
rights to the Czechs. Their position is, therefore, constitutionally different from
tlmt of Hungary as a free sovereign state and nation. The rest of the peoples under
Austrian rule are detached fragments of nations, remnants of ancient states.''
In the chapter on Hungary and the Hungarians, Mr. Colquhoun continues:
"The Magyars, as said already, occupy a unique position in the dual monarchy^
not only politically but racially, because they are an entire and homogeneous nation.
The uniieniable fact that they are by no means a pure race, but have assimilated other
peoples, and have undergone physical and mental modifications in consequence,
does not detract from their position. Like the United States (on a much lai^ger scale)
this little nation has been strong enough to stamp its individuality on alien peoples."
"It is stated that it is better for a stranger to address the middle and lower claav
people in French or English first, not with the expectation of being underatood, but
as a passport to favor, after which he may get the desired information in German.
Although this is mainly the result of a policy of Magyarization, there is an element
at work in producing it which is more tnan mere State policy or compulsion. It ia
agreed by many foreigners living in Hung^etry that there is a oontagion about the
nationalist aspiration which ia almost irresistible. In no country in the world ace
there to be seen so many divers races making one (despite local jealousies) in their
support of Hungarian national tradition, and all are afi vehement in their advocacy
of Hungarian independence as the Magyars themselves. Jews and Germans sweU
with patriotic pride over their "ancient constitution," and more than one instance
could oe cited of Hungarian patriots (some well known as the exponents of the Magsrais
to Europe) who have not one drop of Magyar blood.
'*The contagion, the attraction, are in Magyar people themselves, and surely in
this magic Quality lies the secret of their success. The magnetic force they exodse
is doing work which mere coercion or maneuvering could not accomplish. Elements
of weakness, of unevenness, and of danger there are, but the core of the matter, the
character of the true Ma^ar, is not only sound, but is displaying that most valuable
and intangible of Qualities — ^the power of attraction and aswimilation."
But the standard book on Hungary is the Political Evolution of the Hungarian
Nation, by the Hon. 0. M. KnatchbuU-Hugeasen, pub^shed in two volumes by the
National Review office, London, in 1908, which no one who wants to judge the case
of Hungary intelligently can afford not to know.
German scholars have a reputation for thoroughness in research work, not even the
most insignificant details escaping their attention in collecting material. But it
takes an Englishman (or a Frenchman) to sift the essential from me nonessential and
firesent the often contradictory evidence in a way which will not confuse the reader,
t is this rare gift of clear vision and sober judgment which makes the work of the
Hon. C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen so valuable.
The following quotsftions are from the last chapter of his book:
"British public opinion has apparently arrived at the conclusion that the Magyars
are consistently guilty of the employment of methods of barbarism in their treatment
of subordinate races. Trial by newspaper, condemnation without investigation, are
such labor-saving processes thftt their employment is naturally popular, more espe-
cially when the means of forming a considered opinion are not easily acceedble. "nie
Magyars are themselves largely to blame for the fact that judgment has been allowed
to be passed on them on the ex parte statements of self-interested agitators and of
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 995c
humamtarian philosophers and that they are left to console themselves with the
conviction that the ahuse of which they are made the target is hegotten of ignorance
of aqtual facts, of past history, and of the vital considerations of national expediency.
The problem presented by the persistence of minor nationalities is not confined to
Hungary, but affects a large part of Europe, from Ireland to Bessarabia, and the
measure of the abuse lavished by the spectator of the process of absorption, which ia
going on as slowly and as surely now as in the past, is in inverse proportion 'to the
magnitude of the absorbing nation. What Russia had done wi^ impunity would
have evoked the thunders of Exeter Hall if perpetrated b^ a weaker country. Wres-
chen passes almost unperceived, while a petty Slovak village earns European noto-
riety through the disturbances resulting from the dismiasal of a disorderly priest.
The Irishman and the Pole have a recent historical basis for their claims to inde-
pendent existence, as well as the justification of antiquity, which is wanting in the
case of the fragmentary nationalities of Hungary.
"The aboriginal population of what is now Himgary— ^scattered incohesive tribes-
incapable of resisting Magyar arms or, later, Ma^^ar civilization — died out or war
absorbed by the superior race. The process of civilization was purely Magyar. The
development of governmental institutions proceeded along purely Magyar lines and
bore hardly a trace of either Slav or, save for the fact that Latin was the Uterary me-
dium, of western influence. As we have seen, the mass of the existing nationalities
was imported or filtered into the country long after it had received a permanent-
Magyar stamp— -desirable or undesirable aliens, who in most cases repaid the hospi-
tality they received by lending themselves to the disruntive policy of the Hapsbur^..
The disappearance or absorption of the abori^es was due not to fire or sword or vio>
lent compulsion but to the essential superiont^r of the Magyar nation; so convinced
of that superiority that it never saw the necessity of Magyarizing races which in the
early days, having no conscious feeling of individuality, would have been as wax
to receive the permanent impress of Magyar nationalitv. The gates were opened'
wide to European culture from the time of St. Stephen, whose maxim, ''regnum unius-
linguae uniusque moris debile et imbecille,'' show shis recognition of the fact that the
only language and civilization which had hitherto counted for anything in Hungary
was the Magyar, as well as his appreciation of the benefits derivable from contact
with the west. There is no approximately pure race in Europe except the Basque,
the Jews, and the Gypsies, but there are many countries in which ^e factors have
existed which produce the fusion of heterogeneous elements into a single nation —
common recollection of dangers surmounted, common religion, and common civiliza-
tion. Such factors were largely wanting in Hungary. The dangers surmounted
were surmounted by the Ma^ars, who alone did the fighting, the bearing of arms in
defense of the fatherland being the privilege of the nobility. There was no common
history, for history was made solely by the Magyars. There was no community of
religion, as St. Stephen turned to Rome for the national religion instead of to the
Eastern Church, thereby, in all probability, saving the Ma^ars from degeneration
to the level of the Balkan races and from ultimate absorption m the ocean of Slavdom.
''Civilization, such as it was, was purely Magyar, ana all governmental institutions
were directly developed from the gprm evolved by the Magyar national genius before
the great migration westwards. The races imported into Hungary at a later date
arrived too late to alter accomplished facts even if they hadpossessed a far higher
degree of civilization than any of them had in fact attained. Wnat they chiefly cared
for was freedom to exercise their various religions, and such freedom they received
at the hands of Hungary, the land par excellence of religious tolerance. The better
class aliens received the rights of nobility or became fused in the Magyar nation.
The inferior elements remained apart, in a condition neither better nor worse than
that of the ^at mass of Magyar peasants, and had little or no consciousness of dis-
tinctive nationality, or power to resist a deliberate policy of magyarization, had sucb
a policy ever entered tne heads of the predominant race, which, unfortunately, it
never did. Unfortunately for the reason that successive Hapsburgs were enabled
to utilize the forces of ignorance for the purposes of their traditional policy of divide
ut imperes — of centralization and absolutism. For the existence of hostility to the
Magyar idea, tentative and embryonic before 1848, the Magyars have to thank, in the
firat place, their own consciousness of a superiority which made deliberate magyar-
ization superfluous, and, in the second place, the Hapsburg connection. There never
has been any recognized citizenship in Hungary but Magyar citizenship. Though
from time to time the Hapsburgs encouraged the separatistic tendencies of the Serb^
the Croat, the Saxon, and the Slovak, the fact remains that from the time of St. Stephen
to the present day there has been and is no territory in Hungary but the territory
of the Sacred Crown. Austria made a last attempt to produce, a mongrel federalism
in Hungary in 1861, and now itself suffers from the poison of pieirticularism of nation-
996 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAITY.
aliatic antagonism which the Hapsburgs so long tried to inf uae into Hungary for their
own pur]x>9e8. "
^* Nothing can be more misleading than the majority of the maps which purport to
ahow the geographical distribution of the constituent races of Hungary. The Dread,
uniform smudges of color which indicate that this part is Magyar, this Roumanian,
•this Serbian, this Slovak, and so on, and serv#^ as a text for Uie disauisitionis of the
prophets of federalism, obsctire the fact that the various races are so intermin|[led in
All parts of the countrv, and so interspersed with Maygars, that it is impoasible to
•effect clear-cut geographical subdivisions for federalistic purposes such as are poasible
in Bohemia, where the country, is peopled by only two races, the Germans and the
Czechs, between wh^^m the lines of demarcation are comf iiatively easily drawn. A
glance at the map ap^^ended to the recent book of Mr. £me8t baloghy (A Mag>''ar
Kultura 48 a Nemzetis^ek, Budapest, 1908) would do more to disperse erroneous
notions as to racial distribution than many pages of statistics. Minute scjuaree of
color, showing the interpenetration of the nationalities, replace the familiar broad
smudges, and the result bears as much resemblance to the ordinfl^y ethnographical
map of Hungary as a pheasant's plumage does to the tricolor. The great central
plain of the Danube and the Tisza is almost solidly Magyar, as is the eastern part of
Transylvania: .elsewhere, except in the Serbo-Croatian district south of the Szava,
the patchwork diversity of color points an unmistakable .moral — ^the impoesibility of
a territorial subdivision for purposes of local autonop^y, which would not result in
the subjection of Ma^ar and German intelligence to inferior types, whose sole claim
to political differentiation lies in the fact that diey speak a bastard variety of the
languages of more important races. The Magyar element is wanting in not one of
413 electoral divisions; the German only in 37. Slovaks are absent from 211, Rou-
manians from 235, Croatians 344, Serbians from 351. Ruthenes are to be found in
57 divisions, and fragments of other races in no less than 360. As regards the 18
divisions of what Brote and other agitators regard as Roumania irredenta — ^Transyl-
vania and Hungary up to the Tisza— the Roumanians are in an actual majority in
only 11. Magyars and Germans form over 37 per cent of the population: and in no
flinffle district in which the Roiunanians are in the maiority is there an admixture
of less than 11 per cent of other nationalities. Thougn the Magyars constitute no
more than 54| per cent of the whole population of Hungary proper, they are more
than three times as numerous as the numerically strongest nationality, whereas the
German population of Austria forms no more than 38^ per cent of the inhabitants
of the hereaitary Provinces. Between the subordiante races there is no cohesion or
solidarity; the Magyar is the only binding element. PaTislavism, Pangermanism.
and Panroumanism have alterated from time to time, and in ev^ry case the source
of agitation was to be found outside the limits of Hungary. Roumanians and Slovaks
have nothing in common. The Boumanian hates the Serbian, and the Serbian the
Roumanian.''
APPENDIX B. roumania' 8 TERRITORIAL CLAIMS.
[From a treatise entitled "Roamanla in Hnngvy/' by Eofene Pivany.]
Roumania's claim to Hun^Lrian territory is based in the & it place on the principle
of priority of occupation. It is not disputed that the Hungarians had conquered
Hungary a thousana years ago. I.ave tuilt up a state there and have held the country
for a thousand years. It is claimed, however, that before the migration of nations
Transylvania and other parts of Hungary had been the home of the Daco-Romans,
and it is further claimecl that the Vlachs or Vallacnians— those are the appellations
by which the Roumanians had been known until recently — a:e the descendants of
those Daco-Romans. . .
Apart from the fact that the theory of the Daco-Roman origin of the Vlachs has
been proved to be false, the principle of the priority of occupation has never been
defined in the Law of Nations. How many years of occupation is required to estab-
lish a valid title to a country? One hundred years, or five hfmdred years, or more?
If occupation for a thousand years is not acknowledged to be a valid title to a country,
then we may be called upon some day to r elinquish our title to Texas, and California,
and other parts of the United States in favor of Mexico, or Spain, or the Indians, and
the whole map of Europe may have to be made over, too. And it is certainly the
height of absurdity to go back for a title to a country to a period before the migration
of l3ie nations even if the continuity of the race dispossessed by several subsequent
conquerors could be proved, which in the case of the Vlachs or Roumanians can not
The theory of the Daco-Roman origin of the Vlachs was conceived in the mind of
Bonfinius, an Italian humanist, living at the court of Matthias Coryinus, King of
Hungary, who was one of the greatest patrons of the sciences and arts in the fifteenth
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAlfY. 997
century. Bonfinius apparently got his idea from a superficial reading and mis-
interpretation of lordajiee's history, but he did not go into any deeper examination
of the subject, and the theory was soon foij^tten. In the first half of the nineteenth
century, u^der the spell of the nationalistic revival caused by the Napoleonic wars,
GooTf^e Sinkte^', an Hungarian of Vlach descent, took up Bonnnius's idea, and with
considerable ingenuity evolved a fanciful theory of the descent of the Ylachs from
the Daco-Romans.
This stimulated research by historians and philologists of other nationalities, notably
the late Prof. PaulHunfalvy, a savant of international fame, Benedict Jancsd, Ladislausr
Rdth^, and others, and it was finally established, an4 admitted even by Roumanian
historians, that the theory is untenable. The legions employed hy Trajan and hiv
successors to subdue the Dadans came mostly from Spain and Asia Minor, that is,
they were not of Roman blood : the Lower Moesia referred to by lordanes was south of
the Danube (on the Balkan Peninsula), not north of the Danube (Transylvania);
and all evidence pointed to the fact that the Ylachs were Balkan Slavs who had become
latinized in their speech some time between the fifth and tenth centuries. The great
influence of lUyrian on the Vlach language makes it probable that the latter originated
near the Adriatic shore. Thence the Ylachs, who are described by all Byzantine
authors as goatherds and thieves, gradually pressed northeastward and crossed the
Danube into what was called in Hungarian documents of the thirteenth century
Cumania, later Transalpina or Unffzp-Vlachia, viz, the present Vallachia, which was
then a dependency of Hungary ana is now the southern part of the Roumanian King-
dom. They gradually filtered or sneaked also into Transylvania and other parts of
Hungary.
There is no evidence whatever that at the time of the conquest and settlement
of Hungary by the Hun^^arians there were any Vlachs in Transylvania at all. The
first mention of Vlachs m an Hungarian document was in the thirteenth century^
and in 1293 their number was still so small that it was proposed to settle them all on
one crown estate.
All indirect evidence, for instance, that of the geographical names, is also against
the Transylvanian origin of the Vlachs. The old names of mountains, rivers, and
places are of Slavic or of Hungarian derivation, or else they belong to some prehistoric
laugu^e. The Roumanian geographical names now in use in Tiansylvania are of
comparatively recent origin, and are generally translarions or coiruptions of the Slavic
or Hungarian appellations.
Could there be a more conclusive proof of the fallacy of the theor3r of the Transyl-
vanian origin of the Roumanians than that they have borrowed their very name of
Transylvania from the Hungarians? They call that country Ardeal, which has no
meaning whatever in the Roumanian language, being merely a corruption of ^e Hun-
garian Erdely, which is a contraction of the older form Erdo-elve, meaning Transyl-
vania, or the land beyond the forest. If it were true that they had been there before
the Hungarians, they surely would have had a name for that country, and would have
preservea it at least in their traditions.
Likewise they have no Roumanian name for the little town which stands on the site
of Sarmisegethusa, the royal seat of Decebalus, King of Dacia. Is it now called
Gredistye (Slavic) and Varhely (Hungarian), both names meaning ''Buigsite.''
Roumanian propagandist arbitrarily give Roumanian names to Hungarian places,
rivers, etc. For instance, they call Kolozsvar, a thoroughly Hungarian city, Cluj,
the river Koros is Krish tor them, and their propaganda writings they speak of the
Mammouresh (which means the Hungarian County of Marmaroe), the Krishana
(which means nothing at all), and of the Banat of Temesvar as if they were separate
Provinces, of course Roumanian Provinces stolen from the civilized Roumanians by
the wicked Hungarians. All these regions have been integral parts of Hungary for &
thousand years.
Transylvania, indeed, had been separated from Hungary for a considerable time,
but even then she was a Hungarian principality, the Piedmont of Hungary. Gabriel
Bethlen and Francis Rakoczi II, who led the revolts of Hungarians against the Haps-
burgs in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were princes of Transylvama.
The princes of Transylvania did also a great deal for shedding the light of civilization
in Vallachia where up to modem times unspeakable conditions prevailed. For
instance, one of the Rakoczis had the Bible translated into the Vlach language, and
sent missionaries into Vallachia to teach the ignorant Vlach priests.
The Roumanians hold the world record for principicide, or the assassination of
princes, with Serbia — ^whose record in this regard is not to be despised, either^-a bad
second. By far the greater part of the Vallachian voyvodes, or ruling princes, died
violent deaths. Some of them managed to escape their subjects and place themselves
under the protection of Hungary. Life in Vallachia seems to have been just one
'998 .TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
assassination after another. The historian Anthonius Verantius, writing toward th*-
end of the sixteenth century, remarked that '* the Vlachs are in the habit of murd^rinz
their voyvodes secretly or publicly. It is considered remarkable if a voyvode reaclif-
the thira year of his voyvodeship; some times the Vlachs dispose of two or three
voyvodes in a couple of years.*'
In the history of Hungary of a thousand years not one regicide has occurred. This
fact alone speaks volumes for the respective political c&pacitiee of the three races.
Yet in the proposed Balkanization or Macedonization of Himgarv the Hungarians aj>
to be eliminated as political Victors in the favor of races with sucn records. How thb
can make for peace and demtiratic development, and not for chaos and w^ar, it b
difficult to see.
The second basis of the Roumanian claims to Hungarian territory is the rigr^t of Felf-
determination. They point out that in several counties in southeastern Hungar>' xh^
Boumanians are in the majority^ which is ouite true. But it is also true thAt th«jee
•countries form no contiguous temtorjr, and tnat right on the border between Hungary
and Roumania there are three adjoining counties almost purely Hungarian, to' the
south of which there are large Saxon settlements. It is impossible to cut out any
lar^e unbroken territory for Roumania without incoiporating targe minoritiep :>f Hun-
•^anans and Germans, whom it would be unjust to subject to Roumanian rule, beraiiFtp
in point of education, wealth, and everything[ that counts for civilization they are f&r
fluperioi^ to the Roumanians. The Roumanians want the ri^ht of self-deterininatir>s
applied merely to the Roumanian part of the population, which, as has been abowii,
is in the minority, taking the 26 counties claimed as a whole. The right of self-det ermi-
nation can be exercii'ea only through a plebiscite, and to this the Roumanians are
strongly opposed, admitting thus the weakness of their case.
A tnird ailment advanced by the Roumanian propagandists is the "libcsration *" of
the Roumanians from Hungarian oppression. The cha^ of racial oppression by tb«
Hungarians, however is not borne out by the facts, for whatever oppression th^e had
been in Hungary had been on class lines and not on racial lines. The maases of thf
Hungarians or Magyars had to suff«^ from it just as much as had the massee of tlir
non-Magyars; and whosoever managed to rise above the masses belonged to the
ruling classes without regard to race or creed.
The attitude of the Hungarian Government toward the non-Magyars — who are immi-
grants or the descendants of immigrants — ^had been the same as that of our own Govern-
ment toward the non-Endifih-spealdng immigrants: Perfect equality before the Um
hut no recognition as racial ^oups or States within the State. What Lb right if done by
the American Government m America surely can not be wrong if done by the Hun-
garian Government in Hungary.
As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Government had gone a great deal further in iti^
liberalism, for it granted considerable subsidies for the maintenance of- the ecclesiastical
-and educational establishments of the non-Magyar races. There were thousands of
schools in which the language of instruction was other than Hungarian, it bein^ stipu-
lated only that the Hungarian language be also taught as a subject of instruction three
hours a week.
In 1917 the Roumanians of Hungary had five theological seminaries, six preparatory
schools, four colleges, one high school, one commercial high school, one manual-train-
ing school, and more than 3,000 elementary schools, for the 8U|)port of which they re-
ceived 7,767,765 crowns from the Hungarian Government which, in the same vpj^,
paid them also 7,746,533 crowns for the support of their ecclesiastical establishnienLs
or altogether about 15,000,000 crowns — $3,000,000 — ^while an equal number of Cal-
vinists, or Presbyterians — an almost purely Magyar community — received onlv
11,000,000 crowns.
if we take further into cotiBideration that the Roumanian churches of Hungair
enjoyed complete autonomy and that the Roumanians in Hungary had also a splendid!
<:hain of pro6X)erous banks used to a considerable extent for illegitimate political
propajTanda, it must be evident lo everyone that the story of racial oppression in
Hungary is a malicious falsehood.
That the Roumanians do not possess the Hungarian spirit of liberality was proved
once more by M. Bratianu, the Premier of Roumania, wnen he left the peace confer-
ence because he would not subscribe to the guaranties for the protection of racial
and religious minorities demanded from all new or enlarged States by the supreme
council of the principal allied and associated powers. It is evident that Roumania
does not intend to accord the same rights to her future Hungarian subjects as the
Roumanians have enjoyed in Hungary, for the guaranties demanded are modeled
after the Hungarian act 44 of 1868, commonly known as the nationality law, which,
by the way, is an unexpected vindication of Hungary from the charge of racial opprps-
:8ion by the supreme council of the principal allied and associated powers.
TREATT OF PEACE WJTSL GEBMANYn 999
But even if the charge were true, as it is not, the principle that immigrants have
the right to invoke the assistance of the country whence they had immigrated against
their country of adoption, could not be recognized by our Government. On that
principle the Germans of Missouri and Wisconsin, in which States they were, and
X>erhaps still are, in the majority, could have invoked the help of the IQuser for the
anneication of those States to Germany.
Finally there is the sentimental appv.al for the union or, as some propagandists are
pleased to say, the reunion of all Roumanians in one body politic. Of course, to speak
of the reunion of all Roiunanians is sheer humbug and mendacity, for what has never
been united before can not be reunited. As to the union of all Roumanians it is
hardly an object, the accomplishment of which would be in tiie interest of civilization.
The proposed union would not be complete, anyway, for hundreds of thousands of
Koumanuns in Bessarabia and on the Balkui Peninsula would be left outside of it.
And the restricted union as planned could be accompli^ed only by the disunion, or
splitting up, of the Hungarians, a race far superior in civilization, religious and racial
tolerance and political capacity to the Roiunanians, thereby calling forth a new and
more dangerous irredentism than any hitherto known.
S<S from whatever angle we examine the claims of Roumania to Hungarian territory,
we find that they are not justified on any of the principles or pleas advanced.
APPENDIX 0. THE AUTHENTICITT OF THE HUNGARIAN CEN8T78.
(Eztreetfrom a statement made by Mr. Alqyslua Kovtfcs, LL. D., Seoretary of the Hnagarlan statlstK ul
otnoe. In Budapest.]
The census takers had been everywhere first of all the teachers, having been obliged
t>y the census law to act in that capacity. From the year 1910 we have no information,
but in 1900 of the 30,650 census takers 15,111 were tea&hers. In the same year the
number of all the male teachers in the country was 20,970. Hence three-fourths of
the teachers had taken part in the enumeration. In 1910 their number must have
been still greater, on the one hand, because the town teachers were also obliged to
take nart, on the other hand because the village notaries have been superintendents
and thus could not act as census takers. In non-Hungarian regions naturally the
census takers were mostlv non-Hungarian teachers and clergymen.
After the assortment oi the census materiaL too, when the results for the individual
communities were at hand, the statistical omce has taken special pains to obtain the
data of the mother tongue a faithful picture of reality. To this end, it has compared
the data of the single communities with the results of the former census, and if the
differences were striking, explanations were demanded from tiie respective communal
or district authorities. After such informations either the data were accepted for
true or, as it often happened, the erroneous entries were corrected through com-
missioned officials by consulting the people of the place. The correspondence and
minute books referring to it may be still inspected.
Thus the statistical office has done all that was possible to obtain true data as to the
mother tongue. But, in spite of all carefulness and precaution, both at the recording
and at the elaboration, smaller mistakes might have crept in, just as it happens in
all demographical enrollments, in recording age, occupation, denomination, etc.,
be it the most perfect census method of the world. It is important, however, to
notice that such littlo blunders, being committed for and against, in the last result
balance each other.
But the objections brought forth afi:ain8t the authenticity of the census can be
refuted by the census itself as well as by other records of the statistical office. The
chief objection is against the number of the Hungarians. It is stated that the statistical
number of the Hungarians is put hip:her than their number in reality is by entering
ever>'b()dy who speaks Hungarian mto the class of those whose mother tongue is
Hungarian. This is refuted by the datum of 1,875,789 souls who speak Himgarian
without having it for their mother tongue. The number of those who know Himgarian
is published also (in Magyar StatisztikaiK6zlem^nyek, vol. 42)according to communi-
ties. In this publication anyone can see that the number of those who know Hun-
garian does not agree with the number of those whose mother tongue is Hungarian.
Exceptions are only some far out-of-way communities. The above objection is refuted
also by the data referring to the laiowledge of languages. According to the detailed
results of the census the number of:
Hungarians knowing German was 1, 264, 410
Germans knowing Hungarian was 756, 970
Hungarians knowing Slovak was 547, 130
Slovaks knowing Hui^rian was • 417, 300
Hungarians knowing Roumanian was 400, 090
Boumanians knowing Hungarian was 373, 820
1000 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAlTT.
Hungariana knowing Ruthenian was 49, S41
Ruthenians knowing Hungarian was 64, 915
Hungarians knowing Croatian and Serbian was. . . : 178, 50S
Croatians and Servians knowing Hungarian was 178, 985
Except the Grerman, in the other languages there is but little difference between
the number of Hungarians si>eaking a non-Hungarian ton^e and that of the non-
Hungarians speaking Hungarian. The number of Hungarians speaking Grerman ia
larger than that of the Germans speaking Hungarian because in Hungary German ifl,
to a certain extent, also the language of international and commercial iatercoune.
These figures prove that the languages mutually spoken mutually equal each other.
That is, supposing the Hungarians speaking also Roumanian to be really Roumaniana
and the Rumanians speaking also Hungarian really to be Hungarians, by thia their
proportions would not change.
The correctness of the nationalistic data is proved also by the religious cemras in
divisions where race and creed are most identical. In the 15 Transylvania counties
the denominational and nationalistic statistics in comparison is this:
There are: •
Roman Catholics, Calvinists, Unitarians, and Israelities, altogether 906, 400
Hungarians 918,217
Lutherans 229, 028
Germans 234,086
Greek Catholics and Greek orientals 1, 542, 268
Roumanians and others (mostly gypsies) 1, b'2^. 065
In the division of the confluence of the Tisza and Maroe there are:
Greek Catholics and Greek orientals together 1, 160, 581
Rumanians and Serbans together 1, 136, 284
In the county of SzUagy there are:
Greek- Catholics and Greek orientals together 142, 542
Roumanians, Ruthenians, Serbans and *' others " together 138, 280
Thus the denominational proportions justify the percentage of the nationalties.
This congruence of the denominational and nationalistic data can be traced and
proved from community to community.
In disputing the correctness of the itungarian census data the Roumanians used to
refer to their own church lists which are claimed to give a much higher number than
the official statistics. On this basis it is supposed to find 3,600,000 or even 4,000.000
Roumanians in Hungary against the official number of 2,948,000.
How untenable this claim is can be shown from the work of a distinguished Rou-
manian author, Nicolae Mazere, professor at Jassy. M. Mazere, in his work **Karta
Etnografica Transilvanici, " of 1909, has drawn an ethnographical map of Transvi-
vania according to communities, and, thinking the Hungarian data unreliable, he
wished to use the church lists. But in the introduction of his work he is compelled
to confess that ''the church lists — ^the only Roumanian sources at disposal — are entirely
impossible to use.'' (Ibidem, p. 12.) After having reviewed the shortcomings of
the church lists he savs: ''This I do not write for the sake of mere criticism but in
order to prove that the church lists can not serve as basis for a scientific work."
(lb., p. 13.) Therefore, in composing his ethnographical map he follows the records
of the official Hungarian statistics, and has to confess that "this map will cause some
disappointment among the Roumanians, because the Roumanians have imagined
Transylvania to be far less Hungarian." (lb., p. 13.)
The nationalistic relations of the country are not known to the statistical office
from the census alone. The office gathers information on the mother tongue Yearly
from demographical papers and horn school statistics. These data coll<H:tea after
personal declarations, confirm in every respect the results of the census, and they are
all the more reliable as they can be compared in every community with the census
data.
The census gives the following nationalistic percentages:
Hungarians 54. 5
Germans 10. 4
Slovaks 10.7
Roumanians 16. 1
Euthenians 2. 5
Croatians 1.1
Serbians *. 2. 5
Others 2.2
Total 100.0
IBBATT OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
1001
in the same census year, in 1910,, the proportion of the brides and bridegroom^,
and the births and deaths according to mother tongue was as foUows:
»
Bride-
grooms.
Brides.
Born
allTe.
Died.
TfiirMrf^rliUis
54.5
10.0
9.6
18.3
2.3
1.0
2.8
1.5
54.1
10.4
9.9
18.2
2.3
1.0
2.7
1.4
54.2
9.5
11.6
16.3
2.8
1.2
2.8
1.6
51.3
^wmaM
9.6
Slnv^k^ ,
11.8
Runi&nltzu
18.9
Ruthenians
2.7
Onft^lfms
1.1
Sdrvians
3.8
Othen
1.8
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
These fij^ures reiterated from year to year with but little deviations corroborate the
nationalistic relations revealed by the census. It must be remembered that the
discrepancy in comparison to the census results finds its sufficient explanation in the
different conditions of age. mortalitv, and fecundity among the different nationalities
clearly described in the demographical publications of the statistical office.
Last we quote the figures indicating the percentar<^ of the students of elementary
and repetition schools according to their mother tongue in the school year 1910-11:
Hungarians 54. 8
Germans 12. 2
Slovakp 13. 7
Koumanlans 11. 8
Ruthenians 2. 4
Croatians 1.2
Serbians 2. 4
Others .• 1.5
Total 100.0
These figures, of course, are influenced bv the circumstance that the different
nationalities send their coildren into school in different proportions. The data,
however, are extant in each denomination and in each school; thus they may be com-
pared in everv community with the official data. The percentage of the Roumanians
amon^ the school goers is'smaller than in the population. But It is well known that
the schooling of the Roumanians is backward also in Roumania.
After all. the Hungarian statistical office is willing at any time to submit its precise
method and its careful and conscientious employment in the nationalistic enrollment
to the critidsm of the International Statistical Institution — alone competent to judge
in the case.
The Chaibkan. The Albanians are entitled to 20 minutes more.
STATEHENT OF HB. C. A. CHEKBEZI, OF COLTTHBIA TTNI-
VEBSITY.
Mr. Chekrezi. Mr. Chairman, and honorable members, with
profomid appreciation of the honor as well as of the privilege of being
accorded a nearing on the Albanian problem before this committee,
I come before you to lay forth the case of northern Albania as well
as a few general considerations that go into the heart of the problem.
As I do not like to weary you with any historical discussion of the
case, and as this particular case is very strong on its own merits, I will
only refer to the present situation.
The London conference which recognized the creation of the
Albanian State in 1912 assi^ed to Albania, while the other part and
the whole of the vilayet of Kossovo were given to Serbia ana Monte-
negro, along with more than 1,000,000 Albanians who form 90 per cent
1002 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMANY.
of the total population of the Provinces. As a matter of history, this
was effected through a compromise reached between Austria and
Russia in accordance with wnich Albania was to have Scutari and
the Serbo-Montenegrins the rest of the vilayet of Scutari and the
whole of that of ElOssovo. This was done, of coiurse, under the old
system of equihbrium and compromise.
Now, it happens that this part of Albania, and especially the
region assigned to Serbia and Montenegro, have an Albanian popu-
lation that is nothing short of being mdomitable, and whicn nas
always stood as the stronghold and bulwark for the rest of Albania.
It has been this population that has almost always given the signal
for rebellion against the Turks and other invaders. It was among
these people that the famous Albanian League of Prisrend was
formed in 1878 to prevent, as it effectually did, the carrying out of the
decisions of the (Jongress of Berlin relative to the handing over to
Montenegro, Serbia, and Greece of Albanian territories. It was again
this population that gave the decisive blow to the r6^ime of Abdul
Hamid II in 1908, by joining the Young Turks, and when the latter
embarked on their policy of forcible Ottomanization of the subject
races of Turkey, the Albanians of this region took up their arms to
vindicate not only their national rights, but also those of the other
subject races that had been cowed to abject submission by the
ruthless policy of the Young Turks. The crowning act of tJie patri-
otic activities of these same people was performed when they wrung,
at the point of the bayonet, m the summer of 1912, the autonomy of
Albania from Turkey within the four vilayets, namely, those of
Kossovo, Scutari, Monastir, and Janina.
Nevertheless, the London conference of 1912-13 did not take into
consideration either the above-mentioned facts or the spirit of the
inhabitants. Yet, could any one reasonably expect that tnis indomi-
table race would meeklv submit to the foreign rule of Serbia and
Montenegro, after it haa done so much for Albania ? The fact is that
since the day of their forcible incorporation in Serbia and Montengro,
the Albanians of Kossovo and of the northern highlands of Scutari
have been in a constant state of unrest and rebellion. During the
two y^ears of the independent existence of Albania, 1912-1914, the
only neighborly relations that existed between her and her Slav
neighbors have been in the form of continuous border warfare, the
subjected Albanians striving incessantly to accomplish their union
with the mother country within the confines of wnich they would
take refuge whenever tney were hard pressed by their assailants.
During the great war, the Austrians invaded nortnern Albania, and
this unwelcome foreign invasion did alleviate to some extent the
unbearable situation of the oppressed population. But after the
withdrawal of the Austrian troops, the Serbians, now reinforced also
by the Jugo-Slavs, sought to subjugate again the Albanians of
Kossovo, and ever since last December continuous warfare has been
raging on between the Albanians and the Jugo-Slavs. Massacres and
atrocities, such as are reported to be occurring also in Montenegro,
are taking place every day, and at this moment, when we make use
of the privilege accorded to us to raise our voice in your presence in
their behalf, the unfortunate native population is being oombarded
by Jugo-Slav artillery and its towns ana villages destroyed.
XB&4TY OF TEAGE WITH GEBMANY. 1003
But has the peace conference done anything to put an end to this
•awful situation? No, the peace conference has not done anything
^o far, although the Albanian del^ation in Paris has repeatedly
acquainted it with the events that are taking place in northern
Albania. On March 14 last, the Hon. Guinness asked in the House
of Commons the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he
liad any information to the effect that the Serbians were attacking
the Albanians in the provinces of Ipek and Djakova; whether this
region was assimed to Montenegro in 1913 by the London conference
but has never been occupied by the Montenegrins, and whether the
•question of its definitive assignment will be submitted to a new
•examination before the peace conference.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Harms-
worth, replied that His Maiesty's Government are informed of the
fravity of the situation in that region and that it was the subject of
iscussion among the allied Governments and also among the dele-
fates assembled at the peace conference. He concluded his reply
y the following statement: '*I beheve that up to the present no
-attempt has been made to occupy these districts (by aUied troops)
and do not take it to be consistent with the public interest to make
ftny further declaration in this regard.*'
But, although five months have elapsed since then and the carnage
is still going on, absolutely nothing had been done. And not only
that, but it seems that the peace conference does not show any
anxiety to take into consideration this burning issue. In fact,
President Wilson had, some time ago, dispatched Maj. Furlong to
Montenegro to inquire into the events taking place in this country,
where 300,000 Slav Montenegrins are violently resisting the rule of
their kindred Slav Serbians; but the President does not seem to
liave shown any concern over the fate of more than 1,000,000
Albanians who have every right to oppose Serbian and Jugo-Slav
rule and who are now fighting beside tne Montenegrins.
This is not all, however. As though the rebel Albanian Province
of Kossovo is assured to them, the Jugo-Slavs are formulating
further pretensions on additional' Albanian territories. In the
memorandum submitted to the Peace Conference on February 18
last, the Juj^o-Slav delegation puts forth claims on the Province of
Scutari as far as the port of Aiessio, including the northern, basin of
the Drin River. This province is now occupied by Allied troops that
seem to hold it with tne intention of ultimately handing it over to
the Jugo-Slavs. The new Jugo-Slav dainos are countenanced by the
inhuman and monstrous secret treaty of London, April, 1915. When-
ever yon turn to Albania you will always find that the wishes of the
Albanian people and their legitimate rights as a nation strike against
the provisions of that ungodly treaty. In accordance with it,
Yalona should go to latly, northern Albania to Serbia, southern
Albania to Greece, and what is loft would form an Italian colony.
In reality, neitner the Servians nor the Italians nor the Greeks
have any valid claims on any of the Albanian lands, but for the
sinister stipulations of that tretay. As I am specifically speaking
of the Juffo-Slav daims, I wish to point out that they have no other
additional basis except historical considerations. They say that
the plain of Kossovo and the highlands of Scutari have formerly
been in their possession, but tiiat since the seventeenth century they
1004 TREATY 07 FBAOB WITH QEBMAXTL
have been expelled by the Albanians* As a matter of fact and
history, the truth is the other way around. It is universalljr acknowl-
edged to-day that the Albanians are the aboriginal inhabitants not>
only of Albania proper and of Kossovo, but also of Serbia and
MontenejgrOy while the Serbians have made their appearance in those
regions m the sixth century A. D. only. At comparatively brief
intervals they had been able to hold some of these territories, and
then in the seventeenth century the Albanians got the upper hand
and succeeded in expelling them from the region of Kossovo and
from the mountains of Scutari.
At any rate we are not here to discuss the historical considerations
of the claims put forward on either side, because that would provoke
endless discussions and because in this instance we are not confronted
by a theory but by a condition. Much as we may desire and are able
to put forth the irrefutable argument of the existence of 90 per cent
strong Albanian population in those districts which is at this moment
contesting the right to exist bj^ the force of arms, we neverth^ess
waive arguments and demand just one thing that we feel sure we
have a nght to ; that the people, whether in southern or in northern
Albania, whether in Kossovo or at Valona, be given a chance to freely
express their sentiments. We want that the right of plebescite l>e
extended to Albania to its fullest extent. Let the people speak for
themselves, and we are ready to abide by their verdict, whether
favorable or imf avorable to us. Is this aslang too much ? And yet
the peace conference does not seem to be willing to concede wis
elementary right to the Albanians.
And speaking of plebescite, I may be allowed to point out to jou
one notfiible occurrence. In an interview published in the Washmg-
Star, May 16, Prof. Andreades, special envoy of Greece to the United
States, stated that the Greek character of northern Epirus may be
easily attested by an official investigation among the Epirots who are
now living in the United States. Happily, such an investigation has
already taken place. Last May, the Epirotic Union of America sent
to the Peace Cfonference and to several United States Senators, as I
understand, a printed declaration bearing 1,756 names from natives
of the region KoritzarKolonia, one of the two provinces that make
up northern Epirus, who are presumed to favor union with Greece.
Tne whole thing was done in secret, although the declaration states
that it is intended for publicity so that the rivals inay verify the
names. I was recently visiting the office of Senator William King,,
and there I saw for the first time a copv of the declaration. There-
upon, our pan-Albanian Federation of America started an inquiry
oi its own and, based on its own results, it sent a statement, as a
counter declaration, to the Peace Conference with 3,250 original sig-
natures of Christian Albanians only — ^leaving out the Moslem Alba-
nians whose number is still greater — native of the same district. Pray
note the numbers: 1,756 so-called Epirots as against 3,250 Christian
Albanians only. Should not we take this as a plebescite in accordance
with the statement of Prof. Andreades 1 But this is not all, for the
inquiry made by the pan-Abanian Federation brought out the fact
that a ^eat number of the signatures appended to the Epirotic
declaration are forged and anowier number are false. If you want
any proofs, I have them here; this bundle of papers contains the pro-
tests of the Albanians who were shocked to find their names in the
Epirotic declaration.
TBXAXT OF VBk<m WITH GEBHAKY. 1005
Naturally, we have already informed the peace conference of all
these things. But we are afraid that the £plomats assembled in
Paris are not inclined to take anything seriously unless there is some
strong power behind it. Unfortunately, Albania is not backed up
by any such power.
This is why we have received so gratefully the news that we would
be given a hearing before this committee that in our eyes seems to be
the impartial Areopagus of the world. What we expect from you is
that you oidj back up the demand for nlebiscite in every disputed
Albanian territory. We know that the senate of the United States,
of which this committee is a part, can and ma^ use its powerful moral
influence for the recognition and the genuine appucation of the
principle of plebiscite to Albania by the peace conference which has
so far taken cognizance of the existence ot Albania only whenever the
question has arisen of compensating some other State out of the
Albanian lands.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members: Three million people who
i>rize liberty above anything else and have fought for it for centuries
ook now upon you as the hist resort to enable them to exercise the
elementary right of self^-expression that belongs to human beings.
STATEMENT OF MB. CHEISTO A. DAKO, PRESIDENT AND
BEPBESENTATIVE OF THE ALBANIAN NATIONAL PABTT.
Mr. Dako. As a supplement to the statement made by my col-
league, I want so say a few words with regard to the situation in
Albania. During the last 40 years Albania has suffered several ampu-
tations. The last amputation was made in 1913 after the Balkan
war. Through that treaty Greece ^ot a large part of the Albanian
territory; but she is not satisfied with what she ^ot at that time, so
she is asking for something more. They base their claims not on the
national basis, not on the basis of the language, or the race. It meant
that the population of the country which they claim to-day is inhabi-
ted by Albanians, who speak Albanian, and who are by race Alba-
nians. They admit that, but they say ''What does language mean?
It does not mean anvthine . What does the race mean ? It does not
mean anything. That miich makes nationality is sentiment," and
they claim that the inhabitants of that portion of the territory feel
that they are Oreeks in spite of the fact that for five centuries the
Greek cliurch has been allowed by the Greek Government to carry
on a very strong religious and educational propaganda to nationalize
the Albanians, thev nave not been able to do so, and I want to say,
gentlemen, here, that none of the Albanians in that section of the
country feel that they are Greeks, and on the basis of those facts,
gentlemen, I want to remind you of certain events.
In 1914 Greece was asked by the European power to evacuate
those sections of the territorjr which she is claiming to-day, and she
has evacuated only a part of it. She evacuated omy the district of
Kortcha. But the second day after the Greek reply, they attempted
to enter Kortcha and for several months we were in danger. The
Greeks took Kortcha with the purpose that they would be able to
defeat the Turkish Government and then come before Europe and
say that the inhabitants did not want this Kortcha to be included
in Albania. But if this territory was Greek in sentiment, why did
1006 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBSiAKX;
they not accept the Greeks when they came there as liberators. We
captured all the soldiers that were caught after the movement was
repulsed by the civil population, and found that they were not
natives of Kortcha but Greek soldiers. Then later' on the Greeks
did not j^ve up their fight but continued making attacks on the
frontier lor three years. Finally the Albanians had to give up on
account of lack of ammunition, and the Greeks came ana the^ were
repulsed on the whole section. I have maps showing the villa^ges
burned by the Greek troops in 1914. If the inhabitants of that
district felt that they were Greeks, why did the Greeks burn all the
villages? Three hundred and fifty thousand people were killed or
fled for their lives. I have pictiu*es here and statements made not
only by Albanians but by Americans who have visited the place, and
whose reports I have m this leaflet, which show that 350,000
Albanians were driven from the territory when the Greeks invaded.
Senator Brandegee. What is that leaflet ?
Mr. Dako. It is '^Christian Work," published in 1914.
Senator Brandegee. What is the date of it 1
^. Dako. August, 1914.
Now, all these pictures show that the country of the Albanians,,
which Greece is claiming on the basis that the inhabitants feel that
they are Greeks, that they would rather die than be included in
Greece. We have not come here to ask that such and such a town
or such and such a territory of Albania be included in independent
Albania, but we do beg of you, gentlemen, to see that a commission
representing the States should consider the interests of Albania,
and go on the spot and investigate and decide the fate of the inhabi-
tants of Albania.
Senator Brandegee. Did the Albanians make this or similar rep-
resentations to the peace conference in Paris 1
Mr. Dako. Yes, sir. We have presented all these matters, aa Mr.
Erickson said, to the peace conference, but it has never given any
hearing to the Albaman delegation, althoiieh the Albanian inde-
pendence was proclaimed in 1918, and the European powers recog-
nized her independence and guaranteed her neutrality. But in spite
of that fact, eater this Great War we hoped that our independence
would be maintained, and we can not understand why new States
are recognized, Czechoslavakia, and we have no objection to her
independence being recognized, and the Poles, but we do not under-
stand what is the reason of taking the independence of States that
have not been independent and not us, who have been recognized as
independent by the AlUes.
Senator Moses. Do you think the Albanians could maintain a
stable Government ?
Mr. Dako. I am convinced of that, Senator. I have been in
Albania, and I have been in Tiu*key, and I observed conditions
during my imprisonment there in Scutari, and if I had not believed,
the iQbanians were able to govern themselves I would never had
taken the gim or the pen to write against that Turkish rule.
Mr. Erickson. May I state in addition to that that we have had
a practical demonstration of the ability of self^ovemment in the
Republic of Kortcha. When the French were m there they gave
over the government to the Albanians, and they organized a govern*
ment and issued their own currency, issuecl their own stamps, con-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 1007
trolled their own affairs, and when the government was finally dis-
banded because of political influence brought to bear outside, they
had a balance in the treasury of some 3,000,000 francs.
The Chairman. You can file your statement with the stenographer.
(Mr. Dako's additional statement is here printed in the record as
follows:)
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Foreign Belations Committee, oa a
supplement to the statement made by my colleague allow me to say the following
reg^^rding southern Albania:
The ethnographic boundary of southern Albania, beginning from Prelepe, ri^ns
south, between the lakes of Presna and Ostrovo, then strikes eaat, leaving out Kastoria
to a point nearly south of Lake Prespa, whence it runs due south to the Greek frontier
before the Balkan wars.
Diying the last 40 years Albania suffered several amputations, made by the European
surgeons, who have little respect for the sacred principles of nationjEdity and self-
determination. The last amputation in the south was made in 1913 under the fol-
lowing circumstances:
In 1912 all the Balkan States have solemnly declared before the world that the
purpose of their war against Turkey was not to conquer and subjugate any foreign
race but to free their own compatriots, the Slavs and the Greeks, who were suffering
in Macedonia under the Ottoman oppression. In other words, it was a war undertaken
for the defense of the principle of nationsdity. Indeed it was on the express and
solemn agreement of this very principle presented to the mat powers by Ftesident
Poincaire, that the Balkan war waa localized and the Balkan sdlies were left alone
to liquidate the Macedonian question. But shortly after, the Balkan allies, intoxi-
cated by the unexpected success of their military operations, forgot their solemn
engagements made with the great powers and began to manifest openly their real
aim of dividing Albania between themselves, a country which has no racial affiliations
with either of them.
To attain their aim they began a systematic press campaign against the Albanians,
using all the brains and money at their disposal. They worked unceasingly to contra-
dict the truth, by trying to promote the belief that the Albanians lack national consci-
ousness and therefore do not form a distinct na^onality.
England. Italy, Austria, and Germany rejected the view of the Balkan allies, and
determined to support the claims of Albania, and on the 20th of December, 1912, the
ambassadorial conference of London solemnly recognized the independence of Albania,
which the Albanians themselves proclaimed in November 28, 1912.
But, unfortunately, in spite of the assurances given, that the question of the southern
boundary will be settled m a shorter length of time than that of the north, the great
powers contemplating to base their work upon the agreement of July 1, isiso, never-
theless this question remained open till December, 1913. After a long wrangle be-
tween France and Italy, the ambassadorial conference decided August, 1913^ that ^e
boundary between Albania and Greece should run from the eastern limits of the
Kortcha'districtj thus leaving Kortcha to Albania, to Cape St>-le8. For the delimita-
tion of the frontier between uiese two points the ambassadorial conference appointed
a mixed commission to go on the spot and draw the line, taking as basis the language
and the sentiment of the inhabitants.
It took the conmiission three months to get ready to start. Finally they met in
Monaster and in October, 1913, they proceeded. In studying the conditions and in
trying to find out the true feeling of the inhabitants they met with difficulties and
unpleasant experiences from the agents of Greece. The' British del^ate, who was
unjustly suspected of favoring the Albanians, was fired at by a Greek woman while
in Arghirokastra.
Meanwhile, European diplomacy intervened and asked the commission to draw
the boundary not on the basis of tiheir investigation and study but on the basis of a
compromise, which the great powers arrived at to suit their own affairs. B^ this
compromise the districts of Kortcha, Kolonia, Permete, and Arghirokastra with all
its valley, were included within tne boundaries of independent Albania, while
Konitza, the district of Findus, Janina, the capital of southern Albania, and the
whole Province of €hameria, almost exclusively inhabited by Albanians of the Moslem
creed, was given to Greece. Thus, the representatives of the great powers, faithful
disciples of the old school diplomacy, ignored the rk:hts of the people and drew an
Albania on the map, which shut the Albanians in the narrow mountains, the most
ancient race of Europe being forced to yield towns and low lands to the Serbians
and the Greeks and starve on the ridge of sterile crags. Mr. Wadham Peackock,
1008 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
speaking of the boundary drawn by the London conference, savs, '* From the cynical
way in ^hich large populations of Albanians are ignored ana handed over to th<=i*
hereditary enemies, it is obvious that the great powers are not over anxious to fouLci
an Albanian principality which could have a reasonable chance of succem. Tb^
nascent Albania is cut down to a minimum, and if Europe had wiiahed to mftke tlr
new state dependant on Austria or Italy, she could have hardly set it about m* ?e
effectively. There is not much future for an Albania of this sort, but the Slikipetan
are a dogged race, who have survived many tyrants, though so far they have on]v
had to face death by the sword and not strangualtion by the red tape of a bureaucracy. '
Again, the European diplomacy instead of asking Greece to evacuate the territoriee
assigned to Albania^, as it was decided she grantra to Greece first one montfa^ thea
another, changing the date from December 31, 1913, to March 1, 1914^ giving Greece
plenty of time to complete her intrk;ue8 and preparations for the Epirotian tragedy,
which she was planning to play. The last diplomatic pourparlers between the grea:
powers and Greece regarding the evacuation of these regions by the Hellenic troops
are worthy of record for they help one to understand the events which folloived.
On February 13, 1914. the representatives of the great powers preaented to the
Greek Government a collective note regarding southern Albanian 'frontier and the
Aegean Lilands. The powers intimatea that they had decided to give Greece the
isl£ids occupied by her, with the exception of Tenedos, Imbros, and Cafitellarizzo.
The islands will not be definitely handed over to Greece until the Greek troops have
evacuated the territory assignea to Albania, the Hellenic Government undertaldng
to offer no resistance, either directly or indirectly to the wish of the powers. The
evacuation of Albania, the note said, will be begun on Iiiarch 1 at Kortcha and will
be concluded about March 31, 1914.
In its reply the Greek Government agreed to comply with the decision of the poweis.
The Hellenic Government at the same time stated that orders will be given to the
Greek troops to evacuate the territories assigned to Albania in due time, and solemnlv
declared that they will offer no resistance either directly or indirectly to the wish
of the powers.
The Greek reply, however, proposed a rectification of frontier, one near Aighirp-
kastra, and another near Kortcha, and offered in exchange a long but narrow strip
of coast line between Stylos and Cape Pagonia, as well as $1,000,000. The Greek
Government expressed the hope that these rectifications will be settled upon the baeis
suggested, and proposed that the Hellenic troops should witlidraw only to ''the
natural frontiers of the respective districts, pending a definite settlement.
Before proceeding further, we inust add that during the Greek occupation the
lireek military authorities organized in all parts of the country "sacred regiments
of volunteers,^* formed mostly of Cretans, Just what the Greek Government had
determined to do with these '^sacred regiments of volunteers," having their head-
quarters at ''the natural frontiers'' of the district of Kortcha and Aighirokastra, will
be fully appreciated later on. On the 22d of March, 1914, the Greeks evacuated the
district of Kortcha, and the Albanian authorities entered the dty quietly and with-
out ostentation. But we still had the Greek bishop, the only Greek resident in
Kortcha, to contend with. HIb holiness attempted in every waypossible to frustrate
all our advance toward independence of thought and deed, we were in constant
conflict, and in April matters reached the crisis. Under the able direction of Maj.
Snellen, of the Dutch miesion, we established a small force of gendarmes^ but it was
pitifully small, numbering about 100 men, and while sufficient for ordinary police
duty, was hardly equal to the task of combating Greek intrigue, accompanied by
authorized attacks organized and instituted by the Greek military authorities.
Just when fair promisee of the right to be a nation were filling all our hearts with hope
and joy to have these hopes shattered and absolutely swept away is indeed heart
breakink.
At 2 a clock after midnight April 2, 1914, we were aroused by the sounds of church
bells, followed by sun shots. Half awake, I suspected that something unusual wag
happening. We all got up and went around tr^ng to peep through the window and
see what was going on; but nothisg visible, as it wao too dark. Snots, hurried steps,
whispers, was what we heard . Waited impatiently until the dawn, when to our great-
est surprise we heard cheers to the Greek rule. At once we comprehended the greatest
danger in which we were found. We saw Cretans like mad men running up ai^ down
in confusion, shooting any way and whosoever they could and screaming, **Lon2 live
Greece! " After a five days' severe fi^ht in the streets, the leader of tneGre^ dis-
guised attack, the bishop, was arrested and soon after his arrest the Hellenic coup de
main for the possession of the coveted district failed and the repetition of the Barthol*
omian massacres was avoided at this time.
TREATY OF PEAGS WITH GEBMAZTY. 1009
Thus ended the attack upon Kortcfaa, which the Greeks claim was a civil uprising
s«^inst the inclusion of the Province within the limits of independent Albania. Yet
there is a conclusive proof that the attack was engineered and executed by officers and
men of the Greek army operating in conjunction with the Greek bishop. The failure
of this attack demonstrated the futility of the Greek aigument that Koitcha is a Greek
city, for the attack was repulsed by the civil population and not insti^ted by them.
The failure to prove itortcha a Greek Province by tUs means did not deter Uie
Greeks from continuing their attacks, however, and for several months the Greek
Army hammered at the frontier, bombarding the whole Province from three sides
with long-range guns. In the latter part of June a general attack began, and on July
6, 1914, the Albanians on account of lack of anmdunition had to give up. Together
with government officials 350, ?00 people fled for their lives, 50,000 crowded in Berat,
& town of 15,00C population; a hundred thousand took refuge in Elbassan, and Uie
rest wandered for a good while and then went for shelter under the olive trees of
Vallona. It is impossible to depict the horrors which the Albanian people experi-
-enced at this time. Bodies of young women, who had been strangled to death and
outraged by Greek soldiers were found in manv places. Taking possession ot Kodra,
a village near Tepeleni, the Greeks invited all the villagers, men. women, and children
to eather in the church. When all were assembled, 295 in number, the Greek officers
ordered the soldiers to flre on them. All were killed; their heads cut down and hung
on the church walls. Gen. De Wier, of the Dutch mission, went himself to this
village, saw this terrible Greek cruelty, and took the picture of this horrible sight.
Speaking of the work of destruction of the neighbors of Albania, the Hon. Aubrey
Herbert, member of the British Parliament, says:
'^ It is my conviction that these people were systematicall^r exterminated in various
frontier areas of Alvania, by those who had sworn to befriend them. In addition
to all her misfortunes, Albania has suffered this great calamity, that the world at
lane ia ignorant of what is happeninff in that comer of the Balkans.''
The claims of Greece to soutnem Albania, or Epirus, as they like to call it, rest on a
hoary confusion. She has been throwing dust in the face of the civilized world for
•centuries by calling every ^'Orthodox Christian" Greek, defying the facts of the case.
The majority of the population of the Albanian territory given to Greece by the
London conference, as well as that of the region claimed by Greece at Paris, is Moslem
Albania, while the Christian minority, though members of the *' Orthodox Church,''
is Greek neither by race, language, or sentiment. Indeed, if they were Greek by
feeling why did 350,000 of them flee before the Greek army when they illegally invaded
southern Albania in 1914, just a few months before the outbreak of the European War,
and went to starve under the olive trees of Vallona? If they were truly Greeks by
feeling, why did the Greek army massacre so many of those who could not get away,
and why did they devastate the whole countrv? llie Christain inhabitants of southern
Albania or Epirus are^ '^Greeke" onlv in tne sense that the Roumanians and the
Slavs were Greeks a few decades ago, wnen they had the misfortune, too, of being under
the jurisdiction of the ''Orthodox Church" of Constantinople.
Generally speaking, the thoroughly non-Greek character of the Albanian territory
given to Greece by the London conference, as well as that claimed by her at the peace
conference under the name of Epirus, can be seen bythe following testimonies:
Viflcountess Strangford, traveling in 1*863, states: ' 'We started on June 1, intending
to make Janina, the capital of southern Albania, out farthest point. As we had
divided upon the plain mto three or four different parts, the first thing to be done,
when we reached Delvina, was to find each other; but this was not accomplishea
until we had wandered far and wide, loudlv shouting and inquiring from every man,
women, and child we could see. We were decidedly m difficulties, for it was the hour
of the midday sleep and our inquiries were made in Greek, while the seeming answers
were given in Albanian, neither party in the least understanding the other.''
Mr. Mavromnatis, the Greek counsel at Scutari, writing in Aloopolis. 30 years a^,
states: "Ethnically Albania can be divided in five zones. First, southern Albania,
which extends from the Greek frontier up to the Shkumbi River; second, central
Albania, which extends from Shkumbi to Matti* third, northern Albania, which
extends from Matti up to Montenegro; fourth, nortneastem Albania, which embraces
Novibazar, Prizrend, Frishtina^ etc.; and fifth, western Macedonia, from the Ochrida
and Prespa Lakes up to Monastir and Perlepe."
Considering specifically some of the most important towns of this region, we can say,
first in regard to Janina. In the fifteenth century, when Janina was attacked by the
Turks, its fortresses were defended by Albanians and not by Greeks. To this testified
history, which says, that after Janina was besieged, 3,000 heads of Albania's inhabit-
ants of Janina were used to make a p3rramid of trophy. On the other hand, Janina is
136646—19 64
1010 TBKATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
called by the best impartial authorities, the capital of southern Albania. H,ere were
the headquarters of Ali Pasha of Tepeleni, the independent ruler of southeKn
Albania, to whose court diplomatic representatives from Ei^land and France were
accredited. In 1878 Greece begged Europe for a rectification of her northern bound-
ary, but by the same assemblyJanina was officially declared as belonging to Albania
and so was left to her.
The great French counsel, Laurent Pouqueville, speaking about Aiip^rokastra, says:
''There are in Arghirokastra about 2,000 Moslem Albanian famihes. The bishop
complained that there were only 60 Christian families thrown aside the plains out of
town."
The report of the foreign representatives of Monastir vilayet and especially that of
the Swedish charg^, for the reorganization of the Macedonian gendarmerie proves fully
that the inhabitants of Kortcha, town and district, are purely of Albanian nationality.
August Dozon, French consul and distinguished scholar visited Kortcha in 1875.
In his report he says, in jMurt, ''The population of Kortcha is entirely Albanian."
The people of the district of Kortcha number 132,000 of which 100,000 are Moslem
Albanis and 32,000 orthodox Christians, Albanians. The town of Kortcha itself has a
population of 22,000, of whom there is but one resident Grf»ek by nationality, the
bishop, sent there by the patriarch to anathematize all those who refusing to call
themselves Greek worked for the uplifting of their nation. But in spite of this ecclesi-
astical and school proi>aganda made during the Turkish r^^sne with such great sacri-
fices by the Greek patriarch, the inhabitants of these districts have always conserved
their national consciousness, as the rest of their fellow countrymen throughout the
country, their language and their customs. Under the Turkidi r^ime, when our
nationality was denied to us, and when we were persecuted and imprisoned, Kortchu
had the nrst Albanian schools, and always has been the center of gravity of the
Albanian national aspirations, with its schools, papers, and societies. Kortcha is
also the headquarters of the Albanian Orthodox League, whose purpose is to eman-
cipate the orthodox Albanians from the yoke of the Greek cleigy.
^ During the young Turkish r^ime, Kortcha has manifested anew its national aspira-
tions by a meeting of 12,000 men held a^ninst the young Turk scheme of forcing the
Albanians to write their language with the Arabic characters, instead of Latin. All
the foreign consuls are witnesses of the spontaneous national manifestations as well as
of the blood shed in the summer of 1911 bv the young Christian Albanians, who
fought for liberty. They also are witnesses of the f^rm stand of the people of Kortcha
durmg the summer of 1914 and how stubborn they fought the Greex Armv who
attacked the place and like the Huns committed unspeakaole atrocities with the pur-
pose of forcing them to deny their nationality and claim union with Greece.
We are here not to ask that such and such a town or district be included within the
boundaries of Albania. We have come here, to beg your honorable members of the
Foreign Relations Committee to see that a commission representing countries which
have no personal interest in Albania be sent on the spot, see the conditions with their
own eyes, and dedde ihe fate of Chameria and the rest of the districts which are in
dispute.
To mighty, just, and freedom-lovinff America we earnestly appeal for justice. We
do not ask but that which is our own nom time immemorial.
Christo a. Datso,
President and RepreserUnAve of the Albanian National Party
The Chairman. Mr. Erickson, I would like to ask one question.
What are the Albanians, ethnically ? You speak of them as having
been there before all these other races. What are they ?
Mr. Erickson. Mr. Chairman, the ethnologists and anthropolo-
gists are not absolutely a unit as to the origin of the Albanians, but
are practically so that they constitute a remnant of the Pelaspan rac«
that built those great monoliths in the Balkans; that after the Pelas-
gian race came they were in three branches.
The Chairman. They are Aryans, then?
Mr. Erickson. Yes.
The Epirots, the Macedonians, and the lUjrrians speak all the same
tongue or branches of the same tongue.
Tne Chairman. Their language is of Aryan derivation.
Mr. Erickson. Yes; with a construction like the Latin.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANT. 1011
Senator Moses. Is the instruction at the school at Elbassan in the
Albanian language ?
Mr. Erickson. No* in Albania there had been no schools where
Albanian instruction had been permitted; but it had been in Italian.
The Chairman. The hearing is closed.
Senator Enox. May I bring a matter up ?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Knox. A few days ago two very prominent Persian
citizens called on me to inform me of this state of facts that though
Persia had been upon the list of those who are to be invited to jom
the league of nations yet that here very recently these Persian
gentlemen only received information, within the past 10 days it
appears, that Great Britain since the project of the league has been
brought forth, has made a secret treaty with Persia in complete
violation of her fundamental law and would substantially put the
sovereignty of Persia in the hands of Great Britain. These sentle*
men had possession of the material part of this treaty. I tola them
that it had npt been the rule of this committee to hear foreigners upon
that subject, but that they perhaps mi^ht be able to find an American
citizen who was sufficiently interested in Persia to ^ve us this infor-
mation, which I think is highly important and hi^y interesting
They were fortunate enough to get Mr. Charles W. Kussell, whom I
have known intimately for several years. He was my assistant as
Attorney General ana was ambassador to Persia during the Taft
administration. Mr. Russell is here and he says he does not want
more than 25 or 30 minutes to present this matter and I think perhaps
it would be more convenient to hear him now than at some other
time.
The Chairman. To-day you mean ?
Senator Knox. I mean now.
The Chaibman. Certainly. I will be very glad to if the committee
desires.
Senator Knox. I move that Mr. Russell be heard for 30 minutes.
The Chairman. All right. 1 will ask Senator Brandegee to
preside. The committee meets at 10 o'clock to-morrow to hear a
representation of Swedish American gentlemen in regard to the
Aland Islands, and also to give 10 or 15 minutes to the representative
of the Czecho-Slovaks in regard to what was said to-day.
STATEMEITT OF KS. CHABLES WELLS EUSSELL.
Mr. EussELL. Mr. Chairman^ Senator Knox has stated very cor-
rectly what I propose to discuss, and that is the treaty, or a supposed
treaty, between ureat Britain and the Persian Cabinet which actually
turns oyer to Great Britain the total bovereignty, as I understand it,
of Persia. That is to pay it gives Great Britain control of the purse
and the sword, which constitute the assurance
Senator Swanson. You have a copy of the specific treaty?
Mr. Russell. Yes, I have a copy.
Senator Swanson. I have seen several magazine articles, but I
have never seen a full copy of the treatv.
Mr. Russell. I wish to read part of it.
Senator Swanson. You will put the whole treaty in the record?
1012 TSEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY^
Senator Moses. Will you please state the origin of the doctiment!
Mr. Russell. The original of the document is siCTed by two
Persians, S. Hassein Khan and Mohamed Ameen. S. Ha^ein Khan
I know very well. He was formerly in the Persian Legation.
Senator Swanson. Where did you get a copy of that ? How do
you know it is absolutely authentic ?
Mr. EussELL. I know the facts to be true.
Senator Swanson. How do you know that that specific treaty is
authentic ? What is it published in ?
Mr. Russell. It is not published at all. I jgot it confidentiaUv,
and I do not feel warranted in telling how I got it. I can assure yoii.
however, it is authentic.
Senator Swanson. That is a copy of the original treaty ?
Mr. Russell. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. With no modification ?
Mr. Russell. No, sir.
Senator Swanson. And you are satisfied that the treaty was
entered into ?
Mr. Russell. I am satisfied.
Senator Brandeoee. Let me ask if that has been made public bj
Great Britain ?
Mr. Russell. I do not think it has.
Senator Brandeoee. It is a secret treaty, then, is it?
Mr. Russell. It is not a secret treaty. It could not be kept secret
through the subject matter of it.
Senator Brandeoee. I mean it is secret in the sense that it has not
been published by either of the parties.
Mr. Russell. 1 think so, Senator.
Senator Swanson. There is an election going on in Persia now that
will elect a parliament that will ratify it.
Mr. RvssELL. It will never ratify it.
Senator Swanson. But to decide whether it is to be ratified.
Mr. Russell. But there is no intention to ratify it before putting
it in effect.
Senator New. When was this negotiated ? What is the date of it I
Mr. Russell. It is only very recent. It was only a few days aco
that the news of it had arrived, and it must be very recent. I do
not know the exact date.
Senator Brandeoee. Does the treaty itself provide that in order
to be valid it must be ratified by the parliament ?
Mr. Russell. No, sir; I do not think it does.
Senator Swanson. The constitution of Persia requires that, does
it not ?
Mr. Russell. The constitution of Persia requires that.
Senator New. Requires ratification by the Persian Parliament t
Mr. Russell. Yes.
Senator Moses. The constitution of China requires similar ratifica-
tion. The Shantung tieaty went into effect without that.
Ifcfr. Russell. This will also, probably.
Senator Brandeoee. Does the constitution of Persia provide that
they can convey the property of Persia to any other nation ?
Mr. Russell. Unquestionably not, sir, and that is the point that I
wish to make. Neitner the parliament nor the executive could make
such a treaty, nor both together. I can quote the constitution here.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERHAKY. 1013
Senator Swanson. That has been discussed m the September
magazines^ I think in several of them. The magazinas of the Sep-
teim>er issues have discussions of that treaty, but none of them had
a cop^ of it. The reason I was anxious to know was whether you are
satisned that this was an puthentic treaty.
Mr. Russell. I think if you will let me read some of it, it sounds
like an authentic treaty. [Reading:]
It is hereby agreed by the Persian Grovemment on the one hand and his Britannic
Majesty's minister acting on behalf of his Government on the other hand, as follows:
1. Tiie British Government reiterates in the most categorical manner the under-
takings which they have repeatedly given in the past to respect absolutely the inde-
pendence and integrity of Persia.
Senator Knox. They all begin that way.
Mr. Russell (reading):
2. ^ The British Government will supply , at the cost of the Persian Government, the
services of whatever expert advisers may, after a consultation between the two Govern-
ments, be considered necessary for the several departments of the Persian administra-
tion. These advisers shall be engaged on contracts and endowed with adequate
powers, the nature of which shall be a nu^tter of agreement between the Persian Gov*
eminent and the advisers.
3. The British Government will supply, at the cost of the Persian Government, such
officers and such munitions and equipment of modem type as may be adjudi^ed neces-
sary by a joint commission of military exi>erts, British and Persian, which shall be
assembled forthwith for the purpose of estimating the needs of Persia in respect ta
the formation of the uniform force which the Pendan Government purposes to create
ior the establishment and preservation of order in the country and its irontif^rB.
4. For the purpose of financiering the reforms indicated in clauses two and three of
this agreement the British Government offers to provide or arrange a substantial loan
for the Government of Persia for which adequate security shall be sought by the twa
Governments in consulation, in the revenues of the customs or other sources of income
at the disposal of the Persian Government. Pending completion of negotiationB for
such a loan the British Government will supply on accoimt of it such funds as may
be needed for initiating the salient features of reforms.
5. The British Government, fully reco^zing the uigent need which exists for the
improvement of communications in Persia, both with a view to the extension of trade
ana the prevention of famine, is required (?) to cooperate with the Persian Govern-
ment for the encoiuv^ment of Anglo-Persian forms of transport; subject always to
the examination of the problems by experts and to agreement between the two Gov*
emmentsas to the particular projects wnich may be most necessary, practicable, and
profitable.
6. The two Governments agree to the appointment forthwith of a joint committee
of experts for the examination and revision of the existing customs tariff with a view
to its reconstruction on a basis calculated to accord with the Intimate interests of
the country and to promote its prosperity.
Now, then, I wish to show the animus of this.
Senator Swanson. Is that all the treaty ?
Mr. Russell. That is all I know of. 1 think that is all, sir. The
signature is not here.
Senator Knox. It is all on this subject.
Mr. Russell. I think it is all the treaty.
Senator Brandeqee. Will you let me ask a question there.
I saw in the papers the other day that the Shah of Persia was com-
ing to this country. There is a Shah of Persia at present, is there not ?
Mr. Russell, i es ; there is.
Senator Bbandegee. How does the cabinet of Persia make this
treaty instead of the Shah ?
Mr. Russell. Under the constitution the Shah has no responsi-
bility.
Senator Bbandegee. He is not a party to it in any way t
Mr. Russell. Legally, not.
1014 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator Brandeoee. He does not sign ?
Mr. Russell. He does not sign.
Senator Swanson. Have you looked at the constitution of Persia
to see whether a treaty for the loan of money requires ratification ?
Mr. Russell. Yes.
Senator Swanson. It is mostly for the loan of money, is it not ?
Mr. Russell. It takes on the f onn of disarmament ?
Senator Swanson. The control of the Army ?
Mr. Russell. That and the loaning of money.
^ Senator Knox. And the determination by tne conunission of the
size of the army and the amount of ammtmition, etc.
Senator Brandeoee. Before you proceed, will it interrupt you to
ask a (juestion ?
Mr. Russell. No.
Senator Brandeoee. Is there anything in this treaty that we are
now considering, the peace treaty with Germany, that affects this
question about which you are raising objection? Perhaps Senator
Knox has ^ven some attention to this Question.
Senator Knox. The only relevancy tnat it seems to have, to my
mind, is that it was annoimced when the list of nations was given out,
some months ago, that were to be invited to become members of the
league, Persia was to be one of those that was to be invited.
I^nator Moses. That is in the treaty itaelf, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Knox. If that is in the treaty itself, aU the better. It
struck me as a serious thin^ if after the league was projected and after
they were all to go into this league as independent factors, and even
on the assumption that Persia might be a dependent nation, if there
was to be a provision in the league as to how mandatories were to be
appointed for the backward nations, if one of the pro{>onents of the
lefi^B^e and one of the powerful members of the league should make a
secret agreement by wnich she got such a hold on one of the members.
Senator Moses. On page 43 of the committee print appears the
annex to part 1 of the treaty, which is the covenant of the league of
nations. That annex is divided, first, '^Original members of the
league of nations signatories on the treaty of peace. " Then follows
a list of 13 States ''invited to accede to the covenant, " and one of the
13 States so invited hj the treaty is Persia.
Mr. Russell. That is right.
Senator New. I merely wish to remark that it was in order t-o
develop whether anything of this kind was going on that I asked
Secretary Lansing here on the occasion of his hearing if there were
any secret treaties of which he knew, and if there were any assurances
that there woxild be any other secret treaties, and it develops now
that our allies and oiu* associates in the league of nations are making
secret treaties.
Senator Swanson. That could not be a secret treatv.
Senator Brandeoee. Just wait until Senator New has finished.
Senator New. It is a secret treaty. Nobody else has been given
an imderstanding that anvthin^ of the kind was under negotiation,
and I think on tne face of it it is plainly apparent that it is a secret
treaty in order to give one of our allies a greater hold of one of the
so-called backward nations than she had at the time the league of
nations scheme was outlined.
TKRAXY OF FRAOB WITH CffiBMAKT. 1015
Senator Swanson. As I understand, your position then would be
that under the lea^e the United States could not enter into a
treaty with a South American Republic concerning money or any-
thing. Is that your contention ?
Senator New. No; that is not my contention.
Senator Swanson. It is not a secret treaty. It must be ratified
by the parliament in Persia.
Mr. KussELL. It will never be ratified.
Senator Swanson. But it must be ratified in order to be effective t
Mr. RussEilL. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. Consequently it could not be a secret treaty.
The only question was if Persia and Great Britain were to enter
into an agreement regarding the subject of loaning money and
fiLrnislung officers for the British Army, and that would not be a bit
different than if we were to enter into an agreement with Mexico
or a South American RepubUc.
Mr. Russell. It would be very much different, if you will allow
me to read some history.
Senator Moses. May 1 interrupt ?
Senator Bbandeoee. One at a time.
Mr. Russell. What is the question ?
Senator Swanson. What is the difference between this and any
agreement ?
Mr. Russell. The difference is this : For a himdred years Persia
has been bedeviled bv Russia and England, and this is a continuation
of that kind of conduct on the part of England, as I can show by
this pamphlet, a copy of which I mtend to give to every Senator.
Senator Swanson. Does she pledge her sovereignty and integrity ?
Mr. Russell. She always does that.
Senator Moses. Would it help change the essential conditions in
the case at all if we admitted that this treaty is another open cove-
nant, openly arrived at? ^ '
Senator Knox. It does not make any difference whether it is a
secret treaty or open treaty. It is what the treaty does.
Senator Moses. That is exactly the point.
Senator Ej^ox. It would be a reasonable understanding and there-
fore be validated by article 21 of thb league of nations.
Senator Swanson. Is it not an original understandiag, like the
Monroe doctrine ?
Mr. Russell. I want to say this, that it is not a secret treaty, as
it was not made in secret, and it is not the kind of treaty which the
Constitution excepts from ratification by the national assembly.
The Constitution provides [reading] :
No treaty shall be made, nor a concession given, nor any national property trans-
ferred except after ratification and approval by a majority of Parliament, save when
only secret treaties are necessary in tne interest of the country.
And then further down [reading]:
Treaties which may be in the interest of the government and liation to keep secret
are excepted.
Now, I contend that the subject matter is such that it would not
be allowed to be kept secret, the turning over the whole power of
the Government to a foreign power.
1016 TREATY OF PBACJB WIT^ GBRMA17Y.
Now, then, I want to read a few things to show the animus of the
treaty, the meaning of the treaty, and this pamphlet contains in
chronological order
Senator Swanson. What pamphlet ?
Mr, Russell. Signed by tnese two Persians.
Senator Swanson. Who are they ?
Mr. Russell. I do not know Mohammed Ameen, but S. Hassein
E3ian used to be a member of the Persian Legation. They are both,
I understand, Mohammedans, Persians by birth, consequently
Aryans and kin to us.
. Now, then, if you will let me read right here a little of this pamphlet,
I think you will see the animus and intention of the treaty. [Reading:]
By a new treaty with the British Government Persia has been sold to Oreat Britain.
It Ib necessary that it be known that in the year 1906, as the result of a revolution,
Persia acquired a constitution.
And it is this constitucion which is quoted here, and the thing that
is of concern in this treaty, among others, is whether it will be
approved by the national assembly. [Reading:]
The British Government has concluded a treaty at a moment when there is no
Parliament in session to ratify, and with a cabinet which is a creature brought into
being as a result of pressure by the British Government, and which has not been
presented to the Parliament by a young Shah, who has constantly been threatened
with dethronement if he falls to support Briti-m projects, and who has no legal right
or power to sign the treaty without tne approval of rarliament.
Senator Knox. How old is he ? Do you know ?
Mr. Russell. I attended his coronation in 1914. He was then 18
years old. [Reading:]
It is said that the British are going to advance $10,000,000 for this treaty. Is it not
stranse that she wants to purchase a country three times as big as Fruice in such an
illegal way and for really nothing? Because whatever she arranges to pay to the
Persian Government is to be paid in bank notes, while the consession of the bank
notes ha^ been eiven to the English bank called the Imperial Bank of Persia and
there is not at all any actual control on publishing the bank notes. It is to be sadd
the payment of mUlions means iLe deli^rery of some pieces of paper. In the English
Parliament it has been said that the British Grovemment will respect the independ-
ence and integrity of Persia and again that this treaty will be proposed to the peace
conference.
Resp^ecting the integrity and independence, which always have been promised by
the British Government, some details will be mentioned, as follows, to prove ^e
reliability or the contrary of such promises. But is it not wonderful to have it sidd
in the British Parliament that probably — even probably — ^wHl be submitted to the
peace conference such a shameful, illegal treaty?
No constitution could have been intended to give the Parliament
or the executive or both the power to approve such a national hari-
kari.
Senator Swanson. Have you not seen somewhere that an election
is being held there for the purpose of rejecting or ratifying the treaty !
Mr. KussELL. No.
Senator Swanson. I have seen in the magazines that an election
is pending.
Mr. Russell. An election is pending.
Senator Swanson. And that is an issue ?
Mr. Russell. An election goes on there for a long time.
Senator Swanson. And that the treaty is an issue in the election?
Mr. Russell. I do not think that is correct.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAITY. 1017
Senator Brandegee. What is the date of the papers from which
you are rea ding ?
Mr. E^TssELL. August 9.
Senator Brandeqee. Do you know whether this treaty has been
sent to the peace conference or not?
Mr. Russell. 1 am pretty sure it has not, but 1 do not know.
Senator Swanson. It has been discussed in the British Parliament,
has it not ?
Mr. Russell. In a way.
Senator Brandeoee. Was it acted upon by the British ParUa-
ment or the House of Conmions ?
Mr. Russell. I do not know that, sir.
It says here [reading] :
In the English Parliament it has been said that the British Government will respect
the independence and integrity of Persia and again that this treaty will be proposed
to the peace conference.
That statement was made that it would probably be proposed to
the peace conference on account of the outcry that the French were
making about the treaty. They Uke to have a word in Persia every
now and then. They had some official business themselves there at
one time. I do not think there has been any action taken. It may
have been ratified bv the British ParUament.
Senator £[nox. This hearing will develop the facts. That is the
§oint of it. If there are any questions aoout this thing, this will
evelop the truth.
Mr. Russell. Now, then, a little later along it says [reading:]
On the 31st of August, 1907, when a treaty wab ^xiade between Russia and England
for the arrangement of three zones in Persia, which raised ^eat commotion, in order to
silence the Persians, 8ir Cecil Spring-Rice, the British Minister in Teheran, wrote an
official letter to the Persian Government containing the following lines: ''Neither of
the two Governments who have signed the treaty wants anything from Persia and this
treatv does not harm or mean any loss either to Persia or any other powers, because this
is only an agreement between Russia and Great Britain Uiat hereafter neither of the
two shall take anv step against the other. So Persia is quite free and able to use all
her energies for the welfare of herself, and, if there was any prohibition for develop-
ment of the country before, hereafter there would be no prohioition. The independ-
ence and integrity of Persia is respected. ''
•
I wish to remind you now that the railroads, the means of trans-
portation, have to be arranged by cooperation with Great Britain.
That is to keep the people nom building raiboads in Persia, except
any few that sne. might want.
This letter was handed to the Persian Grovemment on September 4,
1907, while in the introduction of the isaid treaty of 1907 is written
also, in effect, as follows: ''As both Great Britain and Russia hare
been and are respecting and not touching the independence and
integrity of Persia" — ^now let us see how the truthfiuness of their
promises has been manifested.
On June 23, 1908, they were quietly supporting Mohamad Ali Shah when by his
orders the Parliament was bombarded by the Russian officer, Ck>l. Liakhoff, and a
number of Liberals and Deputies were killed, captured, and hanged.
Senator Knox. I do not think that this that you are reading is
relevant to the question. As you are going to put it into the record,
I suggest that you get down to the meat m the thing, if there is my
more meat in it. 1 think that is about all.
1018 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANT.
Mr. KussEix. I think that you made my speech before I got a
chance to make it.
Senator Knox. I am jglad to serve you in that way.
Mr. Russell. I am glad you did, S!enator.
Now, then, I did not Imow what the committee would do or
attempt to do. As I see it, it is turning over the absolute contxt>l of
the functions, of all the administration, of all the departments of the
Govemment. and especially the sword and the purse, to a forei^
{»ower, whicn has been oppressing Persia in connection with Russia
or a himdred years. Now that Russia is out of the game, it seems to
me that this policy of the English ought to be abandoned. She
ought to learn better manners. I see no reason for her going ahead
in the same old way or a little worse, because the fact that Russia was
there was some kind of a safeguard for Persia's independence.
Senator Swanson. Do you think they ought to be prohibited from
making loans?
Mr. Kussell. Why, Senator, I do think that I shoxild put it as
stron^y as that, that they shoiild be prevented from making loans
from Great Britain.
Senator Swanson. You think that Great Britain in all probability
shoiild be prohibited from making loans to credit nations?
Mr. Russell. Great Britain should not be allowed to make loans
to Persia which have been the cause of oppression.
Senator Swanson. In making loans and building railroads? For
that purpose?
Mr. Russell. They should not be allowed to make loans where
other people could not.
Senator Moses. If they had a consortixun in Persia, just as has
been proposed in China, there woiild be no objection to tnat?
Mr. Russell. No, sir; I think not.
Senator Moses. What, ir your opinion, is going to be the practical
effect of this treaty ? Is it going to put Persia under a virtual British
protectorate ?
Mr. Russell. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Moses. What will be the effect upon the voting strength
of Great Britain in tha council of the league of nations when Persia
becomes a member? Will it increase Great Britain's vote by one?
Mr. Russell. I hardly think so.
Senator Bbandeqee. I have not followed you in your process of
proving that Persia is losing her sovereignty.
Mr. Kussell. Why, she has turned over'practically the purse and
the sword bv this treaty, which says that the British shall furnish
experts of all kinds for the various departments — that is, the financial
department included — and is to furnish officers for the army that is
to be created.
Senator Ej^ox. And what I think is even a more significant fact,
just abandoning your expression of '*the purse and the sword," she
IS giving her whole financial affairs under tne control of Great Britain
by virtue of loans and the appointment of financial advisers and
experts to handle not only those loans but to handle her taxation.
Then another great attribute of sovereignty that she is giving up is
that the size of the army and the equipment are all to depend upon
the joint commission, of which Great Britain is to be a member.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANY. 1019
All of those things are a surrender of the attributes of sovereignty of
the most important character, I do not care whether it is the whole
sovereignty or not.
Senator New. I understand that the army is to be imder the com-
mand of British oflBcers.
Senator Knox. Undoubtedly.
Mr. RussEix. Yes. And these advisers are not only advisers, but
in any case they must take the advice, as this pamphlet will con-
vince the Senators. And I wish to state that the historical facts down
to the time of my leaving Persia in October, 1914, states in this
Eamphlet, I know definitely to be correct, and I have every reason to
elieve, I am thoroughly convinced, that the others are correct.
Senator Brandegee. China has made similar treaties with other
powera, has she not, as to financial advisers?
Mr. Russell. There would be similar
Senator Knox. I can answer that question.^
Senator Beandegee. I was asking only for information.
Senator Knox. The only advisers China has had uader our treaties
have been men to see that the funds that were loaned to China were
honestly expended for the purposes for which they were loaned.
For instance, when we loaned money to build a railroad, we appointed
an officer to see that the railroad was built with the money. I thbik
Great Britain loaned money, and she appointed an adviser for the
same purpose.
Senator Brandegee. Those are practically inspectors as to the
expenditure of the money.
Senator Knox. Yes; and general advisers, as Moi]gan Shuster was
on financial matters. They went as private individuals, not as
representatives of the Government.
Senator Brandegee. One more question, then I have done.
It appears by the proposed treaty that Persia is to be asked to join
the le^ue of nations, but the league o^ nations is not yet in existence.
Great Britain and Persia are in the process of making this treaty to
which you refer. What do you suggest that the Senate can do aSout
it?
Mr. Russell. I wish the Senator to make a ringing protest against
the whole thing, and if the Senators will read this pamphlet carefully
and accept my statement that all the historical facts up to the time
that I left, in October, 1914, are true, they will be convinced that such
a protest ou^ht to be made.
Senator Brandegee. You will put the pamphlet in the record,
and also the copy of the treaty ?
Mr. Russell. Yes.
(The pamphlet referred to, containing a copy of the treaty, is
herewith printed in the record., as follows:
Phe New Strangling of Persia — Great Britain's Promises and Their Ful-
fillment— ^A Hundred Years Oppression.
The iospiring words of President Wilson at the crisis of the Great War found lodg-
ment in tne public conscience of the world, quickened the pulse of nations long
subject to oppression, and opened wide the door of hope to peoples who till then were
in despair.
Then, for the first time, words were spoken which did not deal with temporary
expedients or with an adjustment of the issues of the war in the interests of die strong
and at the expense of the weak.
1020 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAN^Y.
Then, it was sought to lay the founoations of a peace which would not be merely
the reestablishment of an artificial equilibrium among the powers, but the realiza-
tion of a true accord founded upon justice and right. All nations, great and small,
were presumed to be equals, although up to that moment such equality and liberty
were unknown to the philosophy of international politics.
The words of President Wilson were as a rainbow consoling humanity in its hour of
travail, pointing to a path flooded with the light of hope and destined to lead to a
new era.
After a vigil of 50 years, Alsace and Lorraine have been reunited to France. Italy
welcomes to her bosom her children of Italia Irredenta. Poland's martyrdom is over
and her independence a fact. The Jugo-Slavs are gathered to their mother Serbia,
Bohemia has finally heard the tocsin ring out the hoiur of her deliverance.
But Persia, of glorious history, and the Persians, the outposts of civilization, who
have been the prey of two great powers for a century and whose progress has been
arrested by external forces, find themselves laboring under a new foreign oppreesion.
When they wished to adopt the European methods in their economic and political
.systemc, tney found themselves face to face with powers who only thought of weaken-
ing them and suppressing their independence. Notwithstanding that promisee have
b^n solemnly made to respect Persia's independence and territorial integrity, these
promises have not been observed, and the violation of her sovereignty snould give
an unquestioned right to Persians to lay their claims before the peace conference and
the lea^e of nations, especially before the liberal peoples of the world, and above all
the Umted States of America, whose President has opened the door of hope to all
nations.
By a new treaty with the British Government Persia has been sold to Great Britain.
It is necessary that it be known that in the year 1906, as the result of a revolution.
Persia acquired a consritution. Her new status was recognized by all the powers,
after the fundamental law was ratified by the nation and proclaimed by the Shah
(Mozaff arod-din ) .
In that constitution it is written (a) the King shall not interfere with the govern-
mental functions. (6) The Government shall consist of a prime minister, selected
by the King, presented to and confirmed by the Parliament, and then the |nime
minister is to form his cabinet, (c) No treaty shall be made nor a concession given,
nor any national property transferred except after ratification and approval by a ma-
jority in Parliament, save only when secret treaties are necessary in the interest of
the country, (d) The King before being crowned, on coronation dav, and before
ascenduig the throne, shall appear before Parliament and make an oath that he will
do nothing contrary to the constitution or the interests of the country. The present
Shah, who is 23 years of age, at the age of 18 took such an oath and was given the crown.
Articles 16, 22, 24, 25, 39, and 44 of the fundamental law are as follows:
Art. 16. In general, all laws necessary for the strengthening of the Government and
Kingdom and the regulation of State affairs and for the constitution of ministries
must receive the sanction of the National Assembly (Parliament).
Art. 22. Whenever a part of the revenue or property of the Government or State
is to be sold, or a change of frontier or border becomes necessary, it wiU be done with
the approval of the National Assembly.
Art. 24. Treaties, conventions, the granting of concessions, or monopolies, either
commercial, industrial, or agricultural, whether the other party be a native oar a for-
eigaer, can only be done wiQi the approval of the National Assembly.
Treaties which may be in the interest of the Government and Nation to keep eecret
are excepted.
Art. 2o. All loans to the Government of any nature whatsoever, whether internal
or foreign, wiU be made with the knowledge and approval of the National AsBembly.
Art. 39. No sovereign can ascend the throne unless, before coronation, he appeara
before the National Afieembly, and in the presence of the members of the NatKmai
Assembly and the Senate and the cabinet of ministers swears the following oat^:
''I take the Lord most High to witness and I swear by the Holy Word of God and by
all that is sacred before God, that I will devote all my enercy to preserving the inde-
pendence of Persia, guarding and protecting the limits of the realm and the ri^ts of
the people. I will be the guardian of the fundamental law of the constitution of
Persia and will rule in accordance with it and the laws which have been decreed,'* etc.
Art. 44. The sovereign is absolved from all responsibility.
The British Government has concluded a treaty at a moment when there is no
Parliament to ratify, and with a cabinet which is a creature brought into being as a
result of pressure by the British Government, and which has not been present to
the Parliament by a young Shah, who has constantly been threatened with dethrone-
ment if he fails to support British projects and who has no legal right or power to nga
the treaty without the approval of Parliament.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1021
There is no doubt concerning the illegality and invalidity of the treaty, and the
iw-orld should judge whether the British Government, by reason sdone of its might,
ehould compel the execution of this spurious instrument while the peace conference
is sitting and while a league of nations is being formed to prevent ttie commission of
«uch wrongs to weaker nations as Great Britain is guilty of in this indefensible pact.
It is said that the British are going to advance $10,000,000 for this treaty. Is it
not strange that she wants to purchase a country three times as big as France in such
an illegal way and for really nothing? Because whatever she arranges to pay to the
Peisian Government is to be paid m bank notes, while the concession of the bank
notes has been given to the English bank called the Imperial Bank of Persia, and there
is not at all any actual control on publishing the bank notes. It is to be said the pay-
ment of millions meano the delivery of some pieces of paDer. In the English Parlia-
ment it has been said that the British Government will respect the independence
and integrity of Persia and again that this treaty will be proposed to tne peace
conference.
Respecting the integrity and independence, which always has been promised by
the British Government, some details will be mentioned, as follows, to prove the relia-
bility or the contrar\' of such promises. But is it not wonderful to have it said in the
British Parliament that probably — even probably— will be submitted to the peace
<x)nference such a shameful, illegal treaty?
On the 31st of August. 1907, when a treaty was made between Russia and England
for tlie arrangement of three zones in Persia, which raised great commotion, in order
to silence the Persians Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, the Britisn minister in Teheran, wrote
-an official letter to the Persian Government containing the following lines: "Neither
of the two Governments who have signed the treaty wants anything from Persia, and
this treaty does not harm or mean any loss either to Persia or any other powers, because
this is only an agreement between Russia and Great Britain that hereafter neither of
the two sludl take any step against the other. So Persia is quite free and able to use
all her energies for the welfare of herself, and if there was any prohibition for develop-
ment of the countrv' before, hereafter there would be no prohibition. The independ-
ence and integrify of Persia is respected." This letter was handed to the Persian
Government on September 4, 1907, while in the introduction of the said treaty of
1907 is written also, in effect, as follows: " As both Great Britain and Russia have been
and are respecting and not touching the independence and imtepity of Persia" —
now let us see how the truthfulness of their promises has been manifested.
On June 23, 1908, they were quietly supporting Mohamad Ali Shah when by his
orders the parliament was bombardea by the Russian officer Col. Liakhoff, and a
number of liberals and deputies were lolled, captiu'ed, and hanged. The nation
once more started a revolution and dethroned the said traitor shah on July 16, 1909.
When the Persian Parliament approved that all the advisers for the finance depart-
ment ought to be employed from America, and fortunately the honest and strong
American Mr. W. Moi^n Shuster, as a private American citizen not representing the
Government of the United States, was appointed as treasurer general, and with his
American colleagues commenced the development of the finance, and a sum of money
was lying in the treasury, in violation of the signed documents concerning his abdica-
tion they caused the dethroned king to attack Persia. Although before the national
forces he was not successful, yet one result was arrived at — ^that was to empty once
more the treasury. But still this was not sufficient, and on the 29th of November,
1911, the following ultimatum was sent by the Russian Government to the Peman
Government (approved by the British Government), giving only 48 hours for the
repi/:
Article 1. Mr. W. Morgan Shuster must be dismissed from the Persian service.
Art. 2. Persian Government must not hereafter employ advisers from other foreign
countries, but by permission of Russia and Great Britain.
Art. 3. Persia must pay all the expenses of the Russian military who had been sent
to Persia accompanpng this ultimatum.
As the parliament rejected the ultimatum unanimously, the Government was
pressed by the two neighbors to dissolve the parliament, and did so, and the ultimatum
wiw accepted without the action by the Mejleas, of all which Mr. Shuster has written
fully in his book called "The Strangling of Persia."
At the same time Russians be^n to seize and han^many liberals of high class and
head priests and tear their bodies. Prof. Edward Browne, the oriental professor of
Cambridge Universitv, proves all their savageness in his illustrated book. Still this
was not sufficient, and the Mohamedan's most sacred place in Khorasan was bombarded
by Russian troops. From the one side thousands of Russian troops were scattered
through Persia and from the other side the British Government began, from the yeai
1909, to send 400 Indian troops, and by and by added others until the spring of 1913,
1022 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
when the British sent the Seventh Regiment of Indian troops to the inaportant pf?t
of Persia, Bushire, on the shore of Persian Gulf; and during the war in Europe ihe
British occupied the said port, which caused a great commotion in Persia again^it
Great Britain, so that on the way from Shiiaz to Bushire the British consul was?
arrested by the national volunteers, and they were obliged to return the port to Per-
sian hands to obtain the consul's release.
On the 26th of June, 1914, Sir Walter Townley, the British minister in Tefaenui,
writes a circular, No. 2, to all the British consuls in Persia as follows:
'' It is thought that at present in London and St. Petersburg they are tryini^ to
make a fundamental review of the treaty of 1907 about Persia to make it much
stronger."
On the 27th of May, 1915, Mr. Marling, the British minister in Teheran, wzitee to the
British consul in Suraz, Maj. 0' Conner, as follows:
"We know well that the governor of Shiraz (Mokhberossalteneh, a well-known
patriot) ought to be dismissed and since the day of my arrival I have been trying'
I or it."
On February 9, 1915, Sir Valentine Chirol, the adviser of the Viceroy of India, who
had been traveling with the Viceroy in the Persian Gulf, from on board of the ahip
writes a letter to Maj. O'Connor, the British consul of Shiraz, as follows:
"After a long journey, here I am in the port of Bushire, deep in thought, and from
the top of the hills I am looking toward you, and unfortunately see you sitting alone,
sunken in thought and expecting an angel from Heaven to make clear the destiny of
Persia and that of some more powerful countries; but how can a man fail to regret that
a very rapid and more practical cooperating step is not taken to reveal the secrete of
the said oestiny as soon as possible. Although I was not thinking 11 years a^, when
I was in this port, accompanying Lord Curzon, the former Vicoroy of India, that I
should be back so soon, my real reason is for the accomplishment of the project cod-
ceived by Lord Curzon ana (he making more practical his plan about the above said
destiny, i. e., to get closer and nearer to the destiny I refer to."
In April, 1915, just on the day of the arrival of Mr. Marling, the British minister in
Teheran, at once, without waiting for official ceremonies of'introduction, he visited
the young Shah and pressed on him that Moshirod-dowleh, the patriot prime minister,
and his cabinet members ought to be dismissed and, as Moshirod-dowleh is quite a
self-respecting gentleman, he at once resigned and his forced resignation has led to
all the misfortunes of Persia up to the present.
About 28 months aso when Sepahsalar, the former Sepahdar, was prime minister,
the two aforesaid truthful Governments got a signature from him that a mixed com-
mittee containing five members, one English, one Russian, one Belgian (the Belgian
Suite in favor of them), and two Persians (but these two must be cnosen to suit the
LuBsian and British^. This committee to have full control over the finances of Persia
the military, the religious and other endowments, etc., navin^ full authority. Aod
accordingly, that committee was formed and, as Russian armies were quite close to
the capital, nobody dared to breathe; but this control did not last more than six
months, the length of time of Sepahsalar's cabinet. Again the Persian nation breathed ;
he was dismissed and the arrangement was broken up.
About eight months ago. Sir Percy Cox, the British minister at Teheran, went to
the young Shah and told him that the Shah must not interfere for the change of the
present cabinet, and whenever he wants to interfere, it is better to find out first the
opinion of the Briti^ Government.
About four months ago, in spite of the law, article 12, as follows:
"Art. 12. No person will, by any excuse whatever, have the right to proceed
against any member of the assembly.* Should by chance one of the members be guilty
01 a public offense or crime, and should he be caught in the act of committing the
offense, the canying out of punishment must still be with the knowledge of the assem-
bly," a note was sent from the British Legation of Teheran to the present cabinet,
ordering them to exile four very well-known patriots of high class, two of them,
Mostomiiol-Mamelek and Samsamos-Salteneh, many times each of them prime min-
ister and at present deputies, and two others, Mokhberos-Salteneh, many times minis-
ter and at present a deputy, and Mostesharod-Dowleh, many times minister and
ex-president of the Parliament, but this was stopped by the voice of the public and
fortunately they were not exiled.
Letters and telegrams even from the capital of the nearest province, Kazvin, 72
miles from Teheran, when sent to Tehbtan are censored by the British.
There are four to five thousand British troops in South Persia, in the name of South
Persian Rifles, more than 5,000 in Kazvin and Resht, a ^eat number in Azarbaijan
and Khorasan in the north; also the same in Hamadan, Kurdistan, and Kermanahah,
in the west.
If some one wants to explain ever>*thing about all their oppressions and tjTaimy,
he needs hundreds of pages to do so.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1023
Yes, they have fully respected the independence and integrity of PersU, and the
new treaty' was for that purpose. Persia has sent a deleciation of patriot members for
the peace conference to Pans to make Persia free from all the past heavy loads. The
result is the heaviset burden of all — the new treaty. Making a treaty requires two
Bides, while this treaty has been confirmed only by one side, because the other side
is the Persian Parliament^ which is not in session at present.
At the time of the armistice the Allies said that tney would not converse a single
'word with a military German Government, but would arrange with a National Govern-
ment, and as a consequence many changes were made in Germany.
Are now the peace conference, the league of nations, the American Republic, which
has claimed to protect the rights of the weak and is one of the Allies, ready to be in
favor of such a one-sided, illegal ti^eaty, while the present condition of Persia is aa
described above, and Persians are surrounded and choked, and have not any way
freely to proclaim what is in their hearts — to protest and complain against this treaty?
Every individual Persian patriot, with the British hands pressing the throat and
with bulging eyes, is looking towara the shore for safety, toward the results of all the
brilliant words of the Unit^ States* President, i. e., toward the Americans, for help
and rescue. Persians do not want an^iJiing new and extra which might seem difficult
to the American Nation and other true, liberal nations: but they want whatever they
have had before and have now to remain to themselves and to have their independence
and integrity and rights preserv^ed for themselves and their children.
If these true and plain rights seem difficult to be protected, what hope remains for
good results from the brilliant words spoken to prohibit for the future the blood spilling
and the filling up once more the fielas with human corpses?
The decision to be made is laid before the tribunal o! humanity.
Persian National Association of America,
S. Hassbin Khan, Pruident,
Mohamed Ameen, Secretary,
1806 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, D. C
August 29, 1919.
I. appendix — THE NEW TREATY — 90 CALLED.
In virtue of the close ties of friendship which have existed between the two Govern-
ments in the past, and in the conviction that it is in the essential and mutual interest
of both in the future that these ties should be cemented and that the progress and
prosperity of Persia should be promoted to the utmost.
It is hereby agreed between tne Persian Government on the one hand and His Britan-
nic Biaiesly's minister acting on behalf of his Government on the other hand as follows:
1. The British Government reiterates in the most categorical manner the under-
' takings which they have repeatedly given in the past to respect absolutely the inde-
pendence and int^E^ty of Persia.
2. The British Government will supply, at the cost of the Persian Government, the
services of whatever expert advisers may, after a consultation between the two
Grovemments, be considered necessary for the several departments of the Persian
administration. These advisers shall be engaged on contracts and endowed with
ade<^uate powers, the nature of which shall be a matter of agreement between the
Persian Government and the advisers.
3. The British Government will supply, at the cost of the Persian Government,
such officers and such munitions and ec^uipment of modem type as may be adiudged
necessary by a joint commission of militanr experts, British and Persian, whicn shall
be assembled forthwith for the purpose of estimating the needs of Persia in respect
to the formation of the uniform force which the Persian Government purposes to create
for the establishment and preservation of order in the country and its frontiers.
4. For the purpK)6e of financiering the reforms indicated in clauses 2 and 3 of this
agreement the British Government offers to provide or arrange a substantial loan for
the Government of Persia for which adequate security shall be sought by the two
Governments in consultation^ in the revenues of the customs or other sources of income
at the disposal of the Persian Government. Pending completion of negotiations
for such a loan the British Government will supply on account of it such funds as may
be needed for initiating the salient features of reforms.
5. The British Government, fully reco^^zing the urgent need which exists for the
improvement of communications in Persia, both with a view to the extension of trade
ana the prevention of famine, is required (?) to cooperate with the Persian Govern-
ment for the encouragement of Anglo-Persian forms of transport, subject always to
the examination of the probl^n by experts and to agreement between the two Govern-
1024 TREATY OF PSACB WITH GBRMANY.
ments as to the pMjrticular projects which may be most necessary, pract^'^able, and
prolltable.
6. The two Govermnents a^^ee to the appointment forthwith of a joint committee
of experts for the examination and revision of the existing customs tariff with a view-
to its reconstruction on a basis calculated to accord with the legitimate interests of the
country and to promote its prosperity.
(Signatures.)
August 9, 1919.
(By direction of the chairman, the following statement in the case
of Lithuania is here printed in the record as follows:)
Statement op B. F. Mabtauskas, Wabhinoton, D. C.
organization of the ltthuanian ooybrnmbnt.
Lithuania was occupied by the German army in 1915, and since Germany considered
it part of Russia, she subjected the inhabitants of Lithuania to all of the hardship
that are imposed upon any ter^tory by a military invasion. In spite of this, and m
spite of the fact that the writing of letters from one town to another was pronibited«
tne Lithuanians managed to have a national convention in Vilna in 1917. Over
200 delegates were present, and this body resolved to be independent, and elected
20 men who were to lay the plans and oiminize a provisional government.
The German military authorities felt that this oody of 20 men would not have the
courage to do anything definite. One of their first acts was a declaration of inde-
pendence before the world. This one act so startled the Germans, because th^ had
planned to colonize Lithuania with Germans and annex her, along with Poland, that
they immediately ordered that this council be dissolved. The taryba, or cotincil.
continued its existence by holding meetings in secret and issued words of encourage-
ment to the Lithuanian people. Several of its members were lodged in jail, and Mr.
Klimas, who is now a member of the Lithuanian Commission to the peace conference,
was kept in jail for a period of three months because they suspected that he attended
a meetmg of the Lithuanian council.
In spite of the watchfulness of the Getmans, the council maintained its organization
and also held the respect and confidence of the Lithuanians who knew of its existence,
and who gave it financial and moral aid until the armistice was signed.
Then another convention was immediatelv called and the council was enhuged to
40 members. The enlai^^ng was done for the purpose of taking in all parties and
representing racial minorities, i. e., Jews and wnite Russians.
One of the first acta of this body was the declaration that Lithuania will undertake
to pay its proportionate share of the national debt which Russia <ontrarted prior to
the war.
The enlarged council, too, experienced its difficulties because the peace conference
in Paris permitted the German army of occupation, numbering aroimd 50,000 men, to
remain in Lithuania, and this army interfered with the development and influence
and organization of the council.
The council howe% "^, elected Mr. A. Smetona as the President of Lithuania, who
chose the premier. The premier chose his cabinet, filling all of the necessary p<»i-
folios, and these are funclioainsf.
The minister of justice has organized a complete judiciary system for Lithuania.
Justice is being meted out in the smallest hamlets as well as the lai^^est cities.
The minister of finance has arranged a national internal loan of 30,000,030 anksino,
equal to 7,500,000 dollars.
The minister of i)09t8 and of communi'^ations has taken over all telephone, telegraph
and railroad lines, and has reestablished the postal system. (Lithuanians of American
descent have latelv written letters from America and have received replies, thereby
showing that an eftic ient public service has been organized.)
The minister of education has organized and opened schools through the entire
country under the control of the Lithuanian Government.
The minister of war has orp:anized and partially equipped an army of about 20.000
men who are conducting active warfare, and they nave driven out the Bolsheviks
from within Lithuanian boundaries. When he made a call for volunteers over 100,000
men responded, but only one-fifth could be accepted because Lithuania did not have
the ne^^essary equipment to put all of her sons in the field aganist the Bolshe%ik
invaders.
TBEAT7 OF PEAOB WITH GERMANY. 1025
The minister of iateifji afEaira haa a complete and efficient organization. Before
'aaauming the reBX>onsibility of chairman of the commiaion to the peace conference,
he sent special envoys to Sweden^ Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia,
and Ei^land, and he has been assured of s^pathy with Lithuania's future by all ol
these nations, some of whom have sent aid to Lithuania. These countries await,
before final recognition of Lithuania, the action of the United States, the country
which numbers amonj^ its citizens 1,000,000 Lithuanians.
The racial minorities are represented in this ministry which includes Jews and
White Russians, showing that Lithuania is the same toAiay as she was in the past,
Iplving complete religious and political liberty to every race.
MIUTART 8ITUATIOK.
Gen. Zukauskas, the commander in chief of the Lithuanian Army, is a soldier of
lifelong experience. He is a graduate of the Russian Military Academy and has had
experience in the Russo-Japanese War and also in the recent war. He loufcht against
Germany as a Russian officer. When he assumed command of the Lithuanian armies,
Bolsheviks occupied almost half of lithuania. By his military l^uiership and knowl-
<edge he has driven the Bolsheviks out of Lithuania, and lately he was faced with the
problem of opposing Polish invasion and was compelled to witndraw some of his troops
to combat that invasion.
Bolshevism can not possibly live in Lithuania because the principal occupation
of the country is f armii^, and tne land is owned mostly by small land owners and home
owners in the cities.
The original Invasion of the Bolsheviki aroused national bitterness and also the
nation's ardor to defend what is her own, and she has succeeded in so doing. Whether
or not they will be able to inaintain their present hard-won territory against a great
Bolshevik offensive is a question. Probably not, and unless aid is given Lithuania
in the form of military equipmenc and suppues, then the world might witness a very
ead Bight, indeed, the overwnelming of the Lithuanian nation by the Russian Bolshe-
vik, leaving no barrier between Russia and Germany.
The peace conference, without considering the opinions of the Lithuanian com-
miaaion to the peace conference, established a temporary line of demarcation between
Poland and Litiiuania. Lithuanians were not neard on this question, but they
agreed to respect this line, although it is unjust and injurious ana in violation of the
ethnographic line. But ^e Poles violated even this line.
OKRMAK OCCX7PA.TION.
Germany has been ordered to withdraw her troops from Lithuania, but she is going
reluctantly, and she still wants and will try to control Lithuania, in order that she
ma^ have an eastern door to Russia. So, because of the geographic position of Lith-
uania, her territory is desired, and three countries, Germany— Folana, and Russiar-
are attempting to wrest it from her.
BBQUBST rOR INTRODUCnON OF RBBOLimON RXCOONIZIMO UTBUANIAN GOYBRNMBMT.
Gentlemen, we will give you a memorandum which clearly presents Lithuania's case,
whj her independence should be recccnized, and why she should receive aid and
assistance from outside sources, especially from the United States, not in man power,
but in food, clothing, medical; and military supplies, for which she can offer good
security. She has men enough, who have tested and have seen what actual Bolshe-
vism means.
A Senate resolution, which makes known our desires with respect to recognition,
will be shortly submitted to the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
with a request for its introduction and a prayer for its adoption.
We kQow that the recognition of a foreup government is a function of the executive
and not of the legislative branch of our Government, but we believe that the moral
effect of such a resolution would be enormous not only in the United States but in the
JSuropean areas concerned, where we believe it would immediately greatly lessen
bloooshed and destruction of property.
136640—10 66
1026 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Statement of Rev. John' J. Jakaitw, Worcester, Mahp.
Lithuania's relations with poland.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: The declaration of the United State?
through its supreme executive for the self-determination of small nations, wbs particu-
larly welcomed by the nations immediately affected. Lithuania, which since 17*'?
had suffered under the foreign yoke of Germany and Russia, was one of those nation?.
Lithuania, geographically located between Russia, Germany, and Poland, each on^
of which was making all efforts to absorb her, naturally had to look to the outside world
for assistance.
It is very hard to understand, but it is a fact, that the new Poland set herself against
the independence of Lithuania and made herself one of Lithuanians chief eneini«v
The imperialistic ideas of Germany, crushed by the mighty sword of Americai and her
allies, were adopted by Poland.
Poland's aspirations to annex Lithuania were not approved by the peace conference,
yet Poland did not renounce her intentions to absorb Lithuania, it is true that thf^
peace conference has set a temporary boundary between Poland and Lithuania, but
it is also true that the Lithuania peace delegation at Paris was not consulted and natur-
ally the temporary' boundary lines were set with great injustice to Lithuania.
6ut Poland went even further in her plans of exploitation of Lithuania. The Poles,
taking advantage of the fact that most of the Lithuanian troops are engafed on the
northeast frontier against the Bol8he\dst8, have moved into the southwest of Lithuania
and penetrated beyond the demarcation line laid down by the supreme council of
the Allies as a provisional boundary.
They still continue to hold towns beyond this line in defiance of the peace confer-
ence.
The Lithuanian dele^tion at Paris made strong protests to the supreme council
against the Polish invasion of Lithuania.
Due to the continuous Lithuanian protests and appeals, July 10, 1919, the Polee
were ordered bv Gen. Foth to withdraw from Lithuania. July 13, 1919, the Polish
Army crossed the line of demarcation and continued its a^essions by invading larger
territory, looting everything of value and deporting prominent Lithuanian national?.
A new line of demarcation was established. The Polish Army cix)6sed this line
and penetrated more than 50 kilometers into Lithuania, so the line of demarcation
once more was moved deeper into Lithuania by the peace conference to accommodate
the advancing invaders.
It is with great pain that the Lithuanians have witnessed the Polish contributioxi
to the cause of the Bolsheviki by invading Lithuanian territor>\ It is still ^reater
pain to see that allied officers accompanied the Polish invaders. *
It is not the interests of Lithuania alone that prompt us to call attention to Poluh
aggressions, but the interests of American and European civilization as well.
Lithuania is conducting two wars, one against the Bolsheviki and the other against
Poland.
The small but valiant army of Lithuania was very successful in her war with the
Russian Bolsheviki. Near Koehedary they won a decisive battle from the Bolsheviki
and reached the outskirts of the capital city of Lithuania — ^Vilna.
Hut while the Lithuanian general war staff was completing plans for the reoccupa-
tion of Vilna, the unexpected happened; the Bolsheviki turned Yilna over to the
Poles.
From diti'erent sources it was asc^ertained that there was a secret agreement between
Poland and the Russian Bolsheviki. Under this treaty the Poles are to destroy the
Western Ukrainian Republic and recei^'e as the price Cholm^ Podlachla, all Eastern
Galicia, Western Yolhyuia, and parts of White Russia, and Lithuania. Poliah ref^
sentatives, headed by Mr. Venekowski, at Moscow, are in constant communicaooo
>nth Warsaw. The Poles, under this agreement, are not to press the Bolsheviki
actively, and no part M Hailer's army was sent against the Bolsheviki. On the
other hand, Listovski's army was withdrawn and sent against the Ukrainianw.
The sources of the report of the Runian Bolsheviki-Poland pact are:
(a) The official organ of the Bolsheviki, Izviestia.
(6) * 'Golos Rossii^' No. 104, July 6, 1919.
(c) Mr. Stepan Baron, Secretary of Ukrainian National OiganizationB, in hia report,
July 3, 1919.
(a) President Smetona of Lithuania, in e letter to Prof. Voldemar, Lithuanian
delegate at Paris. (See cable to New York Times, July 30, by Selden.)
TREATY OF P£AC£ WITH GEBMANY. * 1027
' Nevertheless Lithuania will fight the Bolaheviki to the last breath, because her
interest as well as the interest of humaaity demands it. But it is beyond the power
of that young republic, dereiicted by tho Allies, to continue two wars at the same
time, and unless the indifference of the Allies be turned to moral support by immediate
recognition of the independence of the Lithuanian Republic, and unless the United
States and the Allies extend to her material support by giving substantial equipment
for the Lithuanian Army, then we shall witness the extermination of an old, noblo,
idealistic nation under the heel of anarchistic Russia and imperialistic l^olaad.
Kurope will nave a larger Bolshevist field to deal with and a stronger imperialistic
nation to subdue to the democracy of the world.
Statement of Mr. S/anley Kodib, Suite 1508, 105 West Monroe Street, Chicago,
111.
economic gain to lffhuania and to the world (inclrdino russia) by lithuanian
independence.
The independence of Lithuania will benefit the world's commerce by eliminating
the unnatural tariff system the object of which was to develop the trade of central
Russia b;,' making transportation conditions more difficult in the western regions of
Russia, viz, Baltic Provinces along the Baltic shore.
The independence of Lithuania will open new markets fpr American products:
and not only that, but through Lithuania, owing to its geographical position, markets
of western Russia, Ukraine, White Russia, etc., will become more accessible for
American commerce.
The independence of Lithuania will not injure Russia economically or commer-
cially, as in the past Russia did not use the rail or water ways in Lithuania which it
could have afforded in commercial intercourse with the westen world.
Now Lithuania, by acquiring and improving the port of Memel, will open up the
hinterland. The River Niemcn can be utilized not only by Russia to the east of
Lithuania, but also by the nations trading with Russia and w: th Lithuania, giving a
much shorter and, therefore, irore economic route, eliminating wasteful double hauls.
Moreover, the development of the canal system begun by tlie Germans during the
occ*}pation, in expectation of annexing Lithuania, will open an all- water route from
Memel clear to the Black Sea. Russia, for political purposes, in the past created
centers of industry and commerce in Petrograd and Moscow by building railways
in such a way that merchandise had to be shipped first to rither one of them before
it could reach its final destination. A glance at the map will show that Memel is on a
line almost due west of the Kiel Canal, and with the internationalization of this water-
way is bound to become a great distributing point for Ukrainia and White Russia and
the southern F^vinces of Great Russia — ^but onl}r if the incentive for the development
of Memel is given by reco^zing Lithuania's independence. Neither Poland nor
Russia will ever develop tlup port which, for them, is in forei^ territory.
Under foreign oppre^on Lithuania would not have the possibility for the exploita-
tion of all of its natural resources, for instance, mineral paints, sulphur and other
minerals, for some of which this country has to depend on Germany;
RELATIONS TO BOLSHEVIKI.
That Lithuania proved a very unfertile ground for Bolshevism is demonstrated by
t)ie fact that the Bolsheviki were unable to form at VOna a Soviet out of Lithuanians;
and that young men of Lithuania who were forced into the Red Anny deserted it at
the fint opportunitjr in ordw to join the Lithuanian National Army. Further, the
invasion of Lithuania by Bolsheviki aroused the greatest resentment aeainst them .
The true spirit of Lithuania is e xemplified by the battle of SSasliai, where Lithuanians ,
although sunoimded by BoU(heviki forces five times ^eater, preferred to die rather
than surrender. Such a spirit exists in Lithuania to thi^ dav notwithstanding the fact
that it did not receive proper aid and assistance from the Allies at a time when it was
meet needed.
Lithuania does not wish to interfere with the internal affairs of Russia, whether the
latt er comes under the rule of Kolchak, the Bolsheviki, or any other form of government
but the fact remains that Russia is the mother of Bolshevism, just as Germany is the
father of it.
The independence of Lithuania means a solid and dependable wall against Bolshe-
vism.
1028 ' TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKT.
Lithuania can not and will not be satisfied with autonomy jpramised or gi^<en by
Russia, regardless of its form of government because Finland, Poland, and &ucaaia.
havinff autonomy granted to them by Russia, were persecuted and oppressed. Ilthn-
ania also had autonomy on paper, naving[ the right to elect certain officers, yet they
were forbidden even to read a prayer book in their native language.
The need of Lithuania is recognition as an independent nation. It will thrive and
grow on freedom as did the United States.
Independence means freedom and freedom means progress.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Give independent freedooi
to Lithuania.
Statbment of Mr. J. J. Hbbthanowicz, Ghxcago, III.
ARGUMENTS FOR RBCOGNmON OF LTTHUANIA BA8BD ON THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH
OBRMANT.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the fight ot the Lithuanian people
is centered on the desire f c recognition of Lithuania by the United States as a me
and independent State. Under Section XIV, article 116, "Treaty of Peace with
Germany," you will note that —
"Germany acknowledges and agrcss to. respect as permanent and inalienable the
independence of all the territories which were parts of the former Russian Em^nre
on August 1, 1914."
Lithuania was formerly a part of the Russian Empire. She first officially declared
her independence on February 16, 1918. That independence she has maintained up
to the present time. She functions through a de lacto government, republican in
form. It is our contODtion that by compelling Germany to make these acknowledg-
ments and agreements in this treaty, which Germany has formally ratified, Lithuania
has come into possession of a recognizable status. If Germany was compelled to
recognize the independence of these territories, of which Lithuania is one, then the
rest of the world ^ould recognize Lithuania's independence without coercion.
Article 117 provides that —
"Germany undertakes to recognize the full force of all treaties and agreements
which may be entered into by tne Allied and Associated Poweis, with States now
existing, or coming into existence in future, in the whole or part of the former Empire
of Russia as it existed on August 1, 1914, and to recognize the frontiers of any such
States as determined therein."
Here again Lithuania qualifies for a recognizable status, for it came into existence
as a de facto State a year and a half ago.
We have every reason to believe that recognition of Lithuania by the United States
Government will be speedily followed by recognition from the great powers of Europe,
and once this has been achieved Germany will give full force and credit to all treaties
and agreements Lithuania may enter into with other powers.
Naturally we consider it indispensable that Lithuania be accorded recognition by
the United States at the earliest practicable date. We do not come before the com-
mittee asking for a delimitation of boundaries or guaranties by covenant. These
things we can take care of ourselves. If we need supplies or materials to conduct a
defense against aggressions, we can give good security for payment therefor. But until
we receive that recognition, which accepts us in the firmanment of nations aa a sister
state, diplomatic and commercial iptercourse with the rest of the world must of neces-
sity be beset with grave difficulties and our coimtry subjected to mat handicajM. I!
we are denied reception, then all the blood we shed and all the depredations we
suffered were in vain.
It is with a justifiable national pride that we note the spirit of the Lithuanian natioa,
and that the ideas, ideals, and prmciples of the American nation are thoee whidi have
animated the Lithuanian nation for many centimes in the past and which will persicct
in the future. As evidence of this commimity of spirit and high principles we can
point out to you in Lafayette Square in this city the monument to that hero of whom
the English poet has said : "And Freedom shrieked when Kosciuszko fell. " This hero
of twohemispheres was the embodiment of Lithuanian virtues, ideals and pricii>les;
his life mission was to promote the freedom, liberty and independence of all nations
of the world, and his service to this union in the day of its infancy was no less than that
of Lafayette. May the spirit of Kosciuszko, the Lithuanian patriot, inspire the repre-
sentatives of this republic of freedom to recognize the freedom and independence of
the coimtry of his nativity.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1029
Statement op F. P. Bradohuus, Gbicaoo, III.
LITHUANIAN ATTITUDE TO GERMANY.
Lithuania and Germany have been for centuries mutually antagonistic. This
attitude has existed ever since the so<:alled Teutonic kmght crusades against
Lithuania, and from that time German influence in Lithuania has found no field.
Even in that part of Lithuania which forms the extreme northern part of east Prussia
and which was dominated by the Germans for four centuries, Germany failed to
change the people's customs or their language, and this is an evident proof of the
antaf;unism which flows from generation to generation in the Lithuanian race toward
the Germans.
Piactically the whole of Lithuania, in 1915, was occupied by German military
forces, and nrom that time they held it continuously until the date of the armistice
and after. Germany believed that by that conquest the whole of Lithuania would
be incorporated into the German Empire, and acting upon that assumption from the
very day of its occupation it introduced its well-known system of Kultur." It
suppressed the publication of the then existing Lithuanian newspapers, introduced
the German language in all the schools of Lithuania, and changed tne names of towns,
streets, and even villages, giving them German names. Meetings of every nature
were prohibited. Time and again appeals were made to the Berlin Government for
the rights of the Lithuanian people, but all was in vain, and only, apparently, when
the German militarists realized that their success in the domination of the world was
doubtful did they permit in Lithuania the organization of a national council or
**Taryba,*' but they permitted it no right to exercise its functions except in very
insignificant matters. The Lithuanian people, knowing Germany's systematic
practice of Germanization in conquered territories, became united in patriotism and
antagonism toward the Germans. Germany seeing such resistance, g^udually mod-
erate its attempts at Germanization.
Since the armistice Germany, realizing that it will be compelled to leave Lithuania,
has decided to strip the country of eventing valuable by requisitions and exporta-
tions to Germany of property amounting to xnillionB of dollars, without any remunera-
tion for llie same.
The following: statistics will show at least part of the property taken away from
Lithuania and its value.
Lithuania, by reason of inherited oppioaition to Germany, created in the hearts
of its people centuries ago by the Teutonic knights, as well as by the acts committed
by Germany during this war, Tvill stand as a stone wall against German eastern expan-
sion.
Lithuania having its own port, Memel, on the Baltic Sea, will become absolutely
independent of Germany, and it is certain that she will build up commercial rela-
tions with E^land and the United States rather than with her natural enemy,
Gennany.
No Grermon influence, either commercial or political, can penetrate into or through
an independent Lithuania.
ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM UTHUANIA BY THE GERMANS DITRINa THE OCCUPATION.
In No. 8 of the '^Verwaltun^Bericht der MOitarveraltung Litauen Bezerk Nord*'
(report of the military administration of Lithuania, northern district) are given the
quantities and the kinds of articles which the Germans have exported from the north-
em district of Lithuania to Crermany or which they have requisitioned for the needs
of the "German army on the various fronts. The figures ait? given for the period of
time between the date of the establishment of the ^'Verwaltung" (German adminis-
tration) in Lithuania (February, 1916) and March 31, 1918.
1030
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
The amounts (in marks) are as follows:
Articles ex p. rt<»d.
Wheat and other rticlos rf f ^od
<'atti<*, moat, butter, 'at. etc
Vv(^.\ ( f d.li^r')
Artie fsnunnfictiro'l r . hr..Mno<i fr ni b.-.ne...
SeMs
\V .0 tt n. Ilu' . olc
>U'\ lis
(hpii'icil pr. duct'<
TIi<lrMinJ rngh .eatlicr
W t\(A loutVior
I* T '• f r tnnnoric
Hoc, brist rs ^air rVrttli.^*--
S*i!m;'it rh tisc p i'iim- •? i
(nK-m I t>ier fil^
Kubb'^r in I mbb-r :irf!o'r<
\>'s"tab'n oiS'mc^s and latt" - ils.
Sm kors' artic'e.^
Timbor
MiscPiI;MieMis.
Total.
< Gorman
\'^IK -T»
prices in
Tathuania.
<t*riih-.r.''
.Sl.^Ww. ■/'.'»
7S.t.l'J J- 4
77..TJ7.1'<
13" '»-{ ■
12. .«):«, O-)?
17 JKI-.. »!-
l.na:^7 .-?
1. •»"• i*«
7.73rt.'» ■
1 ','".. 4.. -4
l''.17f;.s"0
• :'.rt47 'w|'.
r t\fH, V,
10.**- 7 '^•'.
.V).:V«i
=i . ^r-
2.evr,si7
.% v7* . .11
7f^3. <*^
l.'-3 -
fi7»v"72 .
•\-« 1 il
!..sW..V|fi
3. ? ' «
110.374
1 ^ ■ .' •
337.3<vi
H'C 4 V
29.S"i7.3H.->
M.rc3-. -
203. S31
: ti-; <!
.1, ft7fi
' • 7'
29..s.7.;w.-.
43 3:1'.. • '
i
l.!V..r4
,rw,7io.:is
xts. ••>'..:.>.
It will be seen that since the establishment of the "German administration" in
north Lithuania (February, 1916, to Mar. 31, 1918) that during two vears and a half,
there was exported into Germany through the intermediary of the *' German adnuni^
tration'' of Lithuania, in various articles, a value ol more than 208,000,000 marks,
according to the price fixed by the Germans in Lithuania, or a value of 338,000.0(10
marks, according to their value in Germany.
It should be emphasized nere that this enumeration does not include articles and
merchandise requisitionea for the needs of the German Army nor articles exported
at the commencement of ine occupation before the creation of the ''V'erwaltune"
(administration) . Moreover as may be seen in the ' * Vorwaltungs Bericht der deutschen
Verwaltung Litauen" (report of the German administration in Litiiuania), November
1, 1916, this lint does not include articles requisitioned by .he commissary officer"
( command atures d'etapes) up to April 26, 1916, which are mentioned in the German
renorts as "sehr orheb lichen Menken" — very considerable c^uantities.
Nor does the list include the revictualment shipments (colis de ravitaiJlement) sent
to Germany by German soldiers. These figures relate to the territory of Lithuania
with the exception of the government of Grodno, certain parts of the government of
Vilna, and some districts of Suvalki and of Augustovo, in the government of SuvaUd.
At present there are no figures permitting the valuation of various articles exported
durmg this period from the distnct of Augustovo and Suvalki. Exportation from cer-
tain parts of the governments of Vilna and Grodno (south Lithuania) during the period
amount to 140,078,541 marks, according to the prices fixed in Lithuania, or 200,023, 4>33
marks acc!ordin» to their value in Germany. So that altogether the articles exported
from Lithuania down to March 31, 1918, amount to 538,000,000 marks, without coimf-
ing tlie districts of Augustovo and of Suvalki, which is about 214,000,000 marks a year.
The various articles imported into north Lithuania, from Germany or by wav of
Germany, reached 77,000,000 (77,308,570) marks, and in south Lithuania, 61,000.000.
or in all 138,000,000 marks. .
The difference between articles exported from Lithuania and those imported into
Lithuania exceeds 400,000,000 marks, or approximately 160,000,000 a year.
We have no figures permitting the valuation of articles which the "Germans have
exported during the past year (Mar. 31. 1918-Mar. 31, 1919), but we have no reason to
believe that they have decreased. Ou the coptrary, it is proved that the Germans
have progressively organized exportation from Lithuania; for example, according to
the *'Verwaltung8 Bericht" No. 6, the Germans had exported from north Lithuania,
down to March 31, 1917, 62,000,000 marks worth of merchandise, according to their
value in Germany, but during the year, March 31, 1917 to March 31, 1918, they ex-
ported from north Lithuania 227,000,000 of marks, an amount representing more than
100 per cent increase. It must be admitted necessarily that during the past year
they have not exported less of various merchandise than in 1917. Hence tne quan-
titv exported from Lithuania exceeds the quantity imported by at least 560,000.000
to 600,000,000 marks.
TEEATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1031
But the Germane priced all tliearticlee exported at a very low figure, e.j;., a"poud"
(16 lig.) of rye at 2 m.. 30 pf., etc. If this difference in price is taken into account,
Lithuania has suffered a loss of some hundreds of millione of marks a year.
It is very intereeting to study the following figiiiei. relative to gooas exported up
to March 31, l!ilS (in marks).
LlUmBnla.
H,£'i5i;
Frrm
Ltthpanh,
Ft m
Uihmnis.
( -M
l,Wfl,9*3
l!,aB,<80
CheiwandoutdlBlmiEk..
13 j:';,':i»
....', 2 ■.. IB
^:::::;::::::::::
19.6TS,7!0
— - jj 1 ^
■"■i * 60
1,732; SSO
....<M : 58
1,19S,M»
H«ls<h>Dl,bbl)
OairandbrisllM
Z,0S»,480
Some of theae articles, estimated by b
eight, give the following figures:
Eipotted.
Articles.
mSa.
From
soulb
Lltbiunln.
l,31M,»fl
1,178|b47
I,7M,S0g
3,0$I,K«
45,274,002
ii
98, 4H
1,067|83S
22,040
^'JIJ
:::;::;::::::;"::::;"do::;:
'■V,t-l^
Artidei, valueii in marks
exported from the
•■hole of Lithuania (north and south).
tnLiil-l^ni"
.Sm'iS"-.
w , . 1 til r I ' 1
1
■liS-S
a;ii2!.^4T
Mi3.i«';.fln
2,!»4.iifi.4n
..|:!|S
70,O.S.7ftl':So
o.H.^;.n.«.,lM.t.«,W..«
'isSI
Artlr— miniifactiuwl nr <l(.rh-*il
r.'inl>onp
J:ffi;S:S
Kfe-iEEE;;:;;;;:;;-;:;;;;::;;-::::::;:::::;::::::::::::::
Ti,4wi,3:ii.iin
l^<1n5,Mt.s^
''"•'I'l
„.»5:S!:!S
MJ>,T81.>B9.43
.^'18,029,248.11
1032 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6ERMANT.
In order to have a fairly complete idea of what the exploitation of Lithuama'?
natural wealth means we must bear in mind that all which has oeen hitherto meiilioDcd
concerns only products exported by Germany.
A laige quantity of products was utilized for the needs of the country, e. g*. , the fcr-
ests furnished all the wood used in the war — ^fortifications, trenches, railioadfl, etc.
(By direction of the chairman, the following additional statenaent
in the case of the Irish is here printed in the record, as follows:)
Statement of John O'Dea, Philadelphia, Pa., national secretary of
the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America:
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen o/ the Foreign P^ations Committee of the Unit«i
States Senate, realizing that the time of those who desire to address your honorahle
committee on this occasion must necessarily be limited, I shall merely quote the
language of the resolutions bearing on the subject at issue, adopted at the National
Convention of the Ancient Order ol Hibernians in America, at San Francisco, Calif..
July 15-19, this year, I having been a member of the committee which presented them
for consideration and adoption:
** We join in the joy of the triumph of the Great Republic in the war. Our service
as citizens, as creators of the munitions of war. and as nghtLng men in the armed forces
have now been written upon another page wnich records the unbroken loyalty of men
and women of Irish origin to the Government of America. Moved by a supreme sense
of duty in the hour of danger, there was no hesitation in our response. Just as the
soldiers of the Continental Army were called the 'Irish line' — as the armies of both
North and South had Irish brigades — as every war for the preservation of American
principles has been won through Irish valor and the eagerness with which Irish brain
and brawn served in toil and trust, so also were the victonous fields of this war reddened
with Irish blood gladl^r given in the belief that the land of their ritizenship was again
stretching forth its maUed hand to demolish the strongholds of despotism and shatter
the shackles that bind freemen to the chariot wheels of predatorv empires. Our
fighting men and our honest citizenship still hold this belief. We do not accept the
interpretation that the only fruit of this war is a phrase-made democracy. We do not
believe that either the Government or the public opinion of oiu* country will seek to
avoid that responsibility of victory which forbidis a denial of its just share of happiness
to the inhabitants of tmit noble isle which sent forth the stream of exiles whose sons
shared the sacrifices of America and look for the emancipation of their ancestral nation
as the reward of gratitude and the verdict of honor. We hold that the primary law of
equitv shall be broken by a withholding of American sympathy from the Irish people,
and that a harmonious cooperation of the great powers sufficiently cordial to insure
peace will be impossible with the continued subjectioxi of Ireland to an alien rule. We
hold that the American Goveriiment has ever been solicitous for the freedom of others,
waging war to secure it for small nations, repelling oppression on its 3wn s(hI and in
foreign lands, possessing a strong sense of what is just to the American people, tnd
recognizing that this sense of right impels active sympathy to resist encioachmeDti
upon the nghts of other peoples.
"The pride of American citizenship treasures the p^neraous deeds of the foanden
of liberty here, and remembeis the cold words which rebuked foreign rulers who
dealt harshly with their unwilling subjects. We are confident that history will
repeat itself; that there will be no turning back of the clock of progress; that there
shall be no easy acceptance of the failure of the tribunal of plenipotentiaries at Paris
to fulfill the miasion of democracy; that there shall not be a delusion that it is not
our business to sit as judge in the cause of Ireland veraus England, but that the cry
shall rise from the hearts of America that the words of the DecliSation of Independenee
. are still living words— that a disregpard of others' claims will provoke active encroadi-
ment upon our own; that the battle for democracy did not end on this continent at
Yorktown nor in Europe at the Khine, but that democracy is a mighty and irresiBtibk
veamin^ of the human heart for equality of opportunity; that none can be wholly
free until all are free; none wholly just until all are just; none wholly happy until
all are happy.
''Whereas the Kepublic of Ireland has been proclaimed by a determined and
united people, and is hailed throughout the world by a confident and jubilant race;
it is
^*Re9olvedy That the brave and ^nerous Irish people have struck a mi^ty blow
for true democracy, have filled with pride and aelight the heart of the great Celtic
fiunily, and have rallied the scattered hosts of Irish nreedom with this uplifting of its
glorious banner and the unsheathing of the ancient sword. The shattenng of an out-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEEMAmr. 1038
worn despotism in the stronghold of its power with the manihaled mind of a fearless
people is a vivid vindication of the deathless truth which rises from the ashes of
martyTH to immortality in the character of a people. The hopes of this generation glow
in exultation of the two victories — the defeat of a foe's intrigue, and the conquest over
its own betrayers. In 1914 the trustees of the Irish people, in an hour of grave decision,
without casting one glance at the past, without asking one pledge for the future, threw
down the fate, the freedom, and the good name of a whole race at the feet of the op-
pressor. But this generation locked upon the gigantic spirit of Ireluid as it threw off
the thrall of treason and in a edngle deed of heroism fling defiance in the face of power.
We witnessed the miracle of a people who led themselves; who saw when their leaders
were blind; who saw a living nation which held in the depths of its love the vision of
its hallowed dead and formed the dream into a breathing image of splendor from its
own blood and its own faith. We saw a nation save its soul when all seemed lost; a
nation which snatched its honor in thunderous couraj^ even from the lightning blast
of shame. The elevation of sentiment, the noble sacnfice of precious lives, the devo-
tion of millions to an immortal patriotism, the establishment of a representative
government reflecting the public will not only called forth the ardor of Irish loyalty,
but aroused the admiration of all mankind with its proof that eight centiuries of usurpa-
tioD had failed to make hewers of wood and drawers of water of the fighting race,
showing that its unconquerable spirit was still unbroken, and that its defenders stood
upon the soil of their country as free citizens defending their homes against foreign
aggression, defending democracy to-day with the same valor they guarded their faith
on the walls of Limerick.
** Resolved, That there can be no peace among men while Ireland's long war for
freedom is unclosed by victory; no covenant bin<ung the nations in a fratenud amity ;
no league of Governments worthy of the respect of honest freemen until we have a
treatv that shall acknowledge its soverei^ty. Any vaunted charter of human rights
will be looked upon as a 'scrap of paper' if it bears not the name of the historic nation
which has stooa embattled against an alien rule of inhumanity, whose sons have
wrought the charters of new states, and whose ^th during the age-long epoch of human
wrongs gave first a fiery meaning to 'human rights.' The rule of Ireland by England
ifl an amont to the conscience ol humanity — a feudal relic surviving from an age of
barbarism, and exhibiting the degraded system of senile bigotry to a world reforming
its society and purifying its constitutions from Hie taint of despotisms— a sjrstem
vanquished in Europe hy four years of slaughter, and overthrown by the Continental
Army during the revolution which freed America from the same enemy that has gripped
the tnroat of Ireland so long and so cruelly. The instinctive feeling of hope tnat the
reign of good will would come with the return of ^neral peace has been rudely insulted,
the belief in justice has been violated by the tribunal which heard the whisper of the
breaker of treaties, but could not hear the clear call of the gallant land which has
bought the good fight and which has kept the faith.'
*^ Resolved, That this convention pledge its aid in every effort made to achieve the
full independence of Ireland; that our felicitations be extended to President Eamonn
de Valera, of the Irish Republic, and that we officiiUly petition the President and the
Congress of the United States to grant recognition to Ireland as a free and independent
nation. We condemn the illiberal action of the peace conference in denying a hearing
on the right of Ireland to self-determination, and r^iret that America failed to protest
against this rebuff to the representatives of the Irish Republic. For we are convinced
that the judgment of the peoples of all hee nations will decide that the political degrada-
tkm of Ireland is a menace to that democracy for which the great war was won, and
that the American j>eople will extend their invincible and traditional sympathy to
the new nation whicb nas founded its institutions upon the model of the mother of
republics; that her statesmen will realize the peril and the shame of ingratitude to a
people whose sons and daughters have never stood back in the day of (umger to this
Grovermnent, and ask now but a requital of their loyal^ that there may not be again
a black spot on the map of a free world, but masters ot their fate, and sharers in the
security and happiness of just government — such government as that for which they
have striven so fiercely in other lands and which they now have erected, after ages
of bitter suffering, in their own.
" We recommend that the incoming national officers communicate forthwith with
the members of the order, through State, county and division officers, uiging the most
earnest cooperation in the effort to win American recognition for the Irim Republic —
urging also that, as citizens of the United States, they support only those Senators and
Representatives who stand openly for American independence and for the American
system of self-government for all the peoples of the world, regardless of the race or
creed of the oppressors or the oppressed.
JOHW O'DSA.
1034 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
(i'V
(By direction of the chairman the following memorandum entitled
The case of Japan in the oeace treaty/' by Toyokichi lyenaga, is
herewith printed in the record as follows:)
The Case of Japan in the Peace Treaty.
By Toyokichi lyenaga, Ph. D., professorial lecturer in the Department of Political
Science, University of Chicago; director, East and West News Bureau, New York
City, N. Y.
It is a very delicate matter for a foreigner to discuss an international question affect-
ing his country, which has become the subject of controversy in the United Statet^
Senate. Having profound respect for American traditions, I would not dream for a
moment to overstep the bounds of propriety. I am, however, confident that the
American people love fair play and would like to hear Japan's side of the case, as told
by one of her sons. I feel also, as a recipient of all the blessings of American education
a"d institutions, it is my duty to do my utmost for the continued maintenance of
amicable relations between America and Japan end for the harmonious development
of their respective interests and welfare. It is with these convictions that this leaflet
is laid before you.
japan's p/bt in the wab.
The world has short memory of the past. It is already b^uniP3f to forget the
sacrifices and efforts of the allied and associated powers and their concerted action,
whioh have brought Berlin war lords to their knees. We stand on the threshold of
peace. Shall we delay its dawn? Endeavors are now beine made to minimize thf^
war contribution oJt an ally and to win by tongue and pen, by intrigue and slander,
what was achieved by the expenditure of blood and life ener;^. I am under no obliga-
tion to point this out by implication. To be frank, this is tlie present attitude of
the Chinese agitators. True, compared with the stupendous exertions of the Unitai
States, Japan's part in the war was small. No self-respecting nation would want to
brag of its performance in the world-wide struegle. Nevertjaeless, if we gauge the
war situation with broad vision, Japan's contributions to the allied cause would, I
trust, attain their proper dimensions.
Japan entered the war in obedience to the terms of the Anglo- Japanese alliance,
whicn imposed upon her the duty of conducting military operations in common with
her ally in the regions of eastern Asia and its w^aters. I hardly need to emphasize"
that the fulfillment of the terms of the Anglo-Japanese treaty was in perfect accord with
Japan's national interests, for the German aggressive designs in the Far East were a
constant menace to her security and welfare.
Japan did her work with energy and thoroughness. She destroyed at one stroke the
.German power in the Far East by the reduction of the fortress of Tsingtao; hunted out
the enemy warships roving the adjoining seas; patrolled the South Seas, the Indian
and Pacific Oceans, during the whole period of the war; convoyed the troops of Aus-
tralia and New Zealand to the battle fields of Europe and Asia; cooperated in the Medi-
terranean with the allied fleets in their operations against the enemy submarines:
prevented the filtration of German influence and spread of Bolshevism into East
Siberia; goarded the Hawaiian Islands and Pacific coast against the danger of German
raiders, thus liberating the American Navy to devote its entire energy to its arduous
task on the Atlantic and European waters; subscribed to the allied loans to the full
extent of her financial capacity; provided the Entente Powers with munitions and
other war materials; placed many ships at the disposal of the American Govemment
for the transportation of munitions and cooperated with it in every possible manner:
and, finally, she stood ever ready to respond to the call of her allies in case of neceasity.
That she did not fight on the European battle fields was not of her choice alone.
The real significance of Japan's participation in the war wiU, I hope, sXand in bolder
relief if we let the imagination play a little and picture to ourselves the contingencies
that might have arisen had not the Japanese army and navy been mobilized against
the Central Powers. Would the channel of communication and commerce between
Europe and the Orient, between America and the Far East, with all that its security
means , have been as safe as it had been for the entire period of the war? What part of
the allied fleets, in addition to those already dispatched, must of necessity have been
withdrawn from the home waters to safeguard the road from Aden to Shanghai, to the
great joy of Von Tirpitz and his coteries? Would not Germany, with her strozigbase
at Kiaochow, have plaved a formidable r61e in disturbing the tranquillity of China, to
the great detriment of the allied cause? Would not German propaganda, once so
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1035
active in Btirring up revolt in India and in the Straits Settlements, have been some
measure of success, to the prejudice of Britain's interests in her Asiatic dominions?
In short, how was peace in the Far East and the Indian and Pacific Oceans, covering
almost half of the globe, preserved during the entire period of the war and how were
the interests of the Entente Powers therein safeguarded? I venture to say that
Japan's allies during those dark days of the unsurpassed conflict took full cognizance
of these facts and were not slow to give proper recognition.
DIFFICULT POSITION OF JAPAN AMONG NATIONS.
Would that Japan were blessed by bounteous Providence so that she could follow
the example of America and forego of her own accord any material compensation for
her war efforts. For full compr«»hension of Japan's position I would ask that Ameri-
cana to detach themselves for a moment from their own standpoint, from the most favor-
able p'isition they find themselves in. With vast dominion and unlimited resources
at her command, the United States can leisurely follow the path of idealism which
she has chosen. For her mighty efforts during the war, for the sacrifice of 300,000
of l^er sons, and the expenditure of billions of treasure, American asks for no material
compensation, but is content with the consciousness of having saved !< ranee and civil-
ization from the scourge of German militarism. Confident of her giant strength and
C'f the unique prestige bom of her moral greatness, American can now adaress herself
to the new task of leadership in world affairs which has been thrust upon her as the
outcome of the war.
The position of Japan is different. Circumscribed within a narrowlv limited area,
with scanty resources, and crowded with two-thirds of the entire population of Amer-
ica, Japan's problem of existence is not an easy one. Modem Japan, since her renas-
cence half a centurv ago, had a hard, up-hill stmggle to reach her maturity and present
status. Only by dint of energy, perseverance, and patriotic sacrifices of the people
has the Japanese nation succeeded in entering the ranks of the five powers. Under
the circumstances, constant vigilance, careful husbanding of her resources, and wise
safeguarding of the fruits of whatever efforts she makes, are essential to Japan's exist-
ence and to maintaining her present standinj». Flanked by huge neighbors, whose
weal or woe, strength or weakness, ia bound to affect her own peace and serurity,
Japan is facing an unparalleled predicament. Such a nation, however idealistic
at heart, can not aiTord to spend its energy for altruistic piTrpoees alone, and neglect
to take every precautionar>' step necessary to insure its independence. The poliov
of self-preservation and of assuring the position she has attained is the one Japan is
given if) pursue.
Every experience which Japan has gained Is a priceless lesson to her. In 1895
she tasted the bitter cup of being deprived of the best fruits of victory in the costly
war with China through the machinations of certain European powers, and not long
after of witnesainj? those fruits slip from China's grasp and fall into European hands.
Is it difficult, then, to understand that, in order to forestall a repetition d this experi-
ence at the peace conference which was to settle the World War, Japan felt it necessarv
to assure herself of the support of her claims by her allies at the peace table? This
will explain the agreements entered into in 19] 7 between Japan on the one hand and
Great Britain, Franc e, Italy, and Russia on the other, as well as the China-Japan
agreements of 1915 and 1918. Can we justly blame Japan for concluding these coii-
ventions, in view of the fact that the world hiis short memory of the past, as I said
at the outset? At the same time, it should not be forj^otten that these agreements were
made after the Great War had been rajring for two years and a half, and that by these
instruments Japan reciprocally undertook to support the respective claims of her
allies on German territories and colonies at the peace conference.
THE BAJ^ia OP TUE HUANTl'NO SETTLEMENT.
The aforesaid treaties are the basis of articrles 150, 157, and 158 of the Versailles
treaty. The terms of the latter treaty are substantially the same as those specified
in the former. So long, therefore, as these treaties stand, so long will the Shantung
clause of the Versailles treaty stand. Consequently, Chinese advocates are con-
sistent, at least, when in tryfng to annul the Shantung decision, they advocate the
abrogation of the China-Japan treaty of 1915. This, however, is out of the question.
Great Britain, France, and Italy stand upon their honor. Nor will Japan ever consent
to be a party to the abrogation of the treaty of 1915. Moreover, in adopting such a
grave course. China must be prepared to turn into ''scraps of paper'' many of the
treaties she nas concluded with other powers. No stateman, I presume, will sub-
scribe to such a progra.m of upsetting the international order now maintained in
China and reenacting in that country the chaos and anarch}* of Bolshevik Russia.
1036 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
America's stand on the shantung decision.
That the United States has assumed a different position with regard to the Shantunf
deciBion from what I have stated is intelligible. The country entered the war in
April, 1917, and is not a party to the agreements concluded among the Allies during
February and March of the same year. Nor hM it recognized the ChkuinJapan treaty
of 1915. According to the disclosure made in President WiLson's statement of August
6 of the circimistances that led to the Shantung decision, we are made aware that the
President agreed to it upon the basis of the policy — as detailed in the above statement —
declared by the Japanese peace envoys, Baron Makino and Viscount Chinda. In the
discussion that was to decide one of the most hotly disputed questions at the Paris
conference, President Wilson further enlightens us that ''reference was made to the
enforcement of the agreements of 1915 and 1918 only in case China failed to cooperate
fully in carrying out the policy outlined in the statement of Baron Makino and Vis-
count Chinda.'^ By thus supplementing the statement issued on August 6 by
Viscount Uchida, I^esident Wilson has, I believe, taken pains to make his stao^
clear to the American people. It is made plain to all careful observers that the Shan-
tung decision was the result of the compromise effected by principal representatives
of the great powers. America can not very well call to account the allied powers
for the conduct of the war or the arrangements made among them prior to her entrance
into the war. This appears to me to afford an explanation of what President Wilson
told his callers, as was often reported in newspapers, to the effect that America alone
could not settle the terms of peace.
PROGRAM FOB THE EXECUTION OF THE SHANTUNG DECISION.
The Shantung program announced by Jumn's peace envoys and now elaborated
bv her foreign minister is (1) to restore Kiaochow in pursuance of the assurance
given at. the peace conference and in fullfillment of the pledge she gave to Ghuia in
1915; (2) to operate the Tsin^rtao-Tsinanfu Railroad as a joint Sino-Japanese enterprise
without any discrimination in treatment against other nationals, Chinese policing the
road; (S) to establish in Tsingtao a general foreign settlement, instead of an exclusive
Japanese settlement, as was at first contemplated; (4) to completely withdraw the
Japanese troops now guarding the territory upon the completion of these axran^ementi
with China. In this way Shantung will come to attain the same status ruling in other
Provinces of China. The Shantung settlement, therefore, does not infringe upon the
territorial inte^ty of China or her independence. Rather does it serve to recover
China's sovereignty which Germany had in fact over-ridden at Kiaochow in 1S9$.
After the reaffirmation bv Viscount Uchida of the pledj|[e repeatedlv made by Japan's
responsible statesmen and her representatives at Pans and Washington to restore
Kiaochow to China, deed alone would convince those who still doubt Japan's sincerity
of purpose. How such a step can be taken before China signs the treaty, I do not
know. The execution of the contract can not take place whUe the other party is out
of the ring. The responsibility of delaying the steps leading to the redeeming of
Japan's pledge can not be shirked by China so long as she refuses to sign the Vemilles
treaty. The deadlock, however, can not last long. 1 entertain a strong hope that
China will soon see the wisdom of adopting a course that will insure the b^iefits
vouchsafed her by the Versailles treaty by affixing her seal to it, and avoid the danger
involved in taiaking a separate peace with Germany.
THE SHANTUNG CLAUSE CONTRASTED WITH THE PORTSMOUTH TRBATT.
The one and sole weakness in the Shantung decision, 1 will admit, is the outward
appearance it unavoidablv partakes that the Allies have given the award to Japan
at the expense of a friendly nation, and that Japan has become heir to the leasehold
and rights which Germany extorted from China on the barest of pretenses.
The status of Kiaochow under German occupation was, however, scarcely different
from that of Port Arthur and Dalny under Russian occupation. Nevertheless, when
one compares the terms of the Sliantung settlement with those of the Portsmouth
treaty he will immediately notice a very marked difference. The treaty which wis
concluded tlu'ough the good offices of President Roosevelt transferred to Japan
without much ado the Russian leasehold of Kwangtung territory, wherein Port Artnur
is located, of the South Manchurian Railway and of all the rights and privilege!
appertaining thereto, together with the right of stationing troops to guard the line.
By the Versailles arrangement, on the other hand, the Kiaochow leasehold will be
given up, the railroad is to be brought under joint mana^ment, and a trace of military
occupation will be completely wiped out by the withdrawal of Japanese troops from
Sliantung.
TIffiATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1087
THE OERMAN-CHINA TREATY OF 1898 AND ITS SEQUEL.
it is well to remember tbat the Gerraaii;Chiiia Treaty of 189S received the recog^
nition of most of tlie great powers, including the United 'States, and had been in force
for 16 years. Durixig this period not a voice of protest was raised by the Chinese
or by the citizens of other powers against Germany's leasehold of Kiaochow or her
activities in Shantung. For all practical purposes Kiaochow was German territory,
aad at the ontbrcoik of the war it was used as the base of military and naval operations
against the Allies. The Tsingtao-Tsinanfu Railroad transported the German forces
imd supplies. It was this enemy territory and property tnat Japan wrested in 1914
and thus wiped out the menac« of Germany in the Far East. Viscount Uchida
reminds us in his late statement that in the ultimatum addressed to Germany b^ Japan
on August 15. 1914, the latter pswer demandod of the former to deliver Kiaochow
not later than September 15, 1914, without condition or crompensation, with a view
to eventual restoration of the same to China, and that this demand has never elicited
any protest from China or any other power. It would be eas>' enough to say, now that
the war is over, that China could without difficulty have ousted the Germans. To
argue against such a contention would be sUly. Yet there is one point loudly noised
abroad against which 1 can not help protesting. It has been asserted that China has
been prevented by the machinations of Japan from entering the war at its first stage.
This is a falsifying of history. The conditxons prevailing in China at the time of tne
outbreak of the Great War and the details of her final entnmce into it are exhaustively
described by Mr. Kawakami in hia book entitled *' Japan and World Peace."
It is further asserted by those who espouse China's cause that the declaration of
war against Germany by China Iiad the effect of abrogating the treaty of 1898 and
restoring to China all rights which she granted to Germany. It is true that war cancels
political treaties of a temporary nature between belligerents; but under international
law it would seem, as Senator Robinson so ably maintains, that ''such' a treaty as
that between China and Germany, in which China agreed to accept the status of other
nations with which Germany was at peace, in so far as the leased territorv is con-
cerned, would not be abrogated ipso facto by the outbreak of war between China and
Grermany." Aside from this contention, there is one incontestible document — ^incon-
testible unless it is made void by force — ^by which China agreed upon the transfer of
these German rights to Japan by stipulating in it to ''give full assent to all matters
upon which the Japanese Government may hereafter agree with the German Govern-
ment relating to the disposition of all rights, interests, and concessions which Ger-
many, by virtue of treaties or otherwise, possesses in relation to the Province of Shan-
tung.'' That China was acting in good faith to execute the terms of this treaty, with
no intention of abrogating it, is clearly shown by the conclusion of the agreement of
1918. This agreement, wMch China herself initiated, was the sequel of the former
treaty — I mean the China-Japan treaty of 1915. The contracting of loans for the
purpose of building railwavs m Shantung, with other enterprises China has under-
taken in conjunction with Japan since 1915, is a strong confirmation of my contention.
JAPAK AND OTHER POWERS IN CHINA.
Whether foreign leaseholds, settlements, and concessions in China, together with
nulroads operated under foreign 'management, should or should not be tolerated is a
question oi highest importance demanding the most careful consideration of the y^ orld
leaders. The fundamental principle underlying the Shantung question is nothing
but the question whether or not to tolerate tius state of affairs in China, and equity
demands, it seems to me, the solution of the two in one way or the other. This, of
course, opens up a vast problem of China's reconstruction. The establishment of
foreign settlements is the result of the policy of seclusion China has pursued. Thev are
at the present day the only avenues through which foreign commerce flows and the
business of foreign merchants transacted. The abolition of foreign settlements would
necessitate the opening up of the whole country. With it will arise the question of
the abolition of extraterritorial jurisdiction and that of recovery of the tariff autonomy
and other no less weighty questions. These are, however, irrelevant to the subject
I am presenting.
The actual fact is that there are in China several foreign leaseholds and foreign
settlements, that China has in the paEt gtunted for one reason or another industrial and
economic rights and concessions to foreign powers, and that many railroads in tha^
country are placed under foreign management. I can, therefore, see no reason ^^7
Japan alone should be singled out and made the taiget of attacK. Japan above all
1038 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
other nations has the unimpeachable ri^ht, because of the propinquity of her ternt#>n-
to that of China, to safeguard her special interests therein if any power is p«Tnittt*<i
to retain its vested interests at all.
I daresay that Japan will follow the 8ui{ of other powers if they decide to give up
the leaseholds and settlements they maintain in China; if they return to her thi^
rights and concessions they have secured therein and withdraw their troops now
quartered at Peking, Tientsin, and other places; and, further, if China sufficiently
demonstrates her ability to defend herself and maintain her intetjiity by her <>wb
arms instead of shifting the burden to Japan to stend in the Far fiast &s a bulwark
against outside aggression. Then Japan is safe, China free and will have attained all
that she is clamoring for to-day. Ajnong the great five the United iStates is the only
disinterested power, free from the web which history has woven. This, if I am nnr
mistaken, is tne reason whv China, backed by scores of foreign advisers, is mo\nni:
heaven and earth to persuade America to come to her own views, and is putting to ^
test the talent of intrigue and persuasion, which she has inherited througn centuri^,
against hard realities. 1 am. however, inclined to think that the American people,
who, however idealistic, hold as their first principle the doctrine of independent *»*
and "self-help," will first see, before thev commit themselves and take upon them-
selves the burden of China, what she has done to help herself. The history of the j^*-t
few decades is a sad commentary upon Ctiana's lack of " self-help." In fact, the geniu»
'^f intrigue and wrangling, with which the Chinese are so strikingly endowe*!, U
rending the country into factions and leading it to disintegration and disaster. 1 shall
go no further upon this subject, for it would be un-Christian to try to pick a beam in
another's eye. Japan's shortcomings and blunders, especially in her dealings with
China, have been many and grievous — this I would be the first to admit. At the same
time I hold that in the adjustment of international issues we should plant our feet
upon firm ground of facts, not upon the Utopian plane.
That the millenium has come neither to the world nor to the Paris confereme is
sufficiently demonstrated by the defeat of the Japanese proposal to put among the arti-
cles of the covenant of the league of nations the principle of equality of nations and
fair treatment of their nationals. Nothing coula be more in accord with the prin-
ciple of justice and humanity than this proposal. Its defeat shows that we have Ut
taKe into consideration the idiosyncrasies, temperaments, and prejudices prevaihng
among different races, and the actual conditions ruling in the world, in order to build
up a safe and solid foundation for international order. If we apply one principle of
our liking to solve a problem, we should be ready to accept the apphcation of the same
principle in the unraveling of other problems. If we refuse to accept Japan's proposal
above mentioned on the ground that the world, as it is, is not ready for its adoption at
the present time, we can not consistently decry the Shantung settlement, which,
however imperfect it may seem from a purely idealistic standpoint, rests upon hard
realities — the world as it is — that is to say, international agreements, historical prece-
dents, and the existing state of affairs in China.
japan's participation in the development of china's resources.
Japan has a good cause for her participation in the development of China*s resourcee.
She has a crowded population, wnich is increasing approximately at the rate of 800,000
per annum. Furthermore, this crowded and ever-increasing population is debarred
by some nations of white race from seeking its fortime in the most tavored and sparsely
populated regions of the globe. How, then, can Japan feed, clothe, and shelter her
people? The best and safest road leading to the solution of this pressing problem lies
m tne development of her industries and expansion of her commerce. In pursuing
this policy, Japan is sadly handicapped by the lack of raw material. But in her
neighbor's temtory there are vast resources, untouched and unused, the unfolding of
which will not only meet Japan's wants but will equally benefit China and the world
at large. Japan maintains that she is entitled to the privilege of cooperating with
China in the unearthing of the treasures that lie unutilized. America, I am con-
fident, will not grudge to see justice in Japan's claims. It is just as wrong to impute
America with the thought of obstructing Japan in every avenue of her growth as it i»
unjust to charge Japan with harboring sinister designs upon the Philippines or Hawaii.
The sooner these unwarranted suspicions and feais are set at rest the better for the
future of both countries.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1039
PRESENT airUATION AND AMERICAN-JAPANESE RELATIONS.
1 am supremely confident of the continuance of amicable relatione between America
and Japan. Speeches rai,s:ht be made denouncing Japan worse than the ?atan of Mil-
ton's creation; intrigues might be attempted to embroil the United States in trouble
with Japan: but I am sure that these labors will come to naught. For the interests
and forcofl. inherent and dynamic, which bind the two great nations on the opposite
shores of the Pacific, are so manifest that no amount of scheming could alienate their
friendship. These interests and forces can not, of course, be estimated in terms of
dollars and cent*". But to give one illustration: America's trade with Japan amounts
to $400.000.0lX) annually, while her trade with China, which has a population five
times larger than that of Japan is valued at S200.000 (XK).
Notwithstanding this bond of amity across the Pacific, I can not shut my eyes tO'
the dangers involved in the present fdtuation. I fear that there might be a temporary
lapse of mutual good feeling between America and Japan, with no slight consequence
upon the Chinese-Japanese relations, if the present campaign of slander, abuse, and mis-
representation of Japan is left unbridled, for it not only poisons the minds of the Ameri-
can people but is bound to react on Japan.
Japan is now as democratic as America is. Militarism has been dethroned. Autoc-
racy is a name alien to the Japanese people. The party government has come to stay .
Public opinion there now wields a great influence. But public opinion is not always
intelligent. It is often swayed by demago^es who might seize such an opportunity
as this to ply their trade and to incite suspicions and fears of the good American people
by propagating similar false stories about America, which we hear so often about
Japan nowadays. The result may be the creation of a most unwholesome atmosphere
\ehere mutual trust and confidence — the heart of the league of nations — can hardly
live. I have faith in the sound common sense of the Japanese people, which will
enable them to remain calm and to rightly understand the origin and wortJi of the
present entirely imexpected anti-Japanese wave. At the same time I b^ permission to
appeal most eamestlv to the statesmen and leaders of public opinion in this country
to vivify and strengthen those permanent interests and forces tlmt make for peace, and
thus paralyze the evil elements that act to bring discord.
(Thereupon, at 12.55 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Wednesday, Sept. 3, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
TITESDAT, SEFTEMBEB 3, 1919.
United States Senate,
committeb on foreion relations.,
Washington^ D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426 Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Knox, Harding,
Johnson, of California, Jfew, Moses, Swanson, and Pwnerene.
Senator Brandegee (acting chairman). Senator Lodge has re-
<}uested the committee to proceed with the hearing. He will return
in a few minutes. Who is here to represent the question of the
disposition of the Island of Aland ?
Mr. Johnson. I represent the people of that island.
STATEMENT OF HE. ALEXAITOER J. JOHHSOK, EDITOB OF THE
SWEDISH COXrBIE&.
Senator Brandegee. Please state your full name.
Mr. Johnson. Alexander J. Johnson.
Senator Brandegee. And your residence)
Mr. Johnson. Chicago, 111.
Senator Brandegee. You may proceed.
Mr. Johnson. Gentlemen, the courtesy of your committee in afford-
ing me a hearing is highly appreciated.
When the newspapers announced that a number of subject nations
had been permitted to present their respective claims of recognition
on the ground of self-determination before the Committee on For-
eign Relations of the United States Senate, it occurred to me that
the Aland question might also properly be called to the committee's
attention by the same opportunity.
Unofficially, I have already taken the liberty to present to each
member of the Committee on Foreign Relations a review of the
Aland question, condensed in a pamphlet entitled ^^ The Aland Ques-
tion Before the Peace Conference." All the facts of this particular
case are there brought forward, and in order not to abuse your
kindness in listening to me, I respectfully refer you to this expos^.
I will also take the liberty of asking your permission to have
this little pamphlet included m the record.
Senator JBrandegee. It will be so done.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)
The Aland Question before the Peace Coniesence.
Among questions coming up before the peace conference is the settlement of
a group of Islands, situated at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia and known
as the Aland Islands from the name of the principal member of the group,
which is surrounded by a crown of innumerable smaller islands and reefs.
The distance from Aland to the coast of Uppland (Sweden) is about 25
American miles (40 kilometers) and to the continent of Finland 50 Ameri-
13554&>-19 66 1041
1042 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
can miles (80 kilometers). Aland has fifteen rural communities and one
port, Mariehamn. On the 81st of December in the year 1913, the populatiou
amounted to 26,849, all counting themselves as Swedes and using the Swe<Itsh
language. The principal exports consist of firewood, beef, and fresh fish, a'.-
most the entire output going to Stockholm, Sweden. The community of oris^in.
language, sentinients, and customs have led the Alanders to desire a reunini:
with Sweden, and they have now finally petitioned the peace conferen<v ri«
sanction their request.
FINLAND OPPOSED.
This desire of the Alanders to determine their own fate is opi>osed by Finlan'l
which new independent State has just recently l>een recc)guize<l by the giv:a
powers. In this connection, It should be stated that the Swe<lish Goveninien:
was Instrumental in bringing the then existing Russian Government to consi'iu
to Finland's Independence. The Government of Sweiien was the first t** gn>
Finland recognition as a new independent State, whUrh action was then fo!lf>weit
by Norway and Denmark. The Swedish Government also tried to i»ersua<le tii**
great allied powers and the United States to extend such re<.'ognition t«» Kii-
land, but in vain for a long time, until the efforts were finally crowne<l witJi
success. In face of these facts, It Is hard to believe that the Finland Govern-
ment and people would continue their opposition to Aland's indeinnideiK-e ami
reunion with Sweden, when they themselves have successfully claimtHl mh 1,
independence on the very same principle of self-determination for ail pecjpi^-s.
big or small.
NOT UNIMPORTANT.
To an American public It may seem untm)>ortant what become.** of " a '. \^
thou.sand people " In a settlement of such magnitude as Is now before the hi::M
council of the nations assembled In Paris. But there are no small or unlmix»r-
tant questions before that body. We have th(» word of no less a iwrsonaKe th;Jif
David Lloyd-George to that effect. In his great si>eech before th(» Hous<- or
Commons on the 16th of April, 1919, the great Kngllsh statesman made the fol-
lowing confession :
" I have never heard of Teschen, but it nearly produce<l an ango* (HMirtjc-r
between two allied States, and there are many questions of that kind wli»Tt'
missions have been sent and where we had to settle differences In order to m-i
on with the different problems of war, and those questions are of Importa!*-**
to the small States. And it was the quarrels of the small States that made t:u'
great war."
ONCE PART OF SWEDEN.
After the fall of the autocratic government In Russia and during the c«>urse
of the revolution, Aland seceded from Russia at the same time as Finland, the
latter, however, now disputing the Alanders' claim to determine their own fate-
In order to make clear the grounds on which this claim rests. It is neoessarr to
pass in review the nature and the circuinstanct^s of both Aland's and Finland's
separation from Sweden, of which kingdom they had been parts for hundrp<1<
of years.
When In 1809, by the Peace of Fredrlkshamn. Sweden ceded Finland tn
Russia, It was not a cession of a distinct territory bearing that name. By the
exi)resslon "Finland" was understood a number of governments (Ian) an<i
territories (landskap), which for the sake of convenience or brevity were n>
nomlnate<l in block. This expression did not mean anything more than the
names of other parts of the Swedish Kingdom, such as " Svealand/* '• Gota-
land," and " Norrland." In the treaty of peace, not *' Finland," but the gov-
ernments (Ian) thus ceded were named. And In no other than a general sense
were there ever any boundary lines limiting the extension of Finland, mere
than the frontiers of Svealand, etc.
NEW BOUNDARIES.
In the north, the Finland frontier passed a little west of the KemI River in
a northerly direction to Porkavara, and from there east to the frontier of
Russia. Otherwi.se, the frontier between Finland, on one side, and Svealand
and Norrland, on the other side, was the Gulf of Bothnia. Concerning the
Aland Islands, we have the ofilcial map of the Swedish Bureau of Land Sur-
veyors fran 1714, where the line of demarcation is drawn from the mouth of the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1043
Keml Klver passing south through the partition of the waters along the Gulf
of Bothnia to the Gulf of Finland (Wattusklftet), and containing this informa-
tion in old Swedish: Har Grantzar Finnland (Here borders Finland), evi-
dently tending to show at the same time that anything west of this line was
not included in the territory generally called Finland, This does not neces-
sarily mean that the A^and Islands belonged to any other of the princiiJal parts
of Sweden, but rather that those islands, themselves, formed a distinct territory
(landskap), and even periodically a distinct government (Ian), of the Kingdom
of Sweden.
POPULATION SWEDISH.
As the archaeological results prove, Aland was inhabited by a Swedish popu-
lation from time immemorial and even in prehistoric times. It has received
the Christian religion and all its culture from Sweden. The population of
Aland has always been true to the motherland, even in the trying times when
Finland seemed willing to surrender to the Russian usurper.
HISTOBICAL FACTS.
By a secret treaty made in Tilsit, Czar Alexander of Russia had undertaken
to persuade the King of Sweden, Gustavus (IV) Adolphus, to close the Swedish
ports to English men-of-war and commercial vessels. This, however, the
Swedish monarch refused to agree to.
Emperor Napoleon for this and other reasons, at the Conference of Erfurt
in 1808, promised his support to the acquisition of Finland by the Russian Czar.
In the beginning and even after the Russian Army had met with considerable
success, Czar Alexander did not dream of other frontiers concerning Sweden
than the Tomea River in the north and, for the balance, the Gulf of Bothnia,
which assertion is clearly proven by the rescript to his agent in Sweden, former
Ambassador D. Alopeous, under the date of February 15, 180^. Thus, If the
new Swedish Government, after the fall of Gustavus Adolphus in March, 1809,
had consented to enter into negotiations for peace, there would never have been
any question of including Aland in the territory to be ceded to Russia. But
the Swedish Government hesitated, and in the triple attack which was then
started by Russia in order to hasten the conclusion of peace, even the island of
Aland was invaded and occupied by the Russians, and that territory thereafter
claimed by the right of conquest.
I
ALAND SEIZED BY. RUSSIA.
The Swedish negotiators of peace tried, however, to save as much as possible
of Swedish territory, and in conceding Finland to the usurper they claimed the
maintenance of the old frontiers, viz, Kemi River in the north and the Gulf of
Bothnia to the west. Concerning Aland, the Government Instructed the Swed-
ish plenipotentiary. Baron Stedlngk, to insist upon the frontier line thus de-
scribed: ". . . par une ligne Ideale tiree tout le long du Golfe de Bothnie
en suivant la llgne de partage des eaux (wattusklftet) jusqu'au commencement
du Golfe de Flnlande, de telle sorte qu*Aland reste du cote droit en partant du
nord, et deraeura par consequent suedois comme cela a ete le cas de temps
immemorial."
But the RuSvSlan plenipotentiaries would not recede from their demands,
giving, however, no other motives or using no other arguments than the humilia-
tion resulting to Russia if she must restore what had been conquered by the
fortune of the arms. And the same argumentation was used to oppose the
counter-proposition from the Swedish side, that the Russian Government should
give assurances of not fortifying Aland, If Sweden consented to the cession "ot
the islands.
In documents concerning the peace negotiations, it is constantly referred to
" la Flnlande avec les lies d' Aland." and In the treaty of peace It Is stated
that the King of Sweden ceded to the Czar of Russia all his rights to certain
governments belonging to the Kingdom, textually : " the governments enumer-
ated hereafter, which during the war have been conquered by the arms of His
Imperial Majesty, viz. : the Governments of Kynienegard, Nyland, and Ta-
vastehus, Abo and BJorneborg with the Aland Islands, Savolax and Carelen,
Wasa and Uleaborg, and a part of Westerbotten unto Tornea River."
1044 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
Exactly, as in the constitution of 1634, the different governments belon^ns
to the Crown of Sweden are here considered equal between themselves, Wester-
botten like the others, and the others like Westerbotten, and the Aland Islands
are distinctly enumerated.
Finallv, in an autographic letter from Czar Alexander to the Emperor of the
French, of October 30. 1809, it is said : " La Suede cede a la Russie la Fin-
lande avec les i'les d' Aland."
As it has already been stated, the promise of Napoleon*s supiwrt did not
Include the cession of the Aland Islands, but Alexander could risk a more
liberal interpretation as he well knew that the Emperor needed the assurano;
of his neutrality in the war Just then started against Austria.
When during the course of the war, on the order of the Russian usurper, a
Finnish diet assembled at Borga, March 1806, to render homage to the Em-
peror of Russia as the sovereign of Finland, Aland was not represented. And
when the governor of Abo, Knut von Troll, sent out an official call for certain
contributions in food, etc., for the use of the Russian Army, the AUmd people,
assembled to receive the message of the governor, answered " that the peas-
ants of the island had no more reserves of food of various kinds than they
needed for themselves and their households, but that they would try to divide
what they had if it were needed for the Swedish Army. However, to the Rus-
sian Army, the enemies of Sweden, they considered it culpable and, still more,
unnecessary and improper to give what was demanded. They also desired to
know wherefrom this order of deliveries had come and if it had been given out
with the sanction of his royal majesty."
THE ALAN DEBS B08E UP AGAINST BU8SIA.
At the first invasion of Aland in 1808, by Russian troops, the Alanders rose
to a man and drove the invaders out. But when the following year an over-
whelming Russian force invaded the island, they were not able to resist soe-
cessfully, but to the very last they protested against the secession from Sweden.
In the organization of his new possessions, ceded by Sweden, the Russian
Czar for reasons of administrative order included the islands of Aland in tbe
Finnish Government. No other disposition would seem to have been convenient
But this fact does not make Aland an Integral part of Finland. The RusaiaD
Czar could have ceded Aland back to the King of Sweden or disposed of the
islands in any other way to suit himself, without the consent of or even with-
out consulting his Finnish subjects.
Shortly after the conquest of Aland, the Russians built there the casemated
fort Bomarsund. It was bombarded daring the Crimean war by an EInglish
tleet with a French division of soldiers on board. The 8th of August, 1851
the troops landed in three places and invested the fort. On the 16th of the
same month the commander of the fort, Gen. Bodisco, surrendered with 2,000
men. The conquerors demolished the fort. By the treaty of Paris, 185d, Russia
agreed not to have any fortifications or military establishments on the Aland
Island. But this part of the treaty was agreed to between France, England,
and Russia. Sweden was not called upon to sign this treaty, not having been
a party to the Crimean War.
A I. A Nil FOBTIFnCD.
The distrust of Russia among the Swedish people is a well known fact,
which it is not necessary here to recall or to explain In detail. Numerofis
incidents, particularly tbe Russification of Finland and the building of railroad
lines throughout the country for purely strategical purposes, served to in-
crease in Sweden the fear of new plans of conquest on the part of the mighty
eastern neifirhbor
Shortly after the beginning of the late war. It became known in Sweden that
the Russian Government had established military posts and had started to
build fortlticntlons on the Aland Island, in clear contravention to the artldes
of the Peace of Paris. But Russia was now an ally of the other two high
contracting parties: viz, England and France, and diplomatic inquiries by the
Swedish Government brought the answer that these military establishmenfa
and even the fortifications were all of a temporary nature, in no way aimed
at Sweden, and that they would be withdrawn or demolished as soon as they
had served their purpose, which was to guard against German attacks. Inter-
pellations in the Swedish parliament brought only general statements from the
Government, which, however, seemed to satisfy the great majority of the
members of the two Chambers, information being given out in confidence that
TREiTY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAl^Y. 1046
the Government had done everything in Its power to safeguard Sw^lsh in-
terests, but that It was preatly embarrassed on account of the peculiar political
flituation, as referred to above. Thereupon a most solemn assurance was given
the Government by the leaders of the different political groups and parties
in the Rilcsdag, that the representatives of the Swedish people unanimously
supported the policy of neutrality and of natioaal independence, as declared
by the Govenunent from the beginning of the war.
AuizfD IN Danger.
Then came the revolution and the overthrowing of the autocratic govem-
inent in Russia, followed by the secession of Finland and other parts of the
Russian Empire. As one of the consequences of the chaotic situation, the
Aland people were greatly in fear of violence from the Russian garrison.
In February, 1918, they sent delegates to Stckholm to implore the protection
of the Swedish Government. The situation had been more complicated through
the nrrivHl of Finnish soldiers, both of the White and Re<l Guards, and only
through the wise and peaceful interference by the Swetllsh Government a
general massacre of the population and the widespread destruction of prop-
erty was prevented. The Russian garrison and the Finnish military forces
finally agi^ed to leave the island with the help of Swedish vessels, and Ittie
people of Aland were again able to return to their peaceful occupations without
fear of being molested through the strife between Russians and Finns' or be-
tween different parties in Finland.
No Part in Fiohting.
The Alanders took no part In the fight between the White and the Red
forces of Finland, which terminated in the victory of the former, with the
nssf stance of the German soldiers. The desire to again become Swedes, In
fact as well as they have always been in heart, was expressed by the entire
mnjor population of the island, amounting to 7,135 men and women, through
a petition to the King of Sweden and the Swedish people at the end of the
yenr 1917, among other reasons, stating that " before long the fate of oppressed
peoples is going to be decided, and the inhabitants of Aland consider that the
time hfls come for them to express their unalterable will to see the ancient
county of Aland again reunite<l to the Kingdom of Sweden.**
The King received the delegates bringing the petition with his customary
kindness and courtesy and assured them of his own and the Swedish' people*s
wish to again count the Swedes of Aland among the Swedish citizens, but re-
minded them of the necessity for a friendly understanding with the Government
and the people of the new State of Finland, whose independence it had been
his great pleasure to bring about and to recognise.
SWEDEN IS NKUTRAL.
Through the whole duration of the war. the Swe<llsh Government has scrupu-
lously maintained the neutrality it declared at the beginning. Strictly ad-
hering to the same principle, it had to decline taking part in the struggle be-
tween the " white " and the " red '* forces in Finland. The wisdom of this
policy was, moreover, provided by the succeeding events. Had Sweden lent her
hand to the party in Finland, which finally, with the help of the German G«t-
emment, became victorious, there can be no doubt any more that Sweden
would have been. forced into the war and, necessarily, on the side of Germany,
as a consequence of the participation, in concert, of the two nations in the estab-
lishitig of a new government in Finland. No leas correct has been the conduct of
the Swedish Government toward the new Government of Finland. The unani-
mous opinion of the Swedish people is that Aland belongs to Sweden, and the de-
sire to see the reunion take place is hardly less unanimous. Every Swede, we
might say, is also convinced that the possession of Aland is more vital tlian ever
to the future security and independence of Sweden. But no advantage has
been taken of the fall of the Russian Empire no more than of the unanimously
expressed desire of the Alanders to be again incorporated into the Kingdom
of Sweden.
lb46 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEEMANY.
WANTS DOUBLE VOTE.
With ail courtesy, tlie new Finnisli Government lias l)een approached in
order to bring about a friendly agreement, whereby the will of the Aland
people could be satisfied. Without claiming to give a complete account, lo
chronological order, of these negotiations. It may be stated here, with absolute
knowledge of the facts, that the Swedish Government has propcmed to leave to
the people of the islands to express their preference through a genaral vote,
and even to make a final decision depend on a double voting, the first vote to
be taken now and the second after a couple of years, thereby giving the people
of the islands ample time for reflection, and deferring the final settlement to an
epoch when the disturbances and the passions of the war may reasonably be
considered as past. The chief aim of the Swedish Government has been to reach
a mutual agreement between the three parties interested — Finland, Sweden and
Aland — whereby an accomplished fact could be presented to the peace conference
and there simply registered as such.
But nothing seems to have been accomplished thus far. The Finnish Gov-
ernment has given but evasive answers. There have been suggestions of com-
pensation in land, which, of course, the Swedish Government most categorically
has declined to entertain. At the time of the visit to Stockholm in February
last of Gen. Mannerheim, the Finnish administrator ("RiksfQrest&ndare").
it was .thought that at least a preliminary agreement had been reached, through
his conferences with the King and the chief government officers. But further
developments showed that the Finnish Government was still unwilling to give
a definite answer or enter into a formal conference.
A DELEGATION TO THE PEACE COFFEBENCE.
Meanwhile, a delegation of three citizens of Aland, Bditor Johannes Sund-
blom and two farmers, Johannes Eriksson and Johan Jansson, were delegated
by their countrymen to take the claim of the Alanders to the peace confterence.
Their visit to Paris took place in February this year. They were received by
representatives of all the five great powers; by Mr. White (America), Balfour
(England), Plchon (France), Orlando (Italy), Makino and Chlnda (Japan).
All of these statesmen seemed to be very much interested In the Aland question
and some of them showed a surprising familiarity with the subject. Without
exception they listened to the delegates* statements with the kindest attention.
The visit was also favorably mentioned by the French papers.
HELD TO BE TBAITORS.
This independent proceeding of the Aland people seems to have caused great
excitement in Finland, particularly among the Finninsh population. Shortly
after their return from Paris, the three delegates were summoned to appear
before an agent of the Finnish Government, who subjected them to a very
severe cross-examination, at the end of which they were enjoined to hold them-
selves at the disposal of the Government and not to leave the island without
the permission of the authorities. It was even stated in the Finnlali papers
that the delegates were going to be tried for treason. But, according to more
recent news, the excitement seems to have subsided.
CONCLUSION.
The consent of the peace conference to the reunion of Aland with Sweden
seems to be justified on the following grounds :
1. Aland is an old Swedish territory. The inhabitants are all Swedes, by
origin, language, sentiment, and customs. Their commercial intercourse is
principally with Sweden.
2. The Alanders have never consented to their secession from Sweden*
3. By the principle of self-determination for all nations, big or small, the
Alanders have a right to make their own choice.
Indeed, they had as much right as the Flnlanders to cut loose from Russia.
The'*peop1e of Finland, as they claimed independence on the ground of all
peoples' right to self-determination, and finally succeeded in getting thcdr inde-
pendence recognized, can not equitably refuse to concede the same rights to
the Alanders. Instead of claiming lndei)endence as a small State, the Aland-
ers, however, petition Sweden to receive them as citizens and they are now
"^^^eking the sanction of the peace conference.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1047
The importance for Sweden to get into possession of the Aland Islands is
>vell recognized. The island of Aland is the key to Stockholm and to the
whole of Sweden. It was pointed out already at the peace negotiations more
than a hundred years ago, that " the power holding Aland could thereby enter
into the heart of Sweden and keep her on her guard day and night ;" also that
Aland was dominating the Gulf of Bothnia, whereby the security of free navi-
gation in the gulf was dependent thereof.
These considerations must per force appear stronger to-day than ever before
in view of the capacity of guns and of other tools and instruments of destruc-
tion in modern warfare.
The Government of Sweden and the Swedish people have given to the whole
world the assurance of their unalterable will to maintain peace and friendly
relations with all other nations, but at the same time of an equally strong de-
cision to defend their own country, their national honor and their independence,
dating back to times immemorial. The safety of Sweden greatly depends on the
possession of Aland. Sweden's possession of Aland would in a great measure
help to make the whole Baltic a free sea, which no doubt will be one of the
aims of the present world conference.
The claim of Finland to the Aland Islands rests on no other foundation in
fact than their Joint position as "exparts" of the Russian Empire. From a
nationalistic point of view, the claim is untenable by the fact that the popula-
tion of Finland consists of more than 3,000,000 Finns and only about 400.000
people of Swedish descent. The political considerations which may come up
before the peace conference at, the time when the conference will be ready to
decide the fate of Finland are hard to guess. But the claim of the Alanders
seems so natural, so reasonable, and so fully In accord with the famous four-
teen points of President Wilson, that a decision In their case could be reached
without connection with any other nationalistic problems.
Mr. Johnson. It appears, however, from information through the
newspapers, that the Baltic Commission of the peace conference
has had the Aland question investigated and has discussed it, in con-
clusion giving the opinion that a final settlement could not be reached
at present, owing to the uncertain or rather chaotic conditions pre-
vailing in Russia, but that a temporary solution might be arrived at
through an agreement between the Swedish Government and the
Government of Finland.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Baltic Commission
does not give any opinion regarding the main point of the Aland
question, viz, the rights of the inhabitants of the Aland Islands to
determine, themselves, how they should be governed. Very briefly
stated, the Alanders claim their independence and their right oi
reunion with Sweden on the following grounds :
Aland is an old Swedish territory. The inhabitants are all Swedes,
by origin, language, sentiment, and customs. Their commercial in-
tercourse is almost exclusively with Sweden and has so remained
even during the last 100 years, when the Aland Islands were a part
of the Russian Empire.
The people of Aland have never consented to their secession from
Sweden, to which they were forced in 1809.
With other former provinces of Sweden's, collectively known as
Finland and lying east of the Gulf of Bothnia, Aland seceded from
Russia shortly after the overthrow of the Czar Government.
The Alandese took no part in the fight between the White and the
Red forces of Finland, which ended with the victory of the former.
The desire to again become Swedes, in fact, as well as they have
always been in heart, was expressed by the entire major population
of Aland through a petition to the King of Si^yeden and the Swedish
people at the end of the year 1917, as extensively described in the
pamphlet referred to. . "
1048 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GSRMANT.
The assertion being made in Finnish papers that the above appeal
addressed by the people of Aland to the King and people of Sweden
(December, 1917), was caused by the oppression and cnielti^ of
the Bussian military invasion of the islands at that time, a new
expression by popular vote was decided upon and took place during
the month of June of the current year. The result was that 9,735
men and women of major age si^ed a petition giving full power
to the Aland popular representation (landsting) to take all meas-
ures necessary for the confirmation of the stand already taken bv
the people, and alone to represent the people of Aland and to speak
for them.
Of the major population of Aland — about 11,000 men and women,
altogether — 10,196 took part in the vote. Only 461 voted against
Aland's reunion with Sweden. The other 9,735 who voted in favor
of the reunion amount to 96.3 per cent of the voters. The balance.
3.7 per cent, consists mainly of persons having moved in from Fin-
land and of the Finnish Government officers.
Thus a renewed testimony of the well-nigh unanimous desire
of the inhabitants of the Aland Islands to again beonne members
of the Kingdom of Sweden has been given since the question of the
future status of the islands was brought up before the peace con-
ference.
Senator Brandegee. Will you be kind enough to allow me to in-
terrupt you there for a minute ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Brandegee. Before the war with Gennany, who owned
the island of Aland)
Mr. Johnson. The Czar of Russia.
Senator Mew. You say the Czar of Russia?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. The Province of Finland and the island of
Aland were ceded to the Russian Czar in 1809. The Province
formed the grand duchy of Finland, but the island of Aland was
a separate part of Swedish territory and did not belong to Finland
or to the grand duchy at all.
Senator Pomerene. Are you a native of the island of Aland I
Mr. Johnson. No^ I am a native of Stoddiolm, just across the
street, you may say, from the island of Aland.
Senator Pomebene. Are you a naturalized American f
Mr. Johnson. Yes; I have h&Ba naturalized for over 30 jrears.
Senator Poherene. Have you been in communication with the
inhabitants of this island on this subject?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I have been in communication with them
through correspondence, and through people coming from there rep-
resentmg them and asking me to help them alons.
Senator Pomebene. Did the people of that iSiand take any part
in the war?
Mr. Johnson. They took no part whatever in the war. The peo-
ple of Finland took some part in the war, but the Alanders never
took any part in the war. Even in the internal strife in Finland
they kept aloof.
Senator Knox. Has any disposition been made of this island by
this treaty?
Mr. Johnson. It does not form a part of the treaty that is now
before the Senate. It has just been handled by the Baltic Commis-
TBEATT OF FBACB WITH CSBMANY. 104&
aion of the peaoe conference. After the treaty with Germany it
came before the peace conference proper. Just recently they have
discuss^ the question, and the representatives of the Swedes and
the Finlanders were heard ; but my contention, and what I think is
the main point in this controveri^, is the demand or request of the
people of the island of Aland to determine their own fate.
I*ermit me to say in conclusion that even in the interest of future
peace in the Baltic it seems evident that the possession of the Aland
Islands by a more powerful, albeit peace-loving, country, such as
Sweden, would be preferable to their possession by Finland, whose
history as an independent State is an unwritten page.
But the political ^de of the question is no concern of mine. Aa
an American citizen^ I am interested in seeing American principles
of fairness prevail over the whole world. To me the desire of the
Aland people to join their own nationality by a reunion with Sweden
seems so much more justiiBed, as the geo^aphical position of the
country makes Aland a physical entity. Thus no objection could
reasonably be raised against the desire of the population to deter-
mine their own fate.
Senator Knox. How long had Russia sovereignty over this group
of islands?
Mr. Johnson. Russia had possessed Finland and the Aland Islands
from 1809, when thev were ceded to Russia after the Russian-Swedish
war by the treaty of Frederickshaven.
Senator Knox. And prior to 1809?
Mr. Johnson. Before that they belonged to Sweden. Aland and
Finland were settled from Sweden. The islands belonged to Sweden
from prehistoric times, from time immemorial. The Finland Prov-
inces belonged to Sweden for 700 years before they were ceded to
Russia.
Senator Knox. Did Sweden lose this group of islands at the same
time that she lost Finland ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. All that is extensively described in the pam-
phlet which I leave with you. Sweden tried very hard to keep the
Aland Islands, but Russia wanted them, and claimed them by right
of conquest, because they had overrun them. To ghow the territorial
importance of the islands, it is a question of life and death to Swe-
den to possess them. Thev absolutely dominate Stockholm, far more
so now, with the powerful engines of war that have been discovered.
But I am not talking for Sweden or any political party.
The Chaibman. What is the total population of the islands?
Mr. Johnson. Twenty-two thousand and some hxmdreds.
Tlie Chairman. They are all Swedes?
Mr. Johnson. Yes; there are not 2 per cent that do not talk the
Swedish language.
Senator Moses. Does Sweden claim these islands are necessary
for her self-defense?
Mr. Johnson. I do not know that they made that claim before the
peace conference, but they have always done so, and that is an ad-
mitted fact. Under the treaty of Frederickshaven Sweden tried to
get an engagement or a promise from Russia not to fortify those
islands, but Kuasia was so strong and Sweden so weak at that time
that the request was paid no attention to.
1050 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Senator Knox. It seems to me that it is obvious on the face of it
that they do dominate Stockholm, because they are only about 25
miles away from Stockhohn, and with the modem engines of war
like these long-range guns, those islands fortified woulahave Stock-
holm at their mercy.
Senator Moses. I can understand that perfectly from the map,
but what I was trying to get at is why tne claim of necessity of
those islands for self-defense of Sweden, when the league of na-
tions is going to abolish war.
Mr. Johnson. All those questions will be eliminated, I suppose,
as soon as the league of nations is an actuality, but that claim was
raised by Sweden risht after the islands were ceded by Sweden to
Russia. They were fortified by Bussia. In 1856 when the Crimean
war took place, the English and French fleet combined to destroy
the fortifications of Aland, and then in the treaty of Paris in the
next year it was stipulated that those islands should not be fortified
any more. During this war Russia permitted herself to start forti-
fications on the islands, and when Sweden made protest against it
th^ claimed it was in fear pf a German attack.
Senator Moses. What I was trying to get at was whether Sweden
would rather have the Aland Islands or the league of nations as a
means of defense.
Mr. Johnson. I can not talk for Sweden. I think if they got the
Aland Islands to begin with, they would be satisfied, and then they
would make a request to be admitted to the league of nations after-
wards. It may be, I do not know.
Senator New. Mr. Johnson, I would like to have you clear up one
Joint that is not clear in mv mind. You spoke of Sweden losing
'inland and the Aland Islancls at the same time.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator New. That was in 1809 ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator New. You said Finland was taken by Russia ?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator New. And the Aland Islands were given to the Czar. Do
you mean that there is a difference in the condition in which the
two were lost?
Mr. Johnson. I beg your pardon, but they were both c^ded to the
Czar of Russia. The wording of the treaty says that the King of
Sweden cedes to the Czar of Russia, and my contention is that the
Czar of Russia, if he was alive, could cede the Aland Islands to
Sweden without the consent of Finland.
Senator New. That is all right, but from the way in which you
first stated it I thought there might have been a differen<» in the
condition under which the two were ceded.
Mr. Johnson. No.
The Case for Czechoslovakia.
STATEMENT OF HB. EDWABD VACZY.
Mr. Vaczy. Mr. Chairman, I am a resident of Brooklyn. Mr. Van
Svarc, of Cleveland, Ohio, an American by birth, of Czech descent,
a lawyer by profession, Mr. O. D. Koreff, of Pittsburgh, an American
TREATY or PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 1051
citizen of Czech birth, a newspaper editor, and myself, also an
American citizen of Slovak birth, represent the Slovak people and
the Bohemian National Alliance of America, and its branch organi-
zations, which organizations exist in nearly one-half of the States
of the Union. I want to state at this time that our committee has
been somewhat handicapped. It was very late last evening when
we received the stenographic reports of the meeting yesterday morn-
ing, and we have not been able to prepare our briefs in a manner
that would do justice to this case.
The Chairman. The committee will give you time to prepare your
brief, if you wish to file anything after the hearing.
Mr. Vaczy. I appreciate that very much. I trust you will, there-
fore, appreciate our position in this matter. At this time I wish to
thank you most kindly in extending to us the opportunity to present
the case of Czechoslovakia insofar as it relates to the Magyar peo-
ple. Our purpose in view in appearing before you is to cooperate
with your committee and assist you in reaching a fair settlement in
the so-called matter entitled, "The Case of Hungary," and further
to refute and correct the misleading statements propounded by the
representatives of the Magj^ar people who appeared yesterday before
your honorable body.
I shall be very brief with the Czecho-Slovaks and Magyar situa-
tion and discuss the matter as it exists in the United States to-day^
and leave the economic, geographical and historical questions affect-
ing the European situation to my colleagues. The Czecho-Slovaks
began to emigrate to the United States before the Civil War. Many
of them fought bravely and heroically in this war. The Czecho-
slovaks began to come to our shores in large numbers, principally to
escape the hardships and cruelties perpetrated upon them by the
Ma^ar imperialistic Goveminent, and further to escape the military
service, realizing the humiliation and the insults and treatments that
would be accorded to them by the Magyar militaristic lords. As
the years rolled on their immi^ation bej^n to increase to this land
until to-day the Czecho-Slovak population in the United States is
approximately 1,600,000, or five times that of the Magyar population
in this country.
The Czecho-Slovaks have principally settled in the States of New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, West Vir-
^nia, Texas, Massachusetts, Bhode Island, Pennsvlvania, Maryland,
Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota. In many of the cities in these
States they have built magnificent churches and schools, and in fact
most of these people, I may say, own their homes. It is their abso-
lute intention to remain in this country. They have became a part
of our Government. These people have expended and invested mil-
lions of dollars in building operations and have materially assisted in
developing our country in this one respect.
There has been an erroneous impression received by the average
American that the Czecho-Slovaks are only capable of performing
manual labor. This is incorrect Thousands of these men are ex-
pert artisans, manv of them are successful business and professional
men, while other nave established reputations as artists and musi-
cians. The Czecho-Slovaks have developed a deep interest in our
political life and have made rapid strides in that (Erection. Two
members of the present House of Congress are of Czeclio-Slovak
1052 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
birth. Others occupy elective and appointive political positions^
while others hold civil-service positions in nearly every arm of onr
service, Federal, State, and municipal.
I might state tiiis, that the Czecho-Slovaks of this country have
proven themselves to be an extraordinarily patriotic and independ-
ent, liberty-loving people. They have or^nized a Czecho-Slovak
army in the United States. They were able to organize a force of
upwards of 3,500 Czecho-Slovaks, men who were not citizens of the
United States and who were under no obligations to serve our coun-
try, but who were exceedingly glad and desirous of going to the
front and fighting for our country and fighting for the cause of
the Allies.
There was only one way in which those men could engage in
battle, and that was by enlisting in the Czecho-Slovak Army. I
might say that while yesterday the Magyar representatives appeared
here and asked you for justice for Hungary, or for the Magyars, as
I maintain, there is no such place as Hungary. Hungary to-day
has been equitably divided. There is only a place there, Magyar-
land, and not a united Hungary. Twenty-five hundred Czecho-
slovak soldiers were marching up Fifth Avenue while the Magyar
representatives here were askmg for sympathy and justice to uieir
country — ^these 2,500 Czecho-Slovak soldiers live in the United
States; they are not citizens — after coming from Siberia. Miuiy of
them have been wounded and crippled. Thejr left, their wives, their
parents, their dependents, while they were in the Czecho-Slovak
Army. I am sure that you must admire their heroic position in this
matter. But while the Czecho-Slovaks in this country have been
doing everything in their power to assist the United States to win
this war — and I say they materially assisted the United States
in winning this war — what were the Hungarians doing — or the
Magyar people* to be correct? What were they doing? You realize
and you know the extensive propaganda that the Magyar agents in
this country were carrying on prior to our declaration of war
against the Central Powers. These Magyar agents were scheming
and plotting to blow up munitions factories, sink ships, if you
please, do anything in order to destroy our property, in other
words to cause disorder, to cause strikes, to interrupt our business
pursuits in this country until the matter became so serious, if yon
recall, that an investigation was had, and a convincing report was
drawn up of the operation of the Magyar agents in this country,
and of the harm that they were doing, so that Dr. Dumba as "a
result of that investigation was asked to be recalled, which he was.
We bid that gentleman a final farewell, a representative of a so-called
highly cultured, humane people.
At this very time, Mr. Chairman and Senators, on August 10
a whole page advertisement appeared in four New York newspapers
entitled "To the American Nation. Real facts about Hungary.''
It is signed "American committee for the relief of Hungary, Arnold
Somlyo, corresponding secretary ; Bei^alan Bama, chairman." The^
conclude by stating "We respectfully appeal, therefoi*e, to the Presi-
dent of the United States, to the United States Senate, to Congress,
and to the American Nation for justice to Hungary."
I have read this article, and I am soriy to state that there
seems to be no conscience as to the extent to which these Magyar
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1053
propagandists will go to mislead the American public. There are
three or four prominent facts to which I could draw your attention
from this advertisement, which solely affect the olovak people,
while it deals also with Serbia and Roumania.
The Chairman. Let me ask one question in order to make it
-clear. When you speak of Czecho-Slovak, you mean Bohemian,
Moravian, and Slovak.
Mr. Vaczy. Yes I do. We are only interested as far as this
advertisement affects the Slovaks. The other nationalities quoted
here can very well take care of themselves.
At a meeting in New York I was elected by a branch of the
Slovak League
Senator Fomerene (interposing). Before you come to that, you
said that there were three or four facts or statements that were gross
misrepresentations. That is the substance of what you said.
Mr. Vaczy. Yes.
Senator Pomerene. What are they?
Mr. Vaczy. Well, I can answer that argument, but I will leave
that to my colleague, Mr. Svarc, who will explain that matter much
better than I can. He has been in Czechoslovakia and has recently
returned, and understands conditions there and understands condi-
tions here.
I was asked to answer this advertisement. I then proceeded to
the New York Sunday World office and inquired as to what it
would cost to publish a similar full-page advertisement. I was sur-
prised when I was told that it would cost $1,344 for one insertion.
It seems that it cost as much money for the page advertisement in
the New York Herald, the New York American, and the New York
Times. So in round figures it cost about $6,500 for those four ad-
vertisements in the New York newspapers.
Now the question is, gentlemen, I am wondering where this large
sum of monev is coming from. If these people can afford to spend
$6,500 for advertising purposes, it is a very serious problem in my
estimation as to where the money is coming from. Is it possible,
gentlemen, that perhaps the purse strings of Bela Kuhn have been
loosened and some of that money imported into this country? Or is
it possible that the Magyar aristocrats have opened their pocket-
books and are expending some money for these expensive adver-
tisements?
This advertisement, to my mind, has been solely published for the
purpose of misleading and poisoning the minds of the American
public ; and, gentlenien, further for the reason that they are endeav-
oring to mold public opinion, and I think that they want to use
that public opinion as a sort of a hammer upon the Senate of the
United States.
There are a great many points which I could touch upon, so far
as the Slovak situation is concerned. I know that your time is
somewhat limited. You can put it to great advantage in other
important matters that are before you, and I will conclude by sajring
that the Magyars have been before the bar of justice. There is no
reason why sentence should not be passed, and they are awaiting
sentence, and I will say that may the Lord have mercy on their
«ouls.
1054 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
Further, more than tliat, I want to serve notice upon the repre-
sentatives of the Magyar people in this country that the Czecho-
slovaks in this country will do everything witnin their power to
prosecute this malicious and mischievous propaganda until it is for-
ever banished from the shores of the United States, and we will back
up the statement that we make. I thank you very much.
The Chairman. Mr. Svarc, of Cleveland, Ohio.
STATEUENT OF ME. YEN SVAEC, OF CLEVELANI), OHIO.
Mr. SvARC. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee:. Rep-
resenting the Slavic League of America and the Bohemian National
Alliance, two organizations in the United States which were organ-
ized for the purpose of prosecuting the war to a successful issue, so
that the people from whom we have sprung abroad might on the
other side come into their own, might again be free and enjoy the
blessings of liberty, I thank you for this privilege of addressing
you on this occasion, and I know that our people, not only in the
United States but our long-suffering people abroad, appreciate the
fact that we can raise our voices before you on behalf of their liberty.
We did not think a few days ago that it would be necessary for u<
to appear before you. We had an idea that in the peace conference,
owing to the victory which the allied armies, together with the Army
of the United States, have won abroad, the political questions would
be settled over on the other side, and, above all, that our Magjar
brethren would finally see the light, and in tlie light of their previous
mistakes, the mistakes which are duo to that outlook upon political
life which goes back to feudal times, that they would be willing to
get back into the channels of the modern world and become modern-
ized. But it seems that they have not only failed to grasp the lesson
of the war on the other side but they on this side who live under the
Stars and Stripes have nevertheless failed to be imbued with the idea
for which America stands, the principle wliich she represents, and the
stern logic which she applies in these progressive times for the better-
ment of the world, for the increase of justice in the world, and for the
upbuilding of fraternity among nations.
And that is why we are here ; not because we wanted to come, but
because the occasion has compelled us to come in order that we may
raise our voice in behalf of the truth, and endeavor to efface the
various distortions of history, the various distortions of truth, and
that subtle, specious reasoning whi(*h has been introduced here in
this committee room by our Magyar friends in order that they might
throw sand into your eyes and in order that they might deceive the
American ptiblic at large in regard to those issues which are at stake
on the other side and which are at stake as well in this country of
ours.
The political questions arising out of the situation in Hungary are
?uite easy to determine if we go back to a few basic definitions,
That is or what was this country that was known as Hungary?
There have been certain unscrupulous men not only in these United
States but elsewhere in the world who have traded wonderfully upon
this word '' Hungary," and who, because certain people came from
this geogi'aphical designation known as Hungary, tnese unscrupulous
men had thought to claim them in that generic term " Hungarians.'*
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1055
What is a Hungarian, or what was a Hungarian ? A person who came
from the geographical area known as Hungary. He was either a
Magyar, he was either a Slav — that is, a Slovak, Serb, or a Croat —
or he was a Roumanian. In some instances he was a German, who
came from the German settlement in Slovakia or in Transylvania.
There never was such a thingas a homogeneous Hungary inhabited
by a homogeneous nation. These various nations have inhabited
Hungary from times immemorial, and the Magyars were the last
people to enter Hungary. These peoples formed one polyglot State.
This polyglot State until almost the close of the eight-eenth century,
because of these various nations which spoke different languages, em-
Eloyed the Latin language in its transactions of government, the
ratin language was used in its j>arliament, and the Latin language
was used m the law courts. This condition continued down to the
close of the eighteenth century, when under Joseph the Second, the
Emperor of Austria-Hungary, the great movement for Germanizing
by force all the peoples of Austria-Hungary was endeavored to be
put into effect.
ITnder the stress of the Germanizing movement, the Magyar
people began to receive the idea that they ought, in that geographic
part known as Hungary, or the Kingdom of St. Stephen, to seek to
Magj^arize, and inunediately after the French Revolution, when
the new ideas began to pervade Europe, and the question of nation-
ality began to assert itself, from that day begins the idea of a
Magyar iniperialisnu and from that day, accentuated later on by
the effort of Louis Kossuth, which effort has been misrepresented in
these United States, and which modern scholarship has sought to
set right — American scholarship among other scholarships — ^the
Magyars sought to efface all the other nations which had been on
very friendly tenns in centuries past, inhabiting a common country,
and sought to Magyarize these other nations, a terrible task in it-
self and a most brutal one, when we stop to consider that if the
truth were known, that is if Magj^ar statistics did not lie, being
made by the government, probably 8,000,000 people were seeking
to rob 12,000,000 people of their language, of their educational sys-
tems, of their part of the government, and were simply trying to
efface every vestige of their national tradition and impose upon
them a false idea that they were Magyars.
This situation continued down to 1867 with greater or less suc-
( ess, because up to that time the Mag^^ars were immediately subject
to the government of Vienna. In 1867 the Hapsburg ruler, Francis
Joseph, saw that the Magyars were so obstreperous that it was time
that he relented, that he should permit them to have their say, and
so the old Empire of Austria-Hungary was divided into two parts,
one part ruled from Vienna and the other part ruled from Buda-
pest. The famous Saxon stateman. Bach, who got up this wonderful
plan of dualism, upon the occasion of its being put into practice
made this wonderfully humame statement. Turning to the German
ruler from Vienna, he said "You will take care ot your hordes" —
meaning the Slovak&^-"and of course," — turning to the Magyar
ruler, "you will take care of your hordes from Budapest." And
they have been quite true to that famous injunction. They hav^
treated these subject peoples in all times as hordes.
1056 TBBATY OF FEAOB WITH GEBMANY.
It was quite amusdng yesterday to hear the justification for dual*
ism as it was explained here, that the Magyars under the situation
•did what they thought was best. Yes, because thev knew that they
would have power in their hands to proceed to enace these nations
that inhabit the common country, and that they would make one
Magyar Empire out of this country, which was never in a position
to assume the Magyar language, a non-Arv^an language, which is
strange to their ears, which is difficult for them to learn, which has
absolutely no significance in education or culture because it is prac-
tically limited to a nation of 8,000,000 people in the hefirt of Europe
who are foreigners there.
Now, if we once set in our minds this picture of the former Hun-
gary, namely, a country or area which is inhabited by four great
nations, nations which have an independent history, which have an
independent culture entirely distinct from anything that is Magyar.
then we can readily see the false reasoning which has been presented
there and through which false reasoning you have been asked to do
your part in preserving the integrity of this conglomeration called
Hungary. There is no such thing as the integrity of Hungary.
There is such a thing as the integrity of the Magyar nation, and
nobody is seeking to deprive the Magyar nation of its integrity.
But the whole civilized world is raising its voice against permitting
8,000,000 Magyars comprising the Magyar nation to impose their
brutal system of government, a svstem which means denationaliza-
tion, carried on in the most brutal fashion. That system, of course,
was overthrown by this war and the civilized nations of the world
are bound to see that it shall not be resurrected.
Now, in this connection I think it would be proper to refer to the
advertisement appearing in the New York World under date of
Sunday, August 10, 191&, under caption, " To the American Nation.
Keal facts about Hungarj'," and signed by the "American com-
mittee for the relief of Hungary." It seems that the title of this
American committee for the relief of Hungary is a misnomer.
' I quote from this article :
The American people had so little opportunity to hear Hungary's side of the
story that this information should be welcomed by every fair-minded dtlsen
-•f this country.
I wish to add to my previous remarks in regard to the definition
of " Hungary," the wav this term is abused, and refer to this abuse
through this entire article, showing the way in which the American
public is deceived.
In the Magyar language there is no term at all for an equivalent
of the term "Hungary." In other words, they call the country
Magyar-Orsza^, meaning the country of the Magyars, and under
that term they include Slovakia, they include Transylvania, that part
inhabited by the Roumanians, and they include the southern parts-
Croatia, Slovania, and so forth.
In other words, in the Magyar lan^iage they do not recognize
at all that ancient term " Hungary," which means simply a geoi^'aph-
ical area ruled by a common sovereign; and therefore, when they
speak of Hungarians they usually fail to explain that they mean any-
body who comes out of Hungary, but they try to impress you with
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAI^rY. 1057
the fact that "Magyar" is synonymous with "Hungary," whereas
the fact is that it is not synonymous at all. It means that the
Magyars form but one portion of Hungary, that they number about
8,000,000 out of the 20,000,000 inhabitants of the whole country, that
their interests are entirely hostile to the interests of the rest of the
population, because this population demands self-determination, and
they demand that they work out their own destiny. They have been
doing this in the United States continuously by talking about Hun-
garians.
Senator Pomerene. If it will not interrupt you, how generally
are these 8,000,000 Magyars distributed over what we understand to
be Hungary?
Mr. SvARC. I shall explain that. In this very article appearing on
August 10 in the New York World is the following statement, and
I quote it at this point in order that I may use their own figures :
Life and time mingled the various races In Hungary Incessantly. Other
mlngllngs were accentuated during the eighteenth century, and as one finds
them now side by side, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, and Orthodox, similarly
there are In Hungary in the same region members of five or six nationalities.
If we except central Hungary, which is wholly Magyar, 85 per cent, and north-
*-rn Hungary, which is indeed almost entirely Slovalc, 76 per cent, the races
are so intermingled that you can not cut out an unbroken territory from
any of them. Every such attempt creates new mixed territories with no clear
racial majority in them.
I ask you gentlemen to consider the sincerity of a statement of
this type, which admits that in the Danubian plain, which is prac-
tically the only part that is essential Magyar, where they admit that
85 per cent or the people are Magyars, even in this vast Danubian
plain 15 per cent of the population belong to other races and
nationalities.
Senator Pomerene. Approximately what portion of the territory
is that?
Mr. SvARC. I will show you the map which they presented here
yesterday It is practically this part here
Senator Knox. About 20 per cent of the whole ?
Mr. SvARC. Which, according to their own claim, would be about
20 per cent of old Hungary. They do not use the word " Slovakia."
It has been the policy of these propagandists, and the policy of the
Magyar Government sitting at Budapest, to endeavor all through
these years to efface that word "Slovak." Then they have the
effrontery to come into this committee room, as they did yesterday,
and to suggest to you gentlemen that the situation there is similar
to the situation in the United States pertaining to Texas or to
California; in other words, that they are trying to do over there
with those people what we are trying to do in these United States,
to make the nation homogeneous. I think that if they were sincere,
a better comparison and parallel would be to compare the situation
to that in Switzerland, where three nations or peoples, speaking
three languages, live side by side and manage their own govern-
ment. That would be the truth. But one of the reasons why we
are here is to protest against any such comparison as comparing the
situation over there in Hungary with the situation in the United
States as it pertains to Texas or New Mexico or California. It is
nothing of the sort. These nations in Hungary were there before
the Magyars came.
136546— 19 67
1058 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
And another point against which we protest, that is contained in
this advertisement, is the claim that all these nations that are
seeking the right of self-determination over there now are immi-
grants, that the Magyars were there first. The Magyars have set
up the false contention that they were the aborigines. I do not
think it requires much of a scholar to realize the fact that any race
that came to Europe in the tenth century, is far from being the
aboriginal race of the country, because we know that the great migra-
tions took place in the sixth and seventh centuries.
We also know this fact, that the Magyar language, as far as its
terminology is concerned which relates to agriculture, which relates
to the home, which relates to the marriage state, which relates to
the common things of life such as tools, practically all in the terms
in the Magyar language have been adopted from the Slovak. That
of itself, gentlemen, is significant, because no nation aboriginal in a
country borrows its common words from a nation which has come
in in later years. The process is just the reverse. And when they,
before you here, have oeen claiming their much-vaunted culture,
that culture such as it is is due to the fact that they have taken it
from these other nations, and they have labeled it Magyar. The
extent to which they have gone along these lines in order to rob the
nations which have lived in a common country with them, of their
own reputation along the lines of civilization and culture, is ap-
parent from the fact that at the World's Fair in Chicago they would
not permit the Slovak women to label their embroideries as Slovak
embroideries, but insisted that they be labeled as Hungarian era-
broideries, again fooling the public with that term "Hungarian"'
and misleading the public.
The same was true in London,* where they refused to permit the
Slovaks, and. Austria on the other hand refused to permit the Czechs
to label their exhibits under their national names. In this robbery
of reputation these two plunderers, the Germans of Vienna and the
Magyars of Budapest, have persisted in all these years, in order that
they might make it appear to the world that they were ruling over
homogenous nations; that Austria was German and that Hungary
was Magyar, and yet on the other hand Hungarian, a thing which
meant nothing if it did not mean the fact that it was Magyar. Now
we protest against this misrepresentation in this advertisement,
which seeks to show that the Magyars were the aboriginal inhabitants
of Hungary, and that these other nations moved in there like a lot
of interlopers many centuries afterwards and that now they are try-
ing to rob the Magyars of their country. In proof of the facts which
I have stated, I refer you gentlemen to the books of Seton Watson,
Racial Problems in Hungary, and Political Corruption in Hun-
garv, and the work of Seton Watson on the Jugoslav question.
I also refer you to the work of Emily Green Balch on Our Slo-
vak Fellow Citizens. Emily Green Balch is an American, and
she discusses the problem of our Slovak fellow citizens both here
in the United States and on the other side, where she has had
an opportunity to view them. Every impartial observer and scholar
in Hungary has condemned the governmental system over there,
the system of denationalization, and condemned that colo^al
humbug that the Magyars have been circulating over the world, in
stating that they are a chivalrous, proxrressive, liberty-loving people.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAI^rY. 105J>
They have some laws on the statute books, but they never enforce
them. They have those laws on the statute books in order that they
may refer to them when the occasion arises, in order that they may
be able to deceive somebody by claiming that they have such and
such a law.
The astounding statement was made here yesterday that their
constitution is akin to our Anglo-Saxon constitution. I ask you gen-
tlemen, what do you think of such a statement, in the light of the
fact that they for instance do not know what the writ of habeas cor-
pus is? I ask you what you" think of that statement when you con-
sider the fact that no editor over there has ever been safe who dared
to defend the rights of his nationality, but almost without trial, un-
der the guise of a trial, was sent to jail time after time, and that
newspapers have been fined so that their financial resources were ex-
hausted, so that they would have to stop finally from sheer exhaus-
tion ? I ask you what you think of calhng that constitution akin to
an Anglo-Saxon constitution, when a nation like the Slovaks, com-
prising about 3,000,000 souls, were only able to send four representa^
tives to the Diet at Budapest, and were only able to do it once when
they used all the power that they could summon together in order to
bring about a proper campaign? I ask you what do you think of a
situation concerning electoral laws under which one-sixth of the pop-
ulation are graciously permitted to elect about 4 representatives
when they ought to have about 50?
And that situation also pertains to the Roumanians. What do
you think of the " highly chivalrous " Magyar nation that officially
flogs little schoolboys because they dare to recite a poem entitled " I
Am Proud that I Am a Roumanian," and does it in the name of sav-
ing the State. Then these gentlemen come before you here and try
to tell you, and have the effrontery to tell you that the Magyar Gov-
ernment over there — they say Hungarian Government, but it is the
Magyar Government — is trying toT)ring about a situation in Hun-
gary akin to that in the United States where we try to show our im-
migrant peoples that they ought to know the English language.
Over there they are trying to tell the Roumanian, who has occupied
those hills of Transylvania from a time long before the nomadic
Magyar came onto the Danubian Plain, that he must forget his won-
derful romance language and that he must learn that language which
resounds in Turkey and in Finland, but which t-esounds in only a
few parts of the world. They are telling him that he must cut off'
his intellectual relationship, with the Italian and the Spaniard and
the Portuguese and the French, and, if you please, with the English-
man, and that he must limit himself to the barbaric language which
cuts him off from intellectual relationship with the greatest and best
in the world, past as well as present? What do you think of these
men who have the effrontery to come before you and claim that -it
is perfectly proper for them at Budapest to tell the Slovak, " You
must not learn the Slovak or any other Slav language, but you must
learn the Magyar lan^age, and you must at once sever your intel-
lectual relationship with almost 200,000,000 people in this world,
and with literatures which run back for 20 centuries, that you
must cut off your intellectual relationship with literature which runs
back to Cicero and Virgil, and you must learn this language of ours
which affords you intellectual relationship with practically 10,000,000
1060 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
people only " ? Those are a few of the things that we protest against
here.
I know, gentlemen of the committee, that I am taking up consider-
able of your time here. I want to be as brief as possible and yet
hurriedly cover the ground in order to reply to certain statements
that have been made nere. I am coming down to most recent event-.
We were told yesterday that Hungary had no control of her own
foreign policy and her army. Gentlemen, you recall a certain Dr.
Dumba who was once the minister of Austria-Hungary in the Uniterl
States.
The Chairman. Ambassador.
Mr. SvARC. Ambassador. I mention Dr. Dumba as an example of
how far the Magyar controls the diplomatic situation in the dual
empire. Dr. Dumba was a Magyar, and I want to say right here.
nnd it can not be successfully contradicted, that it was the policy of
Austria-Hungary to fill her diplomatic and consular posts with
Magyars. I have just come from the other side, and the common
complaint over there was that nobody had any opportunity to serve
Austria-Hungary abroad unless he was a Magyar. That accusation
was made by Germans as well, and if you will look up the rest of tlie
representatives of Austria-Hungary to the United States, both in
diplomatic and consular positions, you will discover that almost in-
variably they have been Magyars.
Senator Knox. What about Baron von Hengelmueller, who wa>
here for so many years representing Austria-Hungary. Was he a
Magyar?
Afr. SvARC. Yes. In the statement which these gcntleoien pre-
sented to you here yesterday in the form of a brief they ridiculed
the idea of the empire of Svatopluk, and said it was probably a
myth. The fact is that the Slovaks have occupied Slovakia since
before the Magj^ars came, and have preserved their language and
nationality and are endeavoring to preserve it to-day, and will pre-
serve it because they are going to be free. Yet these Magj'ars have
been telling us that the empire of Svatopluk was a myth. I do not
care if it is a myth. On th-:* other hand, I think their own kingdom
of Arpad is a myth, for " Arpad " in Magyar means a leader, and
their history has been made to suit the occasion. But, gentlemen,
we are dealing with modern facts. The fact is that the Slovak-
nation is there, and in their own Magyar advertisement they say the
.'Slovak nation is a compact body which numbers 76 per cent of iipper
Hungary. Xow if 76 per cc nt of the population of upper Hungary
are ( oiuposed of Slovaks, then I think there is a Slovak nation there
that is to be reckoned with, and that Slovak nation, under our idea
of what constitutes self-determination, ought to have the right of
self-determination.
The Chairman. You are not including the Czechs?
Mr. SvARC. No; just the Slovaks there.
Senator Pomerene. How many in number would that 70 per < cnt
he?
Mr. SvARC. It is hard to say, because the statistics over there are
quite deceptive. I want to speak in this connection about Magyar
statistics.
Senator Knox. That, I understand, is predicated on the statement
made by Count Aponyi, is it?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1061
Mr. SvARC. Yes ; Count Aponyi also made the same statement.
Senator Knox. I was told that in making that statement he had
reference to 4 or 5 counties in Upper Hungary, and not to the 18
or 19 counties which compose the entire upper section of Hungary.
Do you know how that is, as a matter of fact.
Mr. SvARc. Yes. We shall present a brief here which will contain
statistical data, with comments on the sources of our statistics, in
order to show you how the various counties of upper Hungary or
Slovakia are constituted with regard to population.
Senator Knox. That is how all of them are constituted.
Mr. Svarc. Yes.
Senator Knox. So that we will have before us the proportions of
Hungarians and Slavs in Upper Hungary, all of it?
Mr. Svarc. Yes. Now, they themselves admit in this article that
in Slovakia or Upper Hungary 76 per cent of the people are Slo-
vaks. I suppose they knew what they were talking about, though I
sometimes doubt it.
Right here, in regard to the question of population and the pro-
portion of population of Magyars and Slavs, let me touch upon the
question of a plebiscite. It was stated here yesterday that these gen-
tlemen are wonderfully anxious that a plebiscite should be taken in
Hungary in order to determine the question where these people want
to belong. In a country that usually neld elections under the presence
of gens d'armes and the military forces, in a country where it was per-
fectly proper to get the population drunk with whisky in order to
g:et the right expression of suffrage, in a country where there was no
such thing as a secret vote, where a man comes to the polls and shouts
out the name of his candidate, in a country where a meager portion
of the male population, subject to a certain property requirement, are
permitted to vote, in a country that always did violence to the expres-
sion or probable expression oi the voters, or those who may have been
voters, in a country where the elections were the scandal of the
entire world, in a country where a few feudal magnates practically
ran the entire country to the exclusion of the popular masses — in
such a country, I ask you, is it not queer that suddenly these repre-
sentatives come here and appeal to us that these people, the common
people there, should be permitted to vote, a thing they never did in
their lives, in order to determine their own destiny? I will tell
you why they want it done. You can imagine the condition of educa-
tion in the country where the ruling element has tried to rob these
people of their own tongue, of their national traditions. The first
step in such a process is to stultify these people. The process of
stultification comes even involuntarily, because when you seek to
rob a person of his mother tongue, you can easily imagine the result.
Put yourselves in the place of that person. Suppose that now to-day
you were suddenly ordered that you must learn the Magyar lan-
guage; that you must not talk English. Suppose ydu are prevented
from reading English books, from subscribing to English news-
papers. Suppose that the road to you is closed to public preferment ;
in other words, you are a pariah, you are a stranger in the land of
your fathers. Under that condition, I ask you, what sort of intel-
lectual outlook does a nation develop? A very sad and a very bit-
ter one.
1062 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANS.
Senator Pomerene. Do you mean to say that those ai-e the condi-
tions that prevail there?
Mr. SvARC. Those were the conditions when the armistice was
entered into, and those were the conditions in Hun<^ry when the
armistice was entered into — worse than that, because they werp
under a people who tried to oppress them. Not only that, but they
sent a lot of carpetbaggers into the country, strangers, because the
Slovak communities did not know a word of Magyar, and they
had to have Magyar officers in there in order to maKe this " homo-
geneous ".nation which they are claiming. In addition to these
carpetbag officials they sent in there, they proceeded to rob the
church, and when I sav the church I mean the Protestant Church,
the Roman Catholic Cfhurch, and the Uniate Church. The Greek
Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Church thev would not
tolerate at all. They said they are pan-Slav churches, and the
churches in this land were reduced to a condition of handmaids of
Magyar politics, and no priest was permitted to preach in a parish
if he was not patriotically correct, and that meant that he had to be
a traitor to his own people; that he had to stifle within his breast
his own patriotic ideals and his own duty, and in that way they
corrupted the word of God so that they made nothing but slaves of
those who ought to have been divinely ordained and divinely inspired
leaders of their nations.
So they murdered the education, they murdered the nobility of
the work of God, they reduced political office to a thraldom, and
then stop and think what it means to a nation after you have cut
oif the opportunity for that nation to gain a free education, after
3'ou have cut them off from the advice, from the leadership of its
spiritual leaders, when you make the appointment of a bishop con-
tingent upon the fact that a man is the greatest traitor that can be
produced in a nation ; and when you sena special envoys to the Poi)e
at Rome, demanding that no priest shall be sent to the United States
to a Slovak community imless that priest is patriotically correct,
you gentlemen can imagine the situation. In this brief that we are
going to submit, if you will permit us, because it is going to take a
few days to get the document, we will bring you a document from
the ministry at Budapest, which sought to fasten on the Slovak
communities in the United States, composed of immigrants from
Hungary, only such priests as the high politicians in Budapest would
permit, and that came out as an order some years ago.
Senator Pomerene. That came out as an order to whom?
Mr. SvARC. This order was an order of the Hungarian Govern-
ment to certain bishops of the church in Hungary, that when they
sent priests to the United States they should select certain men for
these positions, that in this manner they should cooperate with the
Austro-Hungarian consuls. Mind you, that they should cooperate
with the Austro-Hunjrarian consuls in regard to getting proper
information about the situation in these parishes in the United States.
If there ever was a blow struck at religion, if there ever was such a
thing as degradation of religion, what do you think of an Austro-
Hungarian consul, irrespective of the religion to which he belongs,
informing the officers of the church abroad as to certain political
conditions in the United States, so that those people abroad may be
guided in the selection of proper priests for these positions? They
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1063
went so far as to have a Uniate bishop appointed for the United
States. Gentlemen, the truth has not yet been half told about the
dastardly work they have been carrying on here. We talk about a
paltry $6,500 for these advertisements that they have inserted in
the newspapers. In all the years that have gone by, even prior to
this war, they have spent a great deal more. They have tried to
corrupt our electorate in the United States in order that it should
serve the interests of Hungary, because all this was being done by
Hungarians, and I am talking now of government of Budapest.
They sent a flag over here inscribed " Magyar, be ever loyal to your
fatherland," and with this flag they sent also some soil from Hun-
gary, and they had that flag traveling throughout the communities
m tne United States.
I ask you who represent this great and glorious country of ours
what do you think of the force which seeks to divide our citizenship
along such lines, which seeks to make those men who have entered
into our American citizenship loyal only to the country of their
birth. We have been talking about divided citizenship, about the
dangers that threaten our country, and for years these people have
been doing it. That has been the propaganda which they have been
spreading here, and it is on a par with the German propaganda.
There is only one loyaltj that American citizens shoula know, and
that is loyalty to the United States.
Senator Harding. Was the purpose of all that to prevent Ameri-
canization !
Mr. SvARc. Yes ; this was the real purpose of it.
Senator Harding. Why was the priesthood employed ?
Mr. Svarc. Because the priesthood was the only element that
could reach these people. It was political. In other words, every-
thing that they have done has been for one purpose, and that pur-
pose has been the Magyarization of the country ; it has been the im-
pression of that chauvinistic imperialism which tried to make this
its nation, as Hungarian-Magyar, and they have used all of these
means. They do not know where to stop. In other words, they get
insane about it.
The Chairman. I want to suggest that it is nearly 12 o'clock, and
that at 12 o'clock we shall have to stop.
Mr. SvARC. Very well, Mr. Chairman. May I ask that these
advertisements become a part of the record, with your consent?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Mr. Svarc. Mr. Koreff is here as my colleague and he wants
to be heard.
The Chairman. We will hear him for 10 minutes.
Senator Swanson. And they can file additional briefs?
The Chairman. Oh, certainly.
Mr. Svarc. Just a few words and I shall close. I think we are
all agreed as to the great principles for which America entered this
war. We have loved liberty over here, we have loved truth, we have
loved righteousness. If anything disgusts the Americans it is when
we discover that we have been overreached, that we have been wil-
fully deceived, that people have misrepresented things to us, that
they have distorted the truth. Under these conditions I know there
must be a revulsion of feeling. We who have come from the other
side, or whose fathers and mothers have come from the other side.
1064 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
have been close to the situation over there. We are Americans be-
cause of destiny through the force of conditions, economic, if you
g lease, the love of freedom. That has brought us over here. Thank
rod the time has come when the situation over there, because of
that tremendous flood in the progress of history, has simj)ly wiped
out the old order and has set up a new condition of affairs. The
treasure that we have spent, the lives of our brave soldiers that we
have sacrificed — all these tremendous sacrifices will have been in
vain, if you gentlemen through your action here do anvthing which
will seek to restore that old order of things, which made that
economic, that political slavery over there possible. I know that
you are in consonance with the spirit of the American people, and
that you fully appreciate the sacrifices that have been made by not
only our brave men, but by those other brave men who have, in the
face of great opposition, in the face of great dangers, proudly walked
to the gallows, who have proudly stood up against a wall to be shot
down as traitors — not as traitors, but as defenders of the cause which
represented the liberty and the brighter future of their people.
Senator Hakding. And you found under existing conditions here
the greater opportunity for which you came?
Mr. SvARC. Oh, I was born here.
Senator Harding. Can you speak for those who came?
Mr. Svarc. I have been'on the other side, so that I know of that
greater opportunity.
Senator Harding. That is all.
Senator Knox. I understand you to say that you are a native-
born American citizen?
Mr. Svarc. Yes.
The Chairman. That is all. We thank you.
(The advertisement referred to is here printed in the record in
full, as follows:)
[From The World, Sunday, August 10, 1019.)
TO THE AMiailCAN NATION — REAL FACTS ABOUT HUNGARY.
The Hungarian situation has reached a stage of such acutencss that the
peace conference and the home Governments of the principal Allies as well
are greatly disturbed. Ultimatums, hurriedly telegraphed to Roumania, de-
manding a modification of the severe terms imposed on the Hungarians have
proved futile.
Because of the obdurate attitude of the Roumanians, the transportation sys-
tem of central Europe has been upset, making it impossible to forward supplies
to the starving populations.
Mr. Balfour, the Foreign Secretary of England, in the strongest possible
terms, condemned the Roumanian invasion of Hungary's capital and, according
to cable dispatches, the pence conference unanimously demanded the with-
drawal of the Roumanian troops from Budapest and did not recognize Rou-
manians ultimatum to Hungary.
And now that it has been so fatefully demonstrated that an ally of the allies
may commit deeds that are wrong, the "American Committee for the Relief of
Hungary " would like to state a few facts which will show that the demands
of Hungary's neighbors for territory are wrong as well, and while based upon
racial grounds, are clearly imperialistic.
The American people had so little opportunity to hear Hungary 8 aide of the
story that this information should be welcomed by every fair-mindsd citizen of
this country.
To begin with, thousand-year-old Hungary has been in the course of Its his-
tory a great power for good. The constitution of Hungary is as old as its
history. Next to the English, the Hungarian constitution is the oldest in
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. lOGS-
Europe. Then It miist be remembered that Hungary has always been the
classical land of religious liberty. As far back as 1554 the Transylvanlan Diet
at Torda enacted the legal equality of all denominations then known there.
That Hungary for a century and a half has been fighting the Turks and pre-
venting them from extending their rule over western Europe is a known his-
torical fact. Hungarian music, Hungarian literature and art, as well as
Hungarian scholarship, have contributed to a large extent to the world's
knowledge, enjoyment, and enlightenment. Hungarian culture has an individ-
uality all of its own. Shall it cease now? Shall Hungary be dismembered,
vivisected, annihilated?
The neighboring nations want to dismember Hungary on racial grounds,,
but what are the facts?
Thousand-year-old Hungary does not possess any provinces conquered by the
sword. Her frontiers have not changed for ten centuries. The country Is
inhabited by Hungarians or Magyars, who established themselves there in the
ninth century, and by other races which immigrated there in later times.
Most of the Germans immigrated as colonists. In the eleventh century the
ancestors of the Slovaks of today were admitted from the upper valleys of the
Morava, Oder, and Vistula. In the fourteenth century Ruthenians made a
habit of crossing the mountains in the northeast to pasture their cattle in
those tracts of the country. In the middle of the thirteenth century the Hun-
garians permitteil Roumanian shepherds from Wallacha and Bulgaria to settle
in the southern parts of Hungary. The number of the Roumanians and Serbians
increased when many thousands of those races came to Hungary in order to-
flnd there an asylum where they would be safe from Turkish rule. The Hun-
garians welcomed them and made them feel at home in their country.
It Is, therefore, an outstanding historical fact that those parts of Hungary
which to^ay are inhabited by various nationalities did not belong originally
to those races, but have been populated by the ancestors of the Slovaks, Ru-
thenians, Roumanians, Serbians, and Qermans through immigration.
The other outstanding fact Is that not only has Hungary within her present
limits been a political unit for more than a thousand years, but her territory
is perhaps the finest natural geographic unity in Europe, as a glimpse at the
map will show. Economically her parts are interdependent, northern Hun-
gary having iron, wood, water power; central and western Hungary having
wheat, corn, pasture grounds; southeastern Hungary (Transylvania), coaU
salt, oil, and natural gas. Each section apparently Is — economically speaking —
a cripple ; together they constitute a fine, self-supporting organism. Belonging^
to the same river system, they communicate easily with each other. History
has been the interpreter of nature when she created and preserved the politi-
cal union of Hungary's present territory.
Life and time mingled the various races in Hungary incessantly. Other
minglings were accentuated during the eighteenth century, and as one finda
them now side by side, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, and orthodox, similarly
there are in Hungary' in the same region members of five or six nationalities.
If we except central Hungary, which is wholly Magyar (85 per cent),
and northern Hungary, which Is indeed almost entirely Slovak (76 per
cent), the races are so intermingled that you can not cut out an un-
broken territory from any of them. Every such attempt creates new mixed
territories with no clear racial majority in them.
A fair solution of the problem in Hungary, therefore, must be one which
conciliates the laws of geography and political economy and the deep rooted
result of history with the Just demand of race.
Of course imperialism manufactures its own apparently Just reasons to ex-
plain its unprincipled pretensions. Hungary*s neighbors claim that the nation-
alities in Hungary have been oppressed. There is no space available to refute
here this accusation. But what sort of an oppression could it have boen that
made it possible for all these races to increase in numbers to keep their lan-
guage and national individuality during seven or eight centuries? Does this
fact not show rather that Magyar rule was not only not oppressive but, on the
contrary, liberal and generous? Other countries in EuroiK* have during the
past centuries forced their population of many races to melt together nnd be-
come one nation. Hungary permitted all o{ its inhabitants to keep their na-
tionality, asking them only to be good Hungarian citizens.
And the majority of these nationalities — the Slovaks, the Roumanians, the
Serbs-— do not want to cease to be Hungarian. It is the land-owner of the
neighboring nations, their imperialism, Which urges not only the dismember-
1066 TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
•
ment of Hungary, but demands territories where the Magyar race is in ms.-
Jority on the ground that some of their own nationality live there, thereby in
tending to subject millions of Hungarians to foreign rule.
Now, Hungary's problem, If a lasting peace is intended, can be solved ouIt
in accordance with the principle of national self-determination. It woul:
violate this principle to permit that territories should be shifted from oik
State into another without the consent of the people who live upon those terri-
tories.
Indeed, the dismemberment of Hungary would be as ^reat an Injustice ts
that of Poland was, and would be a cause of economic troubles and never ceasing
hostilities. It would create a Magyar Irridentism much worse than any irri-
dentlsm known heretofore, because the oppression and subjugation of thn
Magyar people would take place at the very time when justice to the nation-
alities has been recognized a fundamental principle of world politics.
We respectfully appeal, therefore, to the President of the Unite<I States, to
the United States Senate, to the House of Representatives, and to the Ainerirtin
Nation for justice to Hungary.
American Committee fob the Relief of Hungaby,
Bebtalan Babna,
Chairman.
Abnold Somlyo,
Corresponding Secretary.
665 Fifth Avenue, New Yobk Citx.
STATEMENT OF IQt. 0. D. KOBEFF.
Mr. KoREFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
shall be very brief.
Senator IPomerene. Mr. Koreff, where are you from?
Mr. KoREFF. I am from Pittsburgh, Pa.
The same Magyars who came here yesterday to plead for the in-
tegrity of Hungary are the Magyars who until recently were mem-
bers of the Middle European Plunderbund. The peace conference
at Versailles compelled them to disgoige the subjugated races, to wit:
The Slovaks, the Serbians, and the Koumanians. Twice they con-
spired against the safety of the civilized world. First, when their
I*remier Tisza pushed the hand of Vienna, and by this action started
the great European conflagration which even reached the shores of
this country and necessitated American intervention in Europe. The
second time, when Count Michael Karolyi, seeing that the Allies and
the United States stood firmly on the principle of self-determination
for these subjugated races of Hungary, turned Hungary over to the
forces of anarcliy in order to scare civilization into concessions to
the real political factor, to the only potent factor in Magyar politico,
the Magyar feudal nobility of Hungary. They are the only ones
interested in the integrity of Hungary. Eleven millions of non-
Magyars are not.
The Magyars are basing their claims on their so-called historical
rights, yet the most noted Magyar historians have discarded the,se
historical claims as belonging into the realm of fables. But even if
their historical rights were of a stronger fiber they could not
strengthen their case materially. Historical rights of nations are
only valid as long as they don't interfere with the natural rights of
others. Our own Declaration of Independence defines these nat-
ural rights very clearly : " We hold these truths to be self-evident—
that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their Crea-
tor with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, govern-
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1067
ments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed ; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness." From the standpoint of historical right, England's
claim to the colonies would still be valid had not the supreme will
of the colonists established a natural right for the United States to
be free. And so it is with the Slovaks of Hungary, who sought and
found incorporation in the Czecho-Slovak Republic. The right of
the Slovaks is not only based on their right as autochthons, as abo-
rigines, who occupied their present location since time immemorial,
long before the first Magyar ever set foot on the soil of present Hun-
gary. It is based on the principle of self-determination which enti-
tles ipso facto 76.5 per cent of the Slovak population of Slovakia, or,
as the Magyars call it, Northern Hungary, to declare themselves free
and seek their natural affiliation with their racial brethren, the
Czechs of Bohemia. But the Magyars purposely confuse the rights
of a citizen with the obligations of a subject.
Among the Magyars themselves there are two groups as regards
their history. One group still clings to the unreliable history of the
anonymous notary of King Bela, while another group, the Neo-
Magyars, has thrown all these makeshift " emergency ^ stories into
discard and has tried to rebuild its history on the result of the* re-
search TTork undertaken by the Oriental Academy founded in 1830
by Count Szechenyi. Modem Magyar historians are discarding the
fable of Arpad and his conquest of Hungary as one of the many in-
explicable tilings in their history. The main reason is that it never
happened. Another reason is that of the original Magyars, who
helped the Germans to down the Greater Moravian Principality at
the end of the ninth century, no more are left, and that the present
Magyars are not descendants of these Magyars of the ninth century,
but descendants of the tribe of the Ktimany who came into Hungary
at the end of the twelfth century. Vambery, one of their most noted
historians, traces these Kumany into Asia Minor, near the Caspian
Sea. They belong to the Ugro-Turanian race. These Kumany are
ver\' much like the Magyars in physical appearance and other com-
mon characteristics. Vambery found among them many " arpads,"
which means in their language " leader," and there is no doubt that
some " arpad " led them from Asia to Europe. They were nomads,
wandering from place to place with their herds of cattle in search
of grazing grounds. It is improbable that they entered Hungarv by
the northern entrance, through the Carpathian Mountains. Such
entrance would have been too cumbersome for wagons and cattle. On
the other hand, it is almost certain that they followed the upstream
route of the Danube River, grazing along until they reached the
plains of present Hungary. These being unoccupied there was
nobody to resist them, and thus they took possession of the country.
There never was any dispute as to the Magyars having been
nomads. The dispute begins where their historians of the old school
try to convince the student of history that the Magyars came into
Hungary at the end of the ninth century, settled down after con-
quering the country, and gave it immediately a constitution. There
1068 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
seems to be no question whence a nation, or a tribe, without any fized
domicile, gets the idea of constitutional rights and constitutional
government. But it is a fact that the Magyars took over from the
Slovaks their form of county government, wnich, to the present date^
probably slightly altered, forms the spinal column of the Magj'ar
State.
Magyar history originated when the question of a written history
became a burning necessity for a nation which yet had to explain how
it happened to get to Europe. Thus their history turned out to be a
makeshift without either archaeological or ethnographical foundation.
In the brief presented yesterday by the representatives of the " Hun-
garian-American Federation "'there are some very weighty contra-
dictions. Where Mr. Pivany stated that " the Bohemians, oV Czechs,
have made some allusions to the semimythical Moravian Empire of
Svatopluk, which is alleged to have extended over parts of northern
Hungary and been disrupted by the incursion of tne Hungarians in
the ninth century, the Slovaks, it is alleged, are the descendants of
Svatopluk's Moravians ;" Dr. Sekely admits that " there were only a
few Slovaks," two contradictory statements, both in the same brief.
How serious can such statements be taken ?
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I could go on a great deal longer,
but I shall refrain from anything further that I have to say to the
brief which you have so very kindlv said you would permit us to
file. We thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard.
The Chairman. You may file your briefs with the reporter.
(The briefs referred to were subsequently submitted and are here
printed in full as follows:)
To the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
May it please you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this committee, Mr. Ven Svarc,
of Cleveland, Ohio, an American by birth, of Czech descent, a lawyer by profeaaion;
Mr. 0. D. Koreff oi Pittsburg, an American citizen of Czech birth, a newspaper editor;
and myself, an American citizen of Slovak birth, represent the Slovak League of
America and the Bohemian National Alliance, which have branch organizations in
more than one-half of the States of the United States.
At this time I desire to thank this committee for the privilege it has extended to us
in granting us an opportunity to be heard and present to you the case of Czecho-
slovakia in so far as it relates to the Magyar Government. Our purpose in \-iew in
appearing before you is to cooperate with your committee and aasiat vou in reachinp
a judicious settlement in the matter entitled "The Case of Hungary/' and further to
refute and correct the vicious and misleading statements propounded by the repre-
sentatives of the Magyar people who appeared yesterday before your honorable bodv
I shall be very brief and dwell with tne Czecho-Slovak and Magyar situation in thp
United Statee and leave the economical, geographical, and historical questions affect-
ing the Czecho-Slovak and Magyar situation to my colleagues.
I believe that you ought to know something about the Czecho-Slovak people in
the United States. The Czecho-Slovaks began to immigrate into the Unit^i States
befor the (vivil War and many of them fought bravely and heroically in that war.
These Czecho-Slovaks began to immigrate to our shores in large numbers principally
to escape the hardships and cruelties perpetrated upon them by the Ma^ar and
Austrian Governments and to escape military service, realizing the humiliation and
the insults that would be heaped upon them and the treatment accorded them by the
Magyar and Austrian militaristic lords.
Since the presentation of the Magyar case involves Slovakia more vitally than it
does the Czechs, I shall confine myself more to the Slovak people in this countr>%
a subject with which I am more familiar, having been intimately connected with
them for many years in various matters and being a Slovak by birth.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
1069
I am Bubmitting the immigration records showing the Slovak immi^tion to this
country from the year 1906 to 1915, during which years their immigration was laiger
than ^at of any tmie.
Number immigrating to United States.
Year.
1906 38,221
1907 42,041
1908 16,170
1909 22,516
1910 32,416
1911 21,415
Year.
1912 25,281
1913 27,241
1914 25,819
1915 2,069
Total 252.641
It must be explained here that many Slovaks who came into this country were put
down on the immigration books as Hungarians or Austrians or Poles and undoubtedly
were catalogued as such by our immigration officials. There is sufficient evidence
that this is a fact, so that if we would say thdt from the year 1906 to 1915 the number
of Slovaks coming here were about 350,000, we would not be amiss from the truth.
The (;zecho-Slovak population in the United States to-day is approximately about
1,600,000, or five times that of the Magyar population in this coimtry. Of the t'zecho-
Slovak population, about 75 per cent of these people are American citizens. They
live principally in the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois,
Iowa, West Viiginia, Texas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
Many of the Slovak immigrants as a result of the oppressive educational system
operatmg against them under the Majryar Government naturally suffered from lack
oi education. It can therefore be readily understood that they would migrate to such
States as are well known for mines and factories which were employing unskilled
laborers. Many of these immigrants, however, are educated men, having either
attended or graduated from Magyar universities, there being no Slovak universities,
and therefore possess various professions^ such as medicine, law, the ministry, etc.,
while many of these have come here with exceptional business training as well as
with a variety of trades. Many of these business men have engaged in various enter-
E rises, such as banking, manufacturing, and along other commercial lin^s. They
ave l)een exceedingly successful in these business ventures, and a result a number
of them have accumulated a great deal of wealth, while others are in fairly good
financial circumstances. They command the utmost respect and confidence in the
business world. A vast number of Slovaks coming to this countr}^ possess exceptional
knowledge and experience in agricultural work. The compensation for this character
of work in the United States previous to the present war has been exceedingly inad-
equate for the labor involved, and considering the number of hours expended in this
kiiid of work and the little opportunity afforded for advancement in this character of
occupation they have refrained from hiring themselves out to the farmers of this
country, and instead have turned to the mmes and factories, where the wages were
better and the hours much shorter. The mechanics who have acquired their trades,
not only a branch of it but in its entirety in the former kingdom of Hungary, are
now employed in large numbers in many of our factories and have been extremely
successful. They have become assets to their employers as a result of their thorougn
knowledge wid training in their particular trades. Many of the Czecho- Slovaks have
established reputations as business and professional men and further as artists and
musicians.
The Czerho-Slovaks have developed a keen interest in our political life. Two
Members of the present Congress are of Czecho-Slovak birth, others occupy elective
and appointive pnolitical positions, while still others hold civil-service places in nearly
every arm of our service in Federal, State, and municipal governments.
The Czecho-Slovaks have invested large sums of money in real estate, business,
and personal property. Thousands of them own their own homes which is a fair
indication that they have no expectation of returning to their native country, but
will remain here. A ^eat deal of this money has been expended for the builaing of
churches so that, for instance, to-day there are 170 Roman Catholic churches, about
50 evangeUcal ones, some Greek Catholic, and a few churches of other denominations.
Th«« are about 500 clergymen connected with these churches. Nearly every church
supports a school injwhich an elementary course is prescribed and instructions given
both in the English and Slovak languages. Many of these churches and schools
occupy city blocks and have been erected at a great expense. They are a credit to
the Slovak people of this country. The Slovaks have a number of charitable insti-
tutions and a national Slovak home for the immigrants, all supported by donations
1070
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
of the various fraternal benefit societies as well as by the people themselves. There
is also a CathoUc seminary for the instruction of pnesthood and brotherhood; aim a
number of convents which prepare the Slovak young women for the sisterhood.
Upon graduation these sisters are assigned to the Slovak parishes and act as teachers
in the schools connected with these churches. There are many fraternal, sick, and
death benefit or^nizations which the Slovaks have formed. Some of the principal
ones, together with their names, membership, addresses, and assets, are as follows:
Name.
National Slovak Society
First Catholic Slovak Union
Pennsylvania Slovak Catholic Union. .
Slovak £ vangelical Union
R. & G. Sokoi
Slovak Union Sokol
First Slovak Wreath of the Free Eagle
Cleveland Slovak Union
Native Slovak Society
First Catholic Slovak Woman's Union.
Pennsylvania Slovak Woman's Union.
Evangelical Slovak Woman's Union. . .
Passaic Slovak Union
Total membership
Member-
ship.
49,760
70,900
21,573
10,554
13,573
10,917
8,631
1,355
1,164
26,044
9,140
4,077
2,600
229,993
AddriBS.
Pittsburgh, Pa
Cleveland, Ohio
Pennsylvania
Freeland, Pa
Passaic,N. J
Perth Ambov, N. J.
Bridgeport, Conn. .
Cleveland, Ohio
II, 170, ss9.se
1,590,1^.70
364, 227. r
230,225.51
93,6«7.21
197,5»-00
62. 770. »
37,493.-29
10,150.00
429,049.4-^
111,791.29
19,730.64
There are about 20 other scattered societies with a membership of over 20,000. It
can be safely asserted that the mejmbership of all these societies niunbera upward of
250,000 with a capital of about $5,000,000. All these societies have branches doin^
business in nearly every State. To illustrate the vast territory in which they are
carrying on business let us take one of these larger societies, the National Slovak Society,
and we find that they have branches in the following States:
Pennsylvania 227
Alabama 3
Arkansas. <. 3
California 2
Colorado 8
Connecticut 15
Delaware 1
Indiana 9
Illinois 40
4
6
4
Kansas. .
Montana.
Mississipp
Maryland.
Maryland 3
New Jersey 23
New York 32
New Mexico 1
Ohio
Rhode Island
Virginia -i
West Virginia 15
Washington 5
Wyoming 2
Iowa. ! 4
Louisiana 1
Massachusetts 3
Michigan 6
Minnesota , b
Oklahoma 3
Wisconsin 9
Kentucky 1
Total.
459
The Slovaks also have a number of libraries containing many volumes of Slovak
authors as well ai» works of other authors which have been translated into the English
and Slovak languages. Many Czechs and Slovak newspapers are published in this
country and are as follows:
SLOVAK NEWSPAPERS.
Daily papers: The Slovak Daily In America; The National Daily; The New York
Dailv; The Dailv Voice.
Semiweekly: The Slovak In America; Weekly; The American Slovak News;
Union; Brotlierhood ; The Slovak Voice; The Slovak Progress; National New»;
Catholic Sokol; Youngstown Slovak News; Obrana; The Farmer; The Minew'
Slovak Journal.
Semimonthly: Slovak Sokol; Woman's Union; Monthly; Witness; Life; Junior
News; Critic; Slovak Youth; Ave Maria; Advice; Children's Friend.
Some of the Czech newspapers are as follows: Pokrok Zapadu; Czechoslovak;
Svornost; Slavia; Zajmy Lidu; Spravedlnost; Denni Hlasatel; American Svet;
Hlas Lidu; Hospodar.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY, 1071
Besides the above-mentioned newspapers there are many newspapers and periodi-
cals pubHshed under various names ana issued during different periods of the year.
Some of the daily, weekly and monthly issues have a very large circulation and reach
nearly every section in the United States. These newspapers are principally the
only source of enlightenment to the Czechoslovaks in this country. An organization
has been formed in this country called the Slovenska-Liga (Slovak League) and is
backed by all the Slovak newspapers with the exception of two or three, these latter
ones having sold their body ana soul to the Magyar representatives. This organi-
zation has allied itself with the Czechs (Bohemians) of tnis coimtry and it has been
popularly known as the Czechoslovak National Council. The purpose of this organi-
zation has been to assist this Government in the past world connict and to secure
freedom and justice for their very much oppressed brethren in Europe in securiM: the
independence of Czechoslovakia which, thank God, they now have. The Bohe-
mian National Council and the Slovak League are supported by popular subscription
from their people who have freely contributed to the worthy cause which these organi-
zations represent.
PROPAGANDA IN THE UNITED STATES.
9
The vast number of Slovaks immigrating each year from the former government of
Hungary to this countnr developed a serious problem for the Austria-Hungarian
Government to solve. The labor situation became very seriously affected. In fact,
it was so serious that the former Hungarian government was forced to adopt some means
to stem the tide of immigration. It was decided by the Magyars to spread propaganda
among the Slovaks in this country and they began to spend money lavisnly here to
Magy arize the Slovaks right in our own country. They began to conduct tnis propa-
ganda by means of a subsidized press. Articles were written in these unscrupulous
papers endeavoring to induce the Slovaks to return to their native coimtry. Mislead-
ing statements were printed tending to show that the living conditions affecting the
Slovaks in Hungary had entirely changed ; that these alleged conditions would mate-
rially benefit them. Pamphlets were printed and generously distributed among the
Slovaks in this country. Even a poem was dedicated to the Slovaks of this country
by a celebrated Magyar poet which in substance reminded the Slovaks of the glorious
place of their birth and the loyalty that they owed the country in which they were
Dorn. In fact, the Magyar Government went to such extremes in this respect that
they were able through their influence to send ordained priests and have them assigned
to the Slovak parishes in this country. These instructed priests who carried out the
mandates of tjieir masters and arch conspirators, upon their return to their native
soil were assigned to the most lucrative and prosperous Slovak churches. The Magyar
Government was very considerate and careful that these priests were well taken care
of for the balance of their lives. But fortunately the majority, of the Slovak priests
who came to this country were courageous enough to discard smd disobey the instruc-
tions given them. They resolved to expose the true existing conditions in Hungary
and snowed how the Slovaks were misled by the instructed pnests and gave the reasons
for it. It was practically siiicide for this kind of a priest to return to Hungary for he
would be given the poorest kind of a parish and as a result he would be barely able
to exist under the living conditions that would be forced upon him. Such was thf
punishment that the Magyar Government meted out to these patriotic Slovak preacherr
of the Gospel.
Within recent years an American citizen of Ma^ar origin was appointed by a former
President of the United States as a special investigator to study the immigration situa-
tion of Hungary. When he arrived in that country he was wined and dined and wel-
comed with open arms and shown every consideration by the officials of the Magyar
Government. This was done purposely to influence and induce this investigator U>
file a favorable report about the immigration conditions to this country. It was not
long before this investi^tor ascertained the abnormal obstacles that were placed in
the path of the then Hungarian immigrant. The situation was of an astounding
charact^. This investigator, ignoring the desires of the Magyar officials made an
exact and true report of the conditions as he had observed them and forwarded the
same to his Government. The moment that it was ascertained that he was reporting
the truth, all sorts of obstacles were immediately placed in the way of his performing
his duties coimected with his mission. Letters were written to our Government by
the Magyar officials endeavoring to discredit this investigator. He was accused of
being an exconvict and upon some flimsy concocted complaint filed against him, he
was arrested, convicted and fined. This merely is an indication as to what extent
the Magyar (jovemment is able to stoop in order to prevent the truth from being known
1072 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
and how they would deal with a person even if he represented a great and powerful
countr^'^ like the United States. It is a well known fact that the Magyar Government
representatives in this country prior to the declaration of war by the United States
against the Central Powers carried on a newspaper and personal propaganda campaign
publishing various articles in their newspapers the contents of wnicn were based upon
false theories with an intention to opetAte against the best interests of our coimtry.
The articles published in these newspapers as well as the personal solicitation of the
Magyar representatives advised the Slovaks and the Magyars of this country to give
up their positions or go out on strikes in factories and in other employments where
war implements were manufactured, basing their argument upon the pretense that
these war instruments would be used to destroy the hves of their Slovak brethem in
Hungary. Articles in these newspapers and the influence of the Magyar agents were
materially responsible in causing disorder in our commercial life and instuled an ill
feeling in the nearts of some of the people, that they had reached through tliis means,
against our country. Their activities became so prominent along these lines that an
investigation was ordered by our authorities and the information that was gathered
was sufficiently convincing to show us that these Magyar agents and their like were
■creating a great deal of disorder in this country and that they were just as bad as their
brothers in crime, the German agents. These agents were plotters and schemers.
They had no conscience nor any decency in their body. It was ^eir object in
view to undermine our Govenxment. They stooped ever so low and stopped at
nothing, no matter how cruel or base it was. Murder was in their hearts. They
concocted schemes to blow up steamships sailing from our ports, to blow up into
splinters our factories that were manufacturing munitions. The destroying of life
and property was of no consequence to them as long as they could serve their clownish
Emperor Charles and their Fatherland. These men were a di^ace to this glorious
country of ours. Wlien our representatives had made their investigation and filed
their report, Dr. Dumba, ambassador of the Austria-Hungarian Government to the
United States, was asked by our Government to leave this coimtry. So we Americans
bid this gentleman a fond farewell, this representative of a supposedly highly cultured,
refined and humane peoples. An article published in the New Europe of December
19, 1918, contains a newspaper article carried by the Pesti Hirlap, a Mag\-ar newspaper,
which advises the carrymg on abroad of a violent propaganda in the interest of the
Mai^yars and the expenditure of any amount of money necessary to that end. Thi?
article is very signincant as it is interesting for the following reason: On August 10,
lo
Lepre-
seutatives and to the American Nation for justice to Hungary and signed *'The Ameri-
can Committee for the Relief of Hungary; Bertalau Barna, chairman; Arnold Somlyo,
corresponding secretary; 665 Fifth Avenue, New York City." This newspaper
advertisement contains absolute misleading statements affecting the Slovak situation
in which we are principally interested. The other nationalities therein mentioneil
can well take care of tliemselves which, no doubt, they will.
An estimate was secured by me from the manager of the advertising department
of the New York World in which one of -these ads appeared and the amount paid
for this ad was exactly j?l,34-l. In other words, it cost approximately S6,o(X) to
carry the above advertisement in the four New York newspapers, (.'aii it be that
this sum of money was part of the money that was intended to be expended as quoted
in the Pesti Hirlap for foreign propaganda work or have the purse strings of the govern-
ment of Rela Kun been loosenea or perhaps the pocket books of the Magyar landed
aristocracy been opened to confuse and poison the minds of the American people a-^ to
the true facts concerning the dismemberment of the former Kingdom of Hungary'*
Now, we ))ehold the extraordinary scene of witnessing the presence of representative?
of these Magyar people in thia room of the Senate Foreiijn Relations Committee pleading
for justice for their kinsmen. These representatives do not represent the Hungarians.
They are Magyars and only represent the Magyar people. It seems that they have
mislead this committee as to whom they represent and it is evident that they have
done this in order to get their case l^efore your committee. It has been a wonder
to me that they have not walked into this room arm in arm with the agents of the
Kaiser and his war lords, the representatives of the Sultan of Turkey, and the agents
of fienine and Trotsky and endeavored to palm these culprit* on' your committee
and have them heard as to the unjustifiable manner in which their Asiatic and Euro-
pean possessions have been taken away from their Governments. The Mag>-ar com-
plaint against the dismemberment of former Hungary has no more merit than the
claim of the above-mentioned Governments. They are and have been our enemiee.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1073
A statement made before the committee bv Mr. Etu^ene Piv&ny, who spoke in
behalf of the Magyar Government, wao as follows: ''If occupation for a thousand
years is not acknowledged to be a valid title to a country, then we may be called
upon some day to relinquish our title to Texas and California and other parts of the
IJnited States^in fact, to Mexico or to Spain or to the Indians — and the whole map of
Europe may have to )>e made over, too." This statement clearly shows the operation
of Mr. Pivdny's mind: that if your committee decides a«^inst the claims of the Magyar
Government, our Government must, to be consistent, turn back Texas, California,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin to Mexico, Spain, Germanv, or thfe Indians. It further
shows conclusively by the illustration of this proposition that there is an intention
of embroilintf the citizens of our country into a foreign pronopi'^ion )^y referring to the
weak titles that according to their contention we possoas to tne State? a hove mentioned.
The principal claim advanced for the former Government of Hungstry not to be
dismembered is because the constitution of the Himgarian Government is a thousand
years old, and the picture of this country is so beautiful that it would be a shame to
spoil it. Hungary has been justly dismembered and the territory allotted has been
fairly distributed to the people to whom it rightfully belongs and there is no doubt
in my mind that this committee will not disturb the present boundary lines as marked
out and ^fF^^d upon by the representatives of our country, as well as our associated
powers. The Magyars have been convicted by the civilized world for the cruel and
inhuman part they played in the past world war. They are now at the bar of
justice awaiting sentence . There is no good reason why sentence should not be passed
upon them, and may the Lord have mercy upon their souls.
But, let us see. What did the Czecho-Slovaks do to help us win the war? A
Czecho-Slovak army was recruited in this country, nimibering about 3,600 men. All
the members of this army were not American citizens. Some of them were beyond
the draft age. They were under no particular obligation to serve our country by the
taking up of arms. But they willingly and gladly volunteered their services in this
army and with bullet and cold ^teel were cheerfully anxious to defend it, for a cause
which the^r knew was just and right. This Czecho-Slovak army received its prelim-
inary training at Stamford. Conn. This army was maintained and supported by the
Czecho-Slovak people of this country. These courageous and brave men left their
wives, sweethearts, parents, and dependents behind them, and with the greatest
spirit and enthusiasm sailed for the battlefields of Europe, happy and contented to
serve our country and to help defeat the bturbfiuristic Huns and help thereby to secure
freedom and independence for their centuries oppressed kinsmen in Czecho-Slovakia.
The Czecho-Slovaks in this country contributed largely to the Red Cross, bought
millions of dollars worth of Liberty bonds. Information of the greatest importance
relating to the enemy spy operations in this countn^, as well as abroad, was furnished
to our different departments. In fact, their activities to help us win this war became
so prominent that the United States Government recognized the services rendered
by these people to us and took the Czecho-Slovak people out of the column of alien
enemies and classified them as loyal Americans and staimch supporters of the Allies.
Before the United States declared war against the Central Powers, hundreds of
Czecho-Slovaks enlisted in the Canadian Anny, Surely their anxiety to fight the
Huns shows absolutely that they do not want to be a part of the Magyar Government
as the Magyar representatives would have this conmiittee to believe, but that they
want to join hands, which they have, mth their brother Czechs and maintain the
Czecho-Slovak Republic and the territory which has been justly allotted to them.
It is now an historical fact as to what service was renderea by the Czecho-Slovak
army in Siberia. There is no Question but that they were directly responsible in
saving Russia for the Allies ana thereby keeping German influence out of Russia.
The ci\dlized world recognizes the great service rendered by this courageous army to
mankind.
But what did the Magyars do during the war? Not one single instance has been
referred to by the Ma^ar representatives either in their oral testimony or in their
briefs as to the particular services rendered by the Magyars in this country to help us
win the war. What consideration as American citizens do they really deserve at the
hands of this committee?
In conclusion, I might state that there were thousands of Czecho-Slovaks who
volunteered or were drafted into the service of the United States Army or Navy,
manv of them holding ranks as officers. Thev fought bravely and with distinction
shoulder to shoulder with our boys. Many oi tJiem have sacrificed their lives and
are now buried in ^ves upon the battle fields of Europe never again to come back
to the land of their adoption. Many of them have been crippled and wounded.
They are now nearly all back home again. Whatever changes may have taken place
during their absence they will find that the United States has its heart in the ri^ht
place and with open arms will welcome them back again into the folds of safety which
135546—19 68
1074 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMANY.
they have so faithfull^r helped to maintain. There wiU be purer, sweeter love of
country and stronger tied oi friendship for those who will have contributed to pay
the price of our beloved America no longer a forei^er a stranger in a strange land,
but oack home, his home, our home, a liome of liberty, of freedom, of justice, of
democracy, our America.
Respectfully submitted.
Edward Vaczy,
For the Slovak League of Ak erica and
The Bohemian National Aluance.
Washington, D. C, September 4,
The brief submitted to this honorable body by the representatives of the Magyars
is packed with deliberate falsehoods, historical inaccuracies, and claims intended to
mielead the people of the United States. Hungary's part in the war was not subordi-
nate, as they would like the world to believe, but it was the influence exercised by
their premier, the late Count Tisza, which acted as a driving force in declaring wair
on Serbia. While it may be admitted that the Ma^ars were, seemingly at least,
opposed to the Hapsburgs, they were always supporting the Prussian dynasty of the
Hohenzollems. Tne war on Serbia was the realization of one of their long-cherished
wishes, to expand further eastward, thus bringing themselves in full accord with the
Prussian design. ** Drang nach Osten" (the desire to get to the east). For this pur-
Eose Count Michael Karolyi visited the United States in the spring of 1914, shortly
efore the war, in order to ascertain the amount of support Hungary could count 00
in case of war. The visit of Count Karolvi may be rightfully called a political trial
balance of the Magyars before the war. Count Karolyi was caught by the war, and
only the courtesy of the allied governments enabled him to reach Hungary unmo-
lested. Further, it is an undemable fact that the Magyars fought to the very last
day against the Entente, to wit: They fought against them as long as they thought
that they could win the war. When the armistice was signed Count Karolyi made
an attempt to mislead Gen. Franchet d*£sprev in representing Hungary of ante-
bellum date, in spite of the fact that the Czecho-Slovak Republic had become an
actuality both by recognition bv the allied governments and the United States, as
well as by the revolution in Czecno-Slovakia of October 28, 1918. How Count Karolyi
dealt with the Allies in handing over Hungary to the Bolsheviki is treated in anotaa'
part of this brief.
The story of Aipad and his alleged conquest of Hungary^ as part of the brief of the
Ma^^yars, is one of those historicalinaccuracies, or even deliberate misrepresentations,
which their own historians repudiate. Yet the Magyars do not hesitate to apx>ear before
this honorable body and again brinf out that as a fact which even their own scholan
refuse to support. Their claim of having had a constitution nearly as old as that of
England is another of those unsupported claims. The historian would vainly look for
any nomadic nation which would, after centuries of wandering, suddenly stop in a
certain part of a country, found a kingdom at a moment^s notice, and brin^ as proof of
its state-building: capacity with it a r^y-made constitution. Such a nation seems to
have been the Magyars, if any credence can be given their statements. Vambery • ^h^*
noted Magyar historian, calls these stories "stupid inventions.'' (Vambery: OrigiQ
and Growth of the Magyars, p. 177.) Their narration of the so-called blood pact,
according to which seven leaders of different tribes elected Almos as their leader, and
taking the oath of allegiance, they drew their blood off into a vessel and signed with it
the pact, Vambrey considers beyond comprehension. "How could the Magyar his-
torians ever think of such an absurdity to attribute to a full-blooded Aaiat, imbued
with the patriarchal spirit of the nomad, such a constitution and such institutions
which must have been entirely unknown to Asiatic conception of that period?'
"This also concerns the 'stupid invention' (otromba koholmany) about tne blc>od
pact * * ^ and these epigons are naive enough to enter into serious analysis of u
(the blood pact)." (Vambery: Origin and Growth of the Madras, p. 177.) In the
same strain, and with the same force are these historical impoesioilities repudiated by
Hunfalvy and Acsady. Where their own historians refuse to suppport tneir histori/c
claims, there certainly is no reason for others, who are not Magyars, to accept them at
par value.
The much-boasted-of Golden Bull of King Andreas II (1222) is far from being able to
stand a favorable comparison with that great Anglo-Saxon document, the Ma^na
Charta. It is a9 instrument between king, feudal nobility, and >[oeinanry, leaving
out the serfs, the common people or misera plebs contribuens, entirely. And when
with the fall of serfdom in 1848 the political order in Hungary changecL, it was
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1076
the Magyar feudal aristocracy that seized the reins of political power. American
yemaciilar expresses this kind of changes: "Head I win, tail you lose." In both
instances are the common people ruled out of participation in the government of
affairs.
The Magyars, in their brief, laid great stress on their ''national kings" without
explaining that thev were not Magyars, but Roumanians, Anjevins, Bohemians, etc*
They lay ^eat emphasis on the fact that the Magyars stemmed Turkish invasions with-
out mentioning that twice the Slavs rescued them from a strangle-hold, namely,
Nicholas Zrinsky and John Sobieski, one a Croatian and the other a Pole.
From the time of the battle of Mohacs (1526), when Hungary and Bohemia joined
Austria ''in order to perfect a stronger union against the onslaught of the Turks,'* to
the time of the revolution of 1848 there is only one period in the history of the Mag-
yars worth mentioning, to wit, the Josephinian era, 1780-1790, when the MagjTirs m
order to resist the Germanizing tendencies of this monarch, Joseph II, and also' in
order to protect their rights as feudal lords and yeomen, began to Magyarize the coun-
trv. Not until then did the Magyars interfere with the natural development of the
other nationalities in Hungary. As a matter of fact, the idea of naticnalism only
developed since the French revolution and Hungary was in that respect no more ad-
vanced than any other of the nations of Europe.
The revolution of 1848 only brought freedom to the Mag3rars, while the other nation-
alities were denied that for which the Magyars had set out to fight. It was during
that period, until 1867, to the compromise (Ausgleich) with Austria that the idea of
an integral Magyar State matured. From that time until the day of the armistice
the Slo\'Bk8 of Hungary underwent sufferings, degradations, oppression which border
on the incredible. Flatly repudiating the rights granted the non-Magyar national-
ities of Hungary in article 44 of the law of 1868, they denied them the right of the use
of their mother tongues in school and churches. By setting up a bureaucratic appa-
ratus of staunch Magyars, they drove almost one million of Slovaks out of the country
of their ancestors.
The cult of Kossuth's pseudo-liberalism is another point greatly overworked by
the Magyars, for while Kossuth foueht for the rights of the Magyars he violently
denied these same rights to the Slovaks, from whom he sprang. R. W. Seton Watson
(Scotus Viator), the noted Scotch author, an enthusiastic admirer of Louis Kcssuth,
visited Hungary in 1905 in order to study the race problem on the spot. He came to
Hungary an ardent admirer of Kossuth and a friend of the Magyars, but left it after
three years of intense study disgusted with their methods, their insincerity, and their
belief that everybody was a fool but a Magyar. His book "Racial Problems in Hun-
gary" is one of the most remarkable on this subject and deals with it exhaustively.
where the Magyars compare Kossuth's conception with that of President "Wilson
on self-determination they reach the point of impudence. To compare the policy
of Magyarization In Hungary with the treatment of our immigrants coming to this
country is, to say the leas^t, an underrating of the thinking capacity of the average
American citizen. In a polemic with R. W. Seton Watson the Magyars compared
the conditions of the non-Magyar races in Hungary with the condition of Great Britain
as pertaining to Wales, Scotland, England, and Ireland, and R. W. Seton Watson in
his reply considered the Magyars fortunate for not having to deal in their case with
Irishmen or Scotsmen, but with Slovaks. That, taken as it is, speaks for itself more
than could be expressed in volumes.
The Ma'ryarn 8poak in on<^ atmin of a semimvthiral Greater Mom via, and in the same
stra'n thev admit that their ru'cr Arpad ronquercd Ilunparv and Greater Moravia,
then imdcr Svatop'uk. llistoriiins of note hafe definitelv erttabliahed the identity of
Greater Moravia (Palafkv, Safarik, and others), but, how Ma<:yar historians have taken
the fable of thi.«' conquest ia heat expre«*»ed by the foHowin'z occurrence: The famoiia
"Magyar" artiat Michael Munkacai, whose name originally wa.<^ Liob, and who waa of
German origin, painted a grand paintin? in which he depict eil the occupation of
Hungary by Arpad. Lacking exact hiotoriral proofa he hud to accept the fable ( hron-
icled by the anonymous notary of Kini; Hela. It ahowa the atern Arpad. en horseback,
in the background his staff and masse "« of troop.^; before Arpad are kneelinj? the aub-
jugated Slavs, messengers of king Svatopluk, as thev are handing over to him a jug
containing water from the Danube and aome of the products of the earth as a s> mbol
that they forever relinquish their land and their propertiea in favor of Arpad and his
tribe. This picture, tnough of great artistic value, was impossible from the hiatorical
standpoint «o that the government, at the ad\dse of aenaiole people had it removed
from the assembly room into a small room where it is not so exposed to public view and
criticism. This may be a serious blow to Magyar national pride, out it does not
strengthen their case in the li^ht of history.
To speak of the Slovaks as immigrants to Hungary in the light of the above facta
would seem quite a hapless case. It does not seem to matter that archeologists have
1076 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
found in some of the Slovak castles of the we^^ern countie<* remnants from the n'^li'j-
period, such as stone molds for the ra«tin<rof bron-^e ^word^, bronze coioM. ot^., ♦•! «ii..
tinctly Slav oriofin, bearing all the oharacteriHtirp of Slav popular art. It would be m»
wonder if the Magyars would claim that they made these on their wanderings throuL'h
the stepje of Asia, and jrave them to the Slovaks. Yot, the pnvHiction of meta!«< ou'
of ores is only possible anion?? people permanently settled. There are no tmce?* -i
metalurgy anion?: nations, though tncy may learn to work them in their own cni^i-
wav.
The dismemberment of IIun«?ary into its racial component parte is the only 1'xjij .ii
con( lusion. Another part of this brief is df^aling with the abuses by the Ma^r^arr
of the«e subjugated mccf, and the peace conference has learned to look at th^is q nest if t
from the right an^le. It is, no aoubt. a piunful experience for the Maeyar leud. I
lords to lo«e n.0O0,(V)0 nf former subject*^ through misc:overnment and crimes whi. b
have no parallel In history, but to come before this honorable body, and claim thai
unless the TTnited State«» become an active partner to the repudiation of a de!«i <••
honor to these subjugated races, the principle of self-determination is sheer humbuj
if the Magyar feudal lords are prevented from further exploitation of these subjugat* i
races the league of nations is a league of injustice, is in our estimation the acme f4
audacity. The spokesmen of the Magyars must have left out of sight that they arf*
representing an enemy country; they must have forgotten that the United Statee cf
America is an associated power with the Entente; they must have overlooked the fat ^
that the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate is a legislative bmnch of the
Government of the United States. There is no other explanation for their brazen
fron .
The question of plebiscite; the question of racial oppression is dealt with in another
part of this brief. Whether the Slovaks are immigrants to Hungarj^ seems to dwindle
away before a statement of the ever helpful historian Vamberv who states in the
already cited book on the origin of the Mag>'ar8: "The originaf Magj-ur (oamag>ar.
who could claim this title right lully was a scarce specimen even in the twelfth centur}-:
in later historical periods the existence of such an original Magyar must be conadertd
as illusorv'." "In the veins of the present generation of Magyars there is not eyf-n
contained one single drop of the blood of the original Magyar'* (yamber>': Oriain
and Growth of the Magyars, p. 369.) It is not very probable that infusions of such
blood have taken place since Vambery wrote his book in 1895. Now. then, the*
Mag\'ars, according to Vambery, are not of the original Magyar stock, and immigrated
to Hungarj', as stated in one of the preceding para^aphs, during the twelfth oentur\-.
That ihey permitted the Slovaks to get there during the eleventh century is indeed
very considerate of them.
Thus we find that the Magvars in preparing their brief which is de facto an applica-
tion for a license for the exploitation ot the former subjugated races of Hungary have
again committed the same deliberate falsehoods; they have again built up their plea
on an agglomeration of canards; they have again tried the old game at which they
are and were such masters. They have again dared to brazenly lie. before this hon-
oralde body. Viewed in the light of history their whole existence is a makeshift
affair, and if they do have an historical mission, as they undoubtedly have, they
ought to be limited to bring conclusive proof before this' honorable body that they
are capable of governing themselves which they have yet to show. But they have
proven beyond any shadow of doubt that they are not' able to govern others.'
In conclusion we want to state that, concerning historical facts:
1. The Slovaks were in Europe in prehistoric tunes.
2. The Slovaks did not arrive in Europe diudng the migration of nations, because
such a large body of people could not nave entered Europe without having been
noticed by historians and chroniclers.
3. Modern historians are trying to trace their origin by the nsunes of rivers, moun-
tains, cities, and settlements of prehistoric origin.
4. i^>ancis Palacky, Czech historian, proves beyond doubt that (ireater Moravi*
was not a myth, but an actuality.
5. The Byzantine Emperor Mauricius (582-602) writes about them that they were
a liberty-loving people, and very democratic. That they even rejected the idea of
one ruler, but lived m autonomous communities.
6. That this loose form of government explains to a certain degree how it was pos-
sible tliat some of these counties (zupy) joined the Magyars after their anri\'aj in
Hungary. That this junction was voluntary, and that conquest belongs into the
realm of fables.
7. That quotations taken from history of the Magyars are from the book by Armiii
Vambery, entitled: Origin and GrowtJi of the Mag>'ar8 (A magyarsag keletlcezeec ef
gyarapodasa).
8. That Vambery calls the alleged conquest by Arpad a **flt ipid invention."
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1077
9. That both, their constitution and the blood pact, are products of the most brutal
fancy and imagination.
10. That Ignace Acsay, another of their historians, calls the anonymous notary of
King Bela a person lacking common sense and his claims unacceptable by sound
reason.
1 1 . That Paul Hunfalvy, in his ethnographic studies calls it utterly unreliable and
more poetry.
12. That Magyar culture of that period was on the same level as that of other nomads.
That state-building qualities with them were lacking, as they would with other no-
madic nations.
13. That, according to Vambery, in his quoted work, the Magyars did not create a
constitutional organization during the time of their wanderings. That, like their
present religion, they acquired all their government institutions at a later period, in
their new home land, during the time of their settlement, after a fundamental change
of economic and cultural conditions, and their influence upon public affairs they
only acquired during the past century.
14. Tnat the Magyars came to Hungary as nomads, without any definite intentions
of settling down, being hirelings or mercenaries of the various rulers who waged con-
stantly war upon each other.
15. That at the time they claim to have founded the Magyar State they had neither
the qualifications nor the necessary force to do it.
10. That the famous Slavonic linguist Dr. Frank Miklosich in his book, *'The Slav
Elements in the Magyar Language, proves that they did not have the slighest con-
ception on state building; that their language lacked such terminology, and that
they borrowed such words from the Slavs surrounding them. That there are over
1,000 such words, all of Slav origin, which must have been strange to a nomadic
tribe; that they adjusted these words to their lin^^al peculiarities.
17. That, as nomads, they did not know buildmg of houses and that they had no
use for them on their wanderings. That they lived in tents and on wagons.
18. That they gradually adopted all their culture from the Aryan races with whom
they came into contact; that they are heavily indebted to the Slavs in this respect.
19. That Magyar feudalism and yeomanry were greatly responsible for the material
and mental sufferings of the common people unto the present aay, and that the Golden
Bull of King Andreas II was a perpetual lease of privileges at the expense of the
common people.
2!). That the so-ralled Magyar nobility is only Magvar in name; that it is descended
from carpetbaggers and soldiers of fortune who were dumped into Himgary during the
various invasions; that there is hardly one Maygar nobleman left who could trace his
lineage to the original Maygars.
21. That the Magyar lan^ua^e was aot the so-called language of the State but that it
was, until almost 184S the Latin language which had been in use in the courts and the
administration of the country; that the majority of the most cha^dnistic nobles did not
know the Mag>"ar language at all: that onlv the common people spoke whatever
language thev Knew while the nobilitv spoke German, and diinng certain periods even
CVeh.
22. That during the Josehinian era, 1780-1790, owin^ to the Germinizing tendencies
of that monarch Mag>-ar nationalism got aroused, and since then did its nefarious work
toward the denationalization of the subjugated races in Hungary; that this Magyariza-
tion lasted until the signing of the armistice.
23. That the Magyar State is not of Mag\'ar origin but is the product of non-Magyar
brains.
Respectfully submitted,
0. D. KOBEFF.
Magyar and German Propaganda, or the Art of Putting Reason to Sleep.
During this war a sudden discovery was made. It was the art of influencing people
and making them believe something which would ultimately redound to the advantage
of those setting in motion these suggestive thoughts. Aside from thought suggestion
this art also resorted to various methods of violence for the purpose of influencing
the minds of individuals as well as of whole nations. For want of a better designation
we termed this art German propaganda. The success of German propaganda is depend-
ent upon the lack of knowledge which the person who is sought to be made its victim
possesses regarding certain conditions or facts; its aim is to deceive him, to cause him,
for instance, to believe that vice is a virtue. This art of deception was not new to the
Germans at the outbreak of the war and did not have its rise in this war but lon^ ante-
dated it. The same is true of Magyar propaganda. In the United States Magyar
1078 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
propaganda had a double advantage. For decieving the American public it relid
upon two thin^, namely, the Kossuth myth which sought to make us believe that
Kossuth was aliberatorin the sense that Wash Lng[ton was. and thathe was the cbamf don
of universal liberty. The truth is that he was neither; but he was a tjTanical oppreaFor.
a rampant Magyar jingo and imperialist who though himself a Slovak by race became a
traitor to his own people and stood for the principle of subjugating the majority of the
population of Hungary, composed of Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Carpatho-RussiaiiB and
Roumanians to the Magyar minority. Kossuth visited the United States. Our people
were taken in by him. They knew something about the Hapsburgs and d etestea them.
Kossuth fought against the Hai>sburg8 and without any further investigation of the
man and his works our people rushed to the conclusion' that his cause must be a just
one. But in our day this Magyar myth about Kossuth has been exploded and he hae
been awarded his proper, uiien viable pla( e in history. Yet the Magyars continue to
deceive oiu* people with the old Kossuth fairy tale.
(Roferencea: ** Racial Problems in Hungary" by Seton -Watson; "Corruption aad
Reform in Hungarv " by Seton-Watson.J " ,
Secondly, the Magyar propagandists nave been exploiting the word Hungary and
Hungarians. This has been their favorite pastime, especially in the United States.
Edward Freeman, the great English historian, once said that to properly understand
the geographical, phvsical, and ethnological conditions in the Austro-Hungarian
Empu-e would in itself require a liberal education. In view of that statement it is
no discredit to on rpeople that the majority of them have not the information at hand
which would enable them to make proper deductions, llie Magyars, real izing this"
situation, employed it to deceive the American public and to found upon the lack of
our information their insidious propaganda.
What was formerly termed the Kingdom of Hungary is a geographical area in central
Europe which comprises a polyglot State. This late State is inhabited by the following
nations or parts of nations: In the north by the Slovaks, an entire nation; in the south
by the Croats, an entire nation, and by the Serbs, a kin of the Croats, the only differ-
ence between thoHe two being that tne Croats are Roman Catholic in religion and
employ the Latin alphabet whil§ the Serbs are Greek-Orthodox in religion and employ
the Cyrillic alphabet. In Transylvania, the southeastern part of Hungary, tnere
live the Roumanians, and in the northeastern part of Hungary live the eoK^led
Carpatho-Russians. The Magyarn themselves occupied the central Danubian plain.
The total population of Hungry before the nations of Hungary disintegrated it into
its component parts by enforcing the principle of the self-determination of nations, wae
about 22,000,000, of whom approximately 9,000,000 were Magyars and 13,000,000 non-
Magj'^ars. The Slovaks have occupied Slovakia in northern Hungary centuries before
the Magyars came there as a nomadic tribe.
These various nations of Hungary lived in peace and concord with one another
throughout the middle ages and to the very beginning of the nineteenth century. The
Latin language was the language of the courts and of the civil administration of Hun-
gary until the close of the eighteenth century and was the bond that united the poly-
glot peoples of this polyglot kingdom. In 1848 the Magyars asserted themselved a?
the dominant nationality, and with Kossuth begins the era of their chau\'inistic
attempts to denationali7e the non-Magyar majority, to efface the non-Magj-ar nations
and to make the country homogeneous'in language and national consciousness. In a
word, to rob the non-Magyar majority of its national heritage.
In 1867 the Magyars wrested from the Hapsburg dynasty the so-called agreement
(Ausgleich), under which they were made complete masters over the destinies of the
non-Magyar nations in the late Hungarian Kingdom, and from that time dates the mt«t
brutal denationalizing policy that the world has ever known. Upon the d^ul bodies
of the nr)n-Magvar nations of Hungary was to be reared a new Magyar empire.
In the pamphlet submitted to you by the Magyar representatives entitled " The
Case of Hungary, ' ' a constant effort is being made to prove that the Magyars in Hungar}*
were only trying to do that which has been done in the United States, namdy, to
have the people learn the language of the country. How false, arrogant, and mis-
leading this cliam is becqmes apparent from the fact that article 44 of the law of 1868.
whose provisions, however, were never put into effect, but which was merely used
as a means of deceiving the world by grading it as an instrument of modem liberalism,
guarantees to the nations inhabiting Hungary the right to maintain their own mother
tongue in church and school, and guarantees to them their national individuality
ana civil equality. We ask these Alaygar gentlemen, who so glibly point to our case
of California, Texas, and New Mexico, that if these are parallel cases, why was it
necessary for the Magyars to make these guaranties to the non-Maffyar nations if the
Magyars did not owe them any duty in tnis respect? We also ask them why they
are now trying to deceive the American public with the claim of their prior occupation
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1079
of Hungary? If the Magyars were the sole owners of Hungary by virtue of wior set-
tlement, why was it necessary to make this guaranty to the non-Magyars? We wish
to explain, however, that although these guarantiee were on paper, that they were
put on paper merely for the purpose of showing the pseudo-Magyar liberalism to the
rest of tne world, but that they were never put into e£Fect and tnat the Slovaks par-
ticularly were the object of the bitterest policy of denationalization, were tyrannized
over, and defrauded of all their natural rights.
If the representatives of Magyar imperialism would be honest they would freely
admit that the situation in Hungary as pertains to the various nations is akin to that
in Switzerland, where peoples speating three languages live side by side, yet, unlike
Hungary, in fully respecting each other's linguistic rights. They would also admit
that since 1867 the Magyar oligarchic clique of feudal lords which has had Hungary
by the throat has been violently opposed to any solution of this polyglot situation
by refusing to make any concessions toward a federalistic form of government, and
that they have alwaj^ stood out violently for the policy of a ruthless Magyar imperial-
ism which would devour the non-Magyar nations and mold them over into the dreamed-
of Magjrar State. This Maygar State idea had its birth in the sixties of the last century
and is at the root of all the sufferings of the people of Hungary. The Magyar State
idea drove the chauvinistic Magyar nation into the hands of the undemocratic, mil-
itaristic, feudal lords, such as Tisza, Apponyi, and others, who forced their backward,
unprogressive, medieval ideas upon the entire population of Hun^oy and drove the
Magyar people into this war in order to further their imperialistic designs.
The Magyars have a double face, one is for appearance at home in Hungary and the
other they show abroad. Their conduct at home is reactionary, brutal, and oppres-
sive. The entire effort of their government was exerted at all times since 1848 in the
effort to denationalize the non-Magyar nations which were occupying this common
region. Their conduct in the outer' world was one of unending aeception by which
they sought to create the impression that they were imbued with democratic ideaa
and liberal in their treatment of the non-Magyar nations.
The flimsy justification which the Magyars sought to establish for their brutal,
cynical, imperialistic, designs at home was based upon the fact that in the Magyar
language they had no word for Hungary. The terra Magyar-Orszag, meaning the Mag-
yar coiintry, being to them synonymous with the term Hungary. Hence, in the
United States they have sought to convey the impression that every Hungarian or a
person coming from Hungary was a Magyar, though they seldom used the appella-
tion Masryar, preferring to use the word Hungarian in order that they might more
readily deceive the uninformed and unitiated. The truth of the matter is mat prac-
tically all of the non-Magyar people of Hungary resented to be called even Hunga-
rians, much less Magyars, they having nothing in common with the Magyars. But
they have a bitter memory of the cruel persecutions; and those of the non-Magyars
who have come to the United States have been driven here by these persecutions
and the economic distress which accompanied them. For the Magyar imperialism
under which these peoples of Hungary nave suffered, and this applies to Magyars
and non-Magyars alixe, was sponsors ny the Magyar nobility who composed an oli-
garchy of feudal lords for the purpose of conveniently exploiting the masses of the
population, denying these masses the right of universal suffrage and proper repre-
sentation in matters of government.
This feudal oligarchy, represented by such men as the late Count Tisza, Count
Apponyi, and others, have oeen the chief propagandists of Hungary in order to pre-
serve the so-called integrity of Hungary so tnat they might continue in their undemo-
cratic and reactionary manner and exploit the 22,000,000 of the population for their
own selfish enrichment. Magyar imperialism is but a cloak to them, so that they
can play upon ^e vanity of tne 9,000,000 Magyars and use these not only for their
exploitation but as an instrument for the denationalization and consequent subju-
^tion of the remaining 13,000,000 of non-Magyars. In a word, so that they can con-
tinue their feudal overlordship over Hungary in this modem era which has outgrown
their medieval ideas.
CONCRETE CASES OF KAOYAR PROPAQANDA AND ITS ST8TEU.
During the war in reliance upon the deception and mystification of the peoples
of Western Europe the Magyars had the effrontery to maintain in London itself a
propaganda bureau. Fortunately the English upon its discovery put an end to it.
They nave used in Switzerland a propaganda bureau known as **Agence Centrale,"
and they are carrying on active propaganda detrimental to the Entente cause wherever
they believe their enorts will sow the seeds of discord. In Holland they have estab-
lished the ''Hoilandsch-Nieuwsburo, " which has been working under the guidance
1080 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
of their agents, Pazmandy and Csemi&k. The impertinence of Csemiak became so
great that he was expelled from Holland. We do not seek to deny to any one the
right to influence his fellowmen on behalf of the cause of his nation if it m done in
an honest, upright manner, but we protest against insidious efforts in this direction
which employ falsehood, intrigue, deception, and craftiness, not to mention other
dishonorable devices, for the purpose of robbing the world of the fruits of the >'ictor}*
of this war at the terrible cost of millions of lives and the expenditure of treasure that
b^gars the imagination.
That this purpose has been set down by the Magyars so that by craftiness they can
now obtain what the^r failed to do by force of arms is apparent from the foUowine
citation from the Pesti Hirlap of Budapest: "In the three coming months we have tn
concentrate all our efforts on the work abroad: no matter how much it costs, whether
it is one million or one hundred thousand millions, it is worth it. Every article
written in French, English, or Italian, will save for us one square kilometer of Hun-
garian territory. It will be the duty of a clever mana^r to spr^id into the circles of
oiu* enemies what the staff of writers will prepare. It is necessary to send into ever>
foreign country wiih Andrassy, Apponyi, and other Magyar statesmen, Mag>-ar
socialists who speak foreign languages fluently, for we can not spore Andrassy and
Apj>onyi and their equals when there is a question of propaganda in foreign counUie? "
It is estimated that the full-page advertisements wnich appeared in some of the daily
papers of New York and signed by the so-called American Committee for the Relief
of Hungary, have cost about $6,500. The New York American late in July contained
an article by Count Apponyi which contains the same misstatements, falsities and
misrepresentations that are contained in the advertisement above referred to. Tlie
same misrepresentation has been carried on in the pamphlet submitted to your honor-
able committee entitled **The Case of Hungary-," and sieined by Eugene Pi\'any as
secretary of the Hungarian-American Federation. Mr. Pivany admits that he ha?
been at Budapest in close touch with Magyar statesmen during the whole [>eriod of
the war^ and that he returned to the United States last Januar>\ There is but one
conclusion that we can arrive at, namely, that the effort now being made to deceive
the American public with regard to the "case of Hungary " had its origin at Budapest
and is a part of one vast conspiracy to rob the world and humanity of a victory for
justice and righteousness for which we paid our coUosal price in human life, agony and
treasure. We protest as American citizens against the effrontery and insolence of
the enemy to carry on among us this insidious acti^^ty.
MAGYAR PROPAOANDA IN THE UNITED STATES liEFORE THE WAR.
When the war broke oiit there were in the United States almost 1,000,000 Slovak
immigrants. They were driven here by Magyar oppression and the economic bark-
wardness of their country, thanks to Magyar administration.
The Slovaks from our country used to visit th^ir homeland in large numbers. They
became imbued with the American spirit. They were no longer the same d'x^ile
Slovaks as of yore and asserted their rights against their foreign masters.
The Magyar Government planned to put a stop to the influx of this democraiir
and liberalizing spuit. At home in Hungary this ruling, feudal aristocracy had
degraded every religious body and its ministry to the level of the hand-maid of Wh
rapacious politics and Magyarizing policv. No priest or minister would be ordained
if he was not in accord with the Magyar State idea, nor could he have a parish, which
meant that he must sell his birthright for a mess of potage.
The Magyar Government issued an order to control the priests in the United States
who had Slovak parishes. They used the Austro-Hunganan consular and diplomaiic
service to spy on the priests and congregations and to act as informers. In this la.<
class they also used a tew ren^;ade priests. The Magyar Government also sent here
a bishop for the Uniates, a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, to which the
Carpatho-Russians, neighbors of the Slovaks, belong. The patriotic and lo>-ai
American priests ministering to the Slovak congregations in the United States sent a
memorable protest to their American bishops resenting the interference of the secular
Magyar Government in purely ecclesiastical matters.
Several years before the war, under the auspices of the Magyar Government, a
Magyar fla^ accompanied by some Magyar soil was sent to the United States. The
flag Dore the inscription, "Be ever loyal to your country^ Oh, Magyar." This flag
and soil were to be sent from one Magyar colony to another m the Umted States. The
Slovak immigrants in the United States, through their accredited representative,
protested to our State Department against this effort of a foreign Government to
foster divided all ^fiance on our soil and to stand in the way of a uiorough American
spirit among a part of our people. This loyalty of the Slovak immigrant in the light
of recent events merits the gratitude of all Americans. It was this spirit that inspired
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 1081
the American of Czerho-Slovak birth or descent to render the supreme sacrifice in
this war. Tliis spirit brought the downfall of Dr. Diimba, the Austro-Hun^arian
ambassador, when he tried to coerce the Slovaks, and to threaten them if they dared
to work in our munition plants. At that time we see, there also vrsa an organization
here among Magyars which was working for the relief of Hungary, against the United
States.
Under the guise of a loyalty league these same Magyars tried io form during the war
among our Slovak immijB;rant8 an organization called the Hviezda, which was to wean
them away from any interest in the war and in Hungarian affairs. The effort
met with failure. The Slovak remained true to the United States and to the
cause of his oppressed race.
I hardly need to note the fact that the Magyar Governnmnt subsidized both Magyar
and Slovak newspapers in the United States. But this effort among the Slovaks met
with resentment and failure; they saw through the scheme. One of these sheets,
called the Krajan, will always live in their memory as the greatest joke in Slovak
joumaliam .
The efforts of Magyar propagandists in the United States were an utter failure in
influencing the Slovak immigrant-s. Now, when the \dctoryforan undivided Ameri-
can loyalty among these people has been won and when freedom for their race is
dawninjg in the homeland — the insidious hand of the Magyar enemjr — the enemy of
the United States and of Czechoslovakia — turns the venom of his \'icious propaganda
upon the entire American public to deceive us, and to rob us of the realization of that
ideal for which we all struggled and sacrificed so that peace might be made more
secure and the happiness of qations assured.
DID THE MAGYARS PLAY A SECONDARY PART IN THE WAR IN EUROPE?
The effort has been made by the representatives of Magyar imperialism to impress
your honorable committee that the Mag^'ars in Europe played but a subordinate part
m the war and that they were compelled to play this part aiainst their will.
No one will deny that Count Julius Andrassy is a loyal Magyar patriot and a mouth-
piece of the Maygar people. In a speech which he delivered in December, 1917.
among other statements, he said:
'*The events of this war have shown that Hungary is the surest support of the
monarchy, while the tendencies of the Czechs are a great danger for the dynasty and
the monarchy. We (Magyars) devoted all oiu* powers to the cause of the monarchy
and the dynasty, and we did this from duty, loyalty, and also egoism. Count Szecheny
in 1848 summoned the nation to support the dynasty and assure to the Magyars a
dominant role. At that time it was impossible, because there w^ere vital differences
between the outlook of the djiiasty and of the Magvar nation, and because the dynasty
stood for interests in foreign policy with which tlie nation had nothing in common.
What was then impossible lias now happened without Szecheny, without any great
men: The ^fagyarj nation has itself felt the interests of the dynasty and of the nation
to be identical, ana placed all its forces at the service of the throne.'*
Count Andrassy contended, the Czechs on the other hand "have proved disloyal
and part of their troops have joined the enemy. As there is no Czech army to enforce
their claims, they could only obtain their aims in one way, by revolution; and to
admit openly such a jwlicy is only calculated to weaken them and strengthen us (the
Ma^ars). They think that with the amnesty a political coiu^e was ushered in such
as justifies them in putting forward such claims. I believe them to be radically
mistaken. Meanwhile from the standpoint of the monarchy as a whole, it is un-
doubtedly most harmful that the Slavs follow so revolutionary a policy. That can
only lead to the collapse of Austria. It is to oiur interest that side by side with a
strong Hungary there should be a strong Austria. It is quite certain that we can
reckon in every way upon the support of his majesty, both on account of his whole
outlook, of his interest of self preservation, and of the oath which he has taken to
oppose every effort to violate Hungary's integrity. * ♦ * But on the other hand,
we must act with the g^reatest energy against these excesses, and use all our influence
to prevent dualism being replaced by federalism, which would make the small nations
independent of Austria ana render it possible for them, as equals, to place us in a
minority over important common questions. To give these forces the right to inter-
fere in our important affairs as special autonomous States, would be equivalent to
consciously destroying the power of the monarchy."
1082 TREATY OF PBAOB WITH GERMANY.
. On the same occasion Dr. VTekerle (a Magyar) made a statement in which he bitterly
denounced any effort to establish federalism in Hungary and gave assurance that a
determined policy would be adopted to maintain the present dualist basis and against
all Slav aspirations. And he added:
"The best guarantee against them is unity (between Hungary and Austria), and that
is our strong and impregnable fortress, if the golden band which unites us is strength-
ened by the support of the Crown. And to prove its impregnable character, I venture,
with His Majesty's permission, to announce his declaration, that there is not even the
bare possibility of His Majesty 's not emplojdng all his authority to nullify efforts directed
against the lawful independence or territorial integrity of tne Hungarian State.'*
The foregoing citations from eminent Magjrar statesmen ^ow tne position of the
Magyar people in their attitude toward the war. We need but recall to your minds
the hostile attitude of the Mag3rar prisoners of war toward the Czecho-Slavok soldiers
operating in Russia and Siberia. These Magyar and German prisoners of war, acting
in consonance with an order issued under the joint signatures of Wilhelm II and
Emperor Charles that they align themselves with the Bolsheviki, as this was in the
interest of Germany and Austria-Hungary, followed this exhortation, and at all times
bitterly fought against the Czecho-Slovak army operating in Russia and Siberia.
We ask, considering the record that the Magyars have made in this war as bitter
enemies of the Entente on every battle field, considering the statements of Magyar
statesmen, what evidence have the Magyar apologists to offer in support of their state-
ment that the Magyars played but a secondary part in the war?
SOMETHING ABOUT STATISTICS.
It has always been a passion with the Magyars to falsify their statistics for their own
advantage in order to demonstrate to the world that they were the dominant race in
Hungary. For that reason scholars are unanimous in asserting that Hungarian sta-
tistics are entirely unreliable. But however unreliable they may be, the subjoined
statistics are official Magyar statistics which were employed for the purpose of pro\'ing
the Czecho-Slovak case by means of the enemy's statistics.
To demonstrate the craftiness employed by the Magyars in the presentation of sta-
titics, it is but necessary to mention that the statistics of 1910 give the total number
of Slovaks as 1,967,970, but the number of persons speaking the Slovak language as
2,776,743. Everyone knows that the Magyar, a member of the dominant race, does
not condescend to learn the Slovak language. Therefore it follows that the latter
figure represents the real number of Slovaks.
If, on the other hand, the Magyars make the contention that the difference between
these figures represents Magyarized Slovaks, when the political pressure heretofore
exerted upon these Magyarized Slovaks is removed they will again become Slovak
adherents and willing subject of the Czecho-Slovak State. Furthermore, the Magyars
living in Slovak distncts who form the official class of carpet baggers, when the Magyars
cease to rule Slovakia, their function being over, they will return to their original
homes in Magyar land, where they properly belong.
When the Magyars set up the claim that in any event some Magyars must remain
in Czecho-Slovak territory, it must also be remembered that there will be many
Slovaks who, when the final borders are drawn, will be compelled to remain in Ma^ur
territorv. And these numbers, it has been estimated, will be about equal. This
fact will probably be a guarantee of mutual tolerance. Furthermore, the peace con-
ference has seen to it that the rights of racial minorities will be saf guarded.
The Slovak counties fall naturallyi nto three groups: (1) Seven, where the popula-
tion is predominantly Slovak; (2) seven, which are in great majority Slovak, but
portions of which are mixed and therefore debatable; (3) five, which contain Magyar
majorities, certain portions of which it will be necessary to sacrifice in order to attain
a tolerable frontier. In the following tables these groups are divided for practical
purposes into two categories: (1) What can fairly be assigned without further question
to the Czecho-Slovak Republic, and (2) debatable districts which ought, if the Paris
conference still has the time and energy, to form the subject of a special inquiry on
the spot, rather than be carved up arbitrarily by ill-informed diplomats at a distance.
TBBATT OF PEACE WITH OERHAKY.
108S
(A) Overwhelmingly Slovak counties:
Trendn (Trencsen)
Turec (Turocz)
Oivva (Arva).
Llptov (Llpto)
Zvolen (Zolyom)...
Spls (Szepes. Zips).
Sar3rs (Saros)
Total (A),
I.
(B) Coonties with Slovak majority (deducting debatable dis-
tricts):
1. Prespurk:
(a) 5 districts north of Danube
(6) Town of Pressburg
(e) Towns of Timova, Bazln, Modor, and St. George.
2. Nitra:
Slovak.
284,770
38,432
59,006
78,098
113,294
97,077
101,855
772,622
llagyar.
13,204
5,560
2,000
4,365
16,609
18,658
18,088
78,384
(a) 10 country districts.
Towns of Nitra and Skalice
3. Tekov (Bars):
(a) 4 cmntry districts
(6) Towns of Krenmice and Ujbanya
4. Hont:
(0) 2 c^untry district* (Batovc*^ and Kruplna)
(6) Town of Sta\'nica (Selmeczbanya)
5. Novohrad (Nograd): Country district of Gaes
6. Gemer:
(a) Three country districts (Sobata, Garamvolgy, Re-
vuca)
(6) Towns of Kima Sobata, Re\nica, Jolsva, and Dob-
sina
7. Zemplln: 5 country districts
Total CB)
Total (A and B).
II.
Prespurk ((f rosse Schutt) .M ,
Nitra (Frsekujvar, Vag.vllye)
Tekov device)
Krmarom (n rth of Danube)
Kszterpom (n- rth of Danube)
Hont (Ipoly.-^e, IptlvTiyek, Szob, Vamosmikola)
Novohrad (Novohrad, Lucnec, and towns of Lucncc and
Balasa )
Gemcr (Rinuksec. Putnok, Roznava)
Abauj-Toma ( Ftizer and Kosice) town o{ Kosicp
Zemplin (Satorulja)
Tntal,
137,237
11,673
16,695
283,021
9,084
81,f'38
5,738
29,018
8,341
19,633
44,768
3,304
80,917
731,367
503,989
412
32,h59
10, 148
3,051
908
10,703
33,o.'7
16, 5S3
33,300
4,988
146,179
64,749
81,705
6,156
36,065
10,259
24,216
1,971
3,659
6,340
1,567
11,894
11,227
23,978
German.
9,029
10,993
1,518
2,591
2,124
38,434
9,447
74,136
Total.
310,437
65,703
» 78,745
86,906
133,663
« 172, 867
•174,620
1,012,931
233,776
312,160
60,757
54,000
35, 835
78,. 370
36,075
62,732
77s 944
65.922
61,410
37,145
570, 199
12,912
32,790
5,279
24,959
1,895
15,455
1,593
217
453
56
361
1,8.'»8
5,954
103,207
177,918
2,841
1,103
318
142
77
6,393
2,134
600
3,694
42
17,344
218,876
78.223
28,439
337,698
21,437
122,531
9,328
48,479
15,185
21,679
58,394
16,712
121,627
1,098,608
2,111,539
64,212
88,320
46,641
81,747
37,092
79,761
114,838
84,080
100.779
4?.r37
740,407
» The Crimty of Orava has always c^ntaln«d the hlgh?>st pnrcntaue of Sbvaks (94.7 per cent In 1900),
but in 1910 the Magyar statistician* suddenlv discovered the existence of 16.120 Poles, thus c nveniently
reducing the f^lovaks t" 75 per c?nt. This fictltl us change rpists on the obvl .us fact thnt almg the linguistic
frontier the Slo^Tik dialect shows ct^rtain Polish (as als'> Ruthone) influences.
* There are also 60,827 Ruthenes (12,327 in Hpis, 38,500 in Siirys).
The foregoing statistics have been incorporated from the New Europe of April 3, 1919 .
HOW THE SLOVAKS WERE OPPRESSED IN HUNGARY.
In the year 1867 the Magyar State Idea, the driving force of Magyar imperialism,
was given its impetus, when the Magyars were made supreme masters in Hungary
over the non-Magyar nations, and from that time dates tne oppression and persecu-
tion of the Slovalcs, which grew as time went on and reached its climax during the
great war. The severity ofthis oppression has no equal in the annals of European
histonr. The Magyars were determined to wipe out the 3,000,000 of Slovaks by
completely Ma^anzing them. The neat exponent of the Magyar State Idea and of
forceful Ma^anzation, Bela Grvenwald, put it thus:
* * The revival of national consciousness among the non-Magvar races constitutes a
danger to the Magyar State. In Hungary there can be but Magyar culture. It is
impossible to gain "by peaceful means the Slovaks for the Magyar State Idea. The
only thing left us is to exterminate them completely. If the Magyars want to survive
they must enrich their blood by assimilating the non-Magyar races."
1084 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Pursuing this policy, the Magyare first of all laid their hands on the Slovak schools.
In 1874 and 1875 thev closed the only three Slovak gymnasia or higher schools. They
also disbanded the Slovak scientific and literary society, the Slovenska Matica, con-
fiscated its funds and buildings. This property was turned over to the Magyar gov-
ernment and later emplo^^ed in Magyarizing the Slovaks.
The SlovfiJts were aeprived of all seconcSiry schools and hence were compelled to
seek education in Magyar schools. Bela Gruenwald describes the rdle of educational
institutions thus:
"The secondary school is like a huge machine; at one end Slovak youths are thrown
in by hundreds, and at the other we gather full-fledged Magyars. * ' T^e Slovak student
were prohibited from speaking the Slovak lan^age, from reading Slovak or any other
Slav books, and if they did not tamely submit to the process oi Mag>'arization thev
were banished from the school. In this manner the Slovaks were deprived of a cul-
tured class. In order to prevent the Slovaks from seeking education in other Slo\ic
lands, a Slovak student could not receive his license to practice law or medicine if
he did not have a diploma from a Magyar university.
To furnish some idea of the condition of schools in Slovakia we submit the following:
In 1914 there were in Slo\'ukia 448 Magyar kindergartens, but not a single Slovak
kindergarten.
Primary schools, 4,253 Magyar, 365 Slovak; but the Slovak primary schools were
Slovak in name only as the Magyar language was by law compelled to be taught from
17 to 24 hours per week, and the whole number of weekly school hours was but 26.
There were 138 apprenticeship schools for artisans and merchants, all Magyar, not
a single Slovak one.
There were 112 Magyar higher elementary' schools, not a single Slovak school.
There were 27 Magyar normal or teachers' schools, not one Slovak.
There were 46 Magyar high schools, not a single Slovak high school ; 8 Magj-ar high
schools for girls, not a single Slovak high school for girls.
There was no Slovak university, no Slovak techmcal school, no Slovak law school,
theological academy, or professional school ; all were Magyar.
The Slovak church, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, was in the hands of the
Magyar Government and entirely employed for the purpose of Magyarization. When
the Slovaks refused to recognize Magyar clei^^ymen imposed on them, they buried
their dead without religious rites and left their children unbaptized.
At Cemova the Magyar Government insisted upn the dedication of a Slovak
church by Magyar priests. The Slovak congregation refused to admit the Mag\'ar
priests. The government called out soldiers, though there had been no \iolence,
who proceeded to shoot into the people, killing 15 parishioners, severely wounding
many others, sending others to jau on the charge that they revolted against the gov-
ernment.
The Magyars resorted to the practice of seizing Slovak children and sending them
into strictly Magyar districts where they were placed in Mag>'ar families. This
official kidnapping at the instance of the Mag>'ar Government finally had to be dis-
continued because public sentiment in Europe became so aroused against this crime
that the Ma^ars were compelled to desist.
Slovak editors were constantly harassed by fines and imprisonment, so that their
existence became almost impossible. The Magyars purposed to efface the Slovak
press.
The electoral laws and the system of elections were so manipulated by the Magyars
that the Slovaks were deprived of rightful representation in the Parliament.
The economic oppression of the Slovaks by the Ma^ars made it practically im})os-
sible for the Slovaks to engage in industry. Every industrial or economic undertaking
required a Government license, and the Slovaks were systematically refused such
licenses, so that the Mag>=ars would be able to hold everj^thing in their own hands.
As a result of all these persecutions in the last 40 years 739,565 Slovaks emigrated,
most of them going to tne United States. During the war the Magyars intensified
their oppression and persecution of the Slovaks because of the hostile stand which
the Slovaks took against them and the fact that Slovaks abroad joined the Entente
armies and that Slovak prisoners of war went over to the enemy.
On November 1, 1918, the Magyar Government at Budapest issued a decree pro-
viding that owing to the fact tlmt the Slovaks proved themselves dislo^'al in the
course of the war, no real estate in Slovakia could be sold unless the grantee wa^^
approved by the Government, and that such sale would be either to the Government
or to a person designated by the Government, at a price stipulated by the Govern-
ment. During the war Slovak soldiers who would not deny their Slovak race were
shot or hanged; Slovak girls were forcibly abducted under the pretense of being taken
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1085
into the haspital service; in reality they were handed over to Magyar and Gennan
officers for the purpose of prostitution.
Under the Karolvi government the same Count Apponyi, who is now imploring
the American Repuolic to be just to the Magyars and who asks us to betray our Slovak
and other non-Magyar allies and return them to Magyar slavery, became the minister
of education. The Maygar apoloeists in the United States have been trying to create
the impression that Apponyi and nis clique have become democratic and liberal since
the armistice. The fact is that they have only become more cruel and bitter. The
only reason that they can not carry out their designs upon the non-Magyar population
of Hungary is due to the fact that these liberal nations are now in a position to
repel the \fagyars by force of arms. Apponyi. on resuming the ministry' of education
in the Karolyi cabinet, outlined a policy wherebv the last vestige of the Slovak
language as well as other non-Masryar languages would be eliminated from the schools,
and aldo proceeded to further put under his Ma>g)'arizing influence the churches of
the non-Alagyars. And in all these efforts Count Karolyi concurred. Yet the Magyar
apologists in the United States have the effrontery to represent to us Count Karolyi
as a liberal statesman who was misunderstood and wrongfully abused by Gen. d'Espery
and the Allies generally.
It was further proposed that the Magyars should so manipulate the electorate that
it would become almost impossible for the non-Magyars to get any representation in
the parliament. In other words, they were willing to further limit the franchise.
In the year 1918 the Magyars intensified ♦ * * their work of oppression along
many lines. Instead of showing a more liberal policy to the oppressed nations of
Hungary, they devised the aforementioned scheme to expropriate non-Magyar
property.
The Pesti Ilirlap, in an editorial on November 28, 1918, stated as follows:
'*The Mae:yar State has the right to decide what elements shall possess the soil. It
has the rij?ht to assiu'e its territory against suspect elements.
•'Tlie State must have an unlimited right of expropriation in order to be able to
parcel out and colonize the land. It must carry out a healthy distribution of land to
the Magyar race, which alone is the support of the State. To the south it is the Serbs
who hold the best land; in Transylvania it is the Roumanians. As long as the Gov-
ernment remaiiLs in power it must employ that power to make the Magyars masters
of Magyar land."
OPPRESSION OP THE SLOVAKS BY THE MAGYAR GOVERNMENT EXPRESSED IN OFFICIAL
FIGURES.
The Slovaks represent 14.8 p?r cent of the total population of Hungary. This is
the representation which the Magvars graciously gave them.
1. State functionaries: (o) In Slovakia (17 counties and 3 towns), 1,733 Magyars,
32 Germans, 2 Slovaks; (6) in Hungary (exclusive of Croatia-Sloavnia) out of 13,017
State functionaries there are 12,447 Magyars, 225 Germans, and only 35 Slovaks.
2. County functionaries: (a) In Slovakia, 920 Magyars, 11 Germans, 18 Slovaks;
(6) in Hungary out of 4,094 county functionaries there are 3,803 Magyars, 126 Ger-
mans, 19 Slovaks.
3. Municipal functionaries: (a) In Slovakia, 753 Magyars, 59 Germans, 11 Slovaks;
(h) in Hungary, of the 7,090 municipal employees 6,198 Mas:>'ars, 449 Germans, and
only 12 Slovaks.
4. Public and district notaries: (a) In Slovakia, 1,080 Magyars, 20 Germans, 33
Slo\'aks; (h) in Hungary, of the 5,313 public and district notaries there are 4,637
Iklagyars, 191 Germans, and only 38 Slovaks.
5. Judges and counsels of the crown: (a) In Slovakia, 461 Magyars, 3 Germans, no
Slovak: (6) in Hungar>% of the 3,093 judges and counsels of the crown, 2,801 Magyars,
31 Germans, 1 Slovak (in the Pest Pilis district).
6. Sulwrdinate officials of courts, crown counsels, and of houses of detention: (o)
In Slovakia, 805 Mag>*ar8, 13 Germans, 10 Slovaks; (6) in Hungary, of the 5,113 of
subordinate officials of courts, crown counsels and houses of detention, there are 4,756
Magyars, 129 Germans, and only 16 Slovaks.
7. Primary school teachers, elementary classes: (n) In Slovakia, 4, 257 Magyars,
129 Germans, 345 Slovaks. While the Slovak population amoimts to 76 per cent of
the whole population, only 7 per cent of the teachers were Slovaks, (h) In Hungary,
of the 23,384 primary school teachers, there are 18,480 Magyars, 992 Germans, and only
404 Slovaks.
8. Higher primary men school teachers and teachers of higher classes of primary
schools: (a) in Slovakia, 226 Magyars, 4 Germans, 2 Roumanians, and not a single
Slovak; (6) in Hungary, of the total of 1,334 higher primary school teachers and of
1086 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
teachers of primary schools (higher classes) there are 1,268 Magyars, 35 Germans, and
only 2 Slovaks.
9. Women higher primary school teachers and women teachers of higher classes in
primary schools: (a) In Slovakia, 199 Magyars, 12 Germans, 1 Slovak; (o) in Hungary,
of the total of 1,436 women school teachers there are 1,338 Magyars, 57 Germans,
1 Slovak.
10. Secondary (high) school professors: (a) In Slovakia, 638 Magyars, 12 Germans,
10 Slovaks; (6) in Himgary, of the total of 3,843 professors there are 3,518 Magyars,
169 Germans, 23 Slovaks.
11. Physicians: (a) In Slovakia, 713 Magyars, 57 Germans, 26 Slovaks; (6) in
Himgary, of the total of 5,514 physicians there are 4,914 Magyars, 312 Germans, and
only 35 Slovaks.
Kemark. — In Slovakia almost 76 per cent of the population speak Slovak; only 24
per cent speak Magyar.
In the whole of Hungary there are but 43.2 per cent of real Ma^ars (in 1851 there
proportion was 36.5 per cent); while 14.8 per cent of the population of Hungary are
Czecho-Slovaks.
The American representatives of the medieval militaristic and reactionary yiagvux
oligarchy which once ruled Hungary and still dreams of returning to power, and which
is made up of Maeyar magnates, the nobility of the country, who would seem to be
somewhat out of place in a modern democracy, have been loudly declaiming about the
dangers that threaten Magyar Protestants if these should be placed outside of the de-
voted and pious care ana protection of this noble ruling clique. It was this same
ruling clique of Magyar junkers, who, probably impelled by a powerful Christian
charity, used to flog their farm hands, empowered thereto bv the warrant of law, which
they solicitously put on the statute books which they kindly managed for the common
people. In this instance they, of course, did not consult the wishes of the fann
hands.
This ruling clique and its agents need not worry about religious toleration in the
Ozecho-Slovak Republic. The Czecho-Slovak nation, which was the cradle and the
champion of Protestantism in central Europe 100 years before the advent of Luther
and until they lost their liberty in 1621, which began at Prague the struggle for liberty
of conscience, which gave the world a Huss and a Comenius, which gave rise to the
Church of the Unity (the Moravians), hardly needs any lessons in toleration from the
compatriots of Bela Kun. For the information of Magyar propagandists let it be noted
here that one of the first acts of the government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic was
the publication of an edict affirming the freedom of religious worship.
Yet it IB consoling to note that the old Magyar oligarchy and its agents seem to possess
some solicitation about religion. Considering their many crimes during the war
and before it, and their sin-laden souls, it is a hopeful si^ for the future.
Considering all the foregoing there ia but one conclusion at which we can arrive:
It requires an immense amount of brazenness on the part of any j)ropaganda com-
mittee to try to convince your honorable committee and the American public that
the Slovak people are entirely satisfied with Magyar misrule and tyranny, and that
it is your duty to intervene on behalf of tyrants, returning the Slovak people, who
have shed their blood for their freedom and for ours, into their former bondage. We
believe in the wisdom, in the keen discernment, in the love of truth and righteousness
of the American people and their representatives in the Senate of the United States,
and know that the cause of a free and resurrected Czechoslovakia is safe in your hands.
Respectfully submitted.
Ven Svarc.
Washington, D. C, September 5, 1919.
Senator Knox. Mr. Chairman, I have a communication here which
I received from Mr. Frederick McCormick. The communication is
addressed to you and to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Air.
Frederick McCormick was for many years the Associated Press rep-
resentative in Japan, and he is the author of quite an important
book on Oriental politics entitled, "The Menace of Japan," He
desires the privilege of filing this in connection with the Shantung
matter.
The Chairman. If there is no objection that will be done.
(There was no objection, and the matter referred to is here printed
in full, as follows:)
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1087
Statement of Mb. Fbedebick McCk>BHicK in Regabd to Shantung.
Santa Monica, Calif., August 29, 1919.
Senator Lodge and the Cohhitteb on Fobeign Relations :
In 1905 America mediated between Russia and Japan to end a war over
China and Korea, and brought about the Portsmouth treaty of peace.
Immediately, Japan undertook destruction of a policy and place in the
world which gave us the power of such far-reaching decision in what so vitally
affected her.
In the decision Japan lost claims for Indemnity and exacted secret terms
from Russia by which she acquired Joint claims of administration in Man-
churia, This opened to her easy expansion into, and conquest of China, and
gave her a policy and doctrine of special right vitally opposed to our own.
Out own was the only thing in the way. It was the doctrine of the open
door formulated by John Hay. It expressed the safe international position of
China, and the future of America as head and front of Western civilization
moving westward and sustaining for Western civilization the impact of Asiatic
In the Pacific.
This doctrine having been accepted by Europe, Japan began her work of
destroying it by undermining its adherents, and bringing them to her side.
England was Japan's ally in East Asia, and France and Russia became allies
in Europe.
England then reached an understanding with Russia, and by 1008 all treaties
with, and about China, though containing the formula which safeguarded
China and made our place in the world had failed and were powerless to
^ve peace and safety to China and protection to rights and interests of others.
Thereby it became necessary to bring the situation of our policy before the
world.
England and PYance appeared to misunderstand our aim, and at first re-
sented our summons which was contained in a demand In 1909, to England,
France, and Germany, to restore rights which they had seized from us in
"WTiting the Hukuang loan. But our course was in keeping with their pledges
to support our policy for the peace and safety of China, and we were able
with their renewed help, to create a base from which to resist the dissolution
and destruction of our policy and of the safeguards to China, set up by Japan.
Russia was the first to capitulate to Japan. Her position was the weakest
because she had been vanquished in war with Japan, who joined and threatened
her borders. Intimidated by Japan, she gave a nominal pledge recognizing
community of Russia's hitherto exclusive rights in Manchuria, with Japan.
Thus Japan was able to claim right of administration in Manchuria. It gave
her a share of sovereign power there granted by China to Russia in the secret
Article VI of the Chinese Eastern Railway convention of 1896.
Japan then foiled us In measures to neutralize railways in Manchuria, and
Russia, still further Intimidated, signed with Japan a predatory pact to main-
tain the status quo of aggression which we were trying to supplant with justice
under the open door doctrine. It opposed and revised the Portsmouth treaty,
and Japan moved into inner Mongolia.
Our efforts to restore China's full administrative power and sovereignty and
protect her territorial Integrity and rights of all, went on parallel with Japan's
efforts at destruction. It was 1910, and In her agreement with Russia, .lapan
selected for Its consummation the calendar date of July 4.
America employed heroic and praiseworthy means to retain the support of
the European powers to our policy which they had adhered to by written
pledge for at least 10 years. England and France accepted our measures. We
united the great powers behind the Hukuang, Manchurian, and currency loans
for China's Industrial development and reform. And August, 1912, Russia
and Japan joined in the currency and reorganization loan, which made It the
six-power loan.
Our responsibilities In our defense against Asia and Europe In the Pacific,
and In the defense of China and Asiatic civilization, were met In these plans
and acts. They were successful, and the powers of Europe, which were willing
to continue their adherence to them, as now exemplified in the six-power
loan, only waited to see whether we were sincere and earnest in order to decide
between us and Japan.
1088 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
]March 18, 1913, the President withdraw from these responsibilities, and from
re. i>on Sibil ity to the great powers and to China In what we had done, by re-
pudiating the six-power loan which again had placed the world on coniixion
ground respecting China.
On 'receiving this rebuff, the European powers went over to Japan. Tbe
arbitrament of the world's most vital affairs was balanced In Manchuria. The
alignment of the powers In the World War had been made in China and the
Pacific area. The action of the President confirmed them in their alignment.
Japan's conquest of the European powers and winning of them to her side
was completed.
In three years the European powers which had adhered to a position which
we had defended for 129 years, and to which they had been pledged in writing
for 12 years, had awarded Shantung and the German North Pacific possessions
to Japan, not troubling to inform us of the fact. It was in sequence to events
planned by Japan and had been deprecated by English, French, German, and
Ku^8lan statesmen who desired to support our position instead of that of
Japan. It was a conquest over America, it remains so, and the President asks
u> to ratify it.
As It existed at the beginning of 1913, our reconstructed position in China
and the Pacific to meet the movement set up by Japan because of the Ports-
mouth Treaty wr.s destroyed by tlie President. War ensue<l, with demoraliza-
tion In China through lack of foreign money and through China being obliged
to quadruple her borrowings from Japan. And after four years of j^truggle
by China, and the most bitter failure and disappointment, our envoy to
China, on his own Initiative, but approved by the Government, sent a note of
friendly counsel to China in her despair. It was In accoM with immemorial
right and intercourse with China antedating Japan's civilized relations with
China and her civilized place in the world by nearly 100 years. Japan openly
re ented the action and protested on the ground of interference in her domain.
Open conflict was thereby established by Japan which she, baclced by her
allies ,had kept hidden, even since tlie President repudiated the six-power loan
which had united us.
Two Interpretations of the act of our envoy to China exist : One American,
one Japanese. They are directly opposed. They established Japan in the
cours ndoptd aftr the Prsident's repudiation of the six-power loan, namely.
In disi)uting whatever we do in defense of the position against which aJpan
opposes her own. And Japan followed her protest with a special mission to
America under Ishll to set up her interpretation before her European allies
against our own.
Japan did this last in the Ishli-Lanslng notes, and to such satisfaction that
those allies, after awarding to Japan Shantung and the German North Pacific
possessions, confirmed it In their drafts of the peace treaty 18 months later.
Japan's exertions stirred the counsels of the President, which took action
Intended to meet the consequences of what our envoy to China had done. It
was taken on the expressed grounds that "unless we are prepared to oppose
Japan, and go on antagonizing her, we must do something constructive." It
had become our policy to try and placate Japan by putting it that way instead
of facing the truth.
The reason*^ given for our action were that " we had to decide whether we
would be China's cat's-paw, or got on with Japan."
" We " decided to '* get on with Japan." The moral sanction for what was
about to be done, forming the principle on which the Ishll-Lansing notes were
executed by us, was that China was " corrupt and Irresponsible," and was " a
festering mass of humanity."
The friendly note of our envoy was handed to China June, 1917. Japan
Immediately brought up the question of sending Ishii, and his mission wa>
arranged through our embassy in Tokio. As I understand tliat arrangement,
what was to be done was determined in advance. All conversations (hat were
to take place in Washington after Ishil's arrival there were written out It
was decided In advance that the real object of the mission, which was to get
recognition from us of Japan's special interests in China, would not be dis-
cussed. If it came up the answer to Japan's expectations would be no.
The Department of State confirmed this decision to our embassy in Tokio.
Thereupon Ishll stated to our embassy that he would not expect to get rec-
ognition of Japan's si)ecial Interests In China, and the embassy cabled thU
renunciation to the Department of State.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMA17Y. 1089
Ishli started for Washington and Mr. Morris was invested in Washington
tm our ambassador to Japan. Morris participated at Washington in the dis-
cussions and completion of the coming Ishii-Lansing notes, while Ishii was
enroute from Japan. The notes w*^re signed while ho was enroute to Toliio
and he did not know what they meant until after he Imd readied Tokio.
His knowledge gained in Washington differed diametrically from the knowl-
edge of Europe and east Arfla, including our embassy in Tokio which held
a conference when it received the notes by cable, to determine what they
meant. The conference Uisted all night and broke down in total disagree-
ment, Morris on one side and the embassy staff on the other. A decision
as to what explanation should be made to the public never was arrived at.
After two days Lansing's interpretation came and saved the embassy from
having to equivocate about it.
The notes meant the oj^imsite of what our Government, in instructing Mor-
ris, said they meant. They achieved the o[)posite of what our (Jovernment pur-
pose<l. America was discredite<l before China and the allies. And Japan
and America again went on record with interpretations which are diametri-
cally opposed.
The President then undertook personal management at the peace conference
of these affairs, whereupon Knghmd and France wrote out for Japan their
final drafts of the award to Japan of Shantung and the German North Pacific
possessions. The President then signed this award, and England, and France,
with the co-operation of Italy and the other allies, handed Japan the award
with our signature on it. It was the authors of the repudiation of the recon-
structive measures in China, and the framers for Ishii in the terms of Japan,
of the Lansing notes, who signed this award.
Having taken action on the decision not to be the catspaw of China, we
made ourselves the tool of Japan, and through Japan the tool of England.
France and the allies.
England and France did not want to be so. In 1913 they had said they
were sorry to lose us from the confidence and the counsels of the powers,
especially England, whose statesmen said she desired to work with us.
Thus Japan was able in 14 years to destroy our diplomacy. It had been
defended resi)ectlng China and the Pacific area since 1784. But in 1913 the
President opened the way for Japan to finally accomplish Its destruction, in
these words repudiating the Six-Power Loan, namely:
**The conditions of the loan seem to us to touch very nearly the admin-
istrative independence of China itself; and the administration does not feel
that it ought, even by implication, to be party to those conditions. The re-
sponsibility might go the length of forcible Interference in the financial and
even the political affairs of that great oriental state. The responsibility
is obnoxious to the principles upon which the Government of our people rests."
Neither at the time of this statement, nor at any time in our history had
the conditions of China's position or intercourse with her, rested on the
principles on which the Government of our people rests. And they rested on
not less than 46 treaties fixing China's position and fate as we had written
them in accordance with the demands of Europe and the allies of the
time, since at least 1784, and could not be affected except for evil by this act.
China's position In the world was first explicitly and definitely fixed by
the American treaty of 1844. The terms of this treaty were the best ob-
tainable at the time, but their supreme law was extraterritoriality under
which China became deprived of independence in everything connected with
foreign intercourse. As these terms were the terms of all nations and were
copied and expanded in all treaties and conventions, this made China's place
that of a prisoner whose indefinite period of sentence we had formulated.
After 55 years John Hay reformulated the terms of China's place so as to
secure to her a way to emerge from her prison. All nations accepted the
formula, which was the open-door doctrine, and wrote it in subsequent treaties*
and conventions respecting China.
We thus raiscMl into international being a policy consciously and uncon-
sciously pursued and practiced by us In principle since 1784, and recognized in
writing by the world since 1899-1900. It was thus our first great foreign
doctrine, and in this sense is older than the Monroe doctrine. The circum-
stances of its origin, and the civilization and situation to which it refers ar«
older, and the problem to which it refers is older.
In 1909 we devised new formulas to safeguard China's way ont of her
prison and to secure her escape from the sentence which we had written.
136646—19 69
1090 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMAKY.
They were accepted by the powers. But In the work of six years, r^;ardles8
of the aversion the President expressed to even forcible Interference In China's
affairs, he signed in the Shantung award, the rending of China and destruction
of all we had done to preserve our position.
Up to 1013 the powers were with us. When the President rebuffed those
powers by repudiating the instrument by which they had again Anally Joined
with us, he sent new envoys to represent us in China and Japan.
Our envoy to Tol^io was Mr. Guthrie. He reache<l there the middle of the
year and began the search for a book that would explain the questions of the
region which was the strangest he had ever seen. He looked for " a small
book, not a large one," because, as he continued, he was " too old to read a
large one."
Four years later he died while still searching for that book, and his body
was tenderly borne back to us by a people which venerated his personal great-
ness, as well as the simplicity and innocence which had made him the uncon-
scious dupe of such a tragic gaucherie.
Our envoy to Clilna was Mr. Relnsch. After six years of cross purposi's.
blunders which never have been exposed because too disgraceful to investigate
during a state of war; and after insufferable Insult and humiliation, failure,
defeat, and madness, he has resigned.
Both these men were appointed after the act by which our destructive policy
became known, and they went on fools' errands. Their survivor is Ambassador
Morris, at Toklo, on whom all East Asia, including China, Japan, Korea, and
Siberia, is saddled, and who ranges from the Pacific to Central Asia and
Europe. Mr. Guthrie left him no book, and he has been for two years heroically
struggling under the misunderstanding with which the Government blinded
him when he set out from Washington. He, too, is overwhelmed with the
defeat and is trying to extricate himself from the madness and ruin.
The only refuge for a country which has enacted such a debacle as I have
described, and Intends to complete it by compelling the ratification of that
debacle by Its great Senate, Is a league of other nations who can manage its
affairs better than it can manage them. If in one single instance, the Shantung
award, the peace treaty is ratified by the Senate of the United States, two
principal things will result: First will come our elimination from East Asia
through abandonment of our place in the world for an elusive status promised
us, and second, there will take place the rending of the vast race unit which
is the body of Asiatic civilization, and the setting of it adrift In the Pacific
area and the world, englned by Japan.
Our position In the world differs from that of the rest of civilization. It is
comparable only to the position which, as pretender to leadership of an opposing
civilization, Japan, marshalling Europe against us, usurps and holds by force.
Therefore we cannot enter the peace treaty, in my opinion, or the league of
nations, on the same terms as the powers of Europe. To do so would destroy
our place in the world. We have to enter them, if at all. on terms that will
defend us as the leader and the hend and front of western civilization moving
across the Pacific Ocean, and defend all Interests intrusted to us by western
civilization and by Asiatic civilization, of which China is the body.
The considerations which I have respectfully submitted concern only our
International entity and what we are In the world by circumstances over
which we have no control, which, if surrendered, would complete the work of
destruction which Japan openly began, with every confidence of success, in
1905. The head of Uie column of western civilization, receiving the Impact and
hitherto sustaining the pressure of aggressive and predatory Asiatic civiliza-
tion, would be crushed. And there would be no occasion to invoice our physical
assets in East Asia gone down, or of our moral and cultural infiuences which
are greater than those of any other power. After the destruction of our moral
position, there is but one end. And in it civilization will share.
The Chairman. We will adjourn at this point until to-morrow.
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until
10 o'clock a. m., Thursday, September 4, 1910.)
THtTBSDAY, SSPTEMBEB 4, 1919.
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D, C,
The committed met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Knox, Harding,
Moses, Swanson, and Pomerene.
There appeared before the committee the following delegation
representing the Jugo-Slav Republican Alliance of the United States:
Mr. Etbin Kristan, chairman; Mr. Frank Kerze, Mr. Philip Godina,
Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich, Mr. R. F. Hlacha, Mr. Josii Michailo-
vitch, and A. H. Skubic, secretary.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, our time is limited. I had hoped that
you would get here to be^in at 10 o^clock, but we can give you from
now imtil 12 o'clock. You must divide the time between your-
selves as you think best.
STATEKEITT OF MB. ETBIH EBISTAB* OF CHICAGO, ILL.
Senator Brandegee. Let me ask you, have you arranged now
about the division of vour time ? How long do you want to talk ?
Mr. Kjiistan. It will take about 20 minutes.
The Chairman. Very well; proceed.
Mr. Kristan. Gentlemen, the delegation of the Jugo-Slav Repub-
lican Alliance takes the libertjr to express its deep gratitude for the
privilege of a hearing before this honorable body, and for the permis-
sion to lay before it the aspirations of tlie Jugo-Slavs regarding the
regulation of the boundaries of this new State, and based upon, what
we con.sider, the right of our race.
Gentlemen, the Jugo-Slav State, called also the State of the Serbs,
Croats, and Slovenes is a new formation and a product of this great
war wliich has removed manv obstacles obstructing the unification
of the southern Slavs. The iaea of unity lived in their souls for ages,
and, long before this war, great men of our Nation sacrificed their
best for the promotion of this idea, the realization of wliich is the
inevitable condition for our existence and for a more successful
progress.
ifiie greatest barrier to the unification of the Jugo-Slavs was the
former Austro-Hungarian monarchy, under whose democratic rule the
majority of all the three branches of Jugo-Slavs was subdued, and
i?ehose policy tended to subject under her rule the remaining inde-
1091
1092 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEEMANY.
pendent Jugo-Slavs of Serbia and Montene^o. For the Jugo-Slars
the collapse of the Austrian autocracy was imperative to attain con-
ditions for establishing their own home, and for this very reason the
Jugo-Slavs stood, since the first day of the world conflagration against
their oppressor and extortioner, ofifering supreme sacrifices for their
•cause, which was also the cause of the Allies and their associated
nations. Numerous documents prove that Austria was conscious of
the sentiments of the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, who were per-
secuted and oppressed with all means of autocratic brutality; who
were forcibly driven out of their homes, held behind prison bars, and
silenced by bullets and rope. To-day it is also a proven fact that
the power of the Hapsburg dynasty and her servile government, as
well as the power ana might oi the Austrian militarism, was shattered
chiefly by the stubborn resistance of the Jugo-Slavs and other
oppressed nations.
Now the war is over and a new map of Europe is in making. This
work of readjustment filled the Jugo-Slavs witn hope for a just solu-
tion of their national question; the strongest guaranty therefor they
saw in the famous declarations of the President of the United States
of America, regarding the war aims of our great American nation.
There is not a smgle word m those speeches and proclamations, which
the Jugo-Slavs had not enthusiastically approved of, and if the peace
were concluded according to those principles, ell the national aspira-
tions of the Jugo-Slavs would liave oeen fulfilled.
It is extremely regretful that the actual solution of the European
and world questions falls short of the ideal, especially where the
Jugo-Slavs were the most concerned, the Paris peace conference did
not place itself on a basis of justice, but often rather listened to
arguments which truly democratic elements thought were destroyed
in the blast of the world conflagration and their ashes buried forever.
For a long period Europe was troubled with racial questions,
retarding her progress in other fields; Austria especially was a warning
example of a community, wherein reaction lived on kindling nation-
alistic passions. Everyone familiar with Europe, especially with the
Near East and central Europe, had to consider the solution of the
problems of nationaUty as one of the most important questions,
especially the question of readjustment; because, by. doing so, the
most senous obstacle to the successful efforts of the nations would be
removed from the field of political, economical, and cultural life.
Unfortunately this aim is not being considered, but, on the contrary,
many decisions were made which do not eliniinate those complica-
tions, but rather increase them, to the detriment of the nations in their
interior hfe and to the detriment of better international relations.
The disregard of the ethnological principle, the importance of
which is immense all over Europe, is especially obvious in the decision
regarding the frontiers of the JugOjSlav State. On the boundaries
between Jugo-Slavs and Magyars in former Himgary, and on the
boimdaries oetween Jugo-Slavs and Germans in former Austria,
especially in Carinthia, the former have been wronged, and there is an
undercurrent striving at still more reducing their national territory.
At this moment tnere are many other imsettled questions con-
cerning Juffo-Slav territory. But visible signs point to a great
danger for the Jugo-Slavs along the Adriatic littoral, where the vital
interests of the nation are at stake. Italy bases her claim on the
XmSATY OF PEAOB WITH GiBBMAKY. 109S
secret treaty of London, made at the time of her entry into the war,
and on alleged interests, detected since then, by demandiny^ big
5 arts of the territory, which ought by all rights to belong soldy to
ugo-Slayia. For this reason a dispute arose between these two
nations, about which the public is inadequately informed. It looks
like the whole dispute had been reduced to the Fiimie question,
while in fact the city of Fiume and her port are only a single point
of the whole problem, though a yerv important one in itself^ but
not so important as to becloud all otner interests of the Jugo-Slays,
shoying them into obliyion.
Eyerything Italy demands on the Eastern shores of the Adriatic
is to the detriment of the Jugo-Slays, and were the Italian demands
granted, about 600,000 Jugo-Slays would be cut oflf from their
nation and subjected to a foreign rule. We do not deny that there
are some Italians liying in the eastern coast land, but eyen if the
maximum demands of the Jugo-Slays be granted there won't be
within their borders as many Italians as there are Serbs, Croats,
and Sloyenes in a single city — ^Trieste — now claimed by the Italians
as their own.
The national statistics of the Adriatic Proyinces show:
Trieste: Italians, 118,959; Sloyenes, 59,974; Germans, 11,870;
total, 190,808.
Groriska (Gorizia) with Gradiska: Sloyenes, 155,039; Italians,
90,119; Germans, 4,500; total, 249,658. (Note.— The former
Austrian Proyince Goriska with Gradiska embraced also the Italian
Friuli, the territory west of Riyer Isonzo. Leaying this Italian
Friuli out, the population of the rest of the Proyince is purely Sloyene.)
Istria: Jugo-Slays (Sloyenes and Croats). 224,400; Italians,
145.517; Gennans, 12,735; total, 382,652. (The Italian population
of tne Istrian peninsula is concentrated in the cities along tne western
coast of the peninsula.)
Occupied regions of Calmiola: Slbyenes, 140,000; Italians, none.
Fiimie with Sushak and Trsat: Estimated population, 64,000;
of these are 24,000 ItaUans, 34,000 Croats (Jugo-Slays), and 6,000
others.
Dalmatia: Serbo-Croats. 612,669; Italians. 18,082; Germans, 3,081;
total, 633,778. (The Archipelago has, Serbo-Croats, 116,227; Ital-
ians. 1 ,563 ; a total of 1 1 7,790. )
Tne population according to the aboye census stands in the dis-
puted regions as follows:
Jugo-aays, 1,225,640; Italians, 396,737; others, 38,186.
It will be necessary to remark that the official census in these
Provinces was taken imder the supervision of the Austrian adminis-
tration, very inimical to the Jugo-Slavs. The method of taking
census was very original. The Austrian Government was loathsome
to have ascertained the real status of its nationalities, because this
would compromise its Germanizing ambitions. And because it was
not well possible to stamp all the inhabitants as Gennans, the census
was not taken as to theii* nationality but according to the colloquial
lan^age (Umgangssprache). This, of course, offered an oppor-
tunity for far-reaching falsifications of the real status. The victim
of this system were above all the Slavs, and to a greater extent the
Jugo-Slavs, the officialdom in their rrovinces being professedly
mostly German, respectively, in the coast-land Provinces, Italian.
1094 TREA^rt OF FBAOB WITH GEBliAlTEr.
And even if this fact could not be taken into consideration and if
the Austrian official statistics were considered as just to the Jugo-
slavs, it can not be denied that the Adriatic regions along the eastern
coast are nationally Jugo-Slav, for the Jugo-Slav majority is com-
5 taring to Italian mmority so strong that an Italian character of these
Provinces could not be construed by any artifice. Italy can not
demand these regions on account of their Italian character, becaa<c
they lack such a character. Therefore, she is trying to support her
ambitions with other arguments, taken from the storehouse of
obsolete State doctrines, wnich can not command any value in these
days of democracy.
There is before all the so-called historical argument. But history,
as applied bv the advocates of Italian ambitions to their defense, is
verv doubtnil. It may be sufficient to remember that modem
Italy dates back to the year of 1859 only, that she, therefore, coidd
not logically point to her possessions in the eleventh or thirteenth
centuries, when there did not exist a State known as Italy. Yet, if
it could be said that Italy is the heiress of the former Venetian
Republic, her demands even then would not be justified, or at least
not until it is proven that possessions of the former Venetian Republic
were justly acquired according to modem principles of right. Such
a proof is entirely impossible, because the national principle of so
powerful vitality in modem Europe did not play any part in the
conquests of the Middle Ages; regions conG[uered by Venice of yore
were not Italian and did not become Italian after the annexation.
Besides, it does not matter what character a country had five or
six hundred years ago, but what character it has to-day.
The Italian statesmen -specify also certain strategic reasons. In
this connection it is to be said that Austria — of which Italy bad
perhaps a reason to be afraid so as to ask special protection against
ner — is no more. A strategic importance is further attrlDUted
borders demanded by Italian diplomats at Paris. Their importance
is open to Question, however. The most natural geographic, stra-
tegic as well as linguistic frontier between It Jy and Jugo-Slavia
would bo the River Isonzo. It seems also that the great changes
brought about in the war technics have been forgotten altogether,
and that no stress is laid upon how rivers, mountains, and other
natural barriers lost their value since the war strategy and tactics
are making the use of modern technical appfiances of which no one
dreamt a short while ago.
But if the possessions of the Alps coidd really guarantee the
safety to Italy — although they do not — ^the obvious question arises
whether also Jugo-Slavia does not need the same safeguarding.
What Italy calls her safety, means danger for Jugo-Slavia. And
Jugo-Slavia's fear of Italy would be much more mstified, sooner
comprehensible, than Italy's fear of Jugo-Slavia. it is plain that
Italy desires to become the absolute mistress of the Adriatic. It
is revealed by her ambition to get all the northern ports in her hands
and to make herself secure also in Albania, thus acquiring the abso-
lute control of the Adriatic Sea. Now, the sea is an important
and a great natural way of communication and its importance is at
present foremost a commercial one. For Italy to have any materia!
benefit from her annexations, she must needs try to get "under her
control as much commerce of the Adriatic as possible. This again
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 1095
awakens the desire for new annexations in the Balkans. The first
step on this peninsula can not be the last. This in turn shows that
there will be no peace in the Balkans, that Europe will be a living
volcano, constantlv endangering the peace of the world. The blood
of the victims of tne Great War would have been then shed in vain.
The Jugo-Slavs long for a lust decision of their national question;
they desire this problem to aisappear from the world, because they
yearn to devote their energies to other tasks — in their own interests,
as well as in the interest of the international solidarity. The estab-
lishment of their own home puts them before an enormous task.
The national unity can not be their last aim, and is, indeed, a step
only toward a new life. The nation is confronted with great
difficulties, which can be overcome only with the greatest of effort.
Remember, please, gentlemen, this war showed no more mercy to
Jugo-Slavia than to Belgiiun or northern France, and many regions
were hit even much Imrder, because the Austrian Government
treated the domestic population more brutally than the enemy.
The economic conditions of the country are very critical. A united
national body is to be constructed from pieces, until now divided up
under different rules, aiming to estrange them still more against eacn
other. The educational system must be improved, for it was neg-
lected, partly through the hate of the foreign Governments and
partly through the everlasting struggles. A new life must be given
the terribly nurt agricultiure; industry must be lifted to a higher
standard; commerce must be set in order. But how can a fatigued
and exhausted country perform aU these tasks if there is no feeling
of safety and if a large portion of the nation remains outside of the
border, continually lookmg up to her for national help and support }
But even from the Italian standpoint it would not be wise to
press the annexation of a conspicuous part of a foreign element.
Until now, Italy was free from internal national struggles, which
have brought every European State enormous harm ; the fulfillment
of her imperialistic aims would overburden her with the same problem
which caused the death of Austria. A Jugo-Slav irredenta would
inevitably develop within her borders, disturbing the domestic
peace of Italy, provoking reprisals and reacting on uiem in the way
of all oppressed populations. The Jugo-Slavs are experienced in
such struggles from old Austria, which they tried to get rid of in
order to be free, but not to land after the first stroke of the liberty
bell under a new yoke.
The saddest is the fate which, oji account of the Italian aspira-
tions, looms before the Slovenes. Although they belong to the
Jugo-Slav race and desire to be united with it, a peculiar Slovene
language developed through the political separation, lasting many
centuries, and even were it feasible to expect from the future that
aU Jugo-Slav dialects would eventually melt into one lan^age,
such a process can not be attained in a day or so. For some time to
come we must reckon with the existence of an independent Slovene
language and literature. There is only one million and a half of
Slovenes who came to their present abodes in the sixth century and
soon became the prey of foreign rule, doomed for over a thousand
years to a life without any national schools, without their own
ofiicial institutions and courts — in short, without anything where
their language would be acknowledged and officially used. Not-
1096 TREATY OF FBAGE WITH GERMANY.
withstanding this fact and in spite of all oppression of the feudal
and; later, of the pseudoconstitutional period, this little nation
f>reserved its nationality and language and developed a remarkable
iterature. And now the Italian aspirations aim to cut off almost
one-third of this nation's body and cast it in a situation which would
be much more desperate than under the Austrian misrule, where it
was at least ethnologically united. It is hard to comprehend what
difficulties a small nation nad to go through in order to stand abreast
of other larger and happier nations in the field of culture. How
can it live culturally if, as small as it is. the nation were reduced to
1,000,000 souls; if one-third of its best lorces be simply taken awav
from it ? '
Italy is not reaching only for regions racially more or less mixed,
but demands the most purely Slovene and Croat r^ons, which
never had any Italian population, and which never even politically
belonged to Italy, or States of which Italy claims to be heiress.
Why, her aspirations reach even far into the Province of Camiola,
the nucleus of the whole Slovenia. And what the population of these
Provinces could expect, if annexed, we can see from the way the
occupied territories are treated by tne Italian Army, although those
regions are not yet Italy's property. The people and inhabitants
were deported, many national leaders were arrested, taken to Italy
and interned because of their national conviction; national schools
are being closed, Slavic children in their own country are forced to
attend Italian schools.
The Jugo-Slays are not looking for enmity with Italy. In the past
history friendship existed between these two nations. The Italian
culture was the nearest to the Jugo-Slavs and they have given to the
Italian nation a good number of cultural workers, writers, scientists,
etc. For the future they do not wish anything else but good, mutual
relations, and to have this, good will on botJi parts and mutual
trust are necessary, which can arise and exist on the basis of justice
only.
Therefore, the Jugo-Slavs claim justice. For it is of greater
strength than all strategical frontiers.
The Jugo-Slavs desire the possibilities for such a confidence. Was
not this war fought for right and justice, for democracy and for the
afety of small nations? Did not Italy, when our great United
States, without egotistic aims, without an inkling of longing for any
material gain, entered into this whirlwind, hear the id^ ainns, for
which the United States offered. their sons and treasures? Did not
all who accepted the unselfish help of America, silently accept also
her war aims and ideals? Everything, what America aimed to do
and all unfortunate nations were believing in, were publicly told.
This must have more weight than all secret treaties arrived at with-
out the knowledge and consent of the rest of the world, without even
knowledge and consent of the peoples bartered away as mere chatt^
in a ^ame.
It IS believable that the Governments, subscribing to these pacts,
did not know the actual conditions of the regions in the bargain.
But everybody knew that the 'President of the United States of
America had proclaimed that no nation, no matter how small, shall
be forced to five under a rule for which it does not care; that the
nations shaU not be the pawns of a diplomatic game, and that they
XBBATir OF FBAGB WITH GBBMAKY. 1097
shall not be bartered away from one sovereignty to another and
that all truly rustified aspirations be fidfilled.
All this the Jngo-Slavs neardi and believed it all. For these ideals
they offered supreme sacrifices. For these ideals the Jugo-Slavs
residing in the United States of America joined the American Army
as volunteers and enthusiastically and loyallv supported the Govern-
ment. They've done their bit nobly. Ana now they come before
you, gentlemen, pleading to preserve for them the faith in these
ideals. If the foundation of tnis faith be shaken, a great structure
will crumble and the souls of the nations will lose the support they so
badly need.
This faith of the Jugo-Slavs has been badly shaken, still they did
not lose it and they long that some one may strengthen their faith
anew. The Jugo-Slavs ask only justice for themselves.
We did not come with the intention of imposing our views upon
this honorable committee and have no ax to grind.
Gentlemen, pray, let us express otu: thoughts as dictated by the
innermost feehng of a downtrodden nation: Our people will Know
no limit of gratitude toward those willing to help our sorely tried na-
tion to defend its natural and God-given rights and to save it from an
injustice, which may punish not only otu* nation, but may perhaps,
revenge itself on the whole of Europe, and very likely, on the whole
civiUzed world.
Immeasurable shall be omr gratitude toward all who are helping
us in our nation's fierce struggle for justice and Hberty. We are not
asking for anything else. Justice is our ardent wish.
Grentlemen, we mank you in the name of our people, here and
abroad, f of having granted this delegation the opportumty of present-
ing a word in our nation's behalf before yomr honorable committee in
this exalted place.
Gentlemen, I respectfully submit this statement in the name of
this delegation of tne Jugo-Slav Republican Alliance, consisting of
the following: Etbin Kristan, chairman; Frank Kerze, Philip Goiuna,
Lazarovich Hrebelianovich, R. F. Hlacha, Josif Michailovitch, and
A. H. Skubic, secretary.
The Chaibman. May I ask you a question ? I understand your
people do not desire to unite with Serbia in the Serbian Monarchy.
Mr. EIristan. Oh*, yes; we want unity with Serbia and Monte-
negro.
The Chairman. You do ?
Mr. Kristan. We do.
The Chairman. I wanted to be sure about Uiat.
Mr. Salvatore A. Cotillo. ^fr. Chairman, if it will not interfere
with the procedure of this committee I should like to ask the speaker
what is the population of Fiume ?
The Chairman. The Italians wiU have their hearing to-morrow.
Mr. Cotillo. I wanted to be informed about that.
The Chairman. They will have their hearing to-morrow. Then, I
understand, Mr. Kristan, that you are speaking for the so-called Ser-
bian Monarchy ? ,
Mr. Kristan. No; we are representing the Jugo-Slav Republican
Alliance, an oi^anization of Jugo-Slavs in the Umted States.
The Chairman. I understand that, but do they wish to unite with
Serbia and Montenegro and have one State, or do they wish an inde-
pendent republic of their own t
1098 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBICANY.
Mr. Kristan. We wish unity with Serbia and Montenegro, only
we wish the American form of govemment applied to our State also.
The Chairman. Instead of a monarchy with Serbia?
Mr. EjEiisTAK. Yes.
The Chairbcan. That is all. We will hear the next speaker.
STATEHEHT OF MB. R. F. HLACEA.
Mr. Hlacha. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am, and have been,
a great friend and enthusiastic supporter of better relations between
Italy and Jugo-Slavia, because such friendly relations are in the
interest of botii. I am happy to call your attention to the views of
a distinguished Italian Liberal. The Italian Liberals show that the
spirit of Medina and of Garibaldi is still aUve in Italy. I was c|uite
sure of this all the time, but my friend, Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebeliano-
vich, wrote a letter to a personal friend of a person very high up in
the Italian Government, one of the highest ones, and he received a
letter from one of the Italian Liberals which mi^ht interest you very
much. Now, Messrs. Maronelli and Salvemini nave written a book
entitled '^La Questione dell' Adriatica'' — the question of the Adri-
atic— and I wish in the short time which I have to address you to
call attention to some of the statements of Mr. Maron^i in this
book. On page 2 of the introduction he says:
We have always stated that Italy ought to renounce her claims to the Slav terri-
tories which do not represent for her any vital interest » not because the '^renunciation"
would be an end to itself but because it is a necessary means for the establiahment
of an intimate Italo-Slav solidarity in order to win the war and to assure peace.
On page 11 he says:
Whoever, without prejudice and without arrogance, puts himself upon the bottom
of common sense and equity must rec'ognize that not only in the interest of the local
population, not only for the niilitary necessities of Italy, but for the future peace of
anti-German Europe, the only reasonable solution which can be given to the problem
of Julian Venezia is the following:
(a) The agereoation of Julian Venozia to Italy with that inland boundar}* which,
awarding to Italy to the east the least possible extension of Slav territory, would
create the necessary territorial continuity netween Gorizia and Pola, and give a satis-
factory line of military defence.
(b^ Right of free commercial and customs transit to all the inhabitants of the hinter-
land through the harbors of Trieste.
On page 62, on the subject of the question of Fiume, he says:
To exact the annexation to Italy of Fiume and therefore of all the territory sur-
rounding it and dividing it from Istria, with no more than 100,000 Slavs, is a true
national injustice.
On pa^e 74, still on the question of Fiunxe, under the bead of
''Conclusions/' he says:
Neither for military reasons nor in order to insure the liberty of culture and life to
the Italian element of Fiume, nor in order to protect the legitimate interests of the
harbor of Trieste, is the political annexation to Italy of tlie Libimiia necessarv. On
the opposite, this annexation would cause to Italy very grave difficulties lor the
administration of a region which is Slav in its overwhelming majority; and because
it is the only fit outlet which the 2,500,000 Slavs living in (>oatia have toward the
Adriatic; it would be a permanent cause of hostility between Italy and Croatia,
Mnthout any necessity or ad vantage for Italy, to the whole profit of Germany'." policy.
The only reeonable program which can be to-day proposed to Italy as to Julian
Venezia, is always that of 1866; among all possible boundaries to prefer that one which
assured the necessary defense of the national territory, may introduce in this territory
the least possible number of Slavs.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1099
On the question of Datmatia in presenting his conclusions he says:
1. Every conquest which Italy would perform upon the Dalmatian continent,
would represent for ur not a military strengthening but a military weakening.
2. Italy has to demand the disarmament of the entire Jugo-Slav coast.
3. In oraer to ^arantee to us the rule of the sea and the security of the coasts, indi-
cates that the disarmament of the Jueo-Slav coast would not be maintained, some
outlying islands of the Dalmatian Archipelago are sufRcient to us.
On page 119, in summing up his conclusions, he says:
The conquest of Dalmatia would be detrimental, not profitable, commercially, to
Italy.
Again, on page 253, he says:
The program of the Dalmatian conquest has driven its supporters to conceive this
war as a war directed rather against the Jogo-Slavia of to-morrow than against the
Austria of to-day. This is the explanation of the sustained campaign made by the
nationalists in order to make believe in Italy and in the allied and neutral countries
that the Croats and Slovenes were all pro-Austrians and bs Catholics, enemies of the
Serbs, who are orthodox.
To tell the truth, evervbody who had even a superficial information about things
Jugo-Slav knew very well that this was a purely Austrian theory. There is, on the
contrary, since many years, in all the Serbo-Croat countries, a wide movement striving
at the elimination of the damages caused by the religious struggles, and this move-
ment in which partidpato the Serbs of all parties and the libenl Croats against the
so-called party of the Croatian Right, clerical and pro-Austrian, headed by Dr.
Pranck — tnis movement * * * fias always triumphed in Croatia, notwithstanding
the Hungarian terrorism.
On page 260 he says :
The Dalmatian campaign has been launched in Italy by pro-Austrian clericals, by
pro-German Giolittianians, by brainless nationalists, and local irredentists.
It has increased the difRcuIties of our war and aroused against us suspicion and the
hoetility of all allied and neutral countries.
The conquest of Dalmatia, if it come true, would impel us in the after-war period to
a continuous policy of repression and' perfidy against the great majoritv of the popu-
lation. It would expose us to the international damage of bein^ hatea by the whole
world, as Austria was; it would drive the southern Slavs to an alliance against us with
Germany whether they succeed or do not succeed iu oiganizing a national unity.
And on page 229 he says:
And when we saw on our front the Slavs fighting desperately against us, instead of
surrendering in mass, as they have often done on the Russian front and on the Serbian
front, our ^inatics ot Slavophoby — sincere and insincere — drew therefrom new argu-
ments in order to envenom the Slavophobe campaign and to eive to Austria new
journalistic documents to be translated and circulate among the Slav soldiers and
to incite them against Italy. How many Italian soldiers have not been killed not by
the Austrian arms, but by the Slavophobe campaign of the Cippico, Tamaro, Dudan,
Copola, who in the meantime were snugly making war against the Slavs from the
trenches of Rome, Paris, and Stockholm?
Gentlemen, I have read these extracts in order to show that our
question can be settled on a liberal basis to the profit of both nations.
Senator Knox. Were the Jugo-Slavs heard before the peace con-
ference in Paris ?
Mr. Hlacha. They sent a delegation of Jugo-Slavs^ but I do not
think they came very much in contact with the Big Five.
Senator Moses. Who is the author of the book from which you
have read these extracts ?
Mr. Hlacha. Mr. Maronelli.
Senator Moses. Who is he ?
ifr. Hlacha. He is a professor in the university in Florence.
Senator Moses. Who was the high personage, the high official
whom you mentioned ?
1100 XBEAT7 OF FBACB WITH GEBMAITY.
Mr. Hlacha. I could not tell you that, but he was one of the high-
est ones. I do not feel at liberty to mention his name.
Senator Moses. An officer of the Italian Government !
Mr. Hlacha. Yes: a very high official.
Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter
about eight weeks ago to a personal friend of mine who had been years
ago foreign minister of the Italian Government, with whom I had
dealings in regard to Balkan affairs, I having been then at the head
of the Mediterranean committee. On this occasion he was again in
a very high position, and had a leading part in representing Italy,
and so I put to him our point of view by letter. A week ago I re-
ceived a letter accompanied by a few lines from a mutual friend, who
is the leader of a wing of the Liberal Party in the Italian Parliament.
Gentlemen of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the ques-
tion before the peace conference is not a matter of local
The Chaikmax. Has this witness given his name ?
Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich. Yes.
Senator Knox. Where do you reside ?
Mr. Lazarovioh-Hrebelianovich. I reside in New York, sir.
Senator Knox. Are you an American citizen ?
Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich. No, I am not an American
citizen. I am a Slav.
The Chairbian. I think, under the rule, we ciEin not hear you.
Senator Knox. No.
The Chairman. The committee has declined to hear anybody who
is not an American citizen. I am sorry.
Mr. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich. I am sorry, sir.
STATEHEVT OF MB. A. H. SEUBIG.
Mr. Skubic. I wish to state before I ^o any further that I am a
citizen of the United States and served m the Army of the United
States.
Senator Knox. Where do you reside ?
Mr. Skubic. I reside in the city of Chicago, 111.
There has been quite a propaganda going on in this coimtry that
the Jugo-Slavs will, according to the !u)ndon treaty, have all kinds
of ports and good ports on the Adriatic. This is not so. We have
seen maps that were circulated all over the country, in the press and
one way and another^ which show that Jugo-Slavia would have a
railroaa connection with the ports on the Croatian and Dalmatian
coasts. There is a small rauroad between Spalato, Sibenik, and
Knin. The road acts in connection with the inland.
The ports that could serve Jugo-Slavia would be Trieste and
Fiume. Why? Because all the railroad connections lead to these
two ports and the other ports on the Adriatic coast. On the Dalma-
tian coast they have no railroad connections with the exception of
that little narrow-gau^road that I have mentioned before.
Senator Swanson. What would prevent that narrow-gauge road
being made into a large road ?
Mr. Skubic. The thing is this: That this road is only built up to
Knin, and the Dinaric ltk)untains that come all alone the coast tnere
are so steep that there is no way of building any ram*oads, and even
Austria, wdo needed railroads in this coimtry lor her strategic and
military reasons, could not build those railroads.
TREATY OF 7EA0E WITH aBBlCANY. 1101
Senator Swanson. It is impossible to build any other large railroads
and have any other large centers on the entire coast ?
Mr. Skubio. I do not think is it impossible. I believs that if
Americans were there they could tunnel those mountains and come
through. Of course, whatever Americans attempt to do they carry
out. i think so, but out there vou must figure on this, that Jugo-
slavia is in a very critical financial condition. Jugo-Slavia is
almost bankrupt.
Now, here is a map showing the railroads as they are, showing the
narrowWe road, and showing the standard gui^e. Thirmap
shows that all the roads lead to Fiume or Trieste or Salonika or the
iBgean Sea, but there is none that would lead to the Adriatic coast
as near as the top of Dalmatia. Take for instance, the Slovine
country, Caniola, Goriska, Istra, Carinthia, and Stjrria. They have
a railroad at Lubljana. That is the center of Slavonia. From there
it takes three hours for a freight train to get down to Fiume, or prob-
ably four hours to Trieste. Now, should the Jugo-Slavs lose Fiume
or Trieste, do you know how long, gentlemen, it would take to send
a load of goods down, for instance, to any of the Adriatic ports t
This freight would have to go from Lubljana down to Zagreb, and
down to Brod. This would take 24 hours, gentlemen, for that car
to get from Lubljana toBrod.
Senator Bbandeoee. What is this distance in miles ?
Mr. Skubic. I reaDy can not tell, but it is about 200 kilometers,
or something Hke that, 150 miles. Now, from Brod, when the goods
arrive there, they would have to be all unloaded and reloaded on
the narrow-guage road. That narrow gauge is only that wide
[indicating]. Only about six or seven people can sit inone of those
Pullman cars, if you call them that. And after these goods were
reloaded, from Brod they would have to be taken down to Spalato
or Sibenik, which is another 24 hours, so from Lubljana to the
Adriatic it would take 48 hours. But if Jugo-Slavia had Trieste or
Fiume, it would take only 3 hours.
Now, gentlemen, that shows that Jugo-Slavia has got to have Fiume
because there is no other port that has any railroad connection with
the inland, with the exception of that narrow-gauge road.
Now, when we talk about nationalities, there are Slavs or Sloveni-
anB and Croats and Italians there. They are mixed, west of the
Isonzo River, and on the western coast of the peninsular of Istra.
According to the London treaty, Italy demands that all of the land
running almost on the eastern oorder of the Province of Grorizka as
fas as Idria, where is a world-known mercury mine. They take that
in, then they go on within a cannon shot of Lubljana, a pure Slovenic
city, which we expect to have for the capital of our enormous state of
Slavonia, a Jugo-Slavic State, and which run^ down and takes the
Adlesberger Grotto — ^most likelv many of you have heard of it; it is
a famous grotto, much larger than the one in Kentucky. And then
the line runs down to the onaebra or Snow Mountains.
From this line west for 150 to 200 kilometers there is nothing but
Slovenes and Croats. There are hardly any Italians to speak of in
this territory that Italy claims.
Senator Bbandeoee. I do not know as I understand your claim.
What disposition do you want made of Fiume other than that which
was made by the peace conference, Mr. Skubic ?
1102 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBRMA37Y.
Mr. Skubio. Gentlemen^ I really do not know what di^>08ition
was made of Fiume. That was not certain.
Senator Brandegee. That has been discussed. If it is given to
Jugo-Slavia^ you are satisfied , are you not? If the peace conference
gives Fiume to Jugo-Slavia you are satisfied, are you not t
Mr. Skubic. You mean to Jugo-Slavia ?
Senator Brandegee. Yes.
Mr. Skubic. We will be satisfied with that decision as far as
Fiume is concerned, of coiu^e, because we really think that the
Italian inhabitants in the city of Fiume are only a small island in
Jugo-Slav territory, which is a fact. I have a little map here which
shows that all around Fiume and even within the city proper, there
are Jugo-Slavs. And then for miles and miles around there are
Croats and Slovenes and Serbs.
We claim that Fiume, from an economic standpoint, gentlemen,
ought to belong to Jugo-Slavia. There ought to be no hankering
about it. Why? Take for instance the city of New York. We
have a pretty big Italian population up there. What would we
Americans say if any country should come and say "We want New
York just because our population is Italian. We want this part
of it. ^* I know the Americans would not do that, and I know another
thing that the Americans would never consent if any other nation
<;ame to this country and said to the State of California, '* We want
your San Francisco, and we want yoiu' port. You have got a whole
lot of ports upon the Atlantic, in New York, and since you are a
part oi the United States it is immaterial to you where, you get your
port.'' But we are all looking to something else. We know that
San Francisco belongs to California, and we know that the city of
Fiume belongs to the Jugo-Slavs.
Senator Harding. Are you also asking for Trieste ?
Mr. Skubic. Why we are not asking that it should be ours because
we think the city of Trieste ought to be internationalized. That is
in conformity with the wish of the people of the city of Trieste.
There has been a whole lot of propaganda going on that the citv of
Trieste wants to join her mother country, but this is not so. The
chamber of commerce of the city of Trieste, a body of business men,
of Itahan nationaUty, are against Trieste being taken under the
Italian rule. They are against it. What they want ia to form a
Uttle district of their own, and to come under international rule.
Of course, we Slovenes, have got pretty close to 60,000 men in the
city of Trieste and the whole vicinity is Slovenic.
Then again you probably heard the first speaker read the statistics
of the population m Goriska and Istra. I would leave that to the
men themselves. The Italian population of Groriska, with GradiscA,
on the west side of the river Isonzo, we call that ItaUan, and we
Slovenes never ask for that, and I do not think we ever did go on
record that we demanded the provinces of Gk)riska and Gradisca up
to the Austro-Italian border. Of course not. Of course we know
that west of the river Isonzo there is of course a predominance of
ItaUan population, and we are not asking for that part, although in
that Italian part we have a large Slovenic population. But we
know that since Italy went to war on the side of tne AlUes, it will be
favored, so we know that if there are any favors to be given, they will
be given to Italy. So therefore we are not making any demands for
any of this Italian territory.
TREATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1103
Not only that, but on the coast line to the peninsula of Istria — ^that
is, the western part of it — there are quite a few towns. There are,
for mstance, Capo d'Istria, Novi Grad, rorec, and Rovin. These cities
have a population running from 10,000 to 60,000. These cities are,
so to speak, little nests situated on the western shores of this penin-
sula, and that is where the Italian population is concentrated. You
go 5 kilometers or 4 miles from the shore away from these little cities
and tuATis and you will find nothing but Croats; that is, a branch of
the Jugo-Sla'vs. So if we take the population of these cities and
compare it with the census, and also tlie population west of the river
Isonzo, we will find that the Provmce of Gradisca, and aho Istra, all
the way from the River Isonzo east, and all the way from Trieste down,
that narrow strip is purely Jugo-Slav, and, if that territory was given
to tne Jugo-Slavs, you would not find as many Italians as there would
be Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs in the city of Trieste, providing tnat
Italy gets Trieste, wnich she claims is hers now.
Now, gentlemen, it is nothing but fair that I emphasize this point
that one brancn of the Jugo-Slavs, the Slovenes, nave probably only
one and a half million. It is a smaU nation that came to these parts
of the country, where they live now. Six or seven hundred years ago
they came here and as soon as they settled grabbed for the plow.
Foreign rule got there and had them enslaved for nearly a thousand
years. They were slaves right. This little nation was for nearly a
thousand vears \vithout anv national schools, without anv books,
without national courts. If they called a poor farmer, he would come
to court and could not speax anvthing nut his own language, and
there he was questioned m the (rerman language. But m spite of
all this oppression and enslavement our little nation preserved its
nationality and preserved it well.
In the vear 1800, durine the time of the Napoleonic war, I do not
believe tnere were any Slovenic .books. But to-day we can say
that there are only 7 per cent of the Slovenes that can not read or
Mrrite.
Now, gentlemen, this is a pretty good percentage whioh shows
that this little nation is muscular, has tne will, and can not be stricken
dead or erased off the face of the earth.
Senator Branbeoee. When you speak about their being slaves,
you do not mean that they were really slaves ?
Mr. Skubic. Up to 1848 there was the feudal period. At that
time they were nothing but common slaves, workmg for the land-
lords, and so forth. Tiiey were the feudal tenants, out in fact, as
a nation, they were enslaved.
Senator Brandegee. During tliis feudal period did they get any
pay for their work ?
Mr. Skubic. They got very little, barely their existence. That
is all. But in 1848 — that is the time when Austria had need of the
help of the Slovenes and Jugo-Slavs, when she was threatened with a
great upheaval, and the fight which struck her just now during this
war, tiien she gave a few their constitutional rights, wliich the old
Emperor Joseph ignored.
Senator Brandegee. What differentiates a Slovene from a
Slovak ?
1104 T8BATT OF FBAOB WITH aBBMAlTT.
Mr. Skubic. a Slovene, let me explain — probably it would interest
you to have me explain the word " Jugo-Slav."
Senator Brandeoee. That means southern Slav 1
Mr. Skubic. That means southern Slav. Now the southern Slavs
live on the Balkans. The Balkan Slavs are Slovenes. The north-
western branch take the northwestern part of the Balkans, then come
the Croatians — they are the Slovenes' neighbors — then come the
Serbs, and of course then there are the Bulgars, who are Jugo-Slavs.
Senator Brandeoee. Can they understand each other— speak the
same general lan^age ?
Mr. Skubic. Txiey can. There is only a little difference between
the dialect of the Croats and the Bulgars. Practically we can under-
stand one another well, and can talk and read their books, one thing
and another.
Senator Moses. Anybody knowing the Serbian tongue can talk to
you?
Mr. Skubic. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Is the print the same as English letters ?
Mr. Skubic. The Slavs and the Croats use the Catin letter; the
Serbs have had the Cyrilic, but most of the Serbs also use the Latin
letter.
The Chairman. You do not consider the Bulgars pure Slavs, do
you?
Mr. Skubic. We really do not figure on them having anything to
do with the case. Our program is to make a central republic on the
order of the United States, so that Slovenia will have their autonomy
and the Croats will have theirs, the Slavs theirs, and the Montenegrins
theirs.
Senator Brandeoee. Do the Bulgars have Slavic blood in them i
Mr. Skubic. They have. It has even been stated that the Greeks
centuries ago were Slavs.
Now the question is, as I started out to say, whether Jugo-Slavia
will get from a commercial standpoint Fiume and the country north-
west of Fiume, which is apparently Jugo-Slav, and I think that the
argument and the reasons are in favor of Jugo-Slavia's case. There
is no other way of getting out of it, to settle the question as it ought
to be settled, namely, that a port that serves one country ought to
belong to that countrjr, and if the Jugo-Slavs are shoved ai the coast,
that means commercial death for them. But they want to live.
They want to have commercial relations with other people, and the
sea IS the only feasible and the cheapest way of getting in touch with
other countries. Now, we do not want anyboay to come and lock
up the Adriatic. We do not want to lock it up ourselves. If we
should get the city of Fiume or Trieste, we do not care to lock them
up to other nations, because we think that justice demands that
those who have no access to the sea should have a way to come down
to the sea.
We are only asking for justice, gentlemen, and I think that justice
ought to be given us. I thank you.
The Chairman. Is there anyone else who desires to be heard. You
have 15 minutes more if you want.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1105
STATEXEKT OF MB. FRAHK KEBZE.
The Chairman. Where do you live?
Mr. Kerze. Chicago, 111.
The Chairman, iou are an American citizen?
Mr. Kerze. Yes, sir; for the last 10 years.
Senator Brandegee. What nationabty were you before?
Mr. Kerze. A Slovenian.
Senator Knox. What is your occupation, please?
Mr. Kerze. I am editor and publisher of the Slovenian Review.
Gentlemen of the committee, I will not be able to explain the
whole position, but I would like to make clear just a few questions.
We do not want to interfere with tbe affairs of this great Republic.
The most of the Jugo-Slavs wl^o came to this coimtry will stay in
this country, because there is but one America. But our duty
was, when that great historical opportunity came that the Jugo-
Slavs should be heard for the first time, to state our case. Before
this great war was started we knew very well about Central America,
we Imew about the 3,000 of the Eskimos, but the great majority oi
the world's intelligence did not know anything about the Jugo-Slavs.
Why ? Because it was in the interest of Austria-Hungary and Ger-
many that the Jugo-Slavs be shown as barbarians to tne r^t of the
world, so that Germany and Austria one day could take their armies
and Germanize on then* way to the east.
Gentlemen, Jugo-Slavia, or at least some parts of it, has been in
history never free. Now is a great historical moment, and we are
here living in this country, working for this coxmtry, but still we feel
that they are our brothers. We feel that the great mstorical moment
is here when we come to speak before the pubKc for the independence,
for the liberty of the Jugo-Slav nation.
Gentlemen, we have here the statistics that clearly show that the
majority of the land claimed by Italy belongs to Jugo-Slavia; but,
gentlemen, I want to be just. It is impossible that we should require
from everybody that they would study the local conditions of such
a small strip of land, where we are. used to count by millions and
hundreds of millions; but I would suggest that the small nation feels
an injustice just as much as the great one, and justice is not the privi-
lege of the great nation. Injustice does not hurt only a big nation,
but it hurts everybody, and we are here to ask for our brothers in
the old country nothing but what is just. There are differences
about the Istrians and about the Gorizians. Those countries would
be very well satisfied to be under a commission so long as the parties
who live there, the* Jugo-Slavs and Italians, would be satisfied; but
that is a question for the people of the nationalities who live there,
not for the diplomats at raris. No matter how they decide it I do
not think that anybody would be satisfied. Both parties would be
satisfied only one way, so that the aCTeement would be made by both
parties, every party given some of tnis and some of that, and I hope
that an understandi^ could be reached anyhow.
^1 Gentlemen, we thank you very much for the first great opportunity
on the part of the Jugo-Slavs, especiaUv the Slovenes and Croats, to
ap})ear before such an honorable bociy as this committee of the
T.nited States Senate.
Senator Knox. This treaty created a Jugo-Slav State ?
136646—19 ^70
1106 TRBATY OF FBACE WITH QEBMAITr.
Mr. Kebze. Yes.
Senator Knox. I think we should get it more clearly in our minds
in what respect that State, as created oy the treaty, is unsatisfactory.
Mr. Kebze. Not only by the Adriatic question but by other
questions.
Senator Knox. That is what I want to get at.
ISx. Kerze. By the boundary on the north. That is a question
that is at issue.
Senator Knox. That is the Fiume question ?
1^. Kebze. Not only the Fiume question, but about 600,000
Slovenes, there. I think Fiume was taken purposely only to get
peoples' thoughts awa^r from more important questions.
Senator Knox. I think it is very essential to our proper under-
standing of your cause, if it is not already in one of these documents
that you have already prepared, that you should submit a document
showing in just what respect the Jugo-Slav State created by the
treaty is unsatisfactory to the Jugo-Slavs, and have a definite,
specific issue before lis.
Mr. Kebze. We have prepared for this honorable body a statis-
tical map which gives you tms idea as clearly as possible. This map
was made according to the Austrians' statistics which we have
only from 1910.
Senator Swanson. You oppose, as I understand, giving to Italy
Dalmatia, and other ports on the Adriatic, according to the secret
treaty of London ?
Mr. Kebze. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. Do you object to Fiume being internationalized ?
Mr. Kebze. Gentlemen, what woulH be a hinterland without &
seaport ?
Senator Swanson. If it is internationalized you could make
another seaport.
Mr. EuBBZE. A seaport is not built in one or two years. It is a
work of many years, and the whole land behind makes sacrifices
to build those seaports up.
The Chaibman. The secret treaty of London gave Croatia to the
Jueo-Slavs.
Senator Swanson. Yes; and I imderstand it gave a part of the
coast of Dalmatia and the other coast to Italy.
Mr. Kebze. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. You are not satisfied with the London treaty
and are not satisfied with Fiume being made anintemationalport,there*?
Mr. E^EBZE. No, sir; I am not satisfied with that secret treaty.
Senator Swanson. As Senator Ejiox says, what is it, specifically,
that you want different from what has been decided?
Mr. Kebze. It is, specifically, this. We want everything that
belongs to us, and we will give everything that does not belong to us.
Senator Swanson. What belongs to you ? TTiat is what we are
trying to find out.
Mr. K^EBZE. As the map will show you, there are parts where there
are fewer Jugo-Slavs, where there are not one-half of 1 per cent of
Italians, and still Italy claims that, for strategical reasons, she must
have those Jugo-Slavs.
Senator Bbandeoee. Does your map show the boundaries of Jugo-
slavia the way the treaty demies them, and also the way you would
like to have tnem ?
TRSATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMANT. 1107
Mr. Kebze. No, it does not show that.
Senator Bbandegee. Can you, after this hearing closes, mark on
your niap here the territory you would like to take in, and also what
you thiuK is justly due to you ?
Mr. Kebze. Well, the most natural boundary would be — ^what we
want is everything t^at is marked Jugo-Slav land [indicating on map].
Senator Bbandegee. In blue ?
Mr. Eebze. Yes.
Senator Bbandegee. All right.
Senator Habding. You said that these lines you did not want estab-
lished by two or three diplomats. How do you propose that they
should be established ?
Mr. Kebze. I propose that they should be made between the terri-
tory where the Itahans and the Jugo-Slavs are, and only the land
that belongs to the city, because a city without lands can not exist;
and those lands should be put imder an international committee,
and have the parties who are to be satisfied find a way of solution.
They will find it, certainly, in the end.
Senator Habding. Do you want to leave it to a league of nations
to determine ?
Mr. Kebze. Well, gentlemen, the league of nations is another
question. I think the league of nations as the result of the peace
conference was not the very best.
Senator Habding. What I was trying to get at was just how you
would have it decided. Do you want the intervention of the Senate
in deciding this disposition of territory? Do you want it left to a
plebiscite! the ten^tory concerned ?
Mr. Kebze. No.
Senator Habding. Do you want a reconsideration by the • peace
conference? You are expressing your wishes to this committee.
Precisely how do you want this undertaking in behalf of your brothers
in Europe undertaken ?
Mr. Kebze. Well, any way which would help to justice. A plebis-
cite would be the best way. If we take the boundaries of tne old
Austria, the boundaries which the London treaty claims, we are
satisfied that a plebiscite be taken in those lands.
Senator Pomebene. How would you define the question so as to
submit it to a plebiscite ?
Mr. Kebze. The question ? Well, the plebiscite would be under
a neutral Government. The best Government in the world, there is
no question about it, is the United States Government. We are
entirely willing to submit our questions to this Government.
The Chaibman. Now, on the north of Jugo-Slavia, how about the
Hungarian boimdary? You know we have nad the Hungarians here
and they have protested most vigorously that we have given all the
relief to Jugo-Slavia.
Mr, Kebze. Well, I guess either of the nations which is directly or
indirectly interested in this peace would be dissatisfied. The Hun-
garians are dissatisfied and tne Jugo-Slavs are the same.
The Chaibman. By ^* Hungarians'* I mean the Magyars.
Mr. Kebze. The Magyars; yes, sir. We hia,ve quite a^ood popu-
lation in Hungary; but Himgary, there, before the war was a great
nationalistic state. There was no language allowed but the Him-
garian. We had some Slovenes there, and it was not permitted to
us to use our language in the schools or in the courts, or any place.
1108 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
The Chairman. Have you anything further to add? That is al
unless you wish to say something furtner.
Mr. Kerze. I thank you, genuomen. T guess that I am through.
The Chairman. Is tli'ere anybody else who wants to say anything?
You have five minutes left.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP OODIHA.
Mr. GoDiNA. I am a naturalized citizen of the United State?,
living in the State of Indiana, Marion County, city of Indianapolis:
at present living in Chicago. I am not a well educated man. I just
happen to have been bom in those occupied territories, and I simply
feel, as an American citizen, as I have some relatives there— of
course I have no intention to get anything there, or anything like
that; I am intending to live here, but I say, gentlemen, it is abso-
lutely wrong. I came from close to Trieste. Iwas bom 4 or 5 miles
from there and raised there, living there until I was 22 vears old
before I came to the United States. Personally, I can tell vou the
way it looks now, if they are going to let it go tnis way, absolutely it
means a new war. Tne people ofJugo-Slavia, as stated by previous
speakers here, will never give up ; or, before they will give up they
will have a great grudge against all parties concerned in it.
I feel, as an American citizen, also, that I would like to help if I
can, and as this opportunity has been given to me here before this
honorable committee I wish to appeal U) vou, gentlemen, if there is
any way possible, to help solve tnis problem for the benefit of this
oppressed nation over there, and also for the benefit of the whole of
Europe; and also, I feel, for the benefit of the United States in the
future. Perhaps it may involve us some way or other so that we
will have to send some more of our boys over there, as it was laid
down here by.diflferent speakers, to help out, to solve this problem;
so that in the future we will have no such brutality of wars as we have
now; so that at least all this warfare and the bloodshed in this war
would not be in vain.
I wish to state, gentlemen, that my opinion is — and it is not my
opinion only but the opinion of at least, I should say, about 750,000
Jugo-Slavs living in this coimtry, those that are citizens and those
that are not citizens — that the matter the way it stands at present
is very wrong, and we feel also that the United States will hdp,
whatever is in its power. We have tried our best to explain the
position. I am very glad that you gave us a chance to come before
you, and I thank you very much in the name of all the Slovenes
and others throughout the United States, citizens, and members of
this alliance.
The Chairman. The hour of 12 having arrived, it is necessary to
close the hearing. The Italians are to be heard to-morrow at 10
o'clock in this room^ and that will be the last hearing; there will be
no more public heanngs of this character.
There will be an executive meeting of the committee in the Capitol,
in the room of the Foreign Relations Committee, at 3 o'clock this
afternoon. .
(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Friday, September 5, 1919, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
FBIDAY, SEFTEMBEB 5, 1919.
UNiTBa) States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington^ D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m.,
in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge
presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Knox, Harding, Moses, and
Swanson.
The Chairman. As our time is short, we will begin. Kepresenta-
tive LaGuardia has an engagement which requires his going away,
and as he desires to speak for only a few minutes we will hear
him.
STATEMENT OF HON. FIOBELLO H. LaOTJABDIA, A B£FEES£NTA-
TI7E IN CONGBESS FBOM THE STATE OF NEW YOBK.
Mr. LaGuardia. Mr. Chairman, I want to give the committee and
the Senate the benefit of any information which I may have with
reference to Fiume. I lived there for a period of three years, when
I was American consular agent at that port.
Senator Moses. When was that?
Mr. LaGuardia. That was from 1904 to 1906, I served as acting
consular agent for ayear before that. I was there three years.
The Chairman. Were you bom in this country ?
Mr. LaGuardia. Certainly. I was bom in my own congressional
district, and raised in Arizona.
The Chairman. That is what I thought.
Mr. LaGuardia. I am personally acquainted with the majority
of the men who now form the National Council of Fiume. I was
intimately associated with Mr. Zanella, who was a refugee living in
Italy during the war, while I was there in the American Army.
I want to point out to the committee that the people of Fiume are
Italian in spirit, blood, language, and in every way. They were an
independent body, known as a corpus separatum, and annexed to
Hungary. They made their own laws. Their municipal govern-
ment consisted of two legislative bodies and a mayor, and they sent
one deputy to the Hungarian Government.
The Chairman. They sent one deputy to the Hungarian Parlia-
ment?
Mr. LaGuardia. They sent one deputy to the Hungarian Parlia-
ment.
The Chairman. And he was an Italian ?
Mr. LaGuardia. He was an Italian during my stay there. Zanella
was the deputy during my time, and he was followed by Vio. I think
the present deputy is Ossoinack, and I think Zanella's predecessor
was a man by the name of Meylander.
The language of the municipality of Fiume is Italian. The two
chambers of the municipal government conduct all their proceedings
in Italian. The language of the port is Italian. The language of
tLc muni ipal court is Italian. The city of Fiume maintains its own
1109
1110 TREATY OF FBAOE WITH GERMANY.
schools, which are entirely Italian, and the same is true with the
academy for the merchant marine. It is true that in the suburb of
Fiume, called Sussak, the greater portion of the population are
Croatians. I believe that the President is of the belief that the
Fiume question can be settled by taking in Suasak with it as one
port. Even to that there is no objection, because the spirit of the
port of Fiume, including Sussak, would be Italian.
I do not know what claims the Croatians may set forth as to
Fiume. I want to testify to the very fine fighting Qualities of the
Croatians. They fought hard to the last hour of the last day of
the war. I know that, because I fought against them.
When we were in Paris with the Committee on Military Affairs
of the House of Representatives we called on the President It was
just at the time of the Italian break, and he expressed his views
on Fiume. I know he fears that if Fiume should be annexed to
Italy the Italians would sacrifice the port of Fiume to the interests
of Trieste. I do not believe any such fears are justified, because
the existence of Fiume depends upon its commerce. It is con-
nected with Hungary by one line of railway and all of its business
is a j)ort business exclusively. There are no industries there, or
there is very little industry. ' There is no room for building indus-
tries of any kind, so that its very existence depends upon its business
as a port.
Senator Moses. As a matter of fact the development of the port
of Fiume at present depends upon the activities of the Cunard
Steamship Co. very largely, does it not ? Unless the Cunard Steam-
ship Co. transfer their terminus to Trieste, Fiume will go right on
as the great port that it has been ?
Mr. LaGuardta. The Cunard Steamship Co. during my time and
ever since have run a line from Fiume to New York; but the bulk
of the Fiume traffic was maintained by the Adria Steamship Co.,
which ran to the west.
Senator Moses. The Austrian line took the eastbound traffic?
Mr. L.\GuARDiA. The Austrian line took the eastbound traffic and
the Adria line took the traffic to the west.
Senator Moses Then there is also a line which runs to Cattaro —
the Croatian line?
Mr. LaQuardia. Yes. That is the coast line. Fiume is the nat-
ural port to the near east, and the traffic of Fiume will be main-
tained.
Now I want to point out that I do not believe that the Serbo-
Croatian-Slovene kingdom can last. They are not in harmony.
The Serbians are divided among themselves. A large portion of the
Serbian people do not want to continue to cast their destiny with
the Kara] eoro vie dynasty. The Serbians are fighting with the Monte-
negrins. The Croatians want a republican form of government and
not a kingdom, so that to turn Fiume over to the Jugo-Slavs would
be only adding more territory to the continuous strife and struggle
which is bound to occur in the Balkans until that situation is fuTlv
cleared up.
Another thing I want to point out is this, that it is not so much
the claims of Italy to Fiume as it is the desire and will of the
natives of Fiume to be liberated from the Hapsburgs ; to get away
from Hungary and Croatia and Austria : to establish their own in-
TBEATY OF PEACB WI^H GEBMANY. 1111
dependent form of government and to be annexed to Italy. It is
their daim which appeals to me more than anything else.
In February, 1918, while we were down in Italy training, I had
occasion to endeavor to interpret point nine of the fourteen points.
In wartime one tries to do anything. The morale in Italy was some-
what low, and they did not have much confidence in just what the
point nine meant. That was the point which promised to readjust
the boundaries of Italy according to easily recognizable lines of
nationality.
Senator Moses. Were you able to interpret that point satisfac-
torily?
Mr. LaGuardia. As I said before, Senator, in war time you will
do almost anything, you just have to do it; and so in order to keep
up the morale of the people I embraced everything that really was
Italian in the Adriatic, and told them that that took it in. So I am
somewhat concerned personally in this, to that extent.
Senator Moses. You now want your word made good.
Mr. LaGuardia. I want my word made good. I feel somewhat
embarrassed.
I have here a telegram which I would like to put into the record.
It is from Chevalier Barsotti, of the Progresso, in which he quotes a
telegram just received from Paris which purports to say that the
Fiume situation is solved, depending upon the approval of the Presi-
dent, and I will put this into the record.
(The telegram referred to is here printed in the record as follows:)
[Weatern Union telegram.]
New York, N. Y., June 12,
Conjrressiiian LaGuardia,
Hovse of Represefitativcs, Washington, D. C.
I quote from our Paris correspondent the following ))oints of one of to-day *8
cables. " Tlttonl returned from Deauville where met George' to discuss Fiume
problem. From reliable source, I learn Tittoni is satisfied attitude George
who promised solicit Wilson take definite decision about Fiume. In fact, Tittoni
returned without any concrete solution problem and that disocurages Italian
circles Paris where they realize because of the mechanism of the conference
Italian aspirations must depend on Wilson discretion whose ideas and deci-
sions are well known. They despair the solution Italian problem is near and
foresee serious consequences. Best regards."
Cav Barsotti,
Editor II Progresso ftalo Americano.
The Chairman. What is the nature of that solution?
Mr. LaGuardia. I do not know what it is, Senator. When I was in
I*aris — I believe I can tell this — ^you recall at the time the Italian
delegation had gone away, they had left • Minister Crespi, whom
I knew very well. He was food controller when I was at the
Italian front. I called on him and asked him if there was anything
I could do, and I also called on Col. House. Col. House was
A'ery sympathetic toward the Fiume question, and when I left there —
I thinlc it was the 9th of May, I was of the belief that the question
of Fiume would be satisfactory settled in this way: Fiume and
Sussak would be considered as the port of Fiume, that would consti-
tute an independent government and be annexed to Italy, with guar-
anties of free passage for traffic from the Hinterland to and from
the port, a free port in every sense of the word. Then Italy would
1112 TREATY OF PfiACE WITH GEBMAKT.
five up ce]f>tain of the Greek Islands, I understand, and the cities of
ara and Sebeonico would be free cities. I thitlk that is what the
Tardeau compromise provided, and that, as you know, after having
been agreed upon was again bluepenciled by the President, which
offended the Italians again, so that the matter remained unsettled.
Now it seems they have arrived at another compromise, which is
subject to approval here in Washington.
The Chairman. Anything more?
Mr. LaGuabdia. No. I want to give the committee the rest of
the time.
Senator Harding. Just what do you mean by "approval here in
Washiiigton?" *
Mr. C^GuARDiA. From press dispatches, I gather, and from the
telegram which I read into the record, it seems that France, Italy,
and England have agreed on this solution and it has been submitted
to President Wilson for approval.
Senator Harding. Not to our American conunissioners over there?
Mr. LaGuardia. No. That is what I gather from the press and
from this telegram.
Mr. CoTnxo. I wish to introduce Prof. Alexander Oldrini, an
American citizen, representing the Italo-Irredentist Society.
The Chairman. What is your name?
Mr. CoTiixo. S. A. Cotillo, State Senator from New York, repre-
senting the Eighteenth district.
The Chairman. In the Senate?
Mr. Cotillo. In the Senate.
STATEHENT OF FBOF. ALEXANDER OLDBIBI, FBESIDEHT OF THE
ITALIAN IBBESENTIST ASSOCIATIONS OF AMEBICA.
Mr. Oii>RiNi. Mr. Chairman, for myself, as an American citizen of
Italian descent, my colleagues also American citizens, and the Fed-
erazione of the Italian Irredentists Association of the United States,
I beg to thank you for the honor and the privilege afforded us to state
at this hearing before your committee tne mam reasons, facts, and
rights for which Fiume and Dalmatia, a part of Italy's national
aspirations, should be defended by the United States Senate of
America with regard to that part of the treaty with Austria which
governs the subject. That is, why should Fiume and Dalmatia be-
come a part of the Italian body politic?
The name of the city of Fiumo. a little speck on the map of Europe
is an advance sentinel of democratic civilization in contact with the
influences of central, eastern, and southern Europe; it assumes a
transcendent importance with legard to Italians and to the demo-
cratic Latin and Anglo-Saxon nations in the conflict now going on,
and extending, of the Bolshevik leveling program of Slav-Russia
and associates.
For a basical understanding of the Fiume self-determination in its
relation with the Italian aspirations in the Adriatic it is paramount
to call first your attention to the physical lines of the defense of
democratic civilization in Europe itself.
The line of defense of Roman civilization has been for 500 years
along the Rhine and the Danube. When that immense dam broke^
THEATY OF PEACE WITH OEBBlAmf. 1118
Liatin civilization foundered with the jus gentium proclaimed by
Rome, almost to its disappearance for centuries, until a new scien-
tific and Italian civilizing power spread over Europe and the world,
in the ^plendors of the renaissance of arts and the discoveries of
science. Never more so humanly perfect collective expressions of it,
as in the namei of Gallileus, Leonald, Raphael, Michael Angelo, and
Columbus, the giants of '' Renaissance."
Now, passing from the fifteenth century to the twentieth, during
which this second Latin civilization spread all over Europe, reaching
America, we have arrived at the necessity of a new form of civiliza-
tion, international in character, over and above conflicting social
theories. Honorable Senators, it is still in Europe that this new form
of civilization must be defended by Latin and Anglo-Saxon democ-
racy against militarism and Bolshevism theories and might. And
this time no more behind the Rhine and the Danube, but from the
Northern Sea to the Rhine, and from the Rhine along the watershed
of the Alps from Switzerland to Retia, Camic, Julian^ Velebit, and
Dinaric Alps until you reach Albania. Should the United States of
America allow it to be pierced at any point, should you allow the
Adriatic line from Fiume, the apex of the defense — that is, the eastern
pillar of the new dam— to be undermined by visionary conceptions of
an instant or future i>ossible Wilsonian European Arcadia, it is my
opinion that democratic civilization would suffer at the hands of tur-
bulent eastern and southern Slav elements right now, viz, before they
could polarize into orderly democratic States.
Fiume and Dahnatia in the vast reorganization and rejuvenation
of political Europe assume, therefore, a position of immediate con-
sistency of paramount value. Not only for the city itself or even for
Italy but in the broadest sense for civilization.
Coming to Fiimie herself these facts are already known to you,
first, that in the first fortnight of October, 1918, upon a proclamation
of the then Austrian Emperor, every one of the Crown lands of the
empire was admitted to self-determination. Fiume, a separate polit-
ical body in the dual monarchy, declared then before the Hungarian
Parliament, through her deputy, the Hon. Andrea OissnacK, her
independence. And October 29, that is before the final victory of the
Italian armies and tiie foundering of the dual monarchy as such,
the city of Fiume by popular vote proclaimed through the organiza-
tion of its present national council not only political independence
but also her self-determination to join the Italian motherland,
Sutting herself temporarily under the protection of the American
emocracy.
The cable^am addressed to your committee by the National
Council of Fiume, the only authority elected and recognized by the
Fiumeans, and read by you, Mr. Chairman, on the floor of the
Senate, is a document that we American citizens beg to submit to
the Senate under its rules that this and other docmnents which will
be submitted may properly come under the consideration of the
Senate in the discussion of that part of the treaty with Austria which
will affect Fiume and Dalmatia.
I purposely avoid any reference to the first part of the treaty to
Austria and to anything that may have happened or shall happen
at the peace conference in Paris, only aiming capitally to furnish
1114 TREATY OF FBAGB WITH OEBHANY.
in a summary form the main reasons underlying Fiume's unmis-
takable self-determination, as follows :
Geographical reasons, historical reasons, ethnographic and philo-
logicaf reasons, economic and commercial reasons, and political
reasons.
Oeographical reoions. — ^The city of Fiume is situated at the eastern
base of the i>eninsula of Istraia, a part of continental Italy. It is
located within the Julian Alps, between Mount Nevoso and the
Velebit Massif^ forming the pass of Fiume, which, if not under
immediate Italian control, is an easy gate of invasion. Two bar-
barian invasions, in fact, of grand style have forced in 410 and 943
A. D. their destructive Hun masses into the very heart of Italy.
Hence Fiume, according to her location, is within the orographic
Alpine boundaries of the Italian Peninsula, covering in her suzer-
ainty 10,000 square miles. .
In speakinj^ of the geographic location of the city of Fiume it is,
perhaps, usenil to state at once the existence of the city of Sussak,
a suburb on the left shore of the stream Fiumara, a confluent of
the River Eneo, because her Slav majority has been used by an
Austrian imperial statistician — and but yesterday before you by the
Slavs of the south — with a view to swell the number ox Slavs in
Fiume's statistics.
I shall speak of population and statistics later on, but it is useful
to state at once that Sussak only about 30 years ago was a small
village, where the Italian language was prevalent, that has been since
1866 colonized by Slav elements under the activities of Vienna, a>
was the ancient Italian cities of Dalmatia herself, in order to
denationalize them all.
Historical reasons. — ^Three hundred years before Christ the first
Romans occupied the section which is now that of Fiume, at the head
of the Adriatic, and fortified it with strategic walls, the ruins of
which are still excellent, indicating that since those days the stra-
teric importance of what was afterwards the Oppidum of Tarsatica.
It is due to the municipal or communal organisms of Roma body
politic that Latin civilization did not disappear under Hun, Slav,
and Mongol invasions into Italy when the military dam of the
empire, the Rhine and the Danube, gave way under their masses and
might.
Fiume emerges in the thirteenth century, after the destruction,
when invasions in Italy were diminishing in the form of a free Ital-
ian municipality or commune, to remain such to our own days. In-
flexibly, immutably, although passing^ in the course of centuries under
different influences and rules: the Franks, the princely patriarchs,
bishops, archbishops of feudalism, until in 1471 she fell under the
hegemony of the House of Hapsburg.
In 1530 Fiume, that had status of her own, received additional
ones, that is, two councils presided over by two judges (Duumviri)
and a caesarian captain. Thus, chosen from the leading citizens of
Fiume and put under oath to respect the municipal statutes of the
city, by the Duumviri or judges, the sundics or mavors, and the
people assembled.
TREATY OF PEACB WITH GERMANY. 1115
In 1776 Empress Maria Theresa, upon the insistent request of the
Fiumeans, made Fiume territory over to Hungary, but as a separate
political body (^^ corpus separatum adueraem regni coronse^').
It is tmder these very summary historical premises that Fiume
reached the middle of the last century, when, in the revolutionary
movements that shook the Hapsbur^ Empire, 1848-49, she was at-
tacked by the Ban of Croatia and Kept under the most ferocious
Croatian yoke for 18 years.
In 1869, however, by rescript of the then dual monarchy of Austria-
Hungary the city and territory of Fiume was restored, always as a
mumcipal independent, separate political body within the Empire,
and attached as such to the Crown of Hungary, although about 300
miles distant from the Adriatic. The Government of Budapest,
planning to use Fiume as a naval expedient base, as Austria reserved
Trieste for herself and Germany, with a view to their well-known
policy of "dranch nach osten," in the Balkan Peninsula, pointing to
Constantinoi)le and the Persian Gulf.
Never in history, except at one time for two or three years, have the
Hapsburgs permitted Croatia to annex Fiume, although Croatia be-
gins on the eastern side of the stream dividing her from the city of
Sussak. And it is quite worthy of notice that in the 19 years dur-
ing which the city has been unaer the Croatian yoke, as I said, that
she unalterably refused to occupy the two seats afforded her in the
Croatian Parliament, or Sabor. There never was love lost, indeed,
between Fiumeans and Croatians, the Latin civilizing element, and
the Slav faithful under serfdom to the autocracy of the Hapsburgs.
From 1869 to 1918 Hungary, representing through its governor the
Imperial Austrian autocracy, did all that hard rule and tyramiy could
do to denationalize Fiume, to destroy her municipal secular organ-
ism. Witliout result, however, owning to the inextinguishable spirit
of Italianity of the Fiumeans manifesting itself in many ways, at all
possible occasions, such as those most eloquent of furnishing volun-
teers in all the wars waged by Italy for independence since 1848, as
well as in this last war of their final redemption. No group of Latin
descent, even within the Italian Peninsula, offered in history such
an inflexible racial spirit, such historical continuity of an Italian
municipal organism as did Fiume.
Xo wonder thus if the deputy of Fiume on the 13th of Octo-
ber, 1918, declared the independence of the city before the Magyar
Parliament as other imperial crownlands and organized since Oc-
tober 18 a national council, when the Hungarian civil and military
authorities and garrison fled from the city with the imperial gov-
ernor at the advance of the Italian victorious armies on the Piave.
The subsequent agitation of the Fiumeans, it must be noticed, is
not due to their lack of faith in the justice of American democracy,
known to many of them living in America and to the intellectual
men of the council, but to those contingent reasons of which I shall
speak later on, converging in the dreaded conclusion that under the
treaty of peace being manipulated at Paris without their direct con-
sent their Italian city might be put under Croatian rule.
^ PhMologioal reasons. — The language of the people being its most
living expression in the daily affirmation of its national racial spirit
and aspirations, the Italian idiom has been at all times that the
1116 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
city of Fiume, the official language used between the municipal coun*
cil and the Hapsburg monarchy as well as in all municipal docu-
ments in the archives of the city, which are uninterruptedly Italian.
Even the inscriptions on the graves of the cemeteries of Fiume are
100 per cent Italian. The Emperors of Austria on ascending the
throne received the homage of the city in Italian and separately from
any other part of the crownlands. A privilege granted only to
Fiume and the Hungarian city of Feces. Moreover, the Hungarian
Grovemment itself since 1869 corresponded with Fiume in Italian
only. The Italian lan^age is being used exclusively by the Cham-
ber of Commerce of Fmme, the courts, schools, the press, the navi-
gation companies, the governor passports, and all other documents
inherent to port transactions, and the citizens, the 87 per cent of
Fiume city. Foreigners are wont to learn Italian, as are English
all foreign born in the United States. All deputies of Fiume to the
Hungarian Parliament since 1869 have been Italians and the munici-
pal representatives of the city also, except at one sitting by a Hun-
garian, Count Ludovic Bathian. If, therefore, under the 14 points
of President Woodrow Wilson any one people of the former dual
monarchy is entitled to self-determination that one are the Fiumeans.
Ethnological reasons, — After the fall of the Roman Empire of
Occident and notwithstanding the great Slav invasion of the seventh
centur^jT, among others, which threatened to submerge every vestige
of Latin ethnologv and Roman political organism, uie Latin group
of Fiume survived owing to the mdomitable racial spirit of the pop-
ulation, persisting on one side secular Slav infiltration and -the con-
stant pressure or the Hapsburg Empire. And on the threshold of
the world war even the manipulated last imperial statistics acknowl-
edge 65 per cent Italian population as against 22 per cent Slavonic
and 13 per cent Hungarian, including employees, garrisons, and even
transients. The last census, taken by the National Coimcil of Fiume
after the war, resulted in 28,911 Italians, 9,092 Croats, 1,674 Slovenes.
161 Serbs, 4,431 Hungarians, 1,616 Germans, and 879 mixed nation-
alities.
Economic reasons, — Import and export statistic figures prove that
the port of Fiume was not need^ either by Croatia or owier Slavs,
that it was not the result of the economic interest of Croatia or any
other Slav group, but of the whole interland, especially of Hungry
proper. All the commerce affluing to Jugo-Slavia from the Mediter-
ranean has found its way to Jugo-Slavia through central lines of
affluence that are all under the parallel of Fiume, the 45^*^. And
even if as the tentative Kingdom of the Serbo-Croat-Slovenes should
be granted by the peace conference then the ports of trade affluence
are all connected by good railroad communications with Serenico,
Spalato, Metovic, Kagusa, and Cattaro, ports of great capacity.
And while Hungary would have the greatest interest in the port of
Fiume she does not aspire to it under any form, preferring, notori-
ously, to see it in the hands of the Italians.
The total imports and exports of Fiume, closing 1915 Austrian
statistics, is divided as follows :
Seven per cent for Croatia, 13 per cent for Croatia, Dalmatia.
Bosnia, Herzegovina together, the 87 per cent of these four Prov-
inces import and export passing through the Dalmatian ports already
quoted.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1117
Political reasons, — ^The political importance of Fiume as to a
strategic Roman apex in defense of Italy is to-day, as in Roman
times, paramount between democratic Italy and peoples entitled to
freedom but ^own under the iron rule of military autocracy for
several centuries and brought abruptly and without their assistance
by Italian valor to independence in direct contact with democracy,
the evolutive democracy of Washington and Lincoln, of Garibaldi
and Mazzini. It being common history that all the representatives
of Croatians and Slovenes, the Reichstag of Vienna, and the Par-
liament of Budapest, or in the Diet of Zagabria, loudly, unequivo-
cally, and up to the last day of the empire for which the Slavs fought
to the last ditch of their masters, the River Piave, against their own
redemptors, have sided for the House of Hapsburg.- And when
freed by the Italian victory, excited by those same representatives,
at once they were guided by them to seize the Austrian fleet with
a view to continue to dominate their liberators in the Adriatic, from
the high Dalmatian coast against the indefensible eastern coast of
the peninsula between Venice and Brindisi. When President Wilson
and the American delegation went first to Europe, the Hun, Aus-
trian, and Slav propaganda, supplied bv franks, pounds, and dollars
for years^ was intense in the Ijnited States, and that of Italy was
nil. Their conception of the problem of the Adriatic between
Italians and Slavs, with due respect to their knowledge in geography,
ethnography, and history of Europe, eventually overshadowed any
other appreciation. Not only of Fiume's seli-determination and
Dalmatian Italian origin, but the natural and national rights of
Italy, the faithful democratic ally, the historical democratic nation
who single-handed, at a still, dark hour for the alliance, destroyed
after a century of martyrdom and valor one of the two central mili-
taristic powers of Europe in open battle 51 Italian divisions, 2 I5ng-
lishj 1 French, Czecho-Slovak, and the 352d American Regiment
against 73 divisions. Or at that date 38,000,000 Italians pitched
against 53,000,000 Germans, Hungarians, Slavs, and Turks. And
no revolution, no insurrection, happened during the war and before
in the Austria-Hungarian Empire for freedom. And except from
Bohemian-Moravia, no Slav soldiers or citizens deserted to the alli-
ance on the western and Italian fronts.
Now, as to the relations between Italians and Jugo-Slavs, about
50,000,000 and 12,000,000, respectively, these are not dependent from
propaganda or monopolistic influences in the Adriatic mterland, not
on theories but on conditions. The interdependence of States is most
desirable and possible between the compact democratic nation of
Italy and the stiU inorganic master inhabiting said interland, inter-
dependence being a true and permanent basis for a league of nations,
as was asserted by an Italian historian a century ago, Melchiorre
Gioja; provided, however, said he, Italy is in the possession of all of
her mountain boundaries.
Honorable Senators, I declare I have not great faith in the future
decisions concerning the Adriatic by the peace conference sitting at
Paris, and I shall close the defense of Fiume and Dalmatia, pinning
my faith on the political wisdom, spirit of justice, and authority of
the Senate of the United States of America to redress a denial of
justice, that of Fiume, only second to Shantung.
1118 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
STATEMENT OF KB. S. A. COTILLO, STATE SEHATOB, NEW YOBK,
N. T.
Mr. CoTiLLO. Mr. Chairman, I come here representing practically
1,000,000 Italian- Americans in the State of New York: I represent
here the Italian press of New York; I represent here the Loyal
Labor Legion of New York, consisting of over 20,000 members; I
represent here the Order of the Sons of Italy, which is an order
throughout the country having a membership in the State of New
York of over 50,000 ; I also represent the Independent Order of the
Sons of Italy; and I represent various other organizations which
have forwarded to me resolutions adopted at their conventions. I
represent, also, that famous Italian review, II Carroccio, which has
been very active during the war for the maintenance and support of
civilization.
I tried to treat this question, judging from what I saw here at
the hearing yesterday and from an American point of view, I tried
to be practical and present to the committee some evidence that I
have been able to obtain, inasmuch as some of the members who
have been experts on this question are not able to speak because
they are citizens of a foreign country; and if there are any points
that any members of the committee desire to be enlightened on, or if
there are any matters that the committee has not received informa-
tion in regard to, we will be able, through those men, to throw some
light on those questions. I want to say also that we are glad to be
given this opportunity to present to you Italy^s just claims.
Those of us who were privileged to be in Italy during the conflict
saw marked evidences of her great sacrifices, the force which she in-
stilled in the war, and the great part which she continually contrib-
uted. Well do I remember during the time I was in Italy, when I
toured from north to south for over four months, being sent there by
the American Bureau of Public Information, and as I went from town
to town the marked suflperings of the people and the unusual contribu-
tion which was given so freely by both the civilian and the military
population.
Now, in reference to Fiume. permit me to quote what an Italian,
who fought for 20 years for the redemption of Fiume, says :
Fiuuip is ItnliHii by the hloo<l that flows In her veins, by the words of her
mouth, ami the l)urning desire of lier lieart.
Fiume has always fought against foreign oppression.
Austria-Hungary, with whom the United States went to war, is
composed of three parts — Austria, Hungary, and a political and sepa-
rate body of Fiume. It is undisputed that Fiume, historically and
geographically, was a separate corporate body, and was even recog-
nized by its Government, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, whiw
authorized Fiume to declare her own national government and to
constitute herself an autonomous body by virtue of the Austrian
Hungarian Deputy Ossoinack, who, on October 18, declared FiumeV
self-determination, by virtue of the proclamation of Charles I on
October 18, 1918, the same day. The proclamation issued by Charles
I, Emperor of the Austrian Empire, of which this is part, states as
follows :
Austria, acconlinj? to tlie wislies of jits people, must become a feileral State,
in whldi every race will constitute a self-state governing body within Its terri-
tory • • *.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMAKY. 1119
Tills new form of Government proposed by Charles I guaranteed each na-
tional State that composed the E2mplre Its autonomy.
Permit me, at this time, to show why Fimne is entitled to self-
determination, and why this committee should adopt proper meas-
ures in order to pay heed to her request.
On January 8, 1918, the President declared before Congress his
famous 14 points, thereby giving notice to the world of America's
stand. In order to comply witti this requirement issued by our
President, Charles I, Emperor of the Austrian Empire, issued the
proclamation that I have hereinbefore stated.
Soon after the proclamation by Charles I, Fiume^ through its rep-
resentative, the Hon. Andrea Ossoinack, in the Hungarian Parlia-
ment, declared Fiume's self-determination.
If I may be permitted, at this time I would like to oflFer a correct
copy of the transcript or what transpired in the Hunmrian Parlia-
ment on October 18, 1918, containing what was said by the deputy
of Fiume, the Hon. Andrea Ossoinack. He said, in part, as follows :
Austria-Hungary having admitted the principle of self-determination in her
peace proposals, Flume as a corpus separatum claims that right for Itself. In
accordance with this right, it wishes to exercise, without any kind of hindrance,
the right of self-determination of the people. I shall make before this exalted
House the following clear and concise statement: Fiume stands for the right
of self-determination for her people.
The Chairman. You may insert that in the record if you want to.
Head it, if you desire to do so.
Mr. Comix). It is not very long. I will read it. Thi^ shows what
Deputy Ossoinack said, and I will read this transcript. [Beading:]
STENOGRAPHIC REPOBT OF THE SPEECH DELIVERED KY THE DEPUTY OF FIUME, THE
HON. ANDREA OSSOISACK, IN THE HUNGARIAN PARLIAMENT ON OCTOBER 18, 1918.
Exalted House, the war has upset the world, and it seems now that peace will
upset it even more. While within our borders the Croatlans claim Flume for
themselves, foreign dispatches bring us the news that Fiume will be sacrificed
to the Jugo-Slavs. In view of these tendencies, I feel it my duty to protest in
this exalted House and before the whole world against anybody who may in-
tend to hand Fiume over to the Croats. [General applause.]
Because Fiume has not only never been Croat, but has on the contrary alw^ays
been Italian in the past and must remain Italian in the future.
The Hon. Jurica (Slovene) (addressing the deputies of the Labor Party).
Applaud now.
The Hon. Ossoisack (continuing). For these reasons, and on account of the
fact that Fiume for its position in International law constitutes a '* corpus
separatum," and because such an arbitrary decision of the fate of Fiume would
be absolutely inconsistent with the right of the peoples for self-determination
r signs of approval from the left], I beg to make the following declaration [from
the benches of the Labor Party: " On whose behalf? "]
The Hon. Ossoisack (continuing). I will tell you that also, but it is ridicu-
lous. We have not yet reached the point when such questions can be put.
Referring to that above, I, as the deputy of Fiume, elected by a unanimous
vote [addressing the Labor Party, " Do you understand? "], beg to make the fol-
lowing declaraion [reads] :
" Austria-Hungary having admitted the principle of self-determination In her
peace proposals. Flume, as a " corpus separatum," claims that right for Itself.
In accordance with this right It wishes to exercise, without any kind of hin-
drance, the right of self-determination of the i)eople.
" I wish to make before this exalted House the following clear and precise
.statement: Fiume stands for the right of self-determination of the people."
[Applause and signs of approval from the left, protests from the right. "»
1120 TREATY OF PEACE Wn?H GERMANY.
A few days following Flume's declaration in the Hungarian Par-
liament and following the proclamation of Charles I the several
nationalities that composed the Austria-Hungary Empire also made
a declaration of self-determination, and they were immediately recog-
nized by the United States as Jugo-Slavia, Polish Republics, and
the Republic of Czechoslovakia, but until this day Fiume has yet to
be re( ognized by America.
Another assurance was given Fiume when Bonar Law, in the
House of Commons, on October 24, 1918, promised to the nationalities
oppressed by Austria-Hungary that they would be admitted to par-
ticipate directly in all their deliberations at the peace conference
concerning all their varied interests.
But the people of Fiume did not cease in their eflForts to accomplish
their will, and on October 30, four days before the armistice was
signed, the people of Fiume gathered and adopted the following
resolutions:
«
The Italian National Council of Flunie, assembled to-day In full session, de-
clares that by reason of that right whereby all the nations have attained inde-
pendence and liberty the city of Flume, which up to now was a " separate body *'
constituting an Italian National Commune, also claims for itself the right of self-
determination. Taking its stand on this right the national council proclaims
Flume united to its motherland, Italy. The Italian national council considers
as provisional the state of things that commenced on October 29, 1918, and it
places its right under the protection of America, the mother of liberty and of
universal democracy. And it awaits the sanction of this right at the hands of
the peace congress.
With all the previous assurances given to Fiume, the National
Council of the city of Fiume sent a delegate to the peace conference,
but was not admitted, which was a clear violation of her national
f-tanding, and she was not even placed on the same equality as the
other oppressed delivered nationalities. The peace conference, re-
gardless of the effect of the proclamation of Charles I for the right
of self-determination, and in violation of the promises of the House
of Commons, refused recognition to Flume's representative, but the
delegate Deputy Ossoinack was allowed the privilege of a private
conference with members of the conference and President Wilson,
to explain and make his claims for the rights of the people he rep-
resented. This total disregard of Flume's rights did not discourage
the National Council of the city of Fiume, and they presented to the
peace conference briefs in support of their claims, receipts of which
were acknowledged by the conference, under date of March 28, 1919,
and the said briefs asked that the decision by said council on Oc-
tober 30, 1918, should be sanctioned by the peace conference.
Fiume again, by virtue of its undisputed right of self-government,
on April 18, 1919, voted a second time by plebiscite to be united to
the Kingdom of Italy, and all the commercial bodies and civic clubs
were unanimously in support of said decision to be annexed to the
Kingdom of Italy.
The city of Fiume sent 70 or more telegrams to the peace confer-
ence, asking unconditional annexation to Italy, and the municipality
and national council sent the following dispatch, which is signed by
President Grossich:
The national council, which on October 30, 1918, solemnly claimed the oaion
of Fiume to Italy and placed its plebiscite under the protection of America,
expects from the conference the vindication of its right, Justice, and liberty.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERItCANY. 1121
that they be made inviolable according to the unanimous wish of the people of
Flume. In these hours, when the fate of FiumB is being decided, the national
council appeals to the sense of justice of the conference, expressing its firm
faith that the plebiscite, based upon the cardinal principles of President Wilson,
will be ratified by the conference. Flume, which in 1720, 1779, in 1867, and in
1918, decided its own fate of itself, reaftlrms by a plebiscite vote its indestruct-
ible right to self-determination and its unalterable will to belong to Italy.
Pbesident Gbossich.
It was not long after the previous telegram was sent that the peo-
ple of Fiume again made themselves heard, and on May 31, following
a conference, to internationalize the part of Fiume, between Premier
Orlando and the representative of Fiume, the national council of
Fiume, on learning of the subject of the conference, adopted a reso-
lution, as follows :
To a council who refuses the right of men we answer " No." We are Italian
and not a savage tribe, and, above all, we are men who can not believe that
nations of a Washington, of a Victor Hugo, of a Gladstone dare to shoot their
cannons against a little Indefensible town, and we are now and forever more
proud of our liberty and our Italianity.
Thy sent this appeal to the chairman of this committee, Senator
Lodge, and he referred it to the Senate on June 6, 1919. At the
same time it told the peace conference to not consider further the
rights of the people of Fiume, as they would be perfectly satisfied
to entrust their fate and their liberty to America.
You have before you now, Mr. Chairman, the covenant of the
league of nations under discussion, and we think it is just and
proper to discuss the Fiume question, because we Americans believe
that in determining the disposition of Fiume the will of its people
has been totally disregarded, and that peace in the Adriatic has also
been ignored. If peace does not prevail in the Adriatic, would not
America be, in duty bound, either oy le^al or by moral obligation, to
intercede with its soldiers and its wealth !
By virtue of the evidence heretofore given, the American Govern-
ment has all the power to negotiate and must negotiate directly with
the national council of the city of Fiume. If 5ie American nation
disregards entirely the status of Fiume, a peculiar situation arises,
namely, that America, being at war with all the Austrian Empire,
she would be making peace with Austria, with Croatia, with Jugo-
slavia, with Czechoslovakia and would remain at war with the sep-
arate corpus free city of Fiume.
We can not discuss nor dispute Fiume's right to self-determination.
The national council that proclaimed her self-determination counts
on the sympathetic encouragement of America and its power ema-
nated bv a plebiscite. All the accusations that questioned or con-
tested the right of the National Council of Fiume to govern them
have proven false, and there is not a scintilla of evidence to sub-
stantiate these accusations.
The United States Senate, in considering the treaty of peace,
must consider the position of Fiume, and must necessarily request
that the treaties that will be entered into with the enemies, that all
these treaties must respect the right of nationality and must heed
the voice of the opi)ressed people of the world who long for liberty
and self-determination and the pursuit of happiness such as is thit
case of the free people of Fiume.
13564^^ -19 ^71
1122 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Fiume sent, as I have stated, to the peace conference at Versaille>
her own delegates, who were neard and made their wislies known,
consistent with the 14 points laid down by President Wilson.
Our President has interested himself in this question, and on
April 23, referring to the Fiume situation in Paris he said in part :
The interests are not now in question, but the rights of peoijles of stiites.
new and old, of Uberated peoples, and peoples whose rulers have uevor ai<*-
c*ounted them worthy of a right, above all the right of the world to r>t*a«' nu]
to such settlement of interest as shall make peace secure. Has not Fiume
asked to be annexe<l to her mother Italy? Would not p«'aco be more se'iin*
were terms given to a friendly ally such as Italy than to a Jugoslav nati<.ii
that does not exist and who were our enemies? Shall we doubt Italy?
Permit me here to quote what Senator Owen said on July 31. 101 S.
before the Senate :
Shall we doubt Italy? The Italian people have shown themselves to bt»
glorious in war and magnificent in peace. When Paris was about to be struck
down by the advancing field-gray troops of Germany, coming like swarms o:'
locusts down upon the Marne, it w^as Italy that told the French statosiiKin,
** You need not guard the borders between France and Italy. Italy will not
stand by Germany in a war of aggression." Italy made a treaty with Germany
and Austria, a defensive alliance, against aggression on Germany and Austria,
but not by Germany and Austria on undefended borders of others, or any
unprovoked assault upon their neighbors. Shall we question Italy when the
Italians by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands died for a common
cause with us?
If the peace conference at Versailles has ignored this important
question of Fiume, I think it is just and fair that the Senate of the
United States should pay heed to the virtues of these oppressed
people of Fiume, who long for liberty and turn to our shores for a
sympathetic encouragement.
The people of this country, Mr. Chairman, can not let go unnoticed
the apjpeal of Fiume on October 30, 1918, by proclaiming their right
and long desire to be annexed to Italy, because if we did we would
betray our own traditions of liberty and humanity that the American
Nation so well typifies. I could conclude here and stand on Flume's
inalienable right, but we may consider further this question in rela-
tion to actual conditions of to-day.
Fiume enters in the war program as it does with the Italian peace
terms. Fiume is by population Italian, by language, geographically
and historically, and by all that makes up a nation. Its Italian char-
acter was even recognized by the Austrian-Hungarian empire. In
Fiume, all the mayors, all the deputies, the members of the munici-
pal council, members of the chamber of commerce and of the courts
have always been Italian. Therefore, it is self-evident that they can
think for themselves ; they can dispose of their own fate, and who can
deny them the right to join their mother country?
Italy entered tlie war to aid the cause of civilization; she pos-
sessed the same ideals as our boys who fought and shed their bloo<l
at Belleau Wood and Chateau-Thierrv. Italv at the same time
fouglit to safeguard her national existence, and the safety of the
vvorld depends upon the proper rectification of her natural boun-
daries. The annexation of the provinces of Venetia, Julia, Fiume.
and part of Dalmatia is the completion of the Italian national and
geographical unit, that unit which the Italians have been struggling
for for long years with perfeict faith in the justice of their cause.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1123
The world well knows Italy's sacrifices in this war, and in spite of
her severe handicaps the part which she played for the cause of civi-
lization. The Italians have no imperialistic aims. Italy does not
seek expansion at the expense of any other nation. They ask only for
what rightfully belon|?s to them. Their traditions and their ideals
are incompatible with imperialistic aims. Neither did they enter the
war for selfish motives. Italy could have received all she wanted
by remaining neutral. The voice of the people, impelled by the spirit
o5f right and universal justice, demanded that she enter the war upon
the side of the Allies, to right the wrong perpetrated upon civiliza-
tion by the Central Powers.
In i914 she repudiated the triple alliance and declared her neu-
trality, thereby permitting France to use the army she had assembled
on the Swiss frontier for other service.
Again, in 1915, Italy renounced her neutrality and cast her lot with
the Allies, thereby placing the central empires in the precarious
situation as was stated by Ludendorf. This action unquestionably
made final victory for the Allies possible.
In November, 1917, contrary to the will of Gen. Foch, and under
' the Italian command, assuming the entire responsibility, Italy alone
checked the invasion at the Piave and thereby saved Venice, and at
the same time saved all of the Adriatic from Austrian conquest and
saved Italy from total destruction, thereby saving the cause of the
Allies.
I may say here, in order to give this a personal coloring, that I had
the good fortune to be in Paris, in May, 1918, and had the extreme
honor to have a conference with Gen. Pershing in reference to send-
ing American troops into Italy. At that time the condition of the
French Army was pretty bad, and I recall distinctly the general stat-
ing that he could not anord to give any troops to uplift any morale
anywhere.
I am talking now of May, 1918. Italv at that time, you will recall,
had not recovered after Caporetto. Alter that conference with Gen. .
Pershing I returned to Rome, and I assured Premier Orlando that
America would send some troops. We finally got the Three hundred
and thirty-second Regiment, from Ohio, consisting of 3,600 men.
Their chief purpose in going to Italy was to uplift the Italian morale,
and they accomplished it very well, and I think we all agree that
Italy has always loved America. As I say, in May, 1918, there ex-
isted a serious crisis. *-,
In May, 1918, there existed a serious crisis. The morale of the
allied nations had been shaken under the awful blows of the German
machine. Courageous France was making its last stand, her man-
hood was all but spent. England's man power was down to its low-
est ebb, and the morale of her people was tottering. In addition to
the formidable attacks by its mighty army, Germany was making
use of its long-range guns and aerial attacks to weaken the resistance
of the French civilian population. Italy had not yet recovered from
tlie awful catastrophe sustained at Caperetto, and could not ap-
parently resist another major attack, and her people were becoming
more and more susceptible to defeatist propaganda.
Two events, which to my mind had a greater bearing upon the
successful outcome of the war than any other happening, and which
1124 TBEATY OF PfiACE WITH QEBMANY;
marked the turning point for the fortunes of the Allies, were namely,
the victorious stand of the Italian army on the Piave, when over-
whelmed by numbers, guns and material, possessing inferior posi-
tions protected by hastily-constructed fortifications, it repulsea the
Austnans, and the victory of the American Marines at Chateau-
Thierry and Belleau Wood.
Italy since the beginning of the war enrolled 5,000,000 men: of
these, losses in dead were 500,000 on the. battle fields, 300,000 died of
disease, and 600,000 permanently disabled.
There may be some slight inaccuracy in the figures here, and I
am informed that the latest figures are now out, but the inaccuracy,
if any, in the figures is very slight.
Italy was the only warring nation who called to her colors all her
available manhood.
Italy was the only warring nation, not excluding Germany, that
had her 19-year-old youths under arms for one year.
Italy was the only warring nation that had her 18-year-old youths
on the firing line since Majr, 1918, before the Piave.
Italy was the only warring nation that called out her 17-year-old
youths.
Italy, ftt the time she entered the war, was a nation of 37,000,000,
against Austria's 54,000,000. Austria had 20 more divisions than
Italy, and be it remembered that Austria's division is a larger one
than an Italian division.
Austria had 3,000 more artillery pieces than Italy. She had not
only a superiority in numbers, but her artillery is considered tech-
nically superior.
Austria had the vast advantage of position.
A great deal has been said about the support that Italy received
from the Allies, but I am frank to say that in so far as the military
assistance given to her is concerned she practically shifted for her-
self, with the exception of three British divisions, two French divi-
sions, and one United States regiment consisting of 3,600 men. On
the other hand, Italy maintained in France a whole army corps,
which was greater by far than the combined allied divisions fighting
on the Italian front. This army corps comprised the picked troops
of the Italian army, and gave unexcelled proof of their valor at the
battle of Rheims.
Gentlemen, in spite of the appalling handicaps under which the
Italian army was operating and with insufficient reserves, 51 Italian
divisions, three British divisions, two French divisions, and one
regiment of Americans on the night of the 24th of October, 1918,
were ordered by Gen. Diaz to bes^n a major offensive extending from
Brenta to the sea. This final blow resulted in the complete rout of
the formidable Austrian army, causing the surrender of 500,000 men
and the capture of unlimited quantities of booty. Thus was Austria
definitely rendered helpless, and thus was final victory assured to
the fighting armies of the Allies. For the victory of the Italian
army most assuredly brought victory to the Allies. Without the
surrender of Austria, it is a matter of conjecture whether Grermany
would have sought peace as soon as she did.
Mr. Chairman, to deny Italy the right to defend the rights of her
confines, or to accuse her of l)eing imperialistic because she defends
TEBATY OF PEACE WITH GERXAlirT. 1125
the rights of her oppressed sons, means to deny her the immense
sacrifices she has made and the blood she has shed on the battle field
in the cause of humanity. If you deny Fiume to the Italians and
cede it to Croatia, according to President Wilson, it will mean con-
tinuous disturbances and you will never have peace in the Adriatic.
The rancor and the bitter feeling of animosity between the two
nations, Croatia and Italy, that only yesterday were ferocious ene-
mies on the battle field, can never be blotted out and you would have
a constant inborn rivalry, possibly instigated by other interests,
commercial and otherwise, that would constantly menace the devel-
opment of Italy and all the world.
Under the advantages of Italian civilization the local government
of Fiume can guarantee the widest liberties to the Jugo-Slavs; in-
stead the Jugo-Slav government, which is still an unfcnown entity
and composed of many conflicting factions, is preparing the repeti-
tion of the Austrian-Hungarian coalition, which has been destroyed
by the arms of liberty, and facilitate also the renewing of Teutonic
influences in the Balkans or to favor the Bolshevic Slav wave that
precipitates toward the Adriatic. Therefore it will be impossible
lor the Jugo-Slav to assume to protect the Italians.
The treaty of London does not affect the status of the free city of
Fiume. If the Senate of the United States intends to deiw the
validity of the treaty of London then it is self-evident that Fiume
remains always the arbiter to decide her own destinies. And it
becomes even more evident that the American people must recognize
the sanctity of the right of a population that wants no more masters
or oppressors.
If we should consider, on the other hand, the validity of . the
treaty of London, said treaty would concern Italy, because the
pact of London, said treaty would concern Italy, because the pact
of London is only a contract or a memorandum with which the
Government of Rome, before plunging into war, insured itself against
the selfish program of the entente conceived against Italy, the United
States and the neutral nations by England, France, Russia, and
Japan. The treaty constitutes, instead of an act of Italian imperial-
ism, as people have been led to believe, a defense of Italy's national
rights endangered by the entente in the event that a victory could be
achieved without Italy's help.
Everything that the treaty of London grants to Italy is consistent
with the whole program of the unity of the Italian nation, because
she must live and prosper in peace m order to protect all her sons
within her own national frontiers, such as the Alps and the Adriatic
Sea. Should this security be denied to Italy in the Julian Alps and
the Adriatic Sea in Dalmatia, the enemy will always have an open
way to invade the peninsula. This would mean the dissolution of
the national unity which had been obtained by bloody sacrifices, with
the affirmation pi democratic plebiscites, and by means of a struggle
which marks, in the history of liberty, the first triumph of national
rights in Europe.
In homage to this fundamental principle of national unity and her
independence, Italy opposed in 1913 the Austrian plan of aggression
against Serbia. In order to protect Serbia's national integrity Italy
refused to take up arms together with Austria. It was for the na-
1126 TBa^TJ Or_PEA,CB. WITH GERMANY.
tional cause of Belgium and Serbia that Italy went to war in 1915,
and it was in order to favor Serbia that Italy renounced in the
treatj' of London a portion of Dalmatia and guaranteed to the
Serbian people not only one but several outlets to the sea. Italy did
n6t demand for her military defense the whole of Dalmatia, but one-
sixth of Dahnatia. It is true that in the treaty of Ix)ndon Fiunie was
attributed to Croatia, but that was a concession to Russia, forced by
circumstances. Russia obligated herself to sustain against Austria
the complete cause of Italy, and this obligation was not fulfilled when
Russia deserted the common battlefield. Russia, in protecting Serbia,
was following her own interest to accomplish the Pan-Slavic pro-
gram and to maintain a steady menace against Italy; this explains
her successful insistence in also obtaining Ragusa and Cattaro, which
are nothing but military stations.
In 1917 the whole weight of the powerful Austro-Hungarian army
was thrown against Italy, causing enemy invasion and brutal devasta-
tion of Italian territory. It is clear that, having Russia fail to fulfill
her obligation and having eliminated herself from the Peace Con-
ference Italy is no longer i)Ound to fulfill her own obligation toward
the people with which Russia had unified her program. So much
so, because this part of the treaty encroaches upon the right of self-
determination 01 the people of Fiume.
When Italy ceded Fiume to Croatia she did not intend to give
that city to a coalition of Austrian nationalities which, under the
form of Jugo-Slavia resurrect in front of her the old enemy. It is
these same Jugo-Slavs who had fought up to the last moment — the
2d of November, 1918— when Field Marshal Boroevic, Austrian gen-
eral, received orders from the National Council of Zagabria, capital
of Crotia, and plotted with the imperial and royal authorities of
Vienna to rob the Allies of the Austrian fleet at Pola on October 31,
which was assigned by the terms of the armistice to the Allies.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, these people did not cease when the
armistice was signed, but afterwards, wnep certain of the ships were
allotted to the Allies, they immediately conspired again to go into
the harbor of Pola and take those ships. These are the men who pre-
sent themselves before your committee to-da,y and say, " We want a
Jugo-Slav nation."
The Croatia to which the treaty of London refers would have been
that autonomous portion of territory which under that name would
have survived the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, against which Italy
was fighting in order to deliver its oppressed nationalities. It is
therefore clear that this new Croatia which would have possessed
Fiume should have been a nation friendly to Italy, and cooperate with
Italy to maintain peace and cordial relations in the Adriatic. It is
inconceivable that Italy' would be willing, in 1915, to substitute to an
enemy nation another enemy nation. And it is illogical that one
should ask of her to-day to give Fiume to a new enemy after she had
delivered her from a previous enemy. It is perfectly useless to dem-
onstrate that Croatia to-day is bitterly unfriendly toward Italy. The
present outbreaks prove that nothing has changed in the nature of the
people who made such a large use of Hunnish spike clubs. This justi-
fies Italy's apprehensions and her necessity of guaranteeing herself
against future menace to herself and to the peace of Europe.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMAKY. 1127
Italy, with her perfect and liberal order of Government, is in her-
self a guaranty of peace in the Adriatic and of freedom of naviga-
tion for all peoples. Through the influence of her type of civilization
and with the added authority she receives from the cooperation of
America, she can be a real instrumentality in the settlement of Bal-
kan affairs. The United States will have in Italy the guardian of
their commerce ih the Adriatic.
The question of Fiume must not be allowed to disturb the friendly
relations between the United States and Italy. The Italian people
through the trials of the present day have never ceased to harbor and
manifest fraternal feelings toward the American people. Italy is the
only liberal country of Europe which is free to enter into spiritual and
commercial alliance, if not political, with the United 'States.
Italy is a country of great resources which has revealed to possess a
.srreat people, great energy, and great ideals. She is tired of depend-
ing politically and economically upon Germany, and is unwilling to
depend upon England or France. The actual spirit of Italy refuses
to participate in any combination of balance of power. English
dominance forbids Italy to reach her development in the Mediter-
ranean and in the world.
A cordial understanding between the United States and Italy
means a reduction of English power in Europe. For this reason,
at the peace conference, the British created difficulties for the clear
understanding of the respective ideals of peace between the United
States and Italy.
The United States have interest to maintain peace in the Mediter-
ranean and to guarantee to European peoples that liberty which is
the fruit of a war which has been so costly in money and American
blood. The only nation that can guarantee this is Italy. Italy can
not be betrayed by the United States. One can not ask Italy to
renounce the Italianity of her children. It has been said that Italy
must relinquish all her rights to Fiume if she expects to obtain coal
from us. It would be cruel and unjust to offer to her, in exchange
for this betrayal, food and coal.
If Italy needs food and coal, it is because she has given whatever
she had for the common cause of her Allies and associates. What
better treatment has been accorded to the Germans, Austrians,
Croatians, and Hungarians than tiie treatment they have received
at our hands by furnishing them with food and coal.
And may I add here, Mr. Chairman, from my own personal ex-
perience, that as I say I was in Italy at the time when the morale
of the Allies was in a critical condition, and Italy was clamoring
for support, and for a reserve, and for coal. The assistance that
did come was not very strong, in comparison with what the other
nations got, but nevertheless Italy has always had and now has a
deep feeling of regard for America and appreciates her assistance.
After four years of suffering, of destruction, of hardships, the peo-
ple of this world have entered upon a new era of international jus-
tice. That justice which is a by-word to-day will give way to justice
to all. Italy's claims will be granted to her, not b^ause oi her sacri-
fices in this war, but because truth and justice demand the security
of her confines and the safety of her race and civilization.
Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to offer for the record a resolu-
tion of the State of New York, which was adopted in the State both
1128 TREATY OF FBACE WITH GERMANY.
by the assembly and the senate, April 7, 1919, signed by Alfred £.
Smith, governor; Thomas M. Hugo, secretaiy of state; Harry C.
Walker, president of the senate; and Thaddeus D. Sweet, spesJter of
the assembly.
The Chairman. Certainly, that will be printed.
(The resolution referred to is here printed in the record in full,
as follows:)
Albany, March i7, 1919.
State of New York, In Senate.
By Mr. CotiUo :
Whereas President Woodrow Wilson has returned to attend the peace ct>nfer-
ence for the purxwse of drafting terms of peace affecting the settlement of
various questions arising out of the World W«.r ; and
Whereas the President has expressed a desire to be the spokesman of the
whole American people at the peace conference; and
Whereas Italy has fought with heroism and great sacrifice since its entrance
Into war, and has done its share in bringing about the great victory of the
Allies; and
Whereas Italy is making claims at the peace conference for restoration of
certain lands and territory formerly belonging to it, and for land and terri-
tory necessary for its economic needs, and. for its national security and
preservation ; and
Whereas over 1,000,000 American citizens of Italian birth or extraction in
the State of New York feel that in justice to Italy for her numerous sacrifices
in the Great War, and by virtue of the will expressed by the people who
inhabit said territories, the Provinces of Venezia, Julia, Flume, and Dal-
matla should be united to Italy : Now, therefore, be It
Resolved, That the Senate of the State of New York, the Assembly concur-
ring, the representatives of the people of the United States at the peace confer-
ence be requested to exercise their influence to bring about Just consideration of
the claims of the Italian Government for the restoration of its lands and terri-
tories In order that Italy may be secured from future aggression, and have t
safe place on the Adriatic to prevent future hostilities, and have her national
security and preservation ; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution, properly attested with the great seal
of this State, and signed by the president of the senate, the speaker of the
assembly, by the secretary of state, and the governor of the State of New York,
he forwarded to the President of the United States and to the representatives of
the United States at the peace conference.
By order of the senate.
In assembly, April 7, 1919 :
Oncurred In without amendment.
By order of the aw^embly.
Ebnest a. Fat, Clerk.
Fred W. Haicmond, Clerk.
Alfbeu E. Smith,
Oovemor.
Thomas M. Hugo,
Secretary of State,
Habbt C. Walker,
President of the Senate.
Thaddrub D. Sweet.
Speaker of tfic Assembly
Mr. CoTiLLO. May I also offer for the record a pamphlet which has
been prepared by the Italo- American Irredentist Association, which
has in concise form the arguments on this question, and this I should
like to have a part of the record.
The Chairman. That will be put in also.
(The pamphlet referred to is here printed in the record as fol-
lows:)
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKY. 1129
Italy's National Aspirations and Deeds — An Appeal to the American
People.
america and italy.
With America in the peace conference, many questions arose wliich have never
before been debated, and regarding which a great deal of inaccurate information
has been disseminated here.
The question of Flume is one of these. It is not merely an Italian question
or a Jugo-Slav question. If the people of Fiume are not given their right of
self-determination, as promised by President Wilson in his '* fourteen points,"
how can the league of nations be expected to function? Geography, history,
ethnography are in perfect accord with President Wilson's point.
It is with a view of giving the American public accurate data, not only re-
garding the rights of Flume to self-determination, but also Italy's part in the
world war, that this booklet has been compiled and purposely made as brief- as
possible, so that the reader may at a glance realize that Italy asks solely what
is hers by geographic, national right and by reason of her sacrifices in the cause
of humanity.
Alessandro Oldrini,
Chairman Federation Halo- American Irredentist Associations.
S. A. COTILLO,
Chairman New York State Senate.
LuiGi Criscuolo,
Ex-Chairman First Italian Division Liberty Loan Committee, New York.
Alessandro Sapelli.
Former Governor of Italian Somaliland, East Africa.
Mario Schiesari,
Secretary Cfeneral, Federation Italo-American Irredentist Associations.
WILSON'S MSSSAOE.
{Maj 23, 1918.)
"The people of the United States have looked with profound interest and
sympathy upon the efforts and sacrifices of the Italian people, are deeply and
sincerely interested in the present and future security of Italy, and are glad to
find themselves associated with a people to whom they are bound by so many
personal and intimate ties in a struggle whose object Is liberation, freedom, the
rights of men and nations to live their own lives and determine their own for-
tunes, the rights of the weak as well as the strong, and the maintenance of
Justice by the irresistible force of free nations linked together in the defense
of mankind. * * * America salute^i the gallant Kingdom of Italy and bids
her godspeed."
WooDRow Wilson.
FIUME — ^ITS HISTORICAL STATUS.
If the city of Flume has assumed world's importance it is because of its Irre-
slstable Italianity, the denial of which would be a denial of Justice.
Most people try to identify Flume with Tarsatlca, rebuilt after its destruction,
clear traces of which were found in the Roman foundations on which the
medlaval city was built.
The ancient Roman " Oppldum," for such Tarsatlca had been, reappears in
the Middle Ages under the name of " San Vito al Fiume," known later as Fiume.
Flume, from its foundation a free municipality, was for some time under the
dominion of the Franks; then it became successively a fief of the Bishop of
Pedena, of the Bishop of Pola, of the Lords of Walsee, and finally of the
Hapsburgs. For 30 years only, in the fourteenth century, Fiume was held In
pledge by the Croatian family of the Frangipanl (the Frankopan). In 1752
Fiume was made part of the government of Trieste, a union that was but
natural.
All documents relative to the city of Fiume bear witness to Its uninter-
ruptedly Italian character, which victoriously survived the Slav Invasion from
the Danublan region in the seventh century.
In 1776 Maria Theresa, then paramount ruler over Hungary and Croatia,
Incorporated Fiume, not to Croatia, as some student of history has erroneously
1130 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
stated, but to Hungary, through Croatta, then a part of the Kingdom of Hun-
g iry. Later on, as a result of the protests of the inhabitants of Fiume, a Royal
aecree of April, 1779, proclaimed Flume to be a " separate body annexed to the
crown of the Kingdom of Hungary," and the formula adopted by Maria Theresa
could not have been clearer or more effective in declaring Flume to be a quite
distinct body, directly connected with the Royal Crown of Hungary, and having
no connection whatever with Croatia.
During the Hungarian revolution of 1848 ,when the Magyars were enter-
taining aspirations to national freedom, Flume was taken from Hungary bv the
Croatians of the Bana Jelacco, who, as always, had remained faithful to the
Hapsburgs .and held on to it for 19 years without success In spite of their
strenuous endeavors to undermine its Italian character, until 1867, In the
dualistic settlement between Austria and Hungary, it was restored to Hungary.
In 18G8 deputations from the Kingdom of Hungary, Croatia and Fiume met
at Budapest and decided that the free city of Fiume and its territory should
remain, in accordance witli the charter of 1779, provisionally annexed to Hun-
gary, as a separate body.
The collap.^e of the Austro-Hungarian nionarchv at Vittorio Veneto l.:.s
afforded Fiunio the best oiHiwrtunity to avail herw^lf of lior right to j<»in Itr.lv.
her mother country, which rijrlU has never ceased to exi.;t. Basing her claim
to independence on this right, as well as President Wilson's principle of self-
determination, on October 30. 1918. the national council of the free tow^i t»f
Fiume and territory solemnly resolvtxl : "The Italian National C-nincil of
Flume, assembled to-day in full session, declares that by rea.son of that rlirht
whereby all nations have attained Indei>endence and liberty, the city nf Fiuif -.
which up to now was a separate body, constituting an Italian nntiimal munv-i-
pality, also claims for itself the right of self-determination. Taking its stnnl
on this right,, the national council proclaims Flume united to its niorherlnnd,
Italy. The Italian national council considers as provisional the state of tliiiit.";
that commenced on October 29. 1918, and it places its right under the pn^te.titni
of America, the mother of liberty and of universal democracy, awaitii.g the
sanction of this right at the hands of the peace congress."
Such was the constitutional situation of Fiume until April 29. 1919.
Minister Antonio Sdaloja, whose works are well known as masterpieces, h:i*<
written thus of the Fimne resolution : "As a professor of law. even laying asMe
all sentiments as an Italian. I stale thnt this resolution Is indestni-tlblo.
unless it be destroyed by violence. Who could prevent the free* Italian im-
munity of Fiume from making use of its right? The autonomy of Fiume. by
the oUapse of the Hungarian Crown, has become ipso jure politically imie-
pendent, so that by its decision the national council gave expression to a free
will, sovereign and productive of a sole juridlclal right. Through its repre-
sentatives the republic of Flume wished to be Joined to the motherland, in a
sphere of greater liberty. Whosoever would deny the juridlclal value <if this
solemn act would contradict the principles laid down by President Wilson and
the law of public right accepted by all free peoples."
The Italinn character of Flume Is irrefutably proved l)esldes by the official
census. According to the returns for 1910 the Italians in Fiume numbere^l
24,000, plus 6,000 Italian citizens, most of whom were members of Italian
Fluman families who had obtained Italian citizenship. It must be remenil>ere«l
that here is a question of authentic Italians, not of Italianized Slavs, as M.
Protch. prime minister of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Government has sjild. It
is Impossible to see how he could prove his statement. The Slavs (Croats.
Serbs, and simie Slovenes) were 12.(K)0 and the Mngyars r),400. Therefore th**
existence of a f^7 per cent majority on the Italian side Is at any rate borne
out by official statistics. As a matter of fact, the number of Italians belonging
to the permanent population of Fiume before the war Is well proven by official
figures notoriously manipulated against Italian interests.
Moreover, the nationality of Flume is also conflnned by the fact that all
mayors and deputies of the city have always been Italian, as well as the
members of the municipal council. All schools at Flume are Italian ; the num-
ber of children attending" the Croatian schools at Sussak, the neighboring city,
is hardly 1 per cent of the total number of school children In Flume.
The Jugo-Slav commerce passing through Fiume is only 7 per cent of the
whole traffic of the port. Out of the total Jugo-Slav importation and exporta-
tion 13 per cent goes through Fiume and 87 per cent goes through Dalmation
ports.
TR&AT-Y OF PEAOfi WITH GERMAirY. 1131
The voices of the dead Join the voices of the living in proclaiming once more
the Itallanlsm of Fin me. Xn fact, a census of the sepulchral epitaphs taken in
Flume dated from the sixteenth lo the nineteentii century, 83 are written in
Latin, 7 in Italian, 2 in German, and only 1 in Croatian.
The sepulchral epitaphs that were put on the tombs of the Fiume cemetery
(luring th» later century are 2,853, of which 2,301 are in Italian, 343 in Latin
and German, and only 206 Croatian.
Another merit of the census is that of having proven false the puerile
assertion of the Croats that Fiume had been Italianized rec(»ntly through the
pflForts of the Hungarians. Statistical data, on the other liand, follow the
gradual increase* of tlie Croatian epigraphy while our ci)och approached. In
fact, from 1800 to 1800 there does not exist even a single iiiscription in
TYoatian, proof that Croatian iunnigration into Fiume is of recent development,
and the further one goes back into the past tlie more evident btHomes the
Italianism of Fiume.
Since April 29, 1919, the ccmstltutional situation of Flume has changed,
following the telegram sent to President Wilson by the National Council of
Fiume :
•* The population of Fiume, assembled under the Italian flag in the iiresence
of representatives of the glorious American Army, replies to your proclamation
by conferring full power over the city upon the representatives of the Italian
(government.
*' In the name of our dead on the Plave and on the Isonzo, we express to
you our greatest gratitude for provoking, with your attitude, the highest and
most solemn manifestation in favor of Italian sentiment which this city coidd
make before the world.
" We inform you that Flume's union with Italy is an accomi)lished fact."
Neither Gen. Grazloll, commander of the Allied tnwps and military governor
of Fiume, nor the Italian Government accepted officially the annexation to
Italy, because Italy wanted as long as possible to act in full agreement with
the Allies. For tlie people of Fiume the annexation remains an accomplished
fact, and will be so the moment the Italian rarllanient olllcially accepts the
annexation of the Italian city of Fiume.
Th/it the decision of Fiume is irrevocable and that the people are tired and
hurt by the incomprehensible delays appears from the following document
received by tlie members of the peace congress : May 26. The National Council
of Flume considers the plebiscite of October 30 an ineffaceable, juridical, and
historical fact by which from that time the territory and city of Fiume have
been virtually reunited to Italy. The national council declares that it can
not permit that the fate of Flume* be dellberatwl at Paris without the consent
of the inhabitants of Fiume, and that it will never consent that the recognition
of the rights of Fiume be attained through humiliating commercial negotiations.
Anyone wishing to change existing facts in Fiume should come and try to
Impose such a change by force. Fiume awaits with calm resolution violence
from any source, so that exact expression of the sentiments of the Allies may
be obtained and so that each one may now realize the responsibility to be
assigned to him in history.
"The people of Fiume are convinced that history written with the best
Italian blood can not be effected at Paris."
The historical boundaries of the free city of Fiume and Its territory were
established by imperial patent, issued by Ferdinand I on July 20, 1530, recog-
nized by Marie Theresa in 1779, and finally by the Hungarian Government
in 1868.
DALMATIA — ITS HISTORICAL STATUS.
A glance at the map of Euroi)c shows even a boy that the great strategic,
geographic, and ethnic frontier that separates the Latin from the Germanic
world is, according to nature's own aims, on the Rhine River and on the
Alps of the Brenner region. The same glance shows also that a powerful
extension of the same Alpine barrier separates the Latin from the Slavic world
along the crests of the Julian, Veleblt, and Dinaric Alps from the borders of
Carinthia all the way down parallel with the Adriatic shore to the borders
of Montenegro.
W^est of the Dinaric Alps lie Istria, Dalmatla, and the whole basis of the
Adriatic, an Integral part of the Latin civilization, while on the eastern slopes
of those Alps is found the great orographic basin of the Danube River, into
1132 TREATY OF PBACE WITH GERMANY.
which run all the rivers of Jugo-Slavla, like the Save, the Drave, and others,
and on which is built the future metropolis of the new commonwealth, Belgrade,
while none of the Jugo-Slavlc rivers run into the Adriatic. The Danube, that
Incomparable inland waterway, is the orographic, ethnographic, and economic
outlet of Croatia and the other Jugo-SIav countries from Vienna to the Black
Sea.
History. — ^What the German did in Alsace-Lorraine the Austrlans did in
Gorizla, Trieste, Istrla, Flume, and especially in Dalmatia, mostly since 1880,
in ah effort to " Croatlze " that part of Italy. But history can not be destroyed,
Dalmatia, " the Chile of the Adriatic," and its contiguous island were Roman
colonies as early as two centuries before Christ. Dalmatia gave Rome one of
her greatest emperors in the person of Diocletian, whose monumental palaces,
completed in 303, are still pointed out with pride by the natives of Spalato as
worthy to rank among the " seven wonders," Just as " most Italian Flume "
points to the triumphal arch of another Roman Emperor, Claudius II, and to
her Venetian Basilica of San Vlto; as Sebenlco's Cathedral, also of Venetian
origin and design, is the pride of all Dalmatia.
The cathedral of Santa Anastasla in Zara, capital of the " Kingdom of Dal-
matia" (as Its official name still is), was founded in 1202 by Enrico Dandolo,
Doge of Venice. Her Campanile dl Santa Maria is a century older. Zara has
also preserved with care her old Roman Tower, her Roman aqueduct, and her
ancient Loggia del Comune, with its 34,000 volumes and Invaluable Latin and
other manuscripts. A mere nomenclature of Dalmatla*s Roman and Venetian
antiquities and archeologlcal remains would fill volumes.
Many of the greatest among Italian poets and authors were natives of
Dalmatia. Tommaseo is one of them. The whole eastern coast of the Adriatic
has given to Rome Venice and Italy down to the present day thousands upon
thousands of patriots, soldiers, and martyrs. Oberdan, of Trieste, and Sauro,
of Capo d'Istria (Istrla), are among the latest and greatest, along with Bis-
mondo of Spalato (Dalmatia), who have honored and hallowed Austria's
scaffold by dying upon it for Italy's sake In 1917. Several of the political
refugees from the eastern coast of the Adriatic have become ministers of the
Kingdom of Italy ; two of them, Oen. Zupelli, a native of Capo d'Istria (Is^a),
and Hon. Barzllal, a native of Trieste, were ministers during the recent war.
The Adriatic Sea was for upward of 20 centuries a Latin lake, the " Mare
Nostrum " of Rome, then of Venice, including the whole eastern coast. From
1805 to 1815. It was a Province of the Kingdom of Italy. After the fall of
Napoleon at Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna, 1815, handed over V«iice,
Istrla, and Dalmatia to Austria. In 1848 Venice arose and revived the ancient
republic, and for 18 months held at bay, single-handed, the forces of the whole
Austrian Empire, and was subdued only by starvation and cholera, and her
ancient dominions were plunged Into deeper and more abject servitude.
But it was when the new Kingdom of Italy came into existence, 1861, that
the worst came for the Italian region under Austrian rule. The Austrian
Government started In earnest to kill off the Italian race and do away with the
Italian language In Trentlno, Gorizla, Trieste, Flume, Istrla, and Dalmatia. and
to transform the Adriatic into a German lake. The outrageous conditions
under which unredeemed Italians were kept led to the war of 1866 and freed
Venice. The cities of the Dalmatian coast made great preparations to give
Italy's fleet a royal welcome, but the defeat of Lissn by Tegethoff prevented a
landing. Austria then adopted such a cruel and vindictive policy against Dal-
matia that it was goaded into a revolution in 1860, which gave the Austrian
Government a pretext for wholesale executions. Murderous Croation bands
were let loose In those countries, where they perpetrated the most unspeakable
horrors, second to none that were to be committed later by kultur In Belgium
or Serbia. The scaffold, wholesale slaughters, and banishment laid whole
sections waste; some of the victims made their escape to Italy, others across
the Dinaric Alps, where they met with some humanity at the hands of the
Turkish authorities.
But 1878 came and the CJongress of Berlin, when Austria also grabbed those
former Turkish territories, and extended her rule over both slopes of the
Dlnarlc Alps. From that hour, the native Italian cause in Dalmatia and
vicinity seemed doomed, unless a miracle of Providence should intervene. Sinc«
1878 Austria has been promoting a wholesale Immigration of the Croatian
rabble from the former Turkish territories, which have now adopted the new
name of " Jugo-Slavla " given them by the late Crown Prince of Austria, Frans
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OERMAKY. 1138
Ferdinand, a few years before the recent war. Famished hordes recently re-
leased from Mohammedan control crossed the Dinaric Alps, pounced upon de-
fenseless Dalmatia and Its old and marvelous civilization, its opulent cities,
and under government protection endeavored to swamp the native element.
They were given the franchise the day they landed there, and so manipulated
and debauched the political life there that up to the day of the recent armistice
political and municipal election in Dalmatia was a farce; ami the native
Italian interests and cause were looked upon as henceforth and forever a for-
lorn hope.
The first sledge-hammer blow was dealt at the native Italian schools, that
had existed there from time immemorial. They and the native teachers were
systematically and inexorably choked and stifled out of existence, and sub-
stituted by Croatian schools and teachers. The latter were ignorant, uncul-
tured, and brutal. Italian was forbidden. Italian children were compelled to
attend Croatian schools and cruelly discrlnilnate<l against. The intruding
teachers had full swing as to corporal punishment. The Press was gradually
suppressed by the political machine, under sinister plausibilities and monu-
mental lies. "Obdurate" native e<litor8 and publishers were blacklisted and
eventually sentenced to ruinous fines, long terms in Jail, and banished on the
most preposterous pretexts. And an artificial Slav (Croatian) press was set
up, sustained by the Government under thin disguise. The honorable and
highly respected native Italian Judiciary was also uprooted and disqualified
by the same means. The Judges were " retired " one by one, or " depo8c<l " on
bogus complaints or formal, trumped-up charges, while a set of arrogant.
Corrupt, and unscrupulous Croatian magistrates were installed on the Dal-
matian bench. To them, ever since, no Italian need apply, Justice and fairness
being out of the question for the ** rebels," whose life in Dalmatia was made
a curse and a burden.
The most shameful pressure was exercised throughout Dalmatia and other
unredeemed Italian lands to weed out all the clergy of Italian blood or sym-
pathies. The rural districts and country parishes suffered most in this re-
spect. Filthy ignoramuses, with no other qualifications except their Croatian
origin and " loyalty " to the political machine, were forced upon exclusively
Italian parishes, to preach the gospel of Croatia and Agram, confess in the
name of Vienna, and slander and insult everything Italian. No absolution for
the " impenitent" The national clergy had to give in, become the tool of the
political machine or leave the land. The slogan imposed upon the populace
from the pulpit and the confessional was : " We are no longer Italians !"
The Plebiscite: "All hail self-determination, as President Wilson proclaimed
• it," said a great writer recently, " but it must be somewhat qualified or it can be
used as a pretext for criminal injustice ! " Clemenceau says the thug brought
to justice has no right to self-determination to escape his fftte.
Suppose BernstorlTs underhand propaganda bad succeeded in inclndlng a solid
million of the Germanic population of rural Pennsylvania to demand annexation
to Germany, would the President and America have bowed to it with a " God
bless you"? Would a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine, under conditions created
there by 48 years of German tyranny and the franchise granted to half a
million immigrated Germans, have meant a real self-determination for those
Provinces? France was too wise to hear of such a course. Let the highway
robber disgorge first, then we may talk it over.
The case of Dalmatia is identical with Alsace-Lorraine's, only aggravated
by a longer foreign tyranny and worse conditions created by it under Austro-
Croatian methods. A "plebiscite" in Dalmatia would be an outrage on the
native population, upon common sense, truth, and humanity. The Croatians
there are as much foreigners as the 700,000 Italians and the 500.000 Germans
in New York. When all shall have been told and Italy shall have annexed
all the lands of hitherto "unredeemed Italy," including all Dalmatia. Italy
will have reaped less advantages proportionately and absolutely than any of
the other nations concerned. Take it in square miles or in the number of
pec^le added to the kingdom, and you will find that Roumania will have more
than doubled her territory and population. Serbia will have the treble or
qnadruple of both. With the most disinterested disposition, BYance will gather
in her rightful heritage up to the Rliine. Even beaten C(ermany will be dan-
gerously the gainer if allowed, in the name of self-determination, to swallow up
the Teutonic parts of Austria.
But Italy never meant to and did not go beyond her natural geographic and
strategic frontier of the Alps, either on the north toward Germany or eastward
1134 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
toward Ju^o-SIavia. But that frontier on the crest of the Julian Aliis, th«»
Velehlt and Dlnaric Alps, she must have and hold at all hazards and forever,
or die. She yriW not " make" the Adriatic Into an Italian sea, as German propa-
ganda gold has led some unwary press agents to declare. But she will doubtless
restore and preserve what has been for 20 centuries the " Italian lake " of the
Adriatic, though some would fain make it into a Croatian pond and Balkanizc-
all its shores. •
Not that Italy should not come to an amicable understanding with the new
neighboring State across the Julian and Dinarlc Alps and grant Croatia and
Jugo-Slavia commercial and economic facilities In some ports of southern
DalmatIa, like Cataro, Ragusa, Gravosa or others. But if she should renounct*
or abandon her political rights on any of the cities and ports of Dalmatin. it
would be tantamount to allowing the pan-Slavic camel to stick his nose into th<'
Latin tent, and she would ere long have to light another and wore llfr and dejitli
war.
In this question all the Latin powers and the great Anglo-Saxon allies that
have saved the world for freedom and democracy have a vital interest.
For Italy to surrender to the Jugo-Slavs what she rescued from Austria at
such a staggering cost in blood and treasure would be the height of self-
stultification and madness. She has suffered long enough from the mongrel
frontiers imposed upon her by cruel neighbors, north and east. Long enough
has she supplied distant cities and States with ** windows " on her inner sea.
and tolerated intruders In all those Roman- Venetian seaports of her eastern
Adriatic coast
To have soundly thrashed Austria and liberated Dalmatia simply to sur-
render it to the Jugo-Slavs of Croatia because they became a "republic"
would be tantamount to having licked Germany and liberated Alsace simply t^^
surrender It to the Junkers of Prussia because they became a *' republic " at
the last gasp of the empire.
Don't the big men at Rome and Paris see it? Are not the native rights <»f
Dalmatia as good as those of our friends in Alsace, or those of the Poles in
Posnania? Would the Peace Conference decree that the sporadic colonies of
Croatlans In Dalmatia and of German In Posnania and Alsace, have canceled
the rights of the natives to decide the fate of the lands of their fathers'*
The Croats in Dalmatia, like the Germans in Alsace and Posnania, are Just as
truly immigrants in a foreign country as the millions of aliens that have
lande<l on the shores of America within the past 30 or 40 years. Indeed,
they are as foreign as the German hordes that have invaded and occupied
Belgium and northern France during the past four years.
The President of the United States said that the Congress of Vienna was a *
" Congress of bosses " concerned with their own Interests, not those of the
people. The partition of Italy at Vienna was as cruel as that of Poland. It
took Italy a century of effort and tens of thousands of martyrs to rise again
and complete her unity, which would not be complete if Dalmatia were to be
excluded forever. Irredentism would lead to another war ere long, for the
liberation of Dalmatia.
It Is to be hoped that the Peace Congress will remember the word of one of
the geratest British statesmen : " Let us be Just to all, but first to our allies,
who shed their blood alongside of us ! "
** If the Congress of Versailles does not undo the crimes of the Congress «»f
Vienna against Dalmatia, it will have added another crime to histoiy."
ITALY'S PART IN THE WORLD WAR — A CHRONOIXKJICAL RECORD.
*
1914. When Italy emerged from her victorious war against Turkey she wa^*
unprepared for a new conflict, having almo.st entirely consumed her war supply
and hundreds of millions of her treasure.
Not being bound to follow the Central Empires in a war of aggression Italy
renounced at once (August, 1914) her alliance with Austria and Germany and
proclaimed an armed neutrality, to side thus ostensibly with the Allies, In pro-
tecting the eastern and Mediterranean frontles of France.
Italy's decision was considered by the Germans as a "casus belli " for the
day of their victory, which they then regarded as impending, and was acclaime«l
by the Allies with the greatest enthusiasm, since France could withdraw 600,000
soldiers from the Italian frontier, enabling Joffre to win the battle of the Mame.
It was at that time that the Germans opened diplomatic negotiations with a
view to Induce Italy to Join them, promising through Prince Von Buelow terrl-
i
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1135
torial compensations to Italy in lier unredeemed provinces and in the Allies'
colonies.
Although Italy realized what efforts she must make to become equipped for
war, she hastened the gathering of a powerful' army.
1915. In March, while tlie Austrian army was victorious over the Russians
in Galicia, Italy signed the pact of London with France, England, and Russia,
and declared war against the Central Empires, sending to the Isonzo her first
divisions, which covered a front much longer than that of the French and Eng-
lish together.
As a result Austria was compelled to precipitlously withdraw large contin-
gents from the Russian and French fronts to prevent an Italian advance ; and
the enormous pressure against the Russian and French armies ended.
Although deprived of coal and other raw material Italy, having at her dis-
posal a large supply of soldiers, did not hesitate as early as October to send
60,000 soldiers to Salonlki and 20,000 soldiers to protect the retreat of the
utterly routed Serbian army.
While the Italian fleet sheltered at that time more than 100,000 Serbian
soldiers and 20,000 horses, providing them with food and clothes and transport-
ing them far away from the line of fire for reorganization.
The Italian railroads, In spite of their physical condition and lack of coal
for the movement of troops and munitions for the Italian army, were neverthe-
less able to provide also transportation to British and French divisions destined
to Salonlki, contributing thereby to the safety of this expedition, as the Medi-
terranean was infested with enemy submarines.
1916. The war proceeding with perilous uncertainty at the French-English
front Italy launched her decisive attacks on the Isonzo and the Carso. Aus-
tria and Germany were obliged to recall a part of their troops from the line
of the Somme, to which also Italy sent to that line a reinforcement of 250,000
men. These Italian soldiers remained in France until the end of the war along
with other 250,000 Italian workmen who, behind the lines or in French fac-
tories, released large numbers of French soldiers for action at the front. By
this means the victory of the Somme was hastened.
But as in the meantime Russia and Roumania had fallen, the Central Powers
repeated a greater attack on Italy in order to defeat her and thus be able to
attack France from the south, as they expected to do if Italy had not sided with
the Allies.
1917. The best troops of Austria, Germany, and Turkey being hurled against
the Italian front. Italy, fatigued by the long struggle, already impoverished
with respect to food, coal, and munitions, asked the Allies for reinforcements
of men and material; but in vain.
It will be remembered tliat when the Italian mission came to the United
States such statesmen as Nitti and Marconi kept urging America to send coal,
steel, wheat, and munitions to Italy in order to prevent a disaser. Neither of
their appeals was heeded.
And while Italy resisted the invasion of the Austrians on the plains of
Vicenza, she could not resist the subtle and efiicacious Austro-German propa-
ganda which caused Caporetto, where some Italian troops, hungry and be-
trayed, opened a path to the enemy to the Piave, capturing an enormous
amount of artillery, food, and munitions.
Then only the Allies realized too late the menace which was upon them and
hurried to Italy two English and one French divisions, which however were not
placed by the Italian supreme command on the firing line but in the trenches
behind the Mincio ; that is to say, 100 kilometers from the battle front.
It was then that Italy gave an astonished world the full measure of her power.
Realizing that her cities were in danger, just as France realized before the
Marne, awakened from the stupor caused by the unexpected disaster, she re
organized her armies and sent to the firing line even boys from schools. With
bared breasts, only armed with cold steel, the Italian Army alone arrested
Austro-Turco-German armies, once again saving at the Piave the destinies of
civilization.
At last, realizing that Italy's financial conditions were most perilous, the
United States Treasury Department gave Italy a credit of $235,000,000 follow-
ing the appeals made by the American friends of Italy and by the chairmen
of the Italian divisions of the Liberty Loan Committee in various parts of
the country. . . ., 4„. *
1918. In the spring of 1918 German pressure against the Allies was so great
that they were hurled back at Bapaume and Cluny. And while the morale of
1136
TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6BRMANY.
the allied armies was extremely low, Italy won tbe battle of the Piave, giving
time to the American Army to organize Itself in France, there to arrest the
enemy at Chateau-Thierry.
In Macedonia the left wing of the allied army was held by the Italians. They
did not give way an inch, thus permitting the advance of the Serbo-French
contingents.
Italy, supplied at last with coal and iron, utilized the services of women and
children in factories to provide munitions. She could hardly restrain her
troops to make a new and desperate attack against the enemy. In vain the
generalissimo of the Allies attempted to discourage an Italian offense. Gen.
Diaz assumed for Italy the entire responsibility of his action before his country
and the adverse advice of the Allies, and on the 24th of October attacked fear-
lessly and vigorously on the entire front.
For seven days the battle raged from the lagoon of Venice to the Alps, the
most grandiose and bloody battle that the world has ever recorded, and at
Vittorlo Venoto the Austrian armies, utterly defeated, left behind 500,000
prisoners, 7,000 cannon, 50,000 horses, and cattle. Austria was obliged to ask
for an armistice, offered unconditional surrender.
As a direct consequence of Italy's victory the southern boundaries of Ger-
many remained unprotected, and therefore, as Italy could now open up the road
to Vienna and attack the Germans from the rear, the (German armies retired
toward Its permanent fort 1 Heat Ions on the Uhine. Von Illndenburg and Luden-
dorff, realizing that at Vlttorio Veneto they haO lost the entire Austrian Array,
the last hope of vi<*tory, accept t»d the conditional armistice on the basis of the
principles announced by President Wilson.
HOW ITALY KEPT HER WORD.
Mobilized and equipped over 5,000,000 fighting men.
When Russia crumbled, Italy struck Austria so hard that Germany was
forced to send help, so relieving her hard-pressf^i allies on the western front.
Italy sent 250,000 soldiers to France, where they fought for over two years —
until the armistice.
Italy sent 25(),0(X) soldiers to Albania against the invasion of the Austrians.
Italy sent 60,000 soldiers to the support of the allied armies In Macedonia
when the Bulgars and Turks were crushed.
Italy sent 40,000 soldiers to the support of Gen. Allenby and his British forces
in the Palestine campaign.
Italy sent 250,000 construction men to France, where they labored behind
the lines for two years till victory was assured.
Italy rescued over 100,000 Serbian soldiers and Serbian civilians from the
Austrian drive, took them to Italy In her own ships, and fed and clothed them
from her own meager stores.
In October, 1918, in the greatest military victory in all history, Italy crushed
Austro-Hungary, Germany's principal ally, and forced her unconditional sur-
render of over 1,000,000 fighting men, 6,000 cannon, and enormous military sup-
plies, determining Germany's collapse on the western front Italy was opposed
by over 100 divisions of Austrians, Germans, and Turks and was aided by two
divisions of English, one of Franch, one of Czecho-Slovaks, and the Three hun-
dred and thirty-second Regiment of Americans.
Italy's total loss In the Great War, by the official figures, were almost as
many soldiers, man for man, as the British, and compared to population she
lost as great a percentage as France and twelve times as many as Great
Britain and America combined.
Italy's total loss in killed and wounded on the Italian and Albanian fronts
were 1,600,000, and of the wounded more than 500,000 were totally disabled.
The ofilclal figures of allied losses follow :
France and oolonlps
Eneland and colonies
IFnited States and colonics
Ftaly and colonics
Population.
«7, 000, 000
430,000,000
10fi,000,000
38,000,000
Pead.
1,071,300
658,704
58,<78
560,000
Permt
1.2
.U
.05
1.4
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 113T
Italj' lost on the French front 2,391 dead and 6,886 wounded.
Italy lost in men of her navy, killed, 3,169, and 309 totally disabled.
Italy lost 61 ships in her naval operations, i. e., 5 battleships, 6 auxiliary
battleships, 6 torpedo boats, 8 submarines, 8 destroyers, 8 cruisers, 4 mine
drags, and other miscellaneous ships.
Italy suffered a loss of over half of her merchant marine. The advance of
Italy in trade with the world in imports and exports had so increased up to
the time of the war that her merchant marine could carry less than half of any
other allies. The official figures follow:
Total ton-
nage mer- Lost. Per cent,
chant ships.
England 18,356,000 7,825,508 42.63
France 2,300,000 908,068 39.44
ttaly 1,530,000 880,000 57.62
Now, when one is asked to consider the pleas of the so-called Jugo-Slavs,
remember Italy was a staunch ally of England, France, and the United States ;
remember what she did in the war, and do not forget that the Jugo-Slavs have
been the stannchest fighting mercenaries of the Austro-Hungary autocracy up to
the very hour of the armistice, and that they have been fighting Italy ever
since!
ITALY'S FINANCIAL CONDxTION.
The Italian press commented last spring very favorably upon the proposal of
the London Economist that Italy's debt of about £800,000,000 to England be
wiped from the slate with one stroke of the sponge. Aside from this, Italy owes
the United States $1,500,000,000. The argument advanced by the Economist was
that Italy had suffered so much during the war and deserved a recompense of
the sort In other words, something more than mere praise for her part in the
struggle.
Senator Ferraris, editor of the Nueva Antologia, discussing the Italian State
finances, said that at the beginning of 1919 the cost of the war to Italy was
figured at 70,000,000,000 lire, or $13,000,000,000 at the normal rate of exchange,
equivalent to $333 per capita. This compares with an expenditure by the
United States of $21,500,000,000, or $215 per capita. In those figures no account
has been taken of the property losses in the invasion of the Venetian Province
in 1917 for which Italy should be reimbursed.
In October, 1918, the Italian State debt was 49,000,000,000 lire, including over
15,000,000,000 lire owed abroad. As the prewar debt amounted to 13,000,000,000
it is estimated that the postwar debt may rise to over 70,000,000,000, including
debt contracted for new public works. Before the war the expenses of the
State were about 2,500,000,000, while now, on account o| increased salaries and
Increased cost of material and supplies, the expense remounts to 7,000,000,000,
including, of course, interest on the debt, pensions, etc., not to speak of the
loss on lire exchange, reaching at present 80 per cent.
Before the war Italy's revenues were about 2,500,000,000 a year, which were
consumed by the expenses aforesaid. It is figured that the new taxes are pro-
viding 2,500,000.000, so that there will be a deficit of 2,000,000,000 unless other-
wise provided for by reduction of pensions and administrative economies. How-
ever, It seems as though the deficit should be in some manner covered by such
indemnities as Italy will receive from her enemies or by new and intensified
taxation.
When compared with the United States, Italy is a poor country, yet its debt will
soon amount to over 50 per cent of the prewar national wealth, which was esti-
mated at $30,000,000,000. The United States, Instead, has a war deDt of about
$25,000,000,000, or but 10 per cent of the prewar national wealth of $250,000,-
000,000.
CONCLUSIONS.
Italy, unfortunately, did not organize or finance a forceful propaganda to
make her sacrifices known throughout the world, but, regardless of that fact,
it is not disputed that Italy was faithful to her allies and has always been
faithful to the cause of civilization.
18554(^19 ^72
1138 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH 6HBBCANT.
It 18 to be further regretted that Italy's aims and ambitions have been char-
acterized as imperialistic and an infringment upon the newly created Jngo-Slav
nation.
Was It not Italy that received the Jngo-Slav representations In Rome in 1918?
Was it not there that the Jugo-Slavlc aspirations were first recognized, and was
it not Premier Orlando who, In speaking for the Italian nation, promised to
assist them in the realization of their rightful claims?
Much has been said about the Treaty of London, but it is indisputable that
Italy has an inalienable right to the terms guaranteed to her under that treaty.
Her national existence and the safety of the world depend upon the proper
rectification of her natural boundaries. The annexation of the Provinces of
Venezia, Julia, Flume, and part of Dalmatia is the completion of the Italian
national and geographical unity, that unity for which the Italians have been
struggling for long years with perfect faith in the Justice of their cause.
After four long years of suffering, of destruction, of hardships such as to try
the t&ith of mankind, the people of this world have entered upon a new era
of international Justice and fair dealing, which will insure to them and to the
coming generation that peace and freedom of action which are so necessary to
their progress and liberty.
The articles of the league of nations is proof of the sincere effort on the
part of the great statesmen gathered in Paris to lay the firm foundations for
the future peace and well-being of this universe. Though only a beginning, it
is a substantial step toward the construction of that mighty barrier based
upon universal right and Justice which will arise to protect the world against
future conflicts. And, however much, some of our public men may rant against
it, however much they may find fault with it, and seek to discredit it, and the
efforts of those men out of whose minds it was created, it will stand to the
everlasting credit of humanity.
The days of dark diplomacy and false dealings have passed; Justice is the
by-word to-day, and let us say that Justice will be meted out to all, and Italy's
claims will be granted to her not because of her secrlfices in this war, but
because truth and Justice demand the security of her confines, the safety of
her race and of her civilization.
OPINION OF. PROMINENT MEN ON ITALY.
President Wilson to Hon. Charles E. Hughes, president of the Italy-America
Society, May 24, 1918 :
** I am sure that I express the sentiment of the whole country when I thus ex-
press my admiration for Italy and my hope that increasingly, In the days to
come, we may be enabled to prove our friendship in every substantial way."
George Clemenceau, Premier of the French Republic, In a letter to Ex-
Premier Luigi Luzzatti, April, 1919:
*' Tou can not doubt, my dear illustrious friend, that I am animated by the
same sentiment toward Italy as are yours toward France, for I have esteemed
it an honor to manifest them in darker days. At the hour of signing peace
there can be no question of disregarding our reciprocal engagements. French
policy is not a * scrap of paper.'
Robert Lansing, Secretary of State, May 23, 1918 :
'* The people of Italy, as of this country, must not doubt for a moment the out-
come. ♦ • ♦ As sure as there is a Just God in heaven, the day will dawn
when victory will crown the eagles of Rome, as in ancient days, and, side by
side with the victors and sharing their glory will be the eagles of America !"
Theodore Roosevelt, Ex-President of the United States, May 24, 1918 :
" I take this opportunity to pay homage to the high valor and lofty Idealism
that Italy has shown in this great struggle for humanity and civilization against
Germany and her vassal confederate states Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey. I
most earnestly hope that Italy will be able to round out the great work of Vic-
tor Emanuel, Gavour, Mazzlni, and Garibaldi, and that the Italian-speaking
provinces of Austria will take their natural places In the Italian Kingdom.
• ♦ ♦ Our country owes a deep debt of gratitude to Italy for what she has
done, and I earnestly hope that we shall pay this debt as generously as possible,
and in as fine a spirit as Italy herself has shown."
Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War, at the celebration of Italy Day in New
York, May 24, 1918 :
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1189
" Upon this day we celebrate the fact that Italy has for three years bravely
faced the sacrifices which thia war entails. On b^alf of the American people
and the American Army, we send yon grateful messages.'*
Gen. Lndendorff, formerly quartermaster general of the Grerman Army, from
a dispatch from Paris, March 12, 1919 :
" Ludendorff stated that if Austria had been able to release even a small num-
ber of her divisions to help Germany on the western front the war would have
been won by the Central Empires before America could have had time to send
reinforcements to the Allies. Ludendorff stated further that the position of the
Central Empires became precarious when Italy abandoned her neutrality to
join the Allies, but it became altogether disastrous in June, 1918, when Gen.
Diaz foiled the Austrian offensive on the Piave, in which the Austrlans had em-
ployed their best troops and all their resources."
MaJ. Gen. William Crozier, United States Army, June 1, 1918 :
'* Italy is responding nobly to the needs of the great cause she Glares. The
Italian people, from my observation, are a unit in their support of the war aims
of their nation. They are a wonderful people, both as warriors and as crafts^
men. I visited all their great war plants. Their production of munitions is
awe-inspiring. In their retreat before the Austrlans before the opening of last
winter they lost many big guns, weapons essential to defense and offense on the
terrain where they were fighting. They have replaced all guns lost, and, better
than that, have produced many more than they have ever had before."
Hon. Charles. E. Hughes, Ex-Justice of the United States Supreme Court,
president of the Italy-America Society, May 24, 1918 :
" We have appreciated altogether too little in our appraisements of the
achievements of this war what Italy has accomplished. ♦ ♦ ♦ We have
given our praise to France and Great Britain; we must give the Just meed of
praise to the extraordinary accomplishments of Italy; for following that fate-
ful day of which this was the anniversary there was achievement after achieve-
ment, which must forever hold high place in the records not only of daring and
exploits, but of the most efficient organization In connection with the history of
the war."
Prof. Charles Upson Clark, director School of Classical Studies, American
Academy in Rome, December, 1918 :
" We do not realize that Italy lies at the mercy of the power controlling the
eastern Adriatic harbors ; that the Slovenians and Croats have always been un-
der German-Austrian control and that the Germans will undoubtedly bend every
effort to getting an Adriatic base of operations through the north Jugo-Slavs,
and that Italy's sacrifices and successes in our common struggle entitle her, as
in the case of France, not merely to our sympathy but to our active aid in pro-
tecting her against the next outbreak of unrepentant and rejuvenated Teuton-
dom. We all wish the new Jugoslavia well ; but every student of Austria and
the Balkans feels that it is not wise to trust too fully the Croatlans and Slo-
venians, who were among the staunchest supporters of the Hapsburgs and our
bitterest enemies on the Italian front."
Hon. John F. Hylan, mayor of New York City, May 23, 1918 :
" Italy's invaluable contribution of human and material resources in this
awful conflict will long be remembered, for she has participated gallantly in
three years of the hardest fighting. We rejoice in her victories and will stand
by her until complete victory crowns the efforts of the Allied armies with
speedy and triumphant success."
William Dean Howells, author:
" I never knew an American who did not love Italy and was not proud to
share citizenship in Italy's ideal Republic that Invites all children of liberty.
I lived in Venice during the last four years of Austrian domination, and it is
ray old age's greatest grief to see the Austrlans again near the lagoon. My
most fervent hope is that I may live long enough to see them driven from Italy
forever."
William Roscoe Thayer, author and historian :
" We owe Italy a further great debt of gratitude because she did not allow
herself to be driven by popular clamor and reptilian intrigues to take part in
the war prematurely. Had she done so, nothing could have prevented the Aus-
trian armies from sweeping Into Venetia and Lombardy and putting Italy out
of the war before she had really entered it. Such a disaster at the outset
would have had a most depressing effect on the other allies and might have
brought about an irrevocable disaster.'
f>
1140 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Prof. George S. Herron, publicist, speaking of Italian aspirations at the
l>eace conference, June, 1919:
"Although I (lid not know the President's mind about the matter, • • • I
none the less believe that those upon whom he depended for his information
have misinterpreted the Italian problem. • ♦ • It does not follow, how-
ever, that his Judgment of European questions Is always infallible, especially
as his Judgment must depend in a large degree lipon the opinions of the
Incredible * experts' who have swarmed Europe as a positive pest and who
have no actual knowledge of these nationalities, no actual knowledge of
human beings, no actual knowledge of modem economic and political processes."
THE AMERICAN PBES8 ON ITALY.
Throughout the United States hundreds of dailies at the epoch making of
Italy's victory at Vittorlo Veneto, November, 1918, when she destroyed the
Hapsburg secular autocratic empire — 35,000,000 Italians against 53,000,000
enemies--German, Slav, Turk, Magyar — chanted high, very high, the lands of
the Italian army's and nation's might.
" Italy's part in the war was potential and momentous.*'
«
t*
4t
41
«
(I
Some titles from "American editors' tribute to Italy " (New York, December,
1918), taken at random, well conveys national sense and consensus of the
American press toward Italy's deeds of valor and sacrifice in the World War:
"Italy the immortal " (The Journal, Minneapolis, Minn.).
"America rejoices with Italy" (Hartford (Gomi.) Gourant).
"Heroic Italy" (Milwaukee Journal).
" What the world owes to Italy " (New York Evening Mail).
"Deserves praise without stint" (Evening News, Rutland, Vt).
" Paved way for German surrender " (Herald, Qloversville, N. Y.).
"Italy's victory" (Daily Eagle, Brooklyn, N. Y.).
"The debt to Italy" (Herald, Rochester, N. Y.).
Italy's Astonishing Achievement" (The Globe, New York).
Italy's splendid triumph" (Oregonian, Portland, Oreg.)-
Honor to Italy's victorious armies" (The Binghamton Press).
Naval heroes" (Republican, Providence, R. I.).
"The Alps' bridge builders" (Post-Telegraph, Camden, N. J.).
Faithful Italy" (Boston Transcript).
Glorious Italy" (Buffalo Express).
The glory that is Italy" (The Indianapolis Star).
"The new Italy" (Times-Tribune, Bay City, Mich.).
" Great days for Italy " (New York Herald).
" Italia ! Italia ! " (The Daily Mining Gazette, Houghton, Mich.)
The Chairman. Is there anyone else to be heard!
Mr. CoTiux). Mr. Chairman, we have here an American citizen
who comes from Fiume, a native of Fiume, Mr. Ernest Papich, of
New York City.
STATEMENT OF MB. EBNEST PAPICH.
Mr. Papich. Mr. Chairman and honorable Senators, I am an
American citizen. I was born at Fiume. My family has belonged
for generations to the city of Fiume. I left Fiume, as many others
did, refusing to be under Austrian military rule, and came to this
country to become a good and faithful citizen.
I asked to come bsfore this committee to assert and to describe
the spirit of my native city.
My first words were in the Italian language, and through my
childhood I did not hear any other lanc^uage but Italian, which is
not only spoken by the great majority of our population but vener-
ated with pride as our most sacred link with our motherland, Italy.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QERMAKY. 1141
I will tell you also that mv fellow citizens never thought of any
other country but Italy, and that the small minority of Slavs at
Fiume were never seriously spoken of and never were represented
in any municipal activity.
My fellow citizens are ready to die and to defend their world-wide,
well-known Italian sentiment. At Fiume not only the hearts of the
population but even the stones are Italian.
buildings, churches, and monuments were built by Italians thou-
sands of years ago. Hard as these stones is the will of Fiume to
defend and preserve the Italianity of their city.
My fellow countrymen fought for this sentiment hundreds of bat-
tles, and they hope now that uiis one will be their last struggle.
Fiume, according to history having always been an independent
and free city, is entitled as any other free people to recognition and
respect. It is simply repugnant to me to think that anybody else
shall contest Fiume's own wishes after so much suffering and the
many sacrifices of its people.
I was recentlv informed bv a friend of mine, who is a member
of the National Council of Fiume, that there is only one watchword :
" Italy or death !"
Honorable Senators, since Fiume asked, from the very beginning,
for the protection of the American democracy, I myself, being proua
of my American citizenship, I dare to affirm that we can not fail it
in its confidence and expectation that we must uphold Fiume's in-
tangible right to self-determination against everything and every-
body.
The Chairman. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard ?
Mr. CoTHJiO. Yes ; Mrs. Curry.
Senator Moses. Senator Cotillo, before going on with another wit-
nesSj may I ask you one question ?
Mr. CoTnxo. Yes, sir.
Senator Moses. Do the Fiumeans regard the League of Nations
as a suitable instrumentality through which to attain their aspira-
tions ?
Mr. Cotillo. No, sir. The answer to that is that after they were
heard at the conference between their representative, Premier Or-
lando and President Wilson, they came back with a strong resolu-
tion stating that they simply rebelled against it, and that they
would go to the American shores for assistance.
Senator Moses. Then they would not think of turning to the
League of Nations?
Mr. Cotillo. Evidently not, from their resolution.
The Chairman. They are the same people who are making the
appeals.
Mr. Cotillo. Mr. Chairman, if there is any question that the Sen-
ators would like to ask to relieve their minds, I believe there are
men here who are competent, far more than myself, to answer ques-
tions, and if there are any other questions desired to be asked, I
would like to have them stated now, so that if I can not answer them
I can obtain the information.
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Cotillo. I understand that Mrs. Curry is very much inter-
ested in this matter and has requested an opportunity of appearing
before the committee.
1142 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANT.
STATEHENT OF HBS. KABIAH OTniBT.
Mrs. CxTRRY. There is very little that I want to -say. I simply
want to say that we have been so universally accused of not attending
to our own affairs, but, on the contrary, I think it is our affair that
the people be safe and contented, and that the Fiume question is the
most vital part of it at this time, and I want, as an American citizen,
and in the name of the many American citizens who have not been
befogged by the Jugo-Slav propaganda, to lodge a most violent pro-
test against Fiume passing mto the hands of a eroup of people who^
for the time being, are so irreconcilable as the Jugo-Slavs have been
up to the present time.
The Chaibman. Have you lived in Fiume, Mrs. Curry?
Mrs. CuKRY. No ; I have never lived in Fiume.
The Chairman. Have you been abroad recently?
Mrs. CuBHY. Yes, I have, and I was in Paris during Holy Week,
during the week before Easter, when the Fiume matter came up.
The Chairman. Were you connected with the work of the peace
conference?
Mrs. Curry. I was not officially; but I was acting as unofficial
secretary to some one who was connected with it at the time.
Senator Moses. Were you familiar with the discussions that went
on at Paris with regard to the disposition of Fiume ?
Mrs. Curry. It was a matter of such common talk that I think
almost everybody was in one way or another.
I think it is not so much the Italians having called attention to
the fact of Fiume passing into the hands of the Jugo-Slavs, but that
came from the English side. But they themselves did call attention
to the fact that they must supply the northern countries with a port,
and from the unstable condition that they were in that they would
fall a prey perhaps easily to German influence.
Senator Moses. Did you ever hear of any financial question re-
specting the railroads of the Dalmatian coast as being considered in
the Fiume question?
Mrs. Curry. You mean — ^that one is, I believe, that the bonds of
one are largely in Gterman hands, is it not?
Senator Moses. I am trying to verify the information, whether it
is true tiiat there were two groups of bondholders there.
Mrs. Curry. I suppose the others are supposed to be in the hands
of some French, bankers.
Senator Moses. Do you know what banking house controls the
German group?
Mrs. Curry. I do not know, but I think it is a matter largely pub-
lished, I think it has been quite universally discussed, and I think
that probably some of the records are in the archives of the com-
mittee at this time.
Senator Moses. No ; we have not anything.
Mrs. Curry. I think anything of that nature would have to be —
I am afraid I can not submit proofs of that.
Senator Moses. Do you have any direct information with refer-
ence to discussions of this subject which went on between the mem-
bers of the peace commission?
Mrs. Curry. No ; no official Icnowledge.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMA^Y. 1148
As I say, my desire was simply to launch a very vigorous protest
about Jugo-Slavia, acquiring Fiume, because there nas been some uni-
versal discussion, perhaps not of an international purport, but as to
who had the desire to control that part of the world. That was really
Germany's idea, I believe, in the war. I do not think abe cared any-
thing about the West. I think England recognized that when she
took the mandate over Persia.
Senator Moses. Do you know whether the Hamburg Banking House
of Warburg was connected with the financial interests of any of the
railroads on the Dalmatian coast?
Mrs. CuBRY. I do not think that anybody knows that, but it has
been so published — ^has been so suggested.
Mr. Field says that he will present that.
Italy has made a fair offer for the arbitration of Fiimie, and to
make of it a perfectly free port, and it seems to me that our only
safety lies in making it into a free city of some sort, under the ad-
ministration of Italy. It would be dangerous to present the adminis-
tration of it to an unstable group.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions that you desire to
ask of Mrs. Curry ?
Mrs. Curry. I think that is all. Thank you.
Mr. CoTHJX). I understand that yesterday the railway situation was
presented before this committee by the members of the Ju^o-Slav
committee, and I think that Dr. Vaccaro, who comes from Wilming-
ton, has a paper prepared on that subject, if the committee will hear
him.
The Chairman. We shall be glad to hear Dr. Vaccaro.
STATEMENT OF SB. L. VACCABO, OF WILHINOTON, DEL.
Mr. Vaccaro. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the United States Senate: So much has been
said about Fiume and Dalmatia that any person interested, in one
way or the other, in the work of the peace conference must have at
least a superficial personal opinion of the Italian character of the
city and region.
Leaving to others the task of discussing the historical, geographi-
cal, ethnological, and practical reasons whereby Fiume and Dal-
matia should be incorporated in the Italian kingdom, I would like
only to say a few words about the right of self-determination which
some statesmen would deny to the inhabitans of Fiume.
It has been said that Italy asked for Fiume only after the fall of
the Hapsburg dynasty, but the truth of the whole matter is this:
It has been Fiume itself that has expressed its desire to be annexed to
Italy, exercisine its right of self -disposition in full accord with the
declaration made by the President of the United States. Moreover,
Fiume placed itseli under the protection of the people of the United
States in the event that some opposition might be made in the exercise
of such a sacred right and finally by public proclamation declared
herself annexed to Italjr, when rightly or wrongly, the people of
Fiume thought that their right of self-determination was oecoming
a matter of bargain for some of the peace conference delegates. The
auestion now arises was Fiume entitled to exercise the right of self-
etermination as such right was understood by the President of the
li44 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
United States? If there ever was a State, a community in Europe,
which knew what self-determination meant^ and how to exercise such
a right, that community or State was Fiume.
The citizens of the free community or free municipality of Fiume
decided on July 20, 1580, to place themselves under the protection of
Ferdinand I, under certain conditions, accepting certain duties but
without renunciation to the personality of the community, whose
historical boundaries were recognized by imperial patents issued by
Emperor Ferdinand himself. On the force of that patent Fiume
was annexed to the crown, but as a separate body, corpus separatum
and its status was confirmed by Maria Theresa in 1789, and by the
Hungarian Parliament in 1868. In plain words, up to October 30,
1918, the empire of the Hapsburgs was formed by three States, viz,
A^ustria, Hungary, and Fiume. With the collapse of the Hapsburgs,
the compact stipulated between them and Fiume became void and
null, ana the citizens of Fiume, free again of any ties or obligations,
decided to annex themselves to Italy. This decision was a bona fide
one and was taken through the proper and right channels and in a
politically legal form.
Now if we were to trust what has been said here and there, it would
appear that when Fiume proclaimed her annexation to Italy on the
basis of her right of self-determination, a sort of a dilemma was put
to Italy by her allies : If you take Fiume, then the treaty of Lonaon
shall be considered void and null, because Fiume was excluded from
the pact ; if you want the f ulfiUment of the Treaty of London, then
Fiume must go to Croatia. I must candidly confess that I am not
able to follow the argument.
Let us suppose that Fiume was excluded from the pact of London
for unselfish reasons, for the reason that Austria-Hungary could
not be deprived as a nation (republic or empire does not matter)
of an outlet to the sea. At that time nobody hoped that Italy would
be able to completelv crush the Austrian dynasty, and perhaps it
was right to leave P*iume to Austria. But now, with the break-up
of the Austrian Empire, we have Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Hun-
gary, who have become inland powers and who consequently have
as much right to Fiume as Switzerland has to Genoa or Marseille.
Fiume is an independent body, and as such, exercising its right of
self-determination, chooses to be annexed to Italy. How could and
why should Italy lose the rights acquired by the treaty of London in
accepting the decision of the free state of Fiume?
We have been told that it is because the new State called Jugo-
slavia needs an outlet to the sea. But what do they mean when they
say Jugo-Slavia? If it is a question of Croatia, Bosnia, Herzego-
vina, and Serbia as a whole, it is clear that Fiume is not the natural
outlet to the sea of any of them. The future of Serbia points " to-
ward the south " will be our motto from now on, wrote Prof. Ciwije,
of Belgrade University, in 1913, and he was thinking of Saloniki.
On Au^st 6, 1916, the Serbian Premier Pasic said, "We can not
deny the incontestable right of Italy to the hegemony of both sides
of the Adriatic. We are only looking for an economical outlet," and
such an outlet was considered more than sufficient in a strip of terri-
tory between Ragusa and Cattaro 3 miles long. And again, another
Serbian official said, "The harbors of Dalmatia are useless to us,
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1146
because they are eccentric to Serbia." And so they are, especially
Fiume, which is the most eccentric of them all. What has been said
of Serbia can be applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which lie be-
tween Serbia and tne Adriatic.
Then Fiume would be the natural outlet of Croatia. But it is not,
since only 7 per cent of all the trade passing through Fiume is Croa-
tian and only 13 per cent of the import and export commerce of Jugo-
slavia pass through Fiume. Then it appears clearly that the
Croatians want Fiume not for their trade, but to acquire a predomi-
nance over Hungary, the Bohemians and Germans, substituting
themselves for the detested Hapsburgs. It is for the reason that the
Croatians want to resuscitate another powerful Austria that the
people of Fiume protest against being forcibly annexed to Jugo-
slavia; that the Italians naturally can not suner their brethren to
be again subjected to the gallows of their oppressors, and Italy wishes
to insure her security on the Dalmatian coast. It should be bom in
mind that Croatia already has natural outlets, e. g. Buccari, Porto
Re, Carlo Pago, and Segna ; Serbia and Herzegovina have Trau and
Spalato, Marcassa, Gravosa and Hagusa, Castelnuovo, Cattaro,
Antivari and Metcovitch which is with Spalato, the natural outlet
of Jugo-Slavia, as it stands at the terminal of the only railroad sys-
tem that goes from the sea to Sarajevo and Belgrade.
It is claimed that Fiume is needed by Jugo-Slavia because that
is the only port served by a normal guage railroad. Now a regular
gauge railway will never be built in Jugo-Slavia because the whole
country is served and shall be served by narrow gua^e railroads.
Mr. Sanjanovic, a Slav civil engineer, railway adviser to the Jugo-
slav Government, on March 12, 1919, made this statement: "Ex-
amined the situation of Spalato as compared with that of Fiume and
Salonica, with regard to the outlets of Jugo-Slavia. I may con-
clude that by the construction of two comparatively short and inex-
pensive railway lines, Spalato will acquire f or Jugo-Slavia's trade
an importance equal to that of Fiume and Salonica.*^
Mr. Sanjanovic justly remarks that the railway system of the new
State will thus be formed by two distinct parts :
1. A main, normal-gauge line from Steinbruck to Zagabria, Bel-
grade, Nisch, and SiSonica, for international intercourse between
West and East ;
2. A series of transvereal lines for national traffic, linking up the
various centers of the new Kingdom amongst themselves and with
the sea. These latter would be narrow-gauge railways, like most
of those built by the late Austro-Hungarian Government and by
Serbia.
It follows that the ports of national importance for Jugo-Slavia
will be those on the Adriatic connected by the narrow-gauge lines
and evidently not those (like Fiume, etc.) connected to the main
line.
Mr. Senjanovic shows also that the new lines of Jugo-Slavia will
have to be narrow-gauge ones, both because the country has already
2,000 kilometers of narrow-gauge lines and because narrow-gauge
lines are so much cheaper, although affording a high transport
capacity.
1146 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QBBMAKT.
^' In Bosnia," says Mr. Senjanovic, ^' narrow-gauge railways attain
a speed of 45 kilometers an hour, a speed which could not be exceeded,
in mountainous regions, by normal-ffauge ones. Modem narrow-
gauge trucks can be built to carry from 15 to 20 tons, that is to
say, the same as normal-gauge ones. The Doboi-Serajevo line had
80 trains a day and the yearly earnings reached 35,000 crowns a kilo-
meter in 1911, as compared with 40,000 crowns for the normal-gauge
lines, and from 16,000 to 20,000 on the secondaiy lines.''
In 1912 the Brod-Serajevo Line transported 1,641,000 tons oer
kilometer, or 4,500 tons per kilometer a day, equal to 225 fully loaaed
trucks; similar results are found only on very active normal-gauge
lines.
All the data have been taken from the following official documents.
We know that Jugo-Slavia has plenty of harbors for its present
and future commerce. The statement often made by Jugo-Slays that
Italy wants to block forever Jugo-Slav commercial expansion by
taking over the Dalmatian coast is absolute falsehood. Tne Serbians
wanted only 8 miles and instead they have now more than 600. Italy
has claimea no more than 200 miles, excluding for instance Spalato.
which makes its living almost exclusively on Italian trade. In fact,
Spalato has an electric plant for the production of 60,000 horsepower,
built by the Italians with Italian capital, and from Spalato 400,000
tons of cement were yearly exported to Italy.
Italy wanted a part of Dalmatia which had retained its Italian
character and some Dalmatian islands which constitute a tremendous
danger to her. These islands can hide and protect by a system of
mine laying the navy of Jugo-Slavia or any of her allies, which could
attack at will the occidental coast of the Adriatic, studded with
beautiful cities, and return safely to their abodes berore the Italian
Navy might be able to defend the coast. The recent war h*as con-
firmed Italy in her conviction that she needs protection on that side.
Unable to confute such military reasons the Jugo-Slavs say it was
all right to seek protection in the past, but now we have the league of
nations. It is nne rhetoric and fine philosophy, but a league that
has to hang on another league of three nations to be of any value
arouses great suspicion of its own protective value. I can not blame
the Italians if they demand a more tangible form of protection.
The last argument used by the Jugo-Slavs is that the majority
of the population in Dalmatia is Slavic. Therefore these lands fall
to Jugo-Slavia on the principle of nationality. Now, the question
of nationality has nothing to do with the question as to how many
Slavs will be included within Italy's frontiers or to how many
Germans will be included within the French frontier on the Rhine.
Dalmatia is claimed by Italy as unredeemed land, just as Transyl-
vania is claimed by Roumania and Alsace-Lorraine by France.
In Transylvania there are 1,472,021 Roumanians and 1,206,S46
Magyars and Germans. In Alsace and Lorraine before the war
there was the following proportion between Germans and French :
Lorraine — 481,460 Germans, 73 per cent; 146,097 French, 27 per
cent.
Upper Alsace — 481,375 Germans, 93 per cent; 31,771 French, 6
per cent.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH QBBMAKY. 1147
Lower Alsace— 671,425 Germans, 96 per cent; 26,884 French, 8.7
percent.
In all, 1,684,260 Germans, 87 per cent; 204,662 French, 10 per
cenL
I don't care to belittle the sacred ast>iration8 of France, but wish
to demonstrate that the proportions existing in Dalmatia between
Italians and Slavs is more or Jess equivajient to that existing be-
tween the French and Germans in Akace and Lorraine, two prov«
inces which were restored to France witiiout discussion. This snows
that the principle of nationality can not be defined by the simple
process oi counting heads, by taking the individual out of his sur-
roundings, out of his national tramtions, out of his political and
social ties, with his forerunners and the people living around him at
present If you take him out of the whole series of interdependent
national relations you make the individual universal. You make
of him an antisocial and antipolitical being. You do, in other words,
what the Bolsheviks have done in Russia and elsewhere. The Slavs
in Slavia and Dalmatia, as well as the Germans in Alsace and Lor-
raine, can not be separated from their environment and considered
as individuals. The Slavs find themselves in territory which is
Italian historically, geographically, and by right of strategic neces-
sity. They must bow to this condition, because it is more important
to the world that a great nation should be made secure than the
liking of a few thousand individuals should not be thwarted. Natu-
rally there are also the rights of Jugo-Slavia to be considered if
Jugo-Slavia will become a nation. In fact, where the Slav national
ri^ts will necessitate the inclusion of -some Italians within Jugo-
slavia's boundaries, these Italians shall have to bow to a superior,
interest.
That is not the case of Fiume, however, whose people are entitled
to the principle of self-determination, nor the case of that part of
Dalmatia which was assigned to Italy by the Treaty of London that
is indispensable to the security of a nation of 40,000,000 inhabitants,
a nation which has paid the full price in blood, suffering, and wealth
to acquire that security. Because that part of Dalmatia was under
the yoke of the Hapsburgs, it has been possible for the Austrian
fleet, a few hours after the declaration or war, to pour upon cities
and destroy churches and schools, to kill women and children, and
fly away, refusing, up to the last, the challenge of the Italian sailors.
Should a new war break again, in spite of all our efforts, in five
gears or in a century, the Italians do not want a repetition of what
appened in the past. They want that the churches and cities be
spared that the priests mi^ht pray and women toil and children
grow in safety at least. It is for the assurance of such a future that
more than 500,000 Italians died on the battle fields, more than
900,000 were severely wounded, and millions and millions of men,
T^omen, and children suffered cold and hunger and swallowed
silently their bittor tears. They hoped for the justice of Italy's
allies, and ^ipec^^^'^'y America, and they must not have hoped in vam.
Senator Harding. What port do you suggest that Jugo-Slavia
should develop?
1148 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Dr. Vaccaro. Metzovic is the most central of them all. I have
some maps here, Senator, which show that Metzovic is the most cen-
trally located one.
Mr. ConLLO. I have a telegram here from John J. Freschi, .who
regrets his inability to be here, and desires to be recorded at the
hearing of Fiume before the committee as favoring Italy hann^
Fiume, and he states that if it pleases the Senate committee he wiu
file a memorandum, including exhibits.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have here a gentleman, Mr. Field, who
has requested me to ask for a few minutes of your time.
The Chairman. Very well.
STATEMENT OF MB. W. H. FIELB.
Mr. FiEU). I desire to file with you statements signed by people
who were present in Paris and in Italy during the recent negotiations,,
which statements will show that Col. House was in favor of giving
Fiume to the Italians and that President Wilson opposed it.
I will also file statements and publications from England which
show that the Hamburg banking nouse of Warburg was' interested
in the railroads, and for that reason is interested in the Fiume deci-
sion, and that the matter is one which should be gone into very care-
fully, as it is divided into two camps.
Senator Kmox. What position does the Warburg bank take in th&
matter?
Mr. Field. They wish Fiume not to be an Italian port. Opposi-
tion to that has been shown, .and I think if you go over carefully the
publications that came out abroad on both sides, you get a very accu-
rate view of the financial interests, and if you have some of the
statements by those who tcok part in the negotiations, you will see
clearly that in the American delegation there was a rift, on the one
side the President, and on the other side Col. House, and some of
those witnesses did not wish to appear and some are not available in
this country, but it is stated that they are willing to make signed
memoranda to be delivered to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Now,
those I will file as rapidly as possible with the committee.
(Subsequently the extracts referred to were submitted and are here
printed in full, as follows:)
[Extracts from Modem Italy, published May 24, 1019; June 21, May 31, May 17, and May 10, 1919 ,
respectively.]
THE BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE.
But the group goes even further. According to Pertinax in the Echo de Paris,
April 28:
M. Max Warburg is the chief of the banking firm Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg.
He IB the principal shareholder in the Hamburg-American and German Lloyd Steam*
ship Lines. His two brothers, Paul and Felix Warburg, married respectively to the
sister-in-law and the daughter of M. Jacob H. Schiff ' (bom at Frankfort) are the associ-
ates of the latter at the head of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. bank of New York. Here "tre
have a financial group which, up to the declaration of war by America, in April, 1917,
was the most powerful link between the politicians of Washington and those of Berlin.
From 1914 to 1917 this powerful syndicate showed itself extraordinarily active against
, — — - - I i
I It should not bo forgotten that Mr. Jacob Schi^, arcordini; to Pertinax, has been the ereat financial
supporter of the "Mutual Society of German Jews," which was linked and is still probably linlred on many
sides with hitch German circles, and that in 1916 he founded the American Neutral Conference Committee
which took upon itself the tas c of brinsring ahout peace with a vic.orious Germany.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1149
the Entente. In 1915 the Warbuigs of the Old and the New World tried to have the
interned German ships acquired bv the United States. For a moment, says Pertinax,
it looked as if they were to succeed,.
But, to-day, according to the Globe, they have actually succeeded after four years'
effort, and the comment of that paper on May 17, under the title, ''Done again,'' is
instructive:
** According to the special correspondent of the Daily News in Paris, the mooted
seizure of German ships in American harbors has now become a fait accompli. The
vessels, we are told, are to remain American property, and America willpay their
value into the pool out of which reparation payments are to be made." Tnat is an
arrangement wnich may jjossibly satisfy the United States, but it will certainly
not placate public opinion in this country. Mere money payment can in the circum-
stances of tne case oe no compensation. It may be equivalent to the value- of the
ships, but it certainly can never be accepted as reparation for the loss of transport to
Batiah shipping. Apart from that side of the question, which betrays the usual
American desire to get the better of a deal, we have to consider that these vessels would
never have been in American harbors but for the vigilance and efficiency of the British
Navy. Further, they were driven or held there while America was a neutral and
President Wilson professed inability to distinguish the rights and wrongs of the con-
tention with Germany. It is not out of place, therefore, to inquire wherein lies the
peculiar efficacy of the I^ea^e of Nations if it can not be trusted to deal with a situation
like this. Has" its millennial virtue already sone out of it, as in the case of the pro-
jected Triple Alliance? This decision^ if such it proves to be, is plainly aeainst the
dictates of common hone6tv.!and is nothing short of an outrage on intemationaldecency .
No doubt our delegates will be, as usual, fertile in evasion and excuses. But these
will not satisfy the country, which regards the disgraceful business as a national affront.
In plain English, we have been done a^^ain."
Not so long aeo the Globe had an article, "Watch Warburgsl" There may be more
important people yet to watch than Warburgs. But so far so good. Watch Warburgs
in the case of Poland. Watch Warbur» in the case of Italy. Watch Warbum at
Danzk; and Fiume. Above all^ watch Warburgs in the case of England, and let it
never be foi]^tten that already in 1915 the Warburgs of the Old and New World tried
to have the interned German ships acquired by the United States.
Let us also not for^t that, according to Pertinax, M. Max Warburg is one of the
German plenipotentiaries at present at Versailles. Is this gentleman one of that
group of international financiers to whom Mr. Henon alludes "who are diplomatically
privileged, who are the cause of all the political and moral failures of the peace con-
ference, on the shoulders of which will fall the responsibility of the ruin which threatens
the world?"
It is well we should be on our ^uard. We are told sometimes by short-sighted or
interested persons that this politician or that is responsible for the errors of the peace
conference. The Times^ for example, and Mr. Simonds attribute some of them to Mr.
Lloyd-Geonre. Others, irritated by the platitudinous langua^ and colossal vanity of
President Wilson, ascribe them to Wilsonian ideology. Probably both are wide of the
mark. The truth may lie elsewhere. Behind the politicians there lies a power
superior to that of the greatest politicians in the world. These latter " strut their little
hour upon the stage." We watch them carefully. We applaud or we decry their little
antics. Punch sometimes bellows forth his "principles," waves his big stick, and
beats his wife. The wife sometimes assails him for beine faithless to his principles.
The spectators listen with palpitating hearts. But it would be not only more prudent
but more just if, imlike deluded children, we watched the power that pulls the strings.
Watch Warburgs! Palmam qui meruit ferat.
Therefore to our Polish friends who speak bitterly of England, we would say. Watch
Warburgs. To our Italian friends wno speak bitterly of England and America,
Watch Warburgs! And to all those Englishmen incensea by the fact that, after losing
2,197 ships of 7,638,020 tonnage, in comparison with 80 ships of 341,512 tonnage lost
by the United States, the finest ships in tne German mercantile marine, whose tonnage
is double the American loses, will be kept by America — for we are told by Mr. Hurley
that '' Whatever method of adjustment is adopted, the ships will certainly be kept by
this county" — ^we would say again, Watch Warburgsl
When the prestige of England ia declining both in Italy and Poland, when the faith
of her friends in her is nearly broken, when she loses her old friends and makes no new
ones, when danger threatens her in Egypt and in India — ^Watch Warburgsl When
schemes are afoot for the destruction of the Polish trade by sea with England; for the
destruction of the Italian mercantile marine and the annihilation of Anglo-Italian
trade in the Levant; for the seizure of the German ships and the capture, by this blow
to the British mercantile marine, of the trade of Soutn America — ^Watch Warbuigsl
1150 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
THE LBAOUB OF NATIONR AND INTERNATIONAL nNANCB.
On June 10 the Morning Poet, under the headings ''The Ijeakage of the Text^"
''Financiers Subpa>naed/' published an astounding piece of news. The n^ws was
communicated in a Renter telegraph of June 9 from Washington, and nins as follows:
"The Foreign Relations Conunittee of the Senate have subpmnaed Messrs. Jacob
SchifF, Lament, Davison, Warburg, Morgan, and Vanderlip^ in connection with the
investigation [an investigation of the Senate as to how copies of the treaty reached
Srivate interests in New York]. Thev have also inidtea the Acting Secretary of
tate, Mr. Polk, to take part m the inquiry, and to cross-examine the witnesees.
The financiers mentioned above, with the exception of Mr. Vanderlip, have been
called at the instance of Senator Borah, who told the committee that he was con-
vince<r that they were familiar with the contents of the treaty, although he had
never seen a copy in their possession."
"Senator Borah," the telegram goes on to say, "has charged the international
bankers of New York with being interested, 'for private reasons,* in the adoption ni
the league of nations covenant."
It adds that '*the committee have requested Mr. Lament, who is a member of
J. P. Morgan & Co., to produce any correspondence between the Morgans and their
Paris and London agents regarding the treaty, and particularly any communication*
with Mr. Davison, another member of the firm, while the latter was abroad.**
Now, we shall not say anything in this issue about the firm of J. P. Morgan & C^ ,
of which Messrs. Lament and Da^'ison are members. Nor shall we ?ay anything of
Mr. Vanderlip. But since we referred over a month ago (Modem Italy, Vol. II,
No. 14), under the title "Is the Peace Conference a Free Agent?" to Messrs. Jacob
Schiff and Warburg, it may be interesting in \dew of this new development to recall
attention to these persons.
Moreover, the public was warned bv an article in the Globe some time ago to
"Watch Warburgs." In Modem Italy,' Vol. II, No. 16, in an article entitled "Dan-
zig, Fiume, and the British Mercantile Marine," we set up our watch, and now, iu
view of the new facts, it seems more than ever ncccesar}' to maintain it.
We had no idea, at the time wo wrote, that Messii. Jacob Schiff and Warbarp
would be subpnnaed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States
Senate. Nor are we interested in the details of this particular development. It is
no concern of ours whether and how copies of the peace treaty reached private inter-
ests in New York. But it is interesting to note that Messrs. Schiff and Warburg are
evidently considered persons of importance in New York, and it is well to remember
exactly who they are.
According to Pertinax, the well-known Frenc h joiu'nalist, who is usimlly extremely
well informed, Mr. Jacob Schiff was bom at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the home of the
Allgem.einer Elektricitats Gesellschaft He is to-day one of the directors of the
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Bank of New York.
He has been, according to Pertinax, "the great financial supporter of the 'Mutual
Society of German Jews,* which was linked, and is still probably linked on many
sides, with hi^h German circles." Can we assume for an instant that the oipiiiized
camapign which is being carried on to-day by the German-speaking Jews of Poland
a^nst the creation of a strong and independent Poland is entirely unconnected
with the work of this societv? Can ao assume that Mr. Jacob Schiff is unintereste<l
in the settlement of the Polish question, a question which — in spite of the unanimous
recommendations of committees — undergoes from day to day such amazing changes?
Bom at Frankfort, he must know very well that the German-speaking Jew of Poland
is regarded in Germany, rightly or wrongly, as the chief agent in Eastern Europe of
German "kultur." And not only of "kultur." For all great German firms regard
him as an ideal commercial traveler in the work of German economic penetration
into Poland and, fiu-ther, into ussia. It would be a minw-le if Mr. Jacob Schiff had
never expressed an opinion about Poland.
It would be a miracle, too, if Mr. Jacob Schiff had never expressed himself on th*'
subject of a league of nations. During the war, before America intervened, Mr.
Jacob Schiff, Pertinax informs us, "founded the American Neutral <^onferenre
Committee, which took upon itself the ta?k of bringing about peace with a victorious
Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulae of the league of nationi*,
the anathemas launched against the 'old diplomacy,' which was said to be respon-
sible for bringing about the war. On this point, consult the work * How the Diplo-
by Mr. Ileubsch, the colle^5:ue of Mr. Schiff on the
Neutral Conference Committee."
Is it possible that Mr. Jacob Schiff is the real author of the covenant? We know
well that many h'gh-niinded idealists work for this ideal, which is, at it* best, an
TREATY OF PEAOE WITH GEBBCANY. 1151
attempt, under modern conditions, to reconstitute the Ronmn Empire. No Roman
statesman, listening to I^rd Robert Cecil on June 13, could have taken exception to
anything he said. The ideal, eloquently expressed, of a '*Pax Romana^'; the criti-
cisra, of national selfishness; the appeal to put an end to the existing international
anarchy; the admission that the league must entail some diminution of national
sovereignty— all this would have delighted Tiberius Gracchus, not to mention Caesar,
and many a Roman statesman would have hailed Lord Robert Cecil as a colleague.
But it must be remembered that, if the league of nations has its good side, as an
attempt to extend the realm of public law and to put an end to international anarchy —
an ideal never yet realized in the history of the world save by the Roman Empire —
the league also has its dangerous side.
Given the overwhelming influence of international finance, what is there to
prevent the real center of the league from being established, not at its nominal
center, Geneva, but at Frankfort, the home of international finance? What is
there to prevent it becoming a mere political department of the AUgemeiner Elek-
tricit&ts Gesellschaft? National finance ma^r be hard enough to regulate in the
interest of the nation; but imder a regime of intemationid finance all nations would
bow to a new master, more strange and terrible than Caesar, stronger than the Roman
Em|>ire, stronger than the papacy, a master called Baal in ancient times, whose
aim it is to-day to tiun the worid, and all the nations in it, into one vast servile State.
To turn now to the Warburg orothers, one of whom has been subpoenaed to-day
together with Mr. Jacob Schiff .
Max, who lives in Germany, is very well known. He is the chief of the banking
firm, Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg. He is at present one of the German pleni-
potentiaries in Paris. During the war he distinguished himself at Stockholm by
mtrigues in the Ukraine, which he endeavored to detach from Russia and transform
into a German protectorate, with a view to German penetration in the east. He is
also reported to nave been one of the chief German agents for the introduction of the
Bolshevist virus into Russia.
Paul and Felix, the other two brothers, live in New York. They are married
respectively to the sister-in-law and the daughter of Mr. Jacob Schiff, and are asso-
ciated with him in the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bank. In November, 1916, Mr. Paul War-
burg was responsible, Pertinax tells us, for the famous circular which recommended
the American banks to cease giving money to the Allies.
When President Wilson rerormed the l>anking system of his country and created
the Federal Reserve Board, he appointed Mr. Paul Warburg as one of the directors.
It is appjarently this Mr. Paul Walbuig, not Felix, who has been called by Senator
Borah to give evidence.
We have now explained who Messrs. Jacob Schiff and Warburg are, and to-day
we can only await tne results of their evidence. But it is interesting, in conclusion,
to call attention to a new weekly paper which may or may not have some connection
with them.
This new weeklv, published in New York, Ib called The Review. It is edited by
Fabian Franklin, formerly associate editor of the New York Evening Post, and Harold
de Wolf Fuller, iformerly editor of the New York Nation. The New York Nation is
practically the weekly edition of the New York Evening Post. Both are papers of a
strongly liberal character, and were zealous in the cause of conscientious oojectors.
In fact, according to the prospectus of The Review, the Nation is one of those
papers which, together with the New Republic and the Dial, have become ^'the
chief promoters of an unthinking drift toward radical innovation."
The Review is intended to oppose this drift, and among the 120 stockholders in this
paper we note the names of Messrs. Paul Warburg, Felix M. Kahn, Julius Rosenwald,
Frederick Strauss, and Mortimer L. Schiff. Whether Mr. Mortimer Schiff is any
relation of Mr. Jacob Schiff, and whether Mr. Paul M. Warburg is the Paul Warbuig,
the brother of Max, we are not sure. But The Review itself may be worth watching .
It may possibly throw some light upon the ideas and principles of Messrs. Schiff and
Warbuig.
But whatever influence Messrs. Schiff and Warbuig may or may not have in the
settlement of Polish, Italian, or any other questions, it is necessary to bear in mind
that all the great financial magnates of the world are out for business. We are living
in a period when the greed of the world, concealed during the war, is now seeking a
frenzied satisfaction. It is impossible to suppose that the peace conference itself
can escape the influence of the world's great financial magnates. Indeed, it is
impossible upon any other h3^thesis to understand many of its decisions. IJnless,
for example, we assume that international finance has been at work, it is impossible
to understand, to mention nothing else, the coquetting with the Bolshevists at Prink-
ipo; the attempt to rebuild the Austrian Empire under the name of a Danubian Con-
1152 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
federation; the astounding negotiations with the successor of St. Stephen upon the
Hungarian throne, Bel a Cohen [Kuhn] ; or tHe treatment meted out to Belgiiun, Poland .
and Roumania.
Above all, it is impossible to understand the treatment of Italy. It is only when
we read the speeches of such men as Signor Luzzatti and Signor Turati, of whom the
latter, as an extreme and intransigeant socialist, can not be accused of any sympathy
with patriotic or purely national aims, that we can understand the true nature of the
opposition to the rightful claims of Italy. Both Signor Luzzatti and Signor Turati
have referred in their speeches in the Italian Chamber to the enterprises of intor-
national finance in the Adriatic, notably at Fiume, a city which even Signor Biasola^i,
the socialist, has always claimed to be Italian.
And we should do well to remember the protest made by Signor Tittoni in the
Italian Senate, for it concerns, not only Italy but ourselves. Signor Tittoni bade us
beware of ''the substitution for German hegemony of other hegemonies, less brutal in
appearance but just as tyrannical and concealing a formidable plutocratic coalition
and a colossal financial monopoly for the economic exploitation of the world. ^'
Let us take care lest, under the mask of a league of nations, we submit our destinies
to some formidable plutocratic coalition, which, sitting at Geneva or at Frankfort,
under some slimy Asiatic Caesar, would destroy all nations, England included,
and crush, in a far more deadly way than was ever done by Home the freedom of the
world,
TWO TONS FOR ONE.
In our last number we drew attention to the fact that Mr. Hurley, chairman of the
United States Shipping Board, commenting on the impression said to obtain in Britain
that the control of the seized German ships in the United States will be t^iponuy,
observed, according to the New York correspondent of the Daily Mail, "Whatever
method of adjustment is adopted, the ships wHl certainly be kept by this country.''
This statement of Mr. Hurley's has now been corroborated by Mr. Lansing. In an
interview with the Paris correspondent of the New York World, Air. lAnmng indicated
conclusively that the vessels are now national property, saying: "They are now our
ships, and 1 do not think there is the slightest cluuice of any cban^e of ownership."
In addition to these statements made by Mr. Hurley and Mr. Lansing, we have some
evidence as to the opinion of President Wilson. The correspondent of the New York
Sun cables: "President Wilson considers that, so far as American is concerned, the
question of the German ships has been settled, British statements to the contcary
notwithstanding. " " When the matter came up before the council, ' ' the correspondent
adds, "the President and Mr. Llovd-George had an extended aigument, ending in the
flat statement by the President that American would keep the German ships now in
her possession and settle for them in her own way. Whether the Premier accepted
this now seems to be the question. Americans state that he did. * * * The
President was advised in his stand bv American financial experts in Paris.*'
Now, tiiese three statements, of Mi. Hurley, Mr. Lansing, and President W'ilson,
if really made by them, are astonishipg. We can hardly disbelieve them, but they
seem to be in such flagrant contrast with President Wilson's much advertised "ideal-
ism," and indeed, with the most elementary principles of justice, that people in
England have now b^gun to open their eyes. They are beginning to think that the
treatment which was meted out to Poland and to Italy is now to be meted out to
England. The truth of the situation begins to dawn upon them. Poland was far
from them; they understood but little the claim of Poland for a port at Danzig.
Fiume meant little to them. They had never heard of it. Many people, indeed,
had previously thought that Fiums was a kind of fish. Moreover, an elaborate and
extensive propaganda, carried on against Italy since the beginning of the war, had
prejudiced many persons against all Italian claims. But now that it is clear that the
lust and righteous claims not merely of Italy and Poland but of England henelf are
likely to be thwarted, Englishmen realize to some extent what Poles and Italians
felt when "idealism " was applied to them. They do not like its application to them-
selves, and have begun, like the Poles and Italians, to make some protests, both in
the press and Parliament.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 115$
The following official return of allied merchant ahipe sunk by the GermanB shows
how Britain's ton-for-ton claim would suffer if the United States keeps the German
ships:
Tonnage*
Oreftt Britain a,m 7,638,020*
Fnnce 238 696,846
Italy 230 742.865
United States 80 341.612
Japan 29 120,176
•
It should be noticed that, if we estimate according to tonnage, the losses of Italy
come second on the list. Before the war Ital^^ had (excepting only Germany) the*
highest proportion of large liners of any country in the world . It must also be remem-
bered that Norway lost over a million tons. Norway was not our ally. Situated next
door to Germany and defenseless, how could she be? But surely, in view of her ap-
palling losses, tJie loss of her brave seamen and of her ships, uermany owes her a.
tremendous reparation.
Now. under the conditions of peace Germany is required to surrender the whole of
her merchant Shipping and to replace the losses she has inflicted, ton for ton. Ther
fairest course would, undoubtedly, have been to allocate the German ships among^
the various countries in proportion to the losses suffered by each.
But what happens? As we have pointed out, the United States during the war
lost tonnage to an amount estimated at 341,512 tons. If, on the basis of a ton-for-ton
policy, she claimed that and no more, her claim would be just, provided that the
claims of all other nations had equally been met. But the German tonnage interned
in the ports of the United States amounts to 660.000 tons. And, according to
Mr. Hurley, Mr. Lansing, and President Wilson, America intends to clum it all.
Surely this is "idealism' with a ven^nce. It was understood that America was to
make no profit by her intervention in the war. But here we have a policy, not of
ton for ton, and of equality among the Allies and the associated powers, but of America
hel ping herself first on a basis of 2 tons for 1 . And it must be here remembered that the
British Navy either drove these ships into the American harbors or kept them there..
But, if we examine it, the booty claimed is far richer than at first sight appears.
The German ships intenled in the United States are the pick of the German mer-
cantile marine. Among the prizes is the Vaterlandy 54^282 tons, the largest ship afloat^
and several fast liners of a type far superior to anything America previously owned.
Until lately, there was reason to hope that the Vaterland would be awarded to this
country as compensation for the Ltuntania.
As At. J. C. Gould, the Unionist member for Central Cardiff and a well-known
shipowner, said in an interview:
'^There are 90 German ships of a totaltonnage of 660,000 in American ports and they
are the finest ships the Germans had. Announcements have been made in America*
that they are going to keep the German ships in their ports. If America is allowed
to retain these ships, she will have more than double her losses. * * * It will be
a serious loss to us if America keeps these vessels and uses them in the trans- Atlantic
trade."
It is obvious that these ships will give the United States a big lead in high-class
inger traffic at the very moment when British lines are crippled by severe war
Again, as Sir Alfred Booth, the chairman of the Cunard Line, has pointed out:
''By the fortune of war the Americans had the opportunity of increasing their
mercantile marine enormously when we could not. if, on the top of this, they get
all the German tonnage interned in the United States, and we get only our proportion
^with the other allies of the German ships kept in German waters, the Umted States
^11 have an enormous advantage for immediate business. We must have ships now,
if ^w^e are to resume our business, so terribly handicapped by the losses we have sus-
tained. The fair way would be to share them in accordance with losses.''
The above remarks are abstract and general. To-day we can be more concrete and
grecise. These ships are to be used for South American business. The United States
hipping Board has chosen from its fleet of former German ships the Mount Vernon^
18,372 tons: the Van Steuben^ 14,908 tons; and the Aqamtmnon, 19,361 tons — ori&inally
known as tne Kronvrimeasin Cedliey Kronprim Wiihelm, and Kaiser WiUielm II— tor
paasenger and mail service between New York and South American ports. These
136546—19 73
1154 TBEAT7 OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
veeaels will be released shortly from transport service and be refitted luxurioiuly. It
is expected that they will be ready for service in midsummer.
The Shipping Board hopes, says the Daily Mail New York correspondent, that with
the eetabhsnment of a South American passenger service, 50 per cent faster than any.
existing before the war, South American buyers will be attracted to the United Statee,
and the old custom of travel via London between South American and United States
ports will be abandoned.
To sum up, America will secure the lan^eet ship afloat, and several hat liners of a
type fsi superior to anything she previously owned. She will use them to capture the
trade of South America. And sne will luive them on the seas, not merely before
Great Britain and Italy are able to make TOod the losses they suffered during the war,
but actuitlly before the final peace terms nave been si^ed, i. e., in midsummer.
The allocation, we Bie told, of all German tonnage is to be r^:ulated by an inter-
allied commission in Paris. But before the commission has begun to sit, oefore any
allocation has been made, the United States seizes the ships, on a basis of 2 tons for 1,
and captures the trade of South America.
Surely "idealism '' could go no further. Emerson once described Napoleon as the
^;reat business man of history. Had Emerson been alive to-day he mignt have been
inclined to apply the words to President Wilson.
And yet pernaps we are wrong in blaming President Wilson. "The President/* ^^^^
are told, "was aa vised in his stand by American financial experts in Paris.'' We do
not know who these advisers were or what their advice was. But we ought not to
ioTget certain kcts.
We ought not to forget that already four years ago, in 1915, the Warburg of the Old
and the I^ew World had tried to have the interned German ships ac<iuired by the
United States. Have the Warburgs again to-day soueht to obtain their acqmsition?
Who are these Warburgs? Max Warburg is the chief of the banking firm, Max
i7arbuig A Co., of Hamburg. He is principal shareholder in the Hamburg- America
and German Lloyd steamship lines. During the war he was at Stockholm and carried
on some curious intrigues against Poland, endeavoring to set against Poland a Ukraine
under German control. At present Max is one of the German plenipotentiaries in
Paris.
His two brothers, Paul and Felix, live in New York. They are married respectively
to the sister-in-law and daughter oi Mr. Jacob Schiff, and are associates of the latter at
the head of the Kuhn, Loeb A Co. Bank of New York.
Mr. Jacob Schiff is himself an interesting personality. He was bom at Frankfort,
and has been, according to Pertinax, the great financial supporter of the "Mutual
Society of German Jews," which was linked, and is still probably linked on many
sides, with high German circles. In 1916, according to the same writer, he founded
the American neutral conference committee, which took upon itself the task of bring-
in£ about peace with a victorious Germany.
v^e have here, as Pertinax says, a financial group which, up to the deckiation of
war by America in April, 1917, was the most powerful link between the politicians of
WashiDcton and those of Berlin. Is it likely that the connection between the War-
buras of the Old and New World has now been broken? Having worked together as
brotners in the war, will they not work together, as brothers, in the peace?
Be that as it may. it would be a mistake to consider the policy of two tons for one in
isolation. This policy, scandalous as it is, is closely linked with other questions. We
should do well to bear in mind the words of Mr. George D. Herron, once the political
friend and supporter of President Wilson. "International financiers, who are diplo-
maticallv privileged, are the true cause of the present crisis and of all the political and
moral failures of the peace conference, on the shoulders of which will fsM the responsi-
bility of the ruin which threatens the world.**
British people are disturbed by the policy of two tons for one, which threatens to be
realized. But it must not be forgotten tnat they feel to-day what Italy felt only
yesterday and still is feeling. "A financial group," Mr. Herron tells us, "is trying to
;secure pri>dleges for the development of Fiume and of the Dalmatian ports, to get hold
of all the lines of navisation in the Adriatic for the purpose of bringing complete com-
mercial ruin upon Italy and of banishing her mercantile flag from the seas."
He would be a blind man, indeed, who failed to see a connection between the
policy of two tons for one and the attempt to bring commercial ruin upon Italy. Is
it the same ^up which is endeavoring, on the one hand, to banish the Italian flag
from the Adriatic, and, on the other, to banish the British flae from South America?
And if we turn from the Adriatic to the Baltic, we find another sin^fular coincidence.
How is it that Mr. Max Warbui^, the principal shareholder in the Hamburg- American
and German Lloyd steamship Imes, snould have been so interested in the Ukraine?
It might seem strange to find a great shipping magnate interested in the Ukraine.
TEEATT OF PEACE WITH GEBMAITY* 1155
But— apart from the fact that Germans regard the Ukraine as their etepping^stone to-
India — all Germans realize that a strong and independ^t Poland, connected with
England by sea, would be fiettal to many of their plans. Such a Poland would be
reoeued from German economic domination. The Baltic might cease to be a German
lake. It might become unduly opened to the British mercantile marine. Danzig
ntu^t compete with Hambuig. Such a polic^r would not suit the Warburgs either of
the New World or the Old. Max Warburg himself has Us business between Ham-
burg and America.
One thing let us never forget. Poland and Italy are linked to England by many
spiritual ties. They form, also, if we give them our full support and do not thwart
tneir claims, two strong barriers against any future attempt by Germany to dominate
the world. They are the rampsuts of France upon the north and in the south.
Together the four nations, England, France, Italy, and Poland, form one solid bloc
whose unity is essential to the world's stability and peace. We are bound together,
BO less, by economic ties. The policy of ton for ton concerns us all. Our interests
can never clash. And it is in the highest interest of England to witness a new Poland
strong upon the seas, and a new Italy strong and secure in the Adriatic. With an
allied and friendly Italy adjoining us in Eg3^t. with a ]?oland connected with England
by sea and bolting t^e door to the German Dranjg nach Osten, to the exploitation of
Hussia, and to the invasion of India, Great Britain possesses two first-class guarantiea
for Uie security of her own Empire.
THE QUSanON OF FIUME.
After the long and rather bitter discussions, the disappointing delays, and the
dramatic happenings that have hardened the Italian people to the point of being
ready to dare almost anything rather than abate their rights, we find tne question of
Flume still unsolved. How much longer must we await a decision?
The Italian iiation was suddenly confronted with the veto of a single man, a man
who has such unbounded self-confidence as to think himself infallible and sole arbiter
of the world's destinies. Is this man bound bv the chains which his friend, Prof.
Herron, denounces? Has he his people behind mm? Who can say? For thou&g he
is the latest apostle of democracy, he dispenses with parliaments and peonies. Word
and act, truth and right, are his, the wise man who would correct the folly of forty-
three million Italians.
There are, however, a few rifts in the lute. The senates of New York State, lUinoiSy.
and Massachusetts have cabled to the President asking him exnlicitly to fully accept
the Italian claims. And the majority leader in the Senate, Mr. Lodge^ has cham-
?ioned the same policy. Therefore it is clear that the Italian policy in regard to*
iume has supporters even in America.
Have any new facts come to light to confirm the President in his obstinacy? Dr,
Wilson has appealed to the Italian people over the heads of the Parliament and Gov-
ernment, ana the ItcJian people have answered by rallying round the Government
and showing that they are inaissolubly united. Unmoved by all this the American.
President continues to dilate on all his old arguments. The chief and one might say
the only argument put forward by him is one which has astounded everybody by
reason of its lack of logical sense. Accordinjg to President Wilson, Flume is an inter-
national port, and because it must renudn international it ought to be ^^^^ to the
Croats . That is to say, it must become a part of Jugo-Slav nationalism . That method
of reasoning is so obviously outside all bounds of reason that we need not bother about
discussing it. Evidently iS-esident Wilson thinks, and obstinately thinks, that it is
a sound and solid dogma.
Now, everybody inowa that the Croats are not an international but an entirely
nationalistic peoi>le. What grounds are there then for supposing that Fiume could
be made international by giving it to them rather than to the Italians? Are we to-
take it that the Italians, whose* a^e-long civilization has been the cradle and is stilL
largely the vital center of all that is best in Europe, would be less alive to their inter-
national obligations than the Croats who are only of yesterday? The President argues
in much the same way as the Germans argued when they tried to iustihr their occu-
pation of Antwerp, the natural outlet for the Rhine Provinces. Should Rotterdam,
seeing that it is an international port par excellence, be condemned because of its
international situation to live under the German yoke? Ought we to make a present
of Genoa to Switzerland or South Germany? Surely Dr. Wilson must have other
arguments stored away in his portfolio. But he will not tell the world about them.
Secrecy, however, only serves to sharpen the curiosity of people who are eager to-
know the secret of the golden mysteries which have been denounced by Prof. Herron^
1156 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the President's confidant and friend. It is not our business to attempt to pull
i^he veil that hides the Ark of the Covenant^ or perhaps the Golden Calf.
Meanwhile the newspapers come out with another ballon d'essai. Why should
Fiume not be g^ven to the league of nations for five years, while another harbor for
the Jugo-Slavs is in course of construction? Italians have no objection to the con-
struction of a new Croatian port if that would solve the Fiume problem. They are
not after the gold mines of Fiume. Thev are concerned only tor the liberties and
rights of their own peonle. As a matter of fact, the idea of a Croatian harbor at Buccari
or Segna has already oeen mentioned in this Review. At Flume Italy only seeks
to safe^ard the freedom of her own people, which is a small thing and valueless as far
as outsiders are concerned.
But no one can help noticing it as rather remarkable that people should insist on
the necessity of creating a new Jugo-Slav harbor quite close to Fiume, in an entirely
out of the way position from the natural Jugo-Slavian trade routes. Leaving Fiume
out of the question, the treaty of London gives the Jugo-Slavs a group of ports which
in 1910 had a total trade of 12,000,000 tons; that is to say, a bulk of trade double that
<>f Marseille. The total trade of Fiimie itself was less than one-fourth of this, because
it amounted only to 2,500,000 tons, of which a quarter of a million came from Jugo-
slavia. Thus only a fiftieth part of the maritime trade of Jugo-Slavia passed throi^^
Fiume.
Why are they so insistent on having the new Jugo-Slav port so close to a place
"where, in spite of all the encouragement given by the Hungarian Government, only
:& small fraction of Jugo-Slav trade passed? It is difficult to understand the meanii^
of the insistence on such a demand. There are people who think that behind all this
obstinacy there must be some particular reason, rerhaps there is some one entirely
actuated by idealistic motives who thinks that great aidvantages will be reaped in
that out of the way comer of the Quamaro. Where, it is hard to say. Perhaps one
might fall back upon Prof. Herron for the answer.
And there is another question. If Italy is to have the Italian cit}r. of Fiume after
a period of five years, why not now? Why should the lea^e of nations be brought
into the Adriatic? Italy has already had proof of how this land of arrangement would
work. A certain international commission has been going up and down the Adriatic
-and has done things which are not yet publicly known, but which are underlined in
black in the annals of the Italian Navy. Is Italy to be put under tutela^? Do
the Allies realize how grossly they sin a^iiost all good taste, a^inst all the principles
•of comradeship, and how grossly they ofiend the susceptibilities of the Italian people
when they suggest that a supervising control should be held over the Italian Govern-
ment during the period of five years, within which Fiume will be the "only" outlet
tor the Jugo-Slavs? Of what crimes do they think the Italian Government would
be guilty against the commercial freedom of the small Jugo-Slav nation? Perhaps
not ev^ President Wilson could answer that question. But those who inspire him
probably think that behind the cover of the league of nations the dollars could easily
ebb ana flow at Fiume, and that the economic interests of the citv could be more
•easily handled. Certainly the Italian Government, conscious of its duty, could never
allow the iisury and exploitation which the Jugo-Slava readily permit, going hand in
hand as it does with the corruption of the governing classes.
Dr. Wilson still gazes at Fiume with his thumbs turned down. The whole Italian
nation yearns for the redemption of the Italian city. If despotism and dollarinn
should triumph, we might have an exodus from Fiiune of the Italian population;
and it is not impossible that the Croats might eventually find there only ruins and
desolation. In this Review it has already been said that Fiume is the touchstone
of the Allies* policy. That is an important truth, and the sooner its importance is
recognized by those who have the direction of the allied policy in their hands the
.sooner shall we arrive at an Adriatic settlement that will be just and lasting.
18 THE PEACE CONFEBENCE A FBEE AGENT? — ^MOBB UOHT NEEDED ON A DABK
QUESTION.
Dr. Herron's telegram to the Italian paper L'Epoca (Apr. 28) reveals the existence
•of a secret financial coalition practically ruling over the peace conference.
In order to fully gra8|xthe importance and the authentic character of the revelations
made by Dr. Herron it is, first of all, necessary to know who Dr. Herron is. The Paris
edition of the New York Herald (May 3) gives the following details about his position
;and career. It says:
**Dr. George D. Herron was appointed in February last, with Mr. William Allen
White, as the American delegate to the proposed conference with representatives of
the various Russian parties on the island of Prinkipoe. A publicist and professor of
XBBAT7 07 PBAOB WITH OBBICAHT. 1167
political economy well known in the United States, lie has for some five yean past
made his home in Geneva, whence he was able to keep the American State Department
and Allied Governments posted on movements centering there. About a year ago
he published a volume entitled * President Wilson and World Peace,' which, following
a book on "Hie Menace of Peace,' issued the year before, attracted much attention.
*' For several weeks before his return to Geneva, about a month ago, he was in dose
conference with President Wilson, GoL House, and other members of the American
mission, as well as with Mr. Balfour and the Italian d^Qgation.
''In coimection with the above dispatch it is interestinjg: to note that, speaking
in the Senate, Si^or Tittoni protested against 'the substitution for German hegemony
of other hegemomee, less brutal in appearance, but just as tyrannical, and concealing
a formidable plutocratic coalition ana a colossal financial monopoly lor the economic
•exploitation of the wo^ld.'
"The theme was dwelt upon also by Signor Luzzatti and Signer Turail in the Cham-
ber. Tbey referred to the enterprises of international high finance in the Adriatic,
notably at Fiume. The revelation of the opposition of financial magnates to Italian
claims' has made a great sensation in Italy. '^
Hence it is clear that we are in the presence not only of a competent authoril^ in
regard to the facts with which he deals, but also of a man of high moral worth, wnoee
views on the moral side of the situation are of the utmost value and worthy of the utmost
respect.
The following is the text of Dr. Herron's communication to the Epoca:
"As one who can claim to be perfectly acquainted with the nature of the present
conflict between Italy and Jugo-Slavia, and as one who has had occasion more than
once of acting as mediator between the two parties, I should like to express my con-
viction that a great injustice i^ about to be done to Italy, in the opinion of the public,
and that the Jugo-Slav people as well as the Italian people are ignorant of what is
hidden behind tne scenes of the present crisis. I should like also to add that, as I
can safely aflSrm, there were at least two occasions when an imderstanding could have
been reached were it not for the intervention of intrigues on the part of international
financiers who are diplomatically privileged, who are the true cause of the present
crisis, and who are the cause of all the policical and moral failures of the peace con-
ference, on the shoulders of which will fall the responsibility of the ruin which threatens
the world. The financial ^up is tryiog to secure privileges for the development of
Fiume and of the Dalmatian ports, to eet hold of all the lines of navigation in the
Adriatic for the purpose of exploiting^ tne Serbian nation, on the one hand, and on
the other to bring complete commercial ruin upon Italy and banish her mercantile
^ag from the seas.
"* Nor would the ruin of her mercantile commerce be the sole damage to be suffered
by Italy were she to renounce Fiume. In a very short time her political and commer-
cial relations with Roumania and the Balkans would be severed. By refusing to cede
her eastern port Italy is at present struggling for her own existence against the inter-
national monopolists. She has no mines. She has no resources to offer to these
monopolists, while southeastern Europe is ripe for exploitation. Furthermore,
accoroing to the treatv of London, only a small part of Dalmatia is to belong to Italy.
Nine ports capable of adequate development will be left to Jugo-Slavia. Moreover,
Italy would not have &llen back on the treaty of London had not the evil influences
at the back of the Jugo-Slav delegation in Paris aroused her to intransigence. Finally,
to call in the principle of selfnietermination against Italian claims alone is an evident
piece of hypocrisy, if one takes account of the territorial gains secured by all the other
nations represented at the peace conference. England will control a vast empire
stretching from India to Egypt; and to pass under English rule is considered the best
fortune that can be&Jl the people situated between India and Egvpt. France will
not only see her aspirations almost completely realized in re^rd to tne left bank of the
Rhine, but she will also have Syria and new colonies in Africa. I am the last person
to object to what has been given to France. Far from thinking that France has got
too much, I think that she has got too little. The Valley of the Saar should have been
given by full right of possession to France, and French and Belgian rule should have
been extended to the Rhine absolutely and without impracticable compromises.
Poland will have a population scarecly one-half of which is made up of Poles. Czecho-
slovakia will include, and justly so, a German x)opulation of about three millions.
Jugo-Slavia will have a large percentage of people wno are not Jugo-Slavs and who do
do not wish to come under Serbian rule. But on account of reasons which are under-
stood only by those who know the secret means which serve the ends of international
finance, Italy is denied territories which, if granted to her, would bring her only 3 per
cent of a non-Italian population.
1168 JBKAT7 OF FBACB WJTP CSBMANT.
''As far as concerns Ub Americuu. granted that the peace oonference has not lor *
moment been faithful to the principles of the President, granted that one of the four-
teen points was genuinely and exactly applied, why should Italy be the only one of
them alL to be obliged to apply these principles to a very small and mixed part of the
territory which she claims, and thus renounce her natural and geographical frontierB?
If Italy had not entered the war in the dark days when she did enter it, the cause of
the Entente would have been lost, Germany would have con<iuered Europe^ and the
whole of Jugo-Slavia would have become part of the then existing Austro-Hungarian
monarchy. The real Jugo-81avs, like the Croats and Slovenes, who owe their inde-
pendence to Italy's intervention have foujgfht against Italy with the greatest bitterness
up to the last, up to the moment of signing the aimistice. In recompense for what
Italy has done for the allied cause, in recompense for her half a million dead and her
million mutilated, and her exhausted finances, she is now treated with incredible
ingratitude and calumniated throu^out the world by the work of these great interests
that would encompass her ruin. The greater part of my fellow citiaens were led to
believe the opposite of what I have declared. But, wnatever it may coat us, it Is
time to look truth in the face and to point out the true causes ol all the discords and
chaos which are tearing Europe to pieces. It Ib time to unmask these influences
which, subsidizing even the Government of Lenin and Trotsky, labor to establish the
power of autocracy, to wipe out democracy tor hundreds of years to come, and to
impose upon the world the rule of the monopolists."
So much for the declarations made by a loyal American citizen. We may well
ask whether such a man would have taken up such a position between Italy and the
peace conference had he not been sure of his ground^ Let us now turn to another
quarter. The writer in the Echo de Paris who signs himself "Pertinax" is well
known as one of the most level headed and authoritative of French publicists. He
also is in a position to have an intimate knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes.
And he is a man whose integjrity and honor are reco^zed everywhere in France.
In the Echo de Vsiia (April 28) ''Pertinax" published an article entitled '' Voyage
Autour de sa Ghambre.'' It ran as follows:
" Voyage Autour de ta Chmnbre.
'* Yesterda^r, as it was raining in the park and in town, M. Max Warburg, one of the
German plenipotentiaries already arrived at Veraidlles, did not leave the Hotel des
Reservoirs. With the coming week his active r61e commences. He paaaed the day
making a tour of his room, tliat is to say, turning his thoughts in upon himself. He
summoned from afar his relatives, his friends, the relatives and the friends of his rela-
tives and of his friends. After several hoiurs he raised his head, with the feelins that
he had reviewed a great throng of people and that he had heard and uttered all the
words that will be the leitmotiv of international politics during the coming months
and the coming years. He wa<) very fatigued but sufficiently satisfied with himself.
"M. Max Warburp; is the chief of the banking firm Max M. Warburs; <fc Co. of Ham-
burg. He is the prmcipal shareholder in the Hambuig* American and German Lloyd
steamship lines. His two brothers, IDl, Paul and Felix Warbuiig, married, respec-
tivel. to the 8ister<in-law and the daughter of M. Jacob H. Schiff (M>m at Frankfort),
are the associates of the latter at the head of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. bank of New^ York.
Here we have a financial group which, up to the declaration of war by America, in
April, 1917, was the most powerful link oetween the politicians of Washington and
those of Berlin. When President Wilson reformed the banking system of his country
and created the Federal Reserve Board he appointed M. Pau Warburg as one of the
directors, on the recommendation of his son-m-law, Mr. MacAdoo, Minister of the
Treasury, who had been financially supported by Messrs. Kuhn Loeb & Co. in his
railway undertakings. M. Jacob Schm has been the great financial supporter of the
'Mutual Societv of Gemum Jews,' which was linked and is still probaoly linked on
many sides witn high German circles.
''From 1914 to 1917 this powerful syndicate showed itself extraordinarily active
against 'the Entente. In 1915 the Warburgs of the Old and the New World tried to
have the interned German ships acquired by the United States. For a moment it
looked as if they were to succeea. In November, 1916, M. Paul Warburg was responsi-
ble for the famous circular which recommended the American banks to cease giving
money to the Allies. About the same time M. Jacob Schiff founded The American
Neutral Conference Committee, which took upon itself the task of brioging about
peace with a victorious Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulas
of the League of Nations, the anathemas launched against the old diplomacy which
was said to be responsible for bringing about the war. On this point consult tne work
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1159
^How the DiplomAtistfl caused the War/ writtea by M. Heubsch, the colleague of
M. Schi£f on the Neutral Conference Committee.
.tapping
ber IB certamly not ducouragmg.'
*4t is evidently only by use oddest of chances that M. Max Warbuig was the first
to be sent to Versailles by the republican Empire. And it is by the odoest of chances
that the first to arrive is not the first come/'
The irony of '^Pertinax'' in the concluding sentences will escape nobody. The
only thinfi; that for the present can be said is that one must await further develop-
ments. Though it would be foolish to doubt that a great financial intrigue is doing
its best to control the decisions of the Peace Conference, and it would be out of the
question to cast doubt on what Dr. Herron has said about the machinations of an
'* International Financial Gang/' yet one can not for a monemt beUeve that the future
of Europe is likely to become a matter for private speculation under the auspices of
responsible political representatives. However, as matters stand at present, the
rruolic has a right to demand that more light should be thrown on the whole question.
The matter can not remain where Dr. Herron and Pertinax have left it.
Mr. Comxo. May I at this time thank the members of the For-
eign Belations Committee? I know that I am not making a false
statement or assuming for myself too much power when I state that
the Italians, particularly of iJie State of New York, with whom I
have lived ana come in close contact, sincerely appreciate your atten-
tion and courtesy extended to us, in giving us this opportunity of
presenting the Italians' side.
The Chairman. If there are any more papers that you want to
file, will you please file them as soon as you can, so that we may go
to press this evening?
Mr. CoTiLLO. I would like to ask one question. If it is necessary —
but I do not think, with the exposition that has been made to-day,
that you will require a brief on the question.
The Chaibman. No; I think the papers that you have filed here
with the secretary cover everything.
Mr. CoTiLiiO. Thank you very much.
Xhe Chairman. The committee stands adjourned. There will be
no more hearings.
(Thereupon, at 11.55 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned, subject
to the call of the chairman.)
o
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY
HEARINGS
BEFOUB THB
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
SIXTY-SIXTH CONGKESS
FIRST SESSION
Vol. 2.
1 'rioted for the lue of the Oommittee on Foreign Relations
WASHINGTON
GOYEBNMENT PRINTING OiTICB
191ft
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY
HEARINGS
BSFOUB THB
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Vol. 2.
1 'rioted lor the lue of the Oommittee on Foreign Relations
WASHINGTON
GOYBBNMBNT PRINTING OFFICB
1919
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
HKNRY CABOT LODGE, MasBBohuaetts, Ckolman.
PORTER J. MCCUMBER, North Dakota. GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK, Nebraska.
WILLUH E. BORAH, Idaho. . JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, lOniadppl.
FRANK B. BRANDEOEE, ConnecUout. CLAUDE A. 8WANSON. Vlrgtnia.
ALBERT B. FALL, Now Mexioo. ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio.
PHILANDER C. KNOX, Peniuylvaiila. MARCUS A. SMITH, Ariiona.
WARREN G. HARDING, Ohio. KEY PITTMAN, Nevada.
HIRAM W. JOHNSON, CaUIomla. JOHN E. SHIELDS, TemMMsee.
HARRY S. NEW, Indiana.
GEORGE H. MOSES, New Hampshlie.
Cbaiuh F. Redmond, CUrk,
n
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
League of NatiooB: Ptgti,
Plan of Lord Robert Cecil 1183
T^ewritten draft of orkinal plan of the Preeddent 1165
Pnnted draft of original plan of the President, with comments and sug-
gestions of Messrs. Miller and Auchincloss 1177
Drart of second proposal of the President, showing changes made in original
plan 1214
Draft believed to have been prepared by Mr. Miller and British law experts . 1 230
Russia:
Credentials of W. C. Bullitt as American representative in 1234
Minutes of the meeting of the CouncO of Ten on January 16, 1919 1235
Memorandum of Mr. Bullitt to Col. House on the withdrawal of American
troops from Archangel 1238
Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ten on January 21, 1919 1240
Note to Mr. Bullitt from the secretary to Mr. Lloyd-Geoige on conditions
of peace with 1247
Peace proposal of the Soviet government 1248
Report of Mr. Bullitt to the President on his mission to 1253
Replv to the peace proposal of the Soviet government, prepared by Mr.
Bullitt 1262
Letter of Dr. Nansen to the President proposing a food relief plan for 1264
Draft of reply to Dr. Nansen, prepared by Mr. JBullltt 1265
Draft of reply to Dr. Nansen, prepared by Messrs. MUler and Auchincloss. . 1266
Jitter of Mr. Bullitt on Miller- Auchincloss proposal 1267
Redraft of Miller- Auchincloss proposal, prepared by Mr. Bullitt 1268
Reply of President Wilson, Premiers Lloyd-George, Clemenceau, and
Orlando to Dr. Nansen 1269
Draft of tel^;ram to Tchitcherin, proposed by Mr. Bullitt 1271
Action of American commission on proposed tel^;ram to Tchitcherin 1271
Statement of Mr. Lloyd-Geoxi^e to Parliament 1272
Mr. Bullitt's letter of resignation to the President 1273
Mr. Bullitt's letter of resi^ation to Col. House 1274
Extracts from Mr. Bullitt's notes on his conversation with Secretary
Lansing 1276
Report of Lincoln Steffins 1280
Reports of Capt. W. W. Petti 1285
Mid-European peoples:
Brief by Geoive Gordon Battle on behalf of the Esthonians, Letts, Lithua-
nians, and Ukrainians 1292
m
TKEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY,
FBIDAY, 8BFTBMBEB 12, 1919*
United States Senate,
Committee on Fobeign Relations,
Washington, D, C.
The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10
o'clock a. m.y in room 310, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge presiding.
Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Brandegee, Fall, Enox,
Harding, and New.
The Chairman. Mr. Bullitt is to make a statement to the com-
mittee this morning. I think I ought to say that Mr. Bullitt was
summoned on the 23d of Au^st, I believe, and he was in the woods
at that time, out of the reach of teleo'aph or telephone or mail, and
only received the summons a few oays aeo. He came at once to
Washington. That is the reason of the d^ay in his hearing.
8TATEXEHT OF MB. WULIAX r« BXTIUTT.
^ The Chaiuman. Mr. Bullitt, will you take the stand and give your
full name, please, to the stenographer )
Mr. Bullitt. William C. Bullitt.
The Chaibman. You are a native and a resident of Philadelphia,
are vou not t
lAT. Bullitt. I am^ tkr.
The Chaibman. Pnor to the war, what were you engaged in %
Mr. Bullitt. Before the war I was employed by the rhiladelphia
Public Ledger. I had been a correspondent for them in various
i daces, and I had been a member of the editorial staff in Philadelphia
or a time.
The Chairman. You went abroad for them as a correspondent t
Mr. Bullitt. I did, sir.
The Chaibman. Before we went into the wart
Mr. BuLLrrr. Before we went into the war I toured Germany,
Austria, Himgary, Belgium, Poland, and other places, studying con-
ditions there, for the purposes of the Public Ledger
The Chaibman. After we entered the war, what did you do 1 You
came back?
Mr. BuLLrrr. Yes, sir; I came back. I was in the United States
at that time.
The Chaibman. At that time?
Mr. Bullitt. And I was asked to enter the Department of State,
to work in the Division of Western European Affairs under Mr.
Grew, in which my special province was to follow the political situa-
tion of Germany and Austria-Hungary, to prepare the confidential
1161
1162 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMAKT.
reports of the department on Germany, Austria, and Hungary — the
weekly reports — and also such memoranda on conditions as the
President and the Secretary and others mieht call for.
The Chairman. And then you went to raris as a member of the
staff, after the armistice?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; I was an employee of the department at the
time of the armistice, and I was ordered to Paris as a member of the
staff of the commission.
Senator E^ox. When did you first go to Paris, Mr. Bullitt f
Mr. BuLLTTT. I sailed on the George Washington. I went over
with the original trip of the President.
Senator iSiox. And you were there continuously how lon^t
Mr. Bullitt. I remamed in Paris until — I can give you tne exact
date — I was ordered to go on a special mission to Berne about the
first week of February. I can give you the exact date, if it is of any
moment.
Senator Knox. No; it is not.
Mr. Bullitt. I remained a week in Berne, then returned and
remained in Paris until I was ordered to go to Kussia.
I left for Russia on the 22d of February. I was in Paris during the
entire period until the 22d of February.
Senator Knox. You said you went over on the original trip of the
President. Just to get these dates right, when did vou reach Paris!
Mr. Bullitt. I left New York on December 4 and, as I remember,
we reached Paris on December 13.
Senator Knox. And you were there, then, until you went to
Berne in February ?
Mr. Bullitt, tn February.
Senator Knox. What was your personal relation to the peace
conference and its work ?
Mr. Bullitt. When I first arrived I was asked to take charge of
a confidential bulletin which was to be gotten out for the benefit of
the commissioners each morning. It was to be read by them. That
lasted a very short time, and as is usual with most things of the
kind, we discovered that the commiasioneis did not. canto spend
the time reading it, and therefore it was decided to abolish this
bulletin, and that instead I should receive all the intelligence repnorts
of military intelligence* of the State Department, intelligence received
through all the special dispatches of the ambassadors, etc., in fact,
all the information that came in, and a section was created callea
the Current Intelligence Section. I was called the Chief of the
Division of Current Intelligence Summaries.
Senator Knox. Then, as I understand, your function was to
acuuaint yourself with everything that was going on in connection
witn the conference, and disseminate the news to the different
branches of the peace conference and the different bureaus ?
Mr. Bullitt. 1 was to report onl}" to the commissioners.
Senator Knox. Well, but the essential thing is, was it your duty
to get information ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; it was my duty to be in constant touch with
everyone who was in the Amencan delegation, and present informa-
tion to the commissioners each morning. I had 20 minutes with
each commissioner each morning.
Senator Knox. So that you were practicalljr a clearing house of '
information for the members of the American mission ?
TBBAT7 OF FEAGB WITH ffiBUAKT. 1168
^ Mr. BxTLLiTT. That is what I was supposed to be. I am afraid I
did not
Senator Knox. To get down to something specific, were you
xx>gnizant — ^I presume you were from what you say — of the negotia-
tions in relation to the league of nations t
Mr. BuLLrrr. I waS; to a considerable extent. I had been greatly
interested in it always, and when I reached Paris I had a number of
conversations with, notably, Col. House, who was very much inter-
ested in it. I had also talked with the President, going over on the
Qtorgt Washington, about it.
Senator Knox. How many plans were there for a league of nations
that came under your observation, and whose plans were they )
Mr. BuLUTT. There was, of course, Oen. Smuts's plan, with which
•everyone is familiar.
Senator Knox. Yes.
Mr. Bullitt. I sdso saw Lord Robert Cecil's plan, the first draft of
which, the preliminary draft of which, I happen to have a copy of.
Senator Knox. Have you that here ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Ksox, Will you produce it, please t
lb. Bullitt. I will, sir [producing paper]. This is the first draft
of Lord Robert Cecil's plan. This is, 1 believe, the first British
proposition which was sent to the American commission.
Senator Ksox, We will put that in the record, Mr. Chairman t
The Chairman. Certainly ; it goes in the record.
(The doctunent referred to was marked by the stenographer
^'BuUitt Exhibit No. 1," and is here printed in; full in the record, as
follows:)
Bullitt EzniBir No. 1.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
(Plan of Lord Robert Cecil.)
I.
Oboanization.
Hie general treaty setting up the league of nations will explicitly provide for regular
conferences between the responsible representatives of the contracting powers.
These conferences would review the general conditions of international relations and
would naturally pay special attention to any difficulty which might seem to threaten
the peace of the world. They would also receive and as occasion demanded discuss
repots as to the work of any international administrative or investigating bodies work*
ing under the League.
These conferences would constitute the pivot of the league. They would be meet-
ings of statement responsible to their own sovereign parliaments, and any decisions
taken would therefore, as in the case of the various allied conferences during the war,
have to be unanimous.
The following form of organisation is suggested:
1. The conference. — ^Annual meeting of prime ministers and foreign secretaries of
British Empire, United States, France, Italy, Japan and any other States recognized
by them as great powers. Quadrennial meeting of representatives of all States in-
cluded in the league. There should also be provision for the summoning of special
conferences on the demand of any one of the great powers or, if there were danger of
an outbreak of war, of any member of the league. (The composition of the league will
be determined at the peace conference. Definitely untrustworthy and hostile States,
e. g., Russia, should the Bolshevist government remain in power, should be excluded.
OUierwise it is desirable not to be too rigid in scrutinizing qualifications, since the small
powers will in any case not exercise any considerable influence.)
1164 TREATY €F FEAGB WITH GEBMAirY.
2. For the conduct, pf its work tfae interstate oonterence will require a pernument
secretariat. The general secretary should be appointed by the great powers, if poaslbLe
choosing a national of some other country.
3« International bodies. — ^The secretariat would be the responsible channel of com-
munication between the interstate conference and all international bodies functioning
under treaties guaranteed by the league. These would fall into three classes:
(a) Judicial; i. e., the existing Hague organization with any additions or modifies-
.tions made by the leaj^e.
(h) International administrative bodies. Such as thesug^^ested transit commission.
To these would be added bodies already formed under existing treaties (which are
very numerous and deal with very important interests, e. g., postal union, intematiooal
labor office, etc.).
(e) International commissions of enquiry: e. g., commission on industrial conditionii
(laoor legislation), African commission, armaments commission.
4. In addition to the ahove arrangements guaranteed by or arising out of the
general treaty, there would prpbably be a periodical congress of delegates, of the
farliaments of the States belonging to the league, as a development out of the existing
nterparliamentary Union. A regular staple of discussion for this body would be
afforaed by the reports of the interstate conference and of the different international
bodies. The congress would thus Cover the ground that is at present occupied by the
J>eriodical Hague Conference and also the ground claimed oy the Socialist Inter-
national.
For the efficient conduct of all these activities it is essential that there should be a
permanent central meeting-place, where the officials and officers of the league would
enjoy the privileges of extraterritoriality. Geneva is suggested as the most suitable
p^ace.
II.
Fbevsntion o» Wae.
The covenants for the prevention of war which would be embodied in the geheral
treaty would be as follows:
(1) The members of the league would bind themselves not to go to war until (hey
liad submitted the questions at issue to an international conference or an arbitral
court, and until the conference or court had issued a report or handed down an awwd.
(2) The memben of the league would bind themselves not to g^ to war with any
member of the league complying with the award of a court or with the report of a
conference. For the purpose of this clause, the report of the conference must be
unanimous, excluding the litigants.
(3) The memben of the league would undertajce to regard themselves, as ipso bcto,
at war with any one of them acting contrary to the above covenants, and to take,
jointly and severally, appropriate militajy, economic and other measure ag^unst
the relcalcitrant State.
(4) The members of the league would bind themselves to take similar action, in
the sense of the above clause, apainst any State not being a member of the league
which is involved in a dispute with a member of the league and which does not agree
to adopt the procedure obligatory on members of the league. (This is a stronger pto>
vision than tnat proposed in the Phillimore Report.)
The above covenants mark an advance upon the practice of international relations
previous to the war in two respects: (1) In insuring a necessary period of delay before
war can break out (except between two States which are neither of them membos of
the lea^e; (2) In securing public discussion and probably a public report upon
matters in dispute.
It should be observed that even in cases where the conference report is not unani-
mous, and therefore in no sense binding, a majority report may be issued and that
this would be likely to carry weight with the public opinion of the States in the league.
Senator Knox. What othor plan do you know of besidos Lord
Robert Cecirs plan, which you nave just produced ?
Mr. BuLLm. There were, of course, the President's various
proposals.
Senator Knox. Do you have a copy of the President's original
proposition for a league of nations witn you?
Mr. Bullitt. I have, sir.
Senator Ksox, Will you produce it 1
X8EATX 0? PEACE WITH iSEVMJpSTX^ 116$
Mr. Bullitt. I have this in two f osms. I happen to have a rather
cjurious document hev^, which I hope may be returned to me, inas-
much as it is a unique copy. It is the President's original proposal,
written on his own typewriter, I believe, which was presented to me
on January 10 by Col. House, with an inscription on the top of it.
Senator Knox. By Col. House ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandeqee. January 10, 1919 ?
Mr. Bullitt. 1919; yes, sir.
Senator KInox. Suppose vou read that inscription bj; Col, House.
Mr. Bullitt (roadiiiff). ''For W. C. Bullitt, in appreciation of your
help in an hour of neea. E. M. House, January 10, 1919."
Senator Knox. That is the President's original proposal, is it?
Mr. Bullitt. This proposal, I believe, was presented on January
10 — that is, the Presiaent used this proposal as the basis of discussion
on January 10 with Mr. Clemenccau, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Lord
Robert Cecil. I am not certain of that. I was informed of what it
was to be used for by Col. House. I am not certain whether the
Presidentsousedit or not; but this was the President's original propo-
sition. The notes on the side of it, where you find references such as
"H-21," were with reference to an earlier proposition of Col. House
to the President.
Senator Knox. Have you a copy of that)
Mr. Bullitt. I have not, sir.
Senator Brandeqee. Did you see it)
Mr. Bullitt. I did not. sir.
(The document last reierred to was marked by the stenographer
''Bullitt Exhibit No. 2/' ajld is here printed in the record, as follows:)
BuiLiTT Ezmait No. 2.
(Note in pencil: For W* G. Bullitt. In appreciation of yonr help in an hour of
need. E. M. House, Jan. 10/19.)
COVENANT.
PBBAHBLB.
In order to secure peace, security, and orderly government by tbo prescription of
open, just, and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establi^ment of the
understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among govemments,
and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for idl treaty obligations
in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, the powers signatory to this
covonant and agreement jointly and fleverally adopt this constitution of the league
of nations.
Articlb I.
The action of the signatory powers under the terms of this agreement shall be effected
through the instrumentality of a body of delegates which shall consist of the ambassa^
dors and ministers of the contracting powers accredited to H. and the miniflter for
foreign affairs of H. The meeting of the body of delegates shall be held at the seat
of government of H. and the minister for foreign affairs of H. shall be tho presiding
officer of the body.
Whenever the delegates deem it necenaary or advisable, they may meet temporarily
at the scat of government of B. or of S., in which ca<« the ambassador or minister to U^
Of the country in which the meetine U held shall be the presiding officer pro tempore.
It shall be the privilege of any of the contracting powers to assist its repreeontative
in the body of delegates by any method of conference, counsel, or advice that may
■eem best to it, and also to substitute upon occasion a special representative for its
regular diplomatic representative accredited to H.
1166 TBBATY OF PEACB WITH GEBICAHT.
Articlb IL
The body of delegates ehall regulate their own procedure and shall have power to
appoint such committees as they may deem necessary to inquire into and report upon
any matters that lie within the field of their action. *
it shall be the right of the body of delegates, upon the initiative of any member, to
discuss, either publicly or privately as it may deem best, any matter lying within the
jurisdiction of the league of nations as defined in this covenant, or any matter likely
to affect the peace of the world; but all actions of the body of delegates taken in the
exercise of the functions and powers granted to them under this covenant shall be
first formulated and agreed upjon by an executive council, which shall act either by
reference or upon its own initiative and which shall consist of the repreeentatives of
the great powers together with representatives drawn in annual rotation from two
panels, one of which shall be made up of Uie representatives of the States ranking
next after the great powers and the otner of the representatives of the minor States
(a classification which the bodv of delegates shall itself establish and mav from time
to time alter), such a niunber being drawn from these panels as will be but one less
than the representatives of the great powers; and three or more negative votes in the
council shall operate as a veto upon any action or resolution proposed.
All resolutions passed or actions taken by the body of delegates upon the recom-
mendation of the executive council, except those adopted in execution of any direct
powers herein granted to the body of delegates themselves, shall have the effect of
ecommendations to the several governments of the league.
The executive council shall appoint a permanent secretariat and staff and may
appoint joint committees chosen from the body of delegates or consisting of specially
aualified persons outside of that body, for the study and systematic consideration of
tne international questions with wMch the council may have to deal, or of ques-
tions likely to lead to international complications or disputes. It shall also take the
necessary steps to establish and maintain proper liaison both with the foreign offices of
the signatory powers and with any g^ovemments or agencies whidb may be acting as
mandatories of the league of nations in any part of the world.
Article III.
The contracting powers unite in guaranteeing to each other political independence
and territorial in tegritjr; butitis understood between them that such territoriafr^idjust-
ments, if an^r, as mav in the future become necessary by reason of chang;es in present
racial conditions and aspirations or present social and political relationsmps, punuant
tp the principle of self-determination, and also such territorial readjustn^oQts as may
in the judgment of three-fourths of the delegates be demanded by the welfare and
manifest interest of the peoples concerned, may be effected if a^eable to those
peoples; and that territorial changes may in equity involve material compensation.
The contracting powers accept without reservation the principle that the peace of the
world is superior in importance to every question of political jurisdiction or boundary.
Articlb IV.
H. 21. The contracting powers recognize the principle that the establishment and
maintenance of peace will require the reduction of national armaments to the lowest
point consistent with domestic safety and the enforcement by common action of inter-
national obligations; and the delegates are directed to formulate at once plans by
which such a reduction may be brought about. The plan so formulated shall be
binding when, and only when, unanimously approved by the governments signatory
to this covenant.
As the basis for such a reduction of armaments, all the powers subscribing to the
treaty of peace of which this covenant constitutes a part hereby agree to aboli^
conscription and all other forms of compulsory military service, and also agree that
their future forces of defence and of international action shiUl consist of militia or
volunteers, whose numbers and methods of training shall be fixed, after expert inquiry,
by the agreements with regard to the reduction of armaments referred to in the lut
preceding paragraph.
The body of delegates shall also determine for the consideration and action of the
several govomments what direct military equipment and armament is fair and reason*
able in proportion to the scale of forces laid down in the programme of disarmament;
and these limits, when adopted, shall not be exceeded without the permission of the
body of delegates.
The contracting powers further agree that munitions and implements of war shall
not be manufactured by private enterprise or for private profit, and that there shall
be full and frank publicity as to all national armaments and military or naval pro-
grammes.
TBBATY OF PEiLCB WITH GBBSCAmT. 1167
AancLB V.
H. 13. The contracting powers jointly and severally agree that, should disputes or
•difSculties arise between or among them which can not be satisfactorily settled or ad«
justed by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, they will in no case resort to armed force
without previously submitting the questions and matteis involved either to arbitra-
tion or to inquirv by the executive council of the body of delegates or until there has
been an award by the arbitrators or a decision by the executive council; and that
they will not even then resort to armed force as against a member of the league of
nations who complies with the award of the arbitrators or the decision of the executive
<»uncil.
The powers signatory to tliis covenant undertake and agree that whenever any
dispute or difficulty shall arise between or among them with regard to any question
of tne law of nations, with regard to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any iact which
would, if established, constitute a breach of international obligation, or as to an^
alleged damage and the nature and measure of the reparation to oe made therefor, if
sudi dispute or difficulty can not be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary processes of
n^otiation, to submit the whole subject matter to arbitration and to carry out in full
good faith any award or decision that may be rendered.
In case of arbitration, the matter or matters at issue shall be referred to three arbi-
trators, one of the three to be selected b^ each of the parties to the dispute, when
there are but two such parties, and the third by the two thus selected. When there
are more than two parties to the dispute, one arbitrator shall be named by each of
the several parties and the arbitrators thus named shall add to their number others
of their own choice, the number thus added to be limited to the number which will
suffice to give a deciding voice to the arbitrators thus added in case of a tie vote among
the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties. In ca^^e the arbitrators chosen by
the contending parties can not agree upon an additional arbitrator or arbitrators, the
iKlditional arbitrator or arbitrators shall be chosen by the body of delegates.
On the appeal of a party to the dispute the decision of the arbitrators .may be set
adde by a vote of three-fourths of the del^ates, in case the dedsion of the arbitrators
was unanimous, or by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates in case the decision of the
arbitrators was not unanimous, but unless thus set aside shall be finally binding and
<x)nclu8ive.
When any decision of arbitrators shall have been thus set aside the dispute shall
again be submitted to arbitrators chosen as heretofore provided, none of whom shall,-
however, have pre\iously acted as arbitrators in the dispute in question, and the
decision of the arbitrators rendered in this second arbitration shall be finally binding
and conclusive without right of appeal.
If for any reason it should prove impracticable to refer taiy matter in dispute to
arbitration, the parties to the dispute shall apply to the executive coimdl to take the
matter under consideration for such mediatory action or recommendation as it may
-deem wise in the circumstances. The council shall immediately accept the refer-
ence and give notice to the other party or parties, and shall make the necessary arrange-
ments for a full he rin^, investigation, and consideration. It shall ascertain all the
fu^ts involved in the dispute ana shall make such recommendations as it may deem
wise and practicable based on the merits of the controversy and calculated to secure
a lust and lasting settlement. Other members of die league shall place at the disposal
oi the executive council any and all information that may be in their possession which
in any way bears upon the facts or merits of the controversy; and the executive council
shall do everything in its power by way of mediation or conciliation to bring about
a peaceful settlement. The decisions of the executive council shall be addressed to
the disputants, and shall not have the force of a binding verdict. Should the execu-
tive council f&H to arrive at any conclusion, it shall be the privilege of the members
of the executive council to publish their several conclusions or recommendations;
and such publication shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act by either or any of the
disputants.
Article VI.
Should any contracting power break or disrejrard its covenants under Article V it
shall thereby ij>80 facto oecome at war with all the members of the leai^^iie, which
shall immediately subject it to a complete economic and financial bovcott^ including
the severance of all trade or financial rolations, the prohibition of all mteraiurse
between their subjects and the subjects of the covenant-breaking State, and the
grevcntion, so far as possible, of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse
etween the subjects of the covenant-breaking State and the subjects of any other
State, whether a member of the league of nations or not.
1168 TB8ATY OP PEACE WITH
It shall be the privilege and duty of the executive council of the body of delegates
in such a case to recommend what effective military or naval force the membeni of
the los^ie of nations shall severally contribute, and to advise, if it should think beet,
that the smaller members of the league be excused from makii^ any contribution
to the armed forces to be used against the covenant-breaking State.
The covenant-breaking State shall, after the restoration of peace, be mibjeci to
perpetual disarmamemt and to the regulations with regard to a peace estabiianment
provided for new States under the terms of supplementary Article 3.
AmrcLB YII.
If any power shall declare war or begin hostilities, or take any hostile step short of
war, against another power before submitting the dispute involved to arbitrators or
consideration by the executive council as herem provided, or shall declare war or begin
hostilities, or take any hostile step short of war, in regard to any dispute which has been
decided adversely to it by arbitrators chosen and empowered as nerein provided, the
contracting powers hereby bind themselves not only to cease all commerce and intei^
course with that power but also to unite in blockading and closing the frontiers of that
power to commerce or intercourse with any part of the world and to use any force that
may be necessary to accomplish that object.
Abticlb VIII.
H. 5, 7, 8. Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the con-
tractinlg powers or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the league of nations
and to all the powers signatory hereto, and those powers hereby reserve the rig^t to take
any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly right of each of the nations
signatory or adherent to this covenant to draw the attention of the body of delegates
to any drcumatances anywhere which threaten to disturb international peace or the
good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
The delegates shall meet in the interest of peace whenever war is rumoured or threal-
ened, and also whenever the delegate of any power ^all inform the delegates that a
meeting and conference in the interest of peace is advisable.
The delegates may also meet at such other times and upon such other occasiana ■■
they shall from time to time deem best and determine.
Abticlb IX.
H. 16, 17. In the event of a dispute arising between one of the contracting powen
and a power not a party to this covenant, the contracting power involved hereby binds
itself to endeavour to obtain the submission of the dispute to judicial dedaionor to arbi-
tration. If the other power will not agree to submit the dispute to judicial dedsioa
or to arbitration, the contracting power shall bring the matter to the attention of the
body of delegates. The delegates shall in such case, in the name of the league of
nations, invite the power not a party to this covenant to become ad hoc a party and
to submit its case to judicial decision or to arbitration, and if that power consents it
is hereby agreed that the provisions hereinbefore contained and applicable to the
submission of disputes to arbitration or discussion shall be in all respects applicable
to the dispute both in fovour of and against such power as if it were a party to this
covenant.
In case the power not a party to this covenant shall not accept the invitation of the
delegates to become ad hoc a party, it shall be the duty of the executive council
immediately to institute an inquiry into the circumstances and merits of the dispute
involved and to recommend such joint action by the contracting powers aa may seem
best and most effectual in the circumstances disclosed.
Article X.
H. 18. If hostilities should be begun or any hostile action taken against the contract-
ing power by the power not a party to this covenant before a decision of the dispute by
arbitrators or before investigation, report, and recommendation by the executive
council in rcgird to the dispute, or contrary to such recommendation, the contracting
powers shall thereupon cea^e all commerce and conmiunication with that power
and shall also unite m blockading and closing the frontiers of that power to all com-
merce or intercourse with anv part of the world, employing jointly any force that
may be necessary to accomplish that object. The contracting powers shall also unite
in coming to the assistance of the contracting power against which hostile action has
been taken, combining their armed forces in its behalf.
TREATY OF FBACB Wrra OEBMAiKY^ 1109
AmncLB XI.
H. 19. In case of a dispute between States not parties to this covenant, any contract-
ing power may brinff the matter to the attention of the delegates, who shall thereupon
tender the good offices of the league of nations with a view to the peaceable settle-
ment of the dispute.
If one of the states, a party to the dispute, shall offer and agree to submit its interests
and cause of action wholly to the control and decision of the league of nations, that
State shall ad hoc be deemed a contracting power. If no-one of the States, parties
to Uiedispute, shall so offer and agree.the ddeMtes shall, through the executive oaan^
cil, of their own motion take such action and make such recommendation to their
Governments as will prevent hostilities a&d result in the settlement of the dispute.
Abticlx XII.
H. 22 A ny power not a party to this covenant, whom government is based upeitfltte
principle of popular self government, may apply to the Body of delegates for leave to
Docome a party. If the delegates shall regara the granting thereof as likely to promote
the peace, order, and security of the worldf, they may act favourably on the application,
and their favourable action shall operate to constitute the power so applying in all
respects a full signatory party to this covenant. This action shall require the affirma*
tive vote of two-thirds oi the delegates.
Abticlb XIII.
H. 23. The contracting powers severally agree that the present covenant and con«
vention is accepted as abrogating all treaty obligations inter se which are inconsistent
with the terms nereof . and solemnlv engage that they will not enter into any engage*
monts inconsistent with the torms hereof.
In case any of the powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the league
of nations shall, before becoming a party to this covenant, have undertajEon any
treatv obligations which are inconsistent with the terms of this covenant, it shall be
the duty of such power to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obli-
gations.
SUFFLEMEMTABT AORXKMBirTB.
I.
In respect of the peoples and territories which formerly belonged to Austria-Hungary,
and to Turkey, and in respectof the colonies formerly under the dominion of theGerman
Empire, the league of nations shall be regarded as the residuary trustee with severely
right of ultimate disposal or of continued administration in accordance with certain
fundamental principles hereinafter set forth; and this reversion and control shall
exclude all rights or privileges of annexation on the part of any power.
These prinaples are, that there shall in no case be any annexation of any of these
territories by any State either withiA the league or outside of it, and that in the future
government of these peoples and tecritorias the rule of self-determination, or the con-
sent of the governed to their form of government, shall be fairly and reasonably applied,
and all policies of administration or economic development be based primarily
upon the well-considered interests of the people themselves.
II.
Any authority, control^ or administration which may be necessary in respect of
these peoples or territories other than their own self-determined and self-oiganized
autonomy shall be the exclusive function of and shall be vested in the league of
nations and exercised or undertaken bv or on behalf of it.
It shall be lawful for the league of nations to delegate its authority, control, or
adminsitration of any such people or territory to some single State or oiganized agency
which it may designate and appoint as its a^ent or mandatory: but whenever and
wherever possible or feasible the agent ormanaatory;so appointed shall be nominated
or approved by the autonomous people or territory.
III.
The d^^reo or authority, control, or administration to.be exercised by the mandatary
State or agency shall in each case be explicitly defined by the league in a special act
or charter which shall reserve to the league complete power of supervision and of
1170 TBEATY OF FEACB WITH QEBMAlfnT.
untimato control, and which fhall alw reserve to the people of any such territory or
governmental unit the ri^ht to appeal to the leapie for the redress or correction of
any breach of the mandate by the mandatary State or agency, or for the substitutioD
of some other State or agency ais mandatary.
The mandatary State or agency shall in all cases be bound and required to maintafa
the policy of the open door, or equal opportunity for all the signatories to this covenant,
in respect of the use and development of the economic resources of such people or
territory.
The mandatary State or agency shall in no case fona or maintain any military or
naval force in excess of definite standards laid down by the league itself for the puipesci
of internal police.
IV.
No new State arising or created from the old empires of Austria-Hungary, or Turkey
shall be recognized by the league or admitted into its membership except on condition
that its military and naval forces and armaments shall conform to standards preocribed
by the league in respect of it from time to time.
As successor to the Empire, the league of nations is empowered; directly aad wilfaovC
right of delegation, to watch over the relations inter se of all new independent States
arising or created out of the Empires, and shall assume and fulfil the duty of concili-
ating and composing differences between them with a view to the maintenance of
settled order and the general peace.
V.
• ■
The powers signatary or adherent to this covenant agree that they will themselves
seek to establish and maintain fair hours and humane conditions of labour for all those
within their several jiuisdictionawho are engaged in manual labour and that they will
exert their influence in favour of the adoption and maintenance of a similar poluorand
like safeguards wherever their industrial and commercial relations extend.
VI.
The league of nations shall require all new States to bind themselves as a condition
precedent to their reception a^ independent or autonomous states, to accord to all
racial or national minonties within their several jurisdictions exactly the same treat-
ment and security, both in law and in fact, that is )ux:orded the racial or national
majority of their people.
Senator Knox. If you do not mind, I would rather you would go
on and tell the story in your own way. You see what I am trying
to get at ? I am trying to get at the history of the various proposals,
by whom they were discussed and to whom they were referred, and
how they were considered by others. Do you see what I want ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Knox. Go on and tell it in ybur own way.
ifr. Bullitt. There are slight changes in the printing of the presi-
dent's first proposal, and the first proposal here, because of curious
spellings in places in the original of the proposal. I have here a
mst prmting of it, which you would perhaps prefer to have.
Senator &^ox. I think we will put them both in the record, Mr.
Chairman. Of course Mr. Bullitt will be expecting to have these
documents back.
The Chairman. If you know that the print is accurately printed
from that, perhaps that would be better.
Senator Knox. Yes; but that is not these papers, as I imderstand it.
Mr. Bullitt. I doubt if it is.
The Chairman. You have it, anyway, and it will do no harm to
put them both in.
Mr. Bullitt. I have here three drafts of American projects, but
what I believe was the first American draft is this. This was the
first printing [indicating]. This, sir, is another proposal.
TBKATY OF PEACE WITH QEBliANY. 1171
(The printed copy of the first proposal above referred to, marked
'Bullitt Exhibit No. 3/' is here pnnted in the record in full, as
follows:)
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 3.
COV9NAMT.
Prbamblb.
In order to aecure peace, flecturity, and orderly government by the preecription of
open, juflt, and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establuihment of the
understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments,
and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations
in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, the Powers signatory to this
covenent and agreement jointly and severally adopt this constitution of the League
of Nations.
Abticlb I.
The action of the Signatory Powers under the terms of this agreement shall be
effected through the instrumentality of a Bod^ of Delegates which shall consist of
the ambassadors and ministers of the contractmg Powers accredited to H. and the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of H. The meetinjgs of the Body of Delegates shall be
held at the seat of government of H. and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of H. shall
- be the presiding omcer of the Bod^.
Whenever the Delegates deem it necessary or advisable, they may meet tempo-
rarily at the seat of government of B. or of S., in which case the Ambassador or Minister
to H. of the country in which the meeting is hel^ ^hall be the presiding officer pro
tempore.
It shall be the privilege of any of th6 contracting Powers to assist its representative
in the Body of Delegates by any method of conference, counsel, or advice that may
seem best to it, and also to substitute upon occasion a special representative ro its
regular diplomatic representative accredited to H.
AsncLB II,
•
The Body of Delegates shall regulate their own procedure and shall have power to
appoint such committees as they may deem necessary to inquire into and report upon
any matters that lie within the field of their action.
It shall be the right of the Body of Delegates, upon the initiative of any member, to
discuss, either publicly or privately as it may aeem best, any matter lying witliin
the furisdiction of the League of Nations as defined in this Covenant, or any matter
likely to affect the peace of the world; but all actions of the Body of Delegates taken
in the exercise of the functions and powers granted to them under this Covenant
shall be first formulated and agreed upon by an Executive Council, which shall act
either by reference or upon its own initiative and which shall consist of the representa-
tives of the Great Powers together with representatives drawn in annual rotation
from two panels, one of which shall be made up of the representatives of the States
ranking next after the Great Powers and the other of the representatives of the minor
States (a classification which the Body of Delegates shall itself establish and may
from time to time alter), such a number being drawn from these panels as will be but
one less than the representatives of the Great Powers; and three or more negative
votes in the Council shall operate as a veto upon any action or resolution proposed.
All resolutions passed or actions taken by the Body of Delegates upon the recom-
mendation of the Executive Council, except those adopted in execution of any direct
powers herein granted to the Body of Delegates themselves, shall have the effect of
recommendations to Ihe several governments of the League.
The Executive Council shall appoint a permanent Secretariat and staff and may
api)oint joint committees chosen from the Body of Delegates or consisting of specially
qualified persons outside of that Bod>[, for the study and systematic consiaeration
of the international questions with which the Council may have to deal, or of ques-
tions likely to lead to international complications of disputes. It shall also take the
necessary steps to establish and maintain proper liaison both with the foreign offices
of the signatory powers and with any governments or agencies which may be acting
as mandatories of the League of Nations in any part of the world.
lili TRAAftt OF F^ACE Wltfi GKBlC^lTT.
A&TICI.B III.
The Gontractmg Powers unite in guaranteeixig to each other political independence
and territorial integrity; but it is understooa between them that such territoriil
readjustments* if anjr, as mav in the future becqme necessary by reason of changes in
present racial conditions and aspirations or present social and political relationiudps,
pursuant to the principle of self-determination, and also such territorial readjufltments
as may in the judgment of three-fourths of the Delegates be demiuided by the welfare
and manifest interest of the peoples concerned, may be effected if agreeable to those
peoples; and that territorial chants may in equity involve material compensation.
The Contracting Powers accept without reservation the principle that the peace of
the world is superior in importance to every question of Political juziadiclion or
boundary.
AitncLB IV.
' The Contracting Powers recognize the principle that the establishment and main-
tenance of peace will require the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point
consistent with domestic safety and the enfcnrement of common action of international
obUeations; and the Delegates are directed to formulate at once plans by which such
a reduction may be brought about. The plan ko formulated shall be binding when,
and only when, unanimously approved by the Governments slgnatofy to this
Covenant.
As the basis for such a reduction of armaments, all the Powers subscribing to the
Ttreat3r of Peace of which this Covenant constitutes a part hereby agree to abolisb
conscription and all other forms of compulsory mUitary^ service, and also agree thai
their futiure forces of defence and ol international action shall consist of militia or
volunteers, whose numbers and methods of training shall be fixed, after expert inquiry,
by the agreements with regard to the reduction of armaments referred to in the last
preceding paragraph.
The Body of D^egates shall also determine for the consideration and action of the
severs^ governments what direct militarv eouipment and armament is fair and reason-
able in proportion to the scale of forces laia down in the programme of disarmament;
and these limits, when adopted, shall not be exceeded without the penntasion of the
Body of Delegates.
The Contracting Powers further agree that munitions and implements of war shall
not be manufacttu^ by private enterprise or for private profit, and that there ahall
be full and frank publicity as to all national armaments and military or naval
programmes.
Abticlb V.
' The Contracting Powers jointly and severally agree that should disputee or diffind-
ties arise between or among them which can not be satisfactorily settled or adjusted
by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, they will in no case resort to armeo forre
without previously submittinj; the questions and matters involved either to arfaitimtion
or to inquiry by the Executive Council of the Body of Delegates or until there has
been an award oy the arbitraton or a dot ision by the Executive Count il: and that
they will not even then resort to armed force aa against a member of the League of
Nations who complies «rith the award of the arbitraton or the decision of the Executive
Council.
The Powers signatory to this Covenant undertake and agree that whenever any
diroute or diffictuty shall arise between or among them with regard to any question
of tne law of nations, with regard to the interfiretation of a treaty, as to any tect which
would, if established, constitute a breach of international obligation, or aa to any al-
leged damage and the nature and measure of the reparation to be made therefor, if
such dispute or difficulty cannot be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary processes of
negotiation, submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration and to carry out in full
good faith any award or decision that may be rendered.
In case of arbitration, the matter or matters at inue shall be referred to three arbi-
trators, one of the three to be selected by each of. the parties to the dispute, when
there are but two such parties, and the third by the two thus selected. When there
are more than two parties to the dispute, one arbitrator shall be named by each of
the several parties and the arbitrators thus named shall add to their number othen
of their own choice, the number thus added to be limited to the number which will
suffice to give a deciding voice to the arbitrators thus added in case of a tie TOte
among the arbitraton choeen by the contending parties. In case the arbitrators
chosen by the contending parties cannot agree upon an additional arbitrator or arbi-
trators, the additional arbitrator or arbitrators shall be chosen by the Body of
Delegates.
IBEATY OF Pl^CB WITH COSltlCAKY. 1178
On the appeal of a party to the dispute the decision of the arbitrators may be set
uide by a vote of three-fourths of the Delegates, in case the decision of the arbitratcjis
was ttnanimous, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Delegates in case the decision of the
arbitrators was not unanimous, but unless thus set aside shall be finally binding and
coinclusive. "ip *•
When any decision' of arbitrators shall have been thus set aside, the dispute AM
again be submitted to arbitrators chosen as heretofore provided, none of whom shall,
hdwever, have previously acted as arbitrators in the dispute in question, and the
decision of the arbitrators rendered in this second arbitration shall be finally binding
and conclusive without right of appeal.
^If for any reason it should prove impracticable to refer any matter in dispute to
arbitration, the parties to the dispute shall apply to the Executive Council to take
the matter under conidderation for stich mediatory action or recommendation as it may
deem wise in the circumstances. The Council shall immediately accept the reference
and give notice to the other party or parties, and shall make the necessary arrangemehtd
for a full hearing, investigation, and consideration. It shall ascertain all tlie facts
involved in the dispute and shall make such recommendations as it may deem wise
and practicable based on the merits of the controversy and calculated to secure a just
and lastiug settlement. Other members of the League shall place at the disposal of
the Executive Council any and all information that may be in their possession which
in anjr way bears upon tne facts or merits of the controversy; ana the Executive
Council shall do every thing in its power by way of mediation or conciliation to brin^
i^bout a peaceful settlement. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be
addressed to the disputants, and shall not have the force of a binding verdict. Should
the Executive Council fail to arrive at any conclusion, it shall be the privilege of the
members of the Executive Council to publish their several conclusions or recommen-
dations; and such publications shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act by eith^ or
any of the disputants.
Abticls VI.
Should any contracting Power break or disregM-d its covenants under Article V, it
ahall thereby ipso facto become at war with all the members of the League, which shaiU
immediately subject it to a complete economic and financial boycott, including th^
sfeverance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourpe between
their subjects and the subjects of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention,
eo far as possible, of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourpe between the>
subjects of .the covenant-breaking State and the subjects of any other State, whether
a n^ember of the Lea^e of Nations or not.
It shall be the privilege and duty of the Executive Council of the Body of Delegates*
in euch a case to recommend what effective military or naval force the icembers of the'
L,e&g[ie of Nations shall severally contribute, and to advire, if it ehould think best,
that tho smaller members of the League be excused from making any contribution to
the armed forces to be used against the covenant-breaking State.
• The covenant-breaking State shall, after the restoration of peace, be subject to
perpetual disarmament and to the regulations with regard to a peace eertahlishment
provided for new States under the terms Supplemental^ Article 3.
Abticlb VII.
- If any Power shall declare war or begin hostilities, or take any hostile step idwftci-
war, against another Power before submitting the dispute involved to arbitrators or
coneideiation by the Executive Council as herein provided, or shall declare war or,
be^n hostilities, or take any hostile step short of war, in r^ard to any dispute which
has been decided adversely to it by arbitrators chosen and empowered as herein
provided, the Contracting Powers hereby bind themselves not only to cease all com-
merce and intercourse with that Power but also to unite in blockading and closing
the frontiers of that Power to commerce or intercourse with any part of the world aad
to use any force that may be necessary to accomplish that object.
ArticlbVIII.
Any war or threat of war. whether immediately affecting any of the Contrartii)g
Powers or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the League of Nations and to
all the Powers sismatory hereto, and those Powers hereby reperve the right 1o take any
action that may Be deemed wise and efiectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
137T3D— Id— VOL
1174 TREATY OF PBACB WITH GEBMAJSTY.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendl}[ right of each of the natioB
ngnatory or adherent to this Covenant to draw the attention of the* Body of Delegates
to any circumstances anywhere which threaten to disturb international peace or the
good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
The Delegates shall meet in the interest of peace whenever war is rumored or thrat-
ened, and also whenever the Delegate of any Power shall inform the Del^ates that
a meeting and conference in the interest of peace is advisable.
The Dielegates may also meet at such other times and upon such otlier occasioDtai
they shall from time to time deem best and detextnine.
Abticlb IX.
In the event of a dispute arising between one of the Contracting Powers and Power
not a party to this Covenant, the Contracting Power involved hereby binds itself to
endeavor to obtain the submission of the dispute to judicial decision or arbitration.
If the other Power will not agree to submit the dispute to judicial decision or to arbi-
tration, the Contracting Power shall bring the matter to the attention of the Body of
Delegates. The Delegates shall in such a case, in the name of the League of Nations^
invite the Power not a party to this Covenant to become ad hoc a party and to submit
its case to judicial decision or to arbitration, and if that Power consents it is hereby
aflreed that the provisions hereinbefore contained and applicable to the submiSBion
of disputes to arbitration or discussion shall be in all respects applicable to the diq>ute
both in favour of and against such Power as if it were a party to this Covenant.
In case the Power not a party to this Covenant shall not accept the invitation d
the Delegates to become ad noc a party, it shall be the duty of the Executive Council
immediately to institute an inquiry into the circumstances and merits of the disputb
involved and to recommend such joint action by the Contracting Powers as may eeeaa
best and most effectual in the circumstances disclosed.
Articlb X.
If hoetUitiee should be begun or any hostile action taken a^nst the Contiacting
Power by the Power not a party to this Covenant before a decision of the diapute by
arbitrators or before investigation, report and recommendation by the Executive
Council in regard to the dispute, or contrary to sudi recommendation, the Contnctuu
Powers shall thereupon cease tdl commerce and communication with that Power ana
ahall also unite in blockading and closing the frontiers of that Power to all commerce
or intercourse with any part of the world, em.ploying jointly any force that may be
necessary to accomplish that object. The Contracting Powers shall also unite in
coming to the assistance of the Contracting Power against which hostile action has
been token, combining their armed forces in its behali.
Article XI.
In case of a dispute between states not parties to this Covenant, any Contiacting
Power may bring the matter to the attention of the Delegates, who shall thereupon
tender the good offices of the League of Nations with a view to the peaceable settle-
ment of the dispute.
If one of the states, a party to the dispute, shall ofiFer and agree to submit its intereeta
and cause of action wholly to the control and decision of the League of Nations, that
state shall ad hoe he deemed a Contracting Power. If no one of tne states, parties to
the dispute, shall so offer and agree, the Delegates shall, through the Executive
Council, of their own motion take such action and make such recommendatioii to
their governments as will prevent hostilities and result in the settlement of the dispate.
Abticlb XII.
Any Power not a party to this Covenant, whose government is based upon principU
of popular self-government, mav apply to the Body of Delegates for leave to becom*
a party. If the Delegates shall rezard the granting thereof as likely to promote the
peace, order, and security of the World, they may act favourably on the applicataon,
their favourable action shall operate to constitute the Power so applving in all respects
a full simatory party to this Covenant. This action shall require the affirmative vote
of two-tnirds of the Delegates.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1175
Article XIII.
The Contracting Powers severally agree that the present Covenant and Convene
tion is accepted as abrogating all treaty obligations inter se which are inconsistent
with the terms hereof, and solemnly engage that they will not enter into any engage-
ments inconsistent with the terms hereof.
In case anv of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the League
of Nations shall, before becoming a party to this Covenant, have undertaken anv
treaty obligations which are inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall
be the duty of such Power to take immisdiate steps to procure its release from such
obligations.
SUPPLEMENTARY AQRBEMENT8.
I.
In respect to the peoples and territories which formerly belonged to Austria-Hungary,
and to Turkey, and in respect of the colonies formerly under the dominion of the
German Empire, the League of Nations shall be regarded as the residuary trustee with
.sovereign right of ultimate disposal or of continued administration m accordance
with certain fundamental principles hereinafter set forth; and this reversion and con-
trol shall exclude all rights or privil^es of annexation on the part of any Power.
These principles are, that there shall in no case be any annexation of any of these
tefritories by any State either within the League or outside of it, and that in the
future' government of these peoples and territories the rule of self-determination, or
the consent of the governed to their form of government, shall be fairly and reasonably
applied, and all policies of administration or economic development be based pri-
marily upon the well-considered interests of the people themselves.
IL
Any authority, control, or administration which may be necessary in respect of
these peoples or territories other than their own self-determined and self -organized
autonomy shall be the exclusive function of and shall be vested in the L^gue of
Nations and exercised or undertaken by or on behalf of it.
It shall be lawful for the League of Nations to delegate its authority, control, or
administration of any such people or territory to some single State or organized agency
which it may designate and appoint as its agent or mandatory; but whenever or where-
ever possible or feasible the agent or mandatory so appointed shall be nominated or
approved by the autonomous people or territory.
III.
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the manda-
tary State or agency shall in each case be explicitly defined by the League in a special
Act or Charter which shall reserve to the League complete power of supervision and
oi intimate control, and which shall also reserve to the people of any such territory or
governmental unit the right to appeal to the League for ihe redress or correction of
any breach of the mandate by the mandatary State or agency or for the substitution
ol eome other State or agency, as mandatary.
The mandatary State or agency shall in all cases be bound and required to maintain
tbe policy of the open door, or equal opportunity for all the signatories to this Cove-
nant, in respect of the use and development of the economic resources of such people
or territory.
The mandatary State or agency shall in no case form or maintain any military or
naval force in excess of definite standards laid down by the League itself for the pur-
poses of internal police.
IV.
No new State arising or created from the old Empires of Austria-Hungary, or Turkey
ahall be recognized by the League or admitted into its membership except on condi-
tion that its military and naval forces and armaments shall conform to standards
prescribed by the League in respect of it from time to time.
As success to the Empires, the League of Nations is empowered, directly and with-
out right of delegation, to watch over the relations irUer se of all new independent
States arising or created out of the Empires, and shall assume and fulfil the duty of
conciliating and composing differences oetween them with a view to the maintenance
oi settled order and tne general peace.
1176
TREAXr OP F£AC£ WITH OEBMAKT.
V.
The Power? signatoiy or adherent to this Covenant afO'ee that they will themsefw
seek to establish and maintain fair hours and humane conditions of labour for all then
within their several jurisdictions who are en^ged in manual labour and that they
will exert their influence in favour of the adoption and maintenance of a similar policy
and like safeguards wherever their industrial and commercial relations extend.
VI.
The Leagtie of Nations shall require all new States to bind themselves aa a condi-
tion precedent to their recojrnition as independent or autonomous State?, to accord to
all racial or national minorities within their several jurisdictions exactly the sams
treatment and security, both in law and in fact, that is accorded the racial oir national
majority of their people.
Mr. BuLUTT. This is another proposal. After the first proposal
was printed, it was turned over to Mr. David Hunter Miller ana Mr.
Qordon Auchincloss, who acted as international law advisers. Mr*
Auchincloss was also Col. House's secretary. They prepared this
document, which contains their advice, comments, and suggestions
on the subject.
Senator Knox. That is, after the President's draft had been sab*
mitted to them Miller and Auchincloss made comments and sug^
gestion?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Knox. That should be identified, Mr. Reporter.
(The document last referred to was marked by the reporter
''Bullitt Exhibit No. 4," and is here printed in full in the record^ as
follows:)
T8BATY OS PEAC^ WITH GBRMASY. . 117
5 s'Sfllii-a.!? § i-sila=S'Si.s>.|i|:|
^ K--||IS||d| t J||sl|l& Isit&i
-iiljliillil ^mmiiTiim
1 rt^ iiip^fSJ'S
I Pll lis? Ull vSSis.^lll-'
J s? s =1 =.i Jll ".» 'a = ?, ; '^ 1 i ■■ « B ,1 SI
111^ J =^ MPJ
.ii||i;|«i|l l||t| Mis f-=li|
TRBAT7 OP PEA.CE WITH OEEICAST.
^l*.^*! ill 1 -sstii-s iip:.=?
■atoB^la-s. s«g =» wall'"' 'aS. g--^
S.3g|g5s ai S^sila 5:|i.=.5s
s?i-| It
111 II P
3 eflssl *!
3 iiii III
111 . IW^ ^yl^l^i BiW
Lai I IK ^MU~isUlS^.ah&&liU
TBEATT OP PBAOE WITH OTBMAHT.
Klii^i!^ Mill i^-^'=-!''l^|i!
■g-a
9!j
3i - |5j
S3»^5- - _ ^gS-3 a" -Sir"
U80
IBS^X^ OF PEACE W£^ QRHMAjgy..
If
If
s I?
im
III
II
•"I
ll
g>i ;Sis-si-i34>
$ 0 tfi = 1*S £^ S-a >,Zq — ° a S 9 S ° B ^ tj 3b2
31-3. §:sli? sit alssSSHj^ea -161
llll?-1
g 3 g-S-aff^-S"
1 -sl-Sll-tS
., ^a - - - «a ^^Sja -
III"!
K-^" = ;
.iiisii&iMi^iiryiE^-sii^B
TBBATT OF FB&OE WITH qBBHAlTT.
III ef ;§Ji|il^
I ik=== =-lSS||^il
I S 1 ISSN'S jtl SS il|»1? lilS. p S»5
I -a ajif.li-Si!-' ^= fljE-*;, ills -il -i-c '
1 I |?|%;il-s! Skills I III If 1»|,
. 1 ii.-.itiiflL-i !i IllJfg |125 II tig-
'lllillttlti^ tipfSlllll I^HI^
l!r^i| liilP illiiill! Illl pil^l .
: P I ^ « t g-^ &.ssl^-g^^|-; Sag! g |<:2| § |;: ^ .^s 1 1
TBBATT OF PEACE WtTH GEBUAHT.
:1» .siliJi^i:.a£»s?»rsi
I ill i m'^miipi
III ■ ^Sl.::.i|ll|yi|l
!J TA^rjU ki III ii i|i|
!4ril!i*!l .11 si ^hi i4r . ^
_ ^'S-t'^_gn »■
|s ^fii's-s-s^^ Nig |§il;;: i^s' s I
*; II i^ « So 6-f|>s| o i I >. = ; . S 5f i .. ?t| i I 5 i-
aa^ .s " P-— £ >"^ C eta -:.mS-c;--^j3C-£j:— ftjfl,
^ttiflii^pll III i-=i'i::r i?4 1-5
.Ififillil JfeiG.PIiil l4
ill!
I .ri|:
" li-i;
I sis
' "ill-
's.? fiis"^
iiaa
bludlifolllillb^Pl 1=111
■E .2 ■* -
a; PI
§g5.=
8.111
iui
iili.r;illslNllii1iii.^iiiL'llil
Isss-g.si'S-jji'ig-'l
iii.ii|rii»5.|i2-2
aiilllMi=l||l||
■" i; : § ^t 1^5 g S 2 » Sf^i S'a
aS2ssl3aaa9.a5-ss^
1184
IBBAiy or FSAOBWXXV QEBXAirT.-
■o^ ■ e>.
.•2-3 s'i
^«.g If
■sS. gs
5^ "
1113
lit:
it mi
11 i
131;
Ui
^m^m^mid
■a 3 e^ _
•natun at VBiOB vaa osiuujrT.
111* 111 iii!i|i|ii Id !|lr liflilt I
lis I l=5|.i'E,'a"l|p9iWa sirts-s--s's5; I
"^ a 9 S? a g-e bS^— '- ^ 5^*5 ^^.5 MP'S S a i -, 9 -■-3 fe o g c tit"B--2
IJifflllll! iiliilllpl fi llflpl ill
i^^4^i^ii!iiiiiifii;ii.iiti!iiii|
■ipvi tfil lillii-tllif li|j|t| P!l:|.4P
XKEATT DV :FEACB:Vma-aKKHAHC
„ B t^-='3 o-« oS i£
,'3 r ■ 1 -s -
ial-S
fi c - h'I S : "^M » § &
^- o S£r a &H & p.
1111
s^s^'
^eS>.>.
If
Bi^'
i^iM
. ifi^iiiiiii lili iip i
fill !ii»i|iSi^i!illJii!lBj.
IB^TY OF FEACB WITH CSBUANy.
riii!i:lii
^5 S'^T)" a-^-a "^
111 I'Ifllf
5fra|lil!-ll III y I si
assJ
■t illWlil
rS 3 fj R " Is K S- .0
^•2 = nil --s
IMisI .5
■'Mih i
§SS-|8i:°J
!||fri|ill1
lljifljlllj
-Jig I I'rii'iH'^'"!^!!
-l| iSii-psmj;-s.p
I till i
Il||tl
1188 itbeat; of peace with qebmaht.
f! HIM IP
I? lijslsis sif
=>. -^ilW' i 111
^
III If
0
«t= 1.1
11= r,g
IS
■5'M P
1
llMIi
y «T3 5 Ct, 1
i
-^ f« Sj g
TREATY OF PBAOB WITH nawi^AWV
1189
Be J ""S-gra
IJi|s
|SI
83 a'sl
l^llfllill
IIIStHIIIII
llll >-.s a e i s :^1 ° 5 -a J f ' ; ! 1
< H:-i!l-f:|i||s|' t's^iil-sf
°|^|si>..g.brgjselc|.|ssS-2 -S-s;
aJi«|sl.tes==|ssis||i-:S'5'3j!l
tlil.3lia«ii?lKSa 111
18778&— IB— TOL S
lO TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEHMAWT.
llililllfi 9i^^ IUr:t|l|ll
5«-~
if r°^2!-
||1F
H2.IJ=M
4 °- S,''!-* '3 dill f-f-ss °S
1 111! t Ji^^ p 11
lip: II iiiii fiiUri %Mm n
llfi; ill! *iJ lllf^ir k||S lit «
Mill ife^llill |i^l'i:^y|:| I t :|
IH^! .|5|lr!l.is'|-|-||«IJf|5l5's.3s| Is
TKEA.TZ OT ISAGB TITH nwtMATTT.
|||-:lfsf:-s?«5.:;^|,=^|.||;|j^||||||*|
3|
3? •■•3 ia : i a . S R "^ 0 3 o-a S5 S a • . 5 ,,-a 0 S-= ( - J ;a3,-'
.aJ^Slia Jls-lSlssiisalSlsosallsaisaaslla
TBEATT OP PEACE WITH GBEMAin.
ga|.s^ = ■; ^ 3- I 2^8-a 2 gja |« c 8 "----as a, eg-
i| M i|iii||!^"^l||i:p^llli|.
iS|las^|BM«Sll=l?l?si3S"ll-si'1
ft fill I^F iKllil'M lli| i
^ ||s|iiii ^:|lliift-;?i°tte-^;-r^
^ ^IliiMill^lillfllilfil^ili
•till
■3 5,38.
TBBATZ 07 PEACE WITH QBRHAIIY.
^1 gifi = III 3|l ill 11 s-|il||
f5-3 ?^-5-2-3 o^'i ail „'i $■« = 2-g'iis
tll:rfB-^lP! Ill ?|lil|
■^S-sS'-S^aS I^aa.i?l
lit: ;!itiiili||il ■ "if
lli-s |^|5!!ilii-|| III
2lli.Slll5^llil!ll till
si
L94 TKBATT or PEACE WITH GEBUAITT.
l"li Jl!3l||ltl:|||
mm . m^ifii^^^ili
111 lull ^liUkirsiih
li!i mium liiilJii
° iJ^illl Hiyi'ii lililil
o cj S-- 8 o t
^ g °JJ.::'^x " - ^^ = ^ " - ^ - 15 si's a o ■
I J ilfllii;rUniiliis|l||
TBRATY OF PKACI! WITH GBRMAITY. 1196
1
li "5 »i s*= rii'^ Uil-'-it l-l-i'i " - -1 ^l P it-
ii^i^if!^ ifipL - - ilii|ii§:ilf I
*iiiili:lirliii;L. ,:¥hmhmi
"III?!
TRBinr OF PBAOB WITH GERMASy.
.Si aS^
lllfllffi lillFilllHlli ilil
TBBATT OF PEACE WITH GERHANY.
li-Pis.i I'll sis
"jriilliilllil
IBS&TY OF PEACE WITH GEBICANS.
;-^ci«-s
Sp^°:ll1||'i! 14! ill
I ia'":|~=|i" till l||=|:
d: S
" asg
lllljllli Hdl rliili
i£3iassSaUsiss3itl u^a^ lal^=
Vd
ik
§■.
Mi
■'-U
TBE&TT OF PEACE WITH aBBUAHT.
'-siii-^u.n
2S-';
ISa^
i!;; -lii^ |lfiqtai||li3i| i|3l
• ss ^ 5 ii.'s sola's ss^^siis'^ JS'Sl^t
(S B - - ~ m'S'fl ° *5 m STs ' o " ■ 3 fe o S S^ " i^
a
I
^■L I f i
pp. ii|P||iit|l 1101 lliflli.
il=ls?3?i i S?:A»! 3shi:.iT.,i; III
II I 'I |l=lil1^lil IH?|iifili III
|lii|.g '^ala^j.ssif?^^; -j&llEiSSsi-S-s^i
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMANY.
3S ^C-JS i
ifvilliril
i mumii iifiiiiiiii
" - "^ji-r >.^.5 g.|.^ ^.fl >ja5^ o >•= 3 2
! . tftM|ii|Si|ii^lll!|
ii|M..;i||l|i|i|.1i;|l|
i;
fc"liWl|i|!|lf|pl!l|lj
-lElliiilllrilsilililll
1BKA.TY OF FBAOE WITH GEBMANT.
Hills B hhiM ilkmh
^^-'USi
o = i'S III!
1
£^8§
o g-a B -
■liliii II I Li I
.as|,
!ll 1 !i lOiil
iiirli ^ i^rilil
b ^ 2'S.5 S ? g — '5 > cS 5 §»,« i'- ^"f £'^
■s-is:ilis5iit-i|i i-yi-|*if
thhl s3li-i >.li a° fi =.^6 si s i
TBKAIT OS PSkOB WITH OBAHUTT.
ml ifct iii4 ifeiiB
..111^
II 3 5=3 a
I 111 II ill I- III iitHfli
IJ^' : I4lljl!j5|i=?
iiili-^^.?rsi-lrriliiili
Illicit
g . a ''gl^S a
?:l-:.3l8i3|
rf»-oifi«sa
g£»-Sss'Sjsa
It ifii i||i
fe ^ I in
iWl ^llitii^!lil
TBHAXT OF PBAOB WITH QBUCAJSTX.
1 fl| IS
"tl|.|
I|p5.|
■si a^ I 'sl-a'?*
mrn%
:Si»|s-|j|
?f=^ill-s|^ -I .pill iiir^-l-li
llli^lilli isiii:-!--«^ irriiKi*
I :|:a's'B|||;|:
|aSs|||Sj||
i'.|.5|||l|-|
*"S = . ^^ - ^ T - SI'S
5l1
llllllllj
11^
|^pijl||
ilia
lS778fr— 19— TOT. 2 1
|Ji|.3.iSa|
^Sllltilll
TIIRATT OF PEACE WITH GERMANr.
If|iil
sE-ils -
lltMi
l!|
111
|isl||ia
a|pil-|i.
■|ps|||.|.
•l-slliS-s-l
"^IlliiSII
IlliiSII
.e_sg-ii«= <'e=.3.3
I IllJI'li. f-lll2
^ -sill;? SIS *%a
|8a«E„s|
= Jf, i'g'B.si
i j-ir Willi
s ||3 His-sl
pi 8|S llily
I •■Ml fill?
TBEATY 07 PBAOB WITH QBBUAITT. 1207
ss a p
■=■3:
■St) ij ^ m" ^.a^;S . "t p
- 3 -^ 3 a
&ii
''I
5i
HIP
It 4
IP's!
•si. 1-9
1
i
a'gsa*
TBBATT OF FEAOE WITfi C^BtCAITE.
urn sima^ azKl
,1b. -I ■^'--M^ii --^8
^ HilHIl i|IM|!ii|
TKBUfl fat WakOB WITH OMBUAJSrS.
„ I ill III!
I ^i P PI
Si
S. oP
'PS
=iii3i"i^llill
5gl!
ll§l
IBBATX OF FKAOE WITH OBRUANX.
!
ilKlrlllMflrlMlill^jliSllrfllli
1=1 s|| I I
BS
1212
TREATS OF PEACE WITH OERMAinT.
! !ffllMi!!:;ii! Ililtaillliill
i II I "
Fa
4
if
TBKATV OF PEACE WITH QBBMA5?.
I iflrr'"''*
irl fallal b||S^6^Jj
35 *|t f ; ?■
15? Ifl ^:li;¥llil&i3o?
= 3 -J
mi
1214 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Senator Bbandeoee. Are those so indicated or separated as to
rshow what su^ested changes Mr. Auchincloss made and what
suggestions Mr /Miller made ?
jXr. Bullitt. Oh, no; they were prepared in conjunction. Mr.
Miller and Mr. Auchincloss were law partners in New York, and they
acted in close cooperation in everything in Paris, and I could not say,
At all, which was Mr. Auchincloss's work and which was Mr. l(&ller^.
Senator Bbandegee. Mr. Hirst collaborated also, did he not ?
Mr. BuLLrrr. Who ?
Senator Bbandegee. Mr. Hirst.
Mr. Bullitt. I never heard the name.
The Chairman. He is an Englishman.
Senator Brandeoee. An English international law expert.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you say you put in the Smuts plan also t
Mr. Bullitt. I have not put it in. I have it here.
Senator Brandeoee. AU right.
Mr. Bullitt. The President then, after his discussions, I believe,
with the leaders of the French and British Governments, took his
•original proposal and made certain changes in it. This is tJbe original
of that document, also. It was also presented to me by Col. House,
and has the President's own changes in his own handwriting, in it.
I am afraid it is rather dilapidated.
The Chairman. The reporter will be very careful of these papers.
None of these papers are to be sent to the I^rinting Office, but copies
•of them sent.
(The document last referred to was marked '' Bullitt Exhibit No.
5 ", and is here printed in full in the record, as follows :)
BuLurr EzmBir No. 6.
(Seal: Woodrow Wilson)
cotenant.
Pbbambls.
In order to secure international pe&ce and security, and Of deily govcmmoirt by the
■prescription of open, just, and honorable relations between nations, by the finn
establishment of the understanding of international law as the actual rule of conduct
among governments, and by the maintenance of iustice and a scrupulous respect for
all treaty obligations in the dealings of orRanizea peoples with one another, and in
-order to promote international cooperation, the Powers signatory to this covenant and
agreement jointly and severally adopt this constitution of the League of Nations.
Abticlb I.
The action of the Signatory Powers under the terms of this agfoemeni covenant
shall be affected through the instrumentality of a Body of Delegates which shall con-
sist of the ambassadors and ministers of the contracting Powers accredited to H. and
the Minister for Foreign Affairs of H. The meeting of the Body of Delegates absll
be held at the seat of government of H. and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of H. shall
be the presiding officer of the Body.
Whenever the Del^ates deem it necessarv or advisable, they may meet temporarilY
at the seat of government of B. or of S., in which case the Ambassador or Minister to H.
of the country in which the meeting is held shall be the presiding officer pro tonpore.
It shall be the privilege of any of the contracting Powers to assist its representa-
tive in the Body of Delefifates by any method of conference, counsel, or advice that
ma^ seem best to it, ana also to suostitute upon occasion a special representative
■for its regular diplomatic representative accredited to H.
TBBATY OF PEAOB WITH GBBl^ANT. 1215
Abtxclb II.
The Body of Delegates shall regulate their own procedure and shall have power
to appoint such committeee as they may deem necessary to inquire into and report
upon any matters that lie within the field of their action.
It shall be the right of the Body of Delegates, upon the initiative of any member,
to discuss, either publicly or privately as it may deem best, any matter lying within
the jurisdiction of the Lee^e of Nations as denned in this Covenant, or any matter
likely to affect the peace of the world; but all actions of the Body of Delegates taken
in the exercise of the functions and powers granted to them under the Covenant shall
be fiff4 formulated and agreed ui>on by an Executive Council, which shall act either
by reference or upon its own initiative and which shall consist of the representatives
-of the Great Powers together with representatives drawn in annual rotation from two
panels, one of which snail be made up of the representatives of the States ranking
next after the Great Powers and the other of the representatives of tiie minor States
(a classification which the Body of Del^ates shall itself estabHdi and may from time
to time alter), such a number being drawn from these panels as will be but one less
than the representatives of the Great Powers; and three or more negative votes in
the Council shall operate as a veto upon any action or resolution proposed.
All resolutions poased or actions taken by the Body of Dologatoo upon the rocom
mondfttion of the Executive Council, except those adopted in execution of any direct
powers herein granted to the Body of Delegates themselves, shall have the effect of
recommendations to the several governments of the League.
The Executive Council shall appoint a permanent Secretariat and staff and may ap-
point joint committeee, chosen from the Body of Delegates or consisting of specially
oualined persons outside of that Body, for the study and systematic consideration of
tne international questions with which the Council may have to deal, or of questions
likely to lead to international complications or disputes. It shall also take the neces-
sary steps to establish and maintam proper Uaison both with the foreign offices of the
signatory powers and with any governments or agencies which may be acting as man-
datories of the League of Nations in any part of the world.
AsncLB III.
The Contracting Powers unite in guaranteeing to each other political independence
and territorial int^rity ew agcnnst external aggression; but it is understood between them
^that such territorial readjustments, if any, as may in the future become necessary by
reaaon of changes in present racial conditions and aspirations or present social and
political relationships, pursuant to the principle of self-determination, and also such
territorial readjustments as may in the judgment of three-fourths of the Delegates be
•demanded by the welfare and manifest interest of the peoples concerned, may be
•effected if agreeable to those peoples and to the State from which the territory is separate
or to which it is added; and that territorial chan^ may in equity involve material com-
penaation. The Contracting Powers accept without reservation the principle that the
peace of the world is superior in importance to every question of Political jurisdiction
or boundary.
AsncLE IV.
The Contracting Powers recognize the principle that the establishment and main-
:tenance of peace willre^uire the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point
-consistent with domestic safety and the enforcement by common action of inter-
^Me«
At once plains by which such a reauction may be brought about. The plan so formu-
nation obligations; and the Delegntoo are Executive Council is directed to formulate
laied shall be binding when, and only when, unanimously approved by the Gov-
ernments signatory to this Covenant.
As the basis for such a reduction of armaments, all the Powers subscribing to the
Treaty of Peace of which this Covenant constitutes a part hereby agree to abolish
conscription and all other forms of compulsory military service, and also agree that
their future forces of defence and of international action shall consist of militia or
volunteers, whose numbers and methods of training shall be fixed, after expert inquiry,
by the agreements with regard to the reduction of armaments referred to in the last
preceding paramph .
Hie Booy of Dcuegotoo Executive Council shall also determine for the consideration
and action of the several governments what direct military equipment and armament
is fair and reasonable in proportion to the scale of forces laid down in the programme
•of disarmament; and these limits, when adopted, shall not be exceeded wilJiout the
permission of the Body of Delegates.
1216 TREATY 07 PBAOE WITH GBBMANT.
The GontTacting Powers further agree that munitions and implements of war shall
not be manufactured b^ private enterprise or for private profit, and that there shall
be full and frank publicity as to all natkmal armaments and military or naval pro-
grammes.
Articlxs y.
The Contracting Powers jointly and severally agree that, should disputes or dilfi-
culties arise between or among them which cannot be 8Btisfi»rtorily settled or adfoBied
b}f the ordinary procesees of diplomacy, they will in no case resort to armed force
without previously submitting the questions and matters involved either to aibitrs-
tion or to inquiry by the Executive Council of the Body of Delegates or until there
has been an award by the arbitrators or a decision by the executive Council; and that
i^ey will not even then resort to armed force as against a member of the League of
Nations who compliee with the award of the arl»trators or the decision of the Executive
Council.
The Powers signatory to this Covenant undertake and agree that whenever any
dispute or difficulty shall arise between or among them with regard to any qoeption
of tne law of nations, with re^rard to the interpretation of a treaty^ as to any fact which
would, if established, constitute a breach of intematicmal obhgation, or ae to any
alleged damage and the nature and measure of the reparation to be made therefor,
if such dij^ute or difficulty cannot be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary proceoecB
of negotiation, to submit me whole rabiect-matter to arbitration and to carry out in
full good faith any award or decision that may be rendered.
In caee of arbitration, the matter or matters at issue shall be referred to three arbi-
trators, one of the three to be selected by each of the parties to the dispute/rcmi amitidt
(heir awn nationaU, when there are but two such parties, and the tnird by the two
thus selected. When there are more than two parties to the dispute, one arbitrator
shall be named by each of the several parties and the arbitrators thus named shall
add to their number others of their own choice, the number tJius added to be limited
to the number which will suffice to give a deciding voice to the arbitrators thus added
in case of a tie vote among the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties. In ca«
the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties cannot agree upon an additional
arbitrator or arbitrators, the additional arbitrator or arbitrators shall be choeen by
the Body of Dologatco Executive Council.
On the appeal of a party to the diroute the decision of the arbitrators may be set
aside by a vote of three-fourths of the Delegates, in cane the decision of the arbitrators
was unanimous, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Dele^tes in case the decision of the
arbitrators was not unanimous, but unless thus set aside shall be finally binding and
conclusive.
When anv decision of arbitrators shall have been thus set aside, the dispute diall
again be submitted to arbitrators choeen as heretolcve provided, none of whom riiall,
however, have previously acted as arbitrators in the dispute in question, and the
decision of the arbitrators rendered in this second arbitration shall be finally binding
and conHusive without right of appeal.
If for any reason it should prove impracticable to refer any matter in dispute to
arbitration, the parties to the dispute shall apply to the Executive Council to take
the matter under consideration for quch meoiatory action or recommendation as it
may deem wise in the circumstances.
The Council shall immediately accept the reference and give notice to the eflher
party or parties, and shall make the necessary ariax^ments for a full hearing, inves-
ti&ation, and consideration. It shall ascertain ana as soon oi poaiibU wuAe fnMU
' all the kcts involved in the dispute and shall make such recommendatioiis as it may
deem wise and practicable based on the merits of the o(»trov«csy and calntlated to
secure a just and lasting settlement. Other members ci the L«ague shall place at
the disposal of the Executive Council any and all information that may be in their
possession which in any way bears upon the facts or merits of the contioversy; and
the Executive Council shall do eveirthing in its power by way of mediation or eon-
ciliation to bring about a peaceful settlement. The decisionB of the Executive
Council shall be addressed to the disputants, and shall not have the force of a binding
verdict Should the Executive Council fail to amve at any ooaduaion, it shidl be
the privilege of the members of the Executive Council to publish their several condu*
sions or recommendations; and such publications shall not be regarded as an un-
friendly act bv either or any of the disputants.
Every award by arbitratora and every aecUion by tAc ExeeuUvi CouncU upon a matUr
in dUpuU between SiaUs must be rendered within twelve monihB c^ter formal rrfermoB.
TBBUTT OF PEACE WITH GERMANT. 1217
AvrwLm VI.
Shonld any contracting Power break or diaregard its covenants under Article V,
it shall Uiereby ipeo facto beeomo at waf with be deemed to have committed an act o/wxr
aqaifut all the members of the League^ which shall immediately subject it to a com-
plete economic and financial boycott, including the severance of all trade or financial
relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their subjects and the subjects
<^ the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention, so far as possible, of all financial,
commercial, or personaf intercourse between the subjects of the covenant-breaking
State and the subjects of any other State, whether a member of the League of Nations
or not.
It rfiall be the privilege and duty of the Executive Council of the Body of Delegates
in such a case to recommend what effective military or naval force the members <n the
League of Nations shall severally contribute, and to advise, if it should think best,
that the smaller members of the League be exc\ised from making any contribution to
the armed forces to be used against the eovenant-breakin^ State.
The covenant-breaking State shall, after the restoration of peace, be sublect to
poFpetual dioaFmamont and te the regulations with regard to a peace establistinient
provided for new States under the terms Supplementiuy Article IV.
Articlb VII.
If any power shall declare war or begin hostilitieB, or take any hostile step short of
war, against another Power before submitting the dispute involved to arbitrators or
oonsideration by the Executive Council as herein provided, or shall declare war or
begin hostilities, or take any hostile step short of war, in regard to any dispute which
has been decided adversely to it by arbitraton chosen and empowered as herein
provided, the Contracting rowers hereby bind thomsolvoo engage not only to cease
all commerce and intercourse with that Power but also to unite in blockading and
cloring the frontiers of that Power to commerce or intercourse with any part of the
world and to use any f<M'ce that may be necessary to accomplish that object.
Article VI II.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Contracting
Powers or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the League of Nations and to
all the Powers signatory hereto, and those Powers hereby reserve the right to take any
action that may oe deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly right of each of the nations
signatory or adherent to this Covenant to draw the attention of the Body of Delegates
or of the Executive Council to anv circumstances anywhere which threaten to disturb
international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace
depends.
The Delegates and the Executive Council shall meet in the interest of peace whenever
war is rumored or threatened, and also whenever the Delegate of any Power shall
inform the Delegates that a meeting and conference in the interest of peace is advisable.
The Delegates may also meet at such other times and upon such other occasions as
they shall from time to time deem best and determine.
Article IX,
In the event of a dispute arising between one of the Contracting Powers and a
Power not a party to this Covenant, the Contracting Power involved hereby binds
itself to endeavor to obtain the submiseion of the di'^ute to judicial decision or to
arbitration. If the other Power will not agree to submit the dispute to judicial decision
or to aibitration, the Contracting Power shall bring the matter to the attention of the
Body of Dologotco Executive Council. The Delegates shall in such a case, in the name
of the League of Nations, invite the Power not a party to this Covenant to become
ad hoc a party and to submit its case to judicial decision or to arbitration, and if that
Power consents it is hereby agreed that the provisions hereinbefore contained and
applicable to the submission of disputes to arbitration or discussion shall be in all
respects applicable to the dispute both in favor of and against such Power as if it
were a party to this Covenant.
In case the Power not a party to this Covenant shall not accept the invitation of the
Dologtttco Executive Council to become ad hoc a party, it shall be the duty of the
Executive Council immediately to institute an inquiry into the circumstances and
merits of the dispute involved and to recommend such joint action by the Contracting
Powers as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances disclosed.
1218 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBBIANTY.
Abtiolb X.
If hostilitiee should be begun or any hoetile action taken against tbe Gontractijig
Power by the Power not a party to thiB Covenant before a decision of the dispute
by arbitrators or before investigation, report and recommendation by the Executive
Council in regard to the dispute, or contrary to such recommendation, the Contracting
Powers Bka^ engaqe thereupon to cease all commerce and communication with that
Power and shc^ also to unite in blockading and closing the frontiers of that Power to
all commerce or intercourse with any part of the world, and to employisg jointly mny
force that may be necessary to accomplish that object. The Contracting Powera
ehi^ also undertake to unite in coming to the assistance of the Contracting Power
against which hostile action has been taken, combining and to combine their ann^
forces in its behalf.
Article XI.
In case of a dispute between states not parties to this Covenant, any Contractu^
Power may bring the matter to the attention of the Del^:ates or the Executive Council^
who shall thereupon tender the good offices of the League of Nations with a view to
the peaceable settlement of the dispute.
If one of the states, a party to the dispute, shall offer and agree to submit its interests
and cause of action wholly to the control and decision of the League of Nations, that
state shall ad hoc be deemed a Contracting Power. If no one of me states, parties to
the dispute, shall so o^er and agree, the Del^ates shall, through the Executive
Council, of their own motion take such action and make such reconmiendation to
their governments as will prevent hostilities and result in the settlement of the dispute
Article XII.
Any Power noUa party to this Covenant, whose government is based upon the
principle of popular self-government, may apply to the Bod^^ of Del^^ates for leave
to become a party. If tne Del^^tes shall re^d the granting thereof as likely to
promote the peace, order, and security of the World, they may shall act favourably
on the application, and their favourable action shall operate to constitute the Power
so ai)plying in all respects a full signatory party to this Covenant. This action shall
require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Delegates.
Article XIII.
The Contracting Powers severally agree that the Present Covenant and Convention
is accepted as abrogating all treaty obligations inter se which are inconsistent with
the terms hereof, and solemnly engage that they will not enter into any engagements
inconsistent with the terms hereof.
In case anv of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the League
of Nations shall, before becoming a party to this Covenant, have imdertaken any
treaty obligations which are inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be
the duty of such Power to take immediate steps to procure its release from such
obligations.
Supplementary Agreements.
I.
In respect of the peoples and territories which formerly belonged to Austria-
Hungary, and to Turkey, and in respect of the colonies formerly under the dominion
of the German Empire, the Lea^e of Nations shall be redded as the reeiduarv
trustee with oovcFcign right of ultimate diopooal of eontmwidtviih the right of overgighl
or administration in accordance with certain fundamental principles hereinafter set
forth; and this reversion and control shall exclude all rights or privileges of annexation
on the part of any Power.
These principles are, that there shall in no case be any annexation of any of these
territories by any State either within the Tieague or outride of it, and that in the
future government ol these peoples and territories the rule of self-determination or
the consent of the governed to their form of government, shall be fairly and reasonably
applied, and all policies of administration or economic development be based pn-
marily upon the well considered interests of the people themselves.
II.
Any authority, control, or administration which may be necessaiy in respect of
these peoples or territories other than their own self-determioed ana self-organized
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1219^
autonomy shall be the exclusive function of and shall be vested in the League of
Nations and exercised or undertaken by or on behalf of it.
It shall be lawful for the League of Nations to delegate its authority, control, or ad-
minL<9tration of any such people or territory to some nngle State or organised agency
which it may designate and appoint as its s^ent or mandatory; but whenever or wher-
ever possible or feasible the agent or manoatonL- so appointed shall be nominated or
approved by the autonomous people or territory.
III.
The degree of authority, control, or adniimstration to be exercised by the mandatory
State or agency shall in each case be explicitly defined by the Looguo Eiectitive Cown^
cil in a special Act or Charter which snail reserve to the League complete power of
supervision and of intimate eoirtfel, and which shall also reserve to the people of any
such territory' or governmental unit the right to appeal to the League for the redress
or correction of any breach of the mandate by the mandatory State or agency or for
the substitution of some other State or a^ncv, as mandatory.
The mandatory State or agency shall in all cases be bound and required to main-
tain ^e policy of the open door, or equal opportunity for all the signatories to this-
Covenant, in respect of the use and development of me economic resources of such
people or territory.
Tlie mandatory State or agency shall in no case form or maintain any military or
naval force, native or other ^ m excess of definite standards laid down by the League
itself for the purpose of internal police.
Any expense the mandatory State or agency may he fut to in the exercise of its functions
under the mandate^ so far as they cannot he home hy the resources of the people or territory
under its charge upon a fair hasis of assessment and charge, shall he home hy the several
signatory Powers, their several contributions heing assessed and determined hy the Execur-
tive Council in proportion to their several national budgets, unless the mandatory State
or agency is willing itself to hear the excess costs; and in alt cases the expenditures of the
mandatory Power or agency in the exercise of the mandate shall he suhject to the audit and
authorization of the League,
The ohject of all such tutelary oversight and administration on the part of the League of
Nations shall he to build up in as short a time as possible out of the people or territory
under its guardianship a political unit which can take charge of its own affairs, determine
its own connections, and choose its own policies. The Lea^e may at any time release
such a people or territory from tutelage oTid consent to its hetng set up as an independent
unit. It shall also he Uie right and privilege of any such people or territory to petition
the League to take sttch action, and upon such petition hcinp made it shall he the duty of
the League to take the petition under full and friendly consideration with a view to deter^
mining the hest interests of the people or temtory in question in view of all the drcum^
stances of their situation and development,
IV.
No new State arifling or eroatod from the old Empifo of Austria Hungary, or-Tujkoy
shall be recognized by the League or admitted into its membership except on condition
that its military and naval forces and armaments shall conform to standards prescribed
by the League in respect of it from time to time.
As oucccooof to the fempifo, The League of Nations is empowered, directly and
without ri^ht of delegation, to watch over the relations inter se of all new independent
States arising or created^ out of the Empire, and shall assume and fulfill the duty of
conciliating and composing differences between them with a view to the maintenance
of settled order and the general peace.
V.
The Powers signatory or adherent to this Covenant agree that they will themselves
seek to establish and maintain fair hours and humane conditions of labour for all those
within their several jurisdictions who are enmged in manual labour and that they
will exert their influence in favour of the adoption and maintenance of a similar
policy and like safeguards wherever their industrial and commercial relations extend.
VI.
The League of Nations shall require all new States to bind themselves as a con-
dition precedent to their recognition as independent or autonomous States, and the
1220 TBEATY OF PBACE WITH QBBMAJSnt,
Executive Council shall exact of all States seeking admission to the League of Ndiiems the
promise t to accord to all racial or national minorities within their several juiiadictiooe
exactly the same treatment and security, both in law and in iact, that is accorded the
racial or national majority of their people.
VU.
Recognizing religious persecution and intolerance as fertile sources of toaff the Povcers
signatory hereto agreCy and the League of Nations shall exact from all new Stales and all
States seebina admission to it the promise, that they rvUl make no law prohibiting or inter-
fering vfith the free exercise of reRgionf and UuU they wHl in no way diKrvmnaU, either
in law or in fact, against those who practice any particular creed, rehgion, or bdirf whom
practices are not inconsistent vrith pubUc order or public morals,
VIIL
The rights of belligerents on the high seas outside territorial waters having been defined
by international convention, it is hereby aareed and declared as a fundamenlal covenant
that no Power or combination of Powers shall have a right to overstep in any particular
the clear meaning of the dejinitums thus established: but that it shall be the right <^ the
League of Nations from time to tirne and on special occasion to close the seas in whole or
in part against a particular Power or particular Powers for the purpose of er^ardng the
international covenants here entered into,
IX.
It is hereby covenanted and a^eed by the Powers signatory her^o Uutt no treaty entered
into bp them, either singly or jointhf, shaU be regarded as vaKd, bindinp, or operaOm
until tt shdU have been published ana made knovm to all the other signaiortes,
X.
It is further covenanted and agreed &y the signatory Powers that in their fiseal and
economic regulaHons and polity no dieeriminaiion shall be made between one nation and
another among those with which they have commercial and financial dealings,
Mr. Bullitt. I then have the first printiiig of the President'B
second proposal; which was simply a printing of the changes as
indicated by the President.
Senator Knox. That does not differ in any respect ?
Mr. Bullitt. It does not, sir.
Senator Knox. So that it is not necessary to put that in the record t
Mr. Bullitt. If it is agreeable to the committee I shall be greatly
obliged if I could keep the original of this^ as the original is somewhat
dilapidated.
Senator Kn x. If they are just the same, of course.
The Chairman. Have they got all the changes ?
Mr. Bullitt. I believe they have, but I shall leave it entirely in
the hands of the committee, of course.
Senator Knox. Senator Brandegee thinks it would be better for
us to retain possession of it. We will be very careful of it, and see
that you get it back.
Mr. Bullitt. Thank you, sir. -
(The document referred to was marked ''BuUitt Exhibit No. 6"
and is here printed in full in the record, as follows:
Bullitt Exhibit No. 6.
covenant.
Pbbamblb.
In order to secure international peace and securi^ by the prescription of open,
just, and honorable relations between nations, by the nrm establishment of the under-
standings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among govemmentB, and
by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations is
TBIULTY OP PEACE WITH GBBICAHX^ X^^
the dealings of oi^ranized peoples with one another, and in order to promote inter-
national, cooperatioti, the rowers signatory to this covenant and agreement jointly
and severally adopt this constitution of the League of Nations.
Abticlb I.
The action of the Signatory Powers under the terms of this covenant shall be effected
through the instrumentality of a Body of Delegates which shall consist of the ambaasi^
dors and ministers of the contracting Powers accredited to H. and the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of H. The meetings of the Body of Delegates shall be held at the seat
ofgovemment of H. and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of H. shall be the presiding
officer of the Body.
Whenever the Del^ates deem it necessary or advisable, they may meet tempo-
rarilv at the seat of government of B. or of S., in which case the Ambasrador or Minist^
to H. of the country in which the meeting is held shall be the presiding officer pro
tempore.
It shall be the privilege of any of the contracting Powers to assist its representative
in the Body of Delegates by any method of conference, counsel, or advice that may
seem best to it, and also to substitute upon occasion a special representative for its
regular diplomatic representative accredited to H.
Abucle II.
The Body of Dele^tes shall regulate their own procedure and shall have power to
appoint such committees as they may deem necessary to inquire into and report
upon ahv matters that lie within the field of their action.
It shall be the right of the Body of Delegates, upon the initiative of an^ member,
to discuss, either publicly or privately as it may deem best, any matter lying within
the jurisdiction ox the League of Nations as denned in this covenant, or any matter
likely to affect the peace of the world; but all actions of the Body of Delegates taken
in the exercises of the fuiictions and powers granted to them under this Covenant
shall be formulated and agreed upon by an Executive Council, which shall act either
bv reference or upon its own initiative and which shall consist of the representatives
of the Great Powers, together with representatives drawn in annual rotatioA from
two panels, one of which shall be made up of the representatives of the States rank-
ing next alter the Great Powers and the other of tne representatives of the minor
States (a classification which the Body of Delegates shall itself establieJi and may
from time to time alter), such a number being drawn from these panels as will be
but one less than the representatives of the Great Powers; and three or more negative
votes in the Council shall operate as a veto upon any action or resolution proposed.
All resolutions j^assed or actions taken by the Executive Coundl, except those
adopted in execution of any direct powers herein granted to the Body of Lel^gates
themselves, shall have the effect of reconmiendations to the several govermnents of
the League.
The Executive Council shall appoint a permanent Secretariat and staff and may
appoint joint committees, chosen from the Body of Delegates or consisting of spedally
Qualifiea persons outside of that Body, for the study and systematic consideration ojf
tne international questions with which the Coundl may have to deal, or of questions
likely to lead to international complications or disputes. It c^all also take the necesr
sary steps to establish and maintain proper liaison both with the foreign offices of the
signatoiy powers and with an^ governments or agencies which may be acting as manr
datoriee of the League of Nations in any part of Uie world.
Abticls III.
The Contracting Powers unite in guaranteeing to each other political independeniCiB
and territorial integrity as against external aggression; but it is understood between
them that such territorial readjustments, if anv, as may in the future become necea-
sarv by reason of changes in present racial conditions and anpirations or present social
and political relationships, pursuant to the principle of sulf-determioation, and also
such territorial readjustments as may in the judgment of three-fourths of the I elO-
gates be demanded by the welfare and manifest interest of the peoples concerned,
may be effected if agreeable to those peoples and to the States from which the territory
is separated or to which it is added; and that territorial changes may iu equity involve
material compensation. The Contracting Powers accept without reserx'ation the
principle that the peace of the world is superior in importance to every question of
Political jurisdiction or boundary.
137739— 1&— VOL 2 ^ '
122!2 TREATY OF PEACB WITH GEBMAKY.
Abttclv IV.
The Contracting Powers recognize the principle that the establiahment and main-
tenance of peace wiQ require the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point
consistent with domestic safety and the enforcement by common action of inter-
national obligations; and the Executive Council is directed to formulate at once plans
bv which such a reduction may be brought about. The plan so formulated shall be
binding when, and only when, unanimously approved by the Governments stgnatory
to this Covenant.
As the basis for such a reduction of armaments, all the Powers subscribing to the
Treaty of Peace of which this Covenant constitutes a part hereby agree to abolish
conscription and aJl other forms of compulsory military service, and also agree that
their future forces of defense and of international action shsU consist of militia or
volunteers, whose numbers and methods of training shall be fixed, after expert inquiry,
by the agneemonts with regard to the reduction of armaments referred to in the but
preceding paragraph.
The Executive Council shall also determine for the consideration and action of the
several governments what direct military ea uipment and armament is fair and reason-
able in proportion to the scale of forces laia down in the programme of disarmament;
and these limits, when adopted, (diall not be exceeded without the permission of the
Body of Delegates.
The Contracting Powers further agree that munitions and implements of war shall
not be manufactured by private enterprise or for private profit, and that there shall
be full and frank publicity as to all national armaments and military or naval pro-
grammes.
Article V.
The Contracting Powers jointly and severally agree that should disputes or diffi-
culties arise between or among them which cannot be satisfactorily settl^ or adjured
by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, they will in no case resort to armed force
without previously submitting the questions and matters involved either to arbi-
tration or to inquiry by the Executive Council of the Body of Delegates or until there
has been an award by the arbitrators or a decision by the Executive Council; and
that they will not even then resort to armed force as against a member of the League
of Nations who complies with the award of the arbitrators or the decision of the Execu-
tive Council.
The Powers signatory to this Covenant undertake and agree that whenever any
dispute or difficulty shall arise between or among them with regard to any question
of tne law of nations, with re^d to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any fact which
would, if established, constitute a breach of international obligation, or as to any
allied damage and tne nature and measure of the reparation to oe made therefor, if
iBuch dispute or difficulty cannot be satisfactorily settled by the ordinary processes of
negotiation, to submit the whole subject matter to arbitration and to carry out in full
good faith any award or decision that may be rendered.
In case of arbitration, the matter or matters at issue shall be referred to three arbi-
trators, one of the three to be selected by each of the parties to the dispute, from ou^
side their own nations, when there are but two such jMuties. and the third oy the two
thus selected. When there are more than two parties to tne dispute, one arbitrator
shall be named by each of the several parties and the arbitrators thus named shall
add to their number others of their own choice, the number thus added to be limited
to the number which will suffice to give a deciding voice to the arbitrators thus added
in case of a tie vote among the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties. In case
the arbitrators chosen by the contending parties cannot agree upon an additional
arbitrator or arbitrators, the additional arbitrator or arbitrators shall be chosen by the
Executive Council.
On the appeal of a party to the dispute the decision of the arbitrators may be set
aside by a vote of three-fourths of the Delegates, in case the decision of the arbitrators
was unanimous, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Delates in case the decision of the
arbitrators was not unanimous, but unless thus set aside shall be finally binding and
conclusive.
When any decision of arbitrators shall have been thus set aside, the dispute shall
again be submitted to arbitrators chosen as heretofore provided, none of whom shall,
however, have previously acted as arbitrators in the dispute in question, and the
decision of the arbitrators rendered in this second arbitration shall be finally binding
and conclusive without right of appeal.
If for any reason it should prove impracticable to refer any matter in dispute to
arbitration, the parties to the dispute shall apply to the Executive Council to take
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1229
the matter under consideration for auch mediatory action or recommendation as it
may deem wise in the circumstances. The Council shall immediately accept the
reference and give notice to the parties, and shall make the necessary arrangements
for a full hearing, investisation, and consideration. It shall ascertain and as soon as
possible make }>ublic all uie focts involved in the dispute and shall make such recom-
mendations as it may deem wise and practicable based on the merits of the contro-
versy and calculated to secure a just and lasting settlement. Other members of the
League shall place at the disposal of the Executive Council any and all information
that may be in their possession which in any way bears upon the facta or merits of the
controversy; and the Executive Council shall do everytning in its power by way of
mediation or conciliation to bring about a peaceful settlement. The decisions of the
Executive Council shall be addressed to the disputants, and shall not have the force
of a binding verdict. Should the Executive Council fail to arrive at any conclusion,
it shall be the privilege of the members of the Executive Council to publish their
several conclusions or recommendations; and such publications shall not be regarded
as an unfriendly act b>[ either or any of the disputants.
Every award by arbitrators and every decision by the Executive Council upon a
matter in dispute between States must l>e rendered within twelve months after formal
reference.
Article VI.
Should any contracting power break or disregard its covenants under Article V, it
shall thereby ipgo faeto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all the
members of the L^Eigue, which shall immediately subject it to a complete economic
and financial boycott, including the severance of all trade or financial relations, the
prohibition of all intercourse between their subjects and the subjects of the covenant-
breaking State, and the prevention, so far as possible, of all financial, commercial,
or personal intercourse between the subjects of the covenant-breaking State and the
subjects of any other State, whether a member of the League of Nations or not.
It shall be the privilege and duty of the executive Council of the Body of Delegates
in such a case to recommend what effective military or naval force the members of
the League of Nations shall severally contribute, and to advise, if it should think
best, that the smaller members of the League be excused from making any contri-
bution to the armed forces to be used against the covenant-breaking State.
The covenant-breaking State shall, alter the restoration of peace, be subject to the
regulations with regard to a peace establishment provided for new States under the-
terms Supplementary Article IV.
Article VII.
If any Power shall declare war or begin hostilities, or take any hostile step short of
war, against another Power before submitting the dispute involved to arbitrators or
consideration by the Executive Council as herein provided, or shall declare war or
begin hostilities, or take any hostile step short of war, in regard to any dispute which
has been decided adveraely to it by arbitrators chosen and empowerea as herein
provided, the Contracting Powers hereby engage not only to cease all commerce and
intercourse with that Power but also to unite in blockading and closing the frontiers
of that Power to commerce or intercourse with any part of the world and to use any
force that may be necessary to accomplish that obje.ct.
Article VIII.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately effecting any of the Contracting
Powers or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the League of Nations and to
all the Powers aimatory hereto, and those Powers hereby reserve the right to take any
action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly ri^ht of each of the nations
8ig;natory or adherent to this Covenant to draw the attention of the Body of Dele-
gates or of the Executive Council to any circumstances anywhere which threaten
to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which
peace depends.
The Del^ates and the Executive Council shall meet in the interest of peace whether
war is rumored or threatened, and also whether the Delegates of any Power shall
iixf orm the Delegates that a meeting and conference in the interest of peace is advisable.
The Delesates may also meet at such other times and upon such other occasioxui
aa they shall from time to time deem best and determine.
1224 TREATY OF PEACB WITH OEBICANY.
AsncLS IX.
In the event of a dispute arising between one of the Contracting Powen and i
Power not a party to this Covenant, the Contracting Power involv^ hereby bindi
itself to endeavor to obtain the submission of the dispute to judicial decision or u
arbitration. If the other Power will not agree to submit the dispute to judicial <i^
cision or to arbitration, the Contracting Power shall bring the matter to the attentioD
of the Executive Council. The Delegates shall in such a case, in the name of the
League of Nations, invite the Power not a i>arty to this Covenant to become ad hcc
a party and to submit its case to iudicial decision or to arbitzation, and if that Povcr
consents it is hereby agreed that tne provisions hereinbefore contained and appiicabk
to the submiasim of disputes to arbitration or discussion diall be in all reBpeclB ap-
glicable to the dispute both in favor of and against such Power as if it were to tha
ovenant.
In case the Power not a party to this Covenant shall not accept the invitation d
the Executive Council to become ad hoc a party, it shaU be the duty of the Executive
Council immediately to institute an inquiry into the circumstances and merits of
the dispute involved and to recommend such joint action by the Contracting Powob
as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances disclosed.
Article X.
If hostilities should be begun or any hostile action taken against the OontnctiBg
Power by the Power not a party to this Covenant before a decision of the dispute by
arbitration or before investigation, report and recommendation by the Executive
Council in regard to the dispute, or contrary to such recommendation, the Contnct^
ing Powers engage thereupon to cease all commerce and communication with that
Power and also to unite in blockading and closing the frontiers of that Powtf to all
commerce or intercourse with any part of the world, and to employ jointly any force
that may be necessary to accomplish that obj ect. The Con tiactmg Powers also under-
take to unite in coming to the assistance of the Contracting Power against which
hostile action has been taken, and to combine their armed forces in its behalf.
Articlb XI.
In case of a dispute between atates not parties to this Covenant, any Gontactiiit
Power may bring the matter to the attention of the Delegates or the Executive CoudoT
who shall thereupon tender the good offices of the League of Nations with a view to
the peaceable settlement of the dispute.
If one of the states, a party to the dispute, shall offer and agree to submit its intereitfi
and cause of action wholly to the control and decision of the League of Nations, that
state shall ad hoc be deemed a Contracting Power. If no one ol the states, partitf
to the dispute, shall so offer and agree, the Delegates shall, through the Executive
Council, of their own motion take sucn action and make such recommendation to
their governments as will prevent hostilities and result in the settlement of the dispute.
Artiole XII.
Any Power not a party to this Covenant, whose government is bused npen the
principle of popular self-government, may apply to tne Body of Delegates for leave
to become a party. If the Delegates shall r«zud the granting thereof as likely to
promote the peace, order, and security of the World, they shall act favorably on the
application, and Uieir favorable action shall operate to constitute the Power so apply-
ing in all respects a full signatory party to this Covenant. This action shall require
the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Delegates.
Abuclb XIII.
The Contracting Powers severally agree that the present Covenant and ConveatioD
is accepted as abrogating all treaty ooligations inter m which are inconsistent with
the terms hereof, and solemnly engage that they will not enter into any engagements
inconsistent with the terms hereof.
In case any of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the League of
Nations shall, before becoming a party to this Covenant, have undertaken any treaty
obligations wnich are inconsistent witn the terms of this Covenant, it shall be uie duty
of such Power to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
TJgRATY OF TEACSR WITH GERMANY* 1225
SUTFLEMBNTABT AOBBSMBNTS.
In respect of the peoples and territories which formerly belonged to Austria-Hun-
gary, and to Turkey, and in respect of the colonies formerly under the dominion of
the German Empire, the League of Nations shall be regarded as tJie residuary trustee
with the right of oversight or administration in accordance with ce^rtain fundamental
principles hereinafter set forth; and this reversion and control shall exclude all rights
or privileges of annexation on the part of any Power.
These principles are, that there shall in no case be anv annexation of any of these
territories by any State either within the Leasue or outside of it, and that in the future
government of these peoples and territories tne rule of self-determination, or the con-
sent of the governed to their form of government, shall be fairly and reasonably
applied, and all policies of administration or economic development be based pn-
msuily upon the well-considered interests of the people themselves.
II.
Any authority, control, or administration which may be necessary in. respect of
these paoples or tarritories other than their own self-determined and self-organized
autonomy shall be the exclusive functions of and shall be vested in the League of
Nations and exercised or undertaken by or on behalf of it.
It shall be lawful for the League of Nations to delegate its authority, control, or
administration of any such people or territory to some single State or organized agency
which it may designate and appoint as its ag^nt or mandatory; but whenever or
wherever possible or feasible the agent or mandatory so appointed shall be nominated
or approved by the autonomous people or territory.
III.
The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the mandatory
State or as^ency shfdl in each case be explicitly defined by the Executive Council
in a special Act or Charter which shall reserve to the League complete power of super-
vision, and which shall also reserve to the people of any such territory or govern-
mental unit the right to appeal to the League for the redress or correction of any
breach of the mandate by the mandatory State or agency or for the substitution of
some other State or agency, as mandatory.
The mandatory State or agency shall in all cases be bound and required to maintain
the policy of the open door, or equal opportunity for all the signatories to this Cove-
nant, in respect of the use and development of the economic resources of such people
or tenitory.
The mandatory State or agency shall in no case farm or maintain any military or
naval force, native or other, in excess of definite standarda laid down by the League
itself fbr the purppo8e6< of internal police.
Any expense the mandatory State or agency may be put to in the exercise of its
functions under the mandate, so far as they cannot be borne by the resources of the
people or territory under its cnarge upon a fair basis of assessment and chaige, shall be
borne by the several signatory Powers, their several contributions being assessed and
determined by the Executive Council in porportion to their several national budgets,
unless the mandatory State or agency is wilhng itself to bear the excess costs; and in
all cases the expenditures of the mandatory Power or agency in the exercise of the
mandate shall be subject to the audit and authorization of the League.
The object of all such tutel^y oversight and administration on the part of the
League of Nations shall be to build up in as short a time as possible out of the people
or territory under its guardianship a political unit which can take charge of its own
own affairs, determine its own connections, and choose its own policies. The League
may at any time release such a people or territory from tutelage and consent to its
beins set up as an independent unit. It shall also be the right and privilege of any
people or territory to petition the League to take such action, and upon such petition
being made it sliall be the duty of the League to take the petition under full and
friendly consideration with a view to determining the best interests of the people or
territory in question in view of all the circumstances of their situation and develop-
ment.
IV.
No new State shall be recognized by the League or admitted into its membership
exception condition that its military and naval forces and armaments shall conform
to standards prescribed by the League in respect of it from time to time.
1226 TBBATY OF PKAOB WITH OEBMLAHY.
The League of Nations is empowered, db*ectly and without ri^ht of delegatioii, to
watch over the relations inter se of all new independent States anting or created and
shall assume and fulfil the duty of conciliatiofi: and composing differenceB between
them with a view to the maintenance of settled order and the general peace.
V.
The Powers signatory or adherent to this Covenant agree that thev will themaelveB
seek to establish and maintain fair hours and humane conditions of labor for all those
within their -several, jurisdictions who are engaged in manual labor and that they will
exert their influence in favor of the adoption and maintenance of a similar policy and
like safeguards wherever their indtistrial and commercial relations extend.
VI.
The League of Nations shall rec[uire all new States to bind themselves as a condition
precedent to their recognition as independent or autonomous States and the Executive
Council shall exact of all States seeking admission to the League of Nations the promise^
to accord to all racial or national minorities within their several jurisdictions exactly
the same treatment and security, both in law and in fact, that is accorded the racial
or national majority of their people.
VII.
Recognizing religious persecution and intolerance as fertile sources of war, the
Powers signatory hereto agree, and the League of Nations shall exact from all new
States and all States seeking admission to it the promise, that they will make no law
prohibiting or interfering with the free exercise of religion, and that they will in no
way discriminate, either in law or in fact, against those wno practice anv particular
creed, religion, or belief whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or
public morals.
VIII.
The rights of belligerents on the hi^ seas outside territorial waters having been
denned by international convention, it is hereby agreed and declared as a fundamental
covenant that no Power or combination of Powers shall have a right to overstep in any
particular the clear meaning of the definitions thus establishea; but that it shall be
the right of the League of Nations from time to time and on special occasion to close
the seas in whole or in part against a particular Power or particular Powers for the pur-
pose of enforcing the international covenants here entered into.
IX.
It is hereby covenanted and agreed by the Powers signatory hereto that no treaty
entered into by them, eitJier singly or jointly, shall be regarded as valid, binding, or
operative until it shall have been ptiblished and made known to all the other signa-
tories.
X.
It is further covenanted and agreed by the signatory Powers that in their fiscal and
economic regulations and policy no discrimination shall be made between one nation
and another among those with which they have commercial and financial dealings.
Senator Knox. These various drafts, as I understand, after dis-
cussion, were rejected?
Mr. Bullitt. When I left for Berne this second proposal of the
President was under discussion. When I returned a week later it
had been entirely discarded. Why it was discarded I do not know.
I was not present during those discussions, and I was not in touch
with the matter. The President's draft was entirely discarded and
the following draft was, I believe, the basis of discussion when I
returned from Berne.
(The document last above referred to was marked by the stenog-
rapher "Bullitt Exhibit No. 7.")
TBSATY OF PEACE WITH ^OSRMANS. 1227
Bullitt Exhibit No. 7.
covsmant.
Preamblk.
In order to secure international peace and security b^ the acceptance of obligations
not to resort to the use of armed force, by the prescnption of open, just and honorable
relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the imderstandings of inter-
national law as the acti^ rule of conduct among governments, and by the maintenance
of justice and a scrupuloas respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of oiganized
peoples with one another, and in order to promote international cooperation^ the
I^owers signatory to this Covenant adopt thia constitution of the League of Nations.
Article I.
The action of the High Contracting Parties under the terms of this Covenant shall
be effected through the instrumentality of meetings of Delegates representing the
n. C. P., of meetings at more frequent intervals of an Executive Council reoresenting
the States more immediately concerned in the matters under discussion, ana of a per-
manent international Secretariat to be established at the capital of the League
Article II.
Meetings of the Body of Del^ates shall be held from time to time as occasion may
require for the purpose of dealing with matters within the sphere of the League.
Meetings of the Body of Delegates shall be held at the capital of the League or at such
other place as may be found convenient and shall consist of not more than two repre-
sentatives of each of the H. C. P.
An ambassador or minister of one of the H. C. P. shall be competent to act as its
representative.
All matters of procedure at meetings of th& Body of Delegates, including the ap-
pointment of committees to inveetkate particular matters, shall be regulatod by the
Body of Delegates and may be decided by a majority of those present at the meeting.
Article III.
The representatives of the States members of the League directly affected bv matters
within the sphere of action of the League will meet as an Executive Council from time
to time as occasion may require.
The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan shall be
•deemed to be directly affected by all matters within the sphere of action of the League.
Invitations will be sent to any Power whose interests are directly affected, and no
decision taken at any meeting will be binding on a State which was not invited to be
represented at the meeting.
Such meetings will be held at whatever place may be decided on, or failing any such
decision at the capital of the League, and any matter affecting the interests of the
League or relating to matters withm its sphere of action or likely to affect the peace
of the world may be dealt with.
Article IV.
The permanent Secretariat of the League shall be established at , which
shall constitute the capital of the League. The Secretariat shall comprise such
secretaries and staff as may be required, under the general direction and control of a
Chancellor of the League Sy whom they shall be appointed.
The Chancellor shall act as Secretary at all meetings of the Body of Delegates or of
the Executive Council.
The expenses of the Secretariat shall be borne by the State members of the League
in accordance "with the distribution among members of the Postal Union of the expenses
of the International Postal Union.
Article V.
Representatives of the H. C. P. and officials of the League when engaged on the
business of the League shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities, and the
buildings occupied by the League or its officials or by representatives attending its
meetings shall enjoy the benefits of extraterritoriality.
I!2i28 TBBATir 6t tEkCR with QEBMAJfTYV
Abticlv VI.
Admission to the League of States who are not signatories of this Covenant requiies
the assent of not less than two-thirds of the Body of Delegates.
No State shall be admitted to the League except on condition that its militmiy and
naval forces and armaments shall conform to standards prescribed by the Lea^e in
tespect of it from time to time.
Articlb VII.
The H. 0. P. undertake to respect and preserve as against external ag^^ressioo the
territorial integrity and existing political independence of all States members of the
League.
Article VIII.
The H. G. P. recognize the principle that the maintenance of peace will require the
Induction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety
and the enforcement by common action of international obli<^tions; and the Executive
Council shall form ulate plans for effecting such red uc tion. It ahal 1 also inq uirc into the
feasibility of abolishing compulsory military service and the substitution therefor of
forces enrolled upon a voluntar]^ basis and into the military and naval equipment
which it \a reasonable to maintain.
The H. C. P. further agree tliat there shall be full and frank publicity as to all
national armaments and military or naval programmes.
Article IX.
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the H. C. P. or not,
is hereby declared a matter of concern to the League, and the H. C. P. reserve the right
to take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace
6f nations.
It is hereby also declared and agreed to be the friendly right of each of the H. C. P.
to draw the attention of the Body of Delegates or of the Executive Council to any
circumstances anywhere which threaten to disturb international peace or the good
understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
Article X.
The H. C; P. agree that should disputes arise between them which cannot be
adjusted by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, they will in no case resort to armed
force without previously submitting the questions and matters involved either to
arbitration or to inquiry by the Executive Council and until three months after the
award bv the arbitrators or a recommendation by the Executive Council: and that
they will not even then resort to armed force as against a member of the League
wluch complies with the award of the arbitrators or the recommendation ot the
Executive Council.
Article XI.
The H. C. P. i^ree that whenever any dispute or difficulty shall arife between them
which they recognize to be suitable for suomission to arbitration and which cannot
be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject matter to
arbitration and will carry out in full good faith any award or decision that may be
tendered.
Article XII.
The Executive Council will formulate plans for the establishment of a Permanent
Court of International Justice and this Court will be competent to hear and determine
any matter which the parties recognize as suitable for submission to it for arbitration
under the foregoing Article.
Article XIII.
If there should arise between States members of the League any dispute UMy to
lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration as above, the H. 0. P. agree
that they will refer the matter to the Executive Council; either partv to the dispute
may give notice to the Chancellor of the existence of the dispute, and the Chancellor
will make iJl necessary arrangements for a full investigation. and consideration thereof.
For this purpose the |Mirtiee agree to communicate to Vae Chancellor statements of their
case with all the relevant facts and papers.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBICAITY. 1229
- Where the efforts of the Council lead to the settlement of the dispute, a statement
shall be prepared for publication, indicating the nature of the dispute and the terms of
settlement, together with such explanations as may be appropriate. If the dispute
has not been settled, a report b}^ the Council shall be piiblisned, setting forth with
all necessary facts and explanations the recommendations which the Council think
just and proper for the settlement of the dispute. If the report is unanimously agreed
to by the members of the Council, other than the parties to the dispute, the H. C. P.
agree that none of them will go to war with any psuty which complies with its recom-
mendations. If no such unanimous report cauu be made, it shall be the duty of the
majority to issue a statement indicating what they belieye to be the facts and con-
taining the recommendations which they consider to be just and proper.
The Executive Council may in any case under this Article refer the dispute to the
Body of Delegates. The dispute- ^all be so referred at the request of either party
to the dispute. In any case referred to the Body of Delegates all the provisions of
this Article relating to the action and powers of the Executive Council shall apply to
the action and powers of the Body of Delegates.
Article XIV.
Should any of the H. C. P. be found by the League to have broken or disregarded
its covenants under Article X, it shall thereby ipsojfacto be deemed to have committed
an act of war against all the other members of the League, which shall immediately
Bubject it to the severance ojf all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all
intercourse between tiieir nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State,
and the prevention, so far as possible, of all financial, commercial, or personal inter-
course between the nationals of the covenant-breakii^ State and the nationals of
any other State, whether a member of the League or not.
It shall be the duty of the Executive Council in such a case to recommend what
effective military or naval force the members of the League shall severally contribute
to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.
The H. C. P. agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the
financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article in order to mini-
mize the loss and inconvenience resulting; from the above measures, and that they
will mutuallv support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one
of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will afford passage
through their territory to the forces of any of the H. C. P. who are co-operating to
protect the covenants of the League.
Article XV.
In the event of disputes between one State member of the League and another
State which is not a member of the League, or between States not members of the
League, the H. C. P. agree that the State or States not members of the League shall
be invited to become oa^ members of the league, and upon acceptance of any such
invitation, the above provisions shall be applied with such modifications as may be
deemed necessary by the League.
Upon such invitation being giyen the Executive C/Ouncil shall immediately institute
an inquiry into the drcumstances and merits of the dispute and recommend such
action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances.
In the event of a Power so invited refusing to become ad hoc a member of the League,
and taking any action against a State member of the League which in the case of a
State member of the League would constitute a breach oi Article X, the provisions
of Article XIV shall be applicable as against the State taking such action.
If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to become ad hoc members of
the Lei^e, the Executive Council may take such action and make such recommenda-
tions as will prevent hostilities and will result in the settlement of the dispute.
»
Article XVI.
The H. C. P. entrust to the Leag[ue the general supervision of the trade in arms
and ammunition with the countries m which the control of this traffic is nec.essary in
the common interest.
Article XVII.
The H. C. P. agree that in respect of territories which formerly belonged to the
German Empire or to Turkey and which are inhabited b^ peoples unable at present
to secure for themselves the benefits of a stable administration, the well being of
1230 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAVY.
these peoples constitutes a sacred trust for civilization and imposes upon the StAtes
members of the Lea^e the obligation to render help and ^aance in the develop-
ment of the administration. They recognize that all polices of administration or
economic development should be based primarily upon the well considered intereati
of the peoples themselves, upon the maintenance of the policy of the open door and
of equal opportunity for all tne H. C. P. in respect of the use and development of the
economic resources of the territory. No military or naval forces shall be formed
among the inhabitants of the temtories in excess of those required for purposes of
defense and of internal police.
Article XVIII.
The H. G. P. will work to establish and maintain fair hours and humane conditions
of labor for all those within their several jurisdictions and they will exert their influence
in favor of the adoption and maintenance of a similar policy and light safeguards
(wherever their industrial and commercial relations extend. Also they will appoint
GommiBsions to study conditions of industry and labor in their international aspects
and to make recommendations thereon, including the extension and improvement
of existing conventions.
Article XIX.
The H. G. P. asree that they will make no law prohibiting or interfering with the
free exercise of religion, and that they will in no way discriminate, either in law or
in fact, against those who practice any particular creed, religion, or belief whose
practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals.
Article XX.
The H. G. P. will agree ux)on provisions intended to secure and maintain freedoB
of transit and just treatment for tne commerce of all States members of the League.
Article XXI.
The H. G. P. aspree that any treaty or International angagement entered into be>
tween States memoers of the Lea^e shall be forthwith registered with the Chancellor
■and as soon as possible published by him.
Article XXII.
The H. G. P. severally agree that the present Covenant is accepted as abrogating
all obligations inter se which are inconsistent with the terms hereof, and solemnly
engage that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with thie
terms hereof.
In case any of the Powers signatory hereto or subsequently admitted to the Lei^gue
shall.before becoming a party to this covenant, have undertaken any obligations
whicn are inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such
Power to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
The Chairman. Whose draft was that ?
Mr. Bullitt. I understood that had been prepared by the British
law experts and Mr. David Hunter Miller
The Chairman, What we have known as the composite draft.
Mr. Bullitt (continuing). Largely based on Lord Robert Cecil's
recommendations.
I am afraid that I know but Uttle more in regard to the league of
nations — ^there were minutes made of the discussions, but I have no
minutes of those discussions, and all I know further is in regard to the
discussions in regard to the suggestion to have an assembly of repre-
sentatives included in the mecnanism of the league; that is, of repre-
sentatives to be chosen so as to represent the legislative assemblies
of the various constituent States in an attempt to produce a somewhat
popular assembly in the central organ ol the league, which was
Deginning to be regarded by most persons in Paris as a diplomatic
XBBATY OF PBAOE WITH QEBMAKT. 1281
expedient, which would have little or no effect and no hold on the
popular ima^ation.
senator E!nox. That was a suggestion, then, to popularize the
pro] ect ?
Mr. Bullitt. I am not sure of your meaning, sir.
Senator Knox. I mean, to make it more popular )
Mr. Bullitt. To make it more democratic.
Senator Knox. More democratic, and to make it appeal more to
the people?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; and get the people of Europe to look more
favorably toward it.
Senator Knox. Yes. Do you happen to know the attitude which
the President took in regard to this suggestion to have an assembly
in which should be represented the representative bodies of the
various countries ?
Mr. Bullitt. The President expressed himself as heartily in
sympathy with the idea, but as imable to believe it practical; and
Gen. Smuts, I recall, in the meeting of the committee urged it very
strongly. Col. House approved of it. Lord Robert Cecil had pro-
posed something^ of the sort in his original proposition, but was
apathetic. The President was finally opposed to it. Later the matter
was brought up again, when Lord Robert Cecil, Gen. Smuts, and
Col. House all favored it — all favored the inclusion of a representative
body — ^when the President opposed it, and by his opposition, of
<^ourse, defeated it.
Senator Knox. Did that feature appear in any of these drafts at
all?
Mr. Bullitt. It did not. It was brought up, but there was
merely discussion of it. There was a large body of opinion that if the
league was to be a thing which might be able to cope with inter-
national war and create international imderstanding and coopera-
tion, it must have some more popular basis of representation. Of
course, at that time still the proposal for representation in the league
was the original proposal of tne President, tnat representation should
be by the ambassadors or ministers of the powers composing the
league, accredited to the capital where the league was to have its
seat.
Senator Knox. In other words, the assembly, the council, would
be made up of the diplomatic representatives of the various countries.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; that was the President's original proposal,
and it was only rejected at the last moment before the league was
finally presented in open session. You will recall, I think, it was
February 13, that the President read the draft of the league in
open session first, and on February 9 the provision was still in the
draft that representation should be by the ambassadors or ministers
of the high contracting powers, parties to the league. Col. House
had asked me to prepare an amendment to this article and I simply
sent in this memorandum, which is of no particular interest. It
reads as follows [reading] :
BULUTT ExmsFT No. 8.
Febbuabt 9, 1919.
Memorandum for Col. House:
Subject: Proposed amendment to Article 2 of the league of nations covenant.
My Dear Col. House: In accordance with your request of this afternoon, I
respectfully submit the following proposal for amendment:
12S2 TEBAT7 07 VRkCR WITH GEBICAISTT.
Abtzolb 2«
Omit the words ''The ambassadors or ministers of the high contracting pv6m
at — are".
Thb clause then would read:
"Meetings of the body of delegates shall be held at the seat of the league or at such
other place as may be found convenient, and shall consist of representatives spedally
appointed for this puipose.'^
Very respectfully, yours,
Sanator Knox. Up to that time all of the projects had contem-
plated the different countries being represented by their diplomatic
agents ?
Mr. Bullitt. The President, had insisted on it repeatedly. The
British had been very much opposed to it, and the reason for my dis-
cussing the matter with Col. House was that I had in the course of
trying to keep in touch with what was going on there, and receiving
these reports from the different sections of the conference, found that
the feeling against this was very, very great, and had called it, of
course, to the attention of Col. House.
Senator Brakdegee. I do not quite understand. Does the phrase
"body of delegates" as employed m that proposition which you made
refer to what is known in the pending treaty as "the assembly"!
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Bbandeoee. That was what is now known as the council,
what I imderstand is now called the council, referred to as in the
draft?
Mr. BuLLm. I can tell you, but I have not it in my mind.
Senator Brandegee. Never mind about it.
Senator Knox. The President was opposed to having the repre-
sentative bodies of the different countnes represented in the league;
he thought it impracticable ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Bullitt. 1 shall attempt to make my meaning a little clearer.
The idea was to have representation from the various countries to
represent the various political parties in the States which m^e up
the league, in order that there might be a popular representation.
Senator Knox. You mean representation of the congre88e8\of the
nations in the lea&;ue ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes.
Senator ELnox. That is the way I understand it.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes.
Senator Ej>iox. And Clemenceau and Lloyd-George — ^what was
their opinion ?
Mr. Bullitt. Clemenceau — I don't know what his position was
on that subject.
Senator Knoa. But you know Col. House's position was in favor
of this ?
Mr. Bullitt. Col. House was in favor of it. Lord Robwt Cecil
and Gen. Smuts wore in favor of it. They were the members of the
league of nations commission from England and the United States.
Senator Knox. The President seems to have lost out, then, on the
proposition that the countries should be represented in the league of
nations by their diplomatic officers ? .
The Chairman. He did not say that, did he?
Senator Ejiiox. Yes; he did.
s.
TBEAX7 OF FBAGB WTCH GBBMAKY. 1288
In ^our judgment, ^rou having been in daily touch with these
negotiations and being in the coimdence of Col. House, and it being
your duty to gather up aD of the information that it was possible to
gather for dissemination among the American members of the com-
mission, what do you regard as the President's greatest contribution
to this league covenant?
Mr. Bullitt. So far as I know, in the final form of the league the
only proposal of the President which remains more or less intact is
article 10.
Senator Knox. Do you know what the attitude of the representa-
tives of the other Governments was toward article 10 ?
'hSr. Bullitt. I do not, sir.
Senator EInox. Could you give us some idea as to how the geneeral
work of the commission was done by the American representetives,
and who were the active agents in conducting this work ? For instance,
bemi with the President. Did the Presioent have a secretary and
body of men about him working for him personally in connection
with his labors, or was it handed over to somebody else; and if so, to
whom ?
Mr. Bullitt. The President had no assistants or secretaries of his
own. He had his own two confidential stenographers, Mr. Close and
Mr. Swem. Mr. Close was generally called ** confidential secretary."
The President, of course, conductea all the negotiations himself, all
the actual — ^practically all the actual — ^negotiations. The usual
course of the preparation of a point of view was for the President to
refer the matter to Col. House, who had built up a considerable
secretariat, in the Crillon; and Col. House in turn would turn the
matter over to his secretariat, the heads of which were Mr. Gordon
Auchincloss^ and Mr. David Hunter Miller. Mr. David Hunter Miller
had practically the revising of every paper in the conference, as an
adviser on international law.
Senator Knox. Is it not a fact that Auchincloss and Miller were the
members the most active, and covering a wider sphere in relation to
what was going on over there than anybody else ?
Mr. BuLLriT. I should distinctly say so, except, of course, Col.
House and the President.
Senator TSjsox. How many people were there connected with the
American mission ?
Mr. Bullitt. I am unable to give you the exact figures.
Senator Enox. I do not care about that.
Mr. Bullitt. I think it was 1 ,300. It was something like that.
Senator EInox. One thousand three hundred ?
Mr. BiJLUTT. Y^ something like that.
Senator Knox. Wnat were they doing principally 1
Mr. Bullitt. There were a large number of experts on various
{>roblems — ^territorial problems; economic problems. There were
arge numbers of, I believe they were called, liaison officers, who
were supposed to keep in toucn with various other delegations,
although they later were cut down in number. In the main, the
delegation was functioning as well as it could, attempting to maintain
as wise a point of view as possible on all questions, out it was rather
f unctioningin its own sphere.
Senator £[nox. It was pretty busy trying to appear to keep busy,
was it not?
1234 TBBATT OF PEACB WITH OEEMANY.
Mr. BxTLLiTT. No; I should not say that. It was very busy. AU
the peoples who had troubles in the world brought them to the experts
of the American delegation — hundreds of them.
Senator Ksox. Was there not some complaint among the American
delegates as to the manner in which this was being conducted for
America ?
Mr. Bullitt. I do not quite tmderstand the question. Do you
mean formal complaint, or
Senator Knox. No; I mean was there not a feeling of dissatisfac-
tion with the way the American end of the business was being
handled by the representatives there.
Mr. Bullitt. There was, of course, the feeling that there was very,
very little contact between the top of the organization and the
experts, and so on, at the bottom. There was naturally a feeling
of that sort. I am not in a position really to say a great deal about
this, because, as I said before, it was more or less my business to try
and pass the stuff up.
Senator Knox. What was your mission to Berne ? You say you
left Paris in February to go to Berne ?
Mr. Bullitt. I was sent down to observe and report on the intco*-
national labor and socialist conference which was taking place in
Berne.
Senator Knox. What was your mission to Russia, and when did
you go ?
Mr. Bullitt. I was ordered to go to Russia on the 18th of Febru-
ary. I received the following order from Secretary Lansing [reading]:
BxTLLrrr Exhibit No 9.
Ambbican Commission to NEooTiATt Peace,
18 February, 1919.
Mr. WiLUAM 0. Bullitt,
American Oommtwion to Negotiate Peace,
Sib: You are hereby directed to proceed to Russia for the purpose of studyiBj^ coo-
ditions. political and economic, therein, for the benefit of the American conmussion-
ers pleiupotentiary to negotiate peace, and all American diplomatic and consular
officials are hereby directed to extend to you the proper courtesies and facilities to
enable you to fulfill the duties of your mission.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
[seal.] Hobbbt Lansing,
Secretary of State of the United States of America.
Senator E^ox. What is the date of that?
Mr. Bullitt. February 18, 1919. I also received at the same
time from Mr. Joseph C. Grew, the secretary of the American com-
mission, the following [reading] :
BuLUTT ExHiBrr No, 10.
Ahebioan Commission to Neqotiate Pbacb,
F^ruary IS, 1919,
To whom it may concern:
I hereby certify that Mr. William C. Bullitt has been authorized bjr the American
commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace to proceed to Russia, for the pur-
pose of studying conditions, political and economic, therein, for the benefit of the
commission, and I bespeak for him the proper courtesies and facilities in enabling
him to fulfill the duties of his mission.
[seal.] J. C. Grew,
** Secretary of the American Commission to Negotiate^Feact,
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QBRMANT. 1235
Senator B^nox. You say you started in February. What time in
February 1
Mr. Bullitt. I left on the 22d day of February.
Senator EInox. Did you know at that time, or have you ascer-
tained since, whether a secret mission had or not been dispatched
from Paris, that is, by the President himself; a man by the name of
Buckler, who went to Itussia a few days before you did f
Mr. Bullitt. Mr. W. H. Buckler, Mr. Henry White's half brother.
He was an attach6 of the American embassy in London. He was
ordered from there to go, about the 1st of January, to Stockholm, to
confer with Litvinov, who had been the ambassador of the soviet
govemment to London — the British had allowed him to stay there
without actually recognizing his official status, and had dealt with
him.
Mr. Buckler there conferred with Litvinov, who made various
propositions and representations to him which Mr. Buckler at once
telegraphed back to Paris, and which were considered so important
by the President that the President read them in extenso to the
coimcil of ten on the morning of January 21. I regret that I have no
actual copy of those proposals by Litvinov, or of Buckler's telegrams.
At that time there was a discussion taking place in regard to Kussia
which had extended oyer a couple of weeks, a discussion of the utmost
interest, in the council of ten. I happen to have the minutes of the
council for January 16, when this Russian question was taken up,
which I shall be glad to read, if the Senators should be interested, and
also the minutes of the council of ten on January21, at which meeting
the Prinkipos proposal was decided upon. The Buckler meeting
with Litvinov was what eventually swime the meeting in favor of
Prinkipos, the suggestion for which had been made by Mr. Lloyd-
George. No ; that is slightly incorrect. Mr. Lloyd-George had sug-
gested that representatives of the various Russian governments and
factions shoula be brought to Paris.
(The minutes above referred to were marked by the stenographer
"Bullitt E^iibit No. 11," and areprinted in the record in full, as
follows:)
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 11,
NOTES ON OONVERSATIONS HELD IN THE OFFICE OF U. FIGHON AT THE QUAI D 'ORSAY,
ON JANUARY 1«, 1010 — FRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REOARDINO THE SITUATION IN
RUSSIA.
Mr. Lloyd George commenced his statement setting forth the information in the
possession of the British Govemment regsurding the Russian situation, by referring to
the matter which had been exposed recently in L'Htunanite. He stated that he
wished to point out that there nad been a serious misconception on the part of the
French Govemment as to the character of the proposal of tne British Government.
The Britidi proposal did not contemplate in any sense whatever, a recognition of the
Bolaheviki Govemment, nor a suggestion that Bolshevik delegates be invited to
attend the Conference. The Britishproposal was to invite all of the different govern-
ments now at war within what used to be the Russian Empire, to a truce of God, to
stop reprisals and outrages and to send men here to give, so to speak, an accoimt of
themselves. The Great Powers would then try to find a way to bring some order out
of chaos. These men were not to be delegates to the Peace Conference, and he agreed
with the French Grovemment entirely tlmt they should not be made members oi the
Conference.
Mr. Lloyd George then proceeded to set forth briefly the reasons which had led the
British Govemment to msQce this proposal. They were as follows:
Firstly, the real facts are not known;
Secondly, it is impossible to get the facts, the only way is to adjudicate the question;
and
1236 TBfiATY OF PEACS WITH GEBMAlfY.
Thirdly, conditipns in Ruasia are very bad; there is general mis-govemmeDt sad
starvatioD. It is not known who is obtaining the upper hand, but the hope that the
Bolshevik Government would collapse had not been realized. In fact, there is one
report that the Bolaheviki are stronger than ever, that their internal position is strong,
and that their hold on the people is stronger. Take, for instance, the cue of the
Ukraine. Some adventurer raises a few men . and overthrows the Government.
The Government is incapable of overthrowing him. It is also reported that the
peasants are becoming Bolsheviki. ^ It is hardly the business of the Grcsat Powers
to intervene either in lending financial support to one side or the other, or in sending
■ munitions to either side.
Mr. Lloyd Geoi^ stated that there seemed to be three possible policies:
1. l^litaiy intervention. It is true there the Bolsheviki movement is as dan-
gerous to civilization as German militarism, but as to putting it down by the 8W<Mtl,
IS there anyone who proposes it? It would mean holding a certain number of vs«t
provinces in Russia. Tne Germans with one million men on their Eastern Front
only held the fringe of this territory. If he now propossd to send a thousand British
troops to Russia tor that purpose, the armies would mutiny. The same applies to
U. §. troops in Siberia; also to Canadians and French as well. The mere idea a(
crushing Bolshevism by a military force is pure madness. Even admitting that it
is done, who is to occupy Russia? No one can conceive or understand to bring about
order by force.
2. A cordon. The second suggestion is to besiege Bolshevik Russia. Mr. Lloyd
George wondered if those present realized what this would mean. From the infor-
mation furnished him Bolshevik Russia has no com, but within this territory there
are I50,00CL000 men, women, and children. There is now starvation in Petrogfad and
Moscow. This is not an health cordon, it is a death cordon. Moreover, as a matter of
fact, the people who would die are just the people that the Allies desire to protect.
It would not result in the starvation of the Bolsheviki; it would simply mean the death
of our friends. The cordon i>olicy is a policy which, as humane people, those jMeeent
could not consider.
Mr. Lloyd George asked who was there to overthrow the Bolsheviki? He had been
told there were three men, Denekin, Kolchak and Knox. In considering the chances
of these people to overthrow the Bolsheviki, he pointed out that he had received infor-
mation that the Czecho-Slovaks now refused to fight; that the Russian Army was not
to be trusted, and that while it was true that a Bolshevik Army had recently gone over
to Kolch^ it was never certain that just the reverse of this would not take pkce. If
the Allies counted on any of these men^ he believed they were building on quick-sand.
He had heard a lot of talk about Denekin, but when he looked on the map he found that
Denekin was occupying a little backyard near the Black Sea. Then he had been told
that Denekin had recognized Kolchak. but when he looked on the map there was a
great solid block of territory between Denekin and Kolchak. Moreover, from infor-
mation received it would appear that Kolchak had been collecting members of the
old regime around him, and would seem to be at heart a monarchist. It appeared
that the Czecho-Slovaks were finding this out. The sympatliies of the Czecho-Slovaks
are very democratic, and they are not at all prepared to fight for the restoration of the
old conditions in Russia.
Mr. Lloyd Geor^ stated. that he was informed that at the present time two-thirds
of Bolshevik Ru&ia was starving.
Institutions of Bolsheviki are institutions of old CzarxBt regime. This is not what
one would call creating a new world.
3. The third alternative was contained in the British proposal, which was to som-
mon these people to Paris to appear before those present, somewhat in the way that
the Roman Empire summoned chiefs of outlying tributary states to render an account
of their actions.
Mr. Lloyd George pointed out the fact that the ailment might be used that there
were already here certain representatives of these Governments; but take, for instance,
the case of SassonofI, who claims to represent the Grovemment of Omsk. As a matter
of fact, Sassonoff can not speak from pexsonal observation. He is nothing but a par-
tisan, like all the rest. He has novor been in contact, and is not now in direct contact
with the Grovemment at Omsk.
It would be manifestly alieurd iur those who are responsible for bringing about the
Peace Conference, to come to any agreement and leave Paris when one-naif of Europe
and one-half of Asia is still in fiames. Those present must settle this question or make
fools of themselves.
Mr. Lloyd George referred to the objection that had been raised to permitting
Holshcvik delegates to come to Paris. It had been claimed that they would convert
France and England to Bolshevism. If England becomes Bolshevist, it will not be
because a single Bolshe\dst reprejsentative is permitted to enter £nglan.d. On the
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1237
other hand, if a military enterprise were started agaii^st the Bolahevi^i, that would
make England Bolshevist, and there would be a Soviet in London. For his part, Mr.
Lloyd Geoi^ was not afraid of Bolshevism if the facts are known in England and the
United States. The same applied to Germany. He was convinced that an educated
democracy can be always trusted to turn down Bolshevieim.
Under all circumstances, Mr. Lloyd George saw no better way out than to follow
the third alternative. J^et the Great Power impose their conditions and siunmon
these people to Paris to give an account of themselves to the Great Powers, not to the
Peace Conference.
Mr. Pirhon suggested that it might be well to ask M. Noulens, the French Ambas-
sador to Rus^, who had just returned to Fiance, to appear before the meeting to-
morrow morning, and give those present his views on the Hussian situation.
President Wilson stated that he did not see how it was possible to controvert the
statement of Mr. Lloyd George. He thought that there was a force behind this dis-
cussion which was no doubt in his mind, but which it might be desirable to bring out
a little more definitely. He did not believe that there would be svmpathy anywhere
with the brutal aspect of Bolshevism, if it were not for the fact of the domination of
large vested interests in the political and economic world. While it might be true
that this evil was in process of discussion and slow reform, it must be admitted, that
the general body of men have grown impatient at the failure to bring about the neces-
sary reform. He stated that there were many men who represented large vested
interests in the United States who saw the necessity for these reforms and desired
something which should be worked out at the Peace Conference, namely, the estab-
lishment of some machinery to provide for the opportunity of the individuals greater
than the world has ever known. Capital and labor in the United States are not
friends. Still they are not enemies in the sense that they are thinking of resorting
to physical force to settle their differences. But they are distrustful, each of the
other. Society can not go on that plane. On the one haind, there is a minority possess-
ing capital and brains; on the other, a majority consisting of the great bodies of work-
ers who are essential to the minority, but do not trust the minority, and feel that
the minority will never render them their rights. A way must be found to put trust
and cooperation between these two.
President Wilson pointed out that the whole world was disturbed by this question
before the Bolsheviki came into power. Seeds need soil, and the Bolsheviki seeds
found the soil already prepared for them.
President Wilson stated that he would not be surprised to find that the reason why
British and United States troops would not be ready to enter Russia to fi^ht the
Bolsheviki was explained by the fact that the troops were not at all sure that U they
put down Bolshevism they would not bring about a re-establishment of the ancient
order. For example, in making a speech recently, to a welMressed audience in
New York City who were not be to expected to show such feeling, Mr. Wilson had
referred casually to Russia, stating that the United States would do its utmost to aid
her suppressed people. The audience exhibited the greatest enthusiasm, and this
had remained in the President's mind as an index to where the sympathies of the
New World are.
President Wilson believed that those present would be playing against the prin-
ciple of the free spirit of the world if they did not give Russia a chance to find herself
along the lines of utter freedom. He concurred with Mr. Lloyd George's view and
supported his recommendations that the third line of procedure be adopted.
Pteddent Wilson stated that he had also, like Mr. Lloyd George, received a memo-
randum from his experts which agreed substantially wiui the information which Mr.
Lloyd George had received. There was one point which he thought particularly
worthy of notice, and that was the report that the strength of the Bolshevik leaden
lay in the argument that if they were not supported by the people of Russia, there
would be foreign intervention, and the Bolsneviki were the only thing that stood
between the Russians and foreign military control. It might well be that if the
Bolsheviki were assured that they were safe from foreign aggression, they might lose
support of their own movement.
Pte^dent Wilson further stated that he understood that the danger of destruction
of all hope in the Baltic provinces was immediate, and that it should be made very
clear if tne British proposal were adopted, that the Bolsheviki would have to widi«
draw entirely from Lithuania and Poland. If they would agree to this to refrain
from reprisals and outrages, he, for his part, would be prepared to receive representa-
tives from as many groups and centers of action, as chose to come, and enaeavor to
assist them to reach a solution of their problem.
He thought that the British proposal contained the qnly suggestions that lead
anywhere. It might lead nowhere. But this could at least be found out.
137739— 19— VOL 2 6
1238 TREATX OF PEACE WITH GERMAITF.
M. Pichon referred again to the fiuggestion that Ambaseador Noulens be caUed heknf^
the meeting.
Mr. Balfour suggested that it might be well to call the Dutch Consul; lately \h
PetrQgrad, if it was the desire of those present to hear the anti-Bolshevik nde.
Baron Sonnino suggested that M. Scavenius, Minister of Denmark, recently in
Russia, would be able to give interesting data on the Russian situation.
Those present seemed to think that it might be desirable to hear what these gen-
tlemen might have to say.
Senator E!nox. Do you know anything about a letter that Buckler
wrote to the President in relation to his mission? Have you ever
seen a copy of his report in the form of a letter ?
Mr. Bullitt. I have read a copy of his report, but I have not the
copy. The only reference I have to it that I iSnd; in the short time
I have had to go over my papers since I came down from the woods,
is in a memorandum to Col. House in reference to the withdrawal of
the American troops from Archangel [reading]:
Buckler discussed the matter of the withdrawal of these troope with Litvinoff, wbo
said that unquestionably the Bolsheviki would agree to an armistice on the Archang<e!
front at any time; and. furthermore, would pledge themselves not to injure in any way
those Russians in and about Archangel who have been cooperating with the Allie«.
He, furthermore, suggested that such Kuasians as did not care to trust their lives to
each, a promise should be taken out with the troops.
Senator Knox. Do you know anything about whether Litvinov
communicated directly with the President in reference to tii^
Buckler mission ?
Mr. BuLLriT. Litvinov had written a letter to the President,
which has since been widelv published, on December 24.
Senator Ei^ox. That is the letter I had in mind. I had seen some
references to that. Do you have a copy of that letter ?
Mr. BuLLriT. I do not know whether I have any copies of this
letter — that is, authentic. I think I have a newspaper copy some
place, but I have no actual copy of the letter.
Senator Knox. Can you tell us anything more about the discussion
in reference to the withdrawal of troops from Russia that took place
at that time — anything more than is indicated by your letter, there?
Mr. BtTLLiTT. There were very serious discussions, all the time.
Tel^ams were being received frequently from the various com-
manders at Archangel, the Ameiican and the British notably, in
regard to conditions, which they described as likely to be disastrous,
and discussions of real gravitv were taking place all the time. Hie
subject was very much in tne air. I have, I will say, very few
references to that particular condition. I have here this memoran-
dum which takes up some of these subjects. I do not know if the
committee would care to hear it.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Knox. This is a memorandum that you sent to CoL
House ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; Col. House.
Senator BInox. Please read it.
Mr. Bullitt (reading) :
BuLUTT ExHiBrr No. 12.
January 30, 1919.
Memoraodum for Col. House.
Subject: Withdrawal of American troops from Archangel.
Dear Col. House: The 12,000 American, British, and French troope at Arch*n^l
are no longer serving any useful purpose. Only 3,000 Kuasians have rallied azound
IBBATY 07 PEACS WITH GEBMANY. 1239
this force. It ia the attacked, not the attacker, and serves merely to create cynicism
in regard to all our proposals and to stimulate recruiting for the Ked Army.
Furthermore, the 4,000 Americans, 6,000 British, 2,000 French, and 3,000 Kusaian
troops in this region are in considerable danger of destruction by the Bolsheviki.
Gen. Ironside has just appealed for reenforcements and the British war office has
directed the commanding general at Murmansk to be prepared to dispatch a battalion
of Infantry to Archan^l.
Instead of transfemng troops from Murmansk to Archangel, it seems to me that
we should at once transfer to Murmansk and bringf home the troops which are now at
Archangel.. Aside from the needless suffering which these men are enduring, aside
from the demands of the public in the United States and England for the return of
these men, it seems to me that the withdrawal of these troops would be of great value
as a proof that we have made the Prinkipos proposal in full good faith.
I have asked Gen. Churchill to obtain the most expert opinion available on the
practicability of moving the 12,000 American, British, and French troops and such
Russians as may wish to accompany them from Archangel^ to Murmansk. The
appended memorandum and map which he has prepared show that unless the ice in
the White Sea suddenly becomes thicker it is at present possible with the aid of six
ice breakers which are now at Archangel to move these troops by water to Kem on
the Murmansk Railroad, whence they may be carried by train to Murmansk.
Buckler discussed the matter of the withdrawal of these troops with Litvinov,
who said that unquestionably the Bolsheviki would agree to an armistice on the
Archangel front at any time and, furthermore, would pledge themselves not to injure
in any way those RussianB in and about Archangel wno have been cooperating with
the Allies.* He furthermore suggested that such Russians as did not care to trust
their lives to such a promise should be taken out with the troops.
The provisional government at Archangel has just notified ub that it will not accept
the proposal for a conference at Prinkipos. It seems dignified and honorable at this
moment to inform the Archangel government that since it can not agree to. the allied
prr)poeal, presented aft«r the most serious consideration, we shidl decline to support
it further with arras, but will make provision for the safety of all Russians who are
unwilling to remain at Archangel.
I have discussed this Archangel business at some length with Philip Kerr, Lloyd-
George's secretary, who says that L. G. intends to bring the British troops out on
the 1st of May, which he believes to be the first practicable moment. The nrst prac-
ticable moment, however, seems to be now.
The situation at Archangel is most serious for the soldiers who are stationed there,
but it is also serious for the Governments which sent them out and seem to have aban-
doned them. Unless they are saved by prompt action, we shall have another
Gallipoli.
Very respectfully, yours,
William C. Bullitt.
I discussed these matters with each one of the commissioners each
morning. It was my duty to keep them au courant with anything
that struck me as important, which in the stress of the business of the
peace conference they were likely to overlook.
Senator Knox. This was a memorandum made in the line of your
duty ?
Mr. Bullitt. This was a memorandum made as the result of the
conversations that I had had with all of the commissioners that
morning.
This particular memorandum, in fact, was ordered by Col. House,
and in connection with it he asKed me to have made a map showing
the feasibility of getting the troops out of Russia, by the military
experts of the conference, which map I have here. Ii you would be
interested in it in any way, I will anpend the memoranaum made for
Gen. Churchill with regard to withorawing the troops.
(The memorandum referred to was marked by the stenographer
Bullitt Exhibit No. 13, but was not ordered to be printed in this
record.)
1240 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Knox. I was going to ask you whether or not you had anj
mformation as to the terms which the Allies were willing to accept
from Russia.
Mr. BuLLFTT. I had, of course, seen the discussions of the confer-
ence with regard to the entire Russian matter. The conference had
decided, after long consideration, that it was impossible to subdue or
wipe out the soviet government by force. The discussion of that l«
of a certain interest. I believe, in connection with this general matter.
There are, in regard to the question you have just asked, minutes of
the council of ten, on January 21, 1919.
Lloyd-George had introduced the proposition that representatives
of the soviet government should be brought to Paris along with the
representatives of the other Russian governments [reading] :
Bullitt Exhibit No. 14.
[McD. Secret. I. C. 114. Secretaries' notes of a conversation held in M. Pichon'9
room at the Quai d'Orsay on Tuesday, January 21, 1919, at 15 hours.]
fresent.
United States of America: President Wilson, Mr. R. Lansing, Mr. A. H. Fraacier,
Col. U. S. Grant, Mr. L. Harrison.
British Empire: The Right Hon. D. Llovd-GeorB;e» The Ricfht Hon. A. J. Balfour,
Lieut. CoL Sir M. P. A. Hankey, K. C. B., Maj. A. M. Caccia, M. V. O., Mr. E. Vhipps,
France: M. Clemenceau, M. Pichon, M. Dutasta, M. Berthelot, Capt. A. Potier.
Italy: Signor Orlando, H. E. Baron Sonnino, Coimt Aldrovandi, Maj. A. Jones.
Japan: Baron Makino, H. £. M. Matsui, M. Saburi.
Interpreter, Prof. P. J. Mantoux.
situation in RUSSIA.
M. Clemenceau said they had met together to decide what could be done in Ruasii
under present circimistances.
President Wilson said that in order to have something definite to discuss, he wished
to take advantage of a suggestion made bv Mr. Lloyd-George and to propose a moctificm-
tion of the British proposal. He wi8he<) to suggest that the various organized groups
in Russia should be asked to send representatives, not to Paris, but to some other
place, such as Salonika, convenient of approach, there to meet such representative
as might be appointed by the Allies, in order to see if they could draw up & pvognm
upon which agreement could be reached.
Mr. Lloyd-Geoige pointed out that the advantage of this would be that they could
be brought straight tnere from Russia through the Black Sea without passing thtoogh
other countries.
M. Sonnino said that some of the representatives of the various GovemiBentB wen
already here in Paris, for example, M. Sazenoff. Why should these not be heojnd?
President Wilson expressed the view that the various parties should not be heard
separately. It would oe very desirable to get all these representatives in one place,
and still better, all in one room, in order to obtain a close comparison of views.
Mr. Balfour said that a further objection to Mr. Sonnino 's plan was that if M. Saaoiwff
was heard in Paris, it would be difficult to refuse to hear the others in Paris also, aad
M. Clemenceau objected strongly to having some of these representatives in Fans.
M. Sonnino explained that all the Russian parties had some representatives hen,
except the Soviets, whom they did not wish to hear.
M. Lloyd-George remarked that the Bolshevists were the very people some of them
wished to hear.
M. Sonnino continuing said that they had heard M. Litvinoff's statements that
morning.
That was the statement that Litvinof! had made to Buckler whidi
the President had read to the council of ten that morning.
[Continuing reading.]
The Allies were now fighting against the Bolshevists who were their enemies, lod
therefore thoy were not obligea to hear them with the others.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1241
• .
. Mr. Balfour remarked that the essence of President Wilson's proposal was that the
parties must all be heard at one and the same time.
Mr. Lloyd George expressed the view that the acceptance of M. Sonnino's proposals
would amount to their hearing a string of people, all of whom held the same opinion,
and all of whom would strike the same note. But they would not hear the people
who at the present moment were actually controlling European Russia. In deference
to M. Clemenceau's views, they had put forward this new proposal. He thought it
would be quite safe to bring the Bolshevist representatives to S^onika, or perhaps to
Lemnos. it was al^solutely necessary to endeavor to make peace. The reix>rt read
by President Wilson that morning went to show that the Bolshevists were not con-
vinced of the error of their wa>'8, but they apparently realised the folly of their present
methods. Therefore they were endeavouring to come to terms.
President Wilson asked to be permitted to urge one aspect of the case. As M.
Sonnino had implied, they were all repelled by Bolshevism, and for that reason they
had placed armed men in opposition to them. One of the things that was clear in the
Russian situation was that D}r opposing Bolshevism with arms, they were in reality
serving the cause of Bolshevism. The Allies were making it possible for the Bol-
sheviks to argue that Imperialistic and Capitalistic Governments were endeavouring
to exploit the country and to give the land back to the landlords, and so bring about
a re-action. If it could be shown that this was not true, and that the Allies were
prepared to deal with the rulers of Russia, much of the moral force of this argument
would disappear. The allegation that the Allies were against the people and wanted
to control their affairs provided the argument which enabled them to raise armies.
If, on the other hand, the Allies could swallow their pride and the natural repul-
sion which they felt for the Bolshevists and see the representatives of all organized
n*oup8 in one place, he thought it would bring about a marked reaction against
Bolshevism.
M. Clemenceau said that, in principle, ho did not favour conversation with the
Bolshevists: not because they were criminals, but because we would be raising them
to our level by saying that they were worthy of entering into conversation with us.
The Bolshevist danger was very great at the present momient. Bolshevism was spread-
ing. It had invaded the Baltic Ppo^'inces and Poland, and that very morning they
received'very bad news regarding its spread to Budapesth and Vienna. Italy, also,
was i n danger. The danger was probably greater there than in France . I f Bolshevism ,
after spreading in Germany, were to traverse Austria and Hungary and so reach Italy;
Europe would be faced with a very great danger. Therefore, something must be done
against Bolshevism. When listening to the document presented by President Wilson
that piorning, he had been struck by the cleverness with which the Bolshevists were
attenvpting to lay a trap for the Allies. When the Bolshevists first came into power, a
breach was made with the Capitalist Government on questions of principle, but now
they offered funds and concessions as a basis for treating with them. He need not
say how valueless their promises were, but if they were listened to, the Bolshevists
would go back to their people and say: *'We offered them great principles of justice
and the Allies would have nothing to do ^dth us. Now we offer money, and they are
ready to make peace. ''
He admitted his remarks did not offer a solution. The great misfortune was that
the Allies were in need of a speedy solution. After four years of war, and the losses
and sufferings they had incurred, their populations could stand no more. Russia
also was in need oi immediate peace. But its necessary evolution must take time.
The signing of the world Peace could not await Russia's final avatar. Had time been
available, ne would suggest waiting, for eventually sound men representing common-
sense would come to the top. But when would that be? He could make no forecast.
Therefore they must press for an early solution.
To sum up, had he been aqting by himself, he would temporize and erect barriers
to prevent Bolshevism from spreading. But he was not alone, and in the presence
of his colleagues he felt compelled to make some concession, as it was essential that
there should not be even the appearance of disagreement amongst them. The con-
cession came easier after having heard President Wilson's suggestions. He thought
that they should make a very clear and convincing appeal to all reasonable peoples,
emphatically stating that they did not wish in any way to interfere in the internal
affairs of Russia, and especiallv that they had no intention of restoring Czardom. The
object of the Allies being to hasten the creation of a strong Government, they pro-
posed to call together representative of all parties to a Conference. He would oeg
Beg President mlson to draft a paper, fully explaining the position of the Allies to the
whole world, including, the Russians and the Germans.
Mr. Lloyd George agreed and gave notice that he wished to withdraw his own
motion in favour of President Wil«)n'B.
1242 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
Mr. Balfour said that he understood that all these people were to be asked on aa
equality. On these terms he thought the Bolshe^ist8 would refuse, and by their
refusal, they would put themselves in a very bad position.
Mr. Sonmno said that he did not agree that the jBoIshe vista would not come. He
thought they would be the first to come, because they would be eager to put them-
selves on an equality with the others. He would remind his collea^es that, before
the Peace of Brest-Litovsk was signed, the Bolshevists promised all sorts of things,
such as to refrain from propaganda, but since that peace had been concluded they buad
broken all their promises, their one idea being to spread revolution in all other coun-
tries. His idea was to collect together all the anti-Bolshevik parties and help them to
make a strong Government, provided they pledged iJiemselves not to serve the forces
of re-action and especially not to touch tne land question, thereby depriving the
Bolshevists of their strongest aigument. Should they take these pledges, he would
be prepared to help them.
Mr. Lloyd George enauired how this help would be given.
Mr. Sonnino replied tnat help would be given with soldiers to a reasonable degree
or by supplying arms, food, and money. For instance, Poland asked for weapons
and munitions; the Ukraine asked for weapons. All the Allies wanted was to estab-
lish a strong Government. The reason that no strong Government at present existed
was that no party could risk taking the offensive against Bolshevism without the
assistance of the Allies. He would enquire how the parties of order could possibly
succeed without the help of the Allies. President Wilson had said that they should
put aside all pride in the matter. He would point out that, for Italy and probably for
France also, as M. Glemenceau had stated, it was in reality a question of self-defence.
He thought that even a partial recognition of the Bolshevists would strengthen their
position, and, speaking for himself, he thought that Bolshevism was already a serious
danger in his country.
Mr. Lloyd George said he wished to put one or two practical questions to M. Son-
nino. The British Empire now had some 15,000 to 20,000 men in Russia. M. de
Scavenius had estimated that some 150,000 additional men would be required, in
order to keep the anti-Bolshevist Governments from dissolution. And General
Franchet d'Esperey also insisted on the necessity of Allied assistance. Now Canada
had decided to withdraw her troops, because the Canadian soldiers would not agree
to stay and fight against the Russians. Similar trouble had also occurred amongst the
the other Allied troops. And he felt certain that, if the British tried to send any more
troops there, there would be mutiny.
M. Sonnino suggested tliat volunteers might be called for.
Mr. Lloyd George, continuing, said that it would be impossible to raise 150,000
men in that way. He asked, however, what contributions America, Italy and Ftmnce
would make towards the raising of this Army.
President Wilson and M. Clemenceau each said none.
M. Orlando agreed that Italy could make no further contributions.
M. Lloyd George said that the Bolshevists had an army of 300,000 men who would,
before long, be gMKl soldiers, and to fight them at least 400,000 Russian soldiers would
be required. Who would feed, equip and pay them? Would Italy, or America, or
France, do so? If they were unable to do that, what would be the good of fighting
Bolshevism? It could not be crushed by speeches. He sincerely trusted that they
would accept President Wilson's proposal as it now stood.
M. Orlando agreed that the question was a very difficult one for the reasons that had
been fully given. He agreed that Bolshevism constituted a grave danger to all Europe.
To prevent a contagious epidemic from spreading, the sanitarians set up a cordon
Sanxtaire. If similar measures could be taken against Bolshevism, in order to prevent
Its spreading, it might be overcome, since to isolate it meant vanqiiishing it. Italy
was now passing tli^ough a period of depression, due to war weariness. But Bol-
shevists could never triumph there, unless the^ found a favourable medium, such as
might be produced either oy a profound patriotic disapxxnntment in their expecta-
tions as to the rewards of the war, or by an economic crisis. Either might lead to revo-
lution, which was equivalent to Bolshevism. Therefore, he would insist that all possi-
ble measures should be taken to set up this cordon. Next, he sug^ted the consider^
ation of repressive measures. He thought two methods were possible; either the use
of physical force or the use of moral force. He thought Mr. Lloyd Qeoige's objection
the use of physical force unanswerable. The occupation of Russia meant the employ-
ment of large numbers of troops for an indefinite period of time. This meant an
apparent proloneiation of the war. There remained the use of moral force. He
agreed witn M. Glemenceau that no country' could continue in anarchy and that an end
must eventually come: but they could not wait; they could not proceed to make peace
and ignore Rus«ia. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd George's proposal, ^ith the modificationa
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GSBMAKY. 1243
introduced after careful consideration by President Wilson and M. Clemenceau,
five a possible solution. It did not involve entering into negotiations with the
olsheviks; the proposal was merely an attempt to brin^ together all the parties in
Russia with a view to finding a way out of the present difficulty. He was prepared ,
therefore, to support it.
President Wilson asked for the views of his Japanese collea^es.
Baron Makino said that after carefully considering the various points of view put
forward, he. had no objections to make regarding the conclusion reached. He thought
that was the best solution under the circumstances. He wished, however, to enauire
what attitude would be taken by the Representatives of the Allied powers if the
Bolshevists accepted the invitation to the meeting and there insisted upon their
principles. He thought the^r should under no circumstances countenance ^Bolshevist
ideas. The conditions in Siberia East of the Baikal had greatly improved. The
objects which had necessitated th^ despatch of troops to that region had been attained.
Bolshevism was no longer aggressive, though it might still persist in a latent form.
In conclusion, he wished to support the proposal before the meeting.
President Wilson expressed the view that the emissaries of tne Allied Powers
should not be authorised to adopt any definite attitude towards Bolshevism. They
should merely report back to their Governments the conditions found.
Mr. Lloyd Geoige asked that that question be further considered. He thought the
emissaries of the Allied Powers should be able to establish an agreement if they were
able to find a solution. For instance, if they succeeded in reaching an agreement on
the subject of the organization of a Constituent Assembly, they should be authorised
to accept such a compromise without the delay of a reference to the Governments.
President Wilson suggested that the emissaries might be furnished with a body of
instructions.
Mr. Balfour expressed the view that abstention from* hostile action against their
neighbours shoula be made a condition of their sending representatives to this meeting.
President Wilson agreed.
M. Clemenceau suggested that the manifesto to the Russian parties should be based
solely on humanitarian grounds. They should say to the Russians : ' * You are threatened
by famine. We are prompted by humanitarian feelings; we are making peace; we
do not want people to die. We are prepared to see what can be done to remove the
menace of starvation'\ He thought the Russians would at once prick up their ears,
and be prepared to hear what the Allies had to say. • They would add that food can-
not be sent unless peace and order were re-established. It should, in fact, be made
quite clear that the representatives of all parties would merely be brought together
for purely humane reasons.
Mr. Lloyd George said that in this connection he wished to invite attention to a
doubt expressed by certain of the delegates of the British Dominions, namely, whether
there would be enough food and credit to go round should an attempt be made to feed
all Allied coimtriee, and enemy countries, and Russia also. The export of so much
iood would inevitably have the effect of raising food prices in Allied countries and so
create discontent and Bolshevism. As r^£tls grain, Russia had always been an
exporting countnr, and there was evidence to show that plenty of food at present
existed in the Ukraine.
l%'Plresi4eut Wilson said that his information was that. enough food existed in Russia,
but, either on account of its being hoarded or on account oi difficulties of transjwrta-
tion, it could not be made available.
(It was atipreed that President Wilson should draft a proclamation, for consideration
at the next meeting, inviting all organized parties in Russia to attend a Meetinc^ to be
held at some selected place such as Salonika or Lemnos, in order to discuss with the
representatives of the Allied and Associated Great Powers the means of restoring order
and peace in Russia. Participation in the Meeting should be conditional on a cessa-
tion of hastilities.)
2. Peace Cvnfcrence. — M. Clemenceau considered it to be most urgent that the
delegates should be set to work. He understood that Prasident Wilson would be ready
to put on the table at the next full Conference, proi)osal8 relating to the creation ol a
League of N'ations. He was anxious to add a second question, which could be studied
immediately, namel v, reparation for dama<^s. He thought the meeting: should consider
how the work shoula be organized in order to give effect to thi •auggestion.
Mr, Lloyd George said that he agreed that these questions shoula be studied forth-
with. He would su^e^t that, in the first place, the League of Nations should be
considered, and, that after the framing of the principles, aii International Committee
of Experts be set to work out its constitution in detail. The .same remark applied also
to the question of indemnities and reparation. He thought that a Committee should
also be appointed as soon as possible to consider International Lebour Legislation.
1244 TREATY OT PEACE WITH 0EBMAN7.
President Wilson observed that he had himself drawn up a constitution of a Leagne
of Nations. He could not claim that it was wholly his own creation. Its geneTati->n
was as follows: — He had received the Phillimore Keport, which had been amended
by Colonel House and re-written by himself. He hsui again re\'i9ed it after ba\'ing'
received General Smuts' and Lord Robert Cecil's reports. It was therefore a com-
poimd of these various suggestions. During the week he had seen M. Bourgeois, with
whom he found himself to be in substantial accord on princples. A few days ago he
had discussed his draft with Lord Robert Cecil and General Smuts, and they found
themselves very near together.
Mr. Balfour suggested that President Wilson's draft should be submitted to the
Committee as a basis for discussion.
President Wilson further suggested that the question should be referred aa far as
possible to the men who had been studying it.
Mr. Lloyd George expressed his complete agreement. He thought they themselves
should, in the first place, &^^ on the fundamental principles and then refer the
matter to the Committee. When that Committee met they could take President
Wilson's proposals as the basis of discussion.
(It was agreed that the question of appointing and International Committee, con-
sisting of two members from each of the five Great Powers, to whom would be referred
President Wilson's draft, with certain basic principles to guide them, should be con>
sidered at the next meeting.)
3. Poland, — ^M. Pichon called attention to the necessity for repl3dng to the demand.
addressed by M. Paderewski to Colonel House, which had been read by Preaident
Wilson that morning, and asked that Marshal Foch should be present.
(It was agreed that this question should be discusssd at the next Meeting.)
4. DisarmaTnent, — Mr. Balfour called attention to the urgency of the queation of
disarmament, and said that he would shortly propose that a Committee should be
appointed to consider this question.
Villa Majestic, Paris, January tlBi, 1919.
This is the minute of January 21, and the Prinkipos memorandum
was written on January 22.
The instructions to the President were as follows:
It was agreed that President Wilson should draft a proclamation for consideration at
the next meeting, inviting ail organized parties in Russia to attend a meeting to be
held at some selected place such as Salonika or Lemnos, in order to discuss with the
representatives of the allied and associated great powers the means of restoring order*
and peace in Russia. Participation in the meeting should be conditional on a ceasa-
tion of hostilities.
The President then wrote the Prinkipos proposition.
Senator Knox. Did you make a written report of your mission?
Mr. BuLUTT. I did, sir.
Senator Knox. Have you it here ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir. I might read the report without the
appendices.
senator Knox. The chairman wants you to read it.
The Chairman. I do not know whether it is very long. The report
he made would be of some interest. You were the only official ropre-
sentative sent ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir; except Capt. Pettit, my assistant. The
circumstances of my sending will perhaps require further elucidation.
I not only was acquainted with the minutes of the discussions of the
coimcil 01 ten, but in addition I had discussed the subject with each of
the commissioners each morning and I had talked with many British
representatives. After the Prinkipos proposal was made, the replies
began to come in from various factions, that they would refuse to
accept it for various reasons. The soviet government replied in a
slightly evasive form. They said, '*We are ready to accept the terms
of the proposals, and we are ready to talk about stopping fighting."
IBBATY OP PEACE WITH GEBMAKY. 1245
They did not say. We are ready to stop fighting on such and such
a date." It was not made specific.
Senator Ej^ox. That was one of the conditions of the proposal.
Mr. Bullitt. It was. That is why I say they replied in an evasive
manner. The French — and particularly the French foreign office,
even more than Mr. Clemenceau — and you can observe from that
minute were opposed to the idea, and we found that the French
foreign office haa communicated to the Ukrainian Government and
various other antisoviet governments that if they were to refuse the
proposal, they would support them and continue to support them,
and not allow the Allies, if they could prevent it, or the allied Govern-
ments, to make peace with the Russian soviet government.
At all events, the time set for the Prinkipos proposal was February
15. At that time nobody had acted in a dennite, uncompromising
matter. It therefore fell to the ground.
There was a further discussion as to what should be done.. The
Eeace conference was still of the opinion that it was impossible to
ope to conquer the soviet government by force of arms, because in
the latter part of that report, which I did not read to the committee,
there was expressed very forcibly the opinion of Mr. Lloyd-George,
that the populations at home would not stand it. Therefore they
desired to follow up further the line of making peace.
About that time I was working particularly closely on the Russian
affairs. I had had a number of discussions with everyone concerned
in it, and on the very day that Col. House and Mr. Lansing first
asked me to undertake this mission to Russia, I was dining at Mr.
Lloyd-George*s apartment to discuss Russian affairs \^dth his secre-
tarfes, so that I had a fair idea of the point of view of everyone in
Paris.
I further, before I went, received urgent instructions from Secre-
tary Lansing if possible to obtain the release of Consul Treadwell,
who had been our consul in Petrograd and had been transferred to
Tashkent, and had been detained bv the local soviet government and
had been kept there several montKs. He was one of our Govern-
ment officers they had seized. Mr. Lansuig ordered me to do every-
thing I could to obtain his release.
I further, before I went, asked Col. House certain specific questions
in rejgard to whet, exactly, the point of view of our Government was
on this subject, what we were ready to do, and I think it perhaps
might be important to detail a brief r6sum6 of this conversation.!
The idea was this: Lloyd-George had gone over to London on Feb-.
ruary 9, as I remember, to try to adjust some labor troubles. He,
however, still insisted that the Prinkipos proposal must be renewed
or some other peace proposal must be made, and I arranged a meeting
between him and Col. House, which was to take place, I believe, on
February 24, at which time they were to prepare a renewal of the
Prinkipos proposal, and they were both prepared to insist that it be
passed against any opposition of the French.
I arranged this meeting through Mr. Philip Kerr, Mr. I loyd-
George's confidential assistant. However, on tne 19th day of the
moutn, Mr. Clemenceau was shot, and the next day Mr. Hoya-George
telephoned over from London to say that as long as Clemenceau was
wounded and was ill, he was boss of the roost, and that anything he
desired to veto would be immediately wiped out and therefore it
1246 TREATY OF PEAC3E WITH GERMANY.
was no use for him and Col. House/ as long as Qemenceau was ill.
to attempt to renew the Prinkipos proposd, as Qemenceau would
simply have to hold up a finger and the whole thin^ would drop to
the ^ound. Therefore, it was decided that I should go at once to
Russia to attempt to obtain from the soviet government an exact
statement of the terms on which they were ready to stop fighting.
I was ordered if possible to obtain that statement and have it bad
in Paris before the President retiu'ned to Paris from the United
States. The plan was to make a proposal to the soviet government
which would certainly be accepted.
The Chairman. These orders came from the President?
Mr. Bullitt. These orders came to me from Col. House. I also
discussed the matter with Mr. Lansing, and Mr. Lansing and Col.
House gave me the instructions which I had.
Senator Knox. You said a moment ago that you went to CoL
House to get a statement of the American position.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; I asked Col. House these questions [reading]:
BuLLnT Exhibit No. 15.
1. If the Bolfiheviki are rca<ly to stop the forward movement of their troops on &1I
fronts and to declare an armistice on alt fronts, would we be willing to do likewue?
2. Is the American Government prepared to insist that the Frencn, British, Italian,
and Japanese Governments shall accept such an armistice proposal?
3. If fighting is stopped on all fronts, is the Government of the United States pre-
pared to insist on the reestablishment of economic relations with Russia, subje<.t
only to the equitable distribution among all classes of the population of supplies and
food and essential commodities which may be sent to Russia?
In other words, a sort of Hoover Belgian distribution plan so that
the Bolsheviki could not use the food we sent in there for propaganda
purposes and to starve their enemies and to feed their friends.
The fourth question I asked him was as follows:
4. Is the United States Government, imder these conditions, prepared to press the
Allies for a joint statement that all Allied troops will be withdrawn from the soil of
Russia as soon as practicable, on condition that the Bolsheviki give explicit assur-
ances that there will be no retaliation against persons who have cooperated with the
allied forces?
Col. House replied that we were prepared to.
Further, I asked Col. House whether it was necessary to get a flat
and explicit assurance from the soviet government that they would
make full payment of all their debts before we would make peace
with them, and Col. House replied that it was not; that no such
statement was necessary. However, that such, a statement would
be extremely desirable to have, inasmuch as much of the French
opposition to making peace vrith the soviet government was on
account of the money owed by Russia to France.
I further had an intimation of the British disposition toward
Russia. As I said before, I had discussed the matter with Mr. Philip
Kerr, and Sir Maurice Hankey and Col, House asked me to inform
Mr. Kerr of my mission before I went. It was to be an entire secret
from all except the British. The British and American delegations
worked in very close touch throughout the conference, and there were
dractically no secrets that the American delegation had that were
not also tne property of the British delegation.
I was asked to inform Mr. Kerr of this trip. I told him all about
it, and asked him if he could get Mr. Balfour and Mr. LIoyd-Georgo
^.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1247
to give me a general indication of their point of view on peace with
^Russia; what they would be prepared to do in the matter.
Mr. Kerr and I then talkea and prepared what we thought might
be the basis of peace with Russia.
I then received from Mr. Kerr, before I left, the following letter,
i^hich is a personal letter, which I regret greatly to bring K)rward.
"but which I feel is necessary in the interest of an understanding oi
this matter. [Reading:]
BuLLTTT EzHiBrr No. 16.
r
■
[Private and confidential.]
British Delegation,
Paris, February 21, 1919.
My Dear Bullitt: I inclose a note of the sort of conditions upon which I per-
eonally think it would be possible for the allied Governments to resume once more
normal relations with Soviet Russia. You will understand, of course, that these have
no official significance and merely represent suggestions of my own opinion.
Yours, sincerely,
P. H. Kerr.
That was from Mr. Kerr, Lloyd-George's confidential secretary.
Mr. Kerr had, however, told me that he had discussed the entire
matter with Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Balfour, and therefore I
thought he had a f air ideaT of what conditions the British were ready
to accept. The note inclosed reads as follows:
1 . Hostilities to cease on all fronts.
2. All de facto governments to remain in full contiol of the territories which they
at present occupy.
3. Railways and ports necessary to transportation between soviet Russia and the
sea to be subject to the same regulations as intemationaT railways and ports in the
rest of Europe.
4. Allied subjects to be given free right of entry and full security to enable them to
dnter soviet Russia and go about their business there provided they do not interfere
in politics.
5. Amnesty to all political prisoners on both sides: full liberty to all Russians who
have fought with the Allies.
6. Trade relations to be restored between soviet Russia and the outside world
under conditions which, while respecting the sovereignty of soviet Russia insure that
allied supplies are made available on equal terms to all classes of the Russian people.
7. All other questions connected witn Russia's debt to the Allies, etc., to be con<
flidered' independently after peace has been established.
8. All allied troops to be withdrawn from Russia as soon as Russian armies above
quota to be defined have been demobilized and their surplus arms surrendered or
•deetroyed.
You will see the American and British positions were very close
together.
Senator Knox. With these statements from Col. House as to the
American position and from Mr. Kerr as to the British position, and
with the mstructions which you had received, you proceeded to
Russia, and, as you said a moment ago, you made a written report )
Mr. BiXLLiTT. I did, sir. Do you want it read, or shall I state t^e
substance and then put it in the record ? I think I can state it more
briefly if I read the first eight pages of it and then put the rest of it
in the record.
The Chaibman. Very well; do that.
Mr. Bullitt. This report I made to the President and to the
American conmiissioners, by order of the President transmitted to
1248 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QERMANY.
me on my return by Mr. Lansing, I should like to say, before I read
this report, that of course I was in Russia an extremely short time,
and this is merely the best observation that I could make supple-
mented by the observation of Capt. Pettit of the Military Intelli-
gence, who was sent in as my assistant, and with other impressions
that I got from Mr. Lincoln Steffens and other observei-s who were
there.
Senator Knox. How long were you in Russia ? ;
Mr. Bullitt. For only one weelc. I was instructed to go in and
bring back as quickly as possible a definite statement of exactly the
terms the soviet government was ready to accept. The idea in the
minds of the British and the American delegation were that if the
Allies made another proposal it should be a proposal which we would
know in advance would be accepted, so that there would be no
chance of another Prinkipos proposal miscarrying.
I might perhaps read first, or show to you, the oflBcial text. This
is the official text of their proposition which they handed me in
Moscow on the 14th of March. Here is a curious thing — the soviet
foreign office envelope.
As I said, I was sent to obtain an exact statement of the terms
that the soviet government was ready to accept, and I received on
the 14 th the following statement from Tchitcherin and Lit vino v.
Senator Knox. Who were they ?
Mr. BuLLirr, Tchitcherin was peoples' commisar for foreign
affairs of the soviet republic and jLitvinoff was the fonner soviet
ambassador to London, the man with whom Buckler had had his
conversation, and who was now practically assistant secretary for
foreign aJBTairs.
I also had a conference with Lenin. The soviet government
undertook to accept this proposal provided.it was made by the
alUed and associated Governments not later than April 10, 1919.
The proposal reads as follows [reading]:
■
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 17.
TBXT OP PROJBCTSD PEACE FROPOaAL BY THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED OQVBRNMENTa.
•
The allied and aasociated GovenunentB to propose that hostilities shall ceaee on all
fronts in the territory of the fonner Russian Empire and Finland on 5 and that no
new hostilities ^all beg:in after this date, pendine.a conference to bie held at ' on.*
The duration of the armistice to be for two weeKS* unless extended by mutual con-
sent, and all parties to the armistice to undertake not to employ the jieriod of the
armistice to transfer troops and war .material to the territory of the former Russian
Empire. -^
The conference to discuss peace on the basis of the following principles, which shall
liot'be subject to revision by the conference.
L AH existing de facto governments which have been set up on the territory of the
former Russian Empire and Finland to remain in full control of the territories which
they o<*cupy at the moment when the armistice becomes effective, except in so far as
the conference may agree upon the transfer of territories; until. the peoplee inhabiting
the territories controUed by these de facto governments shall themselves determine
to' change their Governments. The Russian Soviet Government, the* other Boviei
governments and all other governments which have been set up on the' territory of
' * — ^^ — »^ — ^^^^ — __^^ — ^ ^ —
i The date of the armistice to be set at least a week after the date when the allied and ammrlatiirt Ooren*
ments make this proposal. , •
> 1 he soviet government ereatlv prefers that the conference should be held In a neutral ooantry and
also that either a radio or a airept telegraph wire to Moscow should be put at its disposal.
* The conference to begin not utter than a week after the armi«itlce takes effect and the sovl«t govenuneot
peitlv prefers that the period between the date of the armistice and the first meeting of the ooniHvnoe
thOila be only three days, if possible.
TREATTT OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1240
the former Russian Empire, the allied and associated Governments, and the other
Governments which are operating aj^ainst the soviet governments, including Finland,
Poland, Galicia, Roumania, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, and Afghanistan, to agree not to
attempt to upset by force the existing de facto governments which have been set up
on the territory of the former Russian Empire and the other Governments signatory
to this agreement.^
2. The economic blockade to be raised and trade relations between Soviet Russia
and the allied and associated countries to be reestablished under conditions which
will ensure that supplies from the allied and associated countries are made available
on equal terms to all classes of the Russian people.
3. The soviet governments of Russia to have the right of unhindered transit on all
railways and the use of all ports which belonged to the former Russian Empire and to
Finland and are necessary for the disembarkation and transportation of passengers
and goods between their territories and the sea; detailed arrangements for the carry-
ing out of this provision to be agreed upon at the conference.
4. The dti/ens of the soviet republics of Russia to have the right of free entry into
the allied and associated countries as well as into all countries which have been
formed on the territory of the former Russian £m|)ire and Finland; also tbe rij^ht of
sojourn and of circulation and full security, provided they do not interfere in the
domestic politics of those countries.'
Nationals of the a.llied and associated countries and of the other countries above
named to have the right of free entry into tbe soviet republics of Russia; also the right
of sojourn and of circulation and full security, provided they do not interfere in tiie
domestic politics of the soviet republics.
The allied and associated Governments and other governments which have been
set up on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to have the right
to send official representatives enjoying full liberty and immunity into the various
Russian Soviet Republics. The soviet governments of Russia to have the right to
send official representatives enjoying full liberty and immunity into all the allied
and associated countries and into the nonsoviet countries whidi have been formed
on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland.
5. The soviet governments, the other Governments which have been set up on the
territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland, to give a general amnesty to
all political opponents, offenders, and prisoners. The allied and associated Govern-
ments to give a general amnesty to all Russian political opponents, offenders, and
Erisoneni, and to their own nationals who have been or may be prosecuted for givii^
elp to Soviet Russia. All Russians who have fought in, or otherwise aided the
armies opposed to the soviet governments, and those opposed to the other Governments •
which have been set up on tibe territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to
be included in this amnesty.
All prisoners of war of non-Russian powers detained in Russia, likewise all nationals
of those powers now in Russia to be given full facilities for repatriation. The Russian
prisoners of war in whatever foreifoi country they may be, likewise all Russian
nationals, including the Ruraian soldiers and officers abroad and those serving in all
foreign armies to be given full facilities for repatriation.
6. immediately after the signing of this agreement all troops of the allied and
associated Governments and other non-Russian Governments to be withdrawn from
Russia and military assistance to cease to be given to antisoviet Governments which
have been set up on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
The soviet governments and the antisoviet governments which have been set up i
CO the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to begin to reduce their
armies simultaneously, and at the same rate, to a peace footing immediately after
the signing of this agreement. The conference to determine the most effective and
just method of inspecting and controlling this simultaneous demobilizaticn and also
the withdrawal of the troops and the cessation of military assiBtance to the antiso\iet
governments.
7. The allied and associated Governments, taking cognizance of the statement of
the soviet government of Russia^ in its note of February 4, in regard to its foreign
debts, propose as an integral part of this agreement that the soviet governments and I
the other governments which nave been set up on the territory of the former Russian
Empire and Finland shall recognize their responsibility for the financial obligatirns
of tne farmer Russian Empire, to foreign States parties to this agreement and to the
I The allied and associated Governments to undertake tosee to It that the de facto t^ovemments of Oenranv
do not attempt to upset by force the de facto governments of Russia. The de facto govemmer>ts whlcn
have beoi set up on the territory of the former Russtcm Empire to undertake not to attempt to upaet by
force the de facto governments of Germany. ,
> It IE considered essential by the soviet government that the allied and associated Govemn-ents should
see to it that Poland and all neutral countries extend the same rights as the allied and associated countries. i
1250 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBB£A2fnr.
nationals of such States. Detailed anraneements for the payment of these debts to
be agreed upon at the conference, regard being had to the present fiTumoial posatioik
of Roasia. The Russian gold seized oy the Czecho-SloviJcs in Kazan or taken from
Germany by the Allies to he regarded as partial payment of the portion of the debt
due f JTom the soviet republics of Russia.
The Soviet Government of Russia undertakes to accept the foregoing pnqposal pio-
vided it is made not later than April 10, 1919.
In regard to the second sentence in paragraph 5, in r^ard to
''giving nelp to Soviet Russia" I may say that i was told tliat that
was not a sme qua non but it was necessary in order to get the pro-
posal through the Russian executive committee, whicn it haa to
pass before it was handed to me.
I was also handed an additional sheet, which I refused to take as a
part of the formal document, containing the following:
The Soviet Government is most anxious to have a semiofficial guaranty from the
American and British Governments that they will do their utmost to see to it that
France lives up to the conditions of the armistice.
The soviet government had a deep suspicion of the French Govern-
ment.
In reference to tliis matter, and in explanation of that proposal, I
sent a number of telegrams from Helsingfors. I feel that m a way it
is important, for an explanation of the matter, that those t.el^raiDs
should be made public, but, on the other hand, they were sent in a
confidential code of the Department of State, and I do not feel at
liberty to read them irnless ordered to specifically by the committee.
I should not wish to take the responsibihty for breaking a code which
is in current use by the department.
Senator Elxox. I should think your sciniples were well founded. I
should not read those telegi*ams.
Mr. Bullitt. I can simply inform you briefly of the nature of them.
Senator Knox. You might give us the nature of them. To whom
^were they sent ?
^fr. BuLLrrr. On reaching Petrograd I sent Capt. Pettit out to
Helsingiors after I had had a discussion with Tchitcherin and with Lit-
vinoflF with a telegram, in which I said I had reached Petrograd and
had perfected arrangements to cross the boundarv at will, and to
communicate with the mission via the consul at Hefsin^ors; that the
Journey had been easy, and that the reports of frightf m conditions in
^etrograd had been ridiculously exaggerated.
I described the discussions 1 had had with Tchitcherin and with
LitvinefF, and said they had assured me that after going to l|^oscow
and after discussion with Lenin, I should be able to carry out a
specific statement of the position of the soviet government on all
points.
On reaching Helsingfors I sent a telegram to the mission at Pans
**Most secret, for the President, Secretary Lansing, and C!ol. House
only/* in which I said that in handing me the statement which I have
just read, Tchitcherin and Litvinov had explained that the Executive
Coimcil of the soviet government had formally considered and
adopted it, and that the soviet government considered itself abso-
lutely bound to accept the proposals made therein, provided they
were made on or before April 10, and under no conditions would they
change their minds.
I also explained that I had found Lenin, Tchitcherin, and Litvinov
full of the sense of Russia's need for peace, and that I felt the details
TREATT OF PEAGB WITH GEBMANY. 1251
of their statement might be modified without making it Unacceptable
to them, and that in particular the clause under article 5 was not
of vital importance. That, on the other hand, I felt that in the main
this statement represented the minimum terms that the soviet
government would accept.
I explained that it was understood with regard to article 2 that the
aUied and associated countries should have a right to send inspectors
into soviet Russia and see to it that the disposition of supplies, if the
blockade was lifted, was entirely equitable, and I explained also that
it was fuller understood that the phrase under article 4 on ''official
representatives" did not include diplomatic representatives, that the
soviet government simply desired to have some agents wno might
more or less look out for their people here.
I explained further that in regard to footnote No. 2, the soviet
government hoped and preferred that the conference should be held
in Norway; that its preferences thereafter were, first, some point
in between Russia and Finland; second, a large ocean liner anchored
off Moon Island or the Aland Islands; and, fourth, Prinkipos.
I also explained that Tchitcherin and all the other members of the
government with whom I had talked had said in the most positive
and unequivocal manner that the soviet government was determined
to pay its foreign debts, and I was convinced that there would be no
dispute on that pomt.
Senator Knox. Do vou know how these telegrams were received in
Paris, whether favorably or unfavorably ?
Mr. BuLLrrr. I can only say, in regard to that, there are three other
very brief ones. One was on a subject which I might give you the
gist of before I go on with it.
Senator Knox. Go ahead, in your own way.
I^. Bullitt. Col. House sent me a message of congratulation on
receipt of them, and by one of the curious auu*ks of the cocierence, a
member of the secretariat refused to send tne message because of the
way in which it was signed, and Col. House was only able to give me a
copy of it when I reached Paris. I have a copy of it here.
Senator Habdino. Would not this story be more interesting if we
knew which member of the conference objected ?
Mr. Buixrrr. I believe the objection was on the technical point
that Col. House had si^ed '^Anumssion^' instead of his name, out I
really do not know which member of the conference it was that made
the objection.
I then sent another telegram, which is rather long, too long to
attempt to paraphrase, and I will ask that I mav not put it in, because
the entire substance of it is contained in brieier form in my formal
report. This telegram itself is in code.
Senator Brandegbe. Are there any translations of those of your
telc^ams that are in code?
}£r. Bullitt. No; I have given 3'ou the substance of them as I
have gone along.
As I said to you before, Secretary Lansing had instructed me if
possible to obtam the release of Mr. Treadwdl, our consul at Tash-
kent, somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 miles from Moscow. In
Moscowlhadspoken to Lenin and Tchitcherin and Li tvinov in regard
to it, and finally they said they recognized that it was foolish to nold
him; that they had never reaUy given much thought to the matter;
1252 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAKY.
that he had been held by the local government at Tashkent, which
was more than 4,000 miles away; that raids were being made on the
railroad constantly, and they mi^ht have some difficulty in communi-
cating. However, they promised me that they woidd send a tele^m
at once ordering his release, and that they woidd send him out either
by Persia or by Finland whichever way he preferred. I told them I
was sure he would prefer to go by way of Finland. Hero is a copy
of their telegram ordering his release, which will not be of much use
to you, I fear, as it is in llussian. They carried out this promise to
the letter, releasing Treadwell at once, and Treadwell in due course of
time and in good health appeared on the frontier of Finland on the
27th of April. All that time was consimied in travel from Tashkent,
which is a long way under present conditions.
Senator New. I saw Mr. Treadwell here some time i^o.
Mr. BiTLLrrr. I then sent a telegram in regard to Mr. Pettit, the
officer of military intelligence, who was with me as my assistant,
saying I intended to send him back to Petrograd at once to keep in
touch with the situation so that we should have information con-
stantly. I will say in this connection that it was not an extraordi-
nary things for the various Qovemments to have representatives in
Russia. The British Government had a man in there at the same
time that I was there. He was traveling as a Red Ooss representa-
tive, but in reality he was there for the Foreign Office, a Mlaj. A. R.
Parker, I believe. I am not certain of his name, but we can verify it.
I also sent a tele^am from Helsingfors, ''strictly personal to CoL
House," requesting mm to show my fifth and sixth telegrams to Mr.
Philip Kerr, Mr. floyd-Qeorge's secretary, so that Mr. LJoyd-Oeoige
might be at cmce informed in regard to the situation, inasmuch as ne
had known I was going, and inasmuch as the British had been so
courteous as to offer to send me across on a cruiser. When I got
to London and found that the torpedo boat on which I had expected
to go was escorting the President, Mr. Lfloyd-Oeoi]^'s omce in
London called up the Admiralty and asked them to give me a boat
in which to go across. Incidentally I was informed by Col. Hoiue,
on my arrivdi in Paris, that copies of my telegrams haa been sent at
once to Mr. Lloyd-Oeorge and Mr. Balfour.
Senator Knox. Mr. Bullitt, I do not think we need to go into
quite so much detail. You have told us now with what instractioni
you went, what the British attitude was, what the American attitude
was, and what the soviet government proposed. Now, let us hare
your report.
Mr. BuLLTrr. All right^ir. This was my report
Senator Brandeoee. What is the date of that, please.
Mr.' BuLUTT. This copy does not bear the date on it.. On the
other hand I can tell you within a day or two. The date unfor-
tunately was left off 01 this particular copy. It was made on or
about the 27th or 28th day of March, in the week before April 1.
Senator Brandeoee. 1919 ?
Mr. Bullitt. 1919. I imquestionably could obtain from Secre-
tary Lansing or the President or some one else the actual origmal of
the report.
Senator Brandeoee. I do not care about the precise date, bat I
want to get it approximately.
Mr. Bullitt. It was about the 1st day of April.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1253
Senator Knox. To whom was the report made ?
Mr. BuuLiTT. The report was addressed to the President and the
American commissioners plenipotentiary to negotiate peace. I was
ordered to make it. I had sent all these telegrams from Helsin^ors,
and I felt personally that no report was necessary, but the President
desired a written report, and I made the report as follows:
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 18.
BUSSIA.
Economic Situation.
Russia to-day is in a condition of acute economic distress. The blockade by land
and sea is the cause of this distress and lack of the essentials of transportation is its
gravest symptom. Only one-fourth of the locomotives which ran on Russian lines
before the war are now available for use. Furthermore, Soviet Russia is cut off entirely
from all supplies of coal and gasoline. In consequence, transportation by all steam
and electric vehicles is greatly hampered; and transportation ny automobile and by
the fleet of gasoline-using Volga steamers and canal boats is impossible. (Appendix,
p. 10.)
As aiesult of these hindrances to transportation it ia possible to bring from the grain
centers to Moscow only 25 carloads of food a da^j instead of the 100 carloads which
9Jre essential, and to Petrograd onlv 15 carloads, instead of the essential 50. In con-
sequence, ev&ry man, woman, ana child in Moscow and Petrpgrad is suffering &om
slow starvation . (Appendix, p. 11.)
Mortality is particularly high among new-bom children whose mothers can not
suckle thein, among newly-deuvered mothers, and among the aged. The entire pop-
ulation, in addition, is exceptionally susceptible to disease; and a slight illness is
apt to result fatally because of the total lack of medicines. Typhoid, typhus, and
smallpox are epidemic in both Petrogiad and Moscow.
Industrv, except the iHX)duction of mimitions of war, is lar^ly at a standstill.
Nearly all means of transport which are not employed in carrying food are used to
supply the army, and there is scarcely any surplus transport to carry materials essen-
tial to nonnal industry. Furthermore, ihe army has absorbed the best executive
brains and physical vigor of the nation. In addition. Soviet Russia is cut off &om
most of its sources of iron and of cotton. Only the nax^ hemp, wood, and lumber
industries have an adequate supply of raw material.
C^ the othtf hand, such essentials of economic life as are available are being
utUieed to the utmost by the Soviet Qovemment. Such trains as there are, run on
time. The distribution of food is well controlled. Many industrial experts of the
old regime are again managing their plants and sabotage by such managers has ceased.
Loafing by the workmen during work hours baa been overcome. (Appendix, p. 12.)
SOCIAL CONDITIONS.
The destructive phase of the revolution is over and all the energy of the Government
is turned to constructive work. The terror has ceased. All power of judgment has
been taken away from the extraordinary commiBsion for suppression of the counter-
revolution, which now merelv accuses suspected counter-revolutionaries, who are
tried by the regular, established, legal tribunals. Executions are extremely rare.
Good order has been established. The streets are safe. Shooting has ceased. There
are few robberies. Prostitution has disappeared from eight. Family life has been
unchanged by tiie revolution, the canard in regard to '* nationalization of women"
notwithstanding. (Appendix, p. 13.)
The theaters, opera, and ballet are performing as in peace. Thousands of new
schools have been opened in all parts of Russia and the Soviet Government seems to
have done more for Uie education of the Russian people in a year and a half than
czardom did in 50 years. (Appendix, p. 14.)
POLTTICAL SITUATION.
The Soviet form of government isfirmlv established. Perhaps the most striking
fact in Russia to-day is the general support which is nven the government bv the people
in spite of their starvation. Indeed, the people lay the blame for their distress
wholly on the blockade and on the governments which maintain it. The Soviet form
137739— 19— VOL 2 7
1254 TREATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
of government eeems to have become to the RuBsian people the symbol of tfaeir revolu-
tion. Unquestionably it is a fonn of govenmient wluch lends itself to gron abuse and
tyranny but it meets me demand of l£e moment in Russia and it has acquJxed 00 great
a hold on the imagination of the common people that the women are ready to starve
and the young men to die for it. (Appenaix, p. 15.)
The position of the commimist party (formerly Bolsheviki) is also very strong
Blockaae and intervention have caused the chief opposition parties, the right social
revolutionaries and the menshiviki, to give temporary support to the coinmiiziii<t£.
These opposition parties have both made formal statements against the blockade'.
intervention, and the support of Antisoviet governments by the allied and associated
governments. Their leaders, Volsky and Martov, are most vigorous in their demand?
for the immediate raising of the blockade and peace. (Appendix, p. 16.)
Indeed, the only ponderable opposition to the communists to-day comes froni more
radical parties— the left social revolutionaries and the anarchists. These parties, in
published statements, call the communists, and particularly Lenin and Tefaitherin.
'the paid bourgeois gendarmes of the Entente.'' They attack the communists because
the communists have encouraged scientists, engineers, and industrial experts of the
bourgeois class to take important posts under the Soviet Uovemment at hig^ pfty • They
rage against the employment of bomgeois officers in the army and against the efforts of
the communists to obtain peace. They demand the immediate massacre of all the
burgeoisie and an immediate declaration of war on all nonrevolutionary governments.
They ax^gue that the Entente Governments should be forced to intervene more deeply
in Russia, aBsertinjg; that such action would surely provoke the proletariat of all Euro-
pean countries to immediate revolution.
Within the communist party itself there is a distinct division of opinion in regard
to forei^ policy, but this diingreement has not developed personal hostility or open
breach m the ranks of the party. Trotski, the ^nerals, and many theorists believe
the red army should go forward everywhere until more vigorous intervention by the
Entente is provoked, which they, too, count upon to bring revolution in France and
England. Their attitude is not a little colored by pride in the spirited young army.
(Appendix, p. 18.) Lenin, Tchitcherin, and the bulk of the communist party, on
the other hand, insist that the essential problem at present is to save the proletariat
of Russia, in particular, and the proletariat of Europe, in general, from starvation,
and assert that it will benefit the revolution but little to conquer all Europe if the
Government of the United States replies by starving all Europe. They aidvocate,
therefore, the conciliation of the United States even at the cost of compromising with
many of the principles they hold most dear. And Lenin's prestige in Russia at present
is so overwhelming that the Trotski group is forced reluctantly to follow him. (Ap-
pendix, p. 19.)
Lenin, indeed, as a practical matter, stands well to the right in the existing political
life of Russia. He recognizes the unaesirability, from the Socialist viewpoint, of the
compromises he feels compelled to make; but he is ready to make the compromises.
Among the more notable concessions he has alreadv made are: The abandonment
of his plan to nationalize the land and the adoption of the policy of dividing it among
the peasants, the establishment of savings banks paying 3 per cent interest, the de-
cision to pay all foreign debts, and the decision to give concessions if that shall prove
to be necessary to obtain credit abroad. (Appendix, p. 20.)
In a word, Lenin feels compelled to retreat from his theoretical i>OBition all along
the line. He is ready to meet the western Governments half way.
PEACE PROPOSALS.
Lenin seized upon the opportunity presented by my trip of .investigation to make
a definite statement of the position of the Soviet Government. He was opposed by
Trotski and the generals, but without much difficulty ^t the support of the majority
of the executive council, and the statement of the position of the soviet government
which was handed to me was finally adopted unanimously. (Appendix, p. 22.)
My discussion of this proposal with the leaders of the Soviet Government wasso
detailed that I feel sure of my ground in saying that it does not represent the minimum
terms of the soviet government, and that I can point out in detail wherein it may
be modified without making it unacceptable to the soviet government. For ex-
ample, the clause under article 5— ''and to their own nationals who have been or
may be prosecuted for giving help to Soviet Russia" — ^is certainly not of vital im<
poitance. And the clause under article 4, in regard to admission of citizens of the
soviet republics of Russia into the aUied and associated countries, mav certainly
be changed in such a way as to reserve all necessary rights to control such immigra-
tion to tne allied and associated countries, and to confine it to persons who come on
TEBATY OF FSAOB WITH QEBMANY. 1256
legitimate and neceBsary business, and to exclude definitely all possibility of an
Influx of propagandists.
CONCLUSIONS.
The following conclusions are respectfully submitted:
1. No government save a socialist government can be set up in Russia to-day except
by foreign bayonets, and any governments so set up will fall the moment such support
is withdrawn: The Lenin ^g of the communist party ia to-day as modeiate aS iny
socialist government which can control Russia.
2. No real peace can be established in Europe or the world until x>eace is made with
. he revolution. This proposal of the Soviet Government presents an opportunity to
make peace with the revolution on a just and reasonable basis — ^perhaps a unique
opportunity.
3. If the blockade is lifted and supplies begin to be delivered regularlv to soviet
Russia, a more powerful hold over the Russian people will be establiflhea than that
given by the blockade itself — ^the hold given by fear that this delivery of supplies may
be stopped. Furthermore, the X)arties which oppose the conmiunists in principle but
are siipporting them at present will be able to oegin to fight against them.
4. It is, therefore, respectfully recommended that a proposal following the general
lines of the suggestion of the Soviet Government should be made at the earliest possible
moment, such changes being made» particularly in article 4 and article 5, as wul make
the proposal acceptable to conservative opinion in the allied and associated countries.
Very respectfully submitted.
William C. Bulutt.
Appendix,
transport.
Locomotives. — Before the war Russia had 22,000 locomotives. Destruction by war
and ordinary wear and tear have reduced the number of locomotives in good order to
5,500. Russia is entirely cut off from siipplies of spare TOirts and materials for repair,
facilities for the manufacture of which d!o not exist in Kussia. And the Soviet Gov-
ernment is able only with the greatest difficulty to keep in running order the few
locomotives at its disposal.
Coal. — Soviet Russia is entirely cut off from supplies of coal. Kolchak holds the
Perm mining district, although Soviet troops are now on the edge of it. Denikin still
holds the larger part of the Donetz coal district and has destroyed the mines in the
portion of the district which he has evacuated. As a result of this, locomotives,
electrical power plants, etc., must be fed with wood, which is enormously expensive
and laborious ana comparatively ineffectual.
Gasoline. — ^There is a total lack of gasoline, due to the British occupation of Baku.
The few automobiles in the cities which are kept running for \'ital Government busi-
ness are fed with substitute mixtures, which caus^ them to break down with great
frequency and to miss continually. Almost the entire fleet on the great inland water-
way system of Russia was propelled by gasoline. As a result the Volga and Uie canafs,
which are so \'ital a part of Russia's s>'8tem of transportation, arc useless.
POOD.
Everj'one is hungry in Moscow and Petrograd, including the people's commissaries
themselves. The daily ration of Lenin and the other commissanes is the same as
that of a soldier in the armjr or of a workman at hard labor. In the hotel which i^
reserved for Government officials the menu is the following: Breakfast — ^A Quarter to
half a pound of black bread, which must last all day, and tea without sugar. Dinner —
A good soup, a small piece of fish, for which occasionally a diminutive piece of meat
is substituted, a vegetable, either a potato or a bit of cabbage, more tea without
sugar. Supper — What remains of the morning ration of bread and more tea without
sugar.
Occasionally sugar, butter, and chickens slip through from the Ukraine and are
sold secretly at atrocious prices — butter, for example, at 140 roubles a pound. When-
ever the Government is able to get its hands on any such "luxuries'' it turns them
over to the schools, where an attempt is made to give every child a good dinner
every day.
The food situation has been slightlv improved by the rejoining of Ukraine to Great
Russia, for food is relatively plentiful in tne south; but no great improvement in the
situation is possible because of the lack of transport.
1256 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBHAKY.
MANAGEMENT.
Such supplies as are available in Soviet Russia are being utilized with considerabl'*
skill. For example, in spi te of the necessity of firing with wood , the Moscow-Pe^jprad
express keeps up to its schedule, and on both occasions when I made the trip it Uf>k
but 13 hours, compared to the 12 hours of prewar days.
The food control works well, so that there is noabundaace alongsode of famine.
Powerful and weak alike endure about the same degree of starvation.
The Soviet government has made great efforts to persuade indvatrial numagen mod
technical experts of the old regime to enter its service. Many very promixieat m^n
have done so. And the Soviet Government pays them as high as 145,000 a vemr for
their services, although Lenin gets but $1,800 a year. This very anomalous BitUAtiof)
arises from the principle that any believing communist must adhere to the scale of
wages established by the government, but if the government considers it necemary
to have the assistance of any anticommunist, it is permitted to pay him as much as
he demands.
All meetings of workmen during work hours have been prohibited, with the result
that the loafing which was so fatal during the Kerensky regime has been overcame and
discipline has neon restored in the factories as in the army.
SOCIAL OOMDmONB*
Terror. — ^The red terror is over. During the period of its power the extraordinary'
commission for the suppression of the counter revolution, which was the instrument of
the terror, executed about 1,500 persons in Petrogmd, 500 in Moscow, and 3,000 in the
remainder of the country — 5,000 in all Russia. These fi^ires agree with those which
were brought hack from Russia bv Maj. Ward well, and masmuch as I have checked
them from Soviet, anti-Soviet, and neutral sources I believe them to be approximately
correct. It is worthy of note in this connection that in the white terror in southern
flnland alone, according to official figures, Gen. Mannerheim executed without trial
12,000 working men and women.
Order. — One feels as safe in the streets of Petrograd and Moscow as in the streets of
Paris or New York. On the other hand, the streets of these cities are dismal, because
of the closing of retail shops whose functions are now concentrated in a few large
nationalized *' department stores." Petroerad, furthermore, has been deserted by
half its population: but Moscow teems with twice the number of inhabitants it con-
tained before the war. The only noticeable difference in the theaters, opera, and
ballet is that they are now run under the direction of the department of education,
which prefers classics and sees to it that working men and women and children are
g'ven an opportunity to attend the performances and that they are instructed b^ore-
md in the significance and beauties of the productions.
MoraU. — Prostitutes have disappeared from sisht, the economic reasons for their
career having ceased to exist. Family life has been absolutely unchanged by the
revolution. 1 have never heard more genuinely mirthful laughter than when I told
Lenin, Tchitcherin, and Litvinov that much of the world beueved that women had
been "nationalized." Thia lie is so wildly fantastic that they will not even take the
trouble to deny it. Respect for womanhood was never greater than in Russia to-day
Indeed, the day I reached Petrograd was a holiday in honor of wives and mothers. '
Education. — The achievements of the department of education under Lunacharsky
have been very great. Not only have all the Russian classics been reprinted in
editions of three and five million copies and sold at a low price to the people, but
thousands of new schools for men, women, and children have been opened in all parts
of Russia. Furthermore, workingmen's and soldiers* clubs have been organized in
many of the palaces of yesteryear, where the people are instructed by means of mto\'inc
pictures and lectures. In the art galleries one meets classes of working men and
women being instructed in the beauties of the pi<*ture8. The children's schools have
been entirely reorganized, and an attempt is being made to give every cbJld a good
dinner at school every day. Furthermore, very remarkable schools have been opened
for defective and ovemen'ous children. On the theory that genius and insanity are
closely allied, these children axe taujrht from the first to compose music, paint pictures,
sculpt and write poetry, and it is averted that some very valuable results have been
achieved, not only in the way of productions but also in the way of restoring the
nervous systems ot the children.
MORALE.
The belief of the convinced conmiunists in their cause is almost religious. Never
in any religious service have I seen higher emotional unit^ than prevailed at the
meeting of the Petrograd Soviet in celebration of the foundation of the Third Socialijt
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1257
Intematioziale. The remark of one yomig man to me when I questioned him in
regard to his starved appearance ia characteristic. He replied very simply: "I am
ready to give another year of starvation to our revolution."
STATEMENTS OP LEADERS OF OPPOSITION PARTIES.
The following statement was made to me by Volsky, leader of the right social
revolutionaries, the largest opp^osition party:
'^Intervention of any kind will prolong the r^ime of the Bolsheviki by compellin-
us, like all honorable Russians, to drop opposition and rally round the soviet govern-
ment in defense of the revolution. With regard to help to individual groups or govern-
ments fighting against soviet Russia, we see no difference between such intervention
and the sending of troops. If the allies come to an agreement with the soviet govern-
ment, sooner or later the peasant masses will make their will felt and they are alike
against the bourgeoisie and the Bolsheviki.
"If by any chance Kolchak and Denikin vrere to win, they would have to kill in
tens of thousands where the Bolsheviki have bad to kill in hundreds and the result
would be the complete ruin and collapse of Russia into anarchy. Has not the Ukraine
been enough to teach the allies that occupation by non-Bolshevik troops merely turns
into Bolsheviki those of the population who were not Bolsheviki before? It is clear
to us that the Bolsheviki are really fighting a^^inst bourgeois dictatorship. We are,
therefore, prepared to help them in every possible way.
"Grandmother Ekaterina Constantinovna Breehkovskaya has no sort of authority,
either from the assemblv of members of the all Russian constituent assembly or from
the party of social revolutionaries. Her utterances in America, if she is preaching
intervention, represent her personal opinions whic h are categorically repudiatetl by
the party of social revolutionaries, which has decisively expressed itself against the
permissibility of intervention, direct or indirect."
Volsky signed this latter statement: "V. Volsky, late president of the assembly of
members of the all Russian constituent assembly."
Martov, leader of the Menshiviki, stated: "The Menshiviki are a^inst every form
of intervention, direct or indirect, because by providing the incentive to militariza-
tion it is bound to emphasize the least desirable qualities of the revolution. Further,
the needs of the army overwhelm all e^orts at meeting the needs of social and economic
reconstruction. Agreement with the soviet government would lessen the tension
of defense and would unmuzzle the opposition, who, while the soviet government is
attacked, are prepared to help in its defense, while reserving until peace their efforts
to alter the Bolshevik regime.
"The forces that would support intervention must be dominated bjr those of extreme
reaction because all but the reactionaries are prepared temj)orarily to sink their
differences with the Bolsheviki in order to defend the revolution as a whole."
Martov finally expressed himself as convinced that, given peace, life itself and the
needs of the country will bring about the changes he desires.
ARMY.
The 8o\det army now numbers between 1,Q00,000 and 1,200,000 troops of the line.
Nearly all these soldiers are young men between the ages of 17 and 27. Tlie morale
of regiments varies greatly. The coninnced communists, who compose the bulk of
the army, fight with crusading enthusiasm. Other regiments, composed of patriots
but noncommunists, are less spirited; other regiments composed of men who have
entered the army for the slightly higher bread ration are distinctly imtrustworthy.
Great numbers of officers of the old army are occupying important executive posts
in the administration of the new army, but are under control of convinced communist
supervisors. Nearly all the lower grade officers of the army are workmen who have
displayed courage in the ranks and have been trained in special officer schools. Dis-
cipline has been restored and on the whole the spirit of the army appears to be very
high, particularly since its recent successes. The soldiers no longer have the beaten
dog-like look which distinguished them under the Czar but carry themselves like
freemen and curiously like Americans. They are popular with the people.
I witnessed a review of 15,000 troops in Petrograa. The men marcned well and
their equipment of shoes, uniforms, rifles, and machine guns and light artillery was
excellent. On the other hand they have no big ^ims, no aeroplanes, no gas shells,
no liquid fire, nor indeed, any of the more refined instruments of destruction.
The testimony was universal that recruiting for the army is easiest in the districts
which having once lived under the soviet were over run by anti-soviet forces and then
reoccupied by the Red Army.
1258 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKY.
Trotsky Ib enormoiifily proud of the army he has created, but it is noteworthv thAt
even he is ready to disband the army at once if peace can be obtained in order tmit aU
the brains and energy it contains may be turned to restoring the normal life of the
country.
LENIN 'S PRS0TIOE.
The hold which Jjenin has gained on the imagination of the Russian people niakes
his position almost that of a dictator. There is already a Lenin legend. He is rv^
fi;araed as almost a prophet. His picture, usually accompanied by that of Kaii Marx,
hangs evenrwhere. In Russia one never hears Lenin and Trotsid spoken of in the
same breath as is usual in the western world. Lenin is regarded as in a class by him
self. Trotski is but one of the lower order of mortals.
When I called on Lenin at the KremUn I had to wait a few minutes until a dele-
gation of p^sants left his room. They had heard in their village that Comrade Lenin
was hungry. And they had come hundreds of miles carrying 800 poods of bread as
the eif t of the village to Lenin. Just before them was another delegation of peasants
to whom the report had come that Comrade Lenin was working in an unheated room.
They came bearing a stove and enough firewood to heat it for three months. Lenin
is the only leader who receives such Rifts. And he turns them into the common fund.
Face to face Lenin is a very striking man — straightforward and direct, but also
genial and with a large humor and serenity.
CONCESSIONS,
The soviet government recognizes very clearly the undesirability of jnranting con-
cessions to foreigners and is ready to do so only because of necessity. The memben
of the Government realize that the lifting of the blockade will be illusory unless the
soviet government is able to establish credits in foreign countries, particularly the
United States and England, so that goods may be bought in those countries. For
Russia to-day is in a position to export only a little ^Id, a little platinum, a little
hemp, flax, and wood. These exports will be utterly inadequate to pay for the vast
quantity of imports which Russia needs. Russia must, therefore, obtain credit at
any price. The members of the soviet government realize fully tbat as a preliminaiy
step to the obtaining of credit the payment of foreign debts must be resumed and,
therefore, are ready to pay such debts. But even though these debts are paid the
members of the soviet government believe that they will not be able to borrow money
in foreign countries on any mere promise to pay. They believe, therefore, that they
will have to grant concessions in Russia to foreigners in order to obtain immediate
credit. They desire to avoid this expedient if in any way it shall be possible, but if
absolutely necessary they are ready to adopt it in order to begin the restoiation of
the normal life of the country.
TEXT OF PROJECTED PEACE PROPOSAL BY THE ALLIED AND .ASSOCIATED GOVERNMBNTS.
The allied and associated Governments propose that hostilities shall cease on al
fronts in the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland on ' and that
no new hostilities shall begin after this date, penaing a conference to be held at '
on .'
The duration of the armistice to be for two weeks, unless extended by mutual
consent, and all parties to the armistice to undertake not to emplov the penod of the
armistice to transfer troops and war material to the territory of the former Russian
Empire.
Tne conference to discuss peace on the basis of the following principles, which shall
not be 6u])ject to revision by the conference:
I. All existing de facto governments which have been set up on the territory of the
former Russian Empire and Finland to remain in full control of the territories which
they occupy at the moment when the armistice becomes effective, except insofar as
the conference may airree upon the transfer of territories; until the peoples inhabiting
the territories controlled by these de facto governments shall themselves determine
to change their governments. The Russian soviet government, the other soviet
1 The date of the armistice to be set at least a week after the date when the allied and aseodated ppftnt-
ments make this proposal.
< The soviet govemment greatly prefers that the conferenop should be held in a neutral ooontry and also
that either a radio or a direct telegraph wire to Moscow should be put at its dJspasaL
I The conference to begin not later than a week after the armistice takes efSset and the soviet ^memuwit
Ssatlv prefers that the period between the date of the armistice and the first meeting of the oooteeoos
ould be only three days, If possible.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMAN7. 1259
governments, and all other governments which have been set up on the territory
of the former Russian Empire, the allied and associated governments, and the other
f>vemments which are operating against the soviet governments, including Finland,
oland, Galicia, Roumania, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, and Afganistan, to agree not to
attempt to upset by force the existing de facto governments which have been set up
on the territory' of the former Russian Empire and other Governments signatory to this
agreement.*
2. The economic blockade to be raised and trade relations between soviet Russia
and the allied and associated countries to be reestablished under conditions which
will insure that supplies from the allied and associated countries are made available on
equal terms to all classes of the Russian people.
3. The soviet governments of Russia to have the right of unhindered transit on all
railways and the use of all ports which belinged to the former Russian Empire and to
Finland and are necessary for the disembarkation and transportation of passeng^ers
and goods between their territories and the sea; detailed arrangements for the carrying
out of the provision to be agreed upon at the conference.
4. The citizens of the soviet republics of Russia to have the right of free entry
into the allied and associated countries as well as into all countries which have been
formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland; also the rij^ht of
sojourn and of circulation and full security, provided they do not interfere in the
domestic politics of those countries.'
Nationals of the allied and associated countries and of the other countries above
named to have the right of free entry into the soviet republics of Russia; also the
right of sojourn and of circulation and full security, provided they do not interfere
in the domestic politics of the soviet repubUcs.
The allied and associated governments and other Governments which have been
set up on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to have the right
to send official representatives enjoying full liberty and inmiunity into the various
Russian soviet republics. The soviet governments of Russia to have the right to
send official representatives enjoying full liberty and immunity into all the allied and
associated countries and into the nonsovient countries which have been formed on
the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland.
5. The soviet governments, and other governments which have been set up on the
territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland, to five a general amnesty to all
political opponents, offenders, and prisoners. The allied and associated governments
to gove a general amnesty to all Russian politioJ opponents, offenders and prisoners,
and to their own nationals who have been or may oe prosecuted for giving help to
soviet Russia. All Russians who have fought in , or otherwise aided the armies opposed
to the soviet governments, and those opposed to the other governments whicn have
been set up on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to be included
in this amnesty.
All prisoners of war of non-Russian powers detained in Russia, likewise all nationals
of those powers now in Russia to be given full ^ilities for repatriation. The Russian
prisoners of war in whatever foreign country they may be, likewise all Russian
nationals, including the Russian soldiers and officers abroad and those serving in all
foreign armies to be given full feunlities for repatriation.
6. Immediately after the signing of this agreement all troops of the allied and asso-
ciated Governments and other non-Russian Governments to be withdrawn from
Russia and military assistance to cease to be given to antisoviet governments which
have been set up on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
The soviet governments and the antisoviet Governments which have been set up
on the territory of the former Russian Empire and Finland to b^n to reduce their
armies simultaneously, and at the same rate, to a peace footing immediately idfter the
signing of this agreement. The conference to determine the most effective and just
method of inspecting and controlling this simultaneous demobilization and also the
withdrawal of the troops and the cessation of military assistance to itie antisoviet
governments.
7. The allied and associated governments, taking cognizance of the statement of the
Soviet Government of Russia, in its note of February 4, in re^urd to its foreign debts,
propose as an integral part oif this agreement that the soviet governments and the
other governments which have been set up on the territory of the former Russian
Empire and Finland shall recognize their responsibility for the financial obligations of
i The ftlUed and associated govemmente to undertake to see to it that the de facto governments of Ger-
many do not attempt to upaet by force the de facto goremments of Russia. The de facto governments
v^iidi have been set up on the tflrritory of the former Russia Empire to undertake not to attempt to upset
by force the de facto governments of Germany.
s It is considered essential by the soviet government that the allied and associated governments should
see toit that Poland and all neutral oountiue extend the same rights as the allied and associated countries.
1260 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
s
the former Russian Empire, to foreign States, parties to this agreement, and to the
nationals of such States. Detailed arrangements for the payment of these debts to be
agreed upon at the conference, regard being had to the present financial position of
Russia.- The Russian gold seized by the Czecho-Slovako in Kazan or taken from Ger-
many by the allies to be regarded as partial payment of the i)ortion8 of the debt due
from the soviet republics of Russia.
The soviet government of Russia undertakes to accept the foreoging proposal pro-
vided it is made not later than April 10, 1919.
Senator Knox. To whom did you hand that report?
Mr. Bullitt. I handed copies of this personally to Secretary
Lansing, Col. House, Gen. Bliss and Mr. Henry White, and I handed
a second copy, for the President, to Mr. Lansing. Secretarv Lansing
wrote oir it, ^* Urgent and immediate;" put it in an envelop, and I
took it up to the President's house.
Senator Knox. At the same time that you handed in this report,
did you hand them the proposal of the Soviet Government ?
Mr. Bullitt. The proposal of the Soviet Government is appended
to this report.
Senator Knox. It is a part of the report ?
Mr. BuLLrrr. It is a part of the report which I have already read.
There comes first an appendix explaining the statements which I
have just read, andgivmg the evidence I nave for them.
Senator B^nox. mis there anv formal meeting of the peace con-
ference, or of representatives oi the great powers, to act upon this
suggestion and upon your report ?
Mr, Bullitt. It was acted upon in a very lengthy, long-drawn-out
manner.
Immediately on my return I was first asked to appear before the
American Commission. First, the night I got back I had a couple of
hours with Col. House, in which I went over the whole matter. Col.
House was entirelv and quite decidedly in favor of making peace,
if possible, on the basis of this proposal.
The next morning I was called before the other Commissioners, and
I talked with Mr. Lansing, Gen. Bliss, and Mr. Henry White all the
morning and most of the afternoon. We had a long discussion, at
the end of which it was the sense of the commissioners* meeting that
it was highly desirable to attempt to bring about peace on this oasis.
The next morning I had breakfast witn Mr. Lloyd-George at his
apartment. Gen. Smuts and Sir Maurice Hankey and Mr. Philip
Kerr were also present, and we discussed the matter at considerable
length. I brought Mr. Lloyd-George the official text of the proposal,
the same official one, in that same envelop, which I have just shown
to vou. He had previously read it, it having been telegraphed from
Heisingfors. As ne had previously read it, he merely glanced over
it and said, ^'That is the same one I have already read, and he handed
it to Gen. Smuts, who was across the table, and said, ''General, this
is of the utmost importance and interest, and you ou^ht to read it
right away.'* Gen. Smuts read it immediately, and said he thought
it should not be allowed to lapse; that it was of the utmost import-
ance. Mr. Lloyd-George, however, said that he did not know what
he could do with British public opinion. He had a copy of the Daily
Mail in his hand, and he said, '*As long as the British press is doing
this kind of thing how can you expect me to be sensible about
Russia?*' The Daily Mail was roarmg and screaming about the
whole Russian situation. Then Mr. Lloyd-George said, "Of course
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1261
all the reports we get from people we send in there are in this same
general direction, but we have got to send in somebody who is known
to the whole world as a complete conservative, in order to have the
'whole world believe that the report he brings out is not simply' the
utterance of a radical.'' He then said, **I wonder if we could get
Lansdowne to go?'' Then he immediately corrected himself and
said, ^'No; it would probably kill him." Then he said, "I wiah I
could send Bob Cecil, but we have got to keep him for the league of
nations. " And he said to Smuts, **It would be splendid if you could
go, but, of course, you have got the other job," which was ^oing down
to Hungary. Afterwards he said he thought the most desirable man
to send was the Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Robert Cecil's brother;
that he would be respectable enough and well known enough so that
when he came back and made the same report it would go down with
British public opinion. Mr. Lloyd-George then urged me to make
public my report. He said it was absolutely necessary to have
publicity given to the actual conditions in Russia, which he recog-
nized were as presented.
I saw Mr. Balfour that afternoon with Sir Eric Drummond, who
at that time was acting as his secretary. He is now secretary of the
league of nations. We discussed the entire matter. Sir William
Wiseman told me afterward that Mr. Balfour was thoroughly in
favor of the proposition.
Well, to cut the story short, first the President referred the matter
to Ck}L House. He left his decision on the matter with Col. House^
as -was his usual course of procedure in most such matters. Mr.
Lloyd-Oeorge also agreed in advance to leave the preparation of the
proposal to Col. House: that is, he said he would be disposed to go at
least as far as we would and would follow the lead of the President
and Col. House. Col. House thereupon asked me to prepare a reply
to this proposal, which I did.
Col. House in the meantime had seen Mr. Orlando^ and Mr. Orlando
had expressed himself as entirely in favor of makmg peace on this
basis, at least so Col. House informed me at the time. The French,
I believe, had not yet been approached formally on the matter.
Senator Knox. By the way, right here, you say Mr. Lloyd-George
advised you to make your report public. l)id you make it public ?
Mr. Bullitt. No, sir. Mr. Lloyd-George desired me to make it
public for the enlightenment that ne thought it might give to public
opinion.
Senator EInox. But you did not do it ?
Mr. Bullitt. I attempted to. I prepared a statement for the
press based on my report, giving the facts, which I submitted to the
commission to be given out. No member of the commission was
ready to take the responsibility for publicity in the matter and it was
referred to the President. The President received it and decided that
he did not want it given out. He thought he would rather keep it
secret, and in spite of the urgmgs 9f the other commissioners he con-
tinned to adhere to that point oi view, and my report has never been
made public imtil this moment.
Col. House asked me to prepare a declaration of policy, a statement
based on this proposal of the soviet government. It was to be an
ironclad declaration which we knew m advance would be accepted
by the soviet government if we made it, and he thought that the
President and Sir. Lloyd-George would put it through.
1262 TREATS' OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Senator Brandeobe. Did you attend that meeting of the com-
mission when that report was considered by the American Commis-
sion ?
Mr. Bullitt. I first handed each member of the commission mv
report. I had appeared before them and discussed my mission for
an entire day. They sat in the morning and in the afternoon.
Senator Brandegee. I wondered whether you were present when
the President thought it would be better not to give it out, not t*^
make it public.
Mr. Bullitt. No, sir; I was not. Then upon order of Col. House
to whom the matter had been referred, I prepared this declaration of
policy, i prepared it in conjunction with Mr, Whitney Shepherdson,
who was Col. House's assistant secretary, and also versea in inter-
national law. I do not know that this is of any importance, aside
from the fact that it is almost the only direct proposition to accept
their proposal which was prepared. Col. House took this and held
it xmaer advisement and discussed it, I believe, with the President
and other persons.
The C^AiBMAN. It had better be printed.
The document referred to is as follows:
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 19.
A DECLARATION OF POUCY ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSOCIATED OOTSRNMBNTB
AND AN OFFER OF AN ARMISTICE.
The representatives of the States assembled in conference at Paris recently extended
an invitation to the ol^nized groups in Russia to lav down their anus and to sead
delegates to Prince's Island. These delegates were asked to ''confer with the repre-
sentatives of the associated powers in the fireest and frankest way, with a view to ascer-
taining the wishes of all sections of the Russianpeople and bringing about, if possible,
some understanding and agreement by which Kussia may work out her own purposes
and happy cooperative relations may be established between her people ana the
other peoples of the world.'' The truce of arms was not declared, and the meeting
did not take place.
The people of Russia are laboring to-day to establish the system of government
unc^er which they shall live. Their task is one of unparalleled difficulty, and should
not be further complicated by the existence of misapprehensions amonff the Russian
people or throughout the world. Therefore, the representatives of the associated
powers, now sitting in the conference of Paris, have determined to state publicly
what they had in mind to e&yr through their dele^tes to Prince's Island concerning
thepolicies which govern their relations with the Russian people.
Tnev wish to make it plain that they do not intend to interfere in say way with
the solution of the political, social, or economic problems of Russia. Tney believe
that the peace of the world will lareely depend upon a right settlement of these mat-
ters; but they eaually recognize tnat any right settlement must proceed from the
Russian people themselves, unembarrassed by influence or direction firom without.
On the other hand, the assoda^ powers desired to have it clearly understood that
1^e3^ can have no dealings with any Russian Government which shall invade the
territory of its neighbors or seek to impose its will upon other peoples by force. Ihe
full authority and military power of the associated governments will stand in the waj
of any such attempt.
The task of creating a stable government demands all the great strength of Russia,
healed of the famine, misery, and disease which attend and delay the reconaitraction.
The associated powers have solemnly pledged their resources to relieve the stncken
regions of Europe. Their efforts, begun in Belgium and in northern France during
the course of the war, now extend to exhausted peoples from Finland to the Dalmatian
coast. Ports long idle are busy again. Tramloads of food are moved into the interior
and there are distributed with an impartial hand. Industry is awakened, and life is
resumed at the point where it was broken off by war. These measures of relief will be
continued until peace is signed and until nations are once more able to provide for
their needs through the normal channels of commerce.
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1263
It ia the earnest desire of the aasociated peoples similiurlv to assuage the distress
of millions of men and women in Kussia and to provide them with such ph^rsical
conditions as will make life possible and desirable. Relief can not be effectively
rendered, however, except by the employment of all available transportation facilities
and the active cooperation of those exercising authority within the country. These
reonifiites can not be assured while Russia is still at war.
Tlie allied and associated govenmients, therefore, propose an agreement between
th.emaelves and all governments now exercising political authority within the terri-
tory of the former Russian Empire, including Finland, together with Poland, Galicia,
Honmania, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, and Afghanistan, tiiat hostilities against one
Another shall cease on all fronts within these territories on April ^ at noon; that
fresh hoBtilitiee shall not be be^un during the period of this armistice, and that no
troops or war material of any kmd whatever shall be transferred to or within these
territories so long as the armistice shall continue. The duration of the armistice shall
be for two weeks, unless extended by mutual consent.
The allied and associated Governments propose that such of these Governments as
are ^willing to accept the terms of this armistice shall send not more than three repre-
sentatives each, together with necessary technical experts, to where tney
shall meet on April with representatives of the allied and associated Govern-
ments in conference to discuss peace, upon the basis of the following principles:
(1) All signatory Governments shall remain, as against each other, in full control
of the territories which they occupy at the. moment when the armistice becomes
effective; subject onl}r to such rectincations as may be agreed upon by the conference,
or until the peoples inhabiting these territories shall themselves voluntarily deter-
mine to change their Government.
(2) The right of free entry, sojourn, circulation, and full security shall be accorded
by the several signatories to the citizens of each other; provided, nowever, that such
persons comply with the laws of the country to which they seek admittance, and
Srovided also that they do not interfere or attempt to interiere in any way witn the
omeetic XMUtics of that country.
(3) The right to send official representatives enjoying full liberty and inmiunity
shall be accorded by the several signatories to each other.
(4) A general anmesty shall be granted by the various signatories to all political or
niiljtar>r opponents, offenders, and prisoners who are so regarded because of their
association or affiliation wilii another signatory, provided that they have not otherwise
violated the laws of the land.
(5) Nationals of one signatory residing or detained in the country of another shall
be fdven all possible facilities for repatriation.
(6) The allied and associated Governments shall immediately withdraw their armed
forces and further military support from the territory of the former Russian Empire,
including Finland, and me various Governments within that territory shall effect a
simultaneous reduction of armed forces according to a scheme of demobilization and
control to be agreed upon by the conference.
(7) Any economic blockade imposed by one signatory as against another shall be
lifted and tnde relations shall be established, subject to a program of equitable dis-
tribution of supplies and utilization of transport facilities to be agreed upon by the
conference.
(8) Provision shall be made by the conference for a mutual exchange of transit and
port privil ege among the several singatories.
(9) The conference shall be competent to discuss and determine any other matter
which bears upon the problem of establishing peace within the territory of the former
Russian Empu e, including Finland, and the reestabliebment of international relations
among the sijgfziatories.
Note. — If it is desirable to include a specific reference to Russia's financial obliga-
tions, the following clause (8 bis) would be acceptable to the soviet fi;ovemment at
least: ' * The governments which have been set up on the territory of the former Russian
Empire and Finland shall recognize their responsibility for the financial obligations
of tne former Russian Empire to foreign States parties to this asreement and to the
nationals of such States, Detailed arrangements lor discharging tnese obli^tions shall
be agreed upon by the conference, regard being had to the present financial situation
of Russia. '*
Senator Brandegee. Was this brought to the attention of the
President ?
Mr. Bullitt. The first nidit after I got in Col. House went to the
telephone and called up the ^President right away and told him that
I was in, and that he tnought this was a matter of the utmost impor-
1264 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERM ANY.
tance, and that it would seem to be an opportunity to make peace
in a section of the world where there was no peace; in fact, where
there were 23 wars. The President said he would see me the next
evening down at Col. House's office, as I remember it. The next
evening, however, the President had a headache and he did not come.
The foflowing afternoon Col. House said to me that he had seen the
President and the President had said he had a one-track mind and
was occupied with Germany at present, and he could not thinls
about Russia, and that he had left the Kussian matter all to him,
Col. House. Therefore I continued to deal with Col. House directhr
on it inasmuch as he was the delegate of the President, and LJoyd-
George, in the matter. I used to see Col. House every daj^, indeed
two or three times a day, on the subject, tuning him to obtain action
before April 10, which, as you will recall, was the date when this
proposal was to expire.
Meanwhile Mr. Hoover and Mr. Aucbindoss had the idea of
approaching peace with Russia by a feeding proposition, and thev
had approached Mr. Fridiof Nansen, the Arctic explorer, and got hiin
to write and send the following letter to the President. You doubt-
less have seen his letter to the {'resident.
(The letter referred to is printed in full, as follows:)
BuLUTT ExHiBrr No. 20.
Paris, AprU 3, IBIU.
My Dear Mr. President: The present food situation in Russia, where hundreds
of thousands of people are dyii^ monthly from sheer starvation and diseafle. is one
of the problems now uppermost in all men's minds. As it appears that no solution of
this food and disease question has so far been reached in any direction, I would like
to make a suggestion from a neutral point of view for the alleviation of this gigantic
misery on purely humanitarian grounds.
It would appear to me possible to organize a purely humanitarian commission for
the provisioning of Russia, the foodstuffs and meaical supplies to be paid for, p«iiapa,
to some considerable extent by Russia itself , the justice of distribution to be guaiantt^
by such a commission, the membership of the commission to be compri^d of Nor-
wegian, Swedish, and x>ossibly Dutch, Danish, and Swiss nationalities. It does not
appear that the existing authorities in Russia would refuse the intervention of such a
commission of wholly nonpolitical order, devoted solely to the humanitarian purpose
of saving life. If thus organized upon the lines of the Belgian Relief Commiadion. it
would raise no question of political recognition or negotiations between the Allits
with the existing authorities in Russia.
I recogniize keenly the large political issues involved, and I would be glad to know
under wnat conditions you would approve such an enterprise and whether such
commission could look for actual sup|K)rt in finance, shipping, and food and medical
supplies from the United States Government.
I am addressing a similar note to Messrs. Orlando, Clemenceau, and Lloyd-Georpv.
Believe me, my dear Mr. President,
Yours, most respectfully,
FRiDjor Naksen.
His Excellency the President,
11 Place des Etats- Unis^ Paris.
Senator Knox. I think that was published in nearly all the papers.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes. In it he proposed that a commission shomd be
formed at once for the feeding oi Russia, because of the finghtful
conditions of starvation and so on. Col. House decided that it would
be an easier way to peace if we could get there via the feeding plan,
under the guise of a purely humanitarian plan, if we could ^ae in
that way instead of by a direct, outright statement inviting the^
people to sit down and make peace. Therefore he asked me to prepare
a reply to the Nansen letter, which I have here.
(The letter referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBRMAKY. 1265
Bullitt Exhibit No. 21.
Paris, France, April 4j 1919.
Sugigested reply to Dr. Nansen by the Presidezit of the United States and the premiers
of France, Great Britain, and Italy:
Dear Dr. Nansen : It is the earnest desire of the allied and associated Govemmente,
and of the peoples for whom they speak, to assume the distress of the millions of men,
women, and children who are suffering in Russia. The associated powers have
solemnly pledged their resources to relieve the stricken regions of Europe. Their
efforts, begun m Belgium and in Northern France during the course of the war, now
extend to exhausted peoples from Finland to the Dalmatian coast. Ports lonj^ idle
are busy again. T^cainloads of food are moved into the interior and ther^ are distrib-
uted with an impartial hand. Industry is awakened, and life is resumed at the
point where it was broken off by war. These measures of relief will be continued until
nations are once move able to provide for their needs through the normal channels of
commerce.
The associated peoples desire and deem it their dut^ similarly to assist in relieving
the people of Kusda from the misery, famine, and disease which oppress them. In
view of the responsibilities which have already been undertaken by the associated
Governments they welcome the suggestion tiiat the neutral States should take the
intiative in the matter of Russian relief and, therefore, are prepared to state in accord-
ance with your request, the conditions under which they will approve and assist a
neutral commission for the provisioning of Russia.
The allied and associated Governments and all Governments now eKercising political
authority within the territory of the former Russian Empire, including Finland,
together with Poland, Galicia^ Roumania, Armenia, Azerbaidjan, and Afghanistan,
shall agree that hostilities against one another shall ceaae on all fronts within these
territories on April 20 at nooi^ ; that f re^ hostilities shall not be begun during the period
of this armistice, and that no troops or war material of any kind whatever shall be
transferred to or within these territories so long as the annistice shall continue. The
duration of the armistice shall be for two weeks unless extended by mutual consent.
The allied and associated Governments propose that such of these Governments as
are willing to accept the terms of this armistice, shall send not more than three repre-
sentatives each, toother with necessarjr technical experts, to Ghrlstiania, where tney
shall meet on April 25 with representatives of the aUied uid associated Governments
in conference to discuss peace and the provisioning of Russia, upon the basis of the
following principles:
1. All signatory Governments shall remain, as against each other, in full control
of the territories which they occupy at the moment when the armistice becomes
effective, subject to such rectifications aa may be aereed upon by the conference, or
until the peoples inhalHting these teoritoriee shall ^emselves voluntarily determine
to change their government.
2. The right of free entry, sojourn, circulation, and full security shall be accorded
by the several signatories to the citizens of each other; provided, nowever, that such
X>er9ons comply with the laws of the country to which they seek admittance, and pro-
vided also uiat they do not interfere or attempt to interfere in any way with the
domestic politics of that country.
3. The right to send official representatives enjoying full liberty and immunity
shall be accorded by the several signatories to one another.
4. A general amnesty shall be granted by the various signatories to all political or
militsury opponents, offenders, and prisoners who are so treated because of their as-
sociation or affiliation wit^ another signatory, provided that they have not otherwise
violated the laws of the land.
5. Nationals of one signatory residing or detained in the country of another shall be
given all poesible facilities for repatriation.
6. The allied and associated Governments will immediatelv withdraw their armed
forces and further military support from the territory of the former Russian Empire,
including Finland and tlie various Governments within that territory shall effect a
simultaneous reduction of armed forces according to a scheme of demobilization and
control to be agreed upon by the conference.
7. Any economic blockade imposed by one signatory as against another shall be
lifted and trade relations shall be established, subject to a program of equitable dis-
tribution of supplies and utilization of transport facilities to be agreed upon bv the
conference in consultation with representatives of those neutral States which are
prepared to assume the responsibility for the provisioning of Russia.
8. Provision shall be made by the conference for a mutual exchange of transit and
port privileges among the several signatories.
1266 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
9. The Governments which have been set up on the territorv of the former Rusbji:
Empire and Finland shall recognize their responsibility for the financial obligatic«
of the former Russian Einpire to foreign States parties to this agreement and to tbt
nationals of such States. Detailed ananffements for discharging these oblipttioos shil
be agreed upon by the conference, regara being had to the present financial aituitki
of Russia.
10. The conference shall be competent to discuss and determine any other nuttef
which bears upon the provisioning of Russia, the problem of establishing peace vithia
the territory of the former Russian Empire, including Finland, and the reestabM-
ment of international relations among the signatories.
Mr. Bullitt. I also prepared at the orders of Col. House-
Senator Knox. What attitude did you take toward the Nans^Q
proposal i
Mr. Bullitt. At first I opposed it. I was in favor of the original
plan.
Senator Knox. You were in favor of the original plan ?
1^. Bullitt. I was in favor of direct, straightforward action in the
matter. However, I found that there was no use in kicking against
the pricks^ that I was unable to persuade the commission that mv
point of view was the correct one. Therefore at the request of Col.
House I wrote out a reply to Dr. Nansen, in which I embodied a peace
proposal so that it woula have meant a peace conference via Nansea,
which was what was desired.
Senator Bbandegee. Was that letter delivered to Nansenf
Afr. Bullitt. No. I gave this reply of nifaie to CoL House. Col.
House read it and said he would approve it^ but that before he gare
it to the President and to Lloyd-George as his solution of the way to
deal with this Russian matter, he wished it considered by his inter-
national law experts; Mr. Auchincloss and Mr. Miller, and it was
thereupon turned over that afternoon to Mr. Auchincloss and Mr.
Miller. Does the Senator desire this document)
Senator Knox. I do not regard it as material. It was not accepted ?
Mr. Bullitt. It was not accepted. What happened in regard to
this was that Mr. Auchincloss and Mr. Miller, to correct its le^al
language, produced a proposition which was entirely different, which
left out ail possibility of the matter coming to a peace conference, and
was largely an offer to feed Russia provided Russia put aU her rail-
roads in the hands of the allied and associated Governments. I hare
that as well.
Senator Bbandbgee. Do you object to having that put in the
record, Senator Bjiox 1
Senator Khox. No.
Senator Brandegee. I would like to have that put in.
(The document referred to is here printod in full, as follows:)
Bullitt ExHiBrr No. 22.
(Auchincloss-MUler proposal.)
Draft of proposed letter to be signed by President Wilson and the prime mimsten oi
Great Britain, France, and Italy in rejjly to Mr. Nansen-s letter:
Dear Sir: The situation of misery and suffering in Russia which is described in
your letter of April 3 is one which appeals to the sympathies of all peoples of the worid.
Kegardless of political differences or shades of thougnt, the knowledge that thouniub
and perhaps millions of men, and above all of women and children lAck the food and
the necessities which make life endurable is one which is shocking to humanity.
The Governments and the peoples whom we represent, without thought of pohtioil.
military or financial advantage, would be glad to cooperate in any propoaJ which
TREATY OP PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1267
would relieve the existing situation in Russia. It seems to us that such a cominission
as you propose, purely humanitarian in its piu-pose, would o£fer a practical means of
carrying out the beneficient results which you have in view and could not either in
its conception or its operation be considered as having in view any other aim than
" the humanitarian purpose of saving life.''
It is true that there are great difficulties to be overcome, political difficultiee owing
to the existing situation in Russia, and difficulties of supply and transport. But u
the existing de facto governments of Russia are all willing as the Governments and
peoples whom we represent to see succor and relief given to the stricken peoples of
Russia, no political difficulties will remain as obstacles thereto.
There will remain, however, the difficulties of supply and transport which we have
mentioned and also the problem of distribution m Russia itself. The problem of
supply we can ourselves eafely hope to solve in connection with the advice and coop-
eration of such a commission as you propose. The problem of transport of supplies
to Russia we can hope to meet with the assistance of your own and other neutral
Governments.
The difficulties of transport in Russia can in large degree only be overcome in
Russia itself. So far as possible, we would endeavor to provide increased means of
transportation; but we would consider it essential in any such scheme of relief that
control of transportation in Russia, so ^ as was necessary in the distribution of relief
supplies, should be placed wholly under a such commission as is described in your
letter and should to the necessary extent be freed from any governmental or private
control whatsoever.
The real human element in the situation, even supposing all these difficulties to
be surmounted, is the problem of distribution, the problem of seeing that the food
reaches the starving, the medicines the sick, the clottdng the naked. Subject to the
supervision of such a commission, this is a problem whidi should be solely under the
control of the people of Russia themselves so far as it is humanly possible to put it under
their control. It is not a question of class or of race or of pohtics but a question of
human beings in need, and these human beings in each locality should be given, as
under the re^me of the Belgian relief commission, the fullest opportunity to advise
the commission upon the methods and the personnel by which their community is
to be relieved. Under no other circumstances could it be believed that the purpose
of this relief was humanitarian and not political, and still more important, imder
no other conditions could it be certain tbkt the hungry would be fed. That such a
course would involve cessation of hostilities by Russian troops would of course mean a
cessation of all hostilities on the Russian fronts. Indeed, relief to Russia which did
not mean a return to a state of peace would be futile, and would be impossible to
consider.
Under such conditions as we have outlined, we believe that your plan could be
successfully carried into effect and we should be prepared to give it our full support.
Senator Knox. What I am anxious to get at is to find out what
became of your report.
Senator Fall. I should like to know whether Col. House approved
Mr. Auchincloss's and Mr. Miller's report, or the report of the witness.
Mr. Bullitt. I should hke to have this clear, and if I can read
just this one pa^e I shall be greatly obliged. On this proposition 1
wrote the following memorandum to Mr. Auchincloss [reading]:
BuLUTT ExHiBrr No. 23.
April 4, 1919.
Memorandum for Mr. Auchincloss:
Dear Gordon: I have studied carefully the draft of the reply to Dr. Nansen which
you have prepared. In spirit and substance ^rour letter differs so radically from the
reply which I consider essential that I find it difficult to make any constructive
cnticifim. And I shall refrain from criticizing your rhetoric.
There are two proposals in your letter, however, which are obviously unfair and
will not, I am certain^ be accepted by the soviet government.
1. The life of Russia depends upon its railroads; and vour demand for control of
transportation by the commission can hardly be accepted by the soviet government
which knows that plots for the destruction of railroad bridges were hatched in the
American consulate in Moscow. You are asking the soviet government to put its
head in the lion's mouth. It will not accept. lou must moderate your phiuses.
2. When you speak of the '^ cessation of hostilities by Russian troops, " you fail to
.ipeak of hostilities by troops of the allied and associated Governments, a number of
1268 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
whom, you may recall, have invaded Russia. Furthermore, your phrase does not
cover Finns, Esthonians, Letts, Poles, etc. In addition, you say absolutely nothing
about the withdrawal of the troops of the allied and associated Governments from Ru**-
sian territory. And, most important, you fail to say that troops and military supplie:*
will cease to be sent into the territory of the former Russian Empire. Yoii thereby
go a long wav toward proving Trotsky's thesis: That any armistice will simply be
used by the Allies as a period m which to supply tanks, aeroplanes, gas shells, liquid
fire, etc., to the various antisoviet governments. As it stands, your armifitice proposal
is absolutely unfair, and I am sure that it will not be accepted by the soviet govern-
ment.
Very respectfully, yours,
William G. BuLLnT.
Senator New. Otherwise you had no fault to find with it ?
Mr. BuuLiTT. Yes. The morning after Col. House had told me he
wished to submit this proposition to his international law experts, I
came as usual to his office about 9.40, and Mr. Audiindoss was on his
way to the President with his proposal, the Auchincloss-Miller pro-
posal; as Col. House's proposal. But I got that stopped. I went in
to Col. House, and Col. House told Mr. Auchincloss not to take it
up to the President, and asked me if I could doctor up the reply of
Mr, Auchincloss and Mr. Miller to the Nansen letter so that it irjght
possibly be acceptable to the soviet government. I thereupon
rewrote the Auchmcloss-Miller letter, but I was forced to stick very
closely to the text. I was told that I could cut things out if I wished
to, but to stick very closely to the text, which I aid. I drew this
redraft of their letter, unaer protest at the whole business. My
redraft of their letter was finally the basis of the reply of the four t^
Nansen. I have both these documents here, my reply — and the
four took that reply— and with the changes
The Chaikman. What four — the successors of the ten?
ifr. Bullitt. The successors of the 10, sir, took the reply
The Chairman. Who were the four at that moment ?
Mr. Bullitt. M. Orlando, Mr. Uoyd-Geor^, M. Clemenceau, and
the President. This extremely mild proposition, which really had
almost no chance of life, was, you wiU see, in no sense a reply to these
proposals of the soviet government. This is my attempt to doctor
up the Auchincloss-Miller proposition. In spite of every effort I
could make to obtain definite action on it, the reply was made to
me that this reply to the Nansen proposal would be a sufficient
reply to that proposal of the soviet government. [Reading:]
Bullitt ExmBir No. 24.
Dear Sir: The misery and suffering in RusBia described in your letter of April 3
appeals to the sympatmes of all peoples. It is shocking to humanity that mi&ione
01 men, women, and children laclc tne food and the necessities, which make life
endurable.
The Governments and peoples whom we represent would be glad to cooperate,
without thought of political, military, or financial advantage, in any proposal which
would relieve this situation in Russia. It seems to us that such a commission as you
propose would offer a practical means of achieving the beneficent results you have in
view, and could not, either in its conception or its operation, be considered as having
any other aim than the "humanitarian purpose of saving Ufe."
There are great difficulties to be overcome, political difficulties, owinje: to the enasft-
ing situation in Russia, and difficulties of supply and transport. But if the existing
local governments of Russia are as willing as the Governments and the peoples wiiom
we represent to see succor and relief given to the stricken peoples of Russia, no political
obstacle will remain. There will remain, however, the difficulties of supply and
transport, which we have mentioned, and also the problem of distribution in Ruttda
itself. The problem of supply we can ourselves hope to solve, in connection with the
advice and cooperation of such a commission as you propose. The problem of ^
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1269
port of supplies to Russia we can hope to meet with the assistance of your own and
other neutral Governments. The problem of transport in Russia and of distribution
can be solved onlv by the people of Russia themselves, with the aasistance, advice,
and sujpervision of your commission.
Subiect to such supervision, the problem of distribution should be solely under the
control of the people of Russia themselves. The people in each locality should be
given, as under the regime of the Belgian Relief Commission, the fullest opportunity
to advise your commission upon the methods and the personnel by which tneir com-
munity is to be relieved. In no other circumstances could it be believed that the pur-
pose of this relief was humanitarian, and not political, under no other conditions
could it be certain that the hungry would be fea.
That such a course would involve cessation of all hostilities within the territory
of the former Russian Empire is obvious. And the cessation of hostilities would,
necesMirily, involve a complete suspension of the transfer of troops and militarv
niaterial of all sorts to and within these territories. Indeed, relief to Russia which
did not mean a return to a state of peace would be futile, and would be impossible to
consider.
Under such conditions as we have outlined we believe that your plan could be
successfully carried into effect, and we should be prepared to give it our full support.
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 25.
REPLT OF PRESIDENT WILSON, PREMIERS CLEHBNCEAU, LLOYD-GEORGE, AND ORLANDO,
TO DR. NAN8BN, APRIL 17, 1919.
Dear Sir: The misery and sufferin<2: in Russia described in your letter of April 3
apx)eals to the sympathies of all peoples. It is shocking to humanity that millions of
men, women, and cnildren lack the food and the necessities which make life endurable.
The Governments and peoples whom we represent would be glad to cooperate,
without thought of political, military, or financial advantage, in any proposal which
would relieve this situation in Russia. It seems to us that such a commission as you
propose would offer a practical means of achieving the beneficent results you have in
view, and could not, either in its conception or its operation, be considered as having
any other aim that the '* humanitarian purpose of saving life."
There are great difficulties to be overcome, political difiiculties, owing to the exist-
ing situation in Russia, and difficulties of supply and transport. But ii the existing
local governments of Russia are as willing as the Governments and people whom we
represent to see succor and relief given to the stricken peoples of Russia, no political
obstacle will remain.
There will remain, however, the difficulties of supply, finance, and transport which
we have mentioned, and also the problem of distribution in Russia itself. The prob-
lem of supply we can ourselves nope to solve, in connection with the advice and
cooperation of such a commission as you pTox>06e. The problem of finance would
seem to us to fall upon the Russian authorities. The problem of transport of supplies
to Russia we can hope to meet with the assistance of your own ana other neutral
governments whose interests should be as great as our own and whose losses have been
far less. The problems of transport in Russia and of distribution can be solved only
by the people of Russia themselves, with the assistance, advice, and supervision of
your commission.
Subiect to your supervision, the problem of distribution should be solely under the
control of the people of Russia themselves. The people in each locality should be
given, as under the regime of the Belgian Relief Commission, the fullest opportunity
to advise your commission upon the methods and the personnel by which tneir com-
munity is to be relieved. In no other circumstances could it be believed that the
purpose of this relief was hiunanitarian, and not political; under no other condition
could it be certain that the hungry would be fed.
That such a course would involve cessation of all hostilities within definitive lines
in the territory of Russia is obvious. And the cessation of hostilities would, neces-
sarily, involve a complete suspension of the transfer of troops and military material
of all sorts to and witnin Russian territory. Indeed, relief to Russia which did not
mean a return to a state of pecae would be futile and would be impossible to consider.
Under such conditions as we have outlined, we believe that your plan could be
succefflfully carried into effect, and we should be prepared to give it our full support.
V. E. Orlando.
D. Lloyd George.
Woodrow Wilson.
G. Clemenceau.
137739— Id— VOL 2 8
1270 TREATY OF PEACE WITH 6EBMAKT.
Senator Knox. I want the reply of Auchincloss to Nansen to go
into the record.
The CHAiRifAN. Let all that correspondence be printed in the
record.
Senator Knox. Dr. Nansen's proposition, and then the reply.
(The letters referred to are inserted above.)
Mr. Bullitt. The Nansen letter was written in Mr. HooverV
office. Nansen made the proposition. I wrote the original of i
reply to Dr. Nansen, which I believe woidd have led to peace. Col
House indicated his approval of it, but wished to have it considered
from the international leeal standpoint, which was then done by
Mr. Auchincloss and Mr. Miller, who proposed a reply that had no
resemblance to my proposal. I then objected to that as it was on
its way to the President. It was not sent to the President, and I
was ordered to try to doctor it up. I attempted to doctor it up and
produced a doctored version which was finally made the basis of
the reply, with the change of two or three words which made ii
even worse and even more indefinite, so that the soviet government
coidd not possibly conceive it as a genuine peace proposition. It
left the whole thingin the air.
Senator Knox. We woidd like to have you see that these docu-
ments to which you have just now referred are inserted in the record
in the sequence m which you have named them.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, I snaU be at the service of the committee in
that regard.
Senator Harding. Lest I missed something while I was out of the
room I am exceedingly curious to know why the soviet proposal vas
not given favorable consideration.
Senator E^nox. Mr. Bullitt has stated that.
Mr. Bullitt. The principal reason was entirely different. The fact
was that just at this moment, when this proposal was under con-
sideration, Kolchak made a 100-mile advance. There was a revolt
of peasants in a district of Russia which entirely cut off suppUes
from the Bolshevik army operating against Kolchak. Kolchak made
a 100-mile advance, and immediately the entire press of Paris was
roaring and screaming on the subject, announcmg that Kolchak
would be in Moscow within two weeks; and thereiore everyone in
Paris, including, I regret to say members of the American commission,
began to grow vfery lukewarm about peace in Russia, because they
thought Kolchak would aitive in Moscow and wipe out the soviet
government.
Senator Knox. And the proposal which you brought back from
Russia, that is the soviet proposal, was abandoned and dropped,
after this last document to whicn you have just referred was the best.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes; it was. May I say this, that April 10 was the
final date when their proposition was open. I had attempted even-
day and almost every night to obtain a reply to it. I finally request eil
the commission to send the following telegram to Tchitcherin.
I proposed to send this telegram to the American consul at
Helsmgfors [Reading] .
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1271
Buu^iTT Exhibit No. 26.
April 10, 1919.
American Consul, HeUingfon:
minister
food relief via neutrals likely
Admission.
The commission considered that matter, and this is the official
minute of their meeting [reading] :
BuLUTT Exhibit No. 27.
American Mission to Negotiatb Peace,
rNo. 211.1 April 10, 1919,
To: The uommiasionerB, for action.
Subject: Telegram to Tchitcherin.
StaUmeat, — ^Action \>y the council of four on the reply to Mr. Nansen was prevented
yesterday by French objection to a minor clause in the President 's letter. It is hoped
that agreement in this matter may be reached to-day or to-morrow, but it is quite
poBsible that a^eement may not be reached for several days.
To-day, April 10, the pledge of the soviet ^vemment to accept a proposal of the
sort outlined in its statement of March 14 expires. No indication has been given the
soviet gfbvemment that its statement was ever placed before the conference of Paris
or that any change of policy in r^;ard to Russia is contemplated. In view of the
importance which the soviet government placed upon its statement, I fear that this
silence and the passing of April 10 will be interpreted as a definite rejection of the
peace effort of the soviet government and that the soviet government will at once issue
belligerent political statements and orders for attacks on all fronts, including Bessarabia
and Archangel. It is certain that if the soviet troops should enter Bessarabia or should
overcome the allied forces at Archangel, the difficulty of putting through the policy
which is likely to be adopted within the next few days would be greatly increased.
I feel that if the appended tel^ram should be sent at once to Tclutcherin, no laige
offensive movements by the soviet armies would be undertaken for another week, and
no provocative political statements would be issued.
i therefore respectfully suggest that the appended telegram should be sent at once.
Respectfully submitted .
William C. Bullitt.
April 10, 1919.
At the meeting of the commissioners this morning the above memorandum was read
in which Mr. Bullitt reouested that a telegram be sent to the American consul at
Helsingfors, instructing tne latter to send a message through reliable sources to Tchit-
cherin respecting Mr. Lansing's contemplated scheme for relief in Russia. After some
discussion the commissioners redrafted the telegram in question to read as follows:
' ' Please send Kock or other reliable person immediately to Petropad to Schklovsky ,
minister of fored^ affairs, with following message for Tchitdienn, sent on my per-
sonal responsibility. * Individuals of neutral States are considering oreanization for
feeding Russia. Will perhaps decide something definite within a week.' — Bullitt. "
Grristlan a. Herter,
Asmtant to Mr. WhiU,
I believe that tele^am was dispatched. I do not know.
Senator Knox. Mr. Bullitt, I want to ask you a question. You have
told us that you went to Russia with instructions from the Secretary
of State, Mr. Lansing, with a definition of the American policy by
Mr. House, with the approval of Lloyd-George, who approved of your
mission, oi the purposes for which you were being sent. Now, tell
us whether or not to your knowledge your report and the proposal of
the soviet government was ever formally taken up by the peace
conference and acted on?
Mr. Bullitt. It was never formally laid before the peace con-
ference, which I believe met only six times during the course of the
entire proceedings of what is called the peace conference.
1272 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMAIirr.
Senator Knox. Did not Mr. Lloyd-Greorge in a speech to Parlia-
ment assert that he had never received the proposal with which you
returned from Russia? Have you a copy or his speech?
Mr. Bullitt. About a week after I had nanded to Mr. Lloyd-George
the official proposal, with my own hands, in the presence of three
other persons, he made a speech before the British Parliament, and
gave the British people to understand that he Imew nothing whatever
about anv such proposition. It was a most egregious case of mis-
leading the public, perhaps the boldest that I have ever known in
my life. On the occasion of that statement of Mr. Lloyd-George, 1
wrote the President. I clipped his statement from a newspaper and
sent it to the President, and I asked the President to inform me
whether the statement of Mr. Lloyd-George was true or imtrue. He
was unable to answer, inasmuch as he would have had to reply on
paper that Mr. Lloyd-George had made an untrue statement. Sc»
nagrant was this that various members of the British mission called
on me at the Crillon, a day or so later, and apologized for the Prime
Minister's action in the case.
Senator Knox. Have you a copy of Lloyd-George's remarks in the
Parliament ?
Mr. Bullitt. I have a copy.
Senator Knox. Suppose you read it?
Mr. Bullitt. It is as follows :
Mr. Glynbs. Before the right honorable gentleman comes to the next subject, can
he make any statement on mo approaches or representations alleged to have been
made to his Government by persons acting on behalf of such govemment as there is
in Central Russia?
Mr. Llotd-Georoe. We have had no approaches at all except what have appeared
in iJie papers.
Mr. Oltnes. I ask ihe question because it has been repeatedly alleged.
Mr. Llotd-Georoe. We have had no approaches at all. Constantly there are
men coming and going to Russia of all nationalities, and they always come back with
their tales of Russia. But we have made no approach of any sort.
I have only heard reports of others having proposals which they assume have
come from authentic quarters, but these have never been put before the peace con-
ference by any member, and therefore we have not considered them.
I think I know what my right honorable friend ref era to. There was some suggestion
that a young American had come back from Russia with a communication. It is
not for me to judge the value of this communication, but if the President of the United
States had attached any value to it he would have brought it before ihe conference,
and he certainly did not.
It was explained to me by the members of the British delegation
who called on me, that the reason for this deception was that altliou^h
when Lloyd-Georee got back to London he intended to make a state-
ment very favorable to peace with Russia, he found that Lord North-
clifFe, acting through Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times,
and Mr. Winston CSiurchill, British secretary for war, had riffled the
conservative majority of the House of Commons against lum, and
that thev were ready to slay him then and there if he attempted to
speak what was his own opinion at the moment on Russian policies.
Senator Knox. Mr. Bullitt, you resigned your relations with the
State Department and the public service, did you not?
Mr. Bullitt. I did, sir.
Senator Knox. When ?
Mr. Bullitt. I resigned on May 1 7.
Senator Knox. F'or what reason?
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1273
Mr. Bullitt. Well, I can explain that perhaps more briefly than
in any other way by reading my letter of resignation to the President,
which is brief.
Senator Knox. Very well, we would like to hear it.
The Chairman. Before tnat letter is read, you did not see the
President and had no knowledge of his attitude in regard to your
report ?
Air. Bullitt. None whatever, except as it was reported to me by
Col. House. Col. House, as I said before, reported to me that he
thought in the first place that the President favored the peace
proposal^ in the second place, that the President could not turn his
mind to it, because he was too occupied with Germany, and finally —
well, really, I have no idea what was in the President's mind.
Senator Knox. There never was another effort to secure an
audience with the President for you after those first two that you say
Col. House made?
llr. Bullitt. No; not at all. Meetings with the President were
always arranged throu<2:h Col. House.
In" my letter of resignation to the President, which was dated
May 17,"^ 1919, I said:
Bullitt Exhibit No. 28.
May 17, 1919.
My Dear Mr. President: I have eubmitted to-day to the Secretary of State my
resignation as an assistant in the Department of State, attach^ to the American com-
mission to negotiate peace. I was one of the millions who trusted confidently and
implicitly in your leaidership and believed that you would take nothing less than ' 'a
permanent peace" baaed upon ' 'unselfish and unbiased justice." But our Govern-
ment has consented now to deliver the suffering peoples of the world to new oppres-
sions, subjections, and dismemberments — a new century of war. And I can convince
myself no longer that effective labor for "a new world order" is possible as a servant
of this Government.
Russia, ''the acid test of good will," for me as for you, has not even been imder-
stood. Unjust decisions of the conference in regard to Shantung, the Tyrol, Thrace,
Hungary, Last Prussia, Danzig, the Saar Valley, and the abandonment of the principle
of the freiedom of the seas make new international conflicts certain. It is my convic-
tion that the present league of nations will be powerless to prevent these wars, and
that the United States will be involved in them by the obligations undertaken in
the covenant of the league and in the special understanding with France. There-
fore the duty of the Government of the United States to its own people and to man-
kind is to refuse to sign or ratify this imjust treaty, to refxise to euarantee its settle-
ments by entering the l^^e of nations, to refuse to entangle the United States further
by the understanding wiw France.
That you personally opposed most of the unjust settlements, and that you accepted
them only under great pressure, is well known. Nevertheless, it is my conviction
that if you had made your fight in the open, instead of behind closed doors, you would
have carried with you the public opinion of the world, which was yours; you would
have been able to resLst the pressure and might have established the ''new inter-
national order based upon broad and universal principles of right and justice" of
which you used to speak. I am sorry that you aid not fight our fight to the finish
and that you had so little faith in the millions of men, like myself, in every nation
who had faith in you.
Very sincerely, yours,
William G. Bulutt.
To the honorable Woodrow Wilson,
President of the United States.
Senator Knox. Did you ever get a reply to that letter?
Mr. Bullitt. I did not, sir. The only intimation I had in regard
to it was that Mr. Close, secretary of the President, with whom I
was lunching, said to me that the President had read my letter and
1274 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMAKT.
had said that he would not reply. In connection with that I wrote
Col. House a letter at the same time as follows:
Bullitt Exhibit No. 29.
Mat 17, 1919.
Mt Dear Col. House: Since you kindlv lent me the text of the propooed treatv-
of peace, I have tried to convince rnvBelf that some good might come of it and th*t 1
ought to remain in the service of the Department of State to labor for its efltabUshment.
It 18 with sincere regret that I have come to liie conviction that no good ever will
issue from a thing so evil and that those who care about a permanent peace should
oppose the signature and ratification of it, and of the special understanding with
franco.
I have therefore submitted my resignation to the Secretary of State and have
written the appended note to the President. I hope you will bring it to his attention :
not because he will care what I may think, but because I have expressed the tbougfatg
which are in the minds of many young and old men in the commission — thoughts
which the President will have to reckon with when the world begins to reap the
crop of wars the seeds of which have here been sown.
1 feel sure that you will agree that I am right in acting on my conviction and I
hope that this action will in no way affect the relationship between us which hag
id ways been so delightful and stimulating to me.
With my sincerest personal regards, I am,
Very respectfully, yours,
William C. Bulutt.
To the honorable Edward M. House,
Hotel CrilUm, Paris.
Senator Knox. Didyou get a reply to that ?
Mr. Bullitt. Col. House sent for me, and after that we had a
conversation. That was the only reply that I had. I had a con-
versation with Col. House on the whole matter, and we thrashed it
all out.
Senator Knox. Was anything; said during this conversation which
you feel willing or disposed to t3l us, which will be important ?
Mr. Bullitt. I made a record of the conversation. Inasmuch
as the conversations which I had with various members of the com-
mission on the occasion of my resignation touched on a number of
important issues, I kept a record of those conversations, that is.
those I had at the time when I resigned. They are the only con-
versations of which I made records, and I made them simply because
we did deal more or less with the entire question of the peace treaty.
On the other hand, they are personal convereations, and 1 hesitate to
repeat them, unless the committee considers it particularly important.
Senator Knox. I would not press you on the personal conversa-
tions which you had with Col. House after you resigned. I leave the
matter to your own judgment. I wondered whether there might hare
been something which transpired which you would care to tell us;
but I withdraw that suggestion. I should like to ask you this one
question: I suppose yotu* letter of resignation to Mr. Lansing was
merely formal?
Mr. Bullitt. My letter of resignation to Mr. Lansing was a formal
letter.
Senator Knox. You certainly got a reply to that.
Mi. Bullitt. I did, sir. I wrote a formal letter and I got a formal
reply, and the Secretary sent for me the same afternoon and ex-
Elained that he only sent me a formal reply because it was necessarr,
ecause of the form in which I had put my resignation, and particu-
larly because I had appended to my note my letter to the President.
We then discussed various other matters in connection with the treaty.
The CHAffiMAN. Are you through ?
TBEATY OF PEAOB WITH GEBBCAlTSr. 1276
Senator Knox. Yes.
The Chaibman. Mr. Bullitt, you put into the record or read here,
I think, some extracts from the minutes of the Council of Ten?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
The Chaibman. Were you present at any of these meetings ?
Mr. BuLUTT. I was not, sir.
The Chairman. The Council of Ten was the first body that was
dealing with the treaty generally, the important body ? It was not
a special commission ?
Mr. BuLUTT. No. sir. It was the main body of the conference.
The Chairman. Yes; it was the main body, and was the one that
-subsequently became the Council of Five, and then the Council of
Four, and I think at one time a Coimcil oi Three ?
Mr. BuLLirr. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, now, there were records of these meetings,
were there not?
Mr. BuLUTT. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Do you know what disposition was made of those
records ?
Mr. Bullitt. Mr. Chairman, there were a niunber of copies for
each delegation, and I presiune that there must be a number of copies
in this coimtry at the present time; perhaps not.
The Chairman. You say each delegate nad a copy?
Mr. Bullitt. Each plenipotentiary had a copy, and the Secretary
of the American Commission had a copy, I believe, and the assistant
secretaries had copies; certainly one oi the assistant secretaries, Mr.
Leland Harrison; and Mr. Grew had a copy.
The Chairman. Did Mr. Lansing have copies while he served on
the Council of Ten ?
Mr. BuLLm. Yes, sir; well, I am quite sure that he did. I am
sure that I have seen copies on the desk of the Secretary.
The Chairman. Well, they were furnished regulany to every
member of the conference^
Mr. BuLLrrr. Yes.
The Chairman. We have found some difficulty in getting them;
that is the reason I asked.
Senator Ei^ox. I am informed — perhaps Mr. Bullitt can tell us —
that there is a complete set of minutes in tne hands of some individual
in this coimtry. Do you know anything about that — perhaps
Auchincloss & Miller.?
Mr. Bullitt. I could not be certain in regard to the matter, but I
should certainly be under the impression that Mr. Auchincloss and
Mr. Miller have copies of the minutes; perhaps not. Perhaps Mr.
Auchincloss has left his with Col. House. He would have Col. House's
copies. Perhaps they are in this country, perhaps not. But Mr.
Auchincloss and Mr. Miller perhaps have those minutes in their files.
The Chairman. Undoubtedly there are a number, at least, of those
records in existence.
Mr. Bullitt. Certainly, sir.
The Chairman. That must be the case.
Mr. Bullitt. Certainly, sir. Also records of the meetings of the
American Commission.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know whether or not they are in the
State Department — any of these minutes or records in our State
Department ?
1276 TREATY OF PBAOE WITH OEEMAKY.
Mr. Bullitt. I should presume that in the normal course of events
they would be certainly among Mr. Lansing's papers, which were
veiy carefully kept. Hjg had an excellent secretariat.
The Chairman. Did any member of our delegation, any member o\
the council of 10, express to you any opinions about the general
character of this treaty ?
Mr. Bullitt. Well, Mr. Lansing, Col. House, Gen. Bliss, and Mr.
White had all expressed to me very vigorously their opinions on the
subject.
The Chairman. Were they enthusiastically in favor of it ?
Mr. Bullitt. I regret to say, not.
As I say, the only documents of the sort that I have are the memo-
randa of the discussions that I had after I resigned, when we thrashed
over the whole ground.
The Chairman. Those memoranda of consultations that you had
after you resigned you prefer not to publish? I am not asking you to
do so.
Mr. Bullitt. I think it would be out of the way.
The Chairman. I quite understand your position. I only wanted
to know— I thought it might be proper for you to say whether or not
their opinions wnich you iieard them express were favorable to the
series of arrangements, I would call them, that were made for the
consideration of this treaty. .
Mr. Bullitt. It is no secret that Mr. Lansing, Gen. Bliss, and Mr.
Henry White objected very vigorously to the numerous provisions of
the treaty.
The Chairman. It is known that they objected to Shantung. That ,
I think, is public information. I do not know that it is public infor-
mation that they objected to anything else.
Mr. BuLUTT. I do not think that Secretary Lansing is at all en-
thusiastic about the league of nations as it stands at present. I have
a note of a conversation with him on the subject, whicn, if I may, I will
i'ust read, without going into the rest of that conversation, because it
)ears directly on the issue involved.
This was a conversation with the Secretary of State at 2.30 on
Mav 19. The Secretary sent for me. It was a long conversation^
ana Mr. Lansing in the course of it said :
Mr. Lansing then said that he personally would have strengthened ^"eatly the
judicial clauses of the league of nations covenant, making arbitration compuUorv. He
also said that he was absolutely opposed to the United States taking a numaate in
either Armenia or Constantinople; that he thought that Constantinople should be
placed under a local government, the chief members of which were appointed by an
international committee.
This is a matter, it seems to me, of some importance in regard to the
whole discussion, and therefore I feel at liberty to read it, as it is not
a personal matter.
The Chairman. This is a note of the conversation made at the
time?
Mr. Bullitt. This is a note which I immediately dictated after
the conversation. [Reading :]
Mr. I^nsing then said that he, too, considered many parts of the treaty thoroughly
bad, particularly those dealing with Shantung and the lei^fue of nations. He said:
'* I consider that the league of nations at present is entirely useless. Thegreat powers
have simply gone ahea<l and arranged the world to suit themselves. England and
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1277
France in particular have gotten out of the treaty everything that they wanted, and the
league of nations can do nothing to alter any of the unjust clauses of the treaty except
by unanimous consent of the members of the league, and the great powers will never
give their consent to changes in the interests of weaker peoples.'*
We then talked about the possibility of ratification by the Senate. Mr. Lansing
said: " I believe that if the Senate could only understand what this treaty means, and
if the American people could really understand, it would unquestionably be defeate<l,
but I wonder if they will ever understand what it lets them in for." He expressed
the opinion that Mr. Knox would probably really understand the treaty —
[Laughter.]
May 1 reread it?
He expressed the opinion that Mr. Knox would probably really understand the
treaty, and that Mr. Lodge would; but that Mr. Lodge's position would become purely
political, and therefore ineffective.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I do not mind.
Mr. BuLUTT (reading):
He thought, however, that Mr. Knox might instruct America in the real meaning
of it.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. He has made some very valuable efforts in the
direction.
Mr. Bullitt. I beg to be excused from reading any more of these
conversations.
Senator Brandeoee. We get the drift.
[Laughter.]
I want to ask one or two questions.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you read any of these minutes of the
meetings of the American commission ?
Mr. Bullitt. Of the American commission itself ?
Senator Brandeoee. Yes.
Mr, Bullitt. No, sir. I have on one or two occasions glanced at
them but I never have read them carefully.
Senator Brandeoee. They were accessible to you at the time,
were they ?
Mr. Bullitt. They were, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. You stated, if I recall your testimony cor-
rectly, that when the proposition was made that the legislative
bodies of the contracting parties should have representation in the
assembly, the President objected to that ?
Mr. Bullitt. The President — if I may explain again — approved
in principle, but said that he did not see how the thing coidd be
worked out, and he felt that the assembly of delegates, or whatever
it is called in the present draft, gave sufficient representation to the
peoples of the various countries.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know what his objection was to the
legislative bodies of the contracting parties having representation on
the assembly ?
Mr. Bullitt. The President believed, I think — in fact, it was so
stated to me by Col. House, who discussed the matter wil'i me — that
it woidd make too imwieldy a central organ for the league.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you understand why it would be any
more unwieldy if Congress should appoint the delegates than if the
President should ?
1278 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
Mr. Bullitt. It would necessitate a larger central body if repre-
sentation was to be given to the important political parties of the
various countries. It would have necessitated a body of, say, 10
representatives from the United States — 5 from the Republican
party and 5 from the Democratic Party, in the assembly of the league,
whicn would become a large body.
Senator Brandeoee. The idea was that the political parties of the
country should be represented ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, the political viewpoints should be represented
so that you would get some connection between the central assembly
of the league and tne true opinion of the countries.
Senator Brandeoee. When you went across to Paris on the
George Washington with the President do you hiow whether he had
with him at that time any draft for a league of nations or any memo-
randum that he showed to you or discussed with you ?
Mr. BuLUTT. The President outlined to several of us one evening,
or rather one afternoon, the conception he had at the time of the
league of nations. I did not see anv formal draft that he had, but
the President made a statement before the council of 10, in one of
these minutes from which I have been reading, stating that he had
first — and in fact I think I know it from other sources — that he had
first received the Phillimore report, that then it had been rewritten
by Col. House and that he had rewritten Col. House's report, and
after he had discussed his rewriting with ^Robert Cecil and Gen.
Smuts, he had rewritten it again.
Senator Brandeoee. You stated substantially that the only part
of the league draft which was laid before the Peace Conference wnich
the President had his way about, was Article 10. Did you mAke
some such statement as that ?
Mr. Bullitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. The President stated to us that that was
practically what he had submitted to the Niagara conference here
when the ABC powers from South America were discussing the
Mexican question. He had then considered it as an article for
American use on this continent.
Do you know what the attitude of Gen. Smuts was as to article 10
as proposed by the President?
Mr. JBullitt. I do not, sir. Agaiu, full minutes of the discussions
and conclusions reached of all these meetings of the committee on the
league of nations were kept.
Senator Brandeoee. Did you read the various other plans that
were proposed or suggested over there for a league of nations ?
Mr. Bullitt. I have read some of them, sir.
Senator Brandeoee. Did the others have anything similar to
what is now article 10 in the treaty pending in the Senate?
Mr. Bullitt. I really can not say. I am sorry, but I have for-
gotten. I should not care to testify on that.
Senator Brandeoee. Do you know from what vou heard while
you were there in your official capacity whether the other nations
Were anxious to have article 10 in the covenant for the league?
Mr. Bullitt. The French were not only anxious for it, but I
beUeve were anxious greatlv to strengthen it. They desired imme-
diately a league army to be established, and I believe also to be
TREATY OF FBAOE WITH GERMANY. 1279
stationed in Alsace-Lorraine and along the Rhine, in addition to
article 10. I can not say for certain arout the others.
The Chaikmax. Mr. Bullitt, we had before us at one of our hearings
a representative of the Egyptian people. Do you know anything
about that, when it was done, or any discussions about it? 1 mean
the clauses that appear in regard to the British protectorate.
Mr. Bullitt. You mean our agreement to recognize the British
protectorate in Egjpt ?
The Chairman. It was recognized by this treaty in those clauses.
Mr. Bullitt. Yes- but we gave a sort of assent before the treaty
formally came out, did we not? I recall the morning it was done.
It was nandled by Sir William Wiseman, who was the confidential
representative that Uoyd George and Balfour had constantly with
Col. House and the President. He was a sort of extra confidential
foreign office. It was all done, if I recall his statement correctly, in
the course of one morning. The President was informed that the
Egyptian nationalists were usine his 14 points as meaning that the
President thought that Egypt snould have the right to control her
own destinies, and therefore nave independence, and that they were
using this to foment revolution; that since the President had pro-
voked this trouble by the 14 points, they thought that he should
aUay it by the statement that we would recognize the British pro-
tectorate, and as I remember Sir William Wiseman's statement to
me that morning, he said that he had only brought up the matter
that morning and that he had got our recognition ot the British
protectorate Defore luncheon.
The Chaibman. The President made some public statement ?
Mr. Bullitt. I am not certain in regard to the further develop-
ments of it. I recall that incident, that it was arranged through Sir
Wilham Wiseman, and that it took only a few minutes.
Senator Knox. That was a good deal of time to devote to a little
country like Egypt.
Mr. BuLLirr. I do not know. You should know, sir, you have
been Secretary of State.
Senator E[nox. We never chewed them up that fast.
Senator New. Mr. Bullitt, what, if anything, was said with
reference to the Irish question, with which you are familiar ?
Mr. Blxlitt. At the conference? I do not believe the Irish
question was ever brought up before the conference or discussed.
There was considerable said on the side, attempts to let down the
Walsh mission easily without antagonizing the Irish vote in this
country. [Lauffhter.] I think that is the only consideration that
Ireland receivea.
Senator New. There was a cheerful willingness to do that, was
there not ?
Mr. Bullitt. I think so.
The Chairman. Is there anything fui^ther that anybody desires to
ask Mr. Bullitt? We are very much obhged to you indeed, Mr.
Bullitt.
Mr. Bullitt. Mr. Chairman, if I may just say — I do not know
whether it is a matter of first interest to the Senatora or not — ^but
on this trip with me to Russia there was Capt. Pettit, and at the
same time the journalist, Lincoln Steffens^ and I have documents
which they prepared and which might be of interest to the committee.
1280 TREATY OF PBAOE WITH GBRMAlSrY.
The Chairman. If you will hand those to the stenographer, we
will print them with your testimony.
Senator Knox. What are your plans, Mr. Bullitt ? What are you
going to do in this coimtry now ?
Mr. Bullitt. I expect to return to Maine and fish for trout, where
I was when I was summoned by the committee.
Senator Brandeoee. Did Mr. Steffens go to Russia with you t
Mr. Bullitt. He did.
The Chairman. He held no oflficial position ?
Mr. Bullitt. No.
Senator Brandeoee. Who advised him to go ?
Mr. Bullitt. I did.
Senator Brandeoee. Is he in the country now ?
Mr. Bullitt. I do not believe so. I believe he is still in Europe.
(By order of the committee the report of Lincoln Steffens referred
to is here printed in full in the record, as follows:)
BuUiiTT Exhibit No. 30.
April 2. 1919.
report of lincoln steffens.
Politically, Russia has reached a state of equilibrium; internally; for the jae^em
at least.
I think the revolution there is ended; that it has run its course. There will be
changes. There may be advances; there will surely be reactions, but these will b*-
regular, I think; politically and economic, but parliamentary. A new center of
gravity seems to have been found.
Certainly, the destructive phase of the revolution in Russia is over. Constructive
work has begun.
We saw this evervwhere. And we saw order, and though we inauired for them,
we heard of no disorders. Prohibition is universal and absolute. Robberies have beer,
reduced in Petrograd below normal of large cities. Warned against danger befoiv^
we went in, we felt safe. Prostitution has disappeared with its clientele, who have
been driven out by the "no- work-no-food law," enforced by the general want and the
labor-card system. Loafing on the job by workers and sabotage by upper-class dire-t-
ors, managers, experts and clerks have been overcome. Russia has settled down to
work.
The soviet form of government, which sprang up so spontaneously all over Russia.
is established.
This is not a paper thing; not an invention. Never planned, it has not j^et been
written into the forms of law. It is not even uniform. It is full of faults and diffi-
culties; clumsy, and in its final development it is not democratic. The present
Russian Government is the most autocratic government I have ever seen. Lenin,
head of the soviet government, is farther removed from the people than the Ti»r
was, or than an^ actual ruler in Europe is.
The people in a shop or an industry are a soviet. These little informal soviet?
elect a local soviet; which elects delegates to the city or country (community) soviet:
which elects delesates to the government (State^ soviet. The government 80\-ietd
together elect delegates to the All-Russian Soviet, which elects commissionaires
(ymo correspond to our Cabinet, ot to a European minority). And these commis-
sionaires finally elect Lenin. He is thus five or six removes from the people. To
form an idea of his stability, independence, and power, think of the process that would
have to be gone through with by the ]>eople to remove him and elect a successor.
A majority of all tibe Soviets in all Russia would have to be changed in personnel or
opinion, recalled, or brought somehow to recognize and represent the altered will of
the people.
No student of government likes the soviet as it has developed. Lenin himself
doesn't. He calls it a dictorship, and he opposed it at first. When I was in Russii
in the days of Milyoukov and Kerensky, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were demanding
the general election of the constituent assembly. But the Soviets existed then; they
had the power, and I saw foreign ambassadors blunder, and the world saw Milyoukov
TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMANY. 1281
sjid Kerensky fall, partly because they would not, or could not, comprehend the
nature of the soviet; as Lenin did finally, when, against his theory, he joined in and
expressed the popular repudiation of the constituent assembly and went over to
ifv^ork with the soviet, the actual power in Russia. The constituent assembly,
elected by the people, represented tne upper class and the old system. The soviet
'was the lower class.
The soviet, at bottom, is a natural ^thering of the working people, or peasants, in
their working and accustomed groupings, instead of, as with us, by artificial geo-
graphical sec'tions.
Labor unions and soldiers' messes made up the Soviets in the cities; poorer peasants
and soldiers at the village inn were the first Soviets in the country: and in the begin-
ning, two years ago, these lower class dele^tes used to explain to me that the "rich
peasants'' and the "rich people" bad their own meetine^s and meeting places. The
popular intention then was not to exclude the upper classes from the government,
but only from the Soviets, which were not yet the same. But the Soviets, once in
existence, abosorbed in their own class taaks and their own problems, which the
tipper class had either not understood or solved, ignored — no; they simply forgot
the council of empire and the Duma. And so thev discovered (or, to be more exact,
their leaders discovered) that they had actually all the power. All that Lenin ana
the other Socialist leaders had to do to carry through their class-struggle theory was
to recognize this fact of power and teach the Soviets to continue to ignore the assemblies
and the institutions of the upper classes, which, with their "governments," min-
istries, and local assemblies, fell, powerless from neglect.
The soviet government sprouted and grew out of the habits, the psychologv, and the
condition of the Russian people. It fitted them. They understand it. 'They find
they can work it and they like it. Every effort to put something else in its place
(including Lenin's) has failed. It will have to be modified, I think, but not in
essentials, and it can not be utterly set aside. The Tsar himself, if he should come
back, would have to keep the Russian Soviet, and somehow rule over and through it.
The Communist Party (dubbed "Bolshevik") is in power now in the soviet
government.
I think it will stay there a lon^ time. What^ I have shown of the machinery of
change is one guaranty of communist dominance. There are others.
All opposition to the communist government has practically ceased inside of Russia.
There are three organized opposition parties: Minchevikis, Social Revolutionary
Kight, and Social Revolutionary Left. The anarchists are not organized. The Sociid
Revolutionary Left is a small group of ver^^ anarchistic leaders, who have hardly any
following. The Mincheviks and the Social Revolutionaries Right are said to be
strong, but there is no way of measuring their strength, for a very significant reason.
These parties have stopped fighting. They are criti( al, but they are not revolu-
tionary. They also think the revolution is over. They proposed, and they still
propose eventually, to challenge and oust the Communist Party by parliamentary
and political methods, not by force. But when intervention came upon distractea
Russia, and the people realized they were fighting many enemies on many fronts, the
two strong opposing parties expressed their own and the public will to stand by the
party in power until the menace of foreign invasion was beaten off. These parties
announced this in formal statements, uttered by their regular conventions; you have
confirmation of it in the memoranda written for you by Alartov and Vosky, and you
will remember how one of them put it to us personally:
"There is a fight to be made against the Bolsheviks, but so long as you foreigners
are making it, we Russians won't. When you emit and leave us alone, we will take
up our burden again, and we shall deal with the Bolsheviks. And we will finish
them. But we will do it with our people, by political methods, in the Soviets, and
not by force, not by war or by revolution, and not with any outside foreign help."
This is the nationalistic spirit, which we call patriotism, and understand perfectly;
it is much stronger in the new than it was in the old, the Tsar's, Russia. But there
is another force back of this remarkable statement of a remarkable state of mind.
All Russia has turned to the labor of reconstruction; sees the idea in the plans
proposed for the future ; and is interested — imaginatively.
Destruction was fun for a while and a satisfaction to a suppressed, betrayed, to an
almost destroyed people. Violence was not in their character, nowever . The Russian
people, sober, are said to be a gentle people. One of their poets speaks of them
as "that gentle beast, the Russian people," and I noticed and described in my
reports of the first revolution how patient, peaceable, and "safe" the mobs of Petro-
1282 TREATY OF PEACE WITH OEBMANY.
grad were. The violence came later, with Bolflheviam, after the many attempts at
GOimterrevolution, and with vodka. The Bolshevik leaders regret and are adbuamed
of their red terror. They do not excuse it. It was others, you remember, who
traced the worst of the Russian atrocities and the terror itself to the adoption by the
counterrevolutionists of the method of assassination (of Lenin and others), and most
of all to the discoverer by the mobs of wine cellars and vodka stills. That the RaasiaD
drunk and t^e Russian sober are two utterly different animals, is well known to the
Jews, to the Reactionaries, and to the Russians themselves. And that is why this
people lately have not onlv obeyed; they have themselves ruthlessly enfmced the
revolutionary prohibition aecrees in every part of Russia that we would inquire
about and hear from.
The destructive spirit, sated, exhausted, or suppressed, has done its work. The
leaders say so — the leaders of all parties.
There is a close relationship between the Russian people and the new Russian
leaders, in power and out. New men in politics are commonly fresh, progressive,
representative; it's the later statesmen that damp the enthusiasm ana aober the
idealism of legislators. In Russia aU legislators, ail, are young or new. It is as if
we should elect in the United States a brand-new set of men to all offices, from the
lowest county to the highest Federal position, and as if the election should occur in
a great crisis, when all men are full oi hope and failii. The new leaders of the local
Soviets of Russia were, and they still are, of the People, really. That is one reason
why their autocratic dictatorship is acceptable. They have felt, they shared the
passion of the mob to destroy, but they had something in mind to destroy.
The soviet leaders used the revolution to destroy the sustem of oigamsed Russian
life.
While the mobs broke windows, smashed wine cellars, and pillaged buildings to
express their rage, their leaders directed their efforts to the annihilation of the system
itself. They pulled down the Czar and his officers; they abolished the courts, whidi
had been usea to oppress them; thev closed shops, stopped business generally, and
especially all competitive and speculative business; and they took over all the gieat
industries, monopolies, concessions, and natural resources. This was their puspose.
This is liieir religion. This is what the lower-class culture has been slowly teaching
the people of the world for 50 years: That it is not some particular evil, but ihe whole
system of running business and railroads, shops, banks, and exchanges, for specula-
tion and profit that must be changed. This is what causes poverty ana riches, they
teach, misery, corruption, vice, and war. The people, the workers, or their State,
must own and run these tnings ''for service."
Not political democracy, as with us; economic democracy is the idea; democracy
in the shop, factorv, business. Bolshevism is a literal interpretation, the actual
application of this theory, policy, or program. And so, in the destructive period of
the Russian revolution, the Bolshevik leaders led the people to destroy the old
system, root and branch, fruit and blossom, too. And apparently this was done. The
blocks we saw in Petrograd and Moscow of retail shops nailed up were but one sign
of it. When we looked back of these dismal fronts and inquired more deeply into
the work of the revolution we were convinced that the Russians have literally and
completely done their job. And it was this that shocked us. It is this that has
startled the world; not the atrocities of the revolution, but the revolution itself.
The organization of Uf e as we know it in America, in the rest of Europe, in the rest
of the world, is wrecked and abolished in Russia.
The revolution didn't do it. The Tsar's Government had rotted it. The war
broke down the worn-out machinery of it; the revolution has mer^y scrapped it
finally.
The effect is hunger, cold, miserv, anguish, disease — death to millions. But
worse than these — I m^n this — ^was tihe confusion of mind among the weU and the
strong. We do not realize, any of us — even those of us who have imagination — how
fixed our minds and habits are by the ways of living that we know. So with the
Russians. They understood how to work and live unaer their old system; it was not
a pretty one; it was dark, crooked, and dangerous, but they had ^ped around in it
all their lives from childhood up. They could find their way in it. And now they
can remember how it was, and they sigh for the old ways. The rich emigres knew
whom to see to bribe for a verdict, a safe-conduct, or a concession; and the poor, in
their hunger, think now how it would be to go down to the market and haggle, and
barjrain, from one booth to another, making their daily purchases, reckoning up
their defeats and victories over the traders. And they did get food then . And now —
it is all gone. The^ have destroyed aU this, and having destroyed it they w^e
lost, strangers in their own land. '
This tragedy of transition was anticipated by the leaders of the revolution, and
the present needs were prepared for in the plans laid for reconstruction.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1288
Lenin has imagination. He is an idealist, but he is a scholar, too, and a very grim
realist. Lenin ^vas a statistician by profession. He had long been tr3dng to foresee
the future of society under socialism, and he had marked down definitely the resources,
the machinery, and the institutions existing under the old order, which could be used
in the new. There was the old Russian communal land system, passing, but standing
in spots with its peasants accustomed to it. That was to be revived ; it is his solution
of tne problem of the great estates. They are not to be broken up, but worked by
the peasants in common. Then there was the great Russian Cooperative (trading)
Society, with its 11,000,000 families before the war; now with 17,000,000 members.
He kept that. There was a conflict; it was in bouigeoise hands but it was an essential
part 01 the projected system of distribution, so Lenin compromised and communist
Russia has it. He had the railroads, telegraph, telephone already; the workers seized
the factories, the local Soviets the mines; the All-Kussian Soviet, the banks. The
new government set up shops — one in each neighborhood — to dole out for money,
but on work tickets, whatever food, fuel, and clothing this complete government
monopoly had to distribute. No bargaining, no dis]>lay, no advertising, and no
speculation. Everything one has earned by labor the right to buy at the cooperative
and soviet shops is at a fixed, low price, at the established (too small) profit — to the
government or to the members of the cooperative.
Money is to be abolished gradually. It does not count much now. Private capital
has been confiscated, most of the rich have left Russia, but there are still many people
there who have hidden away money or valuables, and live on them without working.
They can buy food and even luxuries, but only illegally from peasants and specula-
tors at the nsk of punishment and very high prices. They can buy, also, at the
government stores, at the low prices, but they can get only their share there, and
only on their class or work tickets. The class anangement, though transitory and
temporary — ^the aim is to have but one class — is the key to the idea of the whole new
s3nBtem.
There are three classes. The first can buy, for example, 1} pounds of bread a day;
the second, three-quarters of a pound; the third, only one-quarter of a pound; no
matter how much money they may have. The first class includes soldiers, workers in
war, and other essentiar industries, actors, teachers, writers, experts, and Government
workers of all sorts. The second class is of all other sorts of workers. The third is of
people who do not work — ^the leisure class. Their allowance is, imder present cir-
cumstances, not enough to live on, but they are allowed to buy surreptitiously from
speculators on the theory that the principal at their capital will soon be exhausted, and,
since interest, rent, and profits— «11 forms of unearned ^oney — are abolished, they
will soon be forced to go to work.
The shock of this, and the confusion due to the strange details of it, were, and they
still are, painful to man>r minds, and not only to the rich. For a long time there was
widespread discontent with this new system. The peasants rebelled, and the workers
were suspicious. They blamed the new system for tne food shortage, the fuel shortage,
the lack of raw materials for the factories. But his also was anticipated by that very
remarkable mind and will — Ijcnin. He used the State monopoly and control of the
press, and the old army of revolutionary propagandists to snift the blame for the
sufferings of Russia from the revolutionary eovemment to the war, the blockade,
and the lack of transportation. Also, he and his executive oiganization were careful
to see that, when the government did get hold of a supply of anything, its arrival was
heralded, and the next day it appeared at the community shops, where everybody
(that worked) got his share at the low government price, 'the two American prisoners
we saw had noticed this, you remember. "We don't get much to eat,'* they said,
" but neither do our guards or the other Russians. We all get the same. And when
they get more, we get our share."
The fairness of the new system, as it works so far, has won over to it the working class
and the poorer peasants. The well-to-do still complain, and very bitterly sometimes.
Their hoardings are broken into by the government and by the poverty committees,
and they are severely punished for speculative trading. But even these classes are
moved somewhat by the treatment of children. They are in a class by themselves:
class A — 1. They get all the few delicacies — milk, eggs, fruit, game, that come to the
government monopoly — at school, where they all are fed, regardless of class. "Even
the rich children,'^ they told us, '* they have as much as the poor children." And the
children, like the workers, now see the operas, too, the plays, the ballets, the art
galleries — all with instructors.
The Bolsheviks — all the Russian parties — r^^ard the communists' attitude toward
children as the symbol of their new civilization.
"It is to be for the good of humanity, not business," one of them, an American,
said, "and the kids represent the future. Our generation is to have only the labor.
1284 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY.
the joy, and the misery of the struggle. We will get none of the material lu n.
of the new system, and we \sdll probably never all understand and like it. I>u^ • i
children — it is for them and their children tliat we are fighting, so we are givinj? :l<\
the best of it from the start, and teaching them to take it all naturally. Thi\\ .1
getting the idea. They are to be our new propagandists."
The idea is that everybody is to work for the common good, and so, as the chiMrj
and the American prisoners note, when they all produce more, they all get m' n
They are starving now, but they are sharing their poverty. And they really aj
sharing it. Lenin eats, like everybody else — only one meal a day — soup, fish, brf-ii
and tea. He has to save out of that a bit for breakfast and another bit for sup[ i
The people, the peasants, send him more, but he puts it in the common mess. S(. 1 1
heads of this government do not have to imagine the privations of the people; th !
feel them. And so the people and the government realize that, if ever Russia boo'ii.i
frosperoufl, all will share in the wealBi, exactly a£ they share in the poverty n- .^
n a word, rich Russia expects to become a rich Russian people.
This, then, is the idea which has begun to catch the ima£i:ination of the Ru.^"-! 1
people. This it is that is making men and women work with a new interest, au'i
new incentive^ not to earn high wages and short hours, but to produce an abundoL!
for all. This is what is making a people, sick of war, send their ablest and stroniTH
men into the new, high-epirited, hard-drilled army to defend, not their borders, hu
their new working system of common li\dn^.
And this is what is making Lenin and his sobered communist government ask l^
peace. They think they have carried a revolution through for once to the logicd
onclusion. All other revolutions have stopped when they had revolved throi:::]
the political phase to political democracy. This one has turned once more clf;i!
through the economic phase to economic democracy; to self-government in thi
factory, shop, and on the land, and has laid a foundation for universal profit sharing*
for the universal division of food, clothes, and all goods, equally among all. Am]
they think their civilization is working on this foundation. They want time to i:o > n
and build it higher and better. They want to spread it all over the world, butCniv
as it works. As they told us when we reminded them that the world dreaded their
propaganda:
*MiVe are through with the old propaganda of areument. All we ask now is to h^
allowed to prove by the examples of things well done here in Russia, that the Tif^-^
system is good. We are so sure we shall make good, that we are willine to stop 6&\iii^'
so, to stop reasoning, stop the haranguing, and all tiiat old stuff. Ana especially an-
we sick of the propaganda by the sword. We want to stop fighting. We know tlut
each country must evolve its own revolution out of its own conditions and in it*' own
imagination. To force it by war is not scientific, not democratic, not social i?tjc.
And we are fighting now only in self-defense. We will stop fighting, if you will let us
stop. We will call back our troops, if you will withdraw yours. We will demoYxAize.
We need the picked organizers and the skilled workers now in the army for our sbvi)^.
factories, and farms. We would love to recall them to all this needed work, and use
their troop trains to distribute our goods and our harvests, if only you will call off your
soldiers and your moral, financial, and material support from our enemies, and the
enemies of our ideals. Let every country in dispute on our borders self-determine
its own form of government and its own allegiance.
* 'But you must not treat us a conquered nation. We are not conquered. We are
prepared to join in a revolutionary, civil war all over all of Europe and the world.
if this good thing has to be done in this bad way of force. But we would prefer to
have our time and our energ>^ to work to make sure that our young, good thintr i^
good. We have proved that we can share misery, and sickness, and poverty; it has
helped us to have these things to share, and we think we shall be able to share the
wealth of Russia as we gradually develop it. But we are not sure of that; the world
is not sure. Let us Russians pay the price of the experiment; do the hard, hard work
of it; make the sacrifice — then ^'our people can follow us, slowly, as they decide U*r
themselves that what we have is worth na\ing."
That is the message you bring back, Mr, Bullitt. It is your duty to deliver it. It w
mine to enforce it by my conception of the situation as it stands in Russia and Europe
to-day.
It seems to me that we are on the verge of war, a new war, a terrible war — the lons?-
predicted class war — all over Europe.
The peace commission, busy with the settlement of the old war, may not see the
new one, or may not iHeasure aright the imminent danger of it. Germany is going
over, Hungary has gone, Austria is coming into the economic revolutionary' stage.
The propaganda for it is old and strong in all countries: Italy, France, Spam, Bel-
gium, ^orway, Sweden — you know. All men know this propaganda. But that i?
in the rear. Look at the front.
TBBATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1286
Russia is the center of it. Gennany, Austria, Hungary are the wings of the poten-
tial war front of — Bolshevism.
And Russia, the center, has made a proposition to you for peace, for a separate
pea^ce; made it officially; made it after tnought; made it proudly, not in fear, but in
pitiful sympathy with its suffering people and for the sake of a vision of the future in
which it verily believes. They are practical men — ^those that made it. You met
them. We talked with them. We measured their power. They are all idealists,
but they are idealists sobered by the responsibility of power. Sentiment has passed
out of them into work — ^hard work. They said they could give one year more of
starvation to the revolution, but they said it practically, and they prefer to compro-
mise and make peace. I believe that, if we take their offer, there will be such an
outcry of rage and disappointment from the Left Socialists of Germany, Italy, Rrance,
and the world, that Lenin and Trotsky will be astonished. The Red Revolution —
the class war— ^will be broken, and evolution will have its chance once more in the
rest of Europe. And you and I know that the men we met in Moscow see this thus,
and that they believe the peace conference will not, can not, see it, but will go on to
make war and so bring on the European revolution.
But your duty, our duty, is to point out this opportimity, and to vouch for the
strength and the will and the character of Lenin and the commissaires of Russia to
make and keep the compact they have outlined to you. Well, this is the briefest
way in which I can express my full faith:
Kautsky has gone to Moscow. He has gone late; he has gone after we were there.
He will find, as we found, a careful, thoughtful, deliberate group of men in power: in
too much power; unremovable and controlling a state of monopoly, which is political,
social, economic, financial; which controls or directs all the activities, all me fears,
all the hopes, all the aspirations of a great people. Kautsky will speak to revolutionary
Russia for revolutionary Germany, and for a revolutionary Europe. There will be
an appeal in that; there will be a strong appeal in that to the revolutionary Russian
commissaires. But, if I am any judge of character, Lenin and his commissaires will
stand by their offer to us until Pans has answered, or until the time set for the answer —
April 10— shall have passed. Then, and not until then, will Kautsky receive an
answer to his appeal for — ^whatever it is the Germans are asking.
It is not enough that you have delivered your message and made it a part of the
record of the peace conference. I think it is your duty to ask the fixed attention of
your chiefs upon it for a moment, and to get from them the courtesy of a clear, direct
reply to Russia before April 10.
(The reports of Capt. Pettit are here printed in full, as follows:)
BULLFTT EXHIBFT No. 31.
REPORTS OF CAPT. W. W. PETTIT.
I left Petrograd on March 31 . During the past three weeks I have crossed the Finnish
border six times and have been approximately two weeks in Petrograd. I have met
Tchitcherin, Litvinov, and most ot the important personages in the communist gov-
ernment of Petrograd (including Bill Shatov, chief of police).
Briefly, my opinion of the Russian situation is as follows: In Petrograd I presume
the present communist government has a majority of the workingmen benind it,
but probably less than half of the total population are members of the communist
party . However, my conclusions are based on conversations with not only communistfi ,
but also many opponents of the conmiunist government, members of the aristocracy,
business men, ana foreigners, and I am persuaded that a large majority of the popula-
tion of Petrograd if given a choice between the present government and the two
alternatives, revolution or foreign intervention, would without hesitation take the
present government. Foreign intervention would unite the population in opposition
and would tend to greatly emphasize the present nationalist spirit. Revolution
would result in chaos. (There is nowhere a group of Russians in whom the people I
have talked with have confidence. Kolchak, Denikin, Yudenvitch, Trepov, the
despicable hordes of Russian emigrees who haunt the Grand Hotel, Stockholm; the
Socithans House, Helsingfors; the oflices of the peace commission in Paris, and squab-
ble among themselves as to how the Russian situation shall be solved ; all equally
fail to find many supporters in Petrograd.) Those with whom I have talked recog-
nize that revolution, did it succeed in developing a strong government, would result
in a white terror comparable with that of Finland . In Finland our consul has a record
of 12,500 executions in some 50 districts, out of something like 500 districts, by the
187739— 1»— VOL
1286 TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QEBMANY.
White Guard. In Petrograd I have been repeatedly assured that the total Red
executions in Petrograd and Moscow and other cities was at a maximum 3.200.
It may seem somewhat inconsistent for the ilussian bouigeoisie to oppose allied
intervention and at the same time fail to give whole-hearted support to ue present
government. They justify this attitude on the groimds that wnen the two great
problems of food and peace are solved the whole population can turn itself to assiating
the present regime in developing a stable efficient government. They point to the
numerous changes which have already been introduced by the present communist
government, to the acknowledgment that mistakes have been made, to the ease of
securing introduction of constructive ideas under the present regime. All these facts
have persuaded man^ of the thinking people with whom I have talked to look to the
present goverxmient in possibly a somewhat modified form as the salvation of Buasia.
At present the situation is bad. Russia is Bti;pning every nerve to raise an anny to
oppose the encircling White Guards. That the army is etncient is demonstrated by
the present location of Soviet forces who have contended with the Russian White
Guard supported by enonnous sums of money, munitions, and even soldiers from the
Allies. Naturallv, transportation is inefficient; it was horrible in the last year of the
Czar's regime. Absolute separation from the rest of the world, combined with the
chaotic conditions which Russia has }>a8sed through since the 1917 revolution, plus
the sabotage, which imtil recently was quite general among the intelligent clasnee,
including engineers, has resulted in a decrease in rolling stock. The transportation
of the enormous army which has been raised limits the number of cars whien can be
used for food. The cutting of! of Siberia, Finland, the Baltic Provinces, and until
recently the Ukraine, made it necessary to establish new lines of food transportation.
Consequently there has been great suffering in Petrograd. Of the population of a
million 200,000 are reported by the board of health to be ill, 100,000 seriouslv ill in
hospitals or at home, and another 100,000 with swollen limbs still able to go to the food
kitchens. However, the reports of people dying in the streets are not true. What-
ever food exists is fairly well distributed and there are food kitchens where anyone
can get a fairly good dinner for 3.50 rubles.
For money one can still obtain man^ of the luxuries of life. The children, some
50,000 of whom have been provided with homes, are splendidly taken care of, and
except for the absence of milk have little to complain of. In the public schools free
1 uncnes are given the children, and one sees in the faces of the younger generation
little of the suffering which some of the older people have undergone and are under-
going. Food conditions have improved recently, due to the suspension of passenger
traffic and the retaking of the Ukraine, where food is plentiful. From 60 to 100 car-
loads of food have arrived in Petrograd each day since February 18.
Porhap it is futile to add that my solution of the Russian problem is some sort of
recognition of the present government, with the establishment of economic relations
and the sending of every possible assistance to the people. I have been treated in a
wonderful manner by the communist representatives, though they know that I am do
socialist and though I have admitted to the leaders that my civilian clothing is a dis-
guise. They have the warmest affection for America, believe in President Wilson,
and are certain that we are coming to their assistance, and, together with our engineers,
our food, our school-teachers, and our supplies, they are going to develop in Russia
a government which will emphasize the ri.hts of the common people as no other
government has. I am so convinced of the necessity for us taking a step immediately
to end the suffering of this wonderful people that I should be willing to stake all I
have in converting ninety out of evei^ hundred American business men whom I
could take to Petrograd for two weeks.
It is needless for me to tell you that most of the stories that have come from Russia
regarding atrocities, horrors, immorality, are manufacturtd in \ibcrg, Holsingfcrs, or
Stockholm. The horrible massacres planned for last November were first learned of
in Petrograd from the Ilelsingfors papers. That anybody could even for a moment
b »lieve m the nationalization of women seems impossible to anyone in Petro^ad«
there had been a robbery the previous niffht, in which a man had lost 5,000 rubles, that
this was the first robbery in several weeks, and that he had an idea who had done it,
and was going to get the men that night. I feel personally that Petrograd is safer than
Paris. At nignt there are automol iles, sleighs, and people on the streets at 12 o'clock to
a much greater extent than was true in Paris wht^n I left five weeks ago.
Most wonderful of all, the great crowd of prostitutes has disappeared. I have seen
not a disreputaVle woman since I went to Petrograd, and foreigners who have been
there for the last three months report the same. The policy of the present government
TBBATY OF PBAOB WITH QBBlCA2SrY. 1287
has resulted in eliminating throughout Hussia, I am told, this horrible outgrowth of
modem civilization.
Begeing has decreased. I have asked to be taken to the poorest parts of the city
to seehow the prople in the slums live, and both the communists and [x>urgeoisie have
held up their hands and said, ''But you fail to understand there are no such places."
There is poverty, but it is scattered and exists among those of the former poor or of the
former rich who have been unable to adapt themselves to the conditions which require
everyone to do something.
Terrorism has ended. For months there have been no executions, I am told, and
certainly people go to the Uieater and church and out on the streets as much as they
would in any city of the world.
(Certain memoranda referred to in the hearing relating to the work
of Capt. Pettit in Russia are here printed in full as follows:)
BuLUTT Exhibit No* 32.
MBMORANDUM.
From: W. W. Pettit.
To: Ammission, Paris.
(Attention of Mr. Bullitt.)
1. Mr, Pettit*8 recent movements, — On March 18 I left Helsingfors for Petrograd and
remained there until March 28 when I left for Helsingfors, at which place I received
a cable ordering me to report immediately to Paris. On the 29th I left again for
Petrograd to secure some ba£;gage I had left. On the 21st I left Petrograd for Helsing-
fors. On April Ist I left Helsinjc^fors for Stockholm and in Stockholm X find a telegram
asking me to wait until I receive further orders.
2. Optimitm of present government. — On the night of the 30th and the afternoon of
the Slst I had several hours with Schlovsky, Tchitcherin's personal representative
in Petrograd. He was disappointed to think I was to return to Paris, but felt certain
that inasmuch as the orders recalling me had been sent before Mr. Bullitt's arrival,
there was every possibUity of my being returned to Petrograd . He was most optiir istic
about the future and felt that the Allies must soon take some definite stand regarding
Russia, and that the result of the Paris negotiations would almost surely be favorable
to the soviet government. He said that the present war conditions and the lirrited
transportation facilities, with the shortage of food resulting therefrom, had handi-
capped his government enormously, and that everyone hopes that soon the action
of tne allied powers will permit the establishTiient oi normal relations in Russia.
3. Radios in re Bullitt. — He has received at least three radio communications from
the American press in which Mr. Bullitt's activities have been mentioned and this
has tended to encourage him. The last cablegram stated that Mr. Bullitt was pre-
paring a statement regarding conditions in Russia which the press anticipated would
go far toward dispelling ignorance and misinformation regarding conditions in Moscow
and Petrograd.
4. Hungarian situation. — ^The Hungarian situation has also gone far toward encour-
aging the present Government. Hungary has proposed a mutual o^ensive and
defensive alliance with Russia. The fact that the soviet government has been insti-
tuted in Hungary without bloodshed up to the present, and with little opposition on
the part of ^e people, has also encouraged Schtovsky. He stated that tne action of
the Allies in sending troops against Hungary was to be r^etted because of the blood-
shed which would probaoly result. However, he thought in the long run that the
Allies would find it a suicidal policy to try to suppress the Hungarian revolution by
force.
5. The Uhraine situation. — ^The soviet troops have taken almost the entire Ukraine
and this with the food supplies which it will provide have strengthened the soviet
government. A friend who has recently returned from Peltava, Ekaterinoslav, Kiev,
and other southern cities, states that food is abundant and cheap. The soviet govern-
ment believes that the French and Greek troops are withdrawing from Odessa and
going to Sebastopol. They anticipate taking Oaessa within the next few days.
6. Esthonian situation. — ^At least twice within the last two weeks Esthonia has
sent word to the soviet government that it desired peace. The following four points
have been emphasized by the Esthonians: (1) That peace must come immediately;
(2) that the offer must come from the soviet government; (3) that a fair oCfer will be
accepted by the Esthonians immediatelv without consultation with France or Eng-
land, who are supporting them; (4) that free access to Esthonian harbors and free
use of Esthonian railroads will be assured the soviet government.
1288 TBBATY OF PEAOE WITH GEBMAKT.
7. The Lithuanian sihiation. — It is fairly well understood that the Lithuanian
Government that is fighting the Bolsheviks is not going to allow itself to be made a
tool by the French and British Governments to invade Russian territory. The
Lithuanian Government is desirous of securing possession of Lithuanian territor>%
but bevond that it is understood it will not go.
8. The Finnish situation. — ^The so\'iet government is in close touch with the Pinnisih
situation and has little fear of an invasion of Russia from that direction. The Finnish
Army is without question a third Red; probably a half Red; possibly two-thirds Red.
There is even reported to be a tendency on a part of certain of the ^Tiite Guards to
oppose intervention in Russia. One ojf the Finnish regiments in Esthonia has re-
turned to Finland, and it is supposed that it will assist the proposed revolution of the
Finns in East Karelia a^nst the soviet government. The so\det government has
sent a committee to ITelsmgfors to arrange economic relations with Finland, and it is
said that this committee carries threats of reprisals on the part of the ao\iet govern-
ment against the Finns in Petrograd unless the treaty is n^otiated. It is said in
Petrograd that some of the Finns nave already left Petrograd m anticipation that the
Finnish Govenunent will not be permitted to make any arrangement with the soviet
government because of the attitude of certain of the allied representatives in Ifel-
singfors.
9. Improvement in food conditions. — ^The suspension of passenger traffic from March
18 to April 10 has resulted in the Government bringing to Petrograd 60 to 10*) care of
food each day, and one sees large quantities of food being transported about the city.
At Easter time it is hoped to be able to give 3 pounds of white bread to the population
of Petrograd. There also seems to be a larger supply of food for private purchase in
the city. Mr. Shiskin has recently been able to buy 3 goese, a suckdn^ pig, 2 splendid
legs of veal, and roasts of beef at from 40 to 50 rubles a pound, whicn, considering
the value of the ruble, is much less than it sounds, shiskin has also been able
recently to get eggs, milk, honey, and butter, too^ether with potatoes, carrots, and
cabbage. \fy bill for food for 11 days with Mr. Shiskin was about 1,300 rubles.
10. Order in Petrograd. — About three weeks ago there were several strikes in fac-
tories in Petrograd and Lenin came to talk to tne strikers. Apparently the matter
was settled satisfactorily and the workers were given the same oread rations that the
soldiers receive. At the Putilov works some 400 men struck and part of them were
dismissed. Both Shatov and the director of factories said that there were no execu-
tions, though the population the next morning reported 80 workers shot and that after-
noon the rumor haa increased the number to 400. There is practically no robbery
in the city. Shatov left the opera the other night early because ne told me the pre\'ious
night a man had lost 5,000 rubles and it was such an exceptional thing to have a
robbery that he was going out personally to investigate the matter, having some idea
as to who was responsible.
11. Currencjf plans. — Zorin tells me that the so\'iet government has or had printed
a new issue of currency which it is proposed to exchange for the old currency within
the next three months.* The details of the plan have not been completed but He thinks
that an exchange of ruble for ruble will be made up to 3,000; an additional 2,000
will be placed on deposit in the government bank. That beyond 5,000 only a small
percentage will be allowed to anyone, and that a limit of possibly 15,000 will be placed
beyond which no rubles will be exchanged. Then the plan is, after a certain period
to declare the old ruble valueless. Zonn feela that as a result of this plan the new
ruble will have some value and that the present situation in the country in which
the farmer has so much paper that he refuses to sell any longer for money, will he
relieved . This exchange would be followed later on by the issue of still other currenc v
the entire purpose being the mere equal distribution of wealth and the gradual approach
to elimination of currency.
12. Concessions. — It is asserted that the northern railway concession has been signed
and Amundsen tells me that all negotiations were accomplished without the pa>'ment
of a single cent of tea money, probably the first instance of the absence of grart m such
* negotiations in the history of Russia. He says that Trepov, through his agent Borisov.
at Moscow, was the greatest opponent of the Norwegian interests. Trepov was formeriy
minister of ways and communications and is reported to have been refused a similar
concession under th^ Czar's government. Amundsen claims that Trepov has made
every effort to secure this concession from the Soviet government. I am attaching
a statement regutiing a concession which is supposed to have been granted to the
lumber interests. There are rumors that other concessions have been granted.
13. F. M. C. A. — Recently the Y. M. C. A. secretary arrived in Petrograd, claim-
ing to have come without authorization from his superiors. He has been staving at
the embassy but recently went to Moscow at the invitation of Tchitcherin. Scoovsky
tells me that the American has plans for the establishmont of the Y. M. C. A. in Ruwa
TBEATY OF PEAOE WITH QEBMANY. 1289
which he wanted to put before the Moscow government. Schovsky doubted that it
would be feasible to organize in Russia at present a branch of the International asso-
ciation unless some rather fundamental modifications were made in their policy.
14. Treadwell. — I have twice asked SchovsW to secure information regarding
Treadwell, and he assures me that he has taken the matter up with Moscow, but that
apparently they have had no news from Tashkent as yet. He promised to let me
know as soon as anything was heard.
15. Attitude toward United States. — The degree of confidence which the Russians
and the soviet officials show toward our Government is to me a matter of surprise » con>
sidering our activities during the past 18 months. There seems to be no question in
the minds of the officials in Petrograd whom I have met that we are going to give them
an opportunity to develop a more stable fonn of government, and they apparently
look upon President Wilson as one who is going to decide the question on its merits
without being influenced by the enormous pressure of the Russian immisre and the
French Government. Doubtless part of this attitude is due to the favorable impres-
sion created by Mr. Bullitt, but much of it must be the result of information which
they have secured from the press. At the present moment the United States has the
opportunity of demonstratiogto the Russian people its friendship and cementing the
bonds which already exist. Kussia believes in us, and a little assistance to Russia in
its present crisis will result in putting the United States in a position in Russia which
can never be overthrown by (Jermany or any other power.
16. Social work.— 'I have recently sent a cable from Uelsingfors regarding health
and sanitary conditions in Petrograd, a copy of which I am attaching. I have spent
the past two weeks visiting schools and the children's homes in Petrograd. There are
30,000 children for whom homes have been provided in the past nine months, and
preparations are being made to house 10,000 more. Homes of immigres are being
taken over and groups of 40 children placed in them under the care of able instructors:
where the children are old enough thev go to school during the davtime. A beautiful
home life has been developed. The cnudren are well fed and well clothed, and there
is a minimum of sickness among them. At the present time, when so much disease
exists in Petrograd, and when there is so much starvation, the healthv appearance of
these thousands of children, together with the well-fed condition of cnilaren who are
not in institutions, but are receiving free meals in schools, is a demonstration of the
social spirit behind much of the activities of the present government. I shall send
later a more detailed statement of some of the interesting things I have learned about
this J ha%e of the activities of the new regime.
17. GtncliLsion. — In this rather hastily dictated memorandum which Mr. Francis
is going to take to-night to Paris I have tried to point out some of the thin^ that have
interested me in Petrograd. Naturally I have emphasized the brighter side, for the
vast amount of absolutelv false news manufactured in Helsingfors and Stockholm and
sent out through the world seems to me to necessitate the emphasizing of some of the
more hopeful features of the present government. Naturallv the character of the
Russian people has not changed to any great extent in 18 months, and there is doubt-
less corruption, and there is certainlv inefficiency and ignorance and a hopeless failure
to grasp the new principles motivating the government on the part of many of the
people. A people subjected to the treatment which Russians have had during the
last 200 years can not in one generation be expected to change very greatly, but per-
sonally 1 feel the present government has made a vast improvement on the govern-
ment of the Czar as I knew it in 1916-17. Without doubt the majoritv of the people
in Petrograd are opposed to allied intervention or revolution and wish the present gov-
ernment to be given a fair chance to work out the salvation of Russia. One of the
most hopeful symptoms of the present government is its willingness to acknowledge
mistakes when they are demonstrated and id adopt new ideas which are worth while.
Personally I am heart and soul for some action on the part of the United States Gov-
ernment which will show our sincere intention to permit the Russian people to solve
their own problems with what assistance they may require from us.
Stockholm, April 4, 1919.
SOCIAL WORK IN PETBOGBAD.
The wife of Zinoviev, Madame Lelina, is in charge of the social institutions in
the city of Petrograd. This does not include the public schools, which are under
another organization. Madame Lelina is a short-haired woman, probably Jewish,
of about 45. She has an enormous amount of energy, and is commonly supposed to
be doing at least two things at the same time. The morning I met her she was carry-
1290 TBBATY OF PEAOB WITH GEBICAVT.
ing on two interviews and trying to arrange to have me shown some of the eodAl work
she is directing. There seemed to be little system about her efforts. Her office
was rather disorderly, and her method of work seemed y&ry wasteful of time and
effort, and very much like the usual Russian way of doing things. BillShatov, for
merly organizer of the I. W. W., who is commissar of police for Petrograd and also
commissar for one of the northern armies, introduced me to Madame Lelina, and
accompanied me the first day on our visits. We were guided by a yctang woman
by the name of Bachrath, who is a university graduate and lawyer, and since the legal
profession has fallen into disrepute, has turned her efforts toward social work. ^
Under her guidance I spent three days visiting institutions. I saw a boarding
school for girls, a boarding home for younger children, an institution for the feeble-
minded, three of the new homes organized by the soviet government, and two small
ho^itals for children.
The institutions which Madame Lelina is directing are in two groups: First, those
which she has taken over from the old Czar regime, and second, those which have
been founded in the last 18 months. The new government has been so handicapped
by the difficulties of securing food and other supplies, by the sabotage of many of
the intelligent classes, and by the necessity of directing every enei^ toward curv-
ing on hostilities against the bourgeoisie and the Allies, that there has been little
opportunity to remodel the institutions inherited from the previous regime, therefore
neither the strength nor the weakness of these institutions is to any great extent due
to the present regime. Two of the institutions I vidted were of this type, one hap-
Eened to be very good and the other very bad, and in neither case did I feel that
elina's organization was responsible.
An aristocratic organization under the Czar maintained a boarding school for girls.
This has been taken over by the soviet government with little change, and the 140
children in this institution are enjoying all the opportunities which a directres
trained in France and Grermany, witn an exceptionally skillful corps of aasistantB,
can give them.
I inquired regarding the changes which the soviet government had made in the
organization of this scnool. Some of the girls who were there have been kept, but
vacant places have been filled by Madame Lelina's committee, and the institution
has been required to take boys into the day school, a plan which is carried out in
most of the soviet social and educational work. Much more freedom has been intro-
duced in the management of the institution, and the girls at table talk and walk
about, much as thouf^h they were in their own homes. The soviet government re-
quires that certain girls be permitted membership in the teachers' committee, and
the two communists accompanying me pointed to this as a f^reat accomplishment.
Privately, the teachers informed me they regarded it as of little significance, and
apparently they were entirely out of sympathy with the innovations that the new
government has made. Now all the girls are required to work in the kitchen, dining
room, or in cleaning their own dormitories, and certain girls are assigned to the kitchen
to oversee the use of supplies by the cooks. However, the whole institution, from
the uniforms of the girls to the required form in which even hand towels have to be
hung, indicates the iron will of the directness. In one class we visited the girls sat
at desks and listened to a traditional pedagogue pour out quantities of information on
Puchkin 's Boris Gudonov. Occasionally the girls were called upon to react, which they
did with sentences apparently only partially memorized. The spirit of the insti-
tution is behind that of our better institutions in America, and the spirit of the class-
room is quite mediaeval.
The greatest objection which the teachers seem to have to soviet activities is the
question of sacred pictures and religious observances. The chapel of the school has
been closed, but in each room from tne comer still hangs the Ikon and at the heads of
many of the girls' beds there are still small pictures of tne Virgin, much to the diqgust
of the representatives of the soviet government, who in many cases are Jewish, and in
practically all cases have renounced any religious connection. Recently the Soviet
Party has announced the fact that they as a party are not hostile to any religion, but
intend to remain neutral on the subject. The attitude of the commissan apparently
is that required religious observances should not be permitted in public institutiona,
and doubtless some of the inspectors have gone further than was necessary in ptx>-
hibiting any symbol of the religion which probably most of the children sull nomi-
nally aahere to.
The second institution I visited, which had been taken over from the old govern-
ment, was an orphan asylum with some 600 children mostly under 10. It was fright-
fully crowded, m many places rather dirty, with frequently bad odors from un<uean
toilets. In one little room some 20 small boys were sleeping and eating, and I found
one child of 2 who was not able to walk and was eating in the bed in which he slept.
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. 1291
Ventilation was bad, linen not very clean, a general feeling of repression present,
slovenly employees, and, in general, an atmosphere of inefficiency and failure to
develop a home spirit which one still finds in some of the worst institutions in America.
The instrqctor who showed me this home realized its horrors, and said that the Gov-
ernment intended to move the children into more adequate quarters as soon as con-
ditions permitted. In summer the children are all taken to the country. In this
institution all the older children go out to public schools and there have been no cases
of smallpox or typhus in spite of the epidemics the city has had this winter. Fortv
children were in the hospital with minor complaints. About 10 per cent of the chil-
dren are usually ill.
The school for feeble-minded occupies a large apartment house and the children
are divided into groups of 10 under the direction of two teachers, each group developing
home life in one of the large apartments. There is emphasis on handwork. Printing
presses, a bookbinding establishment, and woodworking tools are provided. Music
and art appreciation are given much time, and some of the work done is very beautiful.
This school is largely the result of the efforts of the soviet government. Careful
records are kept of the children and simple test material has been devised to develop
in the more backward children elementary reactions regarding size, shape, form, and
color. The greatest difficulty is the impossibility of securing trained workers either
for the shops or for the special pedagogical problems of the school. However, an
energetic corps of young men and young women are employed, and they are conscious
of the size of their problem and are already thinking of the difficulties of sending their
students back into industrial life.
In many of the acti\dties of the soviet government, as well as in these institutions
taken over from the old regime, I was dismayed at the inefficiency and ignorance of
many of the subordinates. After talking to the leaders and getting some understand-
ing of their ideals, an American expects to see these earned over into practice. One
is liable to forget that the Russian people have not greatly changed, and that the same
easy-goin^, inefficient attitude of decades of the previous r^me still exists. No one
knows this obstacle better than the members of the present r^me. They realize
that the character of the Russian people is their greatest obstacle, and change in the
Russian conception of Government service is a slow process. Far from being dis-
couraged, they point to their accomplishments with pride.
During the last nine months Madame I^elina has taieen 30,000 children into Govern-
ment homes and preparations are made to take 10,000 more during the next three
months. The three new institutions which I visited are attractive suburban homes
of wealthy emigrees. The Government has taken these over and is putting groups of
40 children in charge of specially selected and trained men and women. The older
children go out to school. For the younger children kindergarten activities are
provided and much time is spent out of doors. An atmosphere of home life has been
developed which is surprising considering the short time the institutions have been
organized and the difficulties they have nad to contend with. This plan, which I
am told is permanent, is a most encouraging feature of Madame I^elina's work.
Requests to have children placed in the Government institutions are turned over
to a special corps of investigators. In each house there is what is known as a poor
committee which must also approve the requests and the local soviet is required to
pass upon the commitment of the child to an institution. The large number of chil-
dren taken over by the city is due to the number of orphans and half orphans caused
by the war and to the impossibility of many poor families providing tneir children
with food during the recent f^mino. In cases where several children of a family are
taken they are placed in the same home. Frequent opportunities for relatives to
visit the homes are provided. The amount of sickness nas been surprisingly low
considering the great amount of disease in Petrograd during the last few montbs. In
one group of 300 children there have been no deaths within the past nine months,
and among all the children there have been very few cases of contagious diseases.
The difficulties which Madame Lelina faces are numerous. First, Russia has never
had an adequate number of trained workers and many of those w^ho were trained
have refused to cooperate with the present regime, and, secondly, though the soviet
government has adopted the policy of turning over to the children's homes and the
schools an adequate supplv of food, re«?ardle« of the suffering of the adult population,
still it has been impossible to get certain items of diet, as, for instance, milk. It is
true, however, that among these children one sees few signs of undernourishment or
famine, and in general throughout the city the children seem much better nourished
than the adult population.
I had planned to visit other institutions but was unable to do so. I was told of a
laive palace which has been taken over as a home for mothers. Here all women who
so denre are sent after childbirth with their children for a period of two months.
1292 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
The health department, which asserts that there are in addition to the ](KK<mii»
bedridden people in the city, another 100,000 who are ill because of underiioiiri?h-
ment thougn able to go to the food kitchens, has been verv successful in securing from
the local Soviets special food supplies to be provided sict persons on doctors* order*.
At each food kitcnen the board of health has a representative whoee bu^inesB it is t*.
give such special diet as may be possible to undernourished individuals.
(The following communication from Mr. George Gordon Battle.
on behalf of the League of Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanians, an«l
Ukrainians and the Mid-European Association, was ordered printoil
in the record:)
Brief on Behalf of the Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanians, and Ukranian.s
Law Offices of O'Gorman, Battle & Vandiver,
37 Wall Street,
New York City, September 1, 1919,
Uon. IIenry Cabot Lodge,
Chairman United States Committee on Foreign Relations^
The Capitol t Wagkington, D. C.
My Dear Senator Lodge: On belialf of the League of Esthonians, Letts, Lithua-
nians, and Ukrainians of America, a union for mutual cooperation, having its office at
70 Fifth Avenue, New York Citv, and also in behalf of the Mid-European A8sociatir»n,
which is interested in promoting friendlv relations between this country and th**
nations of Mid-Europe, I am writing you this letter to serve as a memorandum suppl^"-
mentary to the oral presentation to your honorable committee of the claims of thetf^
four nations.
These claims are absolutely vital to these four nations. They are fighting for their
verv national life. It is impossible to exaggerate the seriousness and the importance
of their appeal. Therefore they most earnestly pray that you will give (aa they are
confident tnat you will give) your serious and carefii^l consideration to their plea.
These four nations, the Esthonians, the Letts, the Lithuanians, and the Ukrainians,
have each of them well organized and substantial governments. They Imve each of
them a strorg civil government. They have each of them armies in the field fighting
against the Germans or the Bolsheviki of Russia. During the Great War their enemies
were our enemies. They suffered as we and our allies suffered. They are now
seeking to reap the just fruits of their sacrifices and to set up a free and independent
State for each nation.
They and each of them respectively applv to your honorable committee Uiat you
give to them such aid and comfort as may be in your power to assist them in their
struggle for national independence. They are, of course, aware that it is onlv within
the power of the executive branch of our Government to give official recognition to a
national government, but the legislative branch, and particularlv the Senate (whi<-h
is peculiarly endowed with the power and charged with responsibility in re^rd to
treaties and other relations with foreign nations^ nas clearly the power and it is with
equal certainty its duty to make appropriate representations to the executive branch
in regard to such recognition, and especially at this great juncture of our affairs.
When your committee is investi^tmg the treaty of Paris, which affects our relations
with all the nations of the world, it is peculiarly appropriate that you should recom-
mend to the Senate and that the Senate should recommend to the executive branch
whether or not recognition should be given to any nations who have had their birth
in the great World War which the treaty of Paris is intended to end.
And the subject comes directly within the very terms of the treaty of peace which
you are considering. By article 116 and article 117 it is proidded as follows:
ARTICLE lid.
"Germany acknowledges and agrees to respect as permanent and inalienable the
independence of all the territories which were part oi the former Russian Empire on
August 1,. 1914.
''In accordance with the provisions of article 259 of part 10 (financial clauses) and
article 202 of part 10 (economic clauses) Germany accepts definitely the abrogation
of the Brcst-Litovsk treaties and of a'l other treaties, conventions, and agreements
entered into by her with the Maxima ist government in Russia.
' ' The allied and associated powers fonr ally reserve the rights of Russia to obtain from
Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present treaty."
TBEATY OF PEACE WITH QBRMANY. 1293
ARTICLE 117.
" Germany undertakes to recognize the full force of all treaties or agreements which
may be entered into by the allied and associated powers with States now existing or
coming into existence in future in the whole or part of the former Empire of Russia as
it existed on August 1, 1914, and to recognize the frontiers of any such States as deter-
mined therein."
All four of these States now exist and are coming into existence in a part of the
former Empire of Russia as it existed on August 1, 1914. It will therefore be entirely
proper and within the clear power and duty of your committee in dealing with these
two sections of the treaty to mention the fact that these four States have come, into
existence out of Russian territory and to recommend to the Senate that the Senate
recommend to the executive branch of the Government that official recognition be
given to these four new Republics.
And, further, the treaty itself in article 433 expressly mentions " the provisional
governments of Esthonia,' Latvia, and Lithuania.*^ That article reads as follows:
EASTERN EUROPE.
** As a guaranty for the execution of the provisions of the present treaty, by which
Germany accepts definitely the abrogation of the Brest- Litovsk treaty, and of all
treaties, conventions, and agreements entered into by her with the Maximalist gov-
ernment in Russia, and in oraer to insure the restoration of peace and good ^vemment
in the Baltic Provinces and Lithuania, all German troops at present in the said
territories sliall return to within the frontiers of Germany as soon as the Governments
of the principal allied and associated powers shall think the moment suitable, having
r^ard to the internal situation of these territories. These troops shall abstain from
all requisitions and seizures and from any other coercive measures, with a view to
obtaining supplies intended for Germany, and shall in no way interfere with such
measures for national defense as may be adopted by the provisional governments of
Esthonia, Letvia, and Lithuania.
"No other G'^rman troops shall, pendin^f the evacuation or after the evacuation is
complete, be admitted to the said territories."
And indeed all through the treaty the provision as to the delimjiting of boundaries
and the internationalization or other control of rivers vitally touch the welfare of these
four States, and in passing on such provisions it is eminently fit, proper, and just that
your committee should recommend the recognition of those nations.
Finally, it is obvious that (even without regard to the express provisions of the
treaty which have been mentioned) the question of the recognition of these four
republics comes directly and necessarily within the range of the investigation and
deliberation of your committee. These republics are part of the ancient Empire of
Russia, which was a congeries of heterogeneous nations and races. One of the prime
objects of this treaty is to set up on the ruins of these dead autocracies new republics
created and established according to the principles of self-determination. Here are
four such republics knocking at the door of our great western democracy for recogni-
tion. This IS no mere technical appeal to the Department of State for official recog-
nition. It is an appeal to the whole people and to the whole Government of our
country. It is true that the technical action of recognition must be by the executive
branch, but it is equally true that the legislative branch which is investigating this
great treaty necessarily including the subject of the recognition of these f )ur young
Governments, has the power and is chai]ged with the sacred duty of aiding them to
secure their independence. These nations therefore with fall confidence in the
sympathy of your committee with their national aspirations respectfully ask that
you recommend to the Senate that the Senate recommend to the executive branch
of the Government the recognition of the independence of each of these four States.
The treaty itself already recognizes several of these new democratic States. It
recognizes Poland, it recognizes Czechoslovakia. It is common knowledge that the
Austrian treaty will recognize the new State of the Serb?, the Croats, and the Slovenes,
as well as other new countries. The question will naturally be asked, just as it was
asked at the hearing before your committee: Whj^ was not recognition given by the
treaty of Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukrainia? The answer to the question is
that which wa:3 given at the hearing. The claims of these four countries were not
presented to the peace conference at Paris until within a very short time before its
conclusion. That conference was, therefore, unable to give mil and adequate con-
sideration to these claims. It was not necessary that the claims should be granted
or recognized in the treaty itself. Indeed, the treaty expressly recognized in articles
116 and 117 that States now exist and are coming into existence in the futiure in the
1294 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
fonner Empire of Russia as it existed on Au^rust 1, 1914, and by the treatv (jermany
undertakes to recognize the full force of all treaties or asrreements which nuiy he
entered into by the allied and associated p'^wers with such States now existing;, or
which may come into existence. And, hirthermore, as we have seen, the treaty
expressly mentions in section 433 the Provisional Governments of Esthonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania.
Furthermore, provisions are made for the entrance of new nations into the proposed
league of nations, so that it was not necessary for the peace conference to expressly
recognize these four States. It made provision for their recognition in the near ni&ire.
•It provided the machinery for such recognition and for the welcome of these four
Republics into the league of nations. Consequently the fact that the peace confer-
ence did not expressly recognize these countries is not to be regarded in any aense
whatever as a decision unfavorable to their claims.
Your committee will recall that at the hearing on August 29 the claims of the
Elsthonians were presented by Lieut. Commander Grafton Beale, of the United State*
Navy, who during his sojourn at Paris in connection with the work of the peace con-
ference became intimately acquainted with the facts and profoundly sympathetic
with the cause of the Esthonians. There were present other witnesses, 'native Es-
thonians, as well as Americans, who were prepared to supplement the appeal of
Lieut. Commander Beale with specific and detailed information.
The claims of Lat\da were presented by the Rev. Carl Podin, a minister in the
Great Seaman's Church Institute of New York, a native of Latvia, and a gentleman
of the highest character and ability, and fully informed on the subject. As in the
case of Esthonia other witnesses were present to give additional details as desired.
The cause of Ukraine was advocated by Mr. E. Revyuk, a native of Ukraine, a
journalist and publicist, who was very accurately informed in regard to the history,
past and present, and the conditions of his country. Other witnesses, both native?
of Ukraine, as well as Americans, were present to substantiate his statements and to
give further information.
The claims of Lithuania were presented by Mr. John S. Lopatto, a native of Lithua-
nia, an attorney of distinction, and an assistant district attorney for the county of
Luzerne, in Pennsylvania, in which the city of Wilkes-Barre is located. ^lany other
gentlemen, both of Lithuanian birfh, as well as Americans, were present to give
testimony on behalf of Lithuania had the time allotted been sufficient.
As counsel for the League of Four Nations and for the Mid-European Association,
I made a brief introductory statement and then presented Mr. R. J. Caldwell, a well-
known manufacturer and public spirited citizen of New York, President of the Mid-
European Association, who had been abroad and spent many days in Europe, and
especially in Paris at the time of the conference under the auspices of the Depardnent
of Labor, to promote economic and friendly relations between this country and the
Mid-European nations, old and new. Mr. Caldwell has carefully studied the subject
and made a most vigorous and persuasive address.
After him followed the representatives of the four nations in the order which I
have mentioned. I beg to call your attention to the report of these proceedings taken
down by your stenographer, and to the very convincing arguments advanced bv the
speakers. I shall not, of course, attempt to repeat those arguments within the fimits
ot this letter. I shall only very briefly recapitulate the chief grounds upon which
these four new Republics ask the aid of your committee. Before doing so, however.
let me very earnestly express the sincere and deep gratitude of the organizations and
individuals whom I represent in this matter that your committee has accorded to
them a hearing. It is a source of pride as well as gratitude that the Senate of the
United States, acting through its honorable and responsible Committee on Foreign
Relations, has given to these new and struf^ling democracies a day in court — an
opportunity to be heard. They look to you with confidence for the aid and assistance
^nuch our country has never fuled to give to oppressed nations struggling for freedom
and for a democratic form of government. Tne Monroe doctrine was established
primarily to protect the new Republics of South America against the encroachments of
Spain and the other autocratic governments of Europe. We welcomed with joy the
French Republic, which came into existence so soon after our own. We sympathized
very materially with Poland in its struggle for independence. Throughout our
national existence we have offered an asylum to the heroic men and women who have
struggled for democracy against tyranny in Russia, in Austria, in Germany, and
elsewhere. At this very moment we have by the treaty of Paris, and by the universal
consent of our allies, welcomed into the family of nations the new Republics of Poland
and of Czecho-Slovaik. We have recognized the new State of Jugo-Slavia. Assuredly
we shall not turn the deaf ear to the appeal of these four nations along the Baltic S^
stretehing down into southern Russia, who have so long contended against the aggrp«-
sions and the tyranny of the Russian and German Empires.
TREATY 07 PEACE WITH GEBMANY. 1295
These four nations make this application on the grounds both of justice and of
expediency. Their claims are just and expedient, because:
1. Each of these four nations, the Esthonians, the Letts, the Lithuanians, and the
Ukrainians, constitute a separate and distinct racial stock, with traditions deeply
rooted in the past, with powerful racial sjrmpathies drawing the people of these nations
closely togetner, and with bonds of tradition and interest which make out of each
people a true nation, a real State. Each of them present that curious complex of
inherited tradition of racial sympathy, of kinship m blood and tongue, of mutual
interests which goes to make up a nation and which arouses in the breasts of their
citizens that deepest and noblest of all human emotions, true, sincere and disinter-
ested patriotism.
2. Each people thus constituting a nation is entitled under the sacred principle of
self-determination to be recognized as a complete and independent nation.
3. Each nation has already a substantial well-organized and permanent government.
It has a civil government and it supports a disciplined army and navy. While the
government may be called provisionalbecause it is new, it is in no sense an experimental
government. On the contrarjr, it is the natural government of the nation, and it is
absolutely secure and safe against everything except external aggression and attack.
The government of each nation fully answers the requirement that the government
must be on a solid and substantial footing before it can be recognized by other nations.
4. These nations deserve recognition because of their services in the great war.
While Russia was one of our Allies, the armies of the Esthonians, the Letts, the Lithu-
anians, and Ukrainians fought ^dth devoted bravery against the central powers. They,
in conmion with the other soldiers in the Russian armies at that time, were sold out
and betrayed by their own Government and their own officials. Nevertheless, they
fought with splendid bravery and died by the hundreds of thousands for the same
cause of freedom for which we were fighting. After the collapse of the Russian
Empire these nations set up their own governments, and have smce fought and are
now fighting with the same bravery against the onslaught of the Bolsheviki govern-
ment of Moscow. Surely we must be grateful for the services which they have ren-
dered and are rendering to us and to our allies. Surely we should give them such aid
as is within our power.
5. Many of the great powers have already recognized one or the other of these four
nations. You will recall that testimony was ^iven on this point at the hearings, and
your attention is respectfully called to the minutes of the hearings on this point.
6. These four governments are all republican in their character; they ure modeled
after the French Republic, with a president and a premier. It is the original and
traditional policy of our Government to give aid and comfort to new democracies.
On this principle we should aid these four new republican governments.
7. The recognition of these four nations is necessary in order to complete the chain
of buffer States between Germany and Russia. You will see from a glance at the map
that unless these four nations are established and maintained Germany will be able
to penetrate into Russia to the north through Lithuania, and by way of the Baltic Sea
through Esthonia and Latvia, and in the south through Ukraine. As has been well
stated, Esthonia is the very gateway to Russia. The same thinfj; is true of Latvia, of
Lithuania, and of the Ukraine. It has been our established policy and the policy of
our allies to set up a chain of buffer States to keep apart the sinister influence of Ger-
many on the one nand and Bolshevism on the other. The object of this buffer has
been twofold. In the first place, it is essential to prevent the penetration, economic
and political, of Russia by Germany. In the second place, it is essential to prevent
extension to the west of the insidious doctrines of bolshevism. The erection and
maintenance of these four new nations will complete this chain of buffer States. Other-
wise the chain will be incomplete, and as it is no stronger than its weakest link it will
&il to give the necessary protection and to achieve the objects for which such a buffer
ifl desired.
8. The maintenance and establishment of these four new nations ia essential to the
peace of the world, because if their national aspirations are not satisfied they will each
constitute a center of festering discontent and unrest, which will be a constant danger
to peace. We have seen how the open sore of AkAce-Lorraine has kept alive tne
hatred between France and Germany. We have seen how the suppression of the
national aspirations of Poland has made that unfortunate country a constant storm
center. The same thing is true of Jugo-Slavia and of all the oppressed nations. The
Esthonians, the Letts, the Lithuanians, and the Ukranians have always aspired for
national freedom and independence. Of recent yean the heavy hand of the Russian
Ozar haa kept them in subjection. With them as with Finland there has always been
discontent and unhappiness. It is only by applying the principle of seH-determina-
tion and by giving to these four nations Uie nreedom ana independent government
1296 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GEBMANY.
to which they are entitled that the questions involved can be justly, finallv, and
peacefully settled. Otherwise, they will be discontented, the injustice whirn they
nave suffered will rankle, and each nation will constantly menace the peace of the
world.
9. Each of these nations has pjeat national resources. Thoy are willing and eajrer
to begin trade and commerce with us. Their people are proverbially hardy, industrious,
and frugal. They can not begin trade with us ^ith any advantage until we can
establish diplomatic representatives within their boundaries and they can likewise
set up their consulates and ministers in our country. It is universally conceded that
the best cure for the economic collapse in Europe is that industry and commerce shall
revive as soon as possible. For this reason, tnerefore, it is most desirable from the
point of view of this country, of Europe, and the four nations themselves, that their
independence should be recognized.
10. Suggestion has been made that the Kolchak Government might object to the
recognition of these countries. No such suggestion was made at the hearing, and we
do not know that the committee will entertain it. But the answer is obvious — the
Kolchak Government has not been recognized . It is established in far distan t Siberia.
These four nations are, like the Kolchak Government, fighting the BolahevikL. The
Kolchak Government has no shadow of power in these four nations. There is no
Kolchak Government and no pretense of one anvwhere in or about Esthonia, Latvia,
Lithuania or Ukraine. It is clear that the Kolcnak Government haa a sufficient task
in maintaining itself in Siberia and in central and eastern Russia, without attempting
to prevent the independence of these nations which skirt the western boundarif^ of
the old Russian Empire, and if it is desired to help the Kolchak Government, we can
conceive of no better means than to hold up the hands of these four new nations who
are so vigorously fighting the Bolsheviki who are engaged in a death struggle with the
Kolchak power. So that we do not see how the Kolchak Government has any standing
to object to the recognition of these four nations, and, on the other hand, it seems it is
clearly to the interest of that government that recognition should be given to them.
11. These nations are now suffering from the occupation in some instances of the
German armies and, in the case of Lithuania, from the a^rgressions of the Poles. It is
only just and fair that our Government should do all in its power to strengthen these
new republics against this foreign aggression by giving them such recognition, and by
taking such othdr steps as may be appropriate to secure the expulsion of the German
armies and in the case of Lithuania ofthe Polish armies as well, and the return of each
to their respective countries.
12. Many of our citizens derive their oripin from these four nations. There are
many Esthonians, I^etts, lithuanians, and iFkrainians in the United States. There
are perhaps 3,000,000 people in this country who are by birth and ancestry sprung
from these four nations. There are more than a million L^krainians, and there are
about 1,000,000 Lithuanians, and there are many thousands of Letts and of Esthonians.
It is estimated that there were about 75,000 of the American soldiers and sailors in
the Great War who sprang from these four nations. These people bought more than
$50,000,000 of Libertv and Victory bonds; they contributed to the Red Cross and to
all our war works. They have done very much to develop our industries and have
been hard-working and industrious citizens. They deserve well of our Republic.
They are practically unanimous in their eager and burning desire that this country
aid the four nations from \^hich they derive their origin in their efforts to obtain
freedom. We submit that this is a very strong argument and consideration in favor
of their application.
And now. Senator, these nations submit their case into your hands and into the
hands of your committee. They know that your recognition will be a most powerful
aid in their cause. They know that you are overwhelmed with many duties. But
you have no duty more sacred than this, because upon your decision hangs very
largely the fate of these four nations. It is a matter vital to them, to their inhabitants
which stretch from the Baltic to the Black Sea; it is vital to their people who have
become dwellers in our own free country, and to their children. It is indeed vital
to all those who desire to see freedom triumph over oppression. They most respect-
fully and earnestly beg that you will hearken to their prayer, which is uttered in the
voice of eternal justice and right, and that you will grant' their just request.
I have the honor to remain,
Very respectfully,
Geo. Gordon Battle.
P. S. — I am sending to you, special delivery, parcel post, the following documents
and literature, which contain full particulars in regard to these four nations, their
present condition, and the reasons why they are entitled to recognition:
1. A document entitled ''Memorandum — ^The Case of Esthonia, Latvie. Lithuania,
and Ukraine.^' presented by The League of Esthonians, Letts, Lithuaniana, and
W 98
TREATY OF PEACE WITH GBBMANY. 1297
Ukranians of America; and accompanied by a fonnal letter dated August 29, 1919, and
signed by representatives of each nation of the league.
This memorandimi states the case in detail and also states the grievances which
they fell and the protests which they desire to make, in addition to their prayer for
recognition.
2. ''Memorandum of program to be followed at the hearing before the Senate Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations upon the presentation of the petition ot the Provisional
Republican Governments of Lithuania, Latvia, E^thonia, and Ukraine."
3. Ab to Esthonia: A document entitled "Memoire sur L'Independance de L'Es-
thonie" presente a La Conference de La Paix par La Delegation Esthonienne; with
another document entitled "Addendum au Memoire sur L'Independance de
L'Esthonie,'* presente a la Conference de la Paix par La Delegation Esthonienne.
Also another document entitled "The Esthonian Review," dated July 25, 1919,
publidied in London, England.
4. As to Latvia, the country of the Letts, composed of the Provinces of Courland,
Livonia, and Latgale, a document entitled "Memorandum on Latvia, " addressed to
the Peace Conference by the Lettish del^ation, accompanied by a letter from John
J. Kalnin, Esq., secretary of the Letti^ National League of America, 108 East
Thirtieth Street, New York. N. Y.. addressed to Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge.
5. As to Ukraine: A document entitled "Memorial and Petition for Liberty," pre-
sented to the President of the United States and to the Peace Conference in Paris by
the delegates of the Ukrainian convention of the State of Connecticut on the 3rd day
of August, 1919, in the Ukrainian Hall, New Britain, Conn.; also a document entitled
"The Ul^aine and the Ukrainians," by Stefan Rudnitsky; also a document entitled
"Ukraine on the Road to Freedom," published by the Ukrainian National Committee
of the United States; also a document entitled "Memorial, Addressed to His Excel-
lency, the President of the United States, and to the Senators of the United States and
Representatives in Congress, " dated July 9, 1919, published by the UkrainianNational
Committee of the United States; also a document entitled "Resolutions unanimously
adopted at the mass meeting attended by 5,000 Americans and representatives of
Ulonainians, Lithuanians, Letts, and Esthonians, residing in the United States of
America, at Carnegie Hall, New York City, on May 25, 1919, published by Ukrainian
National Committee of the United States; also a document entitled "Ukraine, a
Monthly Review of Ukrainian Affairs and the Problems of Eastern Europe, " published
by the Ukrainian Alliance of America.
6. Ab to Lithuania: A docimient entitled "Independence for the Lithuanian
Nation '* or "Lithuania's Case for Independence," issued by Lithuanian National
Council in United States of America; a book entitled "The History of the Lithuanian
Nation and its Present National Aspirations," published by the Lithuanian Catholic
Truth Society; anoUier docimient entitled "Lithuania Blocks Germany," issued by
the Lithuanian National Council, 6 West Forty-eighth Street, New York; also another
document entitled "Lithuania and Poland. Why Lithuania should be Free. A
Spirit of Arms Could not Crush Her."
We heg that these documents be filed with the records of your committee, so they
can be accessible in the future.
(Thereupon, at 12.50 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned
subject to the call of the chairman.)
-^
(^
O # i
r , ^ •
si VV •
• • • V ^^
^ * • - « kV
'V *•"• aO V ♦...' .^* o ♦.,,.• .0'' V .,
.<^'
c> V
-:y
o
• T
\^
■Vf^fif^
^^^. '-SS^^ .v--*
,-\o^
"^-ov.-^" -'Mi^^^\ -^^^<i
^ »
r
/*!-. O
•^ ^'^
•j^.
o * »
» ; . ,*' -*, -.-^^.- . **''-^*. wc*:-- ,/• •^..
• •
0^ c''**^
./.•>:^-:\
_ , ,0 ^,
»>»^ <"^
• • «
v- ■••»-.
.<b
^ -^^ '-y^w
1,
)/ / , ^ *'■•-••* .<^ .._ <-. '•••♦
V «.'•«»-
!j;
,0* o ^ .• t*
.V - • • . "^^
.■i>%
Is > — ' --^^y
1^
,*'
,'4'' ♦•jJ-f^-^ "^-^
<^^
# a o
«
^^?S'. ^
» ' • •*
<:-
A^^
I
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11