in and do your part?" Is there not the heaviest kind of an obligation on our part, under those circumstances, to stand with those we contracted with? Secretary KELLOGG. Now, Senator, in the first place, we are under no treaty obligation in relation to the Rhineland, at all. We have nothing to do with it. In the second place, as to the Locarno treaties; those nationsGreat Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Poland-guaranteed the western front, and the carrying out of those clauses; and if any one of the countries in that treaty made war against another, the other powers agreed to come to their help. We have nothing to do with that. As to our treaty with Germany, we do not guarantee anything at all. Next, if they break that treaty, as the Senator correctly says, and go to war, they would necessarily break this treaty. But how there can be a moral obligation for the United States to go to Europe to punish the aggressor or punish the party making war, where there never was such a suggestion made in the negotiation, where nobody agreed to it, and where there is no obligation to do it, is beyond me. I can not understand it. As I see it, we have no more obligation to punish somebody for breaking the antiwar treaty than for breaking any one of the other treaties which we have agreed to. Senator REED of Missouri. Are you sure of that? Let us turn the thing around. Senator WALSH of Montana. We have made a number of multilateral treaties. Secretary KELLOGG. A great number; yes. Senator MOSES. Do you mean postal conventions? Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes; all that kind of thing. Suppose that a nation violates one of those multilateral treaties, such as the one with Italy or Greece; what kind of obligation have we to join Italy against Greece or to join Greece against Italy? Secretary KELLOGG. Senator, we have four multilateral treaties which Russia signed, and I do not know how many more we have got. Senator REED of Missouri. That hardly answers the question, that we have other multilateral treaties. Secretary KELLOGG. Where is there a statement in the treaty, or anywhere else, of any moral obligation to punish an aggressor? Senator REED of Missouri. Let me see. Suppose we all sign this treaty, and then England forms a coalition with Japan and some other country, and they come to the attack of this country, in direct violation not only of their obligation to us, but of their obligation to every other country in the world. They have all signed. Would we not feel inclined to say to the other countries of the world, "England has not only violated her treaty with us, but she has violated her treaty with you, and you have a direct interest in it because your commerce is interfered with, and we think that you ought to come in and aid us"? Now, why not? Secretary KELLOGG. I think the United States could defend itself. I do not think it would be calling upon the other countries of the world to defend it, either. Senator REED of Missouri. I think we would be calling for all the help we could get, moral and otherwise. Senator SWANSON. I understand in your statement giving official interpretation of this treaty, you state there would be no moral obligation for us to use any force. Secretary KELLOGG. Yes; and furthermore no country suggested it; and no country said anything about it, at all, or made any suggestion at all, except Canada, and Canada said there was no obligation to apply sanctions; if there had been, I am sure she would not have signed it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, the time has arrived when we have to go on the floor of the Senate. I suppose that is all we can do to-day. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday, December 11, 1928, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.) GENERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1928 UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o'clock a. m. in the room of the committee in the Capitol, Senator William E. Borah presiding. Present: Senators Borah (chairman), McLean, Edge, Gillett, Reed of Pennsylvania, Swanson, Pittman, Robinson of Arkansas, Walsh of Montana, Reed of Missouri, and George. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK B. KELLOGG SECRETARY OF STATE Resumed The CHAIRMAN. I asked the Secretary of State to come back this morning, because I understood some further questions might be desired to be submitted. Secretary KELLOGG. I do not know that there is anything more I can say about this. If there is, I will be glad to answer any questions. Senator REED of Missouri. The Secretary stated this morning before the committee came in, that if the committee desired it, he was willing to send to the committee the whole of the correspondence in relation to these treaties. I asked him personally if we could not see it, and I think we ought to have it and have an opportunity to examine it, that is all, and find out what the attitude of these nations is so far as it is expressed. I want to say now, since the newspapers have had so much to say because I asked the Secretary two or three questions here the other day trying to get some light on this business, that I have not aligned myself on these treaties. I do not know what my position is going to be. I want to find out about it. The CHAIRMAN. Have we not all of the correspondence? Secretary KELLOGG. You have all the correspondence with the 15 nations up to the signing of the treaty. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Secretary KELLOGG. Two or three days before this treaty was signed, and knowing that before the treaty, offer was made to any nation in the world to adhere, an invitation was sent to each country, inviting them to adhere. That appears in this pamphlet. That was forwarded to each country in the world, so that they would have it on the day the treaty was signed, and immediately the treaty was signed, I sent what we call a flash- -a brief message-to our embassies and legations, to deliver this invitation to all the coun 23 tries in the world. It was delivered. During that day and the next, there were about twelve notices regarding adherence. From that time to this there are 44 nations which have either adhered or declared their intention to adhere to this treaty. Some of them, of course, have yet to send this adherence to their parliament, but the governments have declared their intention to adhere. The CHAIRMAN. Are these declarations all written? Secretary KELLOGG. They are in writing and filed in the State Department, and there are no reservations in any of them, as I recollect I went over them at the time-but I will have them copied and sent up here, if you wish. There is nothing private about them, at all. Senator SWANSON. May I ask you this question? After the negotiation had gone so far that the United States Government and France agreed that each would communicate to the nations that contemplated being original signatories to the treaty, their viewsSecretary KELLOGG. Yes. Senator SWANSON. This was handed to these nations and the nations replied? Secretary KELLOGG. Yes. Seantor SWANSON. Then, finally I think it was July 18 or 11, or some time-after these communications had been received, you addressed a note to all the powers and asked them to let you know early whether they would accept the treaty as you had sent it. Was there any correspondence in that interim that is not included in what we have here? Secretary KELLOGG. Not at all. There is not a particle of correspondence, from the beginning to the end, in relation to the negotiation of this treaty, that has not been published and is not in this volume; not one. Senator REED of Missouri. I do not want to prolong this, and I do not want to be in the position of trying to by hypercritical. I will state the point so far as it appears to me. Here is a treaty, and if there had not been a word said, of course, what the treaty means would have to be judged by just what is written in it; but there were some things said. Mr. Chamberlain said some things, and in his final note that he writes he reiterates those things. I take it that if a situation arose in the future where Great Britain was doing some one of the things that come within the scope of what Chamberlain referred to at least Great Britain would say, "Now we are acting in good faith. We told you in advance that this is the construction we put upon this treaty"; and if that was all there was to it, I, speaking for myself, would not see any escape from the position that they might take; that is, if they took it within the terms of Chamberlain's statement. Senator WALSH of Montana. Let me ask, before you go further, just what is there within the terms of Chamberlain's statements, and what might they do that would be within those terms? Senator REED of Missouri. I would rather proceed without interruption. Senator WALSH of Montana, All right. Senator REED of Missouri. I can answer that later. I am not trying to provoke an argument; I am just leading up to this The CHAIRMAN. Let me say a word. The Secretary, The Secretary, of course, has this Pan American Conference on his hands to-day, and if we are through with him, can we not let him go? Secretary KELLOGG. Senator Reed, did you want me to answer any questions? Senator REED of Missouri. No; I just wanted to make this statement to the committee. I would like to finish that sentence. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go ahead. Senator REED of Missouri. If it was true that some other nations, in view of the statements made by Mr. Chamberlain, had in some of their correspondence said that they did not accept that construction, that they put a different and broader construction upon the treaty, I think it is important to know what these other nations may have said. The CHAIRMAN. We will have the entire correspondence. Now, Senator Reed of Pennsylvania. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. Secretary, has Soviet Russia adhered to this treaty? Secretary KELLOGG. Yes; Soviet Russia adhered to the treatyan absolute adherence. When Soviet Russia adhered, about the same time, or I guess at the same time, she wrote a long note, which I will send up to you-which the French Government sent to us—saying the treaty did not go far enough, and complaining that all the powers ought to, I believe she said, disarm. It was something like the note she wrote before; criticizing the treaty because it did not go far enough. But she signed and adhered to it without any reservations. Senator SWANSON. That note is not in your catalogue here? Secretary KELLOGG. You see, that came after the signing of the treaty. We have that note. Senator REED of Missouri. I wonder if any South American countries took a similar action? Secretary KELLOGG. No; no South American country. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. In your opinion, is the confirmation of the treaty with Russia equivalent to recognition of her? Secretary KELLOGG. No; that has been thoroughly settled. The adhering to a multilateral treaty that has been agreed to by other people is never a recognition of the country. How could the United States force Great Britain to recognize a country, by our asking the third power to adhere? We have four multilateral treaties to which Russia is a party, and nobody ever claimed that one of them was a recognition of the Russian régime, at ali. I have looked that up carefully, and have given instructions to our ministers about the ubject. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. They had made no such claim on the other treaties? Secretary KELLOGG. They have made no such claim. Russia does not make any such claim. Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Then, in your opinion, there is no sense in putting a reservation in this, as to recognition of Russia? Secretary KELLOGG. No; that would be an Executive act, anyway. If the President felt that there was any doubt about it, when he proclaimed the treaty he would say that there is no recognition of Russia |