Senator JOHNSON of California. Are you familiar with their terms now? Secretary LANSING. No; I could not, without refreshing my memory as to the 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 conversations, 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, because of course you understand the organization of the peace conference for work, do you not? I would not say Senator JOHNSON of California. Partially so. wholly so. Secretary LANSING. I might explain that. Secretary LANSING. In the first instance, it was discovered that to deal with so many 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 powers, and the 5 foreign ministers of the several powers. They dealt with the questions and planned in a general way the work of the conference. Certain commissions were appointed by the conference at the suggestion of the Council of Ten, and on the other hand, other commissions were appointed directly by the Council 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 which was composed of President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Clemenceau, and Mr. Orlando, and then there was a council 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 affairs 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 Council of Four practically had entire control of all the activities of the various councils, commissions, and committees that were appointed. The Council of Five took up the questions which were referred to it by the Council of Four. They 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 on questions that were submitted to them and made recommendations 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 question: 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 would 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 California. Yes; I think I understand you. 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 California. I 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 engagements with which he was familiar that the United States undertakes in the Austrian treaty? Secretary LANSING. I should want to refresh my memory on that. I do not think I have got the full text of the Austrian treaty. Senator JOHNSON of California. You could not speak with accuracy 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 that 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 quite 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 general 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 could 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 HITCHCOCK. 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 would 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. The German treaty has within it a disposition of a part of China. If there is a secret tripartite agreement in existence to-day dealing with other parts of China and other parts of the Far East, of course, we ought to know 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 understandingexist? 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? 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 would 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 that the matter you are referring to? Secretary LANSING. Yes; 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 California. Yes. Senator POMERENE. Do I understand, then, that when you said that you believed there was such a tripartite agreement awhile ago, you meant between some other parties and France, Great Britain, 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 far as that is concerned. 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? Secretary LANSING. Yes. Senator JOHNSON of California. You recall such a thing transpiring? Secretary LANSING. Yes. Senator JOHNSON of California. 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 California. 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. Secretary 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 Foreign Ministers, a Council of the Heads of Delegations, which are dealing with 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 brought forward? Secretary LANSING. I could not answer that 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 that 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? Secretary LANSING. That I could not answer. Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you know how our representatives 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 maintained 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 liberty 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? |