« EelmineJätka »
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 memorandum 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 commission arrived.
The CHAIRMAN. Was there a draft then made of the covenant of the league by the commission ? Mr. MILLER. Not that I know of, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. This plan that the President sent in yesterdaywhere 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?
The CHAIRMAN. After it was printed—and did you have any discussion 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?
Mr. MILLER. I do not quite understand.
The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that you first saw this plan in printed form, laid before the commission by the President. Mr. MILLER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. And I wanted to find out whether it was substantially 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 CHAIRMAN. 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?
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 league 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 meetings of the commission on the league of nations of the peace conference.
The CHAIRMAN. That was composed of how many persons ? Mr. 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 commission ? Mr. MILLER. I believe they were.
The CHAIRMAN. What became of the other plans? Do you kno'v? 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 withdrawn, or were they simply laid aside ?
Mr. MILLER. No; they were not laid aside. They were there.
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 discussion
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is what I meanMr. 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 meeting at the White House to which you refer, and I want to go on record as saying that my memory does not serve me to the extent of remembering 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 understand him to say that the British plan was taken as the plan.
The CHAIRMAN. I understood him to say that there were these four plans; that they were in agreement on the fundamental principles, but that the British plan was the basis of the covenant subsequently developed. That is what I understood him to say.
Mr. MILLER. I did not understand it that way.
Senator BRANDEGEE. I want to add my recollection of that meeting, 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 furnished 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 building 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 did 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 plan.
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 understanding 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, printed, I think, in the paper, as well as in a pamphlet. The plan that was taken as a basis of discussion by the commission was a plan which was modeled, to some extent, on the other plans, but was not the Gen. Smuts plan itself.
Senator McCUMBER. 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.
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 delegates who were represented at the peace conference. It was called a commission, but was really a committee of that body was it not, composed 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.
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 large.
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. MILLER, I was present at all of them. I was not a member of the commission.
Senator BRANDEGEE. 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 moment, 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 would differ in our recollection of what occurred, that there would be various opinions of what occurred, and that that difference would possibly be embarrassing both to the Senate committee and to the President 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. MILLER. 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.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean those arbitration treaties of Mr. Bryan? Mr. MILLER. I mean the 30 treaties which were negotiated by the United States Government, 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 treaties 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?
Mr. MILLER. Oh, no; I did not intend so to state, of course.
Senator HITCHCOCK. 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 ?
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 inquiry. There is a similar provision in the covenant.
The treaties for the advance of peace provide that the international commission shall have one year in which 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 by one member.
Some of the treaties for the advancement of peace provide for a 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 of peace reserve liberty of action after the report, subject to six months' 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 arbitration 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. What Auchincloss is that? What is his first name?
Mr. MILLER. Gordon.