Senator BORAH. If, however, the actual fact of invasion were beyond dispute, then the legal obligation, it seems to me, would immediately arise. I am simply throwing 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 obligation to apply the automatic punishments of the covenant, undoubtedly; but not the legal obligation to go to arms and actually to make war. Not the legal obligation. There might be a very strong moral obligation.

Senator McCUMBER. 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 remedy to bring about the result?

The 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 McCUMBER. 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 designated 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 under any legal obligation to participate?

The PRESIDENT. No, sir; but we would be under an absolutely compelling moral obligation.

Senator KNOX. But no legal obligation?

The PRESIDENT. Not as I contemplate it.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. President, each nation, if I understand it, is, of course, left to judge the applicability of the principles stated to the facts in the case, whether 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, if 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 aggression? The PRESIDENT. I think you are right, sir. Senator [addressing Senator Knox], you were about to ask something?

Senator KNOX. I only wanted to tell you that I asked that question 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 otherwise would have been bound to do under the league of nations?

The PRESIDENT. 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 which we would otherwise have been bound to do under the terms of the league 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 understood we would have to be convinced that it was an unprovoked movement of aggression," and they at once acquiesced in that.

.

Senator MCCUMBER. 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 council 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 council, wichout exercising our own judgment as to whether we shall go to war or otherwise. Now, the public, the American people, a great proportion 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 follow 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 liberty, contemporaneously with our acceptance of the treaty, to interpret our moral obligation under that article.

Senator PITTMAN. 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 of ratification. Senator KNOX. If we embody in our resolution of ratification a statement that we understand section 10 or section 16 or section something else in a particular sense, and this Government, through its foreign department, transmits the proposed form of ratification

to the chancellors of the other nations that are concerned in this treaty, and if those interpretations are the same as you have 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 KNOX. Yes; it would need confirmation in that sense. The PRESIDENT. My judgment 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 interpretation, because it would form a part of the contract.

Senator KNOX. It might with us, because we have so much machinery 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 Government was not, by law, obliged to submit it, and it is everywhere being treated as a legislative matter-I mean, so far as the ratification is concerned.

Senator KNOx. You mean in countries where, under their constitutions, there are provisions that treaties ordinarily are not submitted 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 whether 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 but 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, because 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 felt that it was very necessary that we should get her acknowledgmentacceptance 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 differently 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 three 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 terminated. Now, that being the case, and Germany being out of the

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 the time comes and Germany is invited to become a member of the league, or when she applies, under the admission clause of the league, for membership therein, if she enters she of course accepts our reservations. If she makes a qualified application, 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 nonmembership. The covenant is a part of the treaty, it is a part of the treaty which she has signed, and we are not at liberty to change any part of that treaty without the acquiescence of the other contracting party.

Senator FALL. Well, Mr. President, of course it is not my purpose to enter into an argument, but we are here for information. There are provisions for the 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 the 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 amendment.

Senator HITCHCOCK. Did I understand your first reply to Senator Fall to be that Germany under this treaty already had a relationship to the league by reason of its international character, and its particíation in a number of questions that Germany was interested in? 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 commission 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 Congress, would it not?

The PRESIDENT. I would have to be instructed about that, Senator. I do not know.

135546-1933

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 question of the Japanese indemnity, that was done by 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 the 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? What effort was made by the delegates there to prevent the proceedings of the reparations committee being required to be secret?

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 commission 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 we 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 league, and the league shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.

What I am particularly anxious to know is whether or not the construction which was placed upon these two articles by the committee which framed the league was that it was a binding obligation from a legal standpoint, or merely a moral obligation.