870.811/45: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France ( Wallace )
1336. For information of Embassy and Boyden.9 Send following to Dresel:
“Your 910, July 31.
1. Article 339 of Treaty of Versailles merely specifies that an arbitrator nominated by United States shall settle difficulties arising [Page 266] under Part VIII, Annex III, Paragraph 6, and under Articles 339 and 357. Question of American participation in Treaty is not involved more than Swiss participation because Article 304 Section A entrusts selection of arbitrator for Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to Gustavo Ador. Under Article 339 United States has power to appoint arbitrator on own initiative and no request from Allied or German Governments was necessary to sanction validity of appointment of such arbitrator. However, special circumstances made it seem advisable to this Government not to exercise its prerogatives under the Treaty and consequently no action was taken until Allied Governments formally requested ‘that the Government of the United States should immediately nominate the arbitrator or arbitrators independently of the position of the United States as a signatory of the treaties of peace.’
[Paraphrase]
The President nominated Hines upon this specific understanding. Hines functions in no manner as a representative of United States.
2. A convincing reason which led the President to accept request of Allies and appoint a man of Hines’ technical and judicial distinction was that impartial and just consideration be given to legitimate claims of Germany which was helpless to assert German rights. The appointment was also of advantage to the Allies as Hines’ prestige and qualifications would inspire general confidence in his decisions and thus prevent dissatisfaction and jealousies from arising.
3. Germany therefore has no basis for objections on practical and legal grounds. Such objections can be explained only by obtuseness to her own interests in impartial settlement of questions under arbitration or by the desire to cause friction among Allies. This Government cannot consider objections of Germany. It regards Simons’ position either as evidence of lack of appreciation of American course of action or of conscious misconstruction of its attitude and lack of desire on Germany’s part to cooperate in stabilization of present European conditions on a peaceful basis.
4. The view of this Government on American participation in the bodies growing out of Peace Treaty is that its position as one of the principal Allied and Associated Powers and its fundamental interest in solution of problems arising out of war gives the right to official or unofficial representation of the United States on all administrative bodies until ratification of Peace Treaty or other arrangement. The decision for participation of representatives of the United States was largely dictated by the desire for sane solutions of various questions arising under the treaty and for administrative interpretations which would impartially weigh the claims of economic necessities of Germany as well as of the Allies. This American attitude has been consistent. It has long been recognized by Germany; as well as by the Allies. The position of Germany regarding participation of United States in bodies growing out of the Peace Treaty is definitely stated in memorandum of January 3 from German delegation to the Council of Ambassadors: [Page 267]
‘In order to facilitate the suppression of the difficulties caused by the non-participation the United States of America in the establishment of the first procès verbal of the deposit of ratifications, the German Government wishes to continue to offer proof of its good faith. Until such time as it is known whether the United States will ratify the Treaty or not, the German Government is ready to let the Allies decide how the American representatives on the commission provided for by the treaty may be temporarily replaced.’
5. Present these views discreetly to German Government and ascertain the cause for present attitude. Are the Germans taking exception to any particular acts of Hines? If Seeliger has embarrassed Hines in any manner, proper amends should be made at once and complete disavowal made by Germany.”
For the Embassy. Was the concurrence of enemy powers ever obtained to the appointment of Hines as arbitrator as suggested in the Department’s 866 of April 30?
- Roland W. Boyden, American unofficial representative on the Reparation Commission, appointed in Mar. 1920 to succeed Albert Rathbone.↩