870.811/48: Telegram
The Commissioner at Berlin ( Dresel ) to the Secretary of State
[Received August 12—9:30 (a.m.?)]
918. Department’s telegram via Paris, August 5, 5 p.m. In the final sentence of paragraph one my 910, July 31, the words “the circumstances” should have been “other circumstances”.
Discussed Hines’ appointment yesterday at Foreign Office as directed but said that as the matter had now become the subject of an official protest by Germany, an answer from United States would be sent through diplomatic channels. Meanwhile more light on reasons for objection would be received gladly.
Haniel then said: 1. (in [addition] to what I had previously understood from Simons) Objection to the functioning of Hines was not because Germany considered the United States was not entitled to appoint arbitrator but solely because it was an amazing innovation on previous international practice and it was not consistent with the dignity of Germany to accept as arbitrator a citizen of a nation with which, technically, she was at war. 2. Germany would accept Hines gladly as mediator but not as arbitrator. 3. No personal objection whatever was raised. On the contrary he was considered well qualified for the position and impartial.
I replied to Haniel that the objection had occasioned some surprise and seemed very technical. I believed if it were persisted in, cooperation of the United States in aiding reconstruction, which her detachment from material considerations made especially fitting, would be rendered very difficult. Further, any change in machinery would imply obviously a modification of the Peace Treaty which would be difficult if not impossible.
I then talked with Seeliger who is conciliatory and reasonable with diplomatic training and objective point of view. He had just come back from interviews with Hines in Paris and on the Rhine which he described as wholly cordial. In accordance with his instructions he had told Hines of the objection which had been made [Page 269] and had been informed by him that the question was for the Entente to settle. Seeliger had extended and satisfactory technical talks with Hines covering the entire scope of the work and was impressed by the latter’s capacity to assume [responsibility?]. He would personally greatly regret non-continuation in office of Hines. Seeliger suggested that since for many months no decision by an arbitrator was possible owing to complication of involved issues, a state of peace would meanwhile have intervened which would obviate all difficulties. In answer to a question he said that about the middle of June he had been officially notified of Hines’ appointment. From the manner of both Seeliger and Haniel I gathered that some Government circles considered precipitate Simons’ action in forcing the issue though I could not obtain a direct statement to that effect. I personally consider the incident as a part of his pernicious activity against the Entente during past two weeks under pressure from Right. Appearances lead to the supposition that under a preconceived plan notice was to be given in every way practicable that Germany was ready to stand up for what she believed were her rights with object of strengthening the Government and consolidating the nation.
My belief now is that if the Allied Governments maintain a firm attitude the objection will not be persisted in as it is evidently against interests of Germany to unduly press the point.