711.5112 France/34
The Secretary of State to President Coolidge
My Dear Mr. President: As you remember, on June second Briand told Mr. Herrick that he was authorized by his Government to inquire whether it would be agreeable to the United States to begin diplomatic conversations concerning the possible agreement along the lines indicated in Briand’s public statement of April sixth. We responded as follows:
[Here follows text of telegram No. 174, June 11, 11 a.m., printed in paraphrase on page 614.]
Briand thereupon, instead of waiting for his Ambassador to come over here, delivered to Mr. Herrick the proposed form of treaty, which I telegraphed to you.
I have given considerable thought to this question of a treaty. The treaty situation between France, Great Britain, and Japan and the United States is as follows:
(1) Each one of the countries has a treaty, identical in form, known as the Root Treaty which contains the following article:
“Article 1. Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two Contracting Parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of the 29th July, 1899,12 provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two Contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third Parties.”
Article II provides that before any case shall be submitted to arbitration, an agreement for arbitration must be made and ratified by the Senate. These Root Treaties have been renewed from time to time and expire as follows: with France, February 27, 1928; with Great Britain, June 4, 1928; and with Japan, August 24, 1928.
[Page 620](2) We have the so-called Bryan Treaties with Great Britain13 and France but not with Japan. As you remember, these treaties simply provide for a Commission of Conciliation and the parties agree not to resort to any force during the investigation to be made by the Commission and before its report is handed in, which term must be within one year.
(3) I discussed this whole subject of Briand’s proposal with Senator Borah before he left. However, at that time I did not have Briand’s specific proposal of the form of a treaty. In a general way Borah said he had seen the proposed treaty of Professor Shotwell of Columbia and also the one proposed by the American Foundation and that he did not believe either one was practicable. I will not go into the details of these treaties but I am sure in that respect that Borah is correct. For instance, the Foundation treaty provides for arbitration on every question, whether it is a political question or a legal question. The Shotwell treaty is not as broad and in some respects follows much nearer the Root treaties. Of course, Senator Borah said we should be prepared to renew the Root treaties with all three countries. I asked him if he thought the Senate would ratify the Root treaties for compulsory arbitration of questions of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties without the proviso that the questions do not affect the vital interests, the independence or the honor of the two contracting states and do not affect the interests of third parties. He said that personally he rather favored compulsory arbitration of purely legal questions, that is, questions arising under a treaty or well established principles of international law but that he doubted very much whether the Senate would ratify a treaty going that far. I am rather inclined to think the Senate would not although I believe this country could afford to make such a treaty. It is useless, however, to make a treaty, and probably would do harm, which the Senate would turn down.
The Bryan treaties are still in force with Great Britain and France but Japan never made a treaty with us like the Bryan treaty, although it was proposed to them. As I presently view the matter, I do not see how we can go much beyond a renewal of the Root Treaties in view of the fact that the Bryan Treaties go on permanently and, of course, we could again ask Japan to go into a similar treaty.
This morning I received a very confidential telegram from Sheldon Whitehouse, Chargé in the absence of Herrick, a paraphrase of which I enclose.14 I also enclose you a paraphrase of my answer.15 I am satisfied from Briand’s desire to make a speech on this subject and [Page 621] from the fact that he is giving out the substance of every communication he makes to us that all he is doing now is trying to create a public sentiment during the session of the Disarmament Conference and I do not think we ought to play into his hands in that way. I have not yet mentioned the question of a treaty to the Japanese Ambassador and, if I do, I think I shall confine myself to a suggestion about the extension of the Root Treaty and possibly mention the fact that we would be willing to sign a treaty the same as the Bryan Treaties and see what reaction we get. It is reported in Geneva that Japan is going to propose to us a discussion of a new treaty along the lines of Briand’s proposal but we know nothing about that beyond the rumors. Of course, the public can see no reason why the United States should not agree with Great Britain and Japan or any other country not to make war. Such a treaty would have no effect unless there was established machinery for arbitrating or adjusting the questions arising between these countries. As Borah said the other day—what is the object of making a treaty that we will not go to war if there is no machinery to settle the questions which bring on war?
I shall make no answer to France at this time, certainly not until the matter has been carefully considered by you and I am now inclined to think not until you return and can submit the matter to the Cabinet. However, I thought I would mention these various treaties and lay before you the situation as it now exists.
Faithfully yours,
- Foreign Relations, 1899, p. 521.↩
- Treaty of Sept. 15, 1914, Foreign Relations, 1914, p. 304.↩
- No. 265, June 26, noon, p. 618.↩
- No. 196, June 27, 1 p.m., p. 618.↩