711.0012Anti-War/173: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State
[Received 11:55 p.m.]
225. Your 247, August 8, 3 p.m. I telephoned Marriner yesterday but as he will not be here until Saturday I took the matter up with the Foreign Office at once. I am told that, upon first consideration of the question, Briand, desirous of meeting our wishes, is disposed in principle to notify Russia of signature of the treaty and to invite her adherence to it. This point must be examined most carefully, however, in order to eliminate any possibility that such invitation will be met either by a refusal or an objectionable answer. Foreign Office has not yet offered any suggestions or objections with reference to remainder of the program.
Briand will go into whole question more thoroughly this afternoon, and tomorrow morning I expect to receive a more definite reply.14 Some uncertainty was evinced this morning at the Foreign Office over the exact machinery whereby the immediate adherence of other powers besides the original signatories may be effected. A possible legalistic view might be that a power cannot take the necessary legal action which constitutes adherence until after there is a pact in force—as there would be after the deposit of ratifications by all the original signatories—susceptible of being adhered to.
On other hand it seems that a Government might take legal action which constitutes adherence conditionally, this condition being fulfilled the moment the treaty comes into force. For instance, after the signature of the treaty but without waiting for it to come into force a Government might ask from its Parliament and obtain consent to enactment of an instrument of adherence which could be deposited in Washington the day that the treaty comes into force. Latter conception would better serve, it seems, the underlying idea of spreading rapidly the beneficent influence of the treaty throughout the world, and I gather that it would fit in with views of French Government. The raising of any difficulty on this point was in no way implied by the discussion; there was only the desire to have an identity of understanding.
- On August 11 the Ambassador informed the Department that the Foreign Office would study the question over the week end (file No. 711.0012 Anti-War/172).↩