500.A4a/41a

The Assistant Secretary of State (Dearing) to Senator Medill McCormick

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1922.

DEAR SENATOR MCCORMICK: In reply to your telephone conversation of the 11th when you requested copies of any treaties analogous to the Four Power Treaty with regard (a) to provisions mutually to respect rights in relation to insular territories and (b) to provisions to arbitrate or meet in conference, I beg to say that nations have occasionally concluded treaties which are essentially different from treaties of alliance, which Oppenheim describes as follows:

"Different from real Guarantee Treaties are such treaties as declare the policy of the parties with regard to the maintenance of their territorial status quo. Whereas treaties guaranteeing the maintenance of the territorial status quo engage the guarantors to do what they can to maintain such status quo, treaties declaring the policy of the parties with regard to the maintenance of their territorial status quo do not contain any legal engagements, but simply state the firm resolution of the parties to uphold the status quo. In contradistinction to real guarantee treaties, such treaties declaring the policy of the parties may fitly be called Pseudo-Guarantee Treaties, and although their political value is very great, they have scarcely any legal importance. For the parties do not bind themselves to pursue a policy for maintaining the status quo, they only declare their firm resolution to that end. Further, the parties do not engage themselves to uphold the status quo, but only to communicate with one another, in case the status quo is threatened, with a view to agreeing upon such measures as they may consider advisable for the maintenance of the status quo." (International Law, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 602–603).

48

The following, of which copies are attached, are examples of agreements or understandings of this character:

(1) The Declarations exchanged on May 16, 1907, between, on the one hand, France and Spain and, on the other hand, Great Britain and Spain concerning the status quo in the Mediterranean;

(2) The Declarations concerning the maintenance of the territorial status quo in the North Sea, signed at Berlin on April 23, 1908, by Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, France, Holland and Sweden;

"Appointed Minister to Portugal Feb. 10, 1922, but continued his duties in the Department for several weeks before proceeding to his post.

"Not printed.

(3) The Declarations concerning the maintenance of the territorial status quo in the Baltic, signed at St. Petersburg on April 23, 1908, by Germany, Denmark, Russia and Sweden. The Root-Takahira Agreement contains among its provisions

the following:

They are accordingly firmly resolved reciprocally to respect the territorial possessions belonging to each other in said region." and

"Should any event occur threatening the status quo as above described or the principle of equal opportunity as above defined, it remains for the two Governments to communicate with each other in order to arrive at an understanding as to what measures they may consider it useful to take."

A question arising in the Pacific with regard to the Samoan Islands was dealt with in an agreement concluded at Berlin June 14, 1889, by the United States, Great Britain and Germany.50 The purpose of the agreement was to provide for the security of life and property of the nationals of the Contracting Powers in the Islands of Samoa and to establish orderly Government in the Islands. The agreement contained a declaration respecting the independence and neutralization of the Islands. This agreement was annulled by a treaty concluded December 2, 1899, between the United States, Great Britain and Germany 51 which divided the Islands between the United States and Germany, Great Britain accepting in compensation from Germany other Islands in the South Pacific. The agreement was concluded with a view to settling very acute dissensions between the three Powers with respect to the rights of their nationals in Samoa.

The arbitration or mediation treaties to which the Government of the United States is a party can be briefly described. In 1908, arbitration treaties were concluded with several nations. A copy of a typical form of these treaties is attached.52 These agreements obligate the Contracting Parties to arbitrate differences of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties which it may not be possible to settle by diplomacy; provided 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.

The United States is a signatory to the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at The Hague October 18, 1907.58 Pursuant to the provisions of this treaty the United States has submitted a number of agreements to the court at The Hague.

Treaties for the advancement of peace which differ considerably from arbitration treaties were concluded by the United States with several countries in 1914. A copy of one of these treaties is attached.54

These treaties obligate the Contracting Parties to refer all disputes between them, other than those the settlement of which is provided for under existing agreements, for investigation and report to an international commission, and the Contracting Parties are required not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and before a report is submitted. The report is not binding on the Contracting Parties as an arbitral decision.

I trust that this information meets your wishes and beg you to believe me,

Yours very sincerely,

F. M. DEARING

The Treaty for the Limitation of Naval Armament

Proposal for a Limitation of Naval Armament, Presented by the Secretary of State at the First Plenary Session of the Conference, November 12, 1921 55

The United States proposes the following plan for a limitation of the naval armament of the conferring nations. The United States believes that this plan safely guards the interests of all concerned.

In working out this proposal the United States has been guided by four general principles:

(4) The elimination of all capital ship building programs, either actual or projected.

(B) Further reduction through the scrapping of certain of the older ships.

(C) That regard should be had to the existing naval strength of the conferring Powers.

(D) The use of capital ship tonnage as the measurement of strength for navies and a proportionate allowance of auxiliary combatant craft prescribed.

CAPITAL SHIPS

UNITED STATES

1. The United States to scrap all new capital ships now under construction and on their way to completion. This includes 6 battle

& Not printed.

Reprinted from Conference on the Limitation of Armament, p. 78.

cruisers and 7 battleships on the ways and building, and 2 battleships launched.

NOTE.-Paragraph 1 involves a reduction of 15 new capital ships under construction, with a total tonnage when completed of 618,000 tons. Total amount of money already spent on 15 capital ships, $332,000,000.

2. The United States to scrap all battleships up to, but not including, the Delaware and North Dakota.

NOTE.

The number of old battleships scrapped under paragraph 2 is 15; their total tonnage is 227,740 tons. The grand total of capital ships to be scrapped is 30, aggregating 845,740 tons.

GREAT BRITAIN

3. Great Britain to stop further construction of the 4 new Hoods.

NOTE.-Paragraph 3 involves a reduction of 4 new capital ships not yet laid down, but upon which money has been spent, with a total tonnage when completed of 172,000 tons.

4. In addition to the 4 Hoods, Great Britain to scrap her predreadnaughts, second-line battleships, and first-line battleships up to but not including the King George V class.

NOTE.-Paragraph 4 involves the disposition of 19 capital ships (certain of which have already been scrapped) with a tonnage reduction of 411,375 tons. The grand total of ships scrapped under this agreement will be 583,375 tons.

JAPAN

5. Japan to abandon her program of ships not yet laid down, viz, the Kii, Owari, No. 7, No. 8, battleships, and Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8, battle cruisers.

NOTE.-Paragraph 5 does not involve the stopping of construction on any ship upon which construction has begun.

6. Japan to scrap 3 battleships: the Mutsu launched, the Tosa and Kaga building; and 4 battle cruisers: the Amagi and Akagi building, and the Atago and Takao not yet laid down but for which certain material has been assembled.

NOTE.-Paragraph 6 involves a reduction of 7 new capital ships under construction, with a total tonnage when completed of 289,100

tons.

7. Japan to scrap all predreadnaughts and capital ships of the second line. This to include the scrapping of all ships up to but not including the Settsu.

NOTE.-Paragraph 7 involves the scrapping of 10 older ships with a total tonnage of 159,828 tons. The grand total reduction of tonnage on vessels existing, laid down, or for which material has been assembled is 448,928 tons.

FRANCE AND ITALY

8. In view of certain extraordinary conditions due to the World War affecting the existing strengths of the navies of France and Italy, the United States does not consider necessary the discussion at this stage of the proceedings of the tonnage allowance of these nations, but proposes it be reserved for the later consideration of the Conference.

OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION

9. No other new capital ships shall be constructed during the period of this agreement except replacement tonnage as provided hereinafter.

10. If the terms of this proposal are agreed to then the United States, Great Britain, and Japan agree that their navies, three months after the making of this agreement, shall consist of the following capital ships: