« ПретходнаНастави »
Senator Swanson. That has been discussed in the September magazines, I think in several of them. The magazines of the September issues have discussions of that treaty, but none of them had a copy of it. The reason I was anxious to know was whether you are satisfied that this was an authentic treaty.
Mr. Russell. I think if vou will let me read some of it, it sounds like an authontic treaty, trading:]
It is hereby agreed by the Persian Government on the one hand and his Britannic Majesty's minister acting on behalf of his Government on the other hand, as follows:
1. The British Government reiterates in the most categorical manner the undertakings which they have repeatedly given in the past to respect absolutely the independence and integrity of Persia.
Senator Knox. They all begin that way.
2. The British Government will supply, at the cost of the Persian Government, the services of whatever expert advisers may, after a consultation between the two Governments, be considered necessary for the several departments of the Persian administration. These advisers shall be engaged on contracts and endowed with adequate powers, the nature of which shall be a mutter of agreement between the Persian Government and the advisers.
3. The British Government will supply, at the cost of the Persian Government, such officers and such munitions and equipment of modern tvpe as may be adjudged necessary by a joint commission of military experts, British and Persian, which shall be assembled forthwith for the purpose of estimating the needs of Persia in respect to the formation of the uniform force which the Persian Government purposes to create for the establishment and preservation of order in the country and its fronuVrs.
4. For the purpose of financiering the reforms indicated in clauses two and three of this agreement the British Government offers to provide or arrange a substantial loan for the Government of Persia for which adequate security shall be sought by the two Governments in consulation, in the revenues of the customs or other sources of income at the disposal of the Persian Government. Pending completion of negotiations for such a loan the British Government will supply on account of it such funds as may be needed for initiating the salient features of reforms.
5. The British Government, fully recognizing the urgent need which exists for the improvement of communications in Persia, both with a view to the extension of trade and the prevention of famine, is required (?) to cooperate with the Persian Government for the encouragement of Anglo-Persian forms of transport; subject always to the examination of the problems by experts and to agreement between the two Governments as to the particular projects which may be most necessary, practicable, and profitable.
6. The two Governments agree to the appointment forthwith of a joint committee of experts for the examination and revision of the existing customs tariff with a view to its reconstruction on a basis calculated to accord with the legitimate interests of the country and to promote its prosperity.
Now, then, I wish to show the animus of this.
Senator Swanson. Is that all the treaty?
Mr. Russell. That is all I know of. I think that is all, sir. The signature is not here.
Senator Knox. It is all on this subject.
Mr. Russell. I think it is all the treaty.
Senator Brandegee. Will you let me ask a question there.
I saw in the papers the other day that the Shah of Persia was coming to this country. There is a Shah of Persia at present, is there not?
Mr. Russell. Yes; there is.
Senator Brandegee. How does the cabinet of Persia make this treaty instead of the Shah?
Mr. Russell. Under the constitution the Shah has no responsibility.
Senator Brandegee. He is not a party to it in any way?
Mr. Russell. Legally, not.
Senator Brandegee. He does not sign?
Mr. Russell. He does not sign.
Senator Swanson. Have you looked at the constitution of Persia to see whether a treaty for the loan of money requires ratification?
Mr. Russell. Yes.
Senator Swanson. It is mostly for the loan of money, is it not?
Mr. Russell. It takes on the form of disarmament?
Senator Swanson. The control of the Army?
Mr. Russell. That and the loaning of money.
Senator Knox. And the determination by the commission of the size of the army and the amount of ammunition, etc.
Senator Brandegee . Before you proceed, will it interrupt you to ask a question?
Mr. Russell. No.
Senator Brandegee. Is there anything in this treaty that we are now considering, the peace treaty with Germany, that affects this question about which you are raising objection? Perhaps Senator Knox has given some attention to this question.
Senator Knox. The only relevancy tnat it seems to have, to my mind, is that it was announced when the list of nations was given out, some months ago, that were to be invited to become members of the league, Persia was to be one of those that was to be invited.
Senator Moses. That is in the treaty itself, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Knox. If that is in the treaty itself, all the better. It struck me as a serious thing if after the league was projected and after they were all to go into this league as independent factors, and even on the assumption that Persia might be a dependent nation, if there was to be a provision in the league as to how mandatories were to be appointed for the backward nations, if one of the proponents of the league and one of the powerful members of the league should make a secret agreement by which she got such a hold on one of the members.
Senator Moses. On page 43 of the committee print appears the annex to part 1 of the treaty, which is the covenant of the league of nations. That annex is divided, first, ''Original members of the league of nations signatories on the treaty of peace." Then follows a list of 13 States "invited to accede to the covenant," and one of the 13 States so invited by the treaty is Persia.
Mr. Russell. That is right.
Senator New. I merely wish to remark that it was in order to develop whether anything of this kind was going on that I asked Secretary Lansing here on the occasion of his hearing if there were any secret treaties of which he knew, and if there were any assurances that there would be any other secret treaties, and it develops now that our allies and our associates in the league of nations are making secret treaties.
Senator Swanson. That could not be a secret treaty.
Senator Bkandegee. Just wait until Senator New has finished.
Senator New. It is a secret treaty. Nobody else has been given an understanding that anything of the kind was under negotiation, and I think on the face of it it is plainly apparent that it is a secret treaty in order to give one of our allies a greater hold of one of the so-called backward nations than she had at the time the league of nations scheme was outlined.
Senator Swanson. As I understand, your position then would be that under the league the United States could not enter into a treaty with a South American Republic concerning money or anything. Is that your contention?
Senator New. No; that is not my contention.
Senator Swanson. It is not a secret treaty. It must be ratified by the parliament in Persia.
Mr. Russell. It will never be ratified.
Senator Swanson. But it must be ratified in order to be effective?
Mr. Russell. Yes, sir.
Senator Swanson. Consequently it could not be a secret treaty. The only question was if Persia and Great Britain were to enter into an agreement regarding the subject of loaning money and furnishing officers for the British Army, and that would not be a bit different than if we were to enter into an agreement with Mexico or a South American Republic.
Mr. Russell. It would be very much different, if you will allow me to read some history.
Senator Moses. May I interrupt?
Senator Bbandegee. One at a time.
Mr. Russell. What is the question?
Senator Swanson. What is the difference between this and any agreement?
Mr. Russell. The difference is this: For a hundred years Persia has been bedeviled by Russia and England, and this is a continuation of that kind of conduct on the part of England, as I can show by this pamphlet, a copy of which I intend to give to every Senator.
Senator Swanson. Does she pledge her sovereignty and integrity?
Mr. Russell. She always does that.
Senator Moses. Would it help change the essential conditions in the case at all if we admitted that this treaty is another open covenant, openlv arrived at?
Senator Knox. It does not make any difference whether it is a secret treaty or open treaty. It is what the treaty does.
Senator Moses. That is exactly the point.
Senator Knox. It would be a reasonable understanding and therefore be validated by article 21 of thb league of nations.
Senator Swanson. Is it not an original understanding, like the Monroe doctrine?
Mr. Russell. I want to say this, that it is not a secret treaty, as it was not made in secret, and it is not the kind of treaty which the Constitution excepts from ratification by the national assembly. The Constitution provides [reading]:
No treaty shall be made, nor a concession given, nor any national property transferred except after ratification and approval by a majority of Parliament, save when only secret treaties are necessary in the interest of the country.
And then further down [reading]:
Treaties which may be in the interest of the government and nation to keep secret are excepted.
Now, I contend that the subject matter is such that it would not be allowed to be kept secret, the turning over the whole power of the Government to a foreign power.
Now, then, I want to read a few things to show the animus of the treaty, the meaning of the treaty, and this pamphlet contains in. chronological order
Senator Swan Son. What pamphlet?
Mr. Russell. Signed by these two Persians.
Senator Swanson. Who are they?
Mr. Russell. I do not know Mohammed Ameen, but S. Hassein Khan used to be a member of the Persian Legation. They are both, I understand, Mohammedans, Persians by birth, consequently Aryans and kin to us.
. Now, then, if yoi> will let me read right here a little of this pamphlet, I think you will see the animus and intention of the treaty. [Reading:]
By a new treaty with the British Government Persia has been sold to Great Britain. It is necessary that it be known that in the year 1906, as tht result of a revolution, Persia acquired a constitution.
And it is this constitution which is quoted here, and the thing that is of concern in this treatjT, among o+hers, is whether it will be approved by the national assembly. [Reading:]
The British Government has concluded a treaty at a moment when there is no Parliament in session to ratify, and with a cabinet which is a creature brought into being as a result of pressure by the British Government, and which has not been presented to the Parliament by a young Shah, who has constantly been threatened with dethronement if he fails to support British projects, and who has no legal right or power to sign the treaty without the approval of Parliament.
Senator Knox. How old is he? Do you know? Mr. Russell. I attended his coronation in 1914. He was then 18 years old. [Reading:]
It is said that the British are going to advance $10,000,000 for this treaty. Is it not strange that she wants to purchase a country three times as big as France in such an illegal way and for really nothing? Because whatever she arranges to pay to the Persian Government is to be paid in bank notes, while the consession of the bank notes has been given to the English bank called the Imperial Bank of Persia and there is not at all any actual control on publishing the bank notes. It is to be said the payment of millions means the delivery of some pieces of paper. In the English Parliament it has been said that the British Government will respect the independence and integrity of Persia and again that this treaty will be proposed to the peace conference.
Respecting the integrity and independence, which always have been promised by the British Government, some details will be mentioned, as follows, to prove the reliability or the contrary of such promises. But is it not wonderful to have it said in the British Parliament that probably—even probably—will be submitted to the peace conference such a shameful, illegal treaty?
No constitution could have been intended to give the Parliament or the executive or both the power to approve such a national harikari.
Senator Swanson. Have you not seen somewhere that an election is being held there for the purpose of rejecting or ratifying the treaty?
Mr. Russell. No.
Senator Swanson. I have seen in the magazines that an election is pending.
Mr. Russell. An election is pending.
Senator Swanson. And that is an issue?
Mr. Russell. An election goes on there for a long time.
Senator Swanson. And that the treaty is an issue in the election 1
Mr. Russell. I do not think that is correct.
Senator Brandegee. What is the date of the papers from which you are reading?
Mr. Russell. August 9.
Senator Brandegee. Do you know whether this treaty has been sent to the peace conference or not?
Mr. Russell. 1 am pretty sure it has not, but 1 do not know.
Senator Swanson. It has been discussed in the British Parliament, has it not?
Mr. Russell. In a way.
Senator Brandegee. Was it acted upon by the British Parliament or the House of Commons?
Mr. Russell. I do not know that, sir.
It says here [reading]:
In the English Parliament it has been said that the British Government will respect the independence and integrity of Persia and again that this treaty will be proposed to the peace conference.
That statement wa3 made that it would probably be proposed to the peace conference on account of the outcry that the French were making about the treaty. Tbey like to have a word in Persia every now and then. They had some official business themselves there at one time. I do not think there has been any action taken. It may have been ratified by the British Parliament.
Senator Knox. This hearing will develop the facts. That is the
§oint of it. If there are any questions about this thing, this will evelop the truth. Mr. Russell. Now, then, a little later along it says [reading:]
On the 31st of August, 1907, when a treaty was ~nade between Russia and England for the arrangement of three zones in Persia, which raised great commotion, in order to silence the Persians, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, the British Minister in Teheran, wrote an official letter to the Persian Government containing the following lines: "Neither of the two Governments who have signed the treaty wants anything from Persia and this treaty does not harm or mean any loss either to Persia or anv other powers, because this is only an agreement between Russia and Great Britain that hereafter neither of the two shall take anv step against the other. So Persia is quite free and able to use all her energies for the welfare of herself, and, if there was any prohibition for development of the country before, hereafter there would be no prohibition. The independence and integrity of Persia is respected."
I wish to remind you now that the railroads, the means of transportation, have to be arranged by cooperation with Great Britain. That is to keep the people from building railroads in Persia, except any few that she might want.
This letter was handed to the Persian Government on September 4, 1907, while in the introduction of the said treaty of 1907 is written also, in effect, as follows: "As both Great Britain and Russia have been and are respecting and not touching the independence and integrity of Persia"—now Jet us see how the truthfulness of their promises has been manifested.
On June 23, 1908, they were quietly supporting Mohamad Ali Shah when by his orders the Parliament was bombarded by the Russian officer, Col. Liakhoff, and a number of Liberals and Deputies were killed, captured, and hanged.
Senator Knox. I do not think that this that you are reading is relevant to the question. As you are goino- to put it into the record, I suggest that you get down to the meat of the thing, if there is my more meat in it. I think that is about all.