MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1919.

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding.

Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), Borah, Brandegee, Knox, Harding, Johnson of California, New, Moses, Swanson, Pomerene, and Smith.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH W. FOLK.

The CHAIRMAN. Gov. Folk is here by appointment to bring to the attention of the committee the provisions in regard to Egypt.

Mr. FOLK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear before you as the counsel for the commission appointed by the legislative assembly of Egypt to attend the peace conference at Paris.

A majority of the legislative assembly of Egypt is elected by the people of Egypt The commission was appointed by that assembly and is composed by Messrs. Zaghlul, Armand, and Alfifi. Mr. Zaghlul is the vice president of the legislative assembly, the highest elective office in Egypt. He was formerly minister of justice, and before that was minister of education for Egypt. He is easily the first citizen of Egypt, so recognized, so honored and respected both by Egyptians and by all other nationalities in Egypt.

The other members of the commission are men of learning and culture. That commission is in Paris to-day in virtual imprisonment. Through the influence of Great Britain they are not permitted to come to the United States. They were not permitted to send their representative to the United States. Great Britain does not seem to be anxious that the people of the United States should know the story of Egypt.

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, perhaps you are about to do it, but please tell us the origin of this legislative assembly.

Mr. FOLK. Yes. This legislative assembly was established upon the recommendation of Lord Kitchener in 1913. It is composed of 89 members, three-fourths elected by district electors, chosen by popular vote in proportion to the population. Twenty-two members are appointed. There are four copts, three Bedouins, two merchants, one pedagogue, and one municipal representative. It is a representative body, and actually represents the people of Egypt.

This commission, through the legislative assembly, speaks for the people of Egypt; and in speaking for this commission I may fairly say that I appear before you in behalf of the people of Egypt.

Senator MOSES. Is the legislative assembly an actively functioning body in connection with the government of Egypt?

Mr. FOLK. Yes; it is a part of the regular government of Egypt at this time.

The people of Egypt want a league of nations to protect their independence, not to destroy their independence. They ask that you do not deny them that self-determination which is guaranteed to the peoples of all nations in the covenant. They ask that in the name of self-determination you do not sanction the making of Egypt to be a pendant to Britain's red girdle of the globe.

Great Britain has a Government that is just when it has no selfish reason to be otherwise. In the case of Egypt it has a selfish reason to be otherwise, and it has been and is otherwise.

Egypt, as history tells us, was a part of the Turkish dominions until 1831. In that year war broke out between Egypt and Turkey. The Egyptian armies were victorious and Constantinople would have fallen, but the powers interfered for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power, and the Egyptian armies were denied the full fruits of their victories.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the movement under Mehemet Ali?

Mr. FOLK. Yes. Later, in the treaty of London, Egypt was given autonomy, practical independence, subject to a nominal Turkish sovereignty and subject to the payment of an annual tribute to Turkey of about $3,500,000.

I will sketch the subsequent occurrences hastily, and later on I will take them up more in detail.

In 1892 Great Britain occupied Egypt for the ostensible purpose of suppressing rebels and of collecting debts due to Europeans, arising out of the Suez Canal. She pledged to Egypt and the world that this occupation would be only temporary, but she continued to stay. Great Britain first entered Egypt upon the pretext of protecting the khedive against rebels among his people. She continued to stay upon the pretext of protecting the people against the tyranny of the khedive. So at the beginning of this war England was occupying Egypt in that way.

On December 18, 1914, Great Britain seized Egypt, took over the government of Egypt through the appointment of a sultan of Egypt by Great Britain, and now, contrary to the principles in the covenant of the proposed league of nations, Great Britain asks that Egypt be turned over to Great Britain without the consent of the Egyptians, as a subject and conquered nation.

The status of Egypt arose out of the war just ending, and in that respect a very material respect-it differs from the status of many other subject countries. The status of Egypt can not be an internal question to Great Britain unless this treaty itself makes it so. Now, Section VI, Article 147, provides:

Germany declares that she recognizes the Protectorate proclaimed over Egypt by Great Britain on December 18, 1914, and that she renounces the régime of the Capituations in Egypt. This renunciation shall take effect as from August 4, 1914.

You of course are familiar with the capitulation. I shall not discuss it here. It merely provides regulations whereby foreigners in Egypt who commit crime or offend in any way are tried by the ir consular courts.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to interrupt your argument. Of course the committee knows all about the capitulations, but assume for the moment that we do not, and explain the provisions briefly, will you please?

Senator JOHNSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOLK. Sidney Low, in his book "Egypt in Transition," on page 251, very clearly describes that in this way:

Most people know roughly what the capitulations are, but it is only the resident in Egypt who is fully aware of the manner in which their-mostly baneful-influence is exercised. The capitulations are the treaties and conventions which give Europeans in the East the right of exemption from the local tribunals.

* *

*

If a

foreigner commits a crime he can not be arrested by the Egyptian police, nor may he be brought up before an Egyptian judge and tried by the Egyptian law. The police or the aggrieved party can only bring him before his own consular court. And before he can be punished it must be proved that he has committed an offense not only against the law of Egypt, but against the law of his own State, or, at any rate, against such local law as the consular authorities agree to recognize.

Now, I understand that Great Britain proposes to abolish the capitulation, but she proposes to abolish it by abolishing the independence of Egypt entirely.

It will be noted that this article in question merely purports to declare the position of Germany. The United States and the other parties to the treaty are not mentioned. But what would be the effect of an unqualified ratification of this article? Would it not have the effect of making the question of the status of Egypt an internal question to Great Britain and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the council of the league of nations?

But is the holding and governing of Egypt without the consent of the Egyptians a protectorate in a legal sense? I say it is not. This occupation of Egypt up to 1882 was often spoken of by British diplomats as a veiled protectorate. This thing that England has now done to Egypt may be well characterized as a masked annexation.

A protectorate is a relation assumed toward a weak nation by a strong nation, whereby the weak nation is protected from hostile invasion or dictation. The situation in Egypt is that Great Britain has taken over the government in part. The flag of Great Britain is supreme in Egypt. Great Britain has appointed a sultan in Egypt to rule over Egypt. He represents, not the sovereignty of Egypt but the sovereignty of England. The Egyptians to-day are governed without their consent by Great Britain. Great Britain has assumed sovereignty over Egypt. This protectorate is the same character of protectorate that a highwayman would proclaim over your pocketbook when he should hold a pistol at your head and demand that you deliver over your valuables.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Will you allow me to ask you a question there, Governor?

Mr. FOLK. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. If a nation is under a protectorate, can it make a treaty with a foreign power?

Mr. FOLK. Usually it can, but Egypt is not allowed to make any treaties with foreign powers. Great Britain has expressly required that all treaties and all dealings with foreign powers shall be through Great Britain.

Senator MOSES. Governor, may I interrupt you?
Mr. FOLK. Yes.

654

Senator MOSES. Are you intending at any time in the course of your argument to show the development of the power of the British? Mr. FOLK. Yes.

Senator MOSES. Especially under the Cromer régime?

Mr. FOLK. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you desire to proceed without interruption at first?

Mr. FOLK. It is entirely agreeable to me to answer questions as I go along, or if you prefer, when I finish I will be glad to take up any discussion that you desire, but it does not discommode me at all to be asked questions.

A bank robber in a sense proclaims a protectorate over the funds of a bank. If that protectorate, so-called, be sanctioned, the act of the robber is sanctioned even though it be called by the soft name of protectorate rather than by the name of robbery. So if the so-called protectorate of Great Britain over Egypt be recognized and sanctioned, the act is sanctioned even though as a matter of fact it is not a protectorate, but a masked annexation.

The occupation of Egypt by British troops, as I have said, was until December 18, 1914, claimed by the British Government to be merely temporary. After the beginning of the World War, Great Britain seized Egypt and the proclamation seizing Egypt was published in the London Times of December 19, 1914, page 8, column 3. It reads:

In view of the action of his Highness, Abbas Helmi Pasha, lately Khedive of Egypt, who has adhered to the King's enemies, His Majesty's Government has seen fit to depose him from the Khedivate, and that high dignity has been offered, with the title of Sultan of Egypt, to his Highness Prince Hussein Kamel Pasha, eldest living prince of the family of Mehemet Ali, and has been accepted by him.

The King has been pleased to approve the appointment of Prince Hussein to an honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath on the occasion of his accession to the Sultanate.

This seizure of Egypt by Great Britain is shown on the face of the proclamation to be a war measure. Britain's assumed sovereignty over Egypt be justified now that the But how can a continuation of war is over and the league of nations is to be established upon the principle of the right of self-determination in all nations?

Senator JOHNSON of California. What league of nations is that that you speak of?

Mr. FOLK. I am speaking of the covenant of the league of nations which is supposed to be based upon that ideal.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I think it is conceded now that it is not based upon any such ideal as that.

Mr. FOLK. Of course, there are two viewpoints. I am assuming that it is. That is the theory on which the league of nations proposes the right of self-determination of all people, and that government everywhere must be based upon the consent of the governed. The Manchester Guardian, in the issue of December 14, 1914, commenting on the seizure of Egypt, said that the action taken by Great Britain with respect to Egypt was tantamount to annexation, and did not differ in any essential point from the assumption of complete sovereignty. The facts show this statement to be true.

The London Times, in the issue of December 19, 1914, has large headline, saying "Egypt Under the British Flag-Abbas Hilmi