system which England has already spoken of as the system of democracy which she purposes for India is not even a physical autonomy for India. It is not even a provincial autonomy for India. And while the forms are highly altruistic, the substance is very practical and leaves India just exactly where she is. The people of India ask that, having served in this war substantially, having given billions of their resources, having suffered death on the battle field and death at home, and having believed that the purpose of the Allies was democracy, we shall stand in the international court of equity, all of us, with clean hands, and that we of America who meant what we said shall see that England stands also there with clean hands. And the specific request that we make of this honorable committee is that there be such a change in the covenant as will make it specifically imperative on every signatory to the document that all people under each signatory shall be provided with democratic institutions. I beg to read a resolution which Mr. Rai has handed me and which I omitted, passed by the Indian National Council in December last. [Reading:] "In view of the pronouncement of President Wilson, Mr. Lloyd-George, and other British statesmen, that to insure the future peace of the world the principle of selfdetermination be applied to all progressive nations, be it "Resolved, That this Congress claims the recognition of India by the British Parliament and by the peace conference as one of the progressive nations to whom the principle of self-determination should be applied." There can be no justification whatever for withholding the application of this principle to India. The plea of unfitness, usually advanced by ignorant people or vested interests, is untenable and untrue. The civilization of India is admittedly much more ancient and venerable than that of Rome or Athens. British statesmen themselves have often declared that India was civilized centuries before the modern nations of Europe emerged from barbarism. Indian society has been held together for thousands of years without foreign aid or intervention. Peace, order, and good government existed in India for hundreds of years, and its annals compare favorably with any period of European history. Even democratic forms of government flourished in various parts of India centuries before Alexander the Great invaded Hindustan. All educated Indians passionately protested against the imputation of unfitness as a calumnious libel upon their capacity for self-government on democratic principles. I am thoroughly convinced that the pressing problems of the poverty of India, physical degeneration, industrial regeneration, economic development, technical and primary education, and delicate questions of caste and custom can never be solved by men exclusively wedded to western civilization, but can be successfully surmounted by Indians alone. I submit Europeans are disqualified for the task; Indians alone are fit for it. Gentlemen, you know what is said. There are so many accusations that India is not fit for self-government. India is not, under those circumstances, fit for self-government such as the English or western civilization would impose upon her. But India is fit for self-government, for governing her own institutions, her own people, speaking through England, if you will, an England which would recognize the culture, the conditions, and the diversity of institutions of India. The only barrier to self-determination, Mr. Chairman, in India, is the continued rule such as India has been given. The fact that men speak different languages is no barrier to self-determination of India through self-chosen institutions. That does not prevent their coming together in a comity, in a desire for political freedom. The wonderful work that has been done in the Philippine Islands in 20 years by the United States in preparing that people substantially for self-government makes the present treatment of the 135546-19- -48 people of India, with their thousands of years of culture and literature and art and character, untenable. And, gentlemen, I submit that this is not a fiction-this argument. You deal with a concrete situation. You are now at a critical time, and may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am at least one American who sees no reason whatsoever why a piece of machinery like the league of nations, which it is hoped by its chief advocates will provide the machinery for the peace and the liberty and the comfort of the millions of mankind for centuries, should be rushed through without a complete discussion by the people of every nation; surely not by this country, who asked to do our share toward the completion of that covenant without regard to any political considerations. We should see that this document and every provision in it is thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly discussed, completely opposed and argued for. A year or two years spent on the discussion of a piece of machinery which is supposed to guide mankind for centuries would not be long, and we can then pause and think it over and stop to consider the meaning of it. I have asked to-day merely the consideration of this committee-and you have been very generous in your time, sir-to the one problem of India. Will there be an India content and free under democratic institutions, which shall be demanded and required by our Nation, or will it be an India open for future exploitation, for wars, and for graveyards for her sons? I wish to leave briefs for all members of the committee. (At the request of Senator Williams a memorandum by Mr. Sidney L. Gulick and correspondence relating thereto are here printed in the record, as follows:) Hon. JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. NEW YORK, August 21, 1919. MY DEAR SENATOR: I am pleased to send herewith a letter which I have received from my old friend, Dr. Sidney L. Gulick of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. This letter I believe will commend itself to you as an impartial statement of fact and I trust that it will serve a good purpose. Dr. Gulick has lived in the Orient for years and knows his subject well, and his position as an official high in the councils of the church renders him peculiarly well adapted to speak upon a much misrepresented subject. I know him to be a man upon whom the utmost dependence can be put. Pro-Japanese writer are as much out of order as pro-Chinese. As I see it the need just now is for statements which do not have as their premise an incurably pro anything but fact. It is with these considerations that I transfer to you his letter, inviting your attention to the fact that the author has recently been attacked by Hearst's New York American, Mr. McClatchey of Sacramento and Senator Phelan of San Francisco on the supposition that Dr. Gulick was a Japanese agent and being financed by the Japanese Government. These conclusions are erroneous and I am persuaded to believe that they are the result of a perverted and distorted perspective which has colored the imagination into a state where reason and calm deliberation are not known and I am sure that to you they will but serve to illustrate this fact and portray their obviously unfair and one-sided character. My dear Senator I most heartily congratulate you upon your worthy stand for fact and information, and if I can further your efforts in any way I shall be most be pleased to do so. Cordially yours, MILTON B. MCINTOSH, Hon. J. S. WILLIAMS, United States Senate. WASHINGTON, D. C., August 20, 1919. MY DEAR SENATOR: I take the liberty of sending you an article I have prepared on the Shantung question. It might be entitled "The duty of America to China." I conceive that duty to be the ratification of the treaty, including both the covenant of the league of nations and the clauses dealing with the disposal of the so-called German "rights" in China. Contrary to the views of Thos. F. Millard and other anti-Japanese agitators. the ratification of those provisions is essential to the establishment of right in international relations in the Far Fast and the ultimate salvation of China. Respectfully, yours, AMERICA'S DUTY TO CHINA. SIDNEY L. GULICK. [By Sidney L. Gulick.] War between America and Japan, Mr. Thomas F. Millard and others assert, will surely come, if the treaty provisions regarding Shantung are accepted by the Senate. For Japan, they insist, will keep Shantung indefinitely, whatever her promises may be; she will organize, militarize, and capitalize it for her own selfish and imperialistic ends. Official spokesmen for Japan, on the other hand, such as Baron Makino, peace delegate at Paris, Viscount Ishii, late ambassador to the United States, Viscount Uchida, foreign minister, and Premier Hara, have repeatedly declared that as soon as peace is established, steps will be taken to return the political sovereignty to China, in harmony with the treaty arrangements made between Japan and China in May, 1915. These assurances are the most responsible that a country can make. They have been made with utmost publicity and also directly to President Wilson and to the prime ministers of England and France, Lloyd-George and Clemenceau. Yet the anti-Japanese agitators in America have doubted, flouted, and ridiculed their assurances in terms of the utmost insolence. Insult has been heaped upon insult, so far as words could do it and they would fain have the American Senate lend the weight of its authority and its action to these insults. These agitators are apparently taking every means within their power to embroil the relations of America and Japan. So far, however, from war between America and Japan being likely to result from the ratification of the Shantung clauses of the traety, the probabilities are that this act will be the surest means for maintaining friendly relations. Consider the situation. England and France have much larger "spheres of influence" and "interests" and "rights" in China than has Japan. These two nations have recognized by formal treaties, in appreciation of Japan's services in the war, Japan's right to succeed to the "German rights in Shantung." Japan, moreover, has practically declared to the world, that because of her own special needs and her nearness to China she does not propose to permit further alienation of her territory by helpless China to any third power-the so-called Asiatic Monroe doctrine. She will restore Shantung to China under conditions that will make it forever secure. If now the United States accepts the arrangements made by Great Britain, France, and Japan for the disposal of German "rights" in China, China will recover complete Sovereignty and this some 70 years (and possible 700 years) sooner than if it had remained in German hands. To be sure, according to the plans, German "economic rights" will still remain in Japanese hands. But if it is not wrong for England, France, and other lands to have "economic rights" in China, to maintain "concessions," "compounds," "settlements," and various kinds of "interests" and "spheres of influence," and to keep bodies of armed troops in China in support of these "rights," why is it wrong for Japan to do so? Here is the factor in the situation that few critics seem to recognize. Moreover, few anti-Japanese writers seem to realize that Japan's interests in China are "vital" in a sense and to a degree that the interests of no other people are. Japan is dependent on China for food, raw material, and markets. An embargo on exportation of rice or any other important staple might be fatal to Japan. Right or wrong, she does not propose to allow such a possibility to arise. England and France have recognized that policy and propose to support her in it. The danger of war will arise only if America undertakes by force to expel Japan from Shantung. This, however, is inconceivable, however loudly such men as Mr. Millard and the anti-Japanese merchants of Shanghai may clamor for it. But what about China? Does not the treaty seal her doom? Will she not fall under the strangling domination of Japan? That will depend on what China herself does and also on what the nations do. First of all she must undertake thorough-going measures with herself. All the nations in the world can not save her, unless she honestly exerts herself. She must get rid of her traitorous and corrupt politicians who continuously betray her. Her leaders must qualify for life in the modern world. If they will set themselves resolutely to do this, undertaking reforms in the administration of justice and in the honest conduct of government by honest men, she can in time secure from the league of nations relief from the present onerous conditions. In no other way can she hope for abrogation of the obligations she has undertaken through her bungling and inept diplomacy of the past. If no league of nations is formed and if the restoration of Shantung to China by Japan is not accepted by the nations, then Japan will no doubt stay in Shantung. In that case incalculable world turmoil is ahead of us all. The nations will plunge headlong in a new race in armaments. China will be completely swallowed up by the competing nations. The only hope of peace for the world and of opportunity for China is the ratification by our Senate of the treaty establishing a league of nations and providing for the restoration of Shantung by Japan. In regard to the provisions of the treaty dealing with Shantung the Senate might well express in a clause its acceptance of the assurances given by the Japanese Government that it will promptly restore Shantung to China. Japan's procedure along that line will soon become the acid test of her honor and spirit of loyalty to the allies. The real hope for the future of China, however, lies in a unified international policy. Might not the Senate take steps to formulate and propose to the league of nations at an early date a positive and constructive policy for a fundamental solution of the whole far eastern problem. Such a policy would make the rights and interests of China herself paramount to those of all foreign nations. She should be given fair play and opportunity to become a great self-governing democratic nation. As rapidly as possible, she should be given complete control of all her own affairs with judicial, and tariff autonomy. To these ends, not only Japan, but England as well, and France and every other nation should undertake to restore to China their respective "rights"-secured in too many cases by force or fraud; they should withdraw their troops and police. But this is a policy and program that no nation can enter on alone. Least of all is it a policy that we can honorably ask Japan to follow and say nothing about it to England and France as a policy that they too should adopt. It is a policy, possible and desirable only by joint arrangements of all the principal nations. In order, therefore, to make a good beginning along these lines, as soon as the league of nations is under way, should it not create an international far eastern bureau to deal with all these matters, to become so to speak the "receiver" of all the special "rights" granted in past years by China to the various nations, and to put into practice in the name of the cooperating nations the principles outlined above? The way out of the Shantung tangle" is not the action suggested by Thomas F. Millard. That is the surest way to bring on a war in the Far East and to force Japan to keep, if she can, a strangle hold on China. The way to save Shantung and China is to establish principles and processes by which China will recover her rights. Japan will be assured of full access to food, raw materials, and markets, and the whole world be enabled to share in the prosperity of a wholseomely developing China. Does not this proposal commend itself to every lover of China and lover of peace and good will among the nations? The writer speaks for himself alone in these matters-not for any of the organizations with which he is connected. He is, moreover, not ignorant of the wrongdoings of Japan's representatives in Korea and in China. He by no means condones them. Nor does he defend all her policies and he diplomacy. In this article he is not seeking to appraise the rights and wrongs of her procedures in foreign lands. He is concerned only with suggesting a positive and constructive policy which he believes will solve the problems ahead, not only of China and the United States, but of the whole world. Such a policy is therefore a duty. The hope of the world lies in the establishment of the league of nations and in a fundamental and friendly international solution of the Shantung question. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will meet in executive session this afternoon at 3 o'clock. (Thereupon the committee, at 12.20 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, August 30, at 10 o'clock a. m.) SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 1919. UNITED STATES SENATE, 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, Fall, Knox, Harding, Johnson, New, Moses, Swanson, and Pittman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, please. Judge Cohalan, we will hear you now. Unfortunately our time is limited, and we can give only two hours, as we have to hear representatives of Greece for an hour afterwards. Judge Cohalan, I leave it to you to arrange the time for the different speeches. STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL F. COHALAN, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. Judge COHALAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, acting on behalf of those who are here to represent the great bulk of the 20,000,000 of the Irish element in this country, we have arranged a program which with your permission we will carry through in the order we have fixed, if possible, taking only the time. you have allotted to us. If we may have to call upon you for a few minutes extra, we are going to ask you to indulge us in it if you will. We are opposed to the proposed league of nations for many reasons, all of which we believe are of great weight and importance to the interests of our country. We object, in the first place, to the proposal to establish what we believe to be a superstate to which shall be delegated or turned over powers that belong to the sovereign United States of America. We believe that that is an infringement upon the sovereignty of the country and is an interference with its liberty, and because of that we most strongly oppose the establishment of any such body. We believe it to be an affront to America to suggest even that in any such proposed league of nations as is coming before us that any country, no matter how friendly it may claim to be to America, should have six votes as compared to the one vote of America. We believe that would be an affront to the intelligence of the people of America and a very decided injury to America if any such scheme were to go through. We are opposed to this proposed league of nations because of the fact that under it we believe the old American doctrine of the freedom of the seas, for which America has stood all through its history, is not taken care of in any way, but that, on the contrary, the matter |