Secretary LANSING. Certainly.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Many of them; did they not?
Secretary LANSING. There were not very many-two.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Well, practically all there were protested; did they not?

Secretary LANSING. Two.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Who were they?

Secretary LANSING. Prof. E. T. Williams and Capt. Hornbeck. Senator JOHNSON of California. Did not Prof. Williams, in the plainest language, protest against the Shantung decision on moral grounds, because he said the moral question had not been met? Secretary LANSING. I do not recall it in that form at all.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You recall his protest against it! Secretary LANSING. Certainly.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did the captain protest as well? Secretary LANSING. I do not think he did. I know his views, though. His views were adverse.

Senator JOHNSON of California. His views were adverse?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did Williams resign?

Secretary LANSING. He resigned, but he resigned before any decision had been reached, or anything like it.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did he resign on account of the Shantung matter?

Secretary LANSING. NO.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did the captain continue or did he resign?

Secretary LANSING. I left him in Paris.

Senator JO INSON of California. He is still in Paris. Did you have anything to do with the selection of Mr. Bullit to go to Russia? Secretary LANSING. Only formally, that is all.

Senator O INSON of California. Was he selected to go to Russia? Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California.

Secretary LANSING. Officially.

Officially?

Senator Jo INSON of California. Who selected him?

Secretary LANSING. I can not tell you that, except-well, he was appointed by the commission.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Was it not on the President's suggestion?

Secretary LANSING. NO.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Was anybody selected to go to Russia with Mr. Bullit?

Secretary LANSING. That I can not tell you. He may have been asked to take one or two men with him, because we were afraid to have anybody go in there that would not be to an extent immune from attack by the Bolsheviks. That is the only way we could get information.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did Bullit submit a written report subsequently?

Secretary LANSING. He did.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is that in the State Department archives?

Secretary LANSING. I do not think it is.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Where it is, if you please?
Secretary LANSING. I think it is in Paris.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is there any copy of it extant here? Secretary LANSING. No.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Who has charge of the report over there, Mr. Secretary, please?

Secretary LANSING. Over

Senator JOHNSON of California. In Paris?

Secretary LANSING. Mr. Polk would have, probably. It might be in the Russian branch of the service.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did Bullit resign afterwards?

Secretary LANSING. He did. He resigned on account of our attitude toward the

Senator WILLIAMS. How is that?

Secretary LANSING. Bullit resigned on account of our failure to take up certain he resigned, really, without specifying the grounds, because he did not like the treaty at all.

Senator JOHNSON of California. During your negotiations at Paris as one of the peace commissioners, what mode was adopted for the preservation of what you were doing?

Secretary LANSING. We had a secretariat.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And were the proceedings stenographically reported?

Secretary LANSING. Of the commission, or what?

Senator JOHNSON of California. Of the actual peace commission. Secretary LANSING. The American commission?

Senator JOHNSON of California. No; I was speaking of the general commission.

Secretary LANSING. Of the conference? Oh, yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. There was a stenographer?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And the proceedings, all the proceedings, were stenographically reported?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Were copies of those proceedings supplied then to the different commissioners?

Secretary LANSING. I think only proces verbaux.

Senator JOHNSON of California. At the end of each day's session? Secretary LANSING. Well, the conference did not sit continuously, you know.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I mean, at the end of each session rather than each day.

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. So that in your possession, I assume you have those proces verbaux?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Covering the entire period?
Secretary LANSING. I think so.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Who has the transcribed stenographic notes of the proceedings?

Secretary LANSING. It is difficult to say. You see, I think there were two stenographic reports, and yet I am not entirely sure about that-one French, and the other English-and in certain cases, in dealing with the Austrians, it was translated into Italian also; so

there were three reports, and where those stenographic reports are I do not know. What we got was the printed proces verbaux after the conference.

Senator JOHNSON of California. At the conclusion of each session I presume in some fashion they were marked so as to indicate their official character?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, yes. They were in print. They were in printed form.

Senator JOHNSON of California. They were in printed form. Are those in your pssession now?

Secretary LANSING. I do not know, but I could find out easily. Senator JOHNSON of California. I was asked to ask you how many sessions of the conference were held?

Secretary LANSING. That I can not tell.

Senator JOHNSON of California. There is, however, in existence, of course, an absolute and an accurate record of everything that was done by the peace conference?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is there as well in existence an accurate record of all that was done concerning the league of nations? Secretary LANSING. That I do not know. I have never seen that. Senator JOHNSON of California. What was it that you wired to or that you assisted in preparing a wire for-I do not just grasp which it was-to Clemenceau concerning the proceedings upon the league of nations?

Secretary LANSING. It was the procés verbal.

Senator JOHNSON of California. The procés verbal?
Secretary LANSING. Of the commission.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Did you deem that the procés verbal-which, I take it, is a recapitulation or a résumé of the proceedings of the particular session, I am correct in that, am I not? Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Officially gotten up by your representatives?

Secretary LANSING. By the secretary of the commission on the league of nations.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Exactly. It was in relation to the process verbal that Clemenceau was wired that it should not be given to the French Senate?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. And do you take the same attitude regarding this committee and this Senate regarding the proces verbal of the league of nations?

Secretary LANSING. I should; yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. On the theory that it would be irritating?

Secretary LANSING. It might be.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Do you mean to other nations? Secretary LANSING. To other nations; not to this Nation at all. Senator JOHNSON of California. And because it might be irritating, therefore, your position is that this Senate and our people ought not to be permitted to have the detail of the proceedings?

Secretary LANSING. Of the arguments-that is what it is. It is debate.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is the proces verbal the arguments?
Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. A mere résumé, though?
Secretary LANSING. The debate.

Senator JOHNSON of California. But it is a brief account; it is not an extended account of the debates, is it?

Secretary LANSING. Oh, sometimes quite extensive; much more full than our minutes are in such cases.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Would you object to this committee having them in executive session?

Secretary LANSING. Personally, I have no objection at all. I do not know anything about them. I have never seen them.

Senator JOHNSON of California. If you do not know anything about them, and have never seen them, why should you wire Clemenceau ?

Secretary LANSING. On the general principle.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Just what general principle.

Secretary LANSING. On the general principle that I would not submit the proces verbaux of a commission without the consent of all the other governments that were parties.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Without knowing anything about them, without knowing whether they would be irritating, on the general principle that they might be irritating

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California (continuing). You would not permit them to be seen?

Secretary LANSING. Yes; because if you open the door once I know it will make trouble.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Would that be your attitude now, without any knowledge of the situation at all, on the theory that it might be irritating; that in executive session you would not desireSecretary LANSING. That would be, until I was shown it was the other way.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Where are those proces verbaux at the present time?

Secretary LANSING. I have not the slightest idea. I have never seen them.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Have you any continuous résumé or recapitulation other than that in the proceedings upon the league of nations?

Secretary LANSING. Just a moment. What was that question? Senator JOHNSON of California. Other than the proces verbal, have you any account, any résumé, any recapitulation, other than the proceedings of the conference on the league of nations?

Secretary LANSING. No; I have not even that.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Have you any other résumé or any other recapitulation than the proces verbal of the proceedings of the peace conference?

Secretary LANSING. No; I do not think there were any others. I do not know about the minutes, the stenographic minutes. I can not tell you whether I have those or not.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I asked you the question because I did not know but what, for your own personal use or for the use of the American commission, there might have been, other than that, a separate and distinct account.

Secretary LANSING. I have no doubt there was, but I have never used it.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You have never used it?
Secretary LANSING. No; I have never used it.

Senator JOHNSON of California. You were asked by Senator Hitchcock about the secret treaties, and I wanted to make it plain in that regard. Is it not a fact that since the completion of this treaty Britain has announced that she recognizes the treaties she has made in the past, and will stand by those treaties?

Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. That is quite true, is it not?
Secretary LANSING. I think it is true.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Is it not a fact that that announcement of hers applies to the league of nations, and did it not specifically apply, in the announcement, to the league of nations as well as generally?

Secretary LANSING. I do not understand your question.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I mean this, that the treaties that are in existence now by which Britain considers herself bound, whether there be a league of nations or no league of nations-Britain considers herself bound by those treaties. That is true, is it not? Secretary LANSING. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON of California. I am glad I asked you, because I think there was some misapprehension in regard to that-it night have been wholly mine-that these treaties would have been abrogated by the league of nations.

Senator HITCHCOCK. Let me insert in the record what I was referring to. It is article 20. [Reading:]

The members of the league severally agree that this covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof. In case any member of the league shall, before becoming a member of the league, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this covenant, it shall be the duty of such member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Senator BRANDEGEE. There could not be any inconsistency, because in terms they say, in article 21, "treaties of arbitration or regional understandings."

Senator JOHNSON of California. I did not want to argue the question with you at all, but that very point, as I recall the British announcement, was taken up, and Great Britain contended that there was nothing inconsistent in her duties-just as all treaties are assumed by those who make them to be treaties of peace, treaties to prevent war, not offensive treaties at all in their character. Whether they are offensive or defensive in character, the nations making them assume that they are wholly defensive, and Britain, as she says, has observed these treaties and will observe them in the future, notwithstanding any league of nations.

Senator WILLIAMS. In other words, she says that she has not any treaties which are inconsistent.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Exactly.

Senator WILLIAMS. And if that was so, we have no quarrel with her.

Senator JOHNSON of California. Yes, exactly.