Senator MCCUMBER. But generally, when you speak of the British plan, you refer to the plan submitted by Gen. Smuts, do you? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator MCCUMBER. I ask that in order that I may understand your testimony. Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to interrupt your examination. I simply want to ask the witness one question, and then I will hand him back to you. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. Miller, you speak of being present at the proceedings of the commission, which was a committee, I suppose, of the delegates who were represented at the peace conference. It was called a commission, but was really a committee of that body. was it not, composed of 15 persons? Mr. MILLER. We would probably call it a committee, but they call it a commission over there. Senator BRANDEGEE. I get the idea. Mr. MILLER. Of 19 members. Senator BRANDEGEE. It was another name for what we would call a committee here? Mr. MILLER. They call it a commission when it is rather large. Senator BRANDEGEE. Very good. You said you were present there while they considered the formulation of the plan which they finally proposed? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator BRANDEGEE. What I wanted to know was, did you regularly attend their meetings? Were you present at all of them or the greater part of them, or only once or twice? Mr. MILLER. I was present at all of them. I was not a member of the commission. Senator BRANDEGEE. I understand that. You were there as an adviser? Mr. MILLER. As legal adviser of the President; yes, sir. Senator FALL. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will pardon me just a moment, as we appear to be making records here The CHAIRMAN Certainly. Senator FALL. My reason for declining to attend this conference at the White House which the other Members have testified that they attended is brought out by the records which have been made here this morning. I felt that we would differ in our recollection of what occurred, that there would be various opinions of what occurred, and that that difference would possibly be embarrassing both to the Senate committee and to the President of the United States, and that was one of the reasons why I declined to attend that conference at the White House. The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true, Mr. Miller, that comparison shows that a good deal of the covenant, as now presented, was exactly like what was printed in this Smuts plan? Mr. MILLER. I think some of it is, but I would not say that a good deal of it is exactly like it. Senator HITCHCOCK. Is the present league a sort of composite of various plans that were submitted? Mr. MILLER. Yes, Senator; and it is the composite of previous ideas also, such as the so-called Bryan peace treaties. The CHAIRMAN. You mean those arbitration treaties of Mr. Bryan? Mr. MILLER. I mean the 30 treaties which were negotiated by the United States Government, of which 20 were ratified by the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. Those were very brief treaties and dealt with only one thing. Mr. MILLER. True, Mr. Chairman, but the principle of those treaties is very similar to one of the principles of the covenant. The CHAIRMAN. One of the principles of the covenant? Surely those Bryan treaties do not cover all the things in the covenant? Mr. MILLER. Oh, no; I did not intend so to state, of course. Senator HITCHCOCK. You are referring to the provisions of the covenant which prohibit war within three months after the period of arbitration or investigation by the council? Mr. MILLER. I refer to that, Senator. The so-called treaties for the advancement of peace do not provide for compulsory arbitration. Neither does the covenant. They do provide for an international inquiry into any cause of difference whatsoever, in the most sweeping language, without any exception. There is a similar provision in the covenant. They contain a covenant not to go to war pending that inquiry. There is a similar provision in the covenant. The treaties for the advance of peace provide that the international commission shall have one year in which to conduct its inquiry. The covenant makes that period six months. The international commissions provided by the treaties for the advancement of peace are composed of five members, of which only one could be an American. That is very similar to the provision for inquiry by the council, on which the United States is represented by one member. Some of the treaties for the advancement of peace provide for a further period of six months after the report of the commission in which the parties agree not to go to war, and the treaties for the advancement of peace provide that the report of the international commission may be made by a majority. The covenant provides that only in the case of a report which is unanimous, except for the parties, is there an agreement not to go to war. The treaties for the advancement of peace reserve liberty of action after the report, subject to six months' exception in some cases. which I have mentioned, and the covenant is similar except in the one case of the report which is unanimous, aside from the parties, in which there is a covenant not to go to war against a state which accepts the ananimous recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. Were not the Byron treaties substantially arbitration treaties? Mr. MILLER. I do not think so, at all. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think they established a league of nations! Mr. MILLER. I do not. Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. Miller, what did you say your law firm's name was? Mr. MILLER. Miller & Auchincloss. Senator BRANDEGEE. Is that all of it? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. What Auchincloss is that? What is his firs: name? Mr. MILLER. Gordon. Senator BRANDEGEE. Does he hold any position abroad now? Mr. MILLER. I believe not. He was in the State Department and resigned on the 1st of July. Senator BRANDEGEE. He has been abroad, has he not? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. What was he doing there? Mr. MILLER. He was private secretary to Col. House. Mr. MILLER. He is his son-in-law. Senator BRANDEGEE. And your partner? Mr. MILLER. I so stated. Senator BRANDEGEE. What has been your experience as an international lawyer? Mr. MILLER. I have been connected with the State Department since the United States went into the war, or shortly afterwards. Senator BRANDEGEE. In what capacity? Mr. MILLER. As special assistant of the Department of State. Senator BRANDEGEE. Before you went into the State Department what had been your experience as an international lawyer? Mr. MILLER. I had a general practice in New York. To some extent it was European. Senator BRANDEGEE. Well, I mean advising commissions of different countries? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. Your firm had a general law practice in New York? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator BRANDEGEE. Had you personally had any special experience as an international lawyer representing Governments before commissions, making treaties, or anything of that kind? Mr. MILLER. Not prior to my entrance into the State Department. Senator BRANDEGEE. What is the name of your position that you occupied when you sat with the commission on the covenant of the league? What did you call yourself, or what were you called? Mr. MILLER. I was technical adviser of the American commission to negotiate peace. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know who recommended you for that post? Mr. MILLER. I do not. I was appointed by Secretary Lansing. I had been appointed by him about a year previously on a committee consisting of Mr. Lester H. Woolsey, the Solicitor of the Department of State, Dr. James Brown Scott, and myself, to prepare data of a legal nature in anticipation of peace negotiations. That committee worked in Washington-I do not remember exactly the time, but for about a year previous to the arrival of the American commission in Paris. Senator BRANDEGEE. You are not related to Col. House, are you? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know who prepared the American plan that the President is said to have taken to Europe with him, the draft for a plan for a league of nations? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. I do not know that he did take such a plan. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know whether there had been prepared for the President by any New York lawyers a plan for a league of nations which the President had seen? 135546-19-25 Mr. MILLER. I have no knowledge of that. Senator BRANDEGEE. I have been told by New York lawyers that they had seen such a plan and that they knew who drew it. How many plans, or suggestions, or resolutions, or prospectuses for plans were presented by any American interests or any Americans for consideration by the commission of the plenary conference which was considering the covenant of the league of nations? Mr. MILLER. Could I have that repeated? Senator BRANDEGEE. How many drafts for a league of nations. were presented by anybody to the commission which was considering the draft for a covenant for a league of nations in behalf of America? You have spoken of several yourself. Mr. MILLER. I have spoken of two. Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. I do not know of any others. Senator BRANDEGEE. You know that Secretary Lansing presented a resolution, do you not? Mr. MILLER. I do not know to whom he presented it. Senator BRANDEGEE. He stated that he presented it to the American commission; not to the committee or commission that was considering the draft in behalf of the peace conference, but to the American commission. Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know anything about that? Mr. MILLER. Senator, you spoke a moment ago about the commission of the plenary conference. You are now speaking of the American commission. Senator BRANDEGEE. I am speaking of both. I want to know, if your recollection serves you about it, how many plans or suggestions were presented either to the American commission, our five commissioners, of which the President was the head, and Col. House was next in rank, and Secretary Lansing was a member-how many American drafts or plans or suggestions were presented to the official commission that was considering the formation of a covenant for a league of nations as an agency of the peace conference? Mr. MILLER. So far as the American commission to negotiate peace was concerned and the plans submitted to it, I have mentioned all that I know about it, Senator, except that I suppose that a great many plans were presented by writers on the subject and sent to the commission. The volume of such matter was very large. Senator BRANDEGEE. Was article 10, as it is now embodied in the proposed covenant for the league of nations in the treaty of Versailles, in any of these so-called American plans of propositions! Mr. MILLER. As it now stands? Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. I think not. . Senator BRANDEGEE. Was the subject of our guaranteeing the territorial integrity or political independence of members of the league phrased in that way in any of the American propositions? The CHAIRMAN. I will at this point read into the record Article III of the plan sent to the Senate by the President-the American plan. [Reading:] The contracting powers undertake to respect and to protect as against external aggression the political independence and territorial integrity of all States members et the league. That is the whole of the article. It is in the American plan which the President sends us. Senator BRANDEGEE. You are familiar with that, are you not, Mr. Miller, that Senator Lodge has just read? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Senator BRANDEGEE. In your opinion, as a technical expert for the commission, are not those two provisions substantially the same? Mr. MILLER. This provision? Senator BRANDEGEE. The one that Senator Lodge just read and the one that is in the treaty, article 10. Mr. MILLER. I think there is considerable difference between article 10 and Article III, which the chairman has just read from the Congressional Record of yesterday. Senator BRANDEGEE. Well, I would be glad to have your idea of the difference. The CHAIRMAN. Let me read article 10 so that they may be side by side [reading]: The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. That is the first sentence of article 10. I will repeat Article III [reading]: The contracting powers undertake to respect and to protect as against external aggression the political independence and territorial integrity of all States members of the league. Senator BRANDEGEE. Now, you may answer, Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. Well, the first sentence of article 10 differs from article 3 in containing the word "existing," and otherwise in phraseology. Senator BRANDEGEE. Will you pardon me there a minute. You interpret the words "existing political independence" to mean existing political independence that may exist at the time the treaty is ratified, if it is ratified. The treaty speaks from the date of its ratification, does it not? Mr. MILLER. The treaty goes into force when ratified by certain powers as therein provided. Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. As to "existing political independence" I think it would relate back to the date of signature. Senator BRANDEGEE. I do not get you. Mr. MILLER. As to "existing," I think it would relate back to the date of signature. Senator SWANSON. I understand the treaty when ratified goes. back to the date of signature. Senator BRANDEGEE. I want to get the witness's idea. He is the international lawyer of the commission. Suppose the treaty is signed at different dates by the different signatories. Then what does "existing" mean? Senator HITCHCOCK. They were all signed the same date. Senator BRANDEGEE. Please let me examine him. You will have plenty of time. Senator HITCHCOCK. I thought possibly you used language you did not intend. You said "ratify." |