Senator SWANSON. Who determines whether that condition has been complied with or not? Mr. MILLER. It says specifically that in that case the members of the league reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they may consider necessary. Senator SWANSON. But suppose you have 160 men in the league and 83 of them vote one way, and in that 83 there are the six representatives of Great Britain in the assembly. If we take those six away, it does not leave a majority. The United States says, "If you take six from this report, it is not a majority of the assembly, and consequently I am not bound." Who determines that question? Mr. MILLER. The United States would say it is not bound. It is not bound, in my opinion, according to the language of the treaty. Senator SWANSON. Consequently it would be left to the United States to determine whether the six members representing the British Empire were sufficiently interested that their concurrence in the report would not count. What is your judgment on that? Mr. MILLER. I do not think it would be doubted at all that they were not to be counted by the United States or anybody else. Senator MOSES. In other words, we take on an obligation in the covenant which leaves us to do as we please? Mr. MILLER. No, Senator, I do not think you can say that, but it is true in any international agreement of any kind, of any treaty, that in the last analysis the power that signs the treaty says that it will do this, that, or the other thing. It is very difficult to draw the line between what the party to a treaty is bound to do, and the particular decisions that may come up at particular times, as to just how it shall do it. That is very difficult. Senator MOSES. Do you find in your answer any justification for Germany in her tearing up the treaty with reference to the neutrality of Belgium? Mr. MILLER. Oh, no; because that was a case where there could be no doubt whatever, and furthermore Germany admitted it. Germany said, "We have violated this treaty." Senator MOSES. Then, you think the stipulations of this covenant are not sufficiently clear, so as to obviate all these doubts in the interpretation of questions arising under the covenant? Mr. MILLER. I think they are sufficiently clear. I do not think there will be differences of opinion of any serious character regarding the interpretation of the covenant. Senator MOSES. There seem to have been quite a number around this table. Mr. MILLER. I think that is quite a different thing, Senator. Senator MCCUMBER. I want to ask you just one or two questions bearing on this same subject, and call your attention to Article V of the treaty, which says: Except where otherwise expressly provided for in this covenant or by the tema of the present treaty, decisions at any meeting of the assembly or of the council shall require the agreement of all the members of the league represented at the meeting, That, of course, means a unanimous vote? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator MCCUMBER. The exception is found immediately in the following paragraph: All matters of procedure at meetings of the assembly or of the council, including the appointment of committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated by the assembly or by the council, and may be decided by a majority of the members of the league represented at the meeting. Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator MCCUMBER. In other words; practically all matters except those of procedure must be by a unanimous vote. Now, turning again to page 31, which relates to the transferring of a matter from the council to the assembly-all matters must first go to the council; that is, all matters of dispute and then the council may in any case, under this article, refer the dispute to the assembly. That means, of course, that there is a discretion there in the council to refer the matter. Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator MCCUMBER. Otherwise there will be no necessity for that provision at all. Now, inasmuch as that is not a mere matter of procedure but a matter affecting the vital interests of the parties that is, as to where it shall be sent for determination-that would require a unanimous vote in the council, would it not? Mr. MILLER. Yes. Senator MCCUMBER. Very well, then, if it required a unanimous vote, and the United States had any doubt or fear about being outvoted in the assembly, she would not be required to send it to the assembly, would she? Mr. MILLER. No; she would vote against it. Senator MCCUMBER. She would vote against it, and if she voted against it, it could not go to the assembly? Mr. MILLER. No; not under that provision. Senator McCUMBER. That is all I desire to ask. (Thereupon, at 1.35 p. m. the committee adjourned until Wednesday, August 13, 1919, at 10.30 a. m.) (Subsequently, at his request, the following letter from Mr. Miller was ordered printed in the record:) Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. DEAR SIR: In reading over the print of my testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of August 12, I have observed certain errors, mostly typographical, which I have indicated in the inclosed print, and I request that the record be corrected accordingly. Referring to pages 411 and 412 of the record, there was obviously some confusion as to the identity of Mr. Cecil J. B. Hurst. In justice to Mr. Hurst, I venture to suggest that the record be changed by striking out everything after the question on page 411, "What is the full name of this Mr. Hurst?" down to and including the words, "Senator Brandegee. That is all," on page 412, and that the following be inserted: "Cecil J. B. Hurst. Mr. Hurst has been connected with the British foreign office since 1902. He was technical delegate and legal adviser to the British Government at the Second Hague Conference in 1907, and appeared before the British-American Claims Commission, at its sessions in the United States. The questions which were asked obviously related to Mr. Francis W. Hirst, but even a careful reading of the record does not make this clear. Faithfully, yours, DURAND HUNTER MILLER. UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 10 o'clock a. m., in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding. Present: Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Borah, Brandegee, Knox, Johnson of California, Moses, Hitchcock, Swanson, and Pomerene. STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS F. F. MILLARD. The CHAIRMAN. Please give your full name. Mr. MILLARD. Thomas F. F. Millard. The CHAIRMAN. You have been a newspaper correspondent, have you not? Mr. MILLARD. Yes; that is my occupation. The CHAIRMAN. Have you been in China in that capacity? Mr. MILLARD. Yes; I have been more or less connected with the Far East for 20 years. The CHAIRMAN. In what capacity? Mr. MILLARD. As a writer, à journalist, a publisher of newspapers, editor of newspapers. The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask Senator Johnson, as he has given particular attention to this matter, to conduct your examination. Senator SWANSON. If the Senator will allow me, before he begins. 1 would like to ask Mr. Millard this question: Did you ever hold any official position, or were you ever advisor to the Chinese Government! Mr. MILLARD. I can state the circumstances to you, and you can judge for yourself. Last February I was in New York. I left China in December and came to New York, and in January and February I wrote the manuscript for a book; and while I was doing that I received a telegram transmitted through the Chinese Legation in Washington, from the Chinese delegation at Paris, asking me if I would come to Paris to advise them in an unofficial capacity. When I had delivered my manuscript, I went on to Paris, and from the time I left New York until I got back they paid my expenses. I received no compensation. Senator SWANSON. No compensation? Mr. MILLARD. No. If that constitutes an official connection. why, that is what it amounted to. I might say in that connection, that it has been the desire of the Chinese delegation at Paris to employ two eminent Americans of reputation as international lawyers, as their official advisors over there; but by reason of advice given to them by our Government, they did not do that. They had an English and a French advisor. Senator BRANDEGEE. What part of our Government gave them that advice? Mr. MILLARD. I think the advice was first tentatively rendered through our legation at Pekin and afterwards confirmed at Paris in the early weeks of the assemblage of the conference. Senator BRANDEGEE. Confirmed by whom at Paris? 430 Mr. MILLARD. I think, perhaps, by Mr. Lansing, or perhaps communicated through the Far Eastern experts the advisors of our commission. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know what was the ground of that advice that they should not employ American counsel? Mr. MILLARD. The explanation given to me by the Chinese was that our Government felt that China's position over there was somewhat that of the ward of the United States. I am not saying that they used that term, I am using that term as descriptive of the situation. There had been preliminary consultations with the Chinese delegation at Peking before they left for Paris, in which they had submitted to our legation at Peking a list of the matters which they wished to bring up at Paris. On the suggestion of our Government, communicated through the minister at Peking, certain matters were eliminated. That is, China was advised that our Government considered that it would be inexpedient and would embarrass matters or complicate matters to raise those questions at Paris, and that led to the elimination of those questions. China did not raise those questions. Then the matter of employing some expert American advisors was brought up at that time, but I think was deferred for later consideration. After the peace conference had met at Paris, as I understand it, the matter was brought up again. I, meanwhile, and others, had advised them in a perfectly informal way, myself acting merely as a sort of general friend of China and a man who was known to be a friend of China and familiar with the political questions out there, that they employ a couple of American advisors. I had suggested Mr. John Bassett Moore and Dr. W. W. Willoughbe, who at one time had been employed out there, but neither of those gentlemen went, and I did not know until after I arrived at Paris why they had not gone. Then I was told by the Chinese over there that it had been intimated to them that our Government would prefer that no Americans be officially connected with the Chinese delegation. Senator BRANDEGEE. Was it stated at any time that the embarrassments to which you refer if they did employ American advisors would be because the plans of our Government or the intention of our Government or of our peace commissioners to protect China would be interfered with if they had American counsel connected with them? Mr. MILLARD. I could not say that. I could only conjecture about it. That was the explanation given me when I got over there. I asked Mr. Wong, and I asked Dr. Ku, because I had had some correspondence here in America with Dr. Willoughbee, in America, as to whether he was going over there or not. I said "Why didn't you get any of these gentlemen? Their counsel would have been valuable in these circumstances." And then they told me they had not done so because it had been intimated to them that our Government would prefer that they did not. I do not know what the motives of our Government were. Senator BRANDEGEE. These Chinese gentlemen to whom you refer as having told you these things, were they officially connected with the Chinese delegation? Mr. MILLARD. They were official envoys of the Chinese Government at Paris. Senator BRANDEGEE. And your services, as I understand you. were without compensation. Simply your expenses were paid? Mr. MILLARD. My expenses were paid. Senator BRANDEGEE. Did you regard it simply as a friendly act? Mr. MILLARD. It was a friendly act on my part, without any compensation. I probably would have gone to Paris any way. Senator MCCUMBER. What were your services to be? they? What were Mr. MILLARD. Just you might say as a sort of friendly counsellor. Senator MCCUMBER. A counsellor representing the Chinese Government? Mr. MILLARD. No; I did not represent the Chinese Government. My position was entirely unofficial. Senator MCCUMBER. I know, but if you were counsel you must have been counsel for somebody or something, and what I am trying to get at is for whom you were acting. Mr. MILLARD. I have explained the exact circumstances. Senator BRANDEGEE. You did not say you were counsel. You said you were advisor. Who received the requests of the Chinese over here in Washington? Who made the requests from Chinawhat man? Mr. MILLARD. It was Dr. Wellington Ku who sent the telegram. He was one of the plenipotentiaries, the former Chinese minister here in Washington. Senator MCCUMBER. You were to advise on what? Mr. MILLARD. Whatever they would ask me to advise them about. Senator MCCUMBER. That is very broad. I assumed that it was technical advice. Mr. MILLARD. On several occasions-I watched the course of events, and whenever anything came up that I thought worthy of attracting their notice, I would call attention to it or write a memorandum about it or something like that, and on two or three occasions they asked me what I thought about this or that question that came up, and I would write a little memorandum about it. Senator MCCUMBER. But you were not acting officially in any way? Mr. MILLARD. Oh, no, sir; in no sense. It was entirely unofficial. Senator BRANDEGEE. Are you interested in any publications published in the Far East now, or anywhere else, with reference to Far Eastern questions? Mr. MILLARD. Yes; I am interested in a publication in China. Mr. MILLARD. Millard's Review. Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you own that? Mr. MILLARD. No, it is owned by a corporation. Senator BRANDEGEE. Are you the editor? Mr. MILLARD. Oh, no; I have been away for the last year or so most of the time, and Prof. J. B. Powell is the editor. Senator BRANDEGEE. Were you ever the editor of it? Mr. MILLARD. Yes; I founded that paper. Senator MCCUMBER. Did you live in Japan at any time during the last 20 years? |