people of India, with their thousands of years of culture and litera ture and art and character, untenable. ment. And, gentlemen, I submit that this is not a fiction-this arguYou 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 democràtic 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 any thing 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 Francisc 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 az. sure that to you they will but serve to illustrate this fact and portray their obviousj 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 pleasi 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 administra tion 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 Chin 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 tarifi 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 1 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 organizat: n with which he is connected. He is, moreover, not ignorant of the wrongdoings et 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 concernesă only with suggesting a positive and constructive policy which he believes wills ive the problems ahead, not only of China and the United States, but of the whole worl 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 has been arranged in such manner as to turn over to England. without protest, the control of the oceans of the world. We call your attention to the fact that because of the extraor dinary development of our industrial conditions we manufacture in less than 8 months of every year what we would consume in 1 months, and that as a consequence of that, for 4 months in the year we are dependent for a market, and for an output for our factories. upon our foreign trade. We insist that under the conditions that would obtain if this proposed league of nations were to go through. we would be left in a position where we could carry on such trade. not as the matter of right which we now enjoy, for which we fought. and our forefathers before us fought, and which we have always enjoyed during the history of our country, but as a privilege extended to us by the nation which controlled the sea. We say this in no spirit of hostility to England. We would take the same position if any other country were put in the position of controlling the sea. insist that for the interest of America it is absolutely requisite that no power should be able to control the ocean through the system of navalism any more than any country divided should control all the land under the system of militarism. We believe we went to war for the purpose of ending autocracy and all that that means, and that it means not alone militarism, the control of the land, but also navalism, the control of the oceans of the world. We say that if we could carry on our commerce only so long as the opportunity to do so was extended to us as a matter of privilege by any nation, no matter how friendly that nation might claim to be, we could in no way build up our commerce or build up our industry on any permanent basis at all, because our commerce would be subject to the whim, or subject to the interest, or subject to the passion of the hour, as it might appeal to any other nation, or to any combination of nations together; and we point out with relation to that that we do not believe this war will have been properly won; that is, that the interests of America will have been properly taken care of as a consequence of the winning of the war as we insist that it was won, because of the contribution made by America, in spite of all that may be said by the other countries and the contributions they made, and the interests of America and the interests of mankind will not be properly safeguarded so long as any one nation of any combination of nationis left in possession and control of the sea, and able to interfere with the commerce that should be carried on in a normal way between all the free-trading countries of the world, all the countries that want to carry on commerce with one another and to have friendly business relations with one another. We believe the British fleet in its position of predominant power to-day is a menace to the commerce of the United States. We say that it no longer can be a weapon in the hands of England as against Germany, because Germany has been put in a position where it can in no way compete with England, where it has been deprived of it navy entirely. We say the same thing with relation to Russia. We say that it can not be held in any way to be used as a weapon against France. because France, through the action of her statesmen and the stres |