Слике страница

Mr. Murphy. You mean the information that it should not be published?

Senator Brandegee. Yes.

Mr. Murphy. No; I can not say that of my own knowledge, except to say that one of the most important men who is accredited to have the ear of the French Government, the foreign editor of Le Temps, advised an associate and friend of mine, Mr. Erskine Chillers, a former major in the British army, a man who has espoused the cause of the Irish Republic in a wholehearted and unadulterated manner, and one of the best known publicists in England. The foreign editor of Le Temps conveyed this information to him and I have reason to believe that that was an inspired message. I did not say that that was a message brought from Mr. Clemenceau, but either Mr. Clemenceau or Mr. Tardieu were the only two who had knowledge of it unless they conveyed that knowledge to some one else.

Senator Brandegee. What I wanted to know was, in your judgment, did that information represent the French opinion, or did it represent the desire of the American commission?

Mr. Murphy. I construed it as representing the Frencli request, in accordance with the action of the American commission.

Senator Brandegee. That is all I care to ask.

Mr. Murphy. There is one more incident that I would like to present to you, and then I will give way to others. I am not going to occupy your time with the delivery of any argument on this question. There is a short presentation of one phase of the question that, with your permission, I will ask to insert in the record later.

At or about this time, by reason of family connections and business interests. I desired to visit England and Ireland. I made my request before Consul Reed in the ordinary manner, for an amendment to my passport. My passport did not give me permission to proceed anywhere except to France, as it stated, to attend the peace conference in the interest of- self-government for Ireland. I was told my request would have to be sent* to Washington. After waiting two weeks on the pleasure of Washington, as they explained to me, I had called three or four times to ascertain if there was any reply to my request to amend my passport, and on August 8 I received the following letter:

Vnited States I'akspoiit Bureau,

Path, August 8, 1019.

John A. Mvhphy. Esq.,

Grand Hotel, Paris. Sib: Referring to your recent cull at the passport burenu, you are informed that a telegram bus been received from Washington instructing the bureau to refuse to amend your passport for Ireland.

There is inclosed herewith the amount of 0.80 franc in stamps, which represents the balance due you after the cable charges have been deducted from the sum of 100 francs which you deposited. I am, sir.

Respectfully yours,

E. C. Reed,

American Consul.

I felt surprised, Mr. Chairman and Senators, that in pursuit of my private business as an American citizen my Government should denv me the right to proceed to the British Isles. My request for a passport was not to go to Ireland. My request for a passport was to proceed to the British Isles. I had personally said that my purpose was not political; that I desired no exemptions from the laws of the land. I had desired to proceed there for family and personal reasons. Now, Mr. Chairman and Senators, on the other matter which I wish to present to the committee 1 wish to say that during a stay of about two months in Paris, where I met many of the editors of the French press and many of the public men of France, I have had opportunity to get a vision of the proposed league of nations somewhat different from that which would naturally otherwise have been given to me.

From my training and environment I have naturally paid most attention to the economic and industrial aspect of the treaty. The trouble with the treaty is that it is neither a treaty of vengeance nor a treaty of justice: it is calculated to maintain forever a commercial supremacy to one or two of the high contracting parties. I regret to say that America does not seem to be included as one of those parties.

The condition of France at the present time, as admitted to me in

frivate conference by their thinking minds, is one of gravest import. ts finances are in a depleted condition; it has exercised its power of taxation so far as it is believed the people of France will endure. and still the income is more than a billion dollars below the absolute requirements of its budget, even with its army demobilized.

I spent some days driving over the devastated regions of northern France, and the paralysis of the country is appalling. The difficulties of obtaining raw materials and coal are greater than I can describe.

There has been no outlet for commercial development accorded to it by this present proposed treaty. Even the commercial advantages which have accrued to France from its old protectorate of the Christian people of the Orient is being imperiled by the British control in Mesopotamia and the Near East. Fifty-five per cent of the German indemnity which is supposed to be obtained b\ France is incomplete and uncertain reparation. Many eventualitiemay occur which would defer or avoid the payment of these indemnities, and neither France nor the world at large could ever he called to arms for the purpose of enforcing at the point of the swoni payment which may or may not be beyond the will or the possibilitie> of the central powers to pay.

On the other hand, the question of sovereigntv over subject people i~ understood in a more material way abroad than we generally understand it in America. It is understood as the right of commercial exploitation, and whether it be in the guise of mandatories for itself or its colonies, the British Empire has most successfully obtained the control of countries and people which are more than » commercial compensation for the losses endured even by the Briti«h Empire in the prosecution of war. I refer to the control that Ensrland now possesses under the terms proposed by this treaty, of almo-t one-third of the earth's surface. I am not discussing the freedom of the seas for the minute. Gibraltar, Malta. Suez, Aiden. and all the other strategic points held by England are solid answers in d«i»l of the assertion that the freedom of the seas now exists.

This present treaty proposes to subject forever the sovereignty of Egypt, to condemn the oldest nation in the world to serfdom and to commercial exploitation; Asia Minor, Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Thibet. Burmah, India, form an unbroken chain in the interest of England to meet and to connect its links with the sphere of influence claimed, and by this treaty yielded to the Imperial Government of Japan.

Japan, whose losses in this war were of a negligible quantity, is to be confirmed in its control of Korea with its 20,000.000 of people, and to be accorded the control of Shantung, with its iron, and coal, and mineral resources, and its many millions of Chinese inhabitants, and which must be regarded as the commercial jugular vein of China: by it. and through its waterways and railways of the interior <>f China, will be acquired by commercial and treaty advantages.

It is not necessary to more than glance at the map of Africa to see that from Cairo to the Cape it is to be dominated in the British interest.

I point out these things to you gentlemen to call your attention to the undying antagonism that exists between the principles upon which a Government like ours is founded, of the people and- for the people, and the principles upon which an imperial government is founded, where the Crown is, if not the right divine, at least it is the center around which rallies in support the commercial, the military, and selfish oligarchies of privilege. All of this, which I believe you will admit as self-evident, is to my mind trained and aimed more especially against America than any other country in the world; it is asserted that our factories produce in eight months our domestic requirements, so that for four months of the year we are forced either to seek foreign markets or to shut down our factories. England well knows that it can not stop the fertility of our fields from producing cotton and corn and the necessaries of life in bounteous plenty; nor our mines in their production of raw material in practically unlimited quantities; nor can it fetter the energy and the power of American industrial and commercial development. It therefore seeks, under the specious title of a league of nations, to draw a wall of iron around the markets of the world, where, by a preferential imperial tariff, the products of our factories will be handicapped in their efforts to obtain a foreign market; where from time to time a slight concession here and there on their part may be looked upon and exploited as an act of generosity on their part toward their American cousins, and so through the aid of finance and intrigue an invisible British Empire may be superimposed upon the destinies of America.

We are asked to abdicate our sovereignty in favor of a sovereignty of a composite body in which we have but one vote as against six votes of the British Empire, and the six votes of the British Empire are but a small portion of its influence. It will be in a position to offer to every country in the world—France, Italy, Greece—special concessions and considerations for their vote on every question that arises wdierein American interests might be circumscribed and impeded, regardless of principle or regardless of the eternal right in the controversy involved.

I have not attempted in these few words to enter into any discussion of the question from the Irish point of view, because I wanted it plain that my objections against this are American in the most intense and vital things. But I respectfully submit for your con sideration that the question of Ireland is interminably involved b this whole scheme of operation. America is at the present time engaged in the development of a mercantile marine to make it indc pendent of either the good will or capacity of any other power in delivering to foreign markets the products of our factories, and especially for our trade with Europe. Her ships must have a point of debarkation as well as embarkation. In other words, a line of mercantile marine without harbors in Europe would be short lived and unprofitable. The harbors of England are and will be insufficient for the British commerce; the harbors of Europe will be dominated and controlled in the interest of their respective governments Ireland alone offers to America friendly, sufficient, and secure har bors for the termini of its mercantile marine in the European carry ing trade. From these harbors by packet steamships mav be miht the quickest, the cheapest, and the best distribution in Europe of American goods and merchandise.

What the attitude of England would be to bar the development of Irish harbors in this connection was illustrated in 1913, when Europe was at peace. The White Star Line, at the instance of the British Government, discontinued Queenstown as a port of call. Tho Hamburg-American Line announced that it would make Queenstown a port of call, but before even one ship of that line made a call at Queenstown, the British Government, in pursuance of its policy of commercial isolation with which it has surrounded Ireland informed the Imperial Government of Germany that making Queenstown » port of call would be considered by the British Government un friendly, and it was undesirable.

I therefore submit for your consideration that the recognition of the Irish Republic, the de jure government of Ireland is not only right and desirable as reasoned by every standard of justice and of American ideals, but that America has an enlightened self interest in the doing of this commendable act.

The brevity of the space allotted to me compels me to deal in conclusions rather than in a presentation of the premises and the logic of the case. But we are asked by this treaty to subscribe our fortunes and the lives of our children and their children's children to continuation in serfdom of hundreds of millions of human beings whom God has created in freedom and equality; we are asked to lock the door against ourselves as an American nation in our own commerciri development and while reservations and amendments may dm* many of the fangs from this thing serpentine of iniquity, the American answer should be to kill it and in its place erect a true league of nations imbued with American ideals of justice and equality of opportunity for all. To lay these foundations securely and broadly and deeply and from here, in America, to bring about a league of nation? that shall be of all things just to the world and all its peoples, ami shall also kill this threatened encirclement of American commerce that lies hidden but real in the terms of the proposed treaty yon are now asked to sanction.

Peace can only come and endure as a result of justice, and until the fabric of this treaty is reconstructed and until the thought. th»' controls its reconstruction becomes American in its demoerarv. »<• must cease to be a people following our traditions, if we support it, and will be dragged down to the lowest levels of commercial greed.

For these reasons I submit that the defeat of the entire treaty is the most American thing, is the most humanitarian thing, is the most just thing that can now be done.

Judge Cohalax. The last speaker before Mr. Bourke Cockran will . be Mr. Daniel C. O'Flaherty, of Richmond, Va.


Mr. O'flaherty. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: In my opinion the matter which we are considering demonstrates the wisdom of the fathers when they created the Constitution of the United States. I do not believe in the history of our country a more momentous epoch has ever arisen than is now before you. It is the question of the ratification, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of a treaty that f think is more momentous in its consequences to the people of the world, and especially to the people of the United States, than anything that has ever come before the United States Senate. I speak to you, gentlemen, briefly, not as a politician, but as a Democrat, as a Virginian, as a Southerner, and if I may say so, as a Protestant and a Mason. Some people have said to nie. and I have been told, even out in the hall here to-day, that this is a religious question. I say to you that it is not a religious question, it is not a political question, but it is a question which every American citizen has a right to take into consideration. I repeat that since, the day when the Liberty Bell rang in old Philadelphia, proclaiming the Declaration of Independence, no more important matter Iih.s ever been considered by the people of this country. I have not time to go into it in the way of an argument, and after what has been said here to-day it is not necessary to argue it to such distinguished men, constitutional lawyers, but I believe that the ratification of this treaty, with articles 10 and 11 and with the other articles that follow along after it, would not make the world safe for democracy, but it would make it safe for hypocrisy. [Applause.]

What is a treaty? It is a contract between nations, and everything that is put in it is put in for somebody's benefit. What is article 10 put in there for? Is it for the benefit of the United States? We do not need it. For whose benefits is it to retain the integrity, for instance, of the British Empire? Somebody says, "Well, how does it do it?" Let us take an illustration: Suppose Canada or Ireland should desire to be free. Suppose Egypt should become free by the volition of England, and England should try to help Canada or Ireland. With whom would we go? We should have to fight against Canada in favor of England. Is not that true? I say as a lawyer that in my humble opinion articles 10 and 11 of this treaty bind Ireland and every other nation that is under the hoof of England, hand and foot to the cross.

Why should we not speak out? I say to you, gentlemen, in my opinion that if we do not speak out at this awful moment, the very stones in the street should cry out for us.

I do not claim to speak for all the people of Virginia. I am glad to say that you have on this committee one of our most distinguished sons, who has his own opinion on this subject and I may differ with

« ПретходнаНастави »