am very much concerned about this question of construction. Article 10 is commented on by Mr. Chamberlain on page 28. [Reading:]

10. The language of article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind your excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions can not be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defense. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That is to resist attack upon those regions.

Senator MOSES. Or "interference," it says.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Certainly. You must construe "interference" with reference to the past. It says:

His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions can not be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defense.

Senator REED of Missouri. Will you let me finish reading what I referred to? [Reading:]

The Government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty's Government believe, therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government.

That was a note of May 19, 1928. Then turning to page 48, on July 18, 1928, occurs the language:

As regards the passage in my note of 19th May relating to certain regions of which the welfare and integrity constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety, I need only repeat that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.

Secretary KELLOGG. Will you just read the next clause?
Senator REED of Missouri (reading):

I am entirely in accord with the views expressed by Mr. Kellogg in his speech of the 28th of April that the proposed treaty does not restrict or impair in any way the right of self-defense, as also with his opinion that each State alone is competent to decide when circumstances necessitate recourse to war for that purpose.

Secretary KELLOGG. That is it.

Senator REED of Missouri (continuing reading).

In the light of the foregoing explanations, His Majesty's Government in Great Britain are glad to join with the United States and with all other governments similarly disposed"

And so forth.

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Is there any doubt in your mind, Mr. Secretary, if after these treaties were signed, some nation was guilty of some act with reference to these possessions that Mr. Chamberlain is talking about which England regarded as an interference with her rights, that England would claim that they had construed this treaty in advance, and had excepted those rights?

Secretary KELLOGG. There is undoubtedly doubt in my mind, because Great Britain was talking about nothing but self-defense.

It is true that whether she had written that note or not, if Great Britain had any possessions in the world, she had a right to defend them; and that is all she was talking about.

Senator REED of Missouri. Do you not think that England would have the right to say, "Mr. Chamberlain said thus and so"-and quote his language "and that means we are not going to suffer anything to be done in these possessions which we believe will impair our rights"?

Secretary KELLOGG. She would have no greater right under her notes than she would have under this treaty without the notes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Then everything you have said goes into the same hopper. We have no greater rights in the matter of the construction of this treaty because of anything you said, than Austen Chamberlain has because of what he said; because both of us signed the treaty and we both are to be governed by the treaty? Secretary KELLOGG. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. That is where we come out. So that all this talk and all this negotiation goes into the junk heap; is that right?

Secretary KELLOGG. Many of their suggestions were not agreed to by me. The legal construction of the treaty I stated after giving it very careful consideration. I still hold it is the proper construction of this treaty, and would be if there never had been a note written.

Senator SWANSON. Mr. Secretary, let me read this to you. I want to be clear in my mind. South Africa is mentioned in nearly every other note from Mr. Chamberlain. On July 18 you sent a note insisting that they should say whether they accepted, and in their letter of acceptance which ends on page 36, is this provision:

(c) That provision will be made for rendering it quite clear that it is not intended that the Union of South Africa, by becoming a party to the proposed treaty would be precluded from fulfilling as a member of the League of Nations its obligations toward the other members thereof under the provisions of the covenant of the League.

I understand France said she gave her acceptance with the distinct understanding that the obligations accruing under the league and the Locarno treaties were not to be interfered with by this treaty. Does that mean that so far as these obligations are concerned it is precisely the same as if the treaty was not written, and that it does not apply to those obligations or interfere with those obligations?

Secretary KELLOGG. Certainly; because I suggested it would be a further protection to them. They knew that we would not join in any sanction, or assume any obligation to join in any sanction. They were afraid this treaty would take away their right to come to the help of somebody else, and I was not willing to put a clause in this treaty to that effect, at all; but I said they could accomplish that object by having all the parties to those treaties sign this treaty. Then what would happen? If they broke those treaties they would break this treaty and would be, ipso facto, released from the obligations under this treaty. That is what I said, and that is the application of this treaty.

Senator SWANSON. If a case should arise in which the obligations of the league or the Locarno treaties should require war-there are cases of war under the Locarno treaties-would this treaty apply on those obligations excluded from this treaty?

Let

Secretary KELLOGG. I do not know exactly what you mean. me illustrate by a statement. Suppose Germany should make war on Belgium, in violation of the Locarno treaties; it would then be the duty of Great Britain and France and Italy and Czechoslovakia and Poland to come to the help-whatever that may mean-of Belgium; and we will assume that it means by military forces. The moment Germany broke the treaty she would also break this treaty, would she not?

Senator SWANSON. That is true.

Secretary KELLOGG. And they could go ahead and carry out their obligations if they wanted to without violating this treaty, because if one party to the treaty violates it, the other parties to it are released. from their obligation.

Senator EDGE. The British Foreign Office, on page 36, states exactly what you have stated.

Senator BAYARD. Suppose Belgium put it on the flat ground of self-defense which this treaty sets up; would the treaties of Locarno then come into effect?

Secretary KELLOGG. As I have explained before, nobody on earth, probably, could write an article defining "self-defense" or "aggressor' that some country could not get around; and I made up my mind that the only safe thing for any country to do was to judge for itself within its sovereign rights whether it was unjustly attacked and had a right to defend itself, and it must answer to the opinion of the world.

Senator SWANSON. As I understand this treaty-and I have studied it carefully-the obligations assumed by 55 nations in the League of Nations are considered and understood by you and understood by these men to be reserved, and that this treaty does not in any way interfere with the obligations of the League or the Locarno treaties. Secretary KELLOGG. No.

Senator SWANSON. And if the obligations of the treaty and of the league conflict, that the obligations to the league would prevail, and this treaty would not be considered as interfering with those obligations.

Secretary KELLOGG. No; now, that is not acccurate.

Senator SWANSON. That is the way these people who have signed have understood it.

Secretary KELLOGG. Most of the States that signed the league covenant have signed this treaty, and if one of them breaks this treaty, if one of the countries should attack another in violation of the league covenant, then of course the other countries would be released; and the same way with the Locarno treaties.

Senator SWANSON. Suppose a country is not attacked. Suppose there is an economic blockade, and they carry out their obligations under the League of Nations for an economic blockade; would this treaty interfere with it?

Secretary KELLOGG. There is no such thing as a blockade without you are in war.

Senator SWANSON. That is a debatable question.

Senator REED of Missouri. It is an act of war.

Secretary KELLOGG. An act of war, absolutely. If an act of war is committed in violation of the treaty, the other parties are released as to the treaty breaking nation.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I wanted to follow up the question asked by the Senator from Delaware. He said, assume that Ger-many invades Belgium, claiming she does so in self-defense. Let us assume her claim is a perfectly just one; that she is acting in selfdefense. Then of course the other nations that come to the aid of Belgium would be breaking not only the Locarno treaties, but breaking this treaty. But what difference does that make to us? Secretary KELLOGG. None at all.

Senator WALSH of Montana. Supposing some other nation does break this treaty, why should we interest ourselves in it?

Secretary KELLOGG. There is not a bit of reason.

Senator WALSH of Montana. And why should we care whether they break this treaty or some other treaty? That is for them to consider and not us.

Senator EDGE. In other words, one treaty is just as binding as the other.

Senator REED of Missouri. I think there is no doubt that Secre-tary Kellogg is right when he says that if a nation begins war, it breaks this treaty, and if it begins an unjust war, a war of aggression, it breaks this treaty and consequently it would break the Locarno treaties, and would break the obligations of the league. I think that is true. But I am going a little bit further; or, rather, I am dis-cussing, or was discussing, another subject. The Secretary says that this covers the right of self-defense, and that self-defense can not be defined, and I think that is true.

Secretary KELLOGG. It is pretty difficult to do.

Senator REED of Missouri. It is a difficult thing practically to de-fine self-defense; but the question I was getting at was this. Mr. Chamberlain was very careful to say, in substance, "We have got an English 'Monroe doctrine' on the other side, here, and we say that any interference with our possessions will not be tolerated by us, and we will defend them." If that language means anything, if all these other negotiations mean anything, then we must read the language of the negotiations in connection with this instrument, and give them such effect as they are entitled to. If the position which I understand the Secretary to take is the correct one, namely that all these negotiations are merged in the instrument itself, and have no effect upon its construction, then we have quite a different case pre-sented here to pass upon.

Senator WALSH of Montana. But, if you will pardon me, let me state this. Suppose, now, that Great Britain does do some act which she claims is in the nature of self-defense, which she claims she is entitled to, and suppose she does do something that is not an act of self-defense; what difference does it make to us? It is a mere matter of whether she can justify her conduct in the opinion of the world. upon the ground of self-defense, and she has got to take her own chance of being accused of having violated this treaty. But, of what concern is it to us?

Mr. REED of Missouri. I think I can answer it. We have the Monroe doctrine. We sign this treaty, and, of course, it means something. It is supposed to have very great binding effect upon nations. I am not speaking about punishment at all. England has said very clearly to all the world, "We have our Monroe doctrine". they do not employ that term but that is what it means-"and.

we want it understood that any interference with our rights here would be regarded by us as a cause warranting self-defense.'

All right. Mr. Kellogg thinks that that langugage amounts to nothing, because the treaty was afterwards signed, and we must judge every thing by the treaty.

If we were sure that would be accepted, we might remain silent. I do not agree with the Secretary-with all the respect in the world. I think when you come to try this case of a violation, before the public opinion of the world, if England were, under the circumstances, to regard any invasion of or any interference with her possessions as justifying self-defense, she can go back and point to the fact that at the time and before the treaty was signed, Mr. Chamberlain said. these things to you, and all the world knows what they mean.

But suppose the Monroe doctrine was invaded, and we had said nothing about it. England has specifically reserved her rights over there, and we have said nothing. What would be our position before the world?

Either this treaty ought to be signed with the complete wiping out of everything that has been said, or we ought to make our proper declarations when we sign it. That is the way I look at it.

Secretary KELLOGG. Senator, all that Great Britain said was that she had a right to defend her interests her possessions. Could we object to that? And as Senator Walsh says, if she went beyond that, she would be answerable for violating the treaty. She has not said anything else in her notes. We have said that every nation has a right of self-defense. Of course the right of self-defense, as I have said, does not simply include the right to repel invasion of San Francisco or New York or anywhere else.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. Secretary, suppose that some important European power declared war upon Panama, and invaded the Territory of Panama. Would you construe our right of selfdefense to authorize us to object to that?

Secretary KELLOGG. Certainly. We have guaranteed the independence of Panama. Outside of that question, we have a right to defend our treaty for maintaining the integrity and independence of Panama just as much as we have a right to defend San Francisco or New York.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. How about Colombia?
Secretary KELLOGG. South America?

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Yes.

Secretary KELLOGG. That brings up the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine is simply a doctrine of self-defense. It does not consist of any agreement between the United States and any country in the Western Hemisphere or anywhere else.

Senator EDGE. Does not the British Government admit that very clearly, in the same expressions Senator Reed refers to? After stating their position with respect to their colonies, on page 28 of this pamphlet, they go on to say:

The Government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act.

They admit the Monroe doctrine, in effect.

25375-28-PT 1—2