tinental United States. It covers all our possessions, all our rights; the right to take such steps as will prevent danger to the United States.

We had a right to assume-Great Britain said nothing else—that Great Britain was insisting upon the maintenance of certain rights which are necessary to the self-defense of the British Government. She did not say anything else. Furthermore, she signed this treaty without asking any reservations to it at all, with an absolute obligation not to go to war; of course, subject to the right of self-defense that every country has.

I can illustrate that by another question that was raised. Great Britain and France raised the question as to whether this treaty would prevent them from going to the assistance of any country attacked, party to the Locarno treaties. I think they both abandoned the idea that there was any obligation to use military forces, to apply sanctions under the league, because all but one of the countries had refused to accept that interpretation. But that would not make any difference as to the principle.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That is suggested in the French note. Secretary KELLOGG. That is suggested in the French note, and I believe also in the British note.

Under the Locarno treaty there were the following parties: Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Here is one of the clauses:

ART. 2. Germany and Belgium, and also Germany and France, mutually undertake that they will in no case attack or invade each other or resort to war against each other.

You remember under that treaty these countries guaranteed the western front with Germany.

It was also provided, in the case of a flagrant violation of article 2 of the present treaty or of the flagrant breach of articles 42 and 43 of the treaty of Versailles-that was as to the demilitarized zoneby any of the high contracting parties, each of the other contracting parties should come to the help of the party against whom the violation was directed. This is clause 3 of article 4. [Reading:]

3. In case of a flagrant violation of article 2 of the present treaty or of a flagrant breach of articles 42 or 43 of the treaty of Versailles by one of the high contracting parties, each of the other contracting parties hereby undertakes immediately to come to the help of the party against whom such a violation or breach has been directed.

It did not say, of course, that it would come to the help of such party with military forces, but that was a possible interpretation, and they did not wish to sign a treaty which would prevent them from carrying out the treaties of Locarno.

I refused to put a clause in this treaty to make it subject to the conditions of any other treaty or guaranty of neutrality that they had in the world; but I did say that they had an easy way for their own self protection, if they wished to do it; that if all of the Locarno powers that I have named which signed those guarantees and agreements to come to the help of the nation attacked also signed the multilateral treaty. If they broke the Locarno treaty they would break the multilateral treaty, and the other parties' to either one of the treaties would be released and could take such action as they saw fit as to the belligerent nations. There There is no principle of law better

established than that. Therefore it was not necessary for them, for their protection, to have any clause that this treaty was subject to the other treaties that they had made. They could avoid that by simply having all the original parties to the Locarno treaties sign this treaty; that is all. They knew perfectly well that the United States would never sign a treaty imposing any obligation on itself to apply sanctions or come to the help of anybody.

You will find that, early in the negotiation of this treaty, I took occasion to say in a speech that it must be understood that the United States would never obligate itself to any military alliance or to use its military forces to enforce any treaty or any obligation.

Senator REED of Missouri. Is that speech in this pamphlet we have?

Secretary KELLOGG. That speech is in that pamphlet. Here is what I said [reading]:

Since, however, the purpose of the United States is so far as possible to eliminate war as a factor in international relations, I can not state too emphatically that it will not become a party to any agreement which directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, is a military alliance. The United States can not obligate itself in advance to use its armed forces against any other nation of the world. It does not believe that the peace of the world or of Europe depends upon or can be assured by treaties of military alliance, the futility of which as guarantors of peace is repeatedly demonstrated in the pages of history.

Every nation had that speech.

Senator REED of Missouri. On what page is that?

Secretary KELLOGG. The speech is at the end of the volume. Senator GILLETT. As I understand, you quoted from one of your speeches largely in the notes?

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes; that was the note, that is on page 36, in which, in order to get my views entirely before the country, Í defined self-defense, the league covenant, the treaties of Locarno, the treaties of neutrality, and the relations with treaty-breaking states; and that was sent in a note to all the governments long before the treaty was signed.

Now all that the British note said or would mean, if it was written into this treaty, was that there were certain regions the welfare and integrity of which were necessary to the security and defense of the British Empire. I said over and over again that any country had that right in self-defense. But in the discussion of the treaty many things were asked and many things were said which the Governments afterwards, under careful consideration, concluded were not necessary, and then they signed an absolute treaty; and you will find in the notes statements to these Governments, and understandings we had about the treaty, as a result of which they did not believe it was necessary to make any reservations to the treaty. I do not know if there is anything else on that. Do you want me to say anything else?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I do not know that I do.

Senator SWANSON. In the notes of Canada and the British Empire they specifically stated that they signed them with the distinct understanding that the obligations of Locarno and the obligations of the league were not in any way interfered with by this treaty; is that true?

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes; they said that my explanation of protecting them by having them sign this treaty was sufficient. That is

the reason the number of the nations was increased. Great Britain said that the nature of the obligation was such that she could not sign for the Dominions and India, and she asked the nations to invite them to join, which they did. They all accepted.

Senator SWANSON. What France and Great Britain finally said was that they did not consider, from the explanation you make, that this treaty was in conflict with their duties under those other treaties.

Senator MOSES. But did they say that in a note?

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes.

Senator MOSES. Which note?

Secretary KELLOGG. It was discussed in several places.

Senator MoSES. What makes me ask that is that in Clause 8 of paragraph 10 of the British note there is certain language used which you say was employed also by us, to say that we had certain interests the defense of which we would be necessitated to take on. Was that ever stated in a note on the part of this Government?

Secretary KELLOGG. No; my explanation of what was self-defense was stated in the note on page 36.

Senator SWANSON. In the notes of Austen Chamberlain both discussing it, and in the final acceptance, he said they believed it was expressing the intention of our Government to defend the regions in which we had an interest, which I believe meant certain regions, and you acquiesced in it?

Secretary KELLOGG. Of course there are certain regions

Senator REED of Missouri. Let me say, without answering, Secretary Kellogg said he did not answer the British note, but acquiesced in it.

Secretary KELLOGG. I did not acquiesce in it at all; and if there was anything in that note contrary to the treaty they signed, it would not be a part of the treaty.

Senator REED of Missouri. That would be true, then, of every one of these paragraphs.

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes; but I say, these questions with the suggestions made about Locarno and the right of self defense, and these other matters, were answered by me in our notes, and the treaty would have the same effect whether these notes had been exchanged

or not.

Senator REED of Missouri. But is it your position that when this treaty was signed, that left it so that the treaty stood there to speak for itself, without regard to any of the negotiations that had gone on, or constructions that had been placed?

Secretary KELLOGG. That is undoubtedly true, except I think they had the right to believe that the legal effect of the treaty is what I state; and they all finally did say that they believed that the question of self defense was answered.

Senator REED of Missouri. Your construction, then, of this treaty is the same as you put on a contract, that previous talks, and so forth, of the parties, are all merged finally in the instrument when it is signed, and the instrument speaks for itself?

Secretary KELLOGG. They are. If there was anything in these notes contrary to the provisions of the treaty, naturally, the treaty would control.

Senator REED of Missouri. Suppose they were not contrary to the extent of construction

Secretary KELLOGG. Take that question we have been discussing, of self-defense. The British Government said they were not sure that the right of self-defense was not taken away by the treaty; but they finally concluded that that was not so. Well, now, would you say that their doubt or their expression of doubt, about selfdefense being taken away by this treaty, would control, when they finally accepted my statement that self-defense was inherent in every sovereignty? The same way about the Locarno treaties.

Senator REED of Missouri. I do not want to haggle-I am not trying to haggle, you understand, about this; but I would like to know whether it was your position that when this treaty is signed, when it comes to be put in force, we are to take the treaty by its four corners and consider the language of the treaty, or whether we are to take into consideration, in construing it, certain statements that have been made during the progress of the negotiations; and if certain statements, then what are they, and where do we stop?

I will say this, to make clear my idea. Of course we all know that under the law people may negotiate for six months about a contract and they may write hundreds of letters about it, but finally, when they sign the contract, the contract speaks for itself, and all that has preceded is supposed to be merged in the language of the contract. Now, if that rule applies here, then these negotiations and all these things that took place are unimportant.

Senator ROBINSON of Arkansas. If ambiguities appear in the language of the contract, I understand you may resort to the negotiations to determine the meaning.

Senator REED of Missouri. If there are absolute ambiguities apparent upon the face of the contract, then you can resort to extraneous evidence to elucidate, perhaps, the ambiguities, but further than that you can not go. It is a very important thing, to me, to know as to that.

Senator WALSH of Montana. That rule is one which defies the dogmatic statement as you make it.

Secretary KELLOGG. How is that?

Senator WALSH of Montana. I say, that rule defies dogmatic statement. I had occasion to study it pretty carefully in connection with the treaty of 1909 with Canada, and in the interpretation of that treaty by the International Joint Commission the whole course of negotiation leading up to it was received, with a view to determining just exactly what was meant by the treaty.

Senator REED of Missouri. Very well; then that is the other rule. You claim that applies in treaties?

Secretary KELLOGG. No, it is the same rule.

Senator MOSES. You say it has applied in one treaty?

Senator REED of Missouri. I could not agree to a rule of that breadth at all, in regard to an ordinary contract. But that is unimportant. I want to get the Secretary's opinion.

We have here this instrument that is made, now. The Secretary has stated that there were a lot of negotiations and a lot of things occurred which were afterwards abandoned, and they were abandoned when they signed the contract; and I take it from that statement that his viewpoint is that when you sign this agreement, it wipes out

all ambiguities and everything else that occurred prior to the signing of the treaty. If that is his view, I would like to have it.

Secretary KELLOGG. Senator, that is rather difficult to answer without some explanation. For instance, France desired that only aggressive warfare should be prohibited by this treaty. I discussed that and declined it.

France's claim that she did not sign any treaty against aggressive warfare of course would not be a part of this treaty, because she abandoned it.

France claimed that this treaty ought to be subject to the obligations of the Locarno treaties. I declined it; but I pointed out a way that made it safe for her. This treaty, therefore, could not be said to be subject to the conditions of the Locarno treaties, because France signed a treaty absolute, without any such conditions. Those positions were abandoned.

Now, most of the positions taken in these notes and explanations are what the treaty would mean, anyhow, if they had not mentioned them-most of them. It is true, of course, as the Senator from Missouri says, that if there is anything in the correspondence or negotiations contrary to the terms of the treaty, the treaty is the one that settles it. That is the contract which finally defines the rights of the parties.

It is also true that if there is ambiguity on the face of a document, the surrounding circumstances and the history may be looked into; but they may not look into direct statements contradictory of the treaty to show that they meant something else.

Senator REED of Missouri. But in construing it and giving it its meaning, you think they should look into these previous communications?

Secretary KELLOGG. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Then what would you say with regard to this? [Reading:]

As regards the passage in my note of the 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. Yes.

Senator REED of Missouri. Would that be considered?

Secretary KELLOGG. I do not believe that that leaves Great Britain free to make war anywhere in the world where she considers it is to her interest. The treaty contradicts it, absolutely.

Senator REED of Missouri. But does that modify the treatygive it a construction?

Secretary KELLOGG. No, I do not think it modifies the treaty. Senator MOSES. If you turn to page 28, paragraph 10, you will find that language in more vigorous form.

The CHAIRMAN. The language on page 28 defines what Great Britain conceives to be her right of self-defense, and the language just read by the Senator has reference back to her right of selfdefense.

Senator REED of Missouri. I do not want to take up the time of the committee, and I beg pardon for asking these questions, but I