BALDWIN-BRITTEN EXCHANGE OF CABLEGRAMS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS,

Tuesday, December 4, 1928.

The committee this day met at 10.30 o'clock, a. m., Hon. Fred A. Britten, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. If I may, I am going to take the time of the committee again for a very few moments to present to it a cablegram received from Premier Baldwin yesterday morning and also to explain to the committee, this being my first opportunity to do so, just how this cablegram came about.

During a colloquy on the floor of the House of Commons on the 13th of November between Mr. Lloyd George and Premier Baldwin, Mr. Baldwin then expressed a desire for closer contact between the representatives of the various governments, indirectly referring to the United States Government and his Government. He did not at that time say, or at least he was not so quoted in the American papers, that this contact should be between the Executives. He was quoted as saying "representatives." Whether at that time he meant diplomatic representatives or representatives of the people in the various parliaments or Executives is unimportant now. The American papers all used the word "representatives." I presume, of course, that he meant representatives of the people, and at that time I sent Mr. Baldwin, as a member of Parliament rather than as Premier, this cablegram:

Recalling your publicly expressed desire of November 13 for more frequent personal discussions between American and British representatives, and remembering very pleasantly my personal participation in interparliamentary conferences both here and in Europe, I am impelled to suggest a joint meeting of the Committee on Naval Affairs of the United States House of Representatives and a select committee of members of Parliament for the purpose of friendly discussion and the hearing of testimony in connection with applying the principle of equality in sea power between Great Britain and the United States on all ships of war not already covered by the Washington treaty, meetings to take place preferably in Canada after March 4, 1929, and each committee will report with recommendations to its respective Government just as may now be done annually by the various groups of the Interparliamentary Union. Where there is so much genuine regret among the people of England and America over the failure of the last Geneva naval limitation conference, surely some way should be found for a meeting before 1931, when the five leading naval powers will again assemble at Washington. I will respect your personal desires in connection with these suggestions.

A day or so after this cablegram was sent a question was asked me over the telephone which indicated that a leak had occurred, and that while the cablegram had not been made public the substance of it had become known. I therefore immediately determined to make

the cablegram public. There should be no misconstruction of my communication nor of my purpose.

My proposal for a conference is unusual but entirely within my congressional authority. Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces and that it shall provide and maintain a Navy for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

In many quarters the failure of past limitation conferences has been attributed to their composition of military men, and while I do not agree with this presumption I would prefer to see both committees composed entirely of nonmilitary men.

America's naval policy has never been competitive, but on the contrary has always been defensive and rarely commensurate with the world position of the United States. We have actually been backward in promoting true national defense. American people favor general armament reduction but only to a limit of national safety. Pacifism will never reign in our country. If it should, we are lost.

England and America should lead the way now toward naval limitation and a peaceful understanding on the seas. We must never be regarded as military competitors. There has been some criticism because of what I have done, on the presumption that I was assuming the prerogatives of the Executive department of our Government. For the benefit of those who may not know I would like to say that for the past 25 years nearly every country on earth has recognized the right of its parliamentarians to meet and exchange views on matters relating to a better understanding among the nations, without presuming that they were infringing upon the prerogatives of the God-chosen diplomat.

As far back as 1904 Congress appropriated $50,000 for expenses connected with the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union at St. Louis. The chosen representatives of the people of a score of nations came to the United States for the informal discussion of international issues. That meeting was directly responsible for the calling of The Hague Peace Conference by President Roosevelt in 1907.

Fifteen years ago (1913) when new immigration laws threatened to disrupt our friendly relations with Japan, upon the initiative of Representative Ainey of Pennsylvania, a separate group of the Interparliamentary Union known as the American-Japanese group was designated for the purpose of preventing misunderstanding and probable war between those two countries- a much more serious case than the one confronting us to-day.

In 1925 Congress again appropriated $50,000 to entertain visiting parliamentarians who came to Washington from afar to informally exchange views on subjects pertaining to world welfare. They talked about regulating the opium traffic; they presented views upon the question of disarmament, the World Court, the League of Nations, rights of neutrals on the seas, international law, and many other matters ordinarily falling to the purview of the almighty diplomat. Again in 1928 Congress appropriated $10,000 to induce a goodly number of its members to attend the Interparliamentary Conference at Berlin. It would appear that the United States Government in the past has energetically approved of discussions between its repre

sentatives and those of other countries. It makes annual appropriations for this very purpose. At no time in the past 25 years has it ever been suggested that such meetings as I am now proposing have transgressed the sacred prerogatives of stately diplomats.

In 1927, when we met in Paris, I was the American member on the committee on disarmament. The other 29 members of this committee came from every first-class power on earth. In 1928 at Berlin I again was the American member on this important committee.

No one can rightfully say that I exceeded my authority when I suggested an interparliamentary conference for a specific purpose, to Stanley Baldwin, a member of Parliament. This whole desire for naval equality simmers down to a question of sincerity. If the Governments of America and Great Britain really desire a naval limitation agreement, all they have to do is to invite each other to another conference. It is not necessary to wait until 1931 just because the Washington agreement of 1922 fixed that date. The people of England and of the United States expect their Governments to arrive at a friendly understanding and the quicker this is done, the better.

Mr. DREWRY. Through what channels did those communications go?

The CHAIRMAN. To which communications do you refer?

Mr. DREWRY. The communications in regard to these conferences you have mentioned. Were they extended by the House of Representatives, say, or by individuals?

The CHAIRMAN. The Interparliamentary Union through its proper officers, selects the meeting place each year. We have been appropriating for the union expenses for many years.

In order to promote the very thought expressed in my cablegram, I think it was in May or June of this year that Congress appropriated the sum of $10,000 with a view to inducing an additional number of Members of Congress to go to Berlin to attend the interparliamentary conference for the discussion of almost anything that would promote a better understanding of each other among nations. It is true that the Interparliamentary Union may recommend treaties. It is however always quite evident that it has no desire or intention to assume the prerogatives of the executives of the respective governments, but it is equally true that when parliamentarians have listened informally to all sorts of discussions on matters of national and international importance they go back to their respective governments and may make a report of findings or recommendations; and nobody has accused them of wanting to assume the prerogatives of their governments or of their foreign representatives.

In answer to my cablegram, Mr. Baldwin has sent a kindly reply, which I have not made public. However, the substance of the reply was made public in London yesterday through a colloquy on the floor of the House of Commons; I though I should present it to the Committee on Naval Affairs first. This [indicating] cablegram left London at 10.47 o'clock a. m. yesterday morning, December 3, 1928. It says:

Hon. FRED A. BRITTEN,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

I have learnt with great interest of your proposal for a joint meeting of Members of the United States Congress and members of the British Parliament for a friendly discussion on the question of the limitation of naval armament.

I

cordially reciprocate the spirit which inspires your suggestion and I share your earnest desire for a complete understanding between our two countries. In my speech of November 13, however, I was speaking not of the legislatures but of the executives of governments, and it was the absence of facilities for personal intercourse between ministers which I regretted. Except to remove this possible misunderstanding of my speech I feel that it would not be consistent with the courtesy which I owe to the United States Government to express any further opinion on a proposal about which, as I understand it, they have not been consulted. I would therefore only repeat my appreciation of your friendly sentiments.

BALDWIN.

The CHAIRMAN. My position now on this is to say to the committee that when I communicated with Mr. Baldwin on November 26 my sole purpose was, first, to call public attention to the fact that the people of England and the United States earnestly desire an end to the thought of naval competition between the two countries; second, to assist in every possible way toward the calling of another naval limitation conference to extend the principles of the Washington agreement to all ships of war not covered at that time; in other words, to promote equality between ourselves and England and stop this everlasting talk of comparative naval strength, to say nothing of the expenditure of billions by both countries.

I did not at any time assume any prerogatives belonging to the executive branch of our Government, but, on the contrary, was aiming to assist in the many publicly expressed desires for a naval limitation agreement between Japan, Italy, France, England, and the United States that would, in part, do away with the present costly and apparently unnecessary expenditures in each of these countries.

When Mr. Baldwin in his reply to my cablegram says "I cordially reciprocate the spirit which inspired your suggestion and I share your earnest desire for a complete understanding between our two countries" he opens the doors for another conference and the question now confronting us is which of the executives of those five governments will assume the leadership while an expectant, taxburdened world stands by.

The Committee on Naval Affairs can not recommend to the Executive can not reasonably do so that he call another conference. He has called two and they were not successful. It can not reasonably recommend to Great Britain or France or Japan that they or either of them call a conference; but the committee at least now is informed of the contents of my two cablegrams and the apparent desires back of them; and my thought is that, with Mr. Baldwin having opened the door, surely some executive will call a conference before 1931, which is the date fixed in the Washington agreement for the next meeting of the representatives of these five

powers.

Mr. VINSON. If I may interrupt, Mr. Chairman, will you please read that language about the cordial return of your sentiments?

The CHAIRMAN. It says, "I cordially reciprocate the spirit which inspires your suggestion and I share your earnest desire for a complete understanding between our two countries."

Mr. VINSON. Mr. Chairman, you stated a moment ago that you did not think it would be proper for a legislative committee to offer to the Executive a suggestion about matters of this character.

The CHAIRMAN. I said we could not reasonably do so.

Mr. DREWRY. What would be the objection?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, any Member of Congress or committee of the Congress can at any time offer suggestions to the President or to the Secretary of State.

Mr. VINSON. We do that by legislation when we say in the bills authorizing increases in the Navy that the increases shall not be made or tha they shall be suspended in the event another conference on limitations is called.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; this committee has repeatedly done that. Mr. VINSON. Did we not address a communication last year to the President of the United States on the subject of naval limitations? We sent some communication to the President and it runs in my mind that it was concerning a limitation of armament.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the clerk whether the committee sent any suggestion during the last session of Congress to President Coolidge. I recall distinctly the then chairman (Mr. Butler) and several committee members being called to the White House for a conference on a big construction program.

The CLERK. It did; on the cruiser bill.

The CHAIRMAN. In writing?

The CLERK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DREWRY. I rather think that matter was to be held confidential between the committee and the President.

The CLERK. That was the understanding, but the committee finally called upon the President and later the correspondence got into the public press.

Mr. VINSON. I can not see that there is any impropriety in offering the suggestion about any matter in which we know there is general interest or in which we are all interested, to the Executive. I think it is always within the province of Congress or the right of citizens to petition the President or to offer suggestions. Of course, whether or not he pays any attention to a suggestion offered is a matter that addresses itself to his own sound judgment. I think it would be in order, if this committee saw fit to do so, to offer any suggestion to the Executive relating to anything. That suggestion should be offered through the chairman of the committee to the Executive.

The CHAIRMAN. I see your point, Mr. Vinson, and it is probably very well taken-that the usual way of expressing an opinion of a committee is by resolution or amendment to certain legislation, such as has been done on numerous occasions since our old friend Hensley of Missouri was here. His was the first amendment to a naval appropriation bill providing for the cancellation of contracts covering construction in the event of an agreement for the limitation of armaments. Since that time we have been referring to the so-called Hensley amendment.

Mr. VINSON. The statement in the Prime Minister's cablegrm that "I cordially reciprocate the spirit which inspired your suggestion and I share your earnest desire for a complete understanding between our two countries" is very plain. However, there can be no complete understanding between people or between countries unless there is discussion; therefore I am inclined to think that the chairman is correct in his conclusion that this statement opens the door, if anybody desires to take advantage of it, for a discussion of limitation of naval armament. Therefore I do not believe it would