« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
(f) Such a system develops well trained organizations composed of both personnel and means of production susceptible of quick expansion or development to meet unexpected or unforeseen demands and conditions.
5. On the other hand, the construction of Government arsenals of sufficient capacity to meet probable war requirements as to arms, ammunition, and implements of war under the War Department General Mobilization Plan would require an initial expenditure in excess of two billion dollars. The creation and maintenance of a war reserve of munitions capable of supplying our requirements under the War Department General Mobilization Plan from the beginning of an emergency until the time when production would meet probable war consumption, computed on a basis of expenditure such as existed in the World War, would involve the initial expenditure of a sum in excess of five billion dollars. This amount does not include the initial cost of production plants nor does it include costs incidental to storage. It should be noted that on a basis of a 5% annual turnover for depreciation and obsolescence, the maintenance of such a reserve would involve an annual expenditure of two hundred and fifty million dollars. Since this country is in no position to enter upon a scheme which would involve such colossal appropriations and expenditure, it seems obvious that the only solution in so far as our own country is concerned is to reject any steps which may tend to limit consideration to the private manufacture of arms, and insist that both private and Governmental production must be included. It should further be noted that no measures of restriction, control, or supervision other than those which may follow full publicity in regard to total production will be acceptable.
The Minister in Switzerland (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
GENEVA, March 15, 1927–10 a. m.
[Received 11 a. m.] 177. Commission on Private Manufacture met last evening. Bernstorff chairman. In the course of general discussion I made short statement of our views including necessity for publicity for both private and government manufacture. Italian delegate objected on the ground that his instructions did not permit him and the Commission was not competent to deal with government manufacture and was supported by legalistic arguments advanced by several other delegates. Belgian delegate, who warmly upheld my contention that both categories should be dealt with, suggested that inasmuch as certain phases of question would probably be considered by the Preparatory Commission and the final Disarmament Conference it might be well to make haste slowly with a view to seeing whether both categories could be dealt with either together or separately. I then stated that any agreement in order to be acceptable to us must provide publicity for both private and government manufacture and that if it was decided that the Commission could deal only with the one category I should be embarrassed in continuing. Japanese delegate said that his instructions definitely precluded him from discussing government manufacture but he expressed readiness to agree to delay in the hope of finding a solution. It was finally agreed that the chairman appoint subcommittee on which we are to be represented and that each delegation is to submit to this subcommittee its full views in order that they may be examined and an attempt made to reconcile them. It is not anticipated that there will be any future meetings the Private Manufacture Commission for the present.
* Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, German delegate.
500.A16/24 : Telegram The Minister in Switzerland (Gibson) to the Secretary of State
GENEVA, April 21, 1927–4 p.m.
[Received 12:57 p. m.] 248. My 177, March 15, 10 a. m. Drafting committee met Tuesday afternoon. I had previously informed the chairman, Bernstorff, that as long as the committee was not prepared to consider a draft agreement providing publicity for government as well as private manufacture it was difficult for me to participate. As he made it clear that this condition could not be met, I did not attend meeting and confined myself to forwarding a memorandum to chairman commenting on secret [secrecy?] provisions of the draft agreement and emphasizing that any more detailed discussion thereof would be useful only if the essential principle of publicity for government manufacture were to be accepted.87 As Commission is more or less evenly divided, question will probably be referred to June session of Council before further steps are taken.
67 See League of Nations, Report of the Special Commission, etc., “Observations of the Representative of the United States," p. 13.
STATUS OF TREATIES CONCLUDED AT THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE ON THE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT, AND OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THAT CONFERENCE
The Secretary of State to Diplomatic and Consular Officers
WASHINGTON, May 12, 1927. Sir: The Department takes occasion to summarize for your information the status of the several Treaties concluded by the Conference on the Limitation of Armament, held at Washington, November, 1921– February, 1922, as regards their ratification by the signatory Powers and as regards adherences thereto by non-signatory Powers; also the status, as regards adherence, to such of the Resolutions adopted by that Conference as provided for adherences by non-participating Powers. This instruction supersedes Diplomatic Serial No. 271, G. I. Consular No. [unnumbered] of May 31, 1924,8" which is hereby cancelled.
I. Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan limiting Naval Armament, February 6, 192 (Conference Report, pp. 1573–1604) TO_
Ratifications deposited and Treaty effective, August 17, 1923.
II. Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare, February 6, 1922 (Conference Report, pp. 1605–1611)71–
Awaiting ratification by France.
Adherences of non-signatory Powers not invited pending the coming into force of the Treaty.
III, IV and V. Treaty between the United States of America, the British Empire, France and Japan relating to their Insular Possessions and Insular Dominions in the Region of the Pacific Ocean, together with Declaration, signed December 13, 1921, and Supplementary Treaty, February 6, 1922 (Conference Report, pp. 1612–1620) 72—
Ratifications deposited and Treaties effective, August 17, 1923.
* For papers relating to the Conference, Nov. 12, 1921-Feb. 6, 1922, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1. pp. 1 ff.
** Not printed.
70 Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, November 12, 1921February 6, 1922 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1922). Also printed in Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. I, p. 247.
* Also printed in Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. I, p. 267. * Also printed ibid., pp. 33, 36, 46.
British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands and Portugal relating to Principles and Policies concerning China, February 6, 1922 (Conference Report, pp. 1621-1629) 73.
Ratifications deposited and Treaty effective, August 5, 1925. .
Adherences invited from Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Persia, Peru, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Adherences received from Norway (note of November 16, 1925); Sweden (note of December 5, 1925); Bolivia (note of November 21, 1925); Denmark (note of December 29, 1925); and Mexico (note of January 14, 1927).74
VII. Treaty between the United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands and Portugal relating to the Chinese Customs Tariff, February 6, 1922 (Conference Report, pp. 1630_1639) 75 —
Adherences invited from Brazil, Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden, in accordance with a Resolution adopted by the Conference on February 4, 1922 (Conference Report, p. 1639; explanatory note).
Ratifications deposited and Treaty effective, August 5, 1925. .
Adherences invited from Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden, August 6, 1925.
Adherences received from Denmark (note of August 27, 1925); Sweden (note of September 11, 1925); Spain (note of September 21, 1925); and Norway (note of September 23, 1925).74
V. Resolutions regarding Extraterritoriality in China. (Conference Report, pp. 1642-1647) 76_
Adherences invited from Brazil, Denmark, Norway, Peru, Spain and Sweden.
Adherences received from Spain (note of November 7, 1922); Denmark (note of May 11, 1923); Sweden (note of June 8, 1923); Peru (note of August 22, 1923); and Norway (note of November 20, 1925).74
XI. Resolution regarding Existing Commitments of China or with respect to China. (Conference Report, pp. 1654–1657) ??—
Adherences invited from Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Persia, Peru, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
13 Also printed in Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. I. p. 276. 7* None of these notes printed. 15 Also printed in Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. I, p. 282. 76 Also printed ibid., p. 289. * Also printed ibid., p. 296.
Adherences received from Switzerland (note of June 27, 1922); Chile (note of August 9, 1922); Spain (note of November 7, 1922); and Persia (note of November 21, 1922).79 I am [etc.]
FRANK B. KELLOGG
AMERICAN REPRESENTATION AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC CONFER.
ENCE, GENEVA, MAY 4-23, 1927 50 550.M1/42
The Chargé in Switzerland (Marriner) to the Secretary of State
BERNE, December 23, 1926. L. N. No. 841
[Received January 7, 1927.] SIR: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No. 137, of December 23, 1 p. m. 1926,81 and to enclose the text of the invitation (with attached document C.E.I.6) of the Secretary General of the League of Nations,82 inviting the United States to take part in the appointment of the members of the International Economic Conference which will be held on May 4th, 1927. It will be noted that the invitation specifies that each country is to appoint not more than five members, who may be accompanied by experts who will have the right to attend the proceedings of the Conference, but without the right to speak or vote, except by special permission. It likewise specifies that the expenses of the members and experts shall be borne by the respective Governments. The members of the Conference, although appointed by Governments, will not in any way bind their Governments nor be qualified to act as spokesmen of an official policy. The Secretary General would be grateful for a telegraphic reply to this invitation before the end of February, 1927. I have [etc.]
J. THEODORE MARRINER
550.M1/58b : Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in Switzerland (Marriner)
WASHINGTON, February 17, 1927–5 p.m. 11. On February 5 President sent a message to Congress recommending that appropriation of $15,000 be authorized to cover expenses of American participation in appointment of members of Economic Conference. He stated in part as follows:
"I consider it important that the Government of the United States participate in the appointment of members of this conference, not only
70 None of these notes printed.
$0 For proceedings of the Conference, see League of Nations, Report and Proceedings of the World Economic Conference, vols. I and I (C.356.M.129.1927.IIC.E.1.46) (Geneva, 1927). See also League of Nations, The World Economic Conference, Geneva, May 1927: Final Report (C.E.I.44–1).
Enclosures not printed. For agenda of the Conference, see League of Nations, Report and Proceedings, vol. I, p. 9,