resolution, the consideration of which was prevented by lack of unanimous consent, was inserted in the record bearing the signatures of thirty-seven Senators:

Whereas under the Constitution it is a function of the Senate to advise and consent to or dissent from the ratification of any treaty of the United States, and no such treaty can become operative without the consent of the Senate expressed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present; and

Whereas, owing to the victory of the arms of the United States and of the nations with whom it is associated, a Peace Conference was convened and is now in session at Paris for the purpose of settling the terms of peace; and

Whereas, a committee of the Conference has proposed a constitution for a League of Nations and the proposal is now before the Peace Conference for its consideration: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the United States in the discharge of its constitutional duty of advice in regard to treaties, That it is the sense of the Senate that, while it is their sincere desire that the nations of the world should unite to promote peace and general disarmament, the constitution of the League of Nations in the form now proposed to the Peace Conference should not be accepted by the United States; and be it

Resolved, further, That it is the sense of the Senate that the negotiations on the part of the United States should immediately be directed to the utmost expedition of the urgent business of negotiating peace terms with Germany satisfactory to the United States and the nations with whom the United States is associated in the war against the German Government, and that the proposal for a League of Nations to insure the permanent peace of the world should be then taken up for careful and serious consideration.3

With reference to the objections to the contents of the Covenant raised by members of the Senate Committee the President has since said:

"I brought the first draft of the Covenant of the League of Nations over to this country in March last. I then held a conference of the frankest sort with the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. They made a number of suggestions as to altera

Congressional Record, March 4, 1919, p. 4974.

tions and additions. I then took all of those suggestions back to Paris, and every one of them, without exception, was embodied in the Covenant." 4

The President's reply to the request of the thirty-seven Senators for the separation of the Covenant from the treaty was given in his speech at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City on March 4, 1919, in which, after vigorously defending the Covenant, he said:

When that treaty comes back gentlemen on this side will find the Covenant not only in it, but so many threads of the treaty tied to the Covenant that you cannot dissect the Covenant from the treaty without destroying the whole vital structure.

President Wilson evidently did not at that time doubt his ability to secure the approval of the treaty by the United States, including the Covenant of the League of Nations. His course was warmly defended by Senators of his own party. Some peace societies, notably the League to Enforce Peace, undertook a nation-wide propaganda to develop public sentiment for the League, and the President no doubt felt justified in relying upon the traditionally favorable disposition of the American people and government toward the substitution of peaceful methods for war in the settlement of international disputes. He publicly expressed his confidence in the popular support of his program at home in his speech at New York above referred to, made on the eve of his return to Paris. In opening that address he said:

The first thing I am going to tell the people on the other side of the water is that an overwhelming majority of the American people is in favor of the League of Nations. I know that this is true. I have had unmistakable intimations of it from all parts of the country, and the voice rings true in every case.

4 Address of the President at Tacoma, Washington, Sept. 13, 1919, Senate Document No. 120, 66th Cong., 1st sess., p. 182.

The original draft of the Covenant and the Covenant as finally adopted are printed in the Supplement to the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for April, 1919, pp. 113 and 128. The alterations made in the original draft are described by President Wilson in his address at the plenary session of the Peace Conference at Paris, April 28, 1919, reporting the final draft for adoption. His address is printed in the Supplement, ibid., p. 124.

This feeling of confidence in the ultimate success of the President's policy was reflected among his advisers and assistants on the American Peace Commission, to which the writer was attached as an assistant technical adviser. The opinion was freely expressed among them that when President Wilson brought back the treaty and the Covenant he would be so overwhelmingly supported by the American people as to make his demand for ratification irresistible.

THE TREATY IN THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Such was the situation when President Wilson on July 10, 1919, personally submitted the peace treaty with Germany to the Senate with an earnest appeal for its prompt ratification.5 Under the rules of the Senate, the treaty was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. The Committee decided to hold public hearings, which began July 31, and ended on September 12. During its consideration of the treaty the Committee met on 37 days, sitting sometimes in the morning and afternoon. In the course of the hearings the Committee had before it Honorable Robert Lansing, Secretary of State and one of the American Peace Commissioners, and several of the technical advisers to the American Peace Commission, including Mr. B. M. Baruch, economic adviser, Mr. Norman H. Davis, financial adviser, and Mr. David Hunter Miller, legal adviser. In addition to these officials who took part in the formulation and drafting of the treaty, the Committee heard a number of private persons interested in particular sections of the treaty, especially those relating to geographical distribution of territories and the self-determination of peoples. The presentation of such subjects was made by American citizens as, under the rules of the Committee, only American citizens could be heard by it.

The proposed transfer of Shantung to Japan was opposed by Mr. Thomas F. Millard, who styled himself the unofficial

The President's address on submitting the treaty to the Senate is printed in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW for July, 1919, pp. 554 and 576.

friendly counsellor of China, and Mr. John C. Ferguson, official adviser to the President of China. A statement on this subject was also made by Professor E. T. Williams, technical adviser on Far Eastern affairs to the American Peace Commission.

Objections to the provisions of the treaty in regard to Egypt were presented by Mr. Joseph W. Folk, counsel for the commission appointed by the Legislative Assembly of Egypt to attend the Peace Conference at Paris. The Egyptians desired either a recognition of their independence or that their status be left to the Council of the League of Nations.

The recognition of the independence of Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia and the Ukraine was requested by representatives of the American Mid-European Association, the League of Esthonians, Letts, Lithuanians and Ukrainians of America, and the Ukrainian Federation of the United States.

Mr. Dudley Field Malone, who stated that he appeared as the chosen representative to speak for the people of India, requested that the Covenant be so amended as to require every signatory to provide all its people with democratic institutions, and he presented a resolution passed by the Indian National Council in December, 1918, claiming the right of self-determination.

A large delegation of Americans of Irish descent appeared in opposition to the approval of the Covenant on the ground that, if adopted, it would make more difficult the realization of the aspirations of Ireland for independence. The delegation was headed by the Honorable Daniel F. Cohalan, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, and included the Honorable Frank P. Walsh, chairman on the American Commission for Irish Independence, former chairman of the War Labor Board; Honorable Edward F. Dunne, former Governor of Illinois and former Mayor of Chicago; Honorable W. W. McDowell, Lieutenant-Governor of Montana, and the Honorable W. Bourke Cochran, former member of Congress. The claims of Greece to Thrace were submitted by representatives of the National Congress of the Friends of

Greece, while representatives of the Hungarian-American Federation protested against the dismemberment of Hungary and requested that plebiscites be held in Hungarian territory which it is proposed to transfer to other sovereignties. The claims of Hungary so far as they overlapped those of CzechoSlovakia were opposed by representatives of the Slovak League and the Bohemian National Alliance of America.

Representatives of the Albanian National Party requested the right of self-determination for Albania and a government by an international commission appointed by the League of Nations.

The claims of the Jugo-Slavs in the Adriatic and Fiume were explained by a delegation representing the Jugo-Slav Republican Alliance of the United States, while Italy's side was set forth by Honorable F. H. La Guardia, member of Congress, and representatives of the Italian Irredentist Associations of America.

The complete verbatim report of all of these hearings is printed in an official document of 1,297 pages and contains, in addition to the oral testimony, numerous written communications sent to the Committee by interested parties, and the texts of some important official documents of the Peace Conference at Paris.

The most important part of the hearings was a conference with the President at the White House, which took place on August 19, 1919. It would be impossible within a short space to give an adequate summary of the conversation between the President and the sixteen Senators who participated. The President's views were presented in writing at the opening of the conference, of which the following extract contains the material part:

Nothing, I am led to believe, stands in the way of the ratification of the treaty except certain doubts with regard to the meaning and implication of certain articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and I must frankly say that I am unable to understand why such doubts should be entertained. You will •Senate Document, No. 106, 66th Cong., 1st sess.