« ÎnapoiContinuați »
discussion. The Secretary of State goes back to the famous Washington message of 1796 and quotes it as follows:
“The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution and their success must often depend on secrecy; and even when brought to a conclusion a full disclosure of all the measures, demands or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other Powers."
This message was to the House of Representatives, not to the Senate. The point then at issue has been misunderstood by the Secretary of State and his quotation by a singular oversight stops short of what makes plain Washington's meaning. Immediately following the quotation, Washington's message proceeds:
“The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. "To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and to have as a matter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would be to establish a dangerous precedent.
I repeat that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my station will permit or the public good shall require to be disclosed; and in fact, all the papers affecting the negotiation with Great Britain were laid before the Senate when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice."
Thus, it will be observed that the denial of the papers by President Washington was to the House of Representatives, which was not a part of the treaty-making power, but that all the papers and documents, were laid before the Senate, which was a part of the treaty-making power.
May I commend to the very able representatives of the State Department the study of the controversy between the House of Representatives and the President, which arose in relation to the Jay Treaty, and which has been a source of debate among statesmen and comment among historians and writers from the time of Washington to the present. The question there was not at all like that here involved.
I might add the Foreign Relations Committee has ever in the past jealously guarded such confidential information as has been transmitted to it, and to-day, as in days gone by, if it be compatible with the public interest to maintain as confidential some State documents upon which the treaty was founded, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate itself will be course maintain that confidence in violate.
In the case of the London treaty a very different proposition is presented, that either lawyer or layman can readily understand. In the hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee, the signers of the treaty themselves introduced into the public record a document wherein the Premier of Great Britain is quoted most intimately concerning the negotiations, and the contents of various dispatches between the British Government and our own are discussed and referred to. When the signers of the treaty saw fit thus not only to introduce in evidence, but to make public a part of the telegrams and communications passing between the British Government and our own, the Foreign Relations Committee at once were entitled to all of the details, and everything relating to the subject matter. It is silly, and worse, for any individual to contend that he can put into the public record and publish broadcast in the press of the country a part of the correspondence bearing upon the treaty and then, holding up his hands in holy horror at a request for all of the correspondence, pretend that while a part of the record, upon which he relies, may be by him given to the public, the giving of all of it to his partner in treaty making would be incompatible with the public interest.
This is the question that is at issue in the demand that I have made for the papers relating to the London Treaty, and it can not be avoided by a half quotation from Washington, which is utterly set at naught by the full context, nor by un pretense of safeguarding delicate international secrets."
The question of the right of the Foreign Relations Committee to the papers, documents, and communications used in the negotiation and consummation of the treaty was discussed in a regular meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee and finally, after full consideration, the following resolution was passed by the committee:
“Whereas this committee has requested the Secretary of State to send to it the letters, minutes, memoranda, instructions and dispatches which were made use of in the negotiations prior to and during the sessions of the recent conference of London; and
"Whereas the committee has received only a part of such documents; and
“Whereas the Secretary of State, by direction of the President, has denied a second request from this committee for all of the papers above described; and in his letter to the chairman of this committee has apparently attempted to establish the doctrine that the Treaty of London must be considered by the Senate 'from the language of the document itself and not from extraneous matter;' therefore be it
“Resolved, That this committee dissents from such doctrine and regards all facts which enter into the antecedent or attendant negotiations of any treaty as relevant and pertinent when the Senate is considering a treaty for the purpose of ratification, and that this committee hereby asserts its right, as the designated agent of the Senate, to have free and full access to all records, files and other information touching the negotiation of any treaty, this right being based upon the constitutional prerogative of the Senate in the treaty-making process; and be it further
“Resolved, That the chairman of this committee transmit a copy of these resolutions to the President and to the Secretary of State.”
A response was made by the Secretary of State to the resolution of the Foreign Relations Committee as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, June 12, 1930 DEAR SENATOR BORAH: I have received your favor of to-day transmitting a copy of a resolution of the Committee on Foreign Relations in respect to letters and documents in the recent negotiations of the naval treaty.
I did not, in my letter to you of June 6th, attempt to define the duties of the Senate or the scope of its power in passing upon treaties. My statement in that letter that “the question whether this treaty is or is not in the interest of the United States and should or should not be ratified by the Senate must in the last event be determined from the language of the document itself and not from extraneous matter," was intended to call attention to the fact that the obligations and rights arising from the treaty, as in the case of any other contract, must be measured by the language of the document itself. Very respectfully,
HENRY L. STIMSON. Thereafter the writer moved in the Foreign Relations Committee that until the production of the documents and communications in accordance with the resolutions passed by the Foreign relations Committee, action upon the treaty be deferred. The committee, however, defeated this motion by a vote of 16 to 4.
In the course of the discussion before the Foreign Relations Committee respecting the papers and documents, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Reed, stated that he had full copies which he would permit any member of the Foreign Relations Committee to see in confidence, but which could not be in any fashion referred to nor used in discussion of the terms of the treaty.
The writer refused to accept any such offer and asserted the right of any Senator to be as full and complete as that of the Senator from Pennsylvania-to read and see and have all data relating to the treaty, to discuss that deemed appropriate and fitting with his fellows and, in conjunction with the terms of the treaty, to use with due circumspection and propriety, either in open session or, if deemed advisable, executive session of the Senate, all matter pertinent to the provisions of the treaty.
After this Senate shall have passed from recollection and another Foreign Relations Committee shall sit, the matter of the right of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate to data bearing upon a treaty, doubtless, again will be a matter for consideration and determination. It is because of this and that what transpired in respect to the London treaty may be preserved, and the precedent, if any, established by the incident may be accurately understood, that this statement of facts is annexed to the views of the minority.
While concurring generally with the conclusions reached by my associates in the Committee on Foreign Relations who have signed a minority report upon the London naval treaty I wish particularly to record my dissent to the proceedings with reference to this treaty by reason of what I regard as the indecent haste with which its consideration is being pressed.
It is now nearly a year since the initial steps were taken for the negotiation of this treaty; and the delegates to the London Conference consumed 14 weeks in formulating the instrument.
We are asked to pass upon it without sufficient time to study its provisions and under the handicap of being denied information which it is our constitutional right to possess. Accordingly, I can not assent to the program thus presented.
GEORGE H. MOSES, O
REPORT No. 1081
ADDITIONAL JUDGE FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
JUNE 18 (calendar day, June 23), 1930.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. STEIWER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 12842)
The Committee on the Judiciary, having considered the bill (H. R. 12842) to create an additional judge for the southern district of Florida, reports the same favorably to the Senate without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
The need and effect of this legislation is set out in the following excerpt from House Report No. 1881, Seventy-first Congress, second session, which report accompanied this bill in the House of Representa•tives:
This bill is made necessary by the death of the late Judge Lake Jones who was appointed under the act of September 14, 1922, which provided that no successor should be appointed in case of a vacancy occurring in the office two years after the passage of the act.
The bill has been referred to the Attorney General and he has advised the coinmittee of the necessity for the appointment of a successor. The statistics furnished by the department show the necessity of relief in the district if the docket is to be kept abreast with the business.
There is printed herewith and made a part of this report the communication received from the Attorney General together with the inclosure.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D. C., June 11, 1950. Hon. GEORGE S. GRAHAM, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In reply to your letter of the 10th instant relative to H. R. 12842, a bill to authorize the appointment of an additional district judge for the southern district of Florida, I beg to leave recommend the enactment of said bill.
Until the death of Judge Lake Jones quite recently the southern district of Florida was provided with three district judges. The position held by Judge Jones was created by the act of September 14, 1922, and under the terms of that