Report of interview in Paris between the President of the United States 835 Message of the President regarding alleged secret treaty between Ger- 252 Official statement of Chinese Government regarding ultimatum by...... 601 252 253 280 Message to the Senate relating to the protest of American Peace Commis- Letter to the chairman of the committee replying to the committee's Proceedings of the conference with the committee at the White House... 499 TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY. THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1919. UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to the call of the chairman, in room 426, Senate Office Building, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presiding. Present, Senators Lodge (chairman), McCumber, Fall, Knox, Harding, Johnson, Moses, Hitchcock, Williams, Swanson, Pomerene, Smith, and Pittman. STATEMENT OF MR. BERNARD M. BARUCH. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baruch, what is your title-one of the advisers of the American mission at the peace conference? Mr. BARUCH. Economic adviser. The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you a question first that does not come directly under your economic clauses, but one about which I thought possibly you might know. Article 237 on page 253, says: The successive installments, including the above sum, paid over by Germany in satisfaction of the above claims will be divided by the Allied and Associated Governments in proportions which have been determined upon by them in advance on a basis of general equity and the rights of each. Do you know if that determination has been reached, and if it has been omitted in the document? Mr. BARUCH. I understood it had not been reached. Senator MCCUMBER. Then, it should read, "which shall have been determined," rather than "which have been determined," should it not? The CHAIRMAN. The statement in article 237 is incorrect, of course? Mr. BARUCH. Let me see how it reads in the French. The French would mean "following the proportions determined by them in advance." The CHAIRMAN. I did not compare it. Mr. BARUCH. It gives an incorrect translation. You see, it says "déterminées par eux à l'avance." The translation is not exactly correct. The CHAIRMAN. It says "seronts répartis par les Gouvernments alliés et associés suivant les proportions déterminées par eux à l'avance et fondées sur l'équité et les droits de chacun." Apparently the French is correct and ours is incorrect. Senator MOSES. What is your point with reference to that translation? The CHAIRMAN. The French says "shall be" and ours is "have been." Senator MOSES. The French says "seront répartis "-will be divided. Mr. BARUCH. I think you are referring to the one a little further down. Senator MOSES. There is only one place. I do not get your point. Mr. BARUCH. The point is "which have been determined." The French means "determined by them in advance." The CHAIRMAN. This says "which have been determined." That does not give the sense of the French clause, certainly. Senator HITCHCOCK. The English text should leave out the words "which have been ?" Mr. BARUCH. In proportions determined upon by them in advance. Senator MOSES. "Which have been" should be omitted, then? The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is clear in either language. Mr. BARUCH. It does not seem to me that is a correct translation of the French. I am not a French scholar, but that is the way it seems to me. The CHAIRMAN. On second thought, I think it is pretty nearly correct. Senator MOSES. It is the past participle. Senator SWANSON. It simply means that whatever distribution is made, the Allies shall agree. The CHAIRMAN. This speaks of it as having been determined. It says "which shall have been determined." I think the French is pretty nearly the same, on second thought. Senator KNOX. Mr. Baruch, you say that this distribution has not been determined upon, so far as you know. Is that correct? Mr. BARUCH. Up to the time that I left it had not been, so far as I know. Senator KNOX. Had there been any conversations on the subject— any effort to arrive at a basis? Mr. BARUCH. There had been some discussion. Senator KNOX. Was there any tentative plan drawn up? Senator KNOX. Do you recall what proportion the United States had in this distribution? Mr. BARUCH. No, sir. Senator KNOX. Can you suggest approximately what proportion? The question of the United States getting an interest in the rẹparation has not been decided. I believe it is a matter that is under discussion. Senator KNOX. Between whom were these discussions held, especially with reference to whether the United States should or should not have any proportion of the indemnity? Mr. BARUCH. I think those matters would be a question for determination by the President, rather than anybody else or for this body. Senator KNOX. The President alone, or the President in conjunction with the Congress? Mr. BARUCH. You would be a better judge of that than I, as to what the procedure would be. |