페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALARIES OF A MINISTER
AND CONSULS TO THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

STEPHEN G. PORTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman.
JOHN JACOB ROGERS, Massachusetts. HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia.
HENRY W. TEMPLE, Pennsylvania.

J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland.
AMBROSE KENNEDY, Rhode Island. WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas.
EDWARD E. BROWNE, Wisconsin.

CHARLES M. STEDMAN, North Carolina.
MERRILL MOORES, Indiana.

ADOLPH J. SABATH, Illinois.
WILLIAM E. MASON, Illinois.

J. WILLARD RAGSDALE, South Carolina.
WALTER H. NEWTON, Minnesota.

GEORGE HUDDLESTON, Alabama.
L. J. DICKINSON, Iowa.

TOM CONNALLY, Texas.
ERNEST R. ACKERMAN, New Jersey. THOMAS F. SMITH, New York.
FRANK L. SMITH, Illinois.
JAMES T. BEGG, Ohio.
ALANSON B. HOUGHTON, New York.

EDMOND F. ERK, Clerk.
2

TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALARIES OF A MINISTER AND

CONSULS TO THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Friday, December 12, 1919. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Stephen G. Porter (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The committee has been called to consider H. R. 3404, entitled “A bill to provide for the salaries for a minister and consuls for the Republic of Ireland.” The bill reads as follows:

(H. R. 3404. Sixty-sixth Congress, first session.] A BILL To provide for the salaries of a minister and consuls to the Republic of Ireland. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That an appropriation be made out of the Treasury of the United States to provide for salaries for a minister and consuls to the Republic of Ireland, the sum of $14,000.

The committee is desirous of being quite liberal in the matter of time, and we would like the time divided between the proponents of the bill and the opponents. Mr. Mason has indicated that he will take charge of the speakers in favor of the passage of the bill, and I hope that those opposed to the bill will agree upon some one to represent them.

Mr. Fox. I am the spokesman for those opposed to it. We are perfectly willing to take one-half of the time before the committee. We do not want it to be as it was a year ago when I got 15 minutes and they had 8 hours. I would like to know what the time for each of their speakers is to be. I think the advocates of the resolution should have one hour, and then we should have an hour. I do not want to wait until they get through.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be very much more orderly if we should hear first one side and when they have finished then hear the other side.

Mr. Fox. Then you do not think that we can divide the time as I have said give them an hour and we take an hour?

The CHAIRMAN. I think we should hear those friendly to the bill first.

Mr. Fox. Those friendly to the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and we will give you plenty of time.
Mr. Fox. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say that we expect to close the hearing to-day, though.

Mr. Fox. We shall be here to-morrow and to-morrow night [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Mason, will you proceed ?

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. MASON, A REPRESENTA

TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Mr. Mason. I desire to submit the following in support of the law and precedents favoring the passage of this bill providing an appropriation for diplomatic representatives to the republic of Ireland.

The student of law soon learns that international law does not keep pace with the steady, equitable growth of the civil law. No crime that could be committed by one nation against another was so great that you could not find precedent and decisions in favor of that crime in international law. Before the establishment of the Republic of the United States, any friendly recognition by one State toward another was regarded as a declaration of war against any other nation that was at war with the nation recognized. In fact, the State A would never recognize State B unless it was prepared to intervene and fight the enemies of State B. In other words, recognition meant intervention and war. When the American people adopted the Declaration of Independence which eventuated in the establishment of this Republic, international law made a giant stride in the interest of civilization.

Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson, the United States adopted the policy of recognition without intervention. The success of the American revolution and the establishment of the Republic made this step necessary, for, as Jefferson put it, “How can we consistently refuse to recognize people who ask to establish our form of government." As early as 1792 Jefferson advised our minister at Paris, "It agrees with our policy to acknowledge any government which is formed by the will of the nation, substantially declared." In December, the month following, Jefferson wrote Pinkney, our minister at London, regarding this recognition policy which the United States intended to adopt toward France, saying, "We certainly can not deny the other nations that principle whereon our own Government is founded." And when, six weeks after, in February, 1793, the French Minister to the United States informed us that the Republic had been established in France, that Government was acknowledged by Jefferson inside of a week and he congratulated the French people on the establishment of the principles of liberty" (see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 1, p. 333, also

It is interesting to note the controversy between Jefferson and Hamilton upon the question of recognition, and the question asked by Washington of his cabinet in April following the recognition of the French Republic will be found in the writings of Washington (Ford edition, vol. 12, p. 280). It is perfectly apparent that out of this controversy between Hamilton and Jefferson arose the fixed policy of the Government of the United States of recognition without intervention. To state it more simply it means that we reserve the right to extend our best wishes to all who ask self-government, but under our firm policy of noninterference in foreign affairs we do not intend by this recognition to be bound to go to war on either side.

If students of history doubt the wisdom of this they should read the speeches of Henry Clay when he was a member of the House, asking an appropriation for diplomatic representatives to the Republic of Buenos Aires, and the very able and conclusive arguments of

p. 189).

* *

Mr. Webster when he offered a resolution to appoint a minister to Greece. Mr. Webster said it was valuable in making public opinion among the nations of the world, and Mr. Clay adhered to his theory unto the day of his death, and said that such resolutions offered in the House and Senate were useful to "quicken” the action of the President.

As the precedents of this definite doctrine of recognition without intervention, I refer to Moore's Digest on International Law, volume 1, beginning at page 85. January 30, 1822, the House passed a resolution asking the President to lay before it his communication from the agents of the United States in those States in rebellion in South America against Spain. On the 8th of March, the same year, the President complied, saying that the contest "merits the most profound consideration whether their right to the rank of independent nations

is not complete. The President called attention to the fact that Buenos Aires (the nation that Clay fought for) had reached a state of independence.

He also called attention to the condition of other small peoples in South America, saying that the Government is not receiving views of the Spanish Government on this subject, nor had our Government received any information as to the disposition of other powers respecting it and in this same message to Congress insists that it is not to change our relations to Spain," but to observe in all respects as heretofore, should the war be continued, the most perfect neutrality between them.” Thus it will be seen that the President reannounced the policy of recognition without intervention so explicitly declared by Jefferson and by the action of Washington. Within 10 days from the time that this message was received from the President the House Committee on Foreign Affairs presented a unanimous report saying “it is just and expedient to acknowledge the independence of the several nations of Spanish America without any reference to the diversity of the forms of government.” This report was adopted by the House, and within six weeks an act was approved making an appropriation of $100,000 for use by the President for sending representatives to these independent nations.

It was but natural that Spain, the parent State, a monarch, governing by force and without the consent of the governed, should have taken exceptions to this recognition, and the Spanish minister most vigorously protested, and his detailed protest will be found on page 86 of Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 1, and if his statements can be relied upon, he makes a very strong case against the United States for recognizing people who have no government, de jure or de facto, and he closes with a most solemn protest against the action of the United States.

Mr. Adams, replying to the minister of Spain, assured him that they wished to remain in friendly relations with Spain and assured him that there was no thought on the part of the United States of intervening or making war, and that our recognition was not intended to invalidate any right of Spain nor to prevent Spain from employing any means which she might be disposed to use with a view of reuniting those provinces to the rest of her dominions. In other words, Mr. Adams, as Secretary of State, announced the American doctrine of recognition without intervention. (See American State Papers

« 이전계속 »