NOVEMBER 15 TO DECEMBER 15
TREATY DEFEATED IN SENATE
On November 19 the Treaty of Peace with Germany failed of ratification in the Senate and the Senate adjourned until December 3. On the question of ratification with the Lodge reservations, the first vote was 39 to 55; and after motion to reconsider, 41 to 50; the third and final vote, on ratification with no reservations whatever, was 38 for to 53 against, the majority on this last motion consisting of 46 Republicans and 7 Democrats.
On the same date Senator Lodge introduced a resolution declaring war with Germany at an end. This was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and has not since come up. On December 5 Senator Hitchcock stated that it was the President's intention to make at present no further move regarding the Treaty, regarding the responsibility as “shifted from his shoulders.” On December 13 Senator Knox proposed two resolutions, one for ratification of the Peace Treaty without the League Covenant, and the other declaring peace with Germany subject to the President’s approval and signature.
American Delegates Leave Paris.—On December 9 the American Peace Delegation, headed by Assistant Secretary Frank L. Polk, left Paris for the United States. Upon his departure Mr. Polk expressed the opinion that Germany would submit to all Allied demands, and called attention to Rumania’s assent to the Austrian Treaty and the approaching completion of the Hungarian terms. The American departure was delayed a few days owing to Germany’s refusal to sign the final protocol.
LONDON CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 11-13
The British and French Premiers and the Italian Foreign Minister Scialoia met in London on December n-13 to consider the main outstanding questions relating to the peace settlement. Pending an official communique, press reports suggested the following results: (1) substantial progress on peace terms to Turkey; (2) agreement to withdraw Allied aid to Russia, as clearly foreshadowed in Mr. Lloyd George s speech of November 17; (3) assurances that Great Britain and France would intercede with the United States for an early settlement of the Adriatic problem ; (4) willingness on the part of the Allied Powers to accept American ratification of the Peace Treaty with most of the reservations proposed in the Senate; (5) agreement to hold further conferences of British, French, and Italian leaders for settlement of the peace, with the United States if possible, represented.
Labor Conference Ended.—The first International Labor Conference was adjourned suddenly on November 29 after a session of one month, just prior to the arrival of the German delegates. In that time an organization was effected and a governing body created with 24 members, 20 from Europe and 2 from the Americas. Albert Thomas, the French Labor Leader, was appointed Director General, in charge of the International Labor Office. Five draft conventions were adopted, including one providing for general adoption of the 8-hour day and the 48-hour week. The first meeting of the governing body is to be held January 26, probably in London.
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
Release of Jenkins from Jail.—The following announcement of the State Department on December 5 makes clear the facts relating to the abduction of Consular Agent Jenkins and his subsequent imprisonment and release by the Mexican authorities:
The release of William O. Jenkins, the American Consular Agent at Puebla, Mexico, was reported late this afternoon from the American Embassy at Mexico City.
The Secretary of State announced that a dispatch from the embassy stated that Third Secretary Hanna of the embassy, who was sent to Puebla in connection with the department’s repeated representations for the immediate release of Jenkins, had reported that Jenkins was released from the penitentiary last night.
Jenkins was abducted October 19, and the American Embassy was immediately instructed to take all possible measures to effect his release from the bandits who had robbed and kidnapped him. Jenkins was released on ransom, returning to Puebla October 26, was taken to a hospital on that date, and was arrested November 15 by the Mexican authorities and taken into custody.
The release of Consular Agent Jenkins was brought about by urgent diplomatic representations made by this government and the resulting investigation made by General Pablo Gonzalez, who was sent to Puebla by the Mexican Government to investigate the facts in the case. The investigation by General Gonzalez, who was at Puebla on December 3, had then practically substantiated the position taken by this government on behalf of Jenkins.
Two peons from Santa Lucia admitted to General Gonzalez that they had made declaration against Jenkins under threat of execution. Other witnesses testified they had been compelled to make false statements against Jenkins under duress. One witness was threatened with a pistol, another suspended by a rope, and still another beaten until he made his declaration against Jenkins.
These facts are shown in the court record of the case.
Note Demanding Release.-—The following is a translation from the Spanish text of the Note sent to Mexico on November 20 :
American Embassy, Mexico City, Nov. 20, 1919.
To Hilario Medina, Sub-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico City.
Sir: Referring to previous communications in the case of the Consular Agent of the United States at Puebla, William O. Jenkins, I have the honor of informing you that I have received telegraphic instruction to notify the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, that in connection with the losses and injuries already suffered by Mr. Jenkins as the result of his being kidnapped—occasioned by the inability of the Mexican Government to give due protection and his first arrest by Mexican authorities, the government of the United States of America is surprised and exasperated to learn that Mr. Jenkins again has been arrested.
His new arrest seems to my government, according to the evidence before it, entirely unjustified and an arbitrary exercise of public authority.
The government orders me to add that the persistent persecution and subsequent harassing of Mr. Jenkins cannot but have a very serious effect on the relations between the two countries, for which the Mexican Government will be solely responsible. .
Therefore, I am ordered to demand the immediate liberation of Mr. Jenkins. Accept, sir, etc.
(Signed) GEORGE L. SUMMERLIN, Charge d’Affaires.—N. Y. Times, 28/11.
Mexico’s Reply.—The reply of Mexico to Secretary Lansing’s demand was received on November 27. It explained the charge against Jenkins as false testimony in the courts, and declared the inability of the federal government to interfere with the courts of the state of Puebla. Secretary Lansing despatched a reply on December 1 renewing the charge of persecution and demanding release.
Mr. Jenkins was set free on December 5, the required bail of 1000 pesos having been supplied by a J. Salter Hansen, without authorization or knowledge on the part of the American Government.
It was subsequently stated (December n) that the Mexican Supreme Court had the full records of the case and would render a decision as to whether the case should be continued in the state or federal courts. Pending this decision, the final Mexican explanation was delayed.
GERMANY DELAYS SIGNING OF PROTOCOL
Denies Responsibility for Scapa Flow Sinking.—At the close of November, Baron Kurt von Lersner, head of the German Delegation, submitted protests declaring Germany not responsible for the sinking of German battleships, since the German admiral was a prisoner not under Germany’s control, and since the ships were not interned in a neutral port. In a statement to the press on December 3 the German delegates said Germany was ready to sign if the Scapa Flow question were referred to the Hague, and the paragraphs relating to the evacuation of Lithuania removed.
No Modification Permitted.—Two notes were handed by the Supreme Council to the German delegates on December 8. The first opened as follows:
Mr. President: The Supreme Council has taken note of the verbal communication which you made on December 1 in the name of the German Government.
The notes of the 1st and 22d of November defined the responsibility of the German Government as to the delay in the ratification of the Treaty, and the conclusions thereof stand.
The suggestion concerning an alleged right of Germany to request (in compensation for the absence of American delegations on the commissions until the ratification of the Treaty by the United States) a modification of the clauses of the Treaty concerning the delivery of the guilty and the return of the prisoners of war, has no basis. Under the terms of the final clauses of the Treaty, that instrument must enter into force as soon as Germany and three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers have ratified it. It would be in vain for Germany to endeavor to subordinate the entry into force to a new condition, the presence of American delegates on the commission.
Continuing, the Note stated (1) that France will free prisoners only when the Treaty comes into force; (2) that “after having received a complete report on all floating docks, cranes, tugs, and dredges, demanded by the protocol, the Allied and Associated Powers will make known their choice, taking into consideration the general economic situation of German ports ”; (3) that the signing of the protocol will determine the coming into effect of the Treaty; (4) that “until the Peace Treaty comes into force a denunciation of the Armistice is sufficient to give the Allied armies full latitude for any military measure they may deem necessary.”
Germany Responsible for Sinkings.—The second Note declared (1) that Germany had previously acknowledged responsibility for the sinking of warships at Scapa Flow ; (2) that the sinking was in accordance with secret communications from the German Admiralty; and (3) that the choice of Scapa Flow was in conformity with both the spirit and text of Art. 23 of the Armistice.
To these last notes Germany, on December 12, sent a reply of a temporizing, but conciliatory character, proposing that the indemnity tonnage question be referred at once to a body of experts.
FRANCE
Elections a Victory for Clemenceau.—In the November Parliamentary elections in France, in contrast to the results in Italy, the extreme Socialists received a severe set-back throughout the country, and in general the Socialists suffered the defeat of many of their leaders. This was taken as an expression of hostility toward all forms of Bolshevism, and also as a result of cooperation among all non-Socialist parties, secured chiefly by the skill of Premier Clemenceau. These parties, the bloc national, will control some 500 of the 626 seats in the Chamber of Deputies.
Franco-British Protective Treaty Ratified.—On November 20 the Treaty was formally ratified by which British aid is guaranteed to France, if without provocation she is attacked by Germany. The Treaty, however, does not take effect until the similar treaty between France and the United States is ratified.
ITALY
Socialist Gains in Elections.—In the November elections for Parliament, the Socialists in Italy made decided gains, filling 156 of the 508 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. The Catholic party holds about 100 seats, and the remainder are divided among various anti-socialistic parties, which with the Catholics support the ministry. The Socialist gains are generally interpreted as expressing merely the spirit of unrest in Italy and dissatisfaction with her opportunist policy in the war. The party leaders, however, afterward declared it an approval of Bolshevism.
Ex-Premier Orlando was elected President of the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 251 to 143, and Ex-Foreign Minister Tittoni, became President of the Senate. This is the first session of Parliament in six years. Nitti continues as Premier, with Vittorio Scialoia as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Fiume Proposal Condemned.—On November 24 it was announced in the press that the United States Government was unwilling to approve the solution of the Fiume question offered by Italy in October. This solution was briefly as follows: Italy would receive Fiume and a strip of territory connecting it with Italy. Italy would build a port for the Jugo-Slavs at Buccari, and during its construction grant them special privileges and guarantees at Fiume. Zara would become a free port, with its foreign affairs under Italian control.
The Fiume question was later taken up at a meeting of Allied ministers in London during the second week in December.
D’Annunzio to Await Settlement.—Following the triumphant occupation of Zara on the Dalmatian coast by d’Annunzio, and the support given to him by Admiral Millo in command of the Italian occupation forces, the Italian Government in a semi-official statement on November 22 condemned the Admiral's action and also gave assurances to Jugo-Slavia that no further efforts would be made to secure Dalmatian ports in violation of the Armistice arrangements. I11 the meantime a Serbian division, 12,000 strong, was reported at Spalato to guard it from capture, and 30,000 Jugoslav troops occupied Dalmatia.
D’Annunzio on December 7, assured the Italian Government and also issued a statement that he would make no new expeditions beyond the Armistice lines. On the 9th d’Annunzio’s representatives returned to Fiume from Rome with information regarding the government’s plans for a settlement.
AUSTRIA AND THE BALKANS
Rumania Finally Signs Austrian Treaty.—On December 3 the Supreme Council delivered a note to Rumania giving that country a final opportunity to sign the Austrian Treaty. The Note called attention to the unsatisfactory character of Rumania’s previous replies, and stated that the only justification for the further extension of time until December 8 was the change of ministry in Rumania and the meeting of the new Parliament. Rumania signed the Treaty just prior to the expiration of the time set.
Bulgarian Treaty Sicned.—On November 27 the Treaty of Peace between the Allies and Bulgaria was signed at Neuilly, a suburb of Paris. The signing was not marked by elaborate ceremonies. Secretary I oik signed the Treaty as representative of the United States. M. Stambuliwski,
Premier and leader of the Peasants’ Party which opposed the German alliance, represented Bulgaria. Rumania and Jugo-Slavia, not having at that time accepted the agreement with Austria, were not permitted to sign the Bulgarian Treaty, the Balkan states remaining thus technically in a state of war.
Hungarian Treaty in Readiness.—Upon his departure for the United States, Secretary Polk declared the Hungarian Treaty in readiness for signature, except for minor details. It was agreed by the Supreme Council that the Fiume question should not be settled in the Hungarian terms, but left for final decision by the Allied and Associated Powers. This would make it possible for Italy and Jugo-Slavia to sign the Treaty.
Coalition Cabinet in Hungary.—On November 25, under pressure from the Supreme Council, Hungary formed a coalition cabinet acceptable to the Allies, with Karl Huszar, a Christian Nationalist, as Premier. The new government was requested to send delegates to Paris, but notified the Supreme Council that the three delegates selected were interned by Rumania. The Supreme Council refused to intervene in this matter, but renewed its request for delegates.
RUSSIA
British Aid Withdrawn.—In a speech in the House of Commons on November 17 Premier Lloyd George indicated the decision of Great Britain to give up the policy of intervention in Russia. “ In whichever direction we go,” he said, “ we are marching into a fog.” Referring to the Bullitt report, he declared that Bullitt had “ betrayed the confidence ” of Sir Philip Kerr (Lloyd George’s secretary).
Reverting to the general question of Russia, the Premier referred to the operations of Admiral Kolchak, and emphasized the enormous distances, and the difficulty of England helping Kolchak.
“ There are countries,” he declared, “ in a much better position to help Kolchak than we. These powers are next door. They are in the alliance. I do not wish to be considered as criticising them, but if there has been a failure it is not our failure.”
Pointing out that nobody knew what Central Russia wanted, and that any attacks upon Bolshevism carried beyond a certain point had failed, the Premier declared that with Great Britain’s own burdens it was quite impossible to go on financing civil war in Russia indefinitely.
“ Our own country is our first concern,” he said, “ and there is no surer road to Bolshevism at home than financial bankruptcy. We have contributed more to anti-Bolshevist elements in Russia than France, Japan and America put together. I boast of that because it was an obligation of honor for us.”
Mr. Lloyd George admitted the accuracy of the French press report that France and England were in agreement to withhold further supplies from Russia, because, as he explained, it was impossible further to burden the French taxpayer.
Dilating upon the almost insuperable difficulties of formulating a policy when on one side there were anti-Bolsheviki like Kolchak and Denikin fighting to reknit and reunite powerful Russia, and on the other side border states equally anti-Bolshevist, seeking their own independence, and there fore the disintegration of Russia, the Premier said:
“ Will any wise man advise us to undertake the terrible responsibility of restoring order in a country as large as Russia, where no country ever intervened without landing itself into disaster? I cannot undertake such responsibility.”
The Premier concluded by declaring that he did not fear Bolshevism in any well-governed land, but dreaded a wild adventure into lands whose condition was unknown, and where nothing but catastrophe had awaited every empire and every army that had ever made it.
A. J. Balfour, Lord President of the Council, pointed out that while there was much criticism of the Government for lack of a clear-cut policy on Russia, none of the critics had ever suggested a clear-cut policy of his own. —N. Y. Times, 2/11.
Peace Conference at Dorpat.—On December 4 a delegation from the Russian Bolshevist Government arrived at Dorpat, in Lithuania, to begin peace negotiations with representatives of the former Baltic provinces of Russia. It was stated that most of the Baltic provinces would be represented.
Negotiations at Copenhagen.—It was announced in press reports of December 10, that at a meeting in Copenhagen between Mr. James O'Grady, representing the British Government, and M. Litvinoff, representing Soviet Russia, for the exchange of prisoners, the Russian delegate made efforts to open general peace negotiations, which Mr. O’Grady refused to undertake. The Soviet Government has repeatedly indicated its desire for peace on the basis of non-interference in Russian affairs.
Kolchak Government Reorganized.—Following military disasters and retreat from Omsk to Irkutsk, an effort was made to reorganize the Kolchak Government, eliminating military control over civil affairs. The new “ All-Russian Ministry ” under Premier Pepeliaeff on December 1 issued a statement of policy, including elimination of military influence, extension of power to Zemstros, and friendly relations with Czechoslovaks.
FAR EAST
No International Concession at Tsing-tao.—The Japanese newspaper Yomsuri on November 20 announced that Japan had decided not to establish an international concession at Tsing-tao, as suggested by Foreign Minister Uchida in September, but would maintain the concession exclusively Japanese.
Trouble over Consortium to China.—The plan for an international loan to China was held up by Japan’s opposition to the inclusion of certain portions of Mongolia and Manchuria within the purview of the loan, on the ground of Japan’s exclusive rights in those areas. To this objection, the United States replied that the Lansing-Ishii agreement, while it recognized Japan’s special interests in certain parts of China, did not imply a Japanese monopoly or priority of economic rights not in accordance with the “ open door.”
Pending the settlement of the discussion, a plan was proposed by which the four powers were to advance $25,000,000 to relieve China's immediate necessities and prevent a collapse of the government.
Additional Troops to Siberia.—Despatches from Vladivostok on December 10 announced the arrival of several transports with fresh Japanese troops for Siberia. It was not made clear whether these were replacements or reinforcements to meet the advance of Bolshevist troops. According to press accounts, the sending of increased troops to Siberia aroused opposition from the Japanese people and press.