Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
It is now quite well known that, in spite of its non-membership in the League of Nations, the United States has participated for some time in various League activities. The nature and extent of such coöperation have been described and commented on by several writers, and need not be reviewed here. It is sufficient to point out that these relationships between the United States and the League have been going on now for nearly ten years, that they have continually grown in number and importance, that they have become increasingly friendly, frank, and official, and that their continuous character has been recognized and regularized by maintaining a State Department official at Geneva as a sort of “consul to the League.”
1 See particularly Hudson, Manley O., “America's Rôle in the League of Nations,” in this Review, XXIII, 17–31 (Feb., 1929)Google Scholar; Berdahl, Clarence A., “The United States and the League of Nations,” in Michigan Law Review, XXVII, 607–636 (Apr., 1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and a series of thirteen articles by the same writer in League of Nations Chronicle (Chicago), beginning Feb., 1930Google Scholar. Most useful for the facts of such cooperation are: Manley Hudson, O., “American Coöperation with Other Nations Through the League of Nations,” World Peace Foundation Pamphlets, VII, No. 1 (1924; revised 1927)Google Scholar; Geneva Research Information Committee, “American Coöperation with the League of Nations, 1919-1931,” Geneva Special Studies, II, No. 7 (July, 1931)Google Scholar; Hubbard, Ursula P., “The Coöperation of the United States with the League of Nations and with the International Labor Organization,” International Conciliation, No. 274 (Nov., 1931)Google Scholar.
2 In December, 1922, Dr. Marion Dorset, of the Bureau of Animal Industry in the Department of Agriculture, sat with the Anthrax Committee of the International Labor Office; in January, 1923, Dr. Rupert Blue, assistant surgeon-general in the Public Health Service, sat with the League's Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Opium; and in March, 1923, Miss Grace Abbott, chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor, sat with the League's Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Women and Children. The Harding-Hughes administration officially appointed these representatives, but in each case to act only in an “unofficial and advisory capacity.”
3 Mr. Prentiss B. Gilbert, of the State Department, was sent to Geneva in 1930 for the officially avowed purpose of observing and reporting upon the activities of the League. Even before that, however (since 1928), a staff of special observers had been maintained in the American consulate in Geneva, although their purpose was not so frankly avowed. There is now in the Geneva consulate a staff of seven (three consuls and four vice-consuls), of whom five, including Mr. Gilbert, devote their whole time to League “observation.”
4 Mr. Fred C. Croxton was chosen in Feb., 1922, by the commissioner-general of immigration (presumably with the approval of the Secretary of State), to sit with an advisory committee of experts to assist the International Labor Office in its work with respect to immigration. Later changes in plan at Geneva prevented this committee from actually being formed. Report of Director to Fourth International Labour Conference, 1922, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.
5 Miss Mary Anderson, director of the Women's Bureau, had been sent by the Department of Labor for this purpose, but received a cable from Secretary Doak, just before reaching Geneva, ordering her not to attend the Conference, because the State Department felt that “ participation of the United States in the Conference of the International Labor Organization would be tantamount to attending a meeting of the Council or Assembly of the League.” Miss Anderson is reported to have spent the entire period of the Conference (May 28-June 18) at a nearby mountain resort, carefully leaving Geneva before the Conference began and returning to Geneva a few hours after it closed. N. Y. Times, June 20, 1931, p. 5Google Scholar, c. 2; International Conciliation, No. 274, p. 95.
6 These disadvantages are well pointed out by ProfessorHudson, Manley in this Review, XXIII, 30–31 (Feb., 1929)Google Scholar.
7 This incident seems to have escaped public attention. The newspaper notices are quite inconspicuous, the Literary Digest having absolutely no mention of it at all; even the pro-League New York Times failed to see its significance, tucking away its meager reports in inside pages. See N. Y. Times, Aug. 24, 1923, p. 14Google Scholar, c. 2; Sept. 1, p. 5, c. 5; Sept. 2, p. 9, c. 2; Sept. 12, p. 5, c. 1; Sept. 19, p. 4, c. 1.
8 See Memorandum of Netherlands government to the Secretary-General, Oct. 22, 1920. Records of First Assembly, 1920, CI, 181–185Google Scholar.
9 Assembly resolution of Dec. 15, 1920. Ibid., P 538, 545; Council Minutes, XII, 55Google Scholar. The invitation was actually extended by the Netherlands government.
10 Statement of the secretary of the Opium Advisory Committee to Fifth Committee of Assembly, Sept. 15, 1921. Records of Second Assembly, 1921, C II, 345Google Scholar. It may be noted that Germany, also then a non-member of the League and a signatory of the 1912 convention, agreed at once to coöperate with the League.
11 On this matter of opium control, certain communications are still made by the United States to the Netherlands, rather than to the League, although in all other respects there seems no longer any hesitation to engage in direct correspondence with Geneva. See, for example, League of Nations Doc. C. 1S. M. 9. 1931. XI. (Jan. 5, 1931), reporting seizures of drugs in the United States and in the Philippines, which bears the notation: “Communicated by the Government of the United States of America through the Netherlands Government.”
12 Assembly resolutions of Sept. 30, 1921, and Sept. 19, 1922. Records of Second Assembly, P 541; ibid., Third Assembly, P I, 137.
13 This invitation was sent by the Secretary-General on Oct. 14, 1922, under instructions from the Council. Official Journal, III, 1203–1204 (Nov., 1922)Google Scholar.
14 It is not necessary, for purposes of this article, to discuss the substance of these proposals. It may be noted, however, that the American delegation acted in a rather high-handed manner, presenting their proposals, haranguing the committee in lengthy speeches, and then withdrawing without even answering questions, returning only after the committee had in effect agreed to the principles involved. See Provisional Minutes of Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Opium, 5th Session, esp. 2nd meeting, May 25, 13th meeting, June 1, and 17th meeting, June 4, 1923.
15 Report of Advisory Committee on. the Work of the 5th Session, May 24-June 7, 1923, in Official Journal, IV, 1019–1027 (Aug., 1923)Google Scholar.
16 Information supplied officially at Geneva.
17 The texts of both invitation and reply were circulated to members of the League as Doc. C. 533. M. 221, 1923. XI, but have apparently not been printed.
18 The acceptance of the invitation and the appointment of the delegation do not appear to have been announced to the press from Washington at all, but from Geneva. See N. Y. Times, Aug. 24, 1923, p. 14Google Scholar, c. 2. Their sailing was announced, but with no reference at all to the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly, the reference being consistently to an “opium commission.” Further, “it was explained at the White House that much progress was made at previous sessions of the commission,” even this being concealed in a despatch dealing chiefly with Bussian recognition. Ibid., Sept. 1, 1923, p. 5, c. 5. The writer does not, of course, claim to have examined all the newspapers for that period, but it seems reasonable to assume that no newspaper would have more information than the N. Y. Times. Cf. also supra, note 7.
19 Records of Fourth Assembly, 1923, C V, 38–52Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., 41, 45.
21 The names of the American delegates are even included among the official list of members of the Fifth Committee, although with the notation that they “represented the United States of America in a purely advisory capacity.” Ibid., 6. This and the fact that Porter served on the drafting committee are sufficient evidence that their status was actually somewhat different from that of the technical advisers referred to by way of comparison in the Secretary-General's invitation. See also Porter's closing remarks to his “fellow-members.”
22 Mr. Porter on this occasion carried himself much more tactfully and graciously than previously in the Advisory Committee and later in the Opium Conference.
23 Records of Fourth Assembly, 1923, C V, 52Google Scholar.
24 The American delegation to the Opium Conference of 1924-25, headed again by Mr. Porter, walked out when that body seemed disposed to modify the American proposals. The resulting opium convention of 1925 did not meet the approval of the United States, and it refused to coöperate under that convention except to send information of drug seizures, through the Dutch government, to the Opium Board. Official American delegates did, however, attend the Conference on the Limitation of the Manufacture of Narcotic Drugs, May 27-July 13, 1931, and signed the convention there concluded, which supplemented and extended the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1925 as well as of the Hague Convention of 1912. “Unofficial” representatives have been continued on the Advisory Committee, and an official “observer” took part in the Conference on Opium Smoking, in Bangkok, in November, 1931, which was also convened under the Geneva Convention of 1925.
25 The Secretary-General wrote to the Secretary of State on Mar. 8 and Nov. 21, 1921, and the acting president of the Council (Branting, Sweden) wrote on May 1, 1923, inquiring as to the intentions and objections of the United States. To these inquiries Secretary Hughes responded first on July 28, 1922, stating merely that the United States would not ratify, and on Sept. 12, 1923, giving the reasons. The Secretary-General's letter of Nov. 21, 1921, has apparently not been printed. The texts of the others are found, respectively, in Council Minutes, XII, 109Google Scholar, and Documents of the Arms Traffic Conference of 1925 (Doc. C. 758. M. 258. 1924 IX. [C. C. O. 2]), 11-13; Hughes' letter of Sept. 12, 1923, also in Official Journal, IV, 1471 (Nov., 1923)Google Scholar.
26 Letter of Branting (acting president of the Council) to the Secretary of State, Dec. 14, 1923, and reply from Joseph C. Grew, U. S. minister at Berne, to the Secretary-General, Feb. 2, 1924. Official Journal, V, 378–379, 453 (Feb., Mar., 1924)Google Scholar.
27 The minutes of these sessions are found in Documents of the Arms Traffic Conference, 38-102, 167-209.
28 The report of the commission shows clearly the ingenious way in which the several objections of Mr. Hughes were met. See Report of Temporary Mixed Commission to Council, Sept. 30, 1924. Official Journal, V, 1605–1609 (Oct., 1924)Google Scholar.
29 Report of M. Beneš to Council, Sept. 9, 1924. Ibid., 1294-1295.
30 Text of reply in ibid. Mr. Hughes did, however, indicate that the United States would be disposed to participate in an international conference. Accordingly, the Assembly recommended and the Council summoned such a conference, which was held in May and June, 1925, and which was attended by an official American delegation, headed by Representative (later Senator) Theodore E. Burton. A new convention regulating the traffic in arms was there agreed upon and was signed by the American delegates, but has not yet (December, 1931) been reported out of the Senate committee on foreign relations.
31 Verbatim Record of Twelfth Assembly, 2nd Plenary Meeting, p. 7. (The final records of this Assembly had not been printed when this article was written, hence the citations are to the provisional records—the Verbatim Record for plenary meetings, and the Journal for committee meetings. Much of the information was obtained through personal observation.)
32 Verbatim Record, 7th Plenary Meeting, p. 10.
33 While this action was apparently a genuine surprise to most of the committee members, it was probably no surprise to the United States government, a wellinformed newspaper correspondent pointing out that “in view of the fact that invitations of this kind have rarely been extended to the United States without previous soundings to assure acceptance, it is assumed Washington will immediately answer authorizing Wilson to represent it.” N. Y. Times, Sept. 20, 1931, Sec. 1, p. 3Google Scholar, c. 5.
34 Journal of Twelfth Assembly, No. 13, pp. 173-174.
35 The General Committee, constituting a steering committee for the Assembly, is composed of the president, six vice-presidents, the six chairmen of the standing committees (who are also ex-officio vice-presidents), and the chairman of the Agenda Committee.
36 Statement of M. Titulesco to Assembly, Sept. 23, 1931. Verbatim Record, 12th Plenary Meeting, pp. 1-2.
37 The others were Afghanistan, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Egypt, Ecuador, Salvador, Turkey, and Russia. Two of these, Argentina and Salvador, are League members, but had no delegates at the 1931 Assembly, and hence were included in this special invitation. Brazil, Costa Rica, Egypt, and Turkey sent representatives, Argentina and Russia stating their inability to do so for lack of time.
38 Journal of Twelfth Assembly, Nos. 14-20, esp. pp. 208, 246, 270.
39 The Italian proposal was formally laid before the Third Committee on Sept. 21, just after Mr. Wilson had taken his seat. It proposed a “gentlemen's agreement” to be then and there entered into for a truce of one year, beginning Nov. 1, 1931, on the following basis: (1) no increase of expenditures for land armaments; (2) no new naval construction; (3) no construction of military aircraft except as replacements. Ibid., No. 14, p. 208. Full text circulated as Doc. A. III. 19. (Sept. 24, 1931).
40 He made the reservation, however, that the United States destroyer-building program, for which contracts had already been let, should not be halted, in view of its connection with the matter of unemployment relief.
41 This resolution was in the nature of a solemn appeal from the Assembly to the various governments to undertake such an armaments truce for one year, and to indicate their intentions in this respect by Nov. 1, 1931. The proposal was purposely left rather vague, and it seemed to be understood that it would not prevent the execution of construction already begun. Journal, No. 20, p. 301.
42 Verbatim Record, 16th Plenary Meeting, esp. pp. 9, 12, 16.
43 By Nov. 1, 1931, 35 states, including the United States, had formally announced their readiness to enter into such a truce. This included also France, Poland, and Japan, those most hesitant at first. The reply of the United States, dated Oct. 30, 1931, is Doc. C. 781. M. 376. 1931. IX. Eighteen additional states accepted later, and on Nov. 14 the Secretary-General announced that the conditions had been fulfilled and that the truce should be considered effective, “unless and in so far as the various governments do not forthwith intimate any objection to this course.” Doc. C. L. 293. 1931. IX.
44 Secretary Stimson, when announcing Mr. Wilson's selection, emphasized the “consultative” character of his participation as evidence that it did not mean an increasing participation by the United States in League affairs. N. Y. Times, Sept. 22, 1931, p. 10Google Scholar, c. 5.
45 Verbatim Record, 16th Plenary Meeting, p. 11.
46 Ibid., p. 9.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.