CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Cornell University Library JX 234.A4S16 1919 To provide for the salaries of a ministe 3 1924 005 237 486 The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924005237486 TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALARIES OF A MINISTER AND CONSULS TO THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF EEPKESENTATIVES SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H. R. 3404 December 12, 13, 1919 WASHINGTON j '* ' / ( \ GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1920. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Sixty-sixth Congress, SECOND SESSION. STEPHEN G. PORTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman. JOHN JACOB ROGERS, Massachusetts. ' HENRY W. TEMPLE, Pennsylvania. AMBROSE KENNEDY, Rhode island. EDWARD E. BROWNE, Wisconsin. MERRILL MOORES, Indiana. WILLIAM E. MASON, Illinois. WALTER H. NEWTON, Minnesota. L. J. DICKINSON, Iowa. ERNEST R. ACKERMAN, New Jersey. PRANK L. SMITH, Illinois. JAMES T. BEGG, Ohio. ALANSON B. HOUGHTON, New York. Edmond P. Ebk, Cleric HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland. WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. CHARLES M. STEDMAN, North Carolina. ADOLPH J. SABATH, Illinois. J. WILLARD RAGSDALE, South Carolina. GEORGE HUDDLESTON, Alabama. TOM CONNALLY, Texas. THOMAS F. SMITH, New York. 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. Ported (chairman) presiding. The Chairman. The committee will be in order. The committee has been called to consider H. E. 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. E. 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 Rouse 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 nave 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. Ifes; 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 ? 4 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 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 appro- priation 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, recog- nition 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 con- sistently 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 cer- tainly 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 p. 189). .; . 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 Repub- lic of Buenos Aires, and the very able and conclusive arguments of SALARIES OF MINISTER ANI> CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 5 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 reso- lution 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 pro- found 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 oalled 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 neu- trality 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 Presi- dent for sending representatives to these independent nations. It was but natural that Spain, the parent State, a monarch, gov- erning 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 state- ments 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 6 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. Foreign Relations, vol. 4, p. 846.) This whole correspondence was sent to the American Senate upon the request of that body. See also Secretary Adams to Mr. Rush, our minister to England (Inst, to U. S. Ministers, vol. 9, p. 119); also letters of Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe (Madison's Writings, vol. 3, p. 267), which also explains the American policy of our right and duty in the matter of recognition. Secretary Adams insists that in this policy America has "taken the lead of the whole civilized world." (See Secretary Adams, May 27, 1823, to Mr. Anderson, Inst, to U. S. Ministers, vol. 9, pp. 274-283.) The United States recognized the Republic of Colombia in June, 1822, and the result was that the principal nations of Europe ad- mitted all of the vessels of Spanish-American nations under their own colors. Venezuela was recognized in 1835, and Ecuador in 1838. (See Senate Doc. 40, 54th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 12-13.) Buenos Aires was recognized by the United States in 1823, and after that claimed sovereignty over both Uruguay and Paraguay. But the United States, still carrying out its policy of "recognition without inter- vention," recognized Uruguay in 1836, and Paraguay in 1852, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, Buenos Aires did not even protest. Chili was recognized in 1823 on the same day with Mexico, January 27. Brazil was recognized September, 1822, and it will be noticed that although the form of government was monarchial, while it has been the policy to be more prompt to recognize those countries who stood for self-determination, this Government has seldom, if ever, failed to recognize the rights of the nation on account of its form of government. The recognition of the Central American States by the United States, beginning with Guatemala in 1844, Salvador in 1849, Nicara- gua in 1849, Costa Rica in 1851, Honduras in 1853, is but another chapter in history of American policy. To show the difference between the policy of a republic and a monarchy in matters of recog- nition,, it was more than two years after recognition by the United States of Buenos Aires, Colombia, and Mexico before England recog- nized the independence of these States, and the reason for this differ- ence of opinion between a republic and a monarchy was a difference of principle. Mr. Canning, Lord Lansdowne, and Sir James Mackin- tosh, English statesmen, declared that it was the principle of the monarchy that they would not recognize a new Spanish American province as against Spain so long as any "struggle inarms" continued. They declared first that no independence can be recognized "so long as a substantial struggle is being maintained by the former governing state for the recovery of its authority." If this was the policy of the United States of America, no new republic could ever be born until it had well established its own independence and secured recognition from its parent State and it will be seen at a glance how this difference of policy has made for self-determination. This difference of policy of the United States for recognition without intervention has made a difference in civilization. In other words, it shows the wisdom the policy announced by Webster in his great declaration of principles made when he sought to make an appropriation for a minister to Greece, in his great oration on the occasion of the visit of Kossuth to this country, namely, to put it in plain language: As kings would stand together, it became the duty of republics to stand together in the interest of our form of government. SALARIES OF MINISTEK A2TD CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 7 I hav^e quoted enough of the international law as made by the Republic of the United States to show that the policy of recognition without intervention, and would conclude that branch of the case by quoting one line from Moore's Digest of International Law, volume 1, Sage 96, which contains the report of Mr. Clay from the Senate ommittee on Foreign Eelations, June, 1836, which says that our recognition of new States gives no just ground of umbrage or cause of war. The second question which arose under the resolution I have offered for an appropriation for a diplomatic corps to the republic of Ireland is, whether or not the legislative branch of the Government has the right to take the initiative in such recognition. I respect- fully contend that to make a complete recognition of a foreign State or a new-born Republic requires the action of both the executive and the legislative branches of our Government. The House of Repre- sentatives, the Senate, or the President may initiate such recogni- tion, but can not complete it. The President may receive a minister from a new Republic and appoint an American minister to that Republic, but if the Senate declines to confirm that minister, he is powerless to act, and the recognition is not complete. But even if the Senate should confirm the minister and the House of Representatives, not being in sympathy with that recognition, could refuse an appro- priation, and in that way would prevent the recognition from being complete. This is the doctrine announced by both Webster and Clay, and the Supreme Court of the United States has clearly indi- cated in the case of 6 Cranch, which I cited, that either Congress or the President can initiate such proceedings. I admit the power given under the Constitution to the President to receive foreign ministers. I admit also that the Executive has generally assumed to initiate such proceedings, but that custom has granted it by reason of the fact that the political party controlling the legislative branch of the Government has been in sympathy, and have also had their representative in the White House. This pro- ceeding has also grown from the fact that the Executive power has gradually encroached upon the legislative power by reason of the aggressiveness of the Executive and the indifference of the legislative branch of the Government. I cite the case of Texas to show that final action was taken by our Government in conformity with the rule of recognition without inter- vention, and also to show the soundness of my other proposition, that either branch of Congress may take the first step toward the recognition of a new State. Rawle, in his writing on Constitutional Law, makes it very plain. He says the President has power to initiate recognition, but that the legislative power is greater, and gives as one of his reasons,, that recognition might be regarded as a cause for war, and as Congress and not the President can declare war the power of recognition is greater in Congress than in the President. This is the position taken by Henry Clay, when he introduced the same resolution for the Republic of Buenos Aires, which I have pre- sented for the Republic of Ireland. Mr. Clay, then a Member of the House, in 1819, asked for appointment of diplomatic representatives to the Republic of Greece, and in his speech follows the policy an- nounced by Jefferson as to recognition, and also follows the opinion by Rawle, as to the power of Congress to initiate recognition, and 8 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. fives the same reason for the rule announced by Rawle. Daniel Webster offered an appropriation for the Republic of Greece two or three years later, and announced both rules for which I am contending. First, our duty to assist republics by recognition without interven- tion, and the power and duty of the Congress to initiate relations with new States. The Supreme Court in the case cited in 6 Cranch clearly indicate their opinion that either the President or Congress can initiate the movement for recognition. But it is claimed by some opposing this resolution that Henry Clay changed his opinions when he came as a Senator, to the Texas case. This is not Sustained by the history of the case. I have quoted above from the report made by Senator Clay in 1836, about 16 years after he had introduced the resolution for Greece, and that resolution makes no mention of the Executive. Jackson was President, and opposed to recognition of Texas in any way, just as President Wilson is opposed to any recognition of the Republic of Ireland. The resolution is as follows: "Resolved, That the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged by the United States whenever satisfactory evidence shall have been received that it has in successful operation a civil government," etc. President Jackson, in December of the same year, sent his message to Congress, really opposing recognition, but calling attention to the fact that both Houses, acting separately, Tiad passed the above reso- lution. (Moore's Digest of international Law, vol. 1, p. 98.) The President (p. 99) agrees with the proposition I contend for. He agrees that recognition should be left to Congress, and then proceeds to give his reason for not taking the initiative: "Prudence therefore seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof and maintain our present attitude" (p. 101). Here was a clear conflict of opinion be- tween the Executive and the Legislature, however it is interesting to note which opinion prevailed. The language of the resolution was changed so as to read "whenever the President of the United States should . receive satisfactory evidence that Texas is an independent power," etc. This bill was passed by Congress about 10 weeks after the President had given Congress his reasons why it ought not to be done, and within three or four days after this billpassed President Jackson appointed our first American minister to Texas. Of course Mexico protested, and our Secretary of State in replying to his protest, said, The two branches of the legislative department, to which the subject had been referred by the late President con- curred as to its propriety" (page 102), and further: "The United States, in recognizing Texas acted in perfect accordance with their ordinary and settled policy." He further promised neutrality, in other words our settled policy of "Recognition without intervention." Then, Mr. Chairman, I think I have shown, first, the settled policy of the United States of recognition without intervention; second, that such recognition can not mean war; third, that Congress has equal power with the President in taking the "first step" in recogni- tion of a new State. Then if I am correct the only question is one of policy or expediency We have as a House declared by a two-thirds vote, and the Senate by a unanimous vote save one, "that the Republic of Ireland should have been granted self-determination. There was no protest from the parent state. The evidence shows by a vote of the people that SALAEIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 9 they desire self-government, and they have established a de facto government, capable of transacting governmental business, and are transacting governmental business now. It is not my purpose to dwell on the expediency in this case, the record in this case will show the righteousness of self-determination. Ireland has never been a willing subject of the King. Conquered for a time in war, and then debauched by the act of union, according to Gladstone, the blackest and foulest bribery known to history. Her people ask only for a kind word from us while she seeks to establish our constitution as hers. That constitution established on the Emerald Isle will help for peace on earth. It stands for civil and religious liberty, it separates church and state. It costs us nothing; it endangers us in no way. If we follow the path of the fathers, we will comfort those who have fought with us and believe in our form of Government, with malice toward none, and speaking for myself alone, to deny this crumb of comfort to those oppressed as we were, is to deny the faith of our ancestors who made us free. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee : There are so many here from far away, asking to be heard in favor of the resolution, that I am going to simply take not over 10 minutes more to give a brief skeleton of the questions of international law that are involved in my resolution, and I will ask the committee to allow me to revise my remarks simply for the purpose of citing the authorities, which if I should take the time of the committee to do it now, would con- sume all of this session. I address myself first, if the chairman and the committee please, to the question as to whether this resolution, which makes an appro- priation for a diplomatic corps to the republic of Ireland, is a measure which, if passed, under international law would be considered a cause for war. That is the constant answer that is made to me when I suggest the recognition of this new republic. I had the honor of serving with Mr. Cushman K. Davis in the Senate, who was regarded then as one of the leading modern writers upon international Taw, and he sums up the question as to whether the recognition of a new State is a cause for war. I was fighting at that time for recognition for the Eepublic of Cuba, and Senator Davis was opposed, for political reasons, but the question arose directly and not collaterally, as to whether it would be a cause for war against Spain. Mr. Senator Davis at that time took ground strongly in favor of the position that I had taken, and following the line laid down by all the precedents in the past, that it was not a casus belh; and in his book on page 112 he says: It is to be regretted that in the discussions of the subject of the recognition of the Cuban belligerency in the public press and on the platform it has been too often assumed that such recognition of belligerency or of independence is a hostile act, which -Would precipitate the United States into war. We never thought of making war when the belligerency of the Confederate States was recognized by the powers of Europe. Spain never made it a cause of war when the belligerency, and afterwards the independence, of republic after republic, from the Mexican line to Cape Horn, which had wrested themselves from her sovereignty, were recognized by the United States and all the powers of Europe. I intend to insert also the opinion of Moore upon international law, and his language is so plain that it can not be misunderstood. It is upon the question of the exercise of our right to recommend, or rather, 10 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. to acknowledge, the independence or belligerency of a new republic. Mr. Moore, who is an authority upon this subject, says: Its exercise is no just ground of umbrage or cause of war. I insist, Mr. Chairman, and I shall put the proof into the record, that it has been the fixed policy from the days of Jefferson until now, for the Government of the United States to have a policy of recog- nition without intervention. Let me go back to Jefferson. Mr. Flood. Senator, before you get on that subject, do you mind my putting in the record here the resolution of March 4, 1919, re- ported by this committee, which I had the pleasure of reporting — the resolution being known as the Gallagher resolution — which reads as follows : Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the earnest hope of the United States of America that the peace conference now sitting in Paris and passing upon the rights of various peoples will favorably consider the claim of Ireland to the right of self-determination. That resolution passed the House by a vote of 216 to 45. I would like also, with your permission, to put in the record here the speech I made as to this, resolution. I want to do this to show my sympathy with the Irish cause, with the Irish race from which my ancestors on both sides came, regardless of what position I may have to take on any particular resolution that is up for consideration by this committee. [Applause.] Mr. Mason. I certainly would not object to that, at all. On the contrary, I think it is very opportune, and I am sure that the reasons given for the passage of that resolution, which was passed by that extraordinary majority in the House, were simply a reflection of the demand of the people of this country; and that was entirely in line with the precedents started by Jefferson and carried on by all of the statesmen of this country from its origin down. (The speech of Mr. Flood, referred to, is as follows:) £§Mr. Speaker, there is ample precedent for the action of Congress in the passage of such a resolution as this. For a hundred years we have enacted laws that would be a precedent for this resolution. I am for this resolution, because it propounds a sound principle and because it is an entirely proper resolution for Congress to pass. It expresses the hope that the peace conference will tender its friendly advice to England in reference to the Irish problem — a problem which must be settled before we can be assured of an enduring peace; a problem which must be settled before the world will believe that our victory for democracy was complete. [Applause.] The propriety of Congress to pass such a resolution as this has been questioned. I have thought of this phase of the question very carefully and have reached the con- clusion that there is no impropriety in Congress taking the action outlined in this resolution, but that, on the contrary, it is entirely proper and. right for Congress to act in this manner. [Applause.] We went into the Great War to protect our rights and to defend our honor, but after we became belligerent the spirit of America broadened the scope of the war, and we not only fought for our country and its rights but we also fought for the future of humanity— for those universal sanctities that mark us as higher than the beasts; for honor, truth, justice, and an enduring peace, and for the principles that will assure such a peace. [Applause.] The principle of this resolution is redolent with those ideas, full of the spirit which animated our soldiers who did the fighting and who whipped the German armies to their knees. _ The Irish people constitute the only distinct branch of the Caucasian race so situated that it could be erected into an independent nation, and asking to have its rights considered, whose liberty or whose right of self-determination is not .being considered by the peace conference; and I might add that in point of antiquity in SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 11 point of culture, in point of courage, in point of love of liberty, it stands as high as any branch of the Caucasian race and is superior to many of its branches. [Applause.] While the peace conference is providing for the independence of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia and of other nationalities, let us ask it not to forget the rights of the brave and liberty-loving people of Ireland. [Applause. 1 It has been urged as an argument against this resolution that the Irish in Ireland threatened to resist the conscription law. Let me say that out of 750,000 men of military age in Ireland, 275,000 of them volunteered in this war. This was nearly 40 per cent of the men of military age in that country, and the proportion of those who went into the war compares favorably with Scotland, Canada,- the United States, and most countries that were engaged in this fight for human rights. And I am told that after Parliament had passed a conscription act an investigation by the British authorities showed that so many men had volunteered in Ireland that the enforcement of conscription would have added but a few thousand men to the army, and therefore the British Government decided to abandon the enforcement of that law. Such a showing entitles the splendid people of Ireland to the consideration of the friends of democracy and the right of self-determination everywhere. [Applause.] _ Not only does the character and genius of the Irish people appeal to our considera- tion, but the manner in which they have been misgoverned and oppressed demands our sympathy. The statement of one fact will demonstrate the misrule of England in Ireland. The papulation of Ireland 75 yeare ago was nearly 9,000,000; to-day it is less than four and a half million. Then Ireland was the fifth country in Europe in population; to-day it is not among the first 15. In that period every other country in Europe has increased its population. England's population has increased 150 per cent, while that of Ireland has been cut in half. In that time the decrease of Ireland's population has wiped out one-third of the Episcopalians, one-third of the Presbyterians, and more than one-half of the Catholics. Despite the large birth rate in Irish families, every section in that country has suffered an amazing depopulation, due to the unhappy economical conditions, the decay of industries, and the unsettled state of the country brought about by English misrule. Could a stronger argument be advanced by the people of Ireland for discontinuance of English rule? In this great hour, when governments are being reformed and when people long oppressed by tyranny are emerging into the sunlight of liberty, let us urge England to unselfishly and voluntarily discontinue the misrule of Ireland. It is my profound conviction that the Irish people should constitute a nation with all the attributes, interests, and rights of nationality, and I hope and believe that this House will concur in that conviction. A willingness on the part of the Government of Great Britain to permit the ascer- tainment of the will of the Irish people would be a decisive and honorable precedent for government similarly situated in the future and would do as much to insure the peace of the world as anything that any nation or group of nations could possible con- tribute to this splendid purpose. [Applause.] The Irish people, whose kindred are woven into the warp and woof of our national life, and who have contributed materially to the downfall of the autocracy of the world, declare, and have long declared, that they are ndsruled, and have asked for, insisted upon, and fought for the right to determine for themselves their government and its form. I believe in Ireland's right of self-determination. The Committee on Foreign Affairs believe in it. The Committee on Rules believe in it. And therefore we are here to-day to plead the cause of Ireland's sons and daughters that they may stand erect, redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled on her own sacred soil. [Applause.] Mr. Flood. I will say that I think the views I haye expressed were certainly the views of the majority of that committee, and I think also of the entire membership. Mr. Mason. Yes. I was not on the committee at that time, and I do not know anything about that, but I know it is in line with our fixed policy. We are met constantly with the question that we are trying to do something now in which we are violating precedents, when we ask for the recognition of the Eepublic of Ireland, whereas I propose to show 12 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. that it was the policy of this Government from the very beginning, beginning back with Jefferson. He used this language, and I am going to read from chapter 5 of Prof. Goebel's work on the recognition policy of the United States, and I want to recommend that work, because it is historical; it is authentic; and he thejre states truthfully that it has been the policy always of this Government to recognize the birth of a new nation whenever it seemed to be the desire of the people of that country either to change or to establish a new state. The Chairman, mil you let me have the page of that ? Mr. Mason. Yes; I will. I read first from Mr. Jefferson on Novem- ber 7, 1792: Mr. Jefferson advised Morjis that he would, in certain circumstances, be justified in leaving Paris. He says it agrees with our principles to acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation substantially declared. Again he says (p. 102, Mr. Chairman, of Goebel, on the recognition policy of the United States)— and what I have read is as far back as Jefferson — again he says: At the same time, we certainly can not deny to other nations that principle wherever our own Government is founded (p. 104, Goebel). On the same page Jefferson says : The only thing essential is the will of the nation. That is from Mr. Jefferson, in February, 1793. The French minister in the United States informed the Government that a republic had been instituted in France. This was acknowledged by Jefferson on February 23. It took Thomas Jefferson just six days after being informed of the formation of the Republic of France, to make a recognition of it. Mr. Flood. He was then Secretary of State ? Mr. Mason. That is right. You are right. He says again: The doctrine of nonintervention > which has become so closely associated with our policy of recognition. (Goebel, p. 106.) Now, this is a doctrine that has been used by this Government in the case of Buenos Aires and in the case of Greece, in the one case by Webster and in the other by Clay, and when there has been a new Republic formed in South America it has been recognized by the United States long before they had established a Government such as has now been established in the Republic of Ireland. Mr. Webster, in announcing this policy with regard to recognition in the case of Greece, which he was then discussing, said that it was not the policy of the Government of the United States to enter into war, but as at that time the unholy alliances of monarchs were all standing together for the continuance of the monarchical form of government, it became the duty of a Republic — not necessarily by the sending of ships or armed men, but that it became the duty of the Republic — "to make such dispositions as might correspond with public senti- ment" in the interest of self-government or self-determination; and that has been the policy; and the precedents I propose to insert upon revision, in order to save time. About 1919 Mr. Clay introduced his resolution, and while I am discussing that I want to reply to the assertion that it is purely an Executive function. Mr. Clay's first resolution was on the recogni- SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 13 tion of Buenos Aires, I think about 1819. That was defeated in the House of Representatives. It was defeated because of political reasons, differences between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, and it was defeated in the House of Representatives on the first roll call. But his argument upon that was absolutely in line with the suggestion I make, that the recognition of a new State is not solely an Executive function, but a governmental function. The President may initiate, and usually does ; but if you will read the history — for instance, in the case of Texas, where the President hesitated and the Congress itself took it up, and he was induced finally to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas Mr. Flood. May I ask you a question ? Mr. Mason. Yes. Mr. Flood. Is it not a fact that the Clay resolutions, both the one introduced in 1818 and the one earlier, were defeated in the House? Mr. Mason. Yes; that is what I say; but in 1820 he introduced this resolution, and it was passed. It was one of those things, Brother Flood, when a nation is born the labor and pains of the birth of a nation are usually very strenuous. Henry Clay found it so. So have the friends of Ireland, for some centuries, found the birth of the nation, or the birth of the Republic, somewhat strenu- ous. And it is true that Clay was weakened, but he finally passed his resolution. The resolution passed the House in 1820 Mr. Flood. Is it not a fact that in 1820 the resolution that Clay introduced in the House, similar to your resolution, was defeated ? Mr. Mason. No; in 1820 Clay, adopting his former tactics, intro- duced a resolution to this effect : That it is expedient to provide by law a suitable outfit and salary for such minister or ministers as the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may send to any of the Governments of South America which have established and are maintaining their independence of Spain. Mr. Flood. That was beaten by a vote of 80 to 75. Mr. Mason. No; you are mistaken. "As on the previous occa- sion, a stubborn contest arose over this resolution," says Goebel (p. 132), and "Clay's motion was carried by a vote of 80 to 75." Mr. Mason. Whether that is right or wrong, it was one of those cases where the struggling Republic was seeking recognition, and it is historically true that although the President and Congress were slow to carry out Mr. Clay's ideas, really it was the people that forced the Congress of the United States to make the recognition, which was afterwards made complete. The resolution passed Wednesday, May 10, 1820, with a vote of 80 yeas and 75 nays. (Annals of Congress, 16th Cong., 1st sess., 2230.) Mr. Flood. Was not that done alter the President had asked for authority — that is, not asked for authority, but had communicated to Congress that he intended to recognize these Republics, and asked an appropriation ? Mr. Mason. Absolutely, yes. Surely; the President himself saw the light, and followed finally the doctrine. announced by Jefferson and carried on by all the lovers of human liberty, and he really asked Congress for their opinion; and although the House and the Senate passed resolutions finally Mr. Flood. But the act of recognition was an act of the Executive ? 14 SALAEIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. Mr. Mason. Not at all. Mr. Clay is right and my colleague is wrong. It is not an executive act; it is a governmental act. If you will read one of the greatest writers on the Constitution, you will find it laid down by him, on the right of initiating relations with foreign countries that they may be initiated by the Executive, but the right to make the initiation is stronger in the legislative branch than in the executive branch of the Government for the reason that while the recognition of a new State may be a cause for war, but none of the reeognitiQns we have ever made have got us into war because we have "recognized without intervention." Until this present war we have recognized without intervention. But it is an executive act or may be a legislative act; and in the case cited in 6th Cranch the Supreme Court of the United States indicated clearly, although it might be considered somewhat collateral in its decision, that either branch, the executive or the legislative branch, can initiate the recognition of a new State, or initiate relations with new States. Mr. Houghton. Will you state that again ? Mr. Mason. I say that either Congress or the President may make the initiatory steps in the recognition of a new State. Mr. Clay puts it clearly, as yon will see if you read the speech which he delivered in the House and which was printed in the Record, that the recognition of a new State is a governmental function. The President may appoint a minister, but in order to make his appoint- ment effective he must be confirmed by the Senate. The President may nominate and the Senate may confirm the nomination, but before it can become effective it must go to the House of Repre- sentatives. Mr. Clay was at that time a Member of the House, and although he became a Senator he never changed his views. He makes it very clear, both as a lawyer and a statesman, that the House must make their appropriation, which it was their duty to do. Suppose to-day the question was raised as to the recognition of a new State, and the President and the Senate should agree, the House then could stop the complete recognition, because the House holds the purse strings and could say — although Mr. Clay says it might put the House in a delicate position for them to do so, but the House could say — "We refuse to appropriate," and so prevent and stop the complete recognition of a new State. Mr. Kennedy. Would not the passage of your resolution be tanta- mount to a recognition of the Irish republic by law, whether the Presi- dent should send diplomatic representatives or not ? Mr. Mason. So far as the House goes. But neither Webster nor Clay contended that the House of Representatives can make a com- plete recognition. Mr. Clay says that if the President appoints a minister that shows his initiative, and he presses his view upon the House and the Senate; but he says if the House takes the first step, it is simply a suggestion to the President of their view if he decides to appoint a minister, and, in this case, to Ireland. All that we have done in this case is to indicate to the President, just as was done in the resolution for the Republic of Texas. The resolution passed at that time was only "if the President, saw fit to make the appoint- ment." There is no claim by any student of international Taw- certainly I would not make any such claim^-that we can by this- make a complete recognition of the republic of Ireland; but we can SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 15 take the initiative, and we can say to the President, "Mr. President, you will have no opposition here." We can not force the President; we do not want to force him. But Mr. Clay makes it very clear that it is the duty of the legislative, because there are times when the recognition of a new State might be a casus belli, and the authorities say the Congress having the sole power to declare war, have a larger power in the recognition of a new State, or committing any act that may cause war, and he says that the President should be more cir- cumspect in taking steps in the recognition of a new State, because he can not declare war, and there are circumstances under which the recognition of a new State may be a cause for war. Mr. Clay says, "If in any instance the President should be tardy, he may be quick- ened by one or both branches of Congress." (Goebel, p. 150.) I find that I have exhausted my time, and I have simply asked the committee to allow me to revise what I have said in order that I may insert the authorities, so that we may take the matter up without prejudice and as students of this question, and leaving out all ques- tions of political bias, and may I ask consent to revise and extend my remarks in connection with the recognition proposition of Mr. Flood ? The Chadrman. There will be no objection to that. Mr. Flood. Let me ask you a question right there. Mr. Mason. Yes. Mr. Flood. I did not ask you about the general proposition of the right of recognition. I asked you if the recognition as an inde- pendent government of Buenos Ayres was not an executive act and not an act of Congress ? Mr. Mason. No; it can not be. You are asking now a question of law. As to the question of fact as to who took the initiative. Of course the initiative was taken by Clay in 1819. Mr. Flood. You and this author disagree. Mr. Mason. We will look that up and correct it, whichever is right. (See statement above.) But the fact remains that the initiative, that is starting the motion, was made by Clay, and that eventually the inde- pendence of the Republic of Buenos Ayres was recognized, and that very shortly. I have forgotten, but I will look up and put in the re- cord the exact date. Ever since that time Democrats in the Senate, and Republicans, have introduced from time to time resolutions, and if you will read the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and Spain with regard to the recognition of the new republics of South America, you will see that it has been contended from the beginning that it was not a cause for war, and it never did cause war, and the United States, sometimes by a resolution in the Senate or the House, has recognized one republic after another. Spam pro- tested in rather disrespectful language from time to time, but we always maintained that we had a right to recognize a new republic, and we have held that in so doing we did not enter into war with Spain, and that has been accepted by Spain; and I wish to insert, for the convenience of those who wish to study this, a long series of recognitions. In the case of Cuba I was defeated on my resolution of recognition solely upon the ground, not, as Mr. Cushman K. Davis plainly ex- plains, because it would plunge us into war, but because he believed that the Spanish Government would be able to subdue the insurgents. 16 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. The result of that is all so wholly within the memory of you people, that a resolution of recognition did not come, but a resolution of intervention, with war, in its place; whereas I have always held that if we had recognized the insurgents, if we had been allowed to trade with them and had recognized them first, Spain herself, as she had done in five or six cases, as soon as the United States recognized the independence of the insurgents, those who were fighting for liberty, would have immediately made terms with them and would have given also her recognition. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Flood. I simply want to get your views on one or two points. Mr. Mason. Yes. Mr. Flood. We agree that when recognition came to Buenos Ayres it came as an executive act and not as a legislative act ? Mr. Mason. I say it came as a governmental act. The President can not recognize. The House can not recognize. It takes both. Mr. Flood. Can not the President recognize? Mr. Mason. I mean he can not make complete recognition. Mr. Flood. Is not that complete recognition ? Mr. Mason. No, sir; it is only a temporary recognition, because if the Senate or the House refuse, the recognition can never be complete. Mr. Flood. What has the Senate or the House to do with the President recognizing Dr. McCartan, for instance, as representative of Ireland in this country ? Mr. Mason. If the President should recognize, and the Senate and the House should refuse to send a minister to Ireland, it would not be a complete recognition, if the House should refuse to make the appro- priations for Ireland. Mr. Flood, you and I will agree to this. We are talking about initiating the recognition. Mr. Flood. No; I asked you about complete recognition. I asked you if the President recognized Dr. McCarton as the representative from Ireland,' would not that be a complete recognition ? Mr. Mason. No; it would not, because he can not act. Mr. Flood. The President can appoint a minister to Ireland and that minister can go there, and the only thing that the House can do is to refuse to pay him a salary. Mr. Mason. No, sir; the Senate can refuse to confirm him. The Chairman. But suppose the Senate refuses to confirm and the House also refuses to appropriate, what is his status? Mr. Mason. His recognition is not complete. Mr. Flood. The recognition would be complete by receiving an ambassador from Ireland. I call your attention to the fact that Henry Clay took that stand. Mr. Mason. It is a complete recognition so far as one branch of the Government can go ; but it never is a complete recognition until the Government itself finally acts. Mr. Flood. Mr. Clay says, on this very subject: There are three modes under our Constitution in -which a nation may be recognized: By the Executive receiving a minister; secondly, by its sending one thither; and, thirdly, this House Unquestionably has the right to recognize in the exercise of the constitutional right of Congress to regulate foreign commerce. Mr. Mason. I know; but in that same speech he says there can not be a complete recognition unless the Senate confirms the minister and SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 17 the House makes an appropriation; and it was the duty of the House to refuse the appropriation, he said, if the President had made a recognition. The question only arises between you and me as to what is a complete recognition. I say it is never complete until their minister is accepted and our minister appointed and confirmed and provision made for the payment. Mr. Clay gives the reason why the House should act first. He says the House should act to let the President know that when he wants to make the appointment the appropriation is ready for him. _ Mr. Connally. Aside from the controversial point, of the construc- tion to be placed upon the international phase of the question or the legal phase, will you be kind enough to state to the committee what is to-day the status — the official status — of the republic, the so-called republic, of Ireland; what outward form they assume; what has been done in a concrete way, and what recognition, similar to that sought in this bill, has been given by other Governments, as to the recognition of the republic ? Mr. Mason. Others are here to answer that., I will say to my colleague that there are those here who will state that. They have a government, but if I should start, I would not get through until sundown. There are those here who can state it more concisely than I. No other nation, so far as I know, has recog- nized. But Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster and all those other great American hearts that believed in the recognition of new republics always found that it was the duty of the American people to make the first recognition. Mr. Connally. I know; but here we seek to give recognition to the republic of Ireland. Now, we should like to know what is the atti- tude, the official attitude, as to that status ? Mr. Mason. All that I can state is what I have already stated, that there are those here who propose to give you that status. If I should start, I would impinge upon their time, and I would not get through until night. And another thing, too; they have a much stronger status than nine-tenths of the republics that we have hitherto recog- nized in the United States. (Applause.) Mr. Justice Cohalan will take charge of the time of the proponents at this point, and will divide it as he thinks best in the interest of the proponents. Mr. Smith of New York. I would ask unanimous consent that the speech delivered in the House on the Gallagher resolution by Representative James J. Gallivan, of Massachusetts, appealing for the prompt and favorable consideration of that resolution, be included in this hearing, and I also request that my remarks upon that date on the subject be inserted. The Chairman. I presume that there will be no objection, and the request of the gentleman from New York, without objection, will be granted. Proceed, Judge Cohalan. }68794r-20 2 18 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL F. COHAIAN, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF NEW YORK. The Chairman. Will you state your name, residence, and occu- pation? . -KT V 1 Judge Cohalan. Daniel F. Cohalan; residence, city of New lork; justice of the Supreme Court, State of New York. I appear at this hearing, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of, and speaking in the name of, 20,000,000 citizens who are of Irish blood, and come here to-day for the purpose of urging upon you the passing of this bill. I had intended to go to some extent into the question of precedents for the introduction, consideration, and passage of the bill, but I think Senator Mason has covered it so exhaustively and so well that I would only add to one point, on the suggestions that were made by Mr. Flood to Senator Mason vrhile he was presenting his argument. I take it from the questions asked by Mr. Flood that it is not so much the possession by Congress of the power to pass a bill of this kind that he questions, as it is the wisdom of doing it at this time. Mr. Flood. No. I have great respect and admiration for you, Judge, and great respect for your attainments Judge Cohalan. That feeling is mutual, of course, Mr. Flood. We are Very old friends. Mr. Flood. The doubt in my mind is in regard to the power of Congress to pass the resolution. The question with me is whether it is not a purely executive function and not a legislative function to recognize new nations. Judge Cohalan. Senator Mason has said Mr. Flood. It is notta question of the wisdom of it, but of the right of Congress to do so. Judge Cohalan. I am coming to that. I have not any doubt at all; and many of our great statesmen, in precedents that have been made through a long course of legislative procedure, have practically put themselves in the position of at least cla iming that Congress had the right to do just this thing; that is, that Congress possesses the power to do it. I think we can find precedent after precedent where Mr. Webster, undoubtedly one of the greatest students of constitutional law and one of the greatest statesmen this country ever produced, and Henry Clay, of like standing, have put them- selves in the position of introducing and fathering just such bills as this in order to meet a condition which, in their opinion, required that action along this line should be taken. I think there never has been any question ; so far as I can find, in any of the books having to do with legislative history, or with the study from one angle or another of the institutions of the country — there has never been any question at all — that there were certain things that had to be done by the executive branch of the Govern- ment before full recognition could be given to any new country or to a country with which previous to that time the Government of the United States did not have diplomatic relations. Mr. Flood. You say it has never been held by Congress * Judge Cohalan. That the executive power — that is, that the President of the United States — did not possess power of that kind ? No. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 19l What I am coming to is this. My contention along the line out- lined by Senator Mason is that this is not in any sense purely an executive function; that it is not in any sense a power that belongs peculiarly and solely to the President of the United States; that the President of the United States, acting up to the full measure of his power, can not really bring about full recognition of any other country. That he can not bring about the diplomatic relations, for instance, such as exist between this country and France, or that exist between this country and the British Empire, or that exist between this country and Brazil, until there be action taken also by the legislative branch of the Government. In the first place, if the President is to recognize a government in any one of those countries, before a minister or ambassador can take his position in that country, that action of the President will have to be had and it must be passed upon by the Senate of the United States. In the same way, under the provision of the Constitution which requires that all money bills shall originate in the House; that even though the minister were to go there he would not go in the way in which the Constitution, fairly read, intends that he should go without such action by Congress. That is, my reading of the Constitution is, and my reading of all the precedents that have been made and of the practice that has been followed down through the years is, that it was intended by the framers of the Constitution, and has been practically the invariable practice down through the years that have elapsed since our country came into existence, that it took more than the action of the Presi- dent alone to bring about a formal recognition of any other country, or to bring about diplomatic relations between the United States of America and any other country. Now, I contend that the Senator is well within his rights in saying Mr. Flood. Excuse me; let me call your attention to the opinion of Judge Story in that connection. Judge Cohalan. I shall hear it read with great interest, Mr. Flood. Mr. Flood. He says it is very clear that it belongs exclusively to the executive department of our Government to recognize from time to time any new governments which may arise. Judge Cohalan. I think that you are putting an unjustified inter- pretation upon it, and that you will find that in that particular case to which reference is made, it was held that there could not be full diplomatic relations carried on between this country and the country mentioned, until action had been taken by the President and also by both houses of Congress. Mr. Flood. Are not the carrying on of diplomatic relations, and recognition of the government of a country, one and the same thing ? Judge Cohalan. I do not think they are, and I think that, in the working out of the situation, that is the position at which we must finally arrive. Now, take a situation such as that suggested by Mr. Flood. Sup- pose the President were to-morrow to receive Dr. McCartan as the minister from the Irish Eepublic. I would, hold that we would not have gone the full length that we would have to go in recognizing the Irish Kepublic until also a minister had been appointed by the Senate of the United States, and his salary also provided for by the Congress of the United States, in order that the recognition might be complete, and in order that the position accorded to the Kepublic 20 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. of Ireland should be as complete as that accorded to any other country with which we have diplomatic relations. Later, I am going to ask Mr. Frank Walsh, who has been recently in Ireland as a member of the commission on the Irish Republic, to go more fully into a recital of the conditions as they exist in Ireland , as to what the Government of Ireland is doing in the way of functioning along practical lines. Some people who came here very recently to our shores have said that there were two governments in Ireland, and I think that is absolutely a truth that will have to be found by any jury before whom the evidence shall be laid. I think it will be enough to warrant them in so passing upon the facts of the situation. I think there is no doubt — and I say it in no spirit of bitterness — that the British Government is only holding its position there by the naked use of force; that it is only holding its position by setting aside all the safeguards of civil liberty; that it is setting aside all the conditions which are supposed to exist in any country in which there is liberty; that they have done away with trial by jury, with the writ of habeas corpus; that they have suspended the right of peaceable assemblage for the purpose of public discussion; that they have suspended the publication of papers; that they have proclaimed whole provinces and are continuing their government of Ireland under martial law. They have in possession of the country now an army as large, at least, as the entire British Army was at the time that the great war broke out, the army that was sent as the contribu- tion of the British Empire to the armed forces on the continent of Europe. The Chairman. May I interrupt you there ? Judge Cohalan. Yes. The Chairman. Is the government of Ireland a de facto or a de jure government ? Judge Cohalan. Which one do you mean? [Applause and laughter.] The Chairman. I mean the government of the Irish Republic. Judge Cohalan. I was just coming to that. The Chairman. I should like to hear you on that. To my mind, that is the crux of the matter. Judge Cohalan. I was just going to point out the conditions that exist as opposed to the government — or what is called the government — of naked force over there. Take the Irish govern- ment as it exists; take the conditions under which it came into existence. On the 14th of last December, almost exactly a year ago, there were elections held in all of the 105 divisions in Ireland — the divisions that were formerly represented in the British Parlia- ment by members elected from Ireland. Now, if you will try to visualize the conditions that existed at the time that election was held, I think you will have an opportunity of coming to an understanding of the situation existing there more easily than you can in any other way. There was an army in occu- pation, as I say, which was rated by different people— spokesmen for England, that is— and I have gone over the statements in the London Times and the statements in the Manchester Guardian and other papers as they were reported at the time— rated all the way from 120,000 to 200,000 men. It was equipped as well as a modern army can be equipped, by the British Government. It had all the SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 21 branches of the service there; not only the infantry and the cavalry, but it had an aviation force and it had its artillery force. It had many of their chosen and picked troops — among them 10,000 men of the hill tribes of India — supposed to be the fiercest fighters that England, in all her broad domains, can produce. Trial by jury had been suspended and martial law was in force practically all over the country. Certain counties, like County Clare and other southern counties, were especially made prohibited areas, so that the people were not allowed to travel from one part of the country to another. The right of assembling for the purpose of advocating peacefully any point of view that people had on any political question was taken away from the majority. Most of the chosen leaders of the people, like those who haa been elected to Parliament, were in jail; and not in jail in Ireland, and not as a consequence of any indictments against them, but by reason of the fact that they had been summarily arrested and summarily also taken out of their own country and taken over to England, where they were incarcerated. In addition to the members of Parliament, the chosen leaders of the people to the number of some forty-odd — 1 ,500 of the most active men and women of Ireland, who believed in the establishment of an Irish repuDlic, were also under arrest and were held, without indictment or trial, in the jails of England and Ireland. I am only running over a few of the things against whicn the people had to contend. Newspapers were seized without due process of law; their publication was suspended; their printing presses were broken into bits. They were put in the position of being physically unable, even though they were legally free, to publish at all. And then, in the face of that situation, the people of Ireland on the 14th of December last year went to the polls and> upon a square proposition advocating, so far as they could advocate anything, the establishment of the Irish republic and the separation of Ireland from England by a vote of something over 1,207,000 on that side to 308,000 on the other side — I have the exact figures here — and de- cided in favor of the policy of self-determination which had been laid down as one of the points upon which peace was to be made among all the nations of the world. They elected 79 representatives on that platform and as against that — squarely upon the proposition of having conditions remain as they were — in all of Ireland there were only 26 members of Parliament elected on the other side. The election was held on the 14th of December. The announcement of the result — and I am not going to go into the question of what was happening to the votes in the meantime at all. I only state that if they could be held as long in some parts of America it would not be certain that they would be counted exactly as cast — was on the 28th of December, two weeks afterwards. The announcement was then made of the result, that by a popular vote of 1,207,000 as against 308,000 the will of the people had been expressed. It turned out, in terms, to be this way, so far as the election was concerned: 73 men and women were elected squarely in favor of the establishment of an Irish republic. Six of what were called the old Nationalist members, up and down the country, were returned in favor of the policy of self-determination as against the establishment of an Irish republic; and 26 — including 3 for the Uni- versities of Trinity and Belfast — were returned in favor of retaining the existing relations between Ireland and England. 22 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND- On the 21st day of January, the following month, all of the elected members were summoned to a meeting, and a large majority ot the 73 men and women who had been elected — one woman, the Countess Markowitz among them — assembled in Mansion House in the city of Dublin and declared the establishment of an Irish republic, and elected Eamon de Valera as president of the republic. They have started to function, so far as any government can func- tion that is not in sole possession of the physical forces of the country. The Chairman. You concede that they are not in physical posses- sion of the country ? . Judge Cohalan. Not in physical possession in the sense m which we are in possession of America; yes, of course. In the sense that there is a foe upon the shores of Ireland who has been in control by the naked use of force for over 700 years, of course that concession must be made; but in so far as the government in any sense can be said to express the will of the people over it whom it is supposed to rule, I maintain that the government which is represented by the chosen spokesmen of the people in Ireland is the real government of Ireland, and the government of Ireland that in the next few years is going to be recognized by all the liberty-loving people of the world. [Ap- plause.] Mr. Flood. I think you are certainly right in that, too. Judge Cohalan. I am glad, Mr. Flood, that as on so many other questions on which we have agreed in the past we agree on this. Now, as to the functioning of the Government. Mr. Connally. In order to get at the concrete situation that would present itself if this resolution was passed: Your contention is that of course there is an Irish Eepublic in existence now. Suppose that we should pass this resolution and send a representative over there to Ireland, representing the United States, and suppose that these Britishers should be contrary about the matter and still continue to hold Ireland; what would be the attitude of the Irish Republic then? Judge Cohalan. I think, Mr. Connally, that I know England so, well and I know Ireland so well — and I take it that Mr. Connally, with that name, also knows it — that if the United States were to do just that, and that is one of the things that I want to stress, it would not alone be doing the just thing and the right thing, and the thing which eventually public opinion will compel them to do, but the most friendly act which has been done in hundreds of years to the people of England. [Applause.] I am giving you my opinion there, Mr. Connally. Mr. Connally. Do you think that answers my question ? Judge Cohalan. No; I am coming to that. I think the conse- quence of that being done would be, while there would be some con- siderable noise, and while there would be the expression of many opinions such as were expressed at the time of President Cleveland's message on the Venezuela question, and while there would be declara- tions that they would never, never give way, that knowing their own power to be hanging by the slenderest kind of a thread, as the governing class of England do so know, the result that would be forced, not only by their respect for America and their recognition in their hearts that that was the right thing to do, but forcedly the opinion of the mass of the people of England itself, would be that-the British Government itself would say, "We think after all that it is SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 23 a thing that is going to be a benefit and a credit to us and instead of being an injury it is something that we should welcome. " [Ap- plause.] But I want to point out to you, if I may, that if there is to be an end to war, as we all hope and pray, if there is to be the establish- ment of universal peace, if we are going to work out the things for which it was said that we entered the war, there must be a settlement of this Irish question that will be satisfactory to the people of Ireland. May I point out to you here that with all the skill and with all the subtlety and all the adroitness and all the ability of the English states- man — and I say and have been saying, in and out of season, that I think he has never had an equal, much less a superior, in all human history — in spite of that, in spite of the marvelous manner in which he has imposed his will upon other people, and in spite of the tre- mendous power of the visible empire of England and of the invisible empire of England, I say in spite of all that, the one great failure in English diplomacy has been in this Irish question. There never can be peace, and an end of war, there never can be the friendship between nations that should exist between nations, until this ques- tion has been settled. The English statesmen who have been working at this question in season and out of season in every generation, whether by open force or by the power of intrigue or by diplomacy or negotiation, who have been working at it down through the generations, -in all the years have failed. I am not going to quote anybody who is opposed to England, in support of that statement, but rather Lloyd-George, who said in the House of Commons last year that it was just as Far from being settled now as it was the day when the first Englishman went into Ireland, and that English rule is as unpopular in Ireland as it was in the days of Oliver Cromwell. Now, I contend, Mr. Chairman The Chairman. Before you go on, Judge, I would like you to answer my question as to whether or not the Irish republic is a government de jure or de facto? Judge Cohalan. I think there is no question of its being both a de facto government and a de jure government. I think it will be recognized by the powers as being both. But before I go to that, the way in which this Government to-day, without possession of any regular army and not in possession of the physical forces of the country, is having its will followed by the masses of the people of the country, is an extraordinary thing. You can find no precedent for it in any quarter. The fact is that no longer are the masses of the people going into the English courts of law with questions to be passed upon, to have the disputes arising in the ordinary affairs of life settled by courts where judges appointed by the English Government are presiding. They are having them passed upon by the judges appointed by the Irish government; they are going voluntarily into the courts of the Irish republic and having their disputes settled. The Chairman. You think it is a de facto government ? Judge Cohalan. Yes, I think it is. Not to the extent to which the American Government is so, but in the sense that it is function- ing in many ways; in the sense that in spite of its lack of physical control its will is being obeyed; that its judgments are being followed by more than three-fourths of the entirety of Ireland; that it is in 24 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. practically only one section that its will is not followed out. In all of the great cities in the south and west and east and much rt the north, ft is being followed as the government which has the right to impose its will, and it is the only government which has any right to impose its will upon the people of Ireland. [Applause.J Now, I want to point out, if I may The Chairman. You stated a while ago that the government of the republic of Ireland was not in physical possession of Ireland ( Judge Cohalan. Not in the fullest sense. The Chairman. If that be true, how can you have a de facto government without possession? Does not a de facto government have the right to recognition solely by reason of possession ( lh,at is a question that is troubling me very much. Judge Cohalan. Let me say, as to that, that there is a difference between the possession that the United States has of every inch of American territory and the possession which the British Government has of any inch of territory m Ireland. . . , . The Chairman. Our Government is not only de facto; it is de jure. Judge Cohalan. It is both. It is the de facto Government of the United States, and it is the de jure Government of the United States; and that is what I insist must presently be the status of the elected government of the people of Ireland. Take this situation into account. Look at the conditions in Ireland to-day; look at the conditions in Cork or Limerick or Waterford, or most of the ports of Ireland. The King's writ, as they call it over there in the law courts, practically does not run without the assistance of an army, in order to enforce a right. That is not a condition of government which is to be found in a country where the government is recognized as pos- sessing not only the power but the right to exercise that power. They are practically in the position where they only enforce their will upon the people of Ireland by reason of their possession of cannon and bayonets, by reason of the presence of these hundreds and thousands of soldiers gathered from the nations of the earth and brought in there to enforce the will of not the majority of the Eng- lish people but of the class that are in control of the British Govern- ment, and that I claim are the only enemies left of the enjoyment of life and liberty, all over the world. Now, I am going to leave that to be gone into in extenso by Mr. Walsh, who has seen more at first hand of existing conditions than I have seen. For many years I was in Ireland every year, but I have not been there since 1914. Mr. Walsh, Mr. Michael J. Ryan, former public service commissioner of the State of Pennsylvania, and Gov. Dunne, former governor of Illinois and a former mayor of the city of Chicago, were sent over as the American commission on Irish inde- pendence, in order, practically, not only to put into effect the Gal- lagher resolution, which has been referred to and has been read into the record here, but also to carry into effect the suggestion in the Borah resolution, which was passed by a vote of 60 to 1 by the Senate of the United States, asking that the peace conference should settle this entire question in a way satisfactory to the people of Ireland in order that this great cause of dissension and war might be removed, and we could get into a position where there might be peace for generations to come. I say I am going to leave that, but I want to make this suggestion: I urge that this bill should pass not only as a matter of justice, not only as a matter of following the best SALARIES OP MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 25 ideals and traditions of America in the past in relation to practically every republic that came into existence, whether it was on the Con- tinent of Europe, or in South America, on in any other part of the world, whether it was the Republic of Greece, or the Republic of Venezuela, or the Republic of Buenos Aires, or the Republic of Texas, or that of Cuba; not only should we do that as a matter of justice but we ought to do it in order that the promises that were made of self-determination should be carried out. [Applause.] And just a word on that. When we said we went into the war for the purpose of ending autocracy, that meant not one kind of autocracy but all kinds of autocracy; it meant we were going to do every- thing that could be done in a peaceful way by the exercise of all of our powers of persuasion, and by the exercise of all of our diplomatic powers, and by the exercise of all our great moral strength to put an end to the rule of might in any part of the world; to make the land free for people to come and go; to make the seas free for people to come and go. I make the point that so far we have destroyed militarism — so far as it was represented by the biggest military machines that were ever in existence — but we have yet to complete the work of destroying autocracy; we have yet to complete the largest f>art of the work by destroying navalism, a menace greater to the iberties of mankind even than militarism. [Applause.] I will point out to you what that means. Looking at it in the most selfish way, passing over the question of justice, which I put first, of course, as every American should, and having referred to the question of applying our policy to the right of self-determination of all peoples who are struggling to be free, of all the peoples who have been struggling and fighting for independence, no other people have been fighting so long as the people of Ireland in order to gain their liberty, in order to have their own government. Passing all these questions, we come on to a selfish point of view of the relation to this question; we see the real vital interest of the American people in this point of view. Let us see how it affects America. Let us look from two angles at that, and then I am going to ask Mr. Walsh to tell us of his point of view and the conditions as he saw them there. It has been bruited up and down and spread all over the world, everywhere, that Ireland is a poverty-stricken country; that it is a country inhabited by people who have never been able to govern themselves and gain any measure of prosperity; that it is not a country with any business; that it is not a country which is to be considered like others that have been long in chains and under oppression, because, after all, it was not worth while. Now I maintain, looking at it in the concrete form, that no single thing that could be done by the Government of the United States would contribute so much to make peace permanent, and to do away with war to so great an extent, as would the recognition of the independence of the Irish Republic [applause]; or would do more to do away with navalism, to do away with the control of the seas by any one nation or combination of nations, to do away with the condition which exists to-day, where practically every drop of salt water on earth, in all the seven seas, is the private property of one power. I maintain that this is a menace to the liberty not alone of the countries that are held by the British Government at the present time in subjection, but is a menace to the liberties of mankind in general; and I will point out how it affects America. 26 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. We are now, because of the extraordinary economic development of our country, in a position where in 8 months of the year we manufacture all that we can consune in 12 months, with the result that necessarily, whether we like it. or not, we are absolutely de- pendent upon the markets of the world for places for sale of our products, our manufactures, in order that we may keep our indus- tries running and keep all our people employed, to keep the wheels of our industries, ot all our manifold plants, going, and give employ- ment to all the people of the country. In order to do that, it is a physical necessity that we should cross the seas ol the earth m order to reach the markets in which our products must be sold, and to kee-o everybody, exporters and importers, in position to do business with the rest of the world; and I say so long as any nation has that power, and I do not care what nation it may be, whether it be, as it is, the British Empire, or whether it were to be the Empire of Japan, the only remaining empire on earth, or whether it were a republic of South Africa, that it is wrong; that it is wrong to maintain that American commerce is going to be carried on the seas not as a matter of right but as a matter of privilege extended to us by people who have the powei to prevent it. They say, "So long as you have peace, so long you are going to have the right to use the seas" ; but we are not going" always to have peace. Mr. Smith of New York. To what extent is that restriction exercised ? Judge Cohalan. To what extent? Mr. Smith of New York. To what extent is that restriction exercised, so that the commerce of any country is amenable to any one power ? Judge Cohalan. I want to point out to you this,, that so long as there is in existence, whether it be used or not, a power that may at any time that it suits the caprice or whim or interest of those foverning to use it; so long as the governing spirit is in position, to rive the commerce of any nation from the face of the earth — there is no real liberty in existence. Mr. Smith of New York. Has it exercised that power at all 1 Judge Cohalan. It may not have been fully exercised thus far, but I maintain that it can exercise the power. It is not the exercise of power that makes tyranny at all. It is the possession of power. It is the whim, the inclination, of the moment that may exercise the power, but it is the possession of the power that is a menace to the world. That makes the difference. I point out to you that while it may not have interfered with American commerce in any large way in the last 50 years, yet during the time when we had a quarrel among ourselves, in the sixties, it did exercise the power, with the rgsult of driving the American flag from the seas, and it has never gotten back, except because of the exigencies of the last war. Mr. . America holds the bulk of the world's gold supply. To what extent does that affect other nations in the way of denial of the right to live or the right to acquire their proportional part of that gold? Judge Cohalan. I do not think there is any analogy between those cases at all. I think in one case it is clearly a matter of barter, in the other case it is a distinction between a matter of right and a SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 27 matter of privilege. I maintain that God Almighty in making the earth as he made it, putting aside three-fourths of the surface of the earth to be covered by water, meant to provide the ways by which one nation should approach another and by which the various races and various groups of mankind would come in contact with one another and have relations one with the other. I say that no power, not even the United States, should exercise the power of sovereignty, the power of ownership, and the power of control over that three- fourths of the surface of the earth. Mr. Smith of New York. As a matter of fact, did not the British exercise that right in the World War when they took American ships ? (Applause.] Judge Cohalan. There is no doubt of that [applause], as anybody who will turn to the state papers issued at that time will find set forth with particularity and in detail. I was answering the Congressman in the sense that there had not been such an exercise of that power as had practically wiped out American commerce on the seas during our Civil War. I want to show, Mr. Chairman, the economic position in which Great Britain finds herself to-day, and I shall do it briefly. While it is true we manufacture in eight months all that we can consume in a year, it is true in England, because of the fact that she has been for so many years the workshop of the world, that her people have turned more and more from agricultural pursuits, until to-day she is unable to raise enough food to feed her people for more than six weeks in the year, and the consequence has been that with the tremendous accumulation of people over there there is an absolute necessity that England should get her food from the rest of the world, and the result of that has been that England has become very largely the workshop of the world and she manufactures in about one-third of the year about all she can consume in a year, with the result that she must have the markets of the world in order to survive. Now, I maintain that there is not enough to go around to take care of the two countries that are seeking the markets of the world; that England finds herself faced to-day with a debt of £8,000,000,000, practically $40,000,000,000, and apparently her running expenses to-day, a year after the armistice, according to Austin Chamberlain, the chancellor of the exchequer, are over £4,000,000 a day. He says that to-day England is in a position where, despite the fact that it is a year after the armistice, and despite the fact that her receipts are something over £2,000,000 a day, her expenses are over £4,000,000 a day, which is practically $20,000,000, the result of that being, if you can calculate it, for the mind is unable to grasp easily the size of those figures, that the present Government of England is running behind at the rate of $10,000,000 a day, and is in a position where in a year she is falling behind three and one-half billions of dollars. You can not understand the significance of all those figures until you come to contrast that with some outstanding incidents in the world's history. We fought four years of civil war, the bloodiest war in history, probably, down to that time, at an expense of three and one-quarter billions of dollars. England is running behind to-day, according to the chancellor of the exchequer, at the rate of three and one-half billion dollars each year. She owes to-day, in her funded debt, forty billions 28 SALAEIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. of dollars. The statistics as published in the New York Sun show that the excess of her imports over her exports last year was another three and one-quarter billion dollars. England is in a position where she must make up this extraordinary deficit in some way, and 1 main- tain that it is only by exercise of the control of the seas that she can hope to make up this colossal deficit. * Mr. Goodwin. Do you mean by force, or how? Judge Cohalan. I will show you that, if I may. The Chairman. Is this discussion very material ? Judge Cohalan. Only as showing the extraordinary value that Ireland possesses in order to settle that question. I would like to answer all these questions; but if I may amplify that for just a moment, in order to show the way in which this is relevant Mr. Begg. If I understood the question correctly, you made the point a moment ago that nothing would do so much to take away England's supremacy on the seas as to give Ireland her freedom \ Judge Cohalan. Yes. Mr. Begg. I would like to know in what manner. Judge Cohalan. I will be glad to develop that, if I may. I call attention to the geographical position of Ireland with relation to England. I call your attention to the fact that Washington said that if Ireland were some hundreds of miles physically removed from England there would not be any Irish problem at all. I point out to you that the control that England exercises over the seas to-day is absolutely dependent upon her ability to pass in security at all times and to control the shores of Ireland. England can not reach the seas of the world without coming by either the southern or northern shores of Ireland, and the consequence of that is the reason that England wants to maintain her hold on Ireland. It is not because England, or any of the governing class in England, wants to wipe out the Irish people or to send them adrift all over the world; it is not the extraordinary profits made from Ireland in taxation and in business in the way of finance — which amounted last year to over $225,000,000 — -but because of the fact that the statesmen of England, whether rightly or wrongly, believe that the continued physical pos- session of Ireland is necessary to a continuance of British sea power. Mr. Begg. Just be specific. We all know that the supremacy of England's sea power is a commercial proposition only m times of war. Now, if Ireland gets its freedom, whereby might England be drawn in any other line of business than commercial over the seas % Judge Cohalan. She will not, but she will be put in opposition to, in competition with, America, for instance, and that is the point I am stressing. She will be put upon a basis of absolute equality in that she will not have the ownership of the seas as she possesses it now. Mr. Begg. It is a rather misleading statement to say that she owns the seas. She does not own the seas; she owns the boats carrying on her national life, and her life is a water life. Judge Cohalan. Exactly. Mr. Begg. Will not her life still be a water life if Ireland is free? Judge Cohalan. Not in that sense. Mr. Begg. I can not see the differentiation. Judge Cohalan. I can appreciate it. In one way she, by owning the ships, would control the sea by reason of the ownership of the SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 29 ships. But there is another condition. She can say to the biggest American Government that ever sat in power here, "You are not going to be permitted to carry on business upon the seas;" and when it comes to the opposition of might by might, we have not got the means of saying that England shall not nave her way. Let me illustrate. When the President of the United States went abroad, if by reason of any one of a hundred circumstances, a situation had arisen in which it appeared to be to the interests of the British Gov- ernment — and I maintain that they have always followed their interests, and I do not take any credit from them for it, .because any man who has spoken for England has spoken only for England — if it had entered the minds of the English representatives that it was to the interest of the British Empire to see that the President of the United States would not be able to return in the way he went, you were not in position to say that he should do so. You were not in possession of the power to say that he should. Mr. Begg. Do you believe that the United States would not have brought him back ? Judge Cohalan. Eventually, undoubtedly, I maintain that the United States would have brought him back. [Great applause.] Yes; and I maintain that when we were a very much smaller country, when we were practically only a strip of land along the Atlantic coast, when England was physically so superior that our seamen and our ships in the War of 1812 were taken, that despite the odds against us, we took the position that resulted in the maintenance of our right to stay on the seas; and I maintain until we reach the position where England is made to loosen her grip upon the seas we are not in position to protect and safeguard American rights of com- merce; and I say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not think there is any other question before the American people so vital, going so far into the very heart of the people of America, as this question of the control of the seas. Now, I maintain here, not in any sense in hostility to the people of England, because I think there is no people 'that more badly needs an extension of their liberties than the English people [applause] — the English themselves — but as against the ruling class that has mis- represented England, that has done those things against which our forefathers complained here, and against which people have com- plained all over the earth, there is not going to be an end of autocracy until this situation is changed, until this is stopped, and I think, again in the interests of peace and as one who is opposed to war unless it is necessary, that everything that we could do by way of persuasion and argument, by way of appeal to England to do what is just, even to the governing class of England, should be done before we again unloose the dogs of war. I say that if we pass this bill, if we put the President of the United States in the position of knowing that the people are behind him in the recognition of the Irish republic, you will not only have done the just thing and the right thing and the thing that is in accord with the best American ideals, but we will have made a great contribution to the continued general liberty of the world, and in addition to that we will have gone a long step toward removing the possibility of England being put in a position where there must be a military conflict between America and herself. 30 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. The Chairman. Would you not regard the passage of this bill as a recognition of the Irish republic in so far as the House of Repre- sentatives has power to do it ? . Judge Cohalan. I would regard it as an expression upon tneir part that they thought that provision ought to be made by the Presi- dent of the United States for the recognition of the republic of _ Ireland; that being the branch of the government that is in closest touch with the people, that in their opinion the time had come when in the interests of peace and in the interests of liberty and of justice, there ought .to be put an end to this state of affairs which has con- tinued so long; and if England can not do it, then America should do it; that there ought to be an end to this horrible condition of affairs that has existed for so many generations over there, and that the President of the United States would understand that the people, as represented by the House of Representatives, were standing behind him solidly upon the question that there should be recognition of Ireland. [Applause.] Mr. . We want to get at the bottom of this matter, and I think you reached the crux of the matter when you spoke of the reluctance of England to give independence to Ireland owing to the fact that she had a great fear of her, owing to the proximity of the two countries. I think that is the crux of the matter. And I will add, too, that I think Ireland has been very shabbily treated for hundreds of years by England, and it may be some just retribution would reach her on that ground. But that is past now. What has caused this apprehension? Is it the political attitude that Ireland might assume in the case of hostility between England and some foreign power, or what would have been the attitude upon the part of the Irish prople in the recent conflict, when Germany sought to override the world, disregarding all treaties and all world international conventions? What would have been the political attitude of Ire- land toward England in that conflict; what would have been her attitude as between the Entente and the Central Powers ? Judge Cohalan. Suppose we were to assume the state of facts in the hypothesis to be the actual facts and then let us look into the contribution that Ireland made to the armies that were fighting against the Central Empires. The record shows — not taken from Irish sources at all, but from English authorities — that something over a quarter of a million soldiers went out from Ireland to fight on that side, and if we were to apply, in order to grasp the situation here, the same proportion of the population of Ireland that entered the conflict to our own country, we would have to send 6,000,000 of soldiers from the United States in order to make an equal contribution. When you take into account the casualties, we would have had to lose one- half that number, because half of the number that went from Ireland were lost either by death or serious wounds. I think that is a concrete answer to a concrete question. I think it shows what they did. What they would have done had they been free is only a matter of speculation. The Chairman. To what extent was this contribution of soldiers made from Ireland, with respect to sections, localities, etc., of Ireland ? Judge Cohalan. I think I can get the exact figures and submit them before the hearing closes. The Chairman. We shall be glad to have them put into the record. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 31 Judge Cohalan. We shall be glad to put them in the record. May I have the privilege of extending my remarks ? I have gone far beyond the time originally contemplated because of interruptions. The Chairman. Without objection that permission will be granted. Mr. Flood. I have enjoyed your exposition of this question very much. There is one thing I want to get your opinion upon, and that is whether this resolution would help the Irish cause. I want to call your attention, in that connection, to what took place in reference to the South American republics. Mr. Clay, who was then Speaker of the House, and necessarily exercised a tremendous influence in the House, on the 28th of March, 1818, introduced a resolution similar to this, in reference to the South American republics, and that resolution was defeated by a vote of 115 to 45 on the ground that this was a recognition of those republics, which was an executive function and not a legislative function. Mr. Mason. When you finish, may I Mr. Flood. Just a moment. Judge Cohalan. You want me to keep silent until you make a statement ? Mr. Mason. Yes. Judge Cohalan. Which I will do. Mr. Flood. Three years later, on February 9, 1821, he.dntroduced a similar resolution in modified form and that was defeated, on the same ground by a vote of 86 to 79. Mr. Mason. What is the date of that ? Mr. Flood. On February 9, 1821, he introduced this resolution. Resolved, That the House of Representatives participates with thefpeople of the United States in the deep interest which they feel for the success of the Spanish provinces of South America, which are struggling to establish their liberty and independence. That resolution being deemed free of the objection that the legis- lature was trying to usurp executive functions, passed the House by a vote of 124 to 12, this provision being added by a similar vote: And that it will give its constitutional support to the President of the United States whenever he may deem it expedient to recognize the sovereignty and inde- pendence of any of the said provinces. Soon after this latter resolution was passed, President Monroe indicated to Congress that he was ready to recognize these powers and asked for the necessary appropriation. Now, what I would like to have your opinion upon is whether it would not be wiser, from the standpoint of Ireland, for us to adopt a resolution similar to this latter Clay resolution rather than the one that is pending here now. Mr. Mason. With your permission, I asked to make a statement. I will ask a question m connection with your question. Judge Cohalan. I shall be glad to answer the question when I have the opportunity. Mr. Mason. Mr. Justice Cohalan, in the hypothetical question put to you by my colleague, Mr. Flood, he stated that the first resolution of Mr. Clay was defeated because it was a usurpation of the executive power by the legislative branch. I simply enter my {irotest against his recitation of history. 1 claim that it was ae- eated — and history records it— because the President of the United States was opposed to it, and not because it was a usurpation of 32 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. power by the legislative that belonged to the executive; secondly, I still disagree with him as a matter of history, that Mr. Clay's second resolution did pass by a vote of 80 to 75 instead cf being defeated. Now, you may answer the question. Mr. Flood. My reply to that is that the speeches in the debate show the ground upon which the resolution was defeated. Judge Cohalan. Yes. I will answer this, as I see it. As a con- crete proposition you are going to immensely strengthen the cause of Ireland by saying that the House of Representatives is in favor of a position of this kind being taken, Mr. Smith of New York. Did the last Clay resolution do it ? Judge Cohalan. Not to the same extent that I think this bill does. Of course, a matter of a word here and there is not a matter so vital as the passage of the measure, so that I think the resolution as prepared by the Senator should pass; but the thing I would like to say is this: That in all the history of America I can not find any President who was so stubborn — and we have had some men who might not be said to be stubborn, but who certainly were very insistent on their point of view being taken when it was a auestion as to which point of view should be taken — -I can not find any President so insistent upon his point of view, whether Jefferson, Monroe, or even Jackson, who was not strengthened in any position he wanted to take by knowing that the coordinate branch of the Government, the legislative branch, was with him. I think you will immensely ^strengthen the position of Ireland and the position of America in/her moral leadership of the world, and because of that I hope thetresolution will be reported out and passed. Mr. Connally. I understood you a while ago to say that, by reason of the geographical location of Ireland and the fact that Great Britain controls the seas, the possession of Ireland as a strate- gic proposition was absolutely indispensaole to her further control of the seas. Judge Cohalan. That is the opinion of the governing class of England. I think it is a mistake, but it is an opinion that has been held by them and their predecessors from the time that Henry the Eighth started to build up the Empire. Mr. Connally. But if they believe that, it is immaterial whether it is a fact or not. Judge Cohalan. It is, so far as their position is concerned, without some other influence being exercised hi some way upon them. Mr. Connallt. With the governing class of Great Britain hold- ing to that position, do you think that she would, without a death struggle or without a war, voluntarily surrender that advantage? Judge Cohalan. I do. as I started to answer that before. Mr. Connallt. She believes it is absolutely necessary for her national defense. Judge Cohalan. The governing class believes it to be an essential condition to their continuing in power. Mr. Connally. Yes. Judge Cohalan. Now, I say that if the United States Government would take the position of intervening here and say, from her position as the moral leader of mankind, that there has been too much of this, and in the interest of peace it ought to stop, we believe, if we were to recognize the Eepublic of Ireland— I believe from the position of England, and from an intimate and close study of the people there— SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 33 that the public opinion of the people of England would compel the governing class — which is after all in a very small minority — to not. do anything that would jeopardize the status that exists between England and America in such a way as to hazard the chance of broken relations, or anything of that kind. Mr. Connally. Let me ask you this further question, as an Ameri- can citizen. Supposing we should pass this resolution and Great Britain should take offense at it, and our action should eventuate in war; as an American citizen would you be wiljing for America to go to war to maintain the freedom of Ireland ? Judge Cohalan. In any contingency, whether we were weak or strong, when a situation has been presented to the American people that appeared to them to be just, I have never found any red-blooded American citizen who was not in favor of doing that which would maintain justice, even though it would bring war. [Applause.] Mr. Connally. Then I understand you to answer my question in the affirmative? Judge Cohalan. Undoubtedly, under those circumstances. Mr. Connally. That you are willing for the United States, if her action in this regard should eventuate in war with Great Britain — that you are in favor of the United States going to war with Great Britain to liberate Ireland? [Applause.] Judge Cohalan. I will put it this way Mr. Connally. My question was very direct. Judge Cohalan. I am going to answer squarely — yes; Mr. Connally. Judging from the applause, there was not any question about what the audience took my question to imply. Judge Cohalan. I am going to answer your question, and there will not be any doubt as to my reply. I say yes. And I say at this time, from conditions over there and from a close study of English history and from a knowledge of what confronts the ruling class of Great Britain to-day, when they are almost face to face with internal revolution; when the masses are demanding not only a share in the Government but control of the Government; as they never have in any previous time, I say that in my opinion we would never be faced with any such contingency as that; but in the face of that, I insist and reiterate that, as an American citizen, I would be in favor abso- lutely of doing that which was just. [Applause.] Mr. Newton. You mentioned in the first part of your remarks that a vote was taken in Ireland about a year ago. Judge Cohalan. On the 14th of December, 1918. Mr. Newton. That the Irish people voted, 1,200,000 as against 308,000 for a free republic; Those are substantially the figures as I recall them. Judge Cohalan. Yes, sir. Mr. Newton. And you advanced that as a reason why the Congress of the United States should adopt this resolution which would be a recognition of that republic. Do you maintain that that is a good precedent for this country to adopt, that when any constituent part of another country votes to set up another government, and that vote carries, that thereupon we should recognize the independence ot that country ? Judge Cohalan. Is that the question ? 168794—20 3 34 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IKJSLAND. Mr. Newton. Yes. Judge Cohalan. I do, in this way. I think, Mr. Newton, there is no question at all, that whether or not the President of the United States succeeded in working out at the peace conference the program which it is understood he took over there that he laid down a principle that more and more will rule the world when he said that in the future the affairs of the Nations were going to be decided by the will of the people who were going to be governed; in other words, that the doctrine of self-determination which was at the peace conference applied only to the broken fragments of the Central Powers, or Turkey, or Russia, should be applied indiscriminately, in accordance with the promise of the President, to all the other peoples of the world. That principle has come to stay, and we have reached the point where in the future no vote of that kind can ever be overlooked by the Governments of the earth. I will point out along that line, if I may, the contrast between that condition and the condition which confronted Washington and Jef- ferson and Hamilton and the other men who brought about the Revo- lution and the separation of the thirteen Colonies from England. According to all the American historians that I can find, Bancroft and others, there is no statement even that there ever was any such majority of the people of the Colonies in favor of the establishment of the United States of America as has been manifested in Ireland; that there was in fact a bare majority behind Washington; accord- ing to some historians there was not a majority of the people of the Colonies behind him; and I think we have reached a point in this continuous conflict between the theory that was first advanced in the Declaration of Independence here, of the right of people to govern themselves, and the old theory of the divine right of kings, where we can not stop, where we have got to go forward or backward. I think that the result has got to be that, just as there has been con- stantly since the Declaration of Independence a marching forward towards liberty of people all over the world, there is going to continue to be such a march all over the world, and I think the history of the last 50 years will show that. We talk of empires as if they were existing things. As a matter of fact, to-day, 143 years after the Declaration of Independence, there are only two empires in existence on the face of the earth. The last 50 years have seen seven great empires go, and the only two left are the twin empires of Great Britain and Japan, the Island Empires^ the empires that are existing only because of the fact that a small foverning class in each case controls the destinies of the people, hey are trying to exist by reason of the imposition by force of their will upon other people. Mr. Newton. If we are willing to apply that rule of self-determina- tion to other countries, we certainly ought to be willing to let it apply to this country ? Judge Cohalan. All right. Mr. Newton. The Hawaiian Islands occupy a very strategic Josition to the United States. According to some people those slands are being settled up very rapidly by the members of another race, the Japanese. The time may very soon come when the people of Hawaii may say, ' 'We do not want to be a part of the United States of America," and they will adopt this rule of self determination— which I do not subscribe to — and set up a free Hawaiian republic. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 35 Then I take it that your position is that we should, as some others advocated in this country 60 years ago, tell that sister to depart in peace ? Judge Cohalan. I do not think there is any analogy between the case stated and the case of Ireland, at all. Mr. Newton. I think there is. Judge Cohalan. May I point out why I think there is not ? Mr. Mason. May I say — — Mr. Newton. No; I prefer that the Judge should answer. He has shown himself amply competent to answer questions. [Applause.] Mr. Mason. I beg your pardon. Judge Cohalan. There is absolutely no analogy between that case and the case of Ireland. In the first place, the Hawaiian Islands became voluntarily incorporated as a part of the United States. Mr. Mason. They were independent before that. Judge Cohalan. They were independent before that; and if, by their will and the will of those who were governing them, they chose to do away with their independence and join the United States, that was something they had a right to do. Mr. Mason. It was done by vote of the people — I insist on answer- ing there — and the United States refused to accept them until they did vote. The Chairman. The action of Hawaii was voluntary. The action of Ireland was involuntary. Judge Cohalan. Exactly. I would go much further and say, that even that seeming analogy does not exist between the Hawaiian Islands and Ireland. I was going to say that in the case cited by the Congressman from Minnesota, that condition would have arisen in a very few years by the coming in of men who avowedly were not in sympathy with the form of government there at all, new comers and strangers. That is not the condition that prevails in Ireland. I claim that in that country, set apart by God himself, because it is not annexed to- any other country at all — and, by the way, I might say there, in answer to a gentleman who made a comment on it awhile ago, that the shores of England are nearer to the shores of France and Belgium than to those of Ireland- — in that country, in spite of the fact that England has tried for 750 years to wipe out the native population of Ireland and supplant them by a new race — what they called in the old language "the planters," while they tried to plant a new race on the shores of Ireland — that effort has never succeeded, and the action taken by the people of Ireland now is the action of people who for 750 years have been continuously fighting to assert their independence, and who continued to occupy their own country and to protest all i that time against a connection that they never made voluntarily with England. Mr. Newton. Yes; but the moment we adopt the rule of self- determination, which you said you were ready to subscribe to or did [Subscribe to, that very moment this country must commence to interfere in the affairs of another country. [Cries of protest.] i Judge Cohalan. No. Mr. Newton. Does that not follow ? i Judge Cohalan. No; I do not think so, at all, any more than we would be said to have interfered in the affairs of France because a great many Frenchmen claim that the basic fact in this last war was 36 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. the seizure of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany. If that was an interference with France in that instance, we believed that France was fighting for liberty in the land, and there was not only the respon- sibility but the duty of interfering. . . Mr. Kennedy. We went to war to carry out the principle of self- determination. The President said, when he delivered his message in the House of Eepresentatives that we were entering the war in order to establish the right of peoples, great and small, and the privi- lege of men everywhere to choose their own way of life and of living. Judge Cohai an. That is true. [Applause.] Mr. Kennedy. He did not say, Judge, the rights of nations. He did not necessarily say the rights of peoples. He said the rights of men everywhere. Judge Cohalan. And to that statement of the President of the United States I heartily subscribe. [Applause.] Mr. Flood. In connection with your statement about the number of soldiers that fought in the Great War, furnished by Ireland, I would like to read into the record what Ireland furnished to the allied cause during the war — I would like to read an extract from the Provost Marshal's Office of this country showing what per cent of nonnaturalized peoples in this country waived all rights of exemption on account of that — with your permission, Judge. Judge Cohalan. Certainly. Mr. Flood. Ireland, 30.4; Belgium, 24.4; Scotland, 24.2; England, 22.5; Wales, 22 per cent; Serbians, 21.7 per cent; Canadians, 21 per cent; French, 19.4 per cent; and Italians, 16.8 per cent; showing that more unnaturalized Irishmen than unnaturalized of any other nation waived the right that they had of exemption from being drafted in this country. [Applause.] Judge Cohalan. Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is no surprise to me at all: that it is only a continuance of the position I claim has been taken by the men of the race from the very inception of the Government; and I point out, as authority for that statement, that extraordinary book "A Hidden Phase of American History," written by Michael J. O'Brien, and now being circulated widely throughout the country, in which it is demonstrated that 38 per cent of the Army of Washington either were born in Ireland or were the sons of men born in Ireland; and under the circumstances, it is in no sense astonishing. We ask this as bone of the bone and sinew of the sinew of the American people, not as Irishmen, not as men Irish in any sense, not as men born in Ireland, but as men who owe alliegience only to the American Government, as men who are first, last, and all the time Americans; and we ask it in the interest of justice and in the name of American liberty. [Applause.] The Chairman. Do you recall the percentage of Irish in the Army and the Navy of the United States ? Judge Cohalan. I have seen that variously estimated, and I have seen statements, purporting to quote Secretary Daniels, in which it went up to 40 per cent. I have also seen other statements which, I think, in the Marine Corps it gave a larger percentage of men of Irish blood. Just as in England, where thev made up a large per- centage of the shock troops, so in branches of the American service, while they were conspicuous in all of them, they furnished a larger percentage in some special branches of the service than in others, SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 37 none of these branches that were of the portion that is held in the rear of the Army, at all. [Applause.] Mr. . May I ask you another question ? Judge Cohalan. Yes, of course. I would like to do this all day. [Laughter.] There are others to be heard, however. Mr. . 1 appreciate the logic of your proposition when you say that the fear entertained by the governing class of England, that the self-determination of Ireland would baffle England in her world commercial supremacy, is only based on a theory. Now, if self-determination was given to Ireland and that turned out to be only a theory and not a fact, of what avail would that be in loosening the so-called strangle hold on the world's commerce possessed by England ? Judge Cohalan. The English hold upon the commerce ? Mr. . You stated in reply to that query propounded, that it was merely a fear entertained by the governing class of England that this would destroy her world commercial supremacy. Now, if that be merely a theory and be not shown to be an established fact, to what extent would this fear of world commercial supremacy be thwarted ? In other words, what avail would all this amount to ? Judge Cohalan. You mean as against England's control of the sea ? Mr. — — ■ — — ■ — ■. Yes; if that be merely a theory, and not a fact, as it is thought to be by the governing class of England. Judge Cohalan. Let me show you what the effect would be of the recognition of the Irish republic. The Chairman. We want to hurry along as much as possible. Judge Cohalan. I point out to you that Ireland is about two thirds of the size of England; that the population of England to-day is well over 33,000,000 people; that Ireland, according to the leading economists and men who have gone into matters of that kind, is capable of supporting in comfort a population of more than 20,000,000 people; that Irelanof to-day — and it is unique in that, although Sen- ator Knox, at the hearing before the Senate committee, said that down in one of the Central American States he thought there was a similar condition — Ireland is in the position where in the last 70 years, by reason of the control of Ireland by England, in that land of plenty, in that land in which they have been growing the food on which England largely depends to feed her population, the population has been cut down from 8,250,000 until, according to the last census, it was only 4,390,219 people. I point out to you that on the 1st of January, 1801, the population of England was about 9,000,000; that is, that they bore a proportionate rate of the population of the land with the size of one power to the o th er ; that j ust in proportion of physical area, so was the population of England to the population of Ireland; that with the 30,000,000 of people of Irish blood that are scattered all over the world, there are less than 5,000,000 in Ireland to-day, and that the population of England has grown from the 9,000,000 that it was at the 1st of January, 1801, until to-day it is well over 30,000,000 people. I claim that the recognition of the Irish republic would be followed by a tremendous growth in the population of Ire- land and the power and commerce of Ireland. Sir Horace Plunkett said that last year, and I am only quoting him because he has been up to now a witness favoring the governing class of England. He said that the commerce last year exceeded $820,000,000. 38 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. Arthur Griffith maintains that 95 per cent of that was" done be- tween England and Ireland by reason of England's commercial con- trol of conditions between England and Ireland. Mr. Fawsitt is here, the Irish consul general, who has prepared figures, and he says that the commerce last year amounted to $1,250,- 000,000. Mr. McGuire is going to speak to you later, and he has those fig- ures, and those figures are borne out by the figures of the State Department. Now, I claim that even though it did not result, as you say it might not result Mr. . I did not say it would not result. You said it would not result. Judge Cohalan. No; I say: Assuming that it did not so result, I say that the result would be a tremendous increase in the popula- tion and wealth and commerce of Ireland; that the commerce of Ireland, for the first time in recent history, would be thrown open to all the people of the world. They have unrivaled harbors there and we are seeking markets. Instead of having to go to English harbors, and having to load and unload our shipments there, we would be able to go to the Irish harbors, the first harbors of Europe, the har- bors from which we would be able to distribute our goods to, all Europe. The Chairman. Now, in regard to the extension of your remarks, I assume that the committee will have no objection to that; but it will reserve the right to strike out anything in the extension of your remarks that is not germane to the discussion. Judge Cohalan. Yes. I have confined myself to remarks on the results of the freedim of Ireland. Mr. Begg. Would that apply to all these people ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Begg. Are they to have permission to extend? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Begg. Without limit ? The Chairman. Yes, I think so; and we will reserve the right to strike out anything that is not proper. Judge Cohalan. I wanted to consult with some of the other gentlemen who wanted to speak. I have in time run away beyond what I intended to, because of the many interruptions. I would like to know whether it would be the purpose of the com- mittee to hear the other side before we are heard in rebuttal, or how much time will be given. The Chairman. It is the desire of the committee, I take it, that you be heard now until you finish. Judge Cohalan. I do not think that would be a fair way to do, in a question of this kind. We asked for this hearing— the proponents of the passage of the bill. Now, I think the ordinary procedure that would apply in a court or other forum might well be put into effect here, and after we have made our case in chief, then the people on the other side — if there are any people on the other side who want to be heard— should be heard, and then we should have the right to put in rebuttal on our statements, and have the privilege of concluding the hearing. The Chairman. How many speakers have you ? SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 39 Judge Cohalan. We have a dozen who want to speak in extenso ; Mr. Cockran and Mr. Walsh and others. The Chairman. Who are to be heard on the other side ? Mr. Fox. There are at least four, and there may be six. I claim that when they have a shot at the committee, we should have one, too. If the advocates of the resolution are going to have two shots at you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is grossly unfair that we should have but one, just as it was unfair two years ago when the advocates of the bill were given 2 hours and I was given only 15 minutes. Judge Cohalan. You can answer as to that, Mr. Flood. You were there at that time. Mr. Connally. I think the proponents should be entitled to the opening and the closing, but to only one speech on the close. Judge Cohalan. That is perfectly fair. Mr. Cockran will close. Mr. Begg. How much time do you want on the close? Judge Cohalan. It depends on how much time we are given. On the assumption that we consume all we are given, it seems to me that the closing speech should be given a certain amount of time. Mr. Begg. Say 30 minutes. Mr. Smith of New York. They could not cover it in that time. The Chairman. I hope we may get through to-day. Mr. Smith of New York. We can have a night session. The Chairman. We may have a night session. Mr. Lemon. As one of the opponents of this measure I should like the privilege of addressing the committee. The Chairman. Can you give an idea of how long you will take ? Judge Cohalan. I think surely in presenting the concluding argument in this case, that goes into the precedents of government all through the time when we have been in existence, and which has to do with a matter of the first importance in the government of the country, Mr. Cockran should have at least an hour in closing. Mr. Smith of New York. I am in favor of giving ample time. The Chairman. We are all in favor of that. How many other speakers have you ? Judge Cohalan. Mr. Mulholland is here. Judge Deery, president of the Ancient Order of Hiberians, is here. Mr. Walsh is here. Mr. McGuire is here, but he has put his matter in form so that it can be largely put in the record. He has prepared a mass of matter from the State Department, and data that was particularly in his power of getting, and that will be of very great importance. Then Mr. Lindsay Crawford is here. The Chairman. It .is immaterial who they are. Just give the names so that we may know who they are. Judge Cohalan. Mr. Crawford is peculiarly important, because in his place in Ulster he was the founder and was for manyyears a member of the Independent Order of Orangemen. Maj. Klnkaid, a former member of the House, is here, and will make a short state- ment. Rev. Dr. McCabe, president of De Paul University of Chicago, is here; and we are hoping for the presence of Michael J.Ryan and also of Attorney General McGran of New Jersey, and a number of members of Congress have intimated their desire to be heard. Dr. Mythen of Christ Church, Virginia, is also here. The Chairman. You have overlooked Mr. Cockran. Judge Cohalan. No ; he winds up. 40 SALARIES OF MINISTEB AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OP IBELAND. Mr. Newton. There are a number of Congressmen who desire to be heard. They are willing to give way, but would like permission to extend their remarks. \ The Chaibman. There will be no objection to that. Can you give me an estimate of how much time you gentlemen will take ? Judge Cohalan. I have given Mr. Walsh 40 minutes. Mr. McGuiee. I will take 5 minutes, and I will introduce the State Department matter. Judge Cohalan. Judge Deary, how much time do you want? Judge Deary. Five minutes, with the right to extend. Judge Cohalan. Mrs. McWhorter ? Mrs. McWhorter. Five minutes, with the right to extend. Judge. Cohalan. Mr. Kinkaid ? Mr; Kinkaid. Possibly 20 minutes. Mr. McNamaba. I want not more than 10 minutes. Judge Cohalan. Dr. McCabe will want 10 minutes. Then, if Mr. Ryan comes he will want 15 minutes. In addition to that Mr. John E. Muhlholland, 10 minutes, and Mr. Crawford half an hour; and we will ask for Mr. Cockran an hour. Mr. Connally. I did not understand that in opening here you gave your name, and whom you represent. Do you maintain any official connection with any organization ? Judge Cohalan. I am one of the members of the National Council of the Friends of Irish Freedom. The Chairman. The assignment of time we have will take. three hours. Judge Cohalan. Yes, sir. The Chairman. Do you desire the other side to be heard now, on the assumption that you have made out a prima facie case, or do you desire to introduce other speakers ? Judge Cohalan. I desire to introduce Mr. Frank P. Walsh, so that he may give first all the information of the conditions that he found recently in Ireland. The Chaibman. Suppose you do that now. Judge Cohalan. I have the very great pleasure of introducing Hon. Frank P. Walsh, of the American Commission on Irish Inde- pendence which went to Paris for the purpose of presenting the cause of Ireland to the peace commission, and who was formerly joint chairman with President Taft of the War Labor Board, and who is a distinguished lawyer. [Applause.] STATEMENT OF MB. FBANK P. WALSH. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I shall endeavor to address my remarks to the resolution that you have under consideration, and in doing so I do not believe that it will be necessary even to call upon the background of this question, which is one of the oldest and easiest of exposition of any national question in the world, because countless men have written upon it, great numbers have asserted it in every legislative body in the world, and more men, perhaps, have died for it than any other principle of government, because that is all that it is. We are presenting this to-day; and I might say to the distin- guished Congressman who asked the question, that I am presenting SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 41 it as an American citizen and as an American question, [applause] ; and I might say, further, because it will probably lead to an under- standing of the spirit in which I speak, and perhaps throw some light upon the facts that I am about to give, because that is my peculiar function here, that it is not a question here with me to-day, as an American citizen, as to whether we would go to war with Eng- land to give Ireland independence or not. When that question comes up I will act as my father acted, and as my mother's and father's kindred acted in the dark days of the early sixties, when they went with the cause they believed to be just, on both sides, as they were able to do so ; and my position will be where my position was prior to the entry of our country into the war. I abhor war. I am against all the processes of war; I am against every reason that we can possibly have for going into war; but if the necessity arises, I recognize the fact that our forefathers, through blood and suffering, a century and a half ago entered into a compact agreeing that we would act together, that we as American citizens would make up our minds when there was a cause for war; that we would do it as Democrats; that we would do it as individuals; that we would do it as component parts, if you will, of a representative government; that we would have a spokesman in the White House whose duty it was to state the conditions of the country to the Con- gress of the United States. And it is for that body to speak for me, a private citizen as I am today, and with the exception of a few minor appointments by my Government have always been a private citizen, and always expect to be, and that I will stand behind the representatives whom I help to elect from my State under that plan adopted a century and a half ago; and if they declare that a state of war exists I will offer my children, as I did in this war, and I will stand behind my Government as it voices the will of the people through its representatives in Congress. It was with a peculiar sense of support and a peculiar sense of sympathy that I heard the distinguished gentleman, Congress- man Flood, the chairman of this committee when I had the honor of speaking before it, cite the causes of the nationalities that waived all claims of foreign allegiance in order to participate in this war under our Government. I say I am peculiarly glad, because it fol- lows out the best traditions of the American people. I was born and raised in a border State, where passions ran high, and where there was a warfare existing, such as exists in Ireland today, for many months prior to the actual major hostilities of the Civil War and pratically all through it. I came not from the dark and bloody ground of Kentucky, but from that border line where Jenson wrestled with Quantrell, and little bands of farmers organized to repel what they thought was an assault upon their constitutional rights as citizens of the State of Missouri; and as I walked through that grave yard at Belleau Wood, Mr. Congressmen, and read those names, I want to say that it carried out the thought that was given here; it was almost im- possible—and I make no invidious distinction because we were all one in those great days— it was almost impossible to find any but German or Irish names among those 2,000 graves as we walked through there; but as I say, we were all one, and when that fight came to determine whether our Constitution was strong enough and elastic enough to make this Union an indissoluble union of States, 42 SALARIES OP MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. when that contest came and the call to arms came, those of Irish blood of the North who believed it was to be a fight for the perpet- uation of the Union joined with the forces of the Union, as did my family and every other family of Irish descent out in that country, and those in the South who believed that it was one of the immutable principles on which our Government was founded that a State had the right to secede, went with their kinsmen and neighbors, of course. So we have those two great outstanding figures, Phil Sheridan, and Pat Cleburne of Arkansas, which represent that thought; and the only men of Irish blood living down there, from my earliest child- hood, who have the disrespect of all the Irish people in that country, are the miserable few who claimed British protection in order not to participate in that war upon one side or the other. So that I think we can approach this proposition as Americans, and I think we need not be challanged in our Americanism, and I hope I will not be called upon to say under what particular circum- stances I would bear arms or under what particular circumstances I would be again proud to see my children in the uniform of the Army of the United States at a time of hostility. We are not dealing with ancient rights; "we are not dealing with age- old wrongs; we are dealing with present-day conditions. I know that I am talking to men who are abler constitutional and international lawyers than myself, and 1 know that my opinion will perhaps not have very much weight here, but nevertheless I would like to give it. I would like to declare that the Government which you are called upon in this resolution to recognize, and in behalf of which you are asked to do all that the popular House of the Congress of the United States can do at this juncture, is the de facto government of Ireland. 1 want to put that plain and 1 want to put it straight; and 1 know, as I say, that there are gentlemen who have looked this up, who have preconceived notions to the contrary; but, if I may be allowed to do it, with our American background, with a slight reference to the tra- ditional policy of this country with respect to republics and with re- spect to monarchies, and with respect to autocracies, I propose, if I may do it in the time, to give you the facts upon which I Base this. The Chairman. Upon -which you base a statement ? Mr. Walsh. Upon which 1 base the fact that this is a de facto government in Ireland, which you are callea upon to recognize. The Chairman. I win appreciate very mucn hearing you on that subject. Mr. Walsh. If God gives me the strength, Mr. Chairman, I am here to give it to you. Mr. Kennedy. You do not hold, then, that a de jure government is necessary to justify recognition ? Mr. Walsh. No. Of course it is international law, first, if we went into the final reasons. I deny that there is any such thing as inter- national law. The Chairman. But it is your contention that the Irish govern- ment is a de facto government ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. 1 was explaining that, as I say, I do not seek to impose my own opinion, because it is not as good as that of many of my hearers; but 1 am going to state the facts. Mr. Moores. We are willing to concede everything that you say about yourself, if you will tell us about Ireland. SALAEIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 43 Mr. Walsh. Is that a suggestion that perhaps Mr. Moores. That you get down to the issue. Mr. Walsh. Is that a suggestion that i have talked a little too much about myself? A question was asked, and I thought that it was due to myself and the representation that I have here that I should answei the question asked by the Congressman; and I believe that he stated our position very clearly. [Applause.] And I was interrupted at this point, and I desired to get my statement clear, and I shall endeavor to do so. Mr. Moores. We want to get down to the issue. It is Ireland we are considering, so go on and talk about it. Mr. Walsh. With all due respect, I think I am talking about it, sir. The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh. And if not, my time will expire in forty minutes, and I hope the committee will bear with me. The Chairman. The gentleman had no intention of offending you. Mr. Walsh. I was saying, when the question was asked by the Chairman, that if possible I would give the facts to the committee so that the individual members of the committee could pass upon the question whether these people had a de facto government or not. What is government ? What is the purpose of government ? The purpose of government, as I understand it, is to protect the useful citizens of a community, the producers and those of good intentions who have produced and who seek to lead their lives upon the reason- able return that they have made from their own efforts or the efforts of their ancestors. It is to protect life in the realm; it is to protect property; it is to elect men to public office, men who are statesmen, who can look forward, judging by the past, having concern for the exigency of the hour, but looking forward to justice and the future of their country as representatives, and with a view to seeing that those who are placed in office are able to properly carry on that government. And on the question as to the position of our country, I might say that until we established this government, if the governments of the -world had been portrayed upon canvass, the ideals and conceptions, that is, if not the practice, it would have been a picture of great bodies of armed men marching and countermarching across the face of the earth, ready to tear each other limb from limb, under the guise often of carrying out the commands of an omnipotent God as voiced by some ruling family, but usually that they might take advantage of a weaker people for economic purposes for their own enrichment and for their own power. When our own government was constituted it was declared — and it came from that great argument that was raging in Europe at the time over the rights of man — it was declared not only by the old colonists but by all those who came to their support, and all who came wholeheartedly to be Americans, from Ireland, from France, from Germany, from England, largely, that this was one country that was to be based absolutely upon the rights of the individual man. And so, when I come before this body, I come before a body repre- senting a country that traditionally has been in favor, in essence, of what we are pleading with this body to do to-day, so far as they can do it. 44 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. • Before our country went into the war there was in Ireland an army — a regular constituted army— numbering something over 80,000 men of military age. They were the Irish volunteers.^ They were representing the nation of Ireland.- Ireland is not asking this recognition as a new nation. Ireland claims that it never surren- dered its sovereignty in the whole 750 years, voluntarily. Ireland claims that in every generation of her men — and these volunteers were voicing that idea by their action — that they shed their best blood to repel the invader from their shores. So that if that day came, as it has come before in this country and as it has come in other nations, when men were trying to assert the rights of Ireland, it could never be said that any statute of limitations had run against Ireland's rights, that there was no right of prescription there, because in every generation — and the very names of men sitting upon this committee arouse thoughts of those insurrections — in men like the volunteers of 1916 went out and shed their blood to repel the invader from her shores, so that men like us who come here today, so that men who are lawyers, might insist that it was a sovereign nation in spirit and never surrendered its rights. Those men in 1916 published their declaration of independence. It is, in essence, much the same as the Declaration of Independence of the United States. It made them as spiritually free as the declara- tion of 1776 made us; and I hope and believe that, with less suffering than our forefathers had, it is going to make them actually free. But something intervened. The World War intervened, and this country, our country, America, was called upon to go into that war, and it went into that war under an express pledge made by you gentle- men as representing us — under the express pledge of the American Government — that they were not seeking to add territory to that already acquired by the Allies, but that they were going in for a great principle to be applied to the whole world ; and I might say at this point that the Irish people — and I say it from first-hand knowledge— are the most conservative and law-abiding people in the world today. Great jails built to hold a thousand people, on that Island today con- tain perhaps seven or eight little miserable misdemeanants. One treat jail I saw with one man charged with a common law felony,, ut with 500 of them charged with making the same declaration that Thomas Jefferson made, that Washington fought for, and that Abra- ham Lincoln made immortal. [Applause.] This orderly people, then, taking us at our word, paying us the beau- tiful compliment that must be paid America as a country that never imposed its will upon another nation, a country that never ravished another people of their rights, a country that never extended a hand of sympathy to an autocracy, from the very first day of their birth, taking us at our word, and when an election was called in England, under the forms of English law, it was not a mere matter of campaign argument, but this government, which I am attempting to represent before this honorable body today, published a proclamation declaring that under- the principles laid down by our country they proposed to determine the form of government under which they should live, and that that form of a government should be modeled after the Gov- ernment of the United States of America ; and they declared by written proclamation throughout Ireland that if their candidates were elected, they should be elected to a free parliament to sit in Dublin, and that SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 45 no man who should be elected should ever raise his hand to declare allegiance to any foreignking, English, German, or French. [Applause.] Upon that fair issue being made they overwhelmingly carried that country. They did it under coercion such as probably has not been paralleled in any country which had any sort of government boasting that they cherished the principles of free governments. Their leaders, splendid men, were transported to England and locked in jail. Bomb- ing planes went there and flew over the peaceful villages and the countryside, dropping literature that in itself was a threat against the lives of the people. But they rose up at the ballot box, at our suggestion and on our plan, and by this overwhelming vote they de- clared their own government. Now, let us see whether it is a government or not. Unless we stretch the point of international law to the extent of saying that a de facto government is a government which alone by force of arms, if they impose that force, are able to take the government away from the people, then this is a de facto government for these facts. This assembly was elected as the national representative assembly of Ireland. I am making no distinctions now between the north and the south of Ireland. It is the national assembly elected by a homo- geneous people. There is no question of the boundaries of this island ; it is bounded by the ocean, and everybody knows it. There is not any question of separate culture of these people, or of their adherence. All of them have the same basic religion and the same ideas of family life; no question of it at all. Now, they elected a national assembly. That a mere faction of them, much less in proportion than the Tories of this couatry in the days olour K evolutionary fathers, choose to go to a foreign country and sit in their assembly while the great majority stay at home and sit in their own assembly, I say, takes nothing whatever from the force of the position that this is a national assembly, if we judge it along the well-known lines of a national form of government, a republican form of government by representative democracy. What is that government doing ? It has its own army, the volun- teer army of Ireland, and there is no disguising it, and no desire to disguise it. It numbers over 100,000 men. They have fought no major battle since they declared their form of government, and as I understand it do not intend to do so unless the unspeakable thing occur, that America and these other nations that went into this war for the self-determination of peoples, abandon those principles and leave them to their fate, in which event they declare — I know nothing but their own declaration — that they will rise, poorly. armed as they may be, and fight for their independence, and die for it if necessary. [Applause.] That is the situation so far as the army in Ireland is concerned. The army of the invader in Ireland is attempting to govern Ireland, but is not governing Ireland. We might say, as to the place of meeting now, the ancient parlia- ment that was brought to the Irish people by the threat of what followed our own battle for independence, sat in the Irish parliament building. That has been taken by the English Government in the years past and turned into a banking institution. Very appropriately, from the standpoint of conception, it has become the temple of the money- changer instead of the temple of the liberties of the people of Ireland. 46 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OE IRELAND; Therefore they repaired to their most ancient building, to the Man- sion House of Dublin, and in the round room where Grattan spoke, and where these great men thundered forth the principles of free government, there they are holding their sessions, or were until a couple of weeks ago, as the elected assembly of Ireland; and when driven from that place by superior force of arms they retired to some other place to hold them. What are they doing ? I had the pleasure of being present when I heard the entire cabinet of Ireland make its report, and I say again, without derogation from anyone else, that the report of the treasurer, Michael Collins, an Irishman trained in an English bank, with a peculiar understanding of finance, contains an epitome of the financial status of his country that is comparable to any ever issued by any Secretary of the Treasury of our country. I may state another great evidential fact in favor of the fact that even the military are not Governing Ireland, that Michael Collins, in coming in to make his report, Walked through a cordon of the Irish volunteers and Irish soldiers, and they dared not touch him, although the English Government had attempted to charge him with being guilty of sedition or being in favor of a republican form of govern- ment; and the very time he came in, that very day, he was defying them with arms; but he came in, and they dared not touch him, because the volunteers of Ireland brought him to the hall. They are not protecting the lives of the people, and are unable to do so. The only protection that is being given to the lives of people, to the lives and the honor of the women and the preservation of the home life^f Ireland, is being given by the Irish volunteers. In the months preceding our visit to Ireland, 10 times consecutively the soldiers had murdered peaceful citizens of Ireland, under such cir- cumstances that the regularly constituted coroners' juries had declared that it was willful murder. They are not able to protect them, and those Irish volunteers are protecting their own homes. I do not believe they would be able to protect them to-day, had it not been that this committee was meeting. They have the eyes of the world upon them. They had all the bombing implements and instru- ments of war, but dared not use them because the world is looking on. Therefore the government of Ireland is functioning. The people in the slums of Dublin were dying like flies. I saw no worse'place anywhere in the world. I saw no more miserable poverty, than that which existed among the returned soldiers on the east side of Dublin where we visited during my stay. The people of Ireland get no support from England. The persons in the east side of Dublin would be allowed to perish like flies through that poison, but the splendid men and women there have taken up the matter of child conservation, and are taking care of the lives of those people; and they are functioning, and England is not functioning. England abandoned its whole educational system, if it ever had one. The Irish republic that you are called upon to recognize is the great educational force and the alert educational force of Ireland to-day. We were welcomed by Dr. Coffey at the Irish University, with the flag of the republic flying at its flagpole; and, decorated in those colors, we received a memorial from the student body, unanimous to a man, addressed to the people of America, declaring that they were SALABIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 47 a free people, and that they owed allegience to no government but thegovernment of the Irish 'republic. [Applause.] We. looked over the business of Ireland. The old restrictive penal laws have passed, but the economic laws are just as strong and just as difficult to get over, and they remain. Prior to the war it was a rare thing for a ship, although there was no law against it, to touch at an Irish port. Is England doing any- thing for Ireland's commerce? It is trying to watch its own com- merce and trying to control the efforts of American business men to make their own merchant marine pay. So that, what do the Irish do? They strike out for themselves under their own government; and it is the only force in Ireland to-day that is attending to the com- merce of Ireland. England has abandoned it, except to live off of it, if she can get all the exports brought to Liverpool before they go to Irish ports, which has been the custom for so many years. The Chairman. Do you -mean exports or imports ? Mr. Walsh. Exports into Ireland; from America to Ireland. It is their purpose to take them under the practices of their trade and under the operations of their big business concerns; and I want to say to you that big business controls in England, of course, in a way that we do not understand unless we study it. They have no such restrictive laws as we have, figuratively, theoretically, or construc- tively. If a man commits a crime against the commercial life of this Government, we theoretically, at least, send him to jail In England they nominate him a lord, and he becomes a peer of the realm [laughter]. The trust has gone to the limit in England, and has a strangle hold upon the whole government of Ireland. So that the only government that is functioning in that great respect that goes to the life of a nation, is the Irish government. Ireland has no navy, but she needs no navy. Her whole history shows that she has never subjugated any other people. It is the only place where there has always been religious freedom for the minority as against the majority. There is a Jewish population of 5,000. They nave a ghetto in Dublin larger than in any place in this country except New York; and who ever heard of the persecu- tion of a Jew in Ireland ? It is unheard of. The Chairman. May I say that the committee hopes that the question of religion will not be injected into this discussion. Mr. Walsh. I did not mean to inject it. The Chairman. The other side would claim the right to reply; and then— — Mr. Walsh. I hope that I have not said anything that would warrant the statement that I have injected it. The Chairman. But the other side will say that you are injecting it. Mr. Walsh. I will withdraw what I said about Jews. Of course, I think I know — my conscience tells me — that there is no such question, and I think that if the question was raised it would be easy to prove that. The Chairman. At least, it is not before us. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Now, a government must protect property, must it not? Not the property of somebody across the seas, but the property of the people of that government, of that land. Leaving for a moment the question that this is a de facto govern- ment, because the people have declared it, and because a foreign 48 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF 1 IRELAND. power is by force taking it away from them, we say that the home is not protected and property is not protected except as it is pro- tected by the Irish volunteer army. In other words, the soldiers of the invading army commit highway robbery after highway robbery; they kidnap children; they arrest and insult women; they arrest a whole business house and seize all the business property and let it go unrestricted except as the Irish army defy them; and so there is no army in the island protecting life and property except the Irish volunteer army. As to the courts, I say that is a great test, because if a government is not a government of law it is either a government of anarchy or no government, or else a government of pure, brute force. The people of Ireland are settling their civil differences among themselves. They do not have recourse to the British courts, and they deny the authority of the British courts within the realm of their own country. [Applause.] I am stating facts, gentlemen of the committee; what I actually observed in Ireland, and the reports that were made to the Dail Eireann by every member of the Irish cabinet, in our presence, and undenied by England. The courts, so far as England is concerned, are abandoned in Ireland. It is true that they have courts-martial, and that they arraign men, women, and children before them; but those courts are not recognized and they are not courts as we under- stand them, as law-abiding citizens. So that those courts, rude as they may be — because the Irish government has been under this fear of armed force from England all the time — are the only courts recognized by the Irish people, and the only courts with which the Irish people will have anything to do. Now, that is the state of Ireland. It is on that account that I say that, as a matter of fact, the government you are called upon to recognize to this extent in this resolution is the de facto government of Ireland. Should it be recognized ? May I say another thing at this point ? If I understand our Gov- ernment — it is a representative one, of course — in time of war, for the reasons that we are all familiar with who have studied a little of the Constitution of the United States, the President is made Commander in Chief; so that our country has a Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy with a power greater in time of war than any potentate in the world. It was intended to be so. It was not intended, however, to be an unrestricted power, and no custom or no practice can change the Constitution of the United States in my conceptioif; and so, while the State Department has the power to recognize a government, it has not the sweeping power, but a limited one; that is, it has the power by act to recognize the govern- ment of another country — the revolutionary government, we will say, for example — and it makes its declaration; but other things must be done, under the orderly process that exists between peaceful and civilized nations. Ambassadors must be appointed, consular officers must be appointed, and the inhibition, the qualification put upon the power of the President was that those appointments should be con- firmed by the Senate of the United States, and the idea — if I under- stand the great, fundamental, and underlying idea of the House of Representatives as distinguished from the upper body—was that it should really be that body that was closest to the people and had the greatest power, because it had the control of the purse, and before SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 49 recognition could be complete, then this branch of the Government necessarily must act and must make the appropriation. Now whether, in the case cited here, Mr. Clay's resolution lost or won, I respectfully submit is beside the question. The principles are not legal principles. Great moral principles, or legal principles, are not affirmed or denied by mere success at any particular time. If it is a correct principle of law^ based upon justice, it will go on and on. The temporary representatives of the people upon the courts or in executive offices may set it aside, but under a representative form of government we always have the last say, and the people of the country must say whether the action of their servants-— because we have no rulers — is in accordance with their conception and pass upon that action; so that we are appealing now to the whole country. Mr. Flood. That incident or precedent was cited only to show that not only the executive branch of the Government but the Congress considered the recognition of a new State as an executive function and not a legislative function. Mr. Walsh. Yes; I agree with that, Congressman Flood; and while I have not read that — and I should have read it, of course, before I came here — I still would say that if the Congress of the United States at that time decided that they should not make the appropriation first I think they were mistaken about it in practice, and I think that so many things Mr. Flood. They have decided it in a dozen other cases at other times. Mr. Walsh. Yes; they may have decided it in a dozen other cases, but I would call your attention to the fact that for the first time in the history of our country, we departed from what was believed by the majority of the people of our country to be a traditional policy of our Government from the days of Washington and went into Europe upon a declared set of principles, and I say that in the situa- tion of the world to-dayit would be a failure to look the condition of the world in the face" if the Congress of the United States, with the inherent power to do the people's will which it has, turned its back upon the Irish people and thus failed to function along the line that we believe not only meets justice to the peoples involved but the bringing about of a just and reasonable peace all over the world. Mr. Flood. Suppose that it has not the constitutional power to doit? Mr. Walsh. I am assuming that it has. Mr. Flood. Would you have Congressmen violate the Constitu- tion ? Mr. Walsh. No; I would never have a Congressman violate any law, and especially the Constitution. I hope that nothing I have said here would indicate that I want any Congressman to violate any law. I have too much respect for Congressmen. But I might say this, while I am on this subject: Of course, Mr. Congressman, I want to be serious about it. If it was a violation of the Constitution, my answer would be no. I claim that it is not a violation of the Constitu- tion; that it is one act; and that the lower House can decide for itself; and if they pass it and there is no ambassador appointed to draw the salary and incur the expense to use up the appropriation, it is imma- terial as a matter of law. If you do it, I think you are right, and I 168794—20 4 50 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. think you are expressing the voice and sentiment of the people of the United States. , The Chairman. It is your contention, as I understand, that the Congress has the power to appropriate this money ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. The Chairman. Until such time as the President sees fit to appoint an ambassador? Mr. Walsh. Yes. ... The Chairman. That it is clearly within the Constitution ? Mr. Walsh. That it is clearly within the Constitution. Mr. Newton. You have mentioned your experience over in the Irish national assembly, I think. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Newton. And you mentioned that the people are arbitrating their differences ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Newton. That is, without going to any court ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. I call that, of course, a rude court. There is a man with a gun in front of the courthouse. Mr. Newton. The question is whether or not the government of the Republic of Ireland has instituted any courts, has appointed any judges — any system of courts and juries. Mr. Walsh. Courts and juries ? Mr. Newton. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Not in the sense of a jury of any certain number; but they have established arbitration courts all over Ireland, and it is to those courts that the people of Ireland resort. Of course they have their own way of doing it. They may not think that our judicial system is the best. I do. Mr. Newton. What I was getting at was whether or not these were merely local arrangements for the adjustment of differences, or whether there was, as we understand it, a court system ? Mr. Walsh. These courts are made under the authority of the Dail Eireann. That is Gaelic for "The Irish Assembly." Mr. Newton. How extensively have they been carried out? , Mr. Cookran. They are everywhere except at Dublin and at Belfast. Mr. Walsh. They are everywhere, practically all over the island, except at Dublin and Belfast. It is a splendid system of law, and I think we would save a great deal of litigation and bad feeling if we could do it here. Mr. Newton. Now, in reference to the question of raising revenues, just what information can you give us as to that? Mr. Walsh. The information I can give you is that England has taken away from Ireland about $140,000,000 more a year in taxes- it has been up to this time — than it has cost to govern Ireland, to say nothing of the economic stress that they put upon her by com- pelling her to take any products that they want her to take. The Chairman. Is that dollars? Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. I have it in dollars in my mind. Mr. Newton. What I wanted to ask Mr. Walsh. I will answer you in detail and to your satisfaction. Up to this time they have paid their taxes, and they have taken this amount away from them. The last time the; taxgatherer came around, he took it. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OE IRELAND. 51 Mr. Newton. That is, the English taxgatherer ? Mr. Walsh. Yes; the English taxgatherer; but I am now informed that was only permitted to be done because the Irish Republic believed that the principles that America laid down when she entered the war, and that were assented to by Lloyd-George in specified terms, that all peoples should have the right of self-determination, would be faithfully carried out; and if they are not carried out, I am informed by those gentlemen that they are not going to pay any more taxes, and will pay no more attention to them, but will levy their own taxes and support their own people. [Applause.] The Chairman. I would like to read into the record, in reply to Mr. Flood's question, a quotation from Moore's International Law, page 101, showing that an appropriation was made on March 3, 1837, for the payment of the salaries of representatives to Texas. Texas was not finally recognized by President Jackson until March 7. Mr. Flood. That appropriation was made after the President had indicated his intention to recognize the Republic of Texas, and had requested them to do it. The Chairman. On the contrary, the message of President Jackson intimated strongly that recognition was unwise, and for the sake of the record I will add the message of President Jackson on that Question, which will be found on page 98 of Volume 1 of Moore's nternational Law Digest. Mr. Flood. I have the message of the President here, if you desire to hear it. The Chalrman. We will not take the time now, Mr. Flood. I would like to read into the record this quotation from Moore. [Reading:] The independence of Texas was recognized on March 7, 1837. Mr. Flood. I want to read into the record President Jackson's message on that subject. Mr. Walsh. I have already put it into the record. Mr. Flood. You have ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Flood. What is the date of it ? Mr. Walsh. December 21, 1836. The Chairman. What is the date of the resolution passed by the House ? Mr. Flood. March 3, 1837. The Chairman. A year afterwards ? Mr. Flood. It was for the salaries of diplomatic agents to be sent to the Republic of Texas whenever the President of the United States received satisfactory evidence of the existence of Texas as an inde- pendent power. Here it is: Resolved, That the independence of the Government of Texas ought to be recognized . Resolved, That the Committee on Ways and Means be directed to provide, in the bill for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the Government, a salary and outfit for such public agent as the President may determine to send to Texas. Mr. Cockran. Was that adopted ? Mr. Flood. Yes. The Chalrman. Is that under date of March 3, the same as I had ? Mr. Flood. That was reported on February 21, 1837. The Chairman. Moore gives the date as March 3. Mr. Moores. That was the appropriation bill ? Mr. Flood. Yes. 52 SALARIES OP MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. I Mr. Moores. The other was simply a resolution. The Chairman. President Jackson said: Prudence seems, however, to dictate that we should still stand aloof until one of the great powers shall recognize the independence of the new Republic. President Jackson also said this: In this view, on the ground of expediency, I am disposed to concur, and do not there- fore conclude it necessary to express any opinion. A"nd so forth. That is in the President's message. president jackson's message, decembek 21, 1836. [Report of Mr. Clay, Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate, June 18, 1836, Senate Ex. Doc. 406, 24th Cong., 1st sess.] No steps have been taken by the Executive toward the acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, and the whole subject would have been left without further remark on the information now given to Congress, were it not that the two Houses at their last session, acting separately, passed resolutions "that the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged by the United States whenever satisfactory informa- tion should be received that it had in successful operation a civil government capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power." This mark of interest in the question of the independence of Texas, and indication of the views of Congress, make it proper that I should somewhat in detail present the considerations that have governed the Executive in continuing to occupy the ground previously taken in the contest between Mexico and Texas. The acknowledgment of a new State as independent, and entitled to a place in the family of nations, is at all times an act of great delicacy and responsibility, but more especially so when such State has forcibly separated itself from another of which it had formed an integral part, and which still claims dominion over it. A premature recog- nition under these circumstances, if not looked upon as justifiable cause of war, is always liable to be regarded as a probf of an unfriendly spirit to one of the contending parties.' All questions relative to the government of foreign nations, whether of the Old or New World, have been treated by the United States as questions of fact only, and our predecessors have cautiously abstained from deciding upon them until the clearest evidence was in their possession to enable them not only to decide correctly, but to shield their decisions from every unworthy imputation. In all the contests thai have arisen out of the revolutions of France, out of the disputes relating to the Crowns of Portugal and Spain, out of the separation of the American possessions of both from the European governments, and out of the numerous and constantly occurring strug- gles for dominion in Spanish America, so wisely consistent with our just principles has been the action of our Government that we have, under the most critical circum- stances, avoided all censure, and encountered no other evil than that produced by a transient estrangement of good will in those against whom we have been by force of evidence compelled to decide. It has thus made known to the world that the uniform policy and practice of the United States is to avoid all interference in disputes which merely relate to the internal government of other nations, and eventually to recognize the authority of the pre- vailing party without reference to our particular interests and views or to the merits of the original controversy. Public opinion here is so firmly established and well, understood in favor of this policy that no serious disagreement has ever risen among ourselves in relation to it, although brought under view in a variety of forms, and at periods when the minds of the people were greatly excited by the agitation of topics purely domestic in their character. Nor has any deliberate inquiry ever been insti- tuted in Congress, or in any of our legislative bodies, as to whom belonged the power of originally recognizing a new State. A power the exercise of which is equivalent, under some circumstances, to a declaration of war; a power nowhere especially dele- gated, and only granted in the Constitution as it is necessarily involved in some of the great powers given to Congress— in that given to the President and Senate to form treaties with foreign powers, and to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, and in that conferred upon the President to receive ministers from foreign nations. In the preamble to the resolution of the House of Representatives it is distinctly intimated that the expediency of recognizing the independence of Texas should be left to the decision of Congress. In this view, on the ground of expediency, I am disposed to concur: and do not, therefore, consider it necessary to express any opinion SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 53 as to the strict constitutional right of the Executive, either apart from or in con junction with the Senate, over the subject. It is to be presumed that on no future occasion will a dispute arise, as none has heretofore occurred, between the Executive and the Legislature in the exercise of the power of recognition. It will always be considered consistent with the spirifcof the Constitution, and most safe, that it should be exercised, when probably leading to war, with a previous understanding with that body by whom war can alone be declared and by whom all the provisions for sus- taining its perils must be furnished. Its submission to the Congress, which represents in one of its branches the States of the Union and in the other the people of the United States, where there may be reasonable ground to apprehend so grave a consequence, would certainly afford the fullest satisfaction to our own country, and a perfect guar- anty to all other nations of the justice and prudence of the measures which might be adopted. In making these suggestions it is not my purpose to relieve myself from the respon- sibility of expressing my own opinions of the course the interests of our country pre- scribe and its honor permits us to follow. It is scarcely to be imagined that a question of this character could be presented in relation to which it would be more difficult for the United States to avoid exciting the suspicion and jealously of other powers and maintain their established character for fair and impartial dealing. But on this, as on every other trying occasion, safety is to be found in a rigid adherence to principle. ' In the contest between Spain and the revolted colonies we stood aloof, and waited not only until the ability of the new States to protect themselves was fully established but until the danger of their being again subjugated had entirely passed away. Then, and' not until then, were they recognized. Such was our course in regard to Mexico- herself . The same policy was observed in all the disputes growing out of the separa- tion into distinct Governments of those Spanish-American States, who began or carried on the contest with the parent country, united under one form of Govern- ment. We acknowledged the separate independence of New Grenada, of Venezuela,, and of Ecuador, only after their independent existence was no longer a subject of" dispute, or was actually acquiesced in by those with whom they had been previously united. It is true that with regard to Texas the civil authority of Mexico has been expelled, its invading army defeated, the chief of the Republic himself captured,, and all present power to control the newly organized Government of Texas annihilated' within its confines. But, on the other hand, there is, in appearance at least, am immense disparity of physical force on the side of Texas. The Mexican Republic,, under another executive, is rallying its forces under a new leader, and menacing a> fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. Upon the issue of this threatened invasion, the independence of Texas may be considered as suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgment of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be regarded as consistent with that prudent reserve with which we have hitherto held ourselves bound to treat all similar questions. But there are circumstances in the relations of the two countries which require us to act on this occasion with even more than our wonted caution. Texas was once claimed as a part of our property, and there are those among our citizens who, always reluctant to abandon thst claim, can not but regard with solicitude the prospects of the reunion of the territory to this country. A large portion of its civilized inhabitants are emigrants: from the United States, speak the same language with ourselves, cherish the same Erinciples, political and religious, and are bound to many of our citizens by ties of iendship and kindred blood; and, more than all, it is known that the people of that country have instituted the same form of government with our own, and have, since the close of your last session, openly resolved, on the acknowledgment by us of their independence, to seek admission into the Union as one of the Federal States. This last circumstance is a matter of peculiar delicacy, and forces upon us considerations of the gravest character. The title of Texas to the territory she claims is identified with her independence; she asks us to acknowledge that title to the territory, with an avowed design to treat immediately of its transfer to the United States. It becomes us to beware of a too early movement, as it might subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory, with a view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves. Prudence, therefore, 'seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof, and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself, or one of the great foreign powers, shall recognize the independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of time or the course of events shall have proved beyond cavil or dispute the ability of the people of that country to maintain their separate sovereignty and to uphold the Government constituted by them Neither of the contending parties can justly complain of this course. By pursuingit, we are but carrying out the long-established policy of our Government, a policy which has secured to us respect and influence abroad and inspired confidence at home. 54 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. Mr. Newton. I was interrupted, and I would like to finish the line that I was on. The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Newton. Mr. Newton. So that, as I understand it, Mr. Walsh, the Irish republic itself has not as yet levied any taxes ? Mr. Walsh. No, sir; not in the form of a legislative act. Mr. Newton. That is what I mean. Mr. Walsh. It is floating a very large loan in Ireland and in Eng- land and in other parts of the world. They are tendering them great sums of money, and they propose to proceed now with the plan* They have laid the plan for reviving the industries of Ireland, for getting the people onto the land, for reforestation, and other things in the land. Mr. Newton. Have there been any import duties, or anything of that kind ? Mr. Walsh. No, sir; there have not. Mr. Newton. No legislation ? Mr. Walsh. Nothing that comes under the free-trade enactments of England. Mr. Cockran. It is free trade, absolute free trade, at the present time. Mr. Walsh. It is free trade. Mr. Newton. The executive department of the government there, the president of the Irish republic, is now in the United States? Mr. Walsh. He is up at the Raleigh Hotel. Mr. Newton. How is the executive department of the government functioning, with the head of it in the United States 1 Mr. Cockran. The same way as ours did when our President was in France. [Laughter.] Mr. Walsh. The vice president of the Irish republic, Mr. Arthur Griffith, one of the ablest statesmen in Europe — next to Eamon de Valera, I think, the ablest statesman in Europe— is acting in that capacity. Mr. Newton. Now, about the assembly; in the way of appropri- ating money, just what has been done ? Mr. Walsh. They have made an appropriation. A member of the Dail Eireann, Mr. Harry Boland, tells me they have made an appro- priation of $1,250,000, and that is for the appointment of consular agents abroad, and for those things that make a government func- tion in connection with the other Governments of the world. We will submit the official figures, Mr. Boland says, if you care for them. Mr. Newton. When was the appropriation made 1 Mr. Boland. Within this year; I guess about the 18th of June. Mr. Walsh. On the 18th of June, approximately. Mr. Newton. How have the expenses of the government been paid in the meantime ? There has been no money appropriated. Mr. Walsh. The people of the government themselves put it up. Of course, the soldiers did not give them anything* Mr. Newton. There has been no raising of money by taxes? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Newton. A raising of money merely by voluntary contribu- tions ? Mr. Walsh. A voluntary tax, by a submission of the people to the 'demands of their legislative assembly, and raising of the money.' SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO EEPUBLIO OF IRELAND. 55 Mr. Newton. The different subdivisions of Ireland, have they local officers ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Newton. Like a governor, for instance, of one subdivision,, to be appointed by the President ? Mr. Walsh. No ; they have not that form of government over there. They have a national, parliament or congress, and they are not divided. Am I correct in saying that they are elected by the people and that the great majority of them are republicans now ? Mr. Boland. Yes; county councils. Mr. Walsh. I attended many of them, and received the freedom of the cities. Mr. Newton. Did you say the majority of them were republicans? Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. i Mr. Newton. You do not mean in the American sense ? [Laugh- ter.] Mr. Walsh. I mean it in the good old way; although I begin to think a little more of them than I used to. The Chairman. You have exceeded your time by 10 minutes, but it is the fault of the committee. Mr. Walsh. I will try to hurry through, because I have to answer that point about the executive. I was going to ask the privilege of submitting to each member of the committee a very good reproduction of a photograph of this con- gress; that is, of all of them that were out of jail at the time the pic- ture was taken. I think it would be illuminating to you. It shows the character of the men. It is a very good one. And one other thing, I might say that the President of that re- public is in this country, one of his reasons, I understand, being the recognition of his own republic in the way we sent our people abroad when we thought we needed that recognition in the early days; and I want to say that if the thought of the people has any influence, here, I might recount that I had the privilege of being with Mr. de Valera on his tour of this country, and I want to say here and now, because the eastern press did not carry it as the local press did, that President de Valera, in point of numbers and enthusiasm, received the greatest hearings of any foreigner that ever came to our shores, and had larger meetings in some places than even our candidates for President; and he had larger public meetings than any, other man, native or foreign born, except our candidates for President. And I want to say that that again in itself shows the stable character of this government. I say it now, without fulsome praise, that Eamonn de Valera, 38 years of age, is the peer of any statesman in the world to-day in point of intellect, in point of virtue, in point of knowledge of government, and in point of splendid purpose toward his fellow men. The fact is that he went through this country of ours, operated by political parties, when tension was high, great national and inter- national questions appealing to the attention of our lawmakers — the fact is that this man went through this country and talked to hundreds of thousands of. people and did not utter one sentence that was not in conformity with the principles of our country, and that was not in good taste for a stranger to say in our country; and so clear and so Faithful to the principles of decency and good government was he, 56 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OP IRELAND. that even those papers that are pro-English, that we know are so, have not been able to criticize him in the slightest way. Just one word about this danger, or fear, of England. We are occupying, as Ireland is now occupying, a unique position. If you seek precedents for the position of Ireland, I challenge history to show any case that is on all fours with the Irish case. I say there is none in the history of the world where the people have maintained their nationhood, and where they have exhibited the principles for which practically the whole world, went into the war, and where they have functioned peacefully and intelligently along those lines. Now, we have a different England to deal with. Of course, the attitude that England may take, and how she will feel, ought not to move us as a nation in extending justice or in doing that act which we believe to be a just act; and I know that nobody would intimate any such thing. The justice of the act and the propriety of our doing it, as a Nation, are the only things that should move us. Those are the principles for which we entered the war, and which this Irish republican form of government is attempting to carry out, taking us at our word, upon the principles not only of our country but of the world. Lloyd-George said that he accepted them. He rolled his eyes and called upon the living Lord to witness the fact that they were in the fight for the same reason we were. The premier before him made the same declaration. We must not assume, as a Nation, that that was idle talk on the part of English statesmen. I understand that there are people here present in attendance who are going to advocate that the great majority of the Irish people have no right to be' heard or to get this recognition. But we under- stand, of course, the English people entered into that compact through their prime minister; and England to-day is dependent upon this country. Another reason why I say that a failure to recognize the Irish Republic by the popular body of our country means that that would add a great weight in the scales and weigh down against the liberties of Ireland. The Allies owe England precisely the same amount that they owe us— $10,000,000,000. We are asked to allow them to postpone the payment of interest on that sum. That interest will amount to $500,000,000 a year — half as much as it cost to run our Government when we had a billion-dollar Congress, as it was called. We are asked to take that load off of England's back and lay it on the producing masses of this country. It will be passed on to the producing class of our people because we have gone the limit in our taxes — income taxes and inheritance taxes, etc. — and therefore that amount has got to be placed upon the producers of this country. The last word was that it was 10 billions of dollars, in round num- bers, all the loans added together in that; so if we postpone the col- lection of this interest, and refuse to recognize Ireland, it means that we have, gone into the business of paying for these bombing planes and the commission of these crimes against the Irish' people. So that we ought not to be timorous about this debt, as to paying it, from the American standpoint. We ought at least to be as far ad- vanced as England's colonies. See what Canada is doing. Canada told them to take their titles back — their mean system of corruption, of taking men who ought to be red-blooded citizens and making them toadies of a monarchy — they told them to take their titles back, and SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 57 they would have their own ambassadorial representation in this country. New Zealand had the red blood in them to declare, by a majority vote, that Ireland had the right to self-determination. The English people themselves are in favor of the self-determination of the Irish people, for common sense, justice, and economic reasons, as well. We were told that the Government was unable to pay them a living wage because of the terrific expenses incident to the upkeep of the Government. The answer of the trades council of England was, "Take your armed forces out of Ireland and let the Government function along lines of decency and honor, and you will have money enough to pay a living wage to your own people." The whole labor party of England declared that. The same thing is working out in Australia and in Scotland. Talk about our being afraid; I will try to get the papers of the returned soldiers,- the trades-union papers in Glasgow, that in big headlines called upon the soldiers of England to refuse to go into Ireland and kill their brothers. There was a day when that man would have been dragged to the Tower of London and imprisoned for that; but they are not saying anything to that man to-day. They can not go back -of this pledge, if the people who heard the pledge stand up and say they insist that they carry it out. [Applause.] Mr. Flood. Is England in any financial condition to engage in war now ? Mr. Walsh. No, sir; you would have to lend England the money to fight you with. [Laughter and cheers.] Mr. Flood. Then, if England was to engage in war, she would have to get the money from this country ? Mr. Walsh. Yes; and I say this Mr. Cockran. There may be some who would like to lend it to them. Mr. Walsh. Yes. I hope not, I will say, Mr. Cockran. I will say, if there is an expression of robust Americanism along the lines of popular spokesmen in the countries on the earth, it will do more to bring about peace than anything else. Mr. Flood. I would like to get your opinion as to the effect of this pending bill or resolution, and a resolution drawn along these lines. Resolved, By the.House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that they partici- pate with the people of the United States in the deep interest that they feel for the success of the Irish republic which is struggling to establish its liberty and inde- pendence, and that it will give its constitutional support to the President of the United States, if he may deem it expedient to recognize the sovereign independence of that republic. Mr. Walsh. I think you all have heard the old story of the banquet in New York, where one suggested that they had forgotten about the poor, and another suggested three cheers for the poor. [Laughter.] Mr. Flood. I do not catch your idea. Mr. Walsh. The idea is this, that the people representing the Irish republic are serious people. They believe that they have suc- ceeded along the lines laid down by us in establishing their own government. You have extended to them splendid sympathy. I know of nothing better and more inspiriting, to them than the Gallagher resolution, followed by the action of the Senate. But they are now functioning along business lines, and they stand up bravely 58 SAL ABIES OF MINISTEB AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. before you and the world and ask for what they are entitled to. If they are not a government, say it in terms. Mr. Flood. We can not appoint a minister over there. Mr. Walsh. I understand, but you can do one act which will be a step in the recognition of this country, and your expression will do more, I think, for the spirit of democracy and the spirit of peace than the expression of any other body on the earth. I am a great believer in the lower House of the Congress of the United States. [Applause.] Mr. Flood. This is doing just what you said, and it will give this constitutional support to the President of the United States: "Whenever he may deem it expedient to recognize the Sovereign independence of the Irish republic." Mr. Walsh. If we have the government give us an appropria- tion Mr. Flood. What is the good of the appropriation if the President does not appoint a minister or consular officers ? Mr. Walsh. I think it would be a fine thing for this President or the next president to know that this popular body, the popular branch of the Congress, had done all that it could do and was standing behind him. [Applause.] I just want to say one word more. I hope there is no question of politics in this, because I hope that there will not be. Of course, I have been a Democrat all my life, I never voted any other national ticket, and I think it would be deplorable, on a great governmental question of this kind, if politics entered into it. I will say this to my fellow Democrats who are here. I think that a great many of the people of this country perhaps feel like I do. They were Demo- crats first because the poor folks where they lived when they were poor folks — and the majority of us were — were Democrats; and also those who come from emigrant ancestry, which I am proud to say I did — although it is not always popular, I understand — had the feeling that this was a great land of refuge; that the ideas that were put in the Declaration of Independence, and in the American Bill of Rights, were real ; that is, that we held them and cherished them, and practiced them in all we did. So that it is an upsetting of my predi- lections and an upsetting of my political thought and the status that I have created in myself, to find the deplorable condition, from the standpoint of that old party, as old as the Government itself, that when these men of good intentions came before the Foreign Rela- tions Committee of the United States Senate, not one member of my party, so splendidly represented by the Hon. Bourke Cockran, appeared and gave them the courtesy of a hearing, or considered it of enough importance to be present at the hearing. Mr. Flood. You can not say that about the House committee. Mr. Walsh. No; I speak of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. Mr. Flood. You can not say that about the Democrats of this committee. Mr. Walsh. No; and as I say, I think we are all believers in the closeness of the House of Representatives to the people, and in the response of the people. Mr. Flood. Why can you not say the same thing about the Demo- cratic Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives ? SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 59 Mr. Walsh. We had a little check, if I understood the secretary, of thos'e who were present. Mr. . When you had a hearing before this committee, the whole committee was present. Mr. Walsh. Pardon me; I thought you meant the committee that was sitting to-day. I want to say, as I have already said, Mj*. Congressman, that we had not only a most respectful and sympathetic hearing, but the report was followed by action, and the arguments of the gentlemen on that committee did much to enlighten the way of those who appeared before it. The Chairman. May I not add that the Republican members of the committee were present at the passage of the Gallivan resolution, all except one, and that all those present voted for it. [Applause.] Mr. Walsh. Is that true ? The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Walsh. I thank you, very sincerely. Mr. . May I ask you one question before you finish ? Mr. Walsh. Certainly. Mr. . You referred to the picture of the Irish Repub- lican Congress ? Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. . That is, of those that were in jail? Mr. W ALSH - No; I said all that were out of jail at the time when thei picture was taken were in it. The picture was taken in front of the Mansion House in Dublin. Mr. . It might be interesting to some of my colleagues to know what the offenses were. Mr. WAlsh. I might answer in the words of my. friend, Harry Boland, here. He was talking to an English gentleman, and he said, "That was the time we were in jail. Harry saw him jump, and he said, "It is not necessary for me to state that we were not in jail for picking pockets." They were in jail for making declarations such as Thomas Jefferson made, for making the declarations made and reiterated by you gentlemen that gave the country confidence enough in you to have you elected. They were arrested for saying those things that in our country, thank God, are regarded as right and honest and honorable. They were all political offenses, and it is a crime against the nations that that is gomg on to-day. (At 2.15 o'clock p. m., the committee took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m.) EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DANIEI F. COHALAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK. The position of England as the dominant world power was made secure for some generations to come, in the opinion of the English diplomats, when their demand that the freedom of the seas should not be brought up for the consideration of the peace conference, was assented to by the representatives of the United States. Astute, experienced, trained men, skilled in diplomacy, they secured for themselves before the conference even met, that which was of the greatest value to them. They left for its consideration only questions that, while of the utmost importance to the individual nations and peoples, counted practically for nothing so far as the control of the 60 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. world was concerned. They were confronted on the part of America by men with small knowledge of world affairs and who had little or no experience in dealing with trained diplomats. The representatives of the British Empire were secure; were certain of their position of dominance from the outset, and could afford to look with great complancency upon the conference, governed, so far they were concerned, by conditions which made it impossible for them to lose. They realized — because the subject had been studied by their predecessors for generations ; and tney had the advantage of all the accumulated knowledge thus acquired; they knew that the nation that controlled the seas would control the world. Hence, when — as may be believed to their utter astonishment- — they succeeded, by a slight show of insistence on their part, in having the representatives of the other countries, in the majority at the peace conference, agree to their proposition that the freedom of the seas might not be dis- cussed there, they secured as the believed, the very thing they had accused Germany of struggling for in the war, namely, the practical control of the world. How adroitly and easily and yet how thoroughly this was done is evidenced by the testimony of Premier Clemenceau as reported in his speech on September 25 last in the Chamber of Deputies in his reference to Great Britain and the freedom of the seas. As regards the freedom of the seas, England has no need to demand it. of anyone. She already has it, and there are none to dispute it. I have already told you in this very pla^e, and you applauded me, how I related to President Wilson a conversation I had with Premier Lloyd-George on this subject: Lloyd-George said to me, "Do you recognize that without the British fleet we would have been unable to continue the war? " I replied: "Yes." Then Lloyd-George said: "Are you disposed to prevent us, should the case arise, from doing the same thing again? " I replied, "No." I reported this conversation to Mr. Wilson, and he was not at all troubled by it. Mr. Wilson said: "I have nothing to ask of you which could displease or embarass either of you." It has become a truism, as Admiral Mahan and other naval writers have proved time after time, that any nation that can control the seas can dominate the world. These writers have proved it from the experience of history and one will need only to glance casually at the story of the nations that led civilization for centuries past in order to see how completely true is this fact. Spain more than 300 years ago — when she was in the height of her glory and power; when she ruled Europe — swept the seas with her ships. It was not until the fleets, the privateers, and the buc- caneers of England broke the Spanish sea power that the English were able to emerge from their island home and dominate the people they reckoned with beyond the oonfines of their damp and foggy island in the North Atlantic. Holland was commercially the first power in Europe when Von Tromp, with the broom bound to the masthead, swept the shores of England, looking for some English fleet which would stand and fight against the Dutch. Three-fourths of fhe surface of the earth are covered by the oceans, and it has been through the control of the seas, more or less strongly held during the last three centuries, that the British SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 61 Empire has grown from its small beginning to its present alarming size, when the King of England rules every third person on earth and almost every third square mile of land as well as all of the oceans of the earth. That any nation should possess such power is not alone without precedent, but it is a menace to the liberty of all the other peoples of the earth. Tyranny through all the ages of history, has been the necessary consequence of the possession of arbitrary power. While philosophic writers set forth at great length many reasons for assert- ing that benevolent despotism is the ideal form of government, the hard fact remains in the experience of mankind, that Abraham Lincoln, the greatest of all democrats, spoke the truth when he said that God Almighty never made one people good enough to rule over another people. If this is true when it has to do with the relationship of two small or neighboring peoples, it is even more so when one people, no matter how great we may admit their gifts to be, are put in the position of ruling over one-third of all the people of the earth. The British Empire is so immense in size, so tremendous in influence in all other countries, so powerful in directing the course of other nations, that, one rarely stops to think that in the last analysis it is only another name for the governing group who dominate, control, and direct its activities. That group is only a handful in number and is made up of the families which, generation after generation, have supplied the rulers of England and through that the rulers of the British Empire. The very heart of this group is the family of the Cecils which since Elizabeth's time has almost continuously been the dominant and controlling power of England. Who they are one can easily ascer- tain; as to how they secured the major part of their wealth and landed holdings, let us take the statement of David Lloyd-George, Premier of England, some time since their dreaded foe, now, for the moment, their cherished spokesman. He said in the debate in the House of Commons on May 16, 1912, of the Cecils: "What is the story ? Look at the whole story of the pillage of the Reformation. They robbed the Catholic Church; they robbed the monasteries; they robbed the altars; they robbed the almshouses; they robbed the poor; and they robbed the dead." Sometimes the Cecils rule in person; sometimes they rule through others. Sometimes they openly guide the English ship of state and at other times permit the helm to be turned over nominally to some- one else — but actually, they' are always in control. For hundreds of years they have acted openly whenever what would be termed the reactionary forces were in control — whether called Tories, Conserva- tives, Unionists, or some other high-sounding name which was only a cover for the rule of the privileged few over the mass of the needy many. At other times, when it suited the fashion of the hour to make the masses believe that the day of the special privileged class was waning, they controlled the foreign policy of England through those who were supposed to represent the masses. It is a fact that even English Liberals or Radicals can not deny that the foreign policy of England remained practically the same under all adminis- trations since England started to build up her Empire on all the con- tinents and most of the islands of the seas. That policy has always been consistently — directly when they dared or could — indirectly 6? SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. when they were forced thus to act — to build up the English Navy and through it to gain and hold the control of the great highways of commerce that command the seas of the world. For generations past they have carried that policy to such an extreme as to insist that then* navy must be equal at least to that of the two powers in the whole world that were nearest to them in strength and they have greatly boasted that they were determined to rule the seas. Profound students of human nature, the greatest master diplo- mats the world has ever seen, the statesmen of England realize the tremendous power of appearing always to be .standing for the rights of humanity and because of that, even in their most selfish contests, they have claimed to be fighting against the forces of evil and ar- rayed on the side of civilization and justice. It matters not whether they were fighting against a Catholic King of Spain or a Protestant President of a South African Kepublic; an infidel Sultan of Turkey or a Pagan Emperor of China, they always availed themselves, so far as they could, of the good opinion of mankind — in general by insist- ing that they were fighting for right and for liberty and by putting their opponents in the position of appearing to lead the dark forces of evil and injustice. The result has been, down through the centuries, that they have made for the English a reputation of being a liberty-loving people; a people who loved justice and favored progress. Although they have been put to it to explain how, no matter which side won the war they have gained in territory, in treasure, in power, they have managed by their extraordinary diplomatic skill, which amounts to genius, and by use of their weapons for making opinion through propaganda (long before others were awake to a realization of the power of such methods) to hold among great masses of sensible men in every country on earth, the name of standing for right in most of their quarrels. All the time they have been building up their navy and adding to their sea-borne commerce until, to-day England, though practically bankrupt and insolvent, is sanguine of recuperating her fortunes and regaining her financial power if she can retain for a couple of generations her supremacy and dominance on the ocean. To-day her fleet serves a twofold purpose. In the first place it is the means by which she holds together the Empire which is scattered all over the world. In the second place— and of no less importance to her — it is the one weapon by which, if it be left in her Eossession, she hopes eventually to win the contest now going on etween England and the United States for the commercial supremacy of the world. We may as well face conditions as they are in the hard, practical, common-sense way in which the statesmen of England face the situation. They are under no illusions about the contest before them before they can become the complete masters of the world. For 300 years England has been following the policy laid down by Elizabeth of breaking down the nations which, through chance or choice, have become her commercial rivals. In that time she has broken down the power of Spain, of Holland, of France, and of Ger- many, and for a time, because of the way in which American commerce was swept from the sea during the Civil War by privateers built and manned and armed in England, she hoped to have successfully dis- posed of America as an actual or possible commercial rival. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 63 To-day — and entirely as a consequence of our entry into the war, which in the last analysis we won, for had it not been for the con- tribution of men, of money, of resources, made by us, the result of the war would have been entirely different — to-day the United States is the only first-class power left on earth that is solvent, that is self-supporting, that requires no assistance from without its own borders. But our industrial growth has been so vast and so rapid that we produce in eight months of the year as much as we can consume m a year. Because of this fact we are actually dependent upon the markets of the world to keep our factories running and our industrial population employed., There must come an inevitable contest between the United States and the British Empire for those markets and in that contest one or other of these countries must triumph and one or other of those countries must be vanished. The Marquis of Salisbury, the head of the House of Cecil, saw this plainly two generations ago, when he said that America and England were "rivals in every port and in every Court." It is attaching no blame to the statesmen of England and it is in no spirit of hostility to her people that one points out the fact that what the statesmen of England believe is necessary for her welfare is attained — if possible, by the genius of her diplomats, if necessary, but the marshaled array of all the forces of her allies and of those parts of the Empire that produce fighting men. Thus has it been since the days of Henry the Eighth and his virgin daughter, Queen Bess. Thus will it be so long as the genius of the Cecils and their associates, either by skill or by force, can bring success to the English side. This is no new game with the statesmen of England and there is very little left for them to learn from bitter experience. This world war, just brought to a successful end by America's contribution to it, is not without its precedents in the long history of British Im- perialism. Time after time she has struggled for great prizes in all parts of the world and in the main, no matter who bled, or who paid, England gained in power. Close as she came to colossal defeat and absolute destruction in the recent war; certain as was her annihilation but for the assistance of America —which her spokes- men like Sir Douglas Haig are beginning now to minimize and ignore — she came just as close one hundred years ago when England was pitted against the genius of that unmatched man — Napoleon Bonaparte — and if it had not been for the assistance then given to England in the last battle by her cousins, the Germans, England would have gone down to inevitable defeat and the British Empire, instead of being one of the two remaining Empires on earth, would have then vanished as a dream, as have the mighty empires that in this last war were smashed into impotent parts. Weighted down with debt at the end of the Napoleonic crisis — a debt relatively almost as great as the present debt — British states- men managed to pull their country through because of their hold upon and of their mastery of the seas. Through that mastery they practically drove from the ocean every country that did not submit to their control, and took to themselves the lion's share of the profit made in the carrying trade of the world. England, when compared with the great lands of the earth, is a little country of 50,000 square miles. Her ships carry to her the 64 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. raw material of all the lands of the earth, in order that they may be manufactured by her skilled artisans, and by her industrial classes, into articles in demand by the rest of mankind. These ships, freighted with these materials, carried to England from all parts of the earth, carry back the manufactured articles from England, sold to the people of these countries — articles manu- factured out of the materials they had produced — and turned back to them after Emgland has made a large profit in handling, manu- facturing, and selling the articles. In that way, at the expense of all the rest of the world, England has accumulated treasures and gained power and strength in every corner of the globe. She became not only the world's work shop, but the World's banker. There from every land went those who sought assistance in the development of countries, in the building up of industries, in the construction of railroads, in executing public works, in improving in any way the material conditions of life. This was all a source of immense profit to England, and because of it she has been able to make in a hundred ways the profit of the honest broker, and amass in a hundred ways still more wealth, still greater power. She brooked no opposition where it could be overcome, but if other countries prospered and grew she looked with complacency on their growth so long as she controlled the seas, always secure in the thought that their growth necessarily contributed to her wealth and added to her power. For a decade in the middle of the last century, England was greatly worried over the extraordinary progress made by the Ameri- can merchant marine. She viewed with alarm the growth in size and in number of our clipper ships which carried American freight and American commerce to every port on the earth. When the unfortunate division arose between the North and the South in the sixties, England promptly hastened to the assistance of the Confederacy and with the privateers built and armed by her, succeeded in driving the American mercantile marine from the seas, with great consequent profit to herself. It has been estimated that for 50 years after the Civil War, England made on an average a profit of .$300,000,000 per year; out of carrying the ocean-borne commerce of America. It is any wonder that she did her best to cause the defeat of the United States during the War of the Rebellion and to drive from the seas the flag of the Nation that had become a successful rival through- out the world ? England looked with complacency upon the industrial progress and growth of Germany until that growth sought to question the naval supremacy of England. From the hour that Germany was able to build ships which crossed the Atlantic and came into the New York Harbor in less time than British ships could come, many thoughtful observers believed that the doom of Germany was sealed. The Germans might with safety build up their military power on the continent so far as England was concerned, without protest or interference, but the moment in which Germany invaded England's chosen field, that moment Germany had to contend against the diplomatic skill which had never been beaten, the power of bringing about a coalition that had rarely if ever been exercised in vain. SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. 65 Many students of history believe that Napoleon could have mas- tered Europe with the assent or support of England if he had not crossed to Africa and had not threatened India and the British Asiatic dominions. In the same way modern Germany came into existence with the full consent of England, tore Alsace-Lorraine from France; Schleswig from Denmark, and placed an indemnity of 5,000,000,000 francs upon the beaten France amid the admiring plaudits of the English Soverning classes. Germany might have ruled the continent to er heart's content, as an ally of England, if she had not had the audacity or folly to attempt to supplant England on the seas and rend from her weakening hand the trident of Neptune. A despoiled Poland might writhe for 150 years under the con- quering heel of a Hohenzollern without a protest from England, but any attempted interference in the profits and the power that came from the control of the seas, meant that Germany in this generation, like Spain, like Holland, like France in other days, must fight" for her existence. But that is another story. To-day we of America are interested in problems that are to affect the future of mankind. We have here in our country a population of 110,000,000 people, and so great has been our industrial growth that we produce in less than eight months of every year all that we can possibly consume in the entire year. For four months of each year we are dependent upon the markets of the world to find a sale for our surplus products in order that our people may be kept constantly at work. To reach these markets it is a physical neces- sity to cross the oceans of the earth. To reach them now we have the mercantile fleet that was brought into existence by the exigen- cies of the war. This will enable us to carry our raw materials and manufactured products into every corner of the globe. Under our own flag we may thus reach in every land &t their ports of entry every purchaser who seeks such materials as we have for sale. In doing this, we must come into competition with Englishmen already there, and we must seek, in friendly rivalry, to take from them the trade that is already theirs or share with them the trade which Germany had and lost as one of the results of the war. Is it human nature that England should long look with equanimity upon such competition or that such rivalry should long continue to be of a friendly nature ? Of course, so long as Englishmen are filled with admiration for the country that saved the Empire from annihi- lation and themselves from complete ruin, they will, in the main (for in many individual cases the Englishman is a likable fellow), be swayed by a sense of gratitude for those who saved them, and will bear without protest the natural strain which will come to their Eockets through having to divide a market which they believe should e entirely their own. But when that recollection fades, as shortly it will, and when it shall be replaced, under the teachings of Sir Douglas Haig and other spokesmen for England, with the idea that it was England herself that won the war, as her historians have taught in every language that it was Wellington and not Blucher who won the Battle of Waterloo — the English trader will look with ever-increasing bitter- ness on the inroads into his special field made by the enterprising American. He will then demand that American trade shall go the 168794—20 5 66 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. way of Spanish, Dutch, French, and German trade and leave the field without competition or lessened profits to the English trader, to whom, in his own opinion, it properly belongs. This demand will grow insistently as time goes on and as the experience of the American exporter and the growing necessity for America to find a market abroad will make more keen the competition between those who are supplying goods to foreign markets. It will grow stronger as England's necessities grow. Her indebted- ness to-day is so great that she is practically insolvent. She is wholly so in the sense that if she were required to pay in cash her outstanding indebtedness she would be unable to do so. Wonderful as has been her triumph in seizing for herself advantages of all kinds at the end of this war, marvelous as was her escape from destruction during the war, she is yet confronted with difficulties in a hundred forms. In every one of her colonies there is great dissatisfaction and grow- ing unrest. The war has imposed a colossal debt under which the colonies stagger. Unique as has been the censorship which she placed upon the news of the world, so that anything unpleasant to her, happening in any quarter of the globe might not be made known, we are still made aware of the great labor and industrial discontent and unrest in Australia and in Canada. In spite of all she has been able to do in the control of the cables and the mails, the staggering stories of the inhumanities of the conditions of life in India, where many millions of people have been swept away by hardship and disease, at last have reached and appalled the world. The savage cruelties exercised by her garrison in Egypt upon those who believed in the application of the Wilsonian doctrine of seK-determination to the people of that country are arousing attention even among her friends. By her entire disregard of her pledged word and her utter contempt for liberty and the rights of the people in the case of Ireland she has shocked the conscience and aroused the slumbering hostility to her of the great mass of the people of America. Former Chief Justice Hertzog and his associates sent as delegates to Paris by the Africanders of South Africa to demand the application of self-determination to the people of the former republics have re- turned unheard and unsatisfied to lay their report before the liberty- loving peoples of these countries. Nowhere in the wide confines of the Empire outside of England can an observer find that content- ment, peace, and progress which it is the British boast that all who dwell therein possess. Let us look briefly at the situation in Great Britain itself. There the masters of the Empire, the small group who have directly or indirectly in their hands the power and wealth which go with govern- ment, find themselves for the first time in their history confronted by a conjunction of mighty forces that are considering not the redress of more less heavy grievances but the wiping out of the present system of government and its replacement by a government that shall consist of and represent the toilers and industrial workers of Great Britain and that shall destroy the English caste system with all its traditions and its differing classes and replace it by the rule of an aroused and aggressive proletariat. This is the nightmare that mars the hitherto pleasant existence of the Cecils and the Balfours and their subsidized men, the Georges, the Asquiths, the Greys, the Smiths, and the Carsons. This is the SALAKIES OP MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OP IRELAND. 6*i menace, the danger and nearness of which may for a brief time deter the governing classes from using their sea power to prevent America from reaching the markets of the world in order to keep them, as they believe they should be kept, entirely for England. The three great unions of Great Britain — the miners, the railway men, and the transport workers — are now demanding the nationaliza- tion of all the coal mines of Great Britain, and Robert Smilie, their extraordinary leader, said at the recent trades' congress in Glasgow that this was not intended to be the end of the program, but only a step in the march to take over all forms of industrial activities. The war carried on by the leaders of the English governing classes has aroused the British masses to a realization of their power and to the full measure of what they believe to be the necessities of the hour. They are no longer satisfied to be the hewers of wood and the draw- ers of water for the privileged few, but are now insistent upon having not alone some say in what is going on but, if they have their way, upon assuming entire control of the activities of their country. Jack Cade may have been the precursor of Robert Smilie in de- manding that the people should govern, but the fate which overtook him is not likely to be Smilie's, who to-day stands much more chance of being premier of England than he does of following Jack Cade to the scaffold. The three great unions acting in concert in the month of March last compelled, with the intervention of the Government, a settlement of their demands by the capitalists. This will require the payment annually of an additional five hundred millions to the industrial workers of Great Britain. Out of whose pockets is this immense sum to come ? Not out of the pockets of the capitalists of England unless the hand of the diplomat of England has lost its cunning. If industrial peace can be brought to Great Britain for a generation by this and similar concessions, repeated if necessary time after time, the capitalists of England will look, as in the past they have not looked in vain, to have the burden taken from their shoulders and placed on those who are the competitors of England or who may be compelled to pay her toll for the freight going over the seas that God Almightyintended should be for the use of all mankind. With the additional price placed upon the production of coal by the increase the miners have wrung from the coal owners, the English coal is driven from the markets of the world, unless it is to be kept there by England's control of the carrying trade of the world. English coal, since England became the workshop of the world, has been used by her to build up her power in many ways — but in no way more successfully than as an article of export in order to make up bulk with her manufactured articles — manufactured from the raw materials imported to England from every quarter of the globe. Ships which enter her ports laden to the gunwales with raw ma- terial needed to keep her factories working and her people employed, would have gone back loaded very lightly with the smaller bulk of manufactured commodities if it were not that she could make up the difference in bulk in British coal. This can no longer compete' with American and other coals to advantage as it formerly did, and England in order to keep control of the world markets must con- tinue to export coal. This she can do only by controlling the ships- 68 SALARIES OF MINISTER AND CONSULS TO REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. which ply the seven seas and carry on the commerce between the different races of mankind. When we consider that the economic unrest and industrial discontent are growing by leaps and bounds and the power of her organized groups of workers is growing apace; that the people are utterly dissatisfied with existing conditions and the tremendous burden of debt which the war imposed — and have a growing realization of their importance to England coming to them with every succeeding concession made to them — we find the evidence that trouble for the governing classes in England is only beginning. When to this is added the dissatisfaction among her allies with the way in which, as usual, England has seized the lion's share of the spoils of war; the ever increasing distrust of her fairness by the nations which were neutral in the recent war — nations which while small in area are big in intelligence and power to make opinion throughout the world — it is evident that it will require all the tamed genius of the English diplomats to keep England afloat as a going concern unless she can make some sort of a deal that shall put at her command the practically limitless resources of America. The ingenious Cecil and the Slim Smuts felt they had found the needed help in the British plan of a League of Nations which was adopted by Mr. Wilson and which they felt would be swallowed by the Senate of the United States as easily and enthusiastically as it was by the American representatives at the peace conference. If that plan had been adopted, as England fondly hoped it would be, the governing classes of England could look with entire satisfaction upon the future. They would hare harnessed to their chariot wheels the invincible might of America. They would have been guaranteed for all time in possession of ah their stolen loot, by the liberty loving people of America. The lands, with ah their wealth, which they stole from their possessors throughout the length and breadth of the world would continue indefinitely to be theirs, through the power of America. The vantage points gained by the closing of the great seas would continue to be England's. Gibraltar torn from Spain; Malta rent from France; Suez stolen from Egypt and with France euchered out of her half of the loot; Aden taken from Arabia — ah the vantage points all round the globe — all their coaling stations; their naval sta- tions, Esquimault, Halifax, Bermuda — aimed at the heart of America; England's control of the seas, and through it her overlordship of the world, would have been hers, humanly speaking, forever, not in spite of America, but with the connivance, assent, and guaran tee of America . No more colossal scheme of aggrandizement has ever been dreamed of in the history of mankind. No more gigantic bunco