GGth C\)ngke.ss, ) HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATRES. j Keport 
 2d Scs.swii. \ 1 No. 1101. 
 
 
 MANDATORY FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 •Ttine 3. 1920. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. MooRES, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the 
 
 following 
 
 KEPORT. 
 
 O fi ^""7 (^ y f W |To acrom]>any S. ('on. Res. 27.] 
 
 The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred the 
 resolution (S. Con. Res. 27), which declines to grant to the Executive 
 the power to accept a mandate over Armenia, reports it back to the 
 House, with the recommendation that the resolution do pass. 
 
 The acceptance of this mandate from the League of Nations means 
 primarily that under the authority of the council of the league, in 
 which tiie United States is not represented, we shall gratuitously 
 undertake the tutelage of this territory and the defense of its inhab- 
 itants from wild and uncivilized tribes of nomadic peoples who have 
 preyed on the Armenians for manv generations. At all times we 
 must be subject to the league council, to which we must make annual 
 reports and which has the power explicitly to "define the degree of 
 authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the manda- 
 tory." 
 
 If it should still be thought desirable to accept the charge it must 
 not be forgotten that upon well-established principles of law, if the 
 Congress should accept from the council of the league a mandate for 
 Armenia, either by act of Congress or by joint resolution, or make 
 an appropriation to carry out the mandate, such action may amount 
 to an unreserved ratification of the covenant of the League of Nations, 
 and will certainly create an estoppel which will prevent the Govern- 
 ment from denying that it is subject to the council of the League of 
 Nations. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 THE COVENANT OP THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. 
 
 Article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations contains these 
 provisions: 
 
 To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased 
 to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which 
 are inhabited by the peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous 
 
2 MANDATORY FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 conditions of the modern world there should be applied the principle that the well- 
 being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that 
 securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this covenant. 
 
 The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of 
 such peoples should be intrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, 
 their experience, or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility 
 and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them 
 as mandatories on behalf of the league. 
 
 The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development 
 of the people, the geographical situation of the territoiy, its economic conditions, and 
 other similar circumstances. 
 
 Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a 
 stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provision- 
 ally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative adA'ice and assistance by a 
 mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these com- 
 munities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the mandatory. 
 
 In every case of mandate the mandatory shall render to the council an annual 
 report in reference to the territory committed to its r.'harge. 
 
 The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the mandatory 
 shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the league, be explicitly defined 
 in each case by the coimcil. 
 
 Vattel thus defines the word "treaty": 
 
 A treaty, in Latin foedus, is a compact made with a view to the public welfare 
 by the superior power, either for perpetuity, or for a considerable time. 
 
 All rulers of States have not a power to make public treaties by their own authority 
 alone; some are obliged to take the advice of a Senate, or of the representatives of 
 a nation. It is from the fundamental laws of each State that we must learn where 
 resides the authority that is capable of contracting with validity in the name of the 
 State. (Vattel's Law of Nations, p. 192, sees. 152-154.) 
 
 The word is thus defined by Chief Justice Marshall: 
 
 A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations. (Foster v. Neilson, 
 2 Pet. 253, 315.) 
 
 Fuller definitions have been given by oiu- Supreme Court: 
 
 An agreement or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, entered into 
 by agents appointed for that purpose, and duly sanctioned by the supreme power 
 of the respective parties. (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 60.) 
 
 An agreement, league, or rontra': t between two or more nations or sovereigns, 
 formally .signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly rartfied by the 
 soveieigns or the"su])reme ]>ower of each State. In its essence it is a contract. It 
 differs from an ordinary contract only in being an agreement between indei>endent 
 States instead of private parties. (Fourteen Diamond Rings, 183 U. S. 170, 182; 
 38Cy.^962.) 
 
 There can be no question under these authorities that a treaty is 
 nothing more or less than a contract between sovereign States; 
 and it necessarily follows the laws governing contiacts between 
 private parties also govern treaties. The officers who negotiate 
 treaties are simply agents of the State; and the law of principal and 
 agent applies to them, as to private agents. Their irregular or 
 unauthorized acts are subject to the law of ratification; and to 
 ratifications which may have been irregular or informal, the courts 
 have very properly applied the law of estoppel. 
 
 The treaty of peace with Germany was negotiated and signed on 
 the part of the United States of America, or in its own language, 
 "the President of the United States of America, by the honorable 
 Woodrow Wilson, President of the ITnited States, acting in his 
 own name and by his own proper authority: the honorable Robert 
 Lansing, Secretary of State; the honorable Henry White, formerly 
 ambassador extraordina j'y -i ftn - d - j»k ) ia:]> ^teHtria?-y,>a£ the United States 
 LlBRARr OF GONdRESl 
 
 APR 6-1921 
 
 DOCUiVjfeNTS iViVt4*ION 
 
>k>. 
 
 \/\ ^"y^ mandatory for ARMENIA. 
 
 at Rome and Paris; the honorable Edward M. House; Gen. Tasker H. 
 Bliss, military representative of the United States on the supreme 
 wa^' council." 
 
 It was presented by these negotiators to the President for ap- 
 proval and was by him referred to the Senate of the United States 
 for ratification, where it failed of ratification by a two-thirds vote. 
 
 These plenipotentiaries or commissioners, whether officers or not, 
 were merely agents of the United States, possessing such power of 
 negotiating as had been expressly granted them; and to them and 
 all of their acts the common law of agency must be applied. 
 
 In the words of Mr. Justice Brewer: 
 
 All officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, are but agents with 
 delegated powers, who mnst act within legally prescribed limitations. United States 
 V. Maxwell Land-Grant Co., 21 Fed. 19, 23.) 
 
 The general principles governing the relation of principal and agent to each other 
 apply in the case of Government agencies. (39 Cyc. 706.) 
 
 A public office is an agency for the State, and the person whose duty it is to per- 
 form this agency is a public officer. (Clark r. Stanley, 66 N. C. 59; Throop Pulalic 
 Officers, section's; 39 Cyc. 706.) 
 
 So far as the United States is concerned, the treaty of Versailles is 
 not now binding, having failed of ratification by the Senate as pro- 
 vided in the Constitution. It is to be seen whether under the law of 
 agency it is still susceptible of ratification by some legal method not 
 provided in the treaty-making section of the Constitution. 
 
 EATIFICATION. 
 
 Ratification is thus defined : 
 
 The doctrine of ratification presents at once one of the most imique and characteris- 
 tic chapters in the law of agency, and also one of the most important. The idea that 
 one who was not actually a party to a contract — though he was one nominally — may 
 actually become one by some subsequent act of his own without new consideration or 
 the assent of the other party; or that one who was not really a participant in a trespass 
 or other wrong — though it was done on his account — may become responsible for it 
 subsequently merely by assenting to it, would, as has been stated, seem ver>^ strange, 
 if it had not"^become so familiar. 
 
 It is, however, a very old idea. The Roman law had manifestations of it. Ij; 
 appears at an early date in our English law. The French civil code and the German 
 civil code recognize and to some extent regulate it. In the Scotch law it is usually 
 termed ' ' homologation . ' ' 
 
 Ratification may briefly be defined as the subsequent adoption and affirmance by 
 one person of an act which another, without authority, has previously assumed to do 
 for him while purporting to act as his agent. {Alechem on Agency, sees. 345, 347.) 
 
 It may be important here to appreciate the difference between 
 ratification and estoppel. The same author has well stated it, as 
 follows : 
 
 Ratification, moreover, dilTers f^rom estoppel, though they are often A-ery closely 
 a-^sof'iated. Estoppel requires thai the party alleging it shall have done something or 
 omitted to do something, in reliance on the other party's conduct, by which he will 
 now be prejudiced if the facts are shown to be different from, those ui^on which he 
 relied. Ratification rerjuires no such change of condition or prejudice; if the principal 
 ratifies, the other party may simply avail himself of it. As soon as ratification takes 
 place, the act stands as an authorized one, and not merely as one who've effect the prin- 
 cipal may be estopped to deny. If there be ratification, there is no occasion to resort 
 to estoppel. There may, however, be cases in which one may be e=;topped to deny 
 that he has ratified'. 
 
 The difference in effect may be striking; ratification is retroactive, estoppel operates 
 upon that done after.^he act and in reliance upon it; ratification makes the whole 
 act good from the besjmning, while estoppel may only extend to so much as can be 
 shown to be affected by the estopping conduct. " dMechem on Agency, se;-. 349.) 
 
4 MANDATORY FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 The same author has this to say as to ratificatioii by the State: 
 
 Beginning with the highest grade of organization known, it is settled that thi- State 
 not only may have agents, binding it by virtue of a previous authorization, but it 
 may also inrur liability subsequently by ratifyinsi acts and fontracts made on its 
 behalf (Mechem on Auenfy. sec 'MU\.) 
 
 The legislature may ratify an unauthorized conlract made by a State officer unless 
 in contravention of the constitution, and a portion of a contract may be so ratified 
 without ratif\'ing it all. The ratification can only be b\- the legislature, and only 
 by a law passed by both branches of the legislature; and the act of ratification must 
 be so explicit and definite as to show an intention to recognize and adopt the unau- 
 thorized contract. It is not necessary, however, that the ratification should be in 
 direct terms. It may be effected by legislation recognizing the act as valid. Thus, 
 bringing suit on the contract may amount to a ratification, and an appropriation of 
 money for the payment of a claim arising under the contract may be so made as to 
 constitute a ratification, and the State mav also ratify a contract bv taking advantage 
 of it. (36 Oyc, 879.) 
 
 Ill the history of our Government, treaties have frequently been in 
 effect, ratified by the Government, after the Senate had rejected them. 
 The annexation of Texas is a well-known instance. The Republic 
 of Texas achieved its independence from Mexico in 1836. April 12, 
 1844, a treaty was signed at Washington with the Re])ublic of Texas 
 providing for the annexation of Texas to the Union. June 8, 1844, 
 this treaty was rejected by the Senate by an adverse vote of 35 to 16, 
 more than two-thirds of the Senators having voted against it. March 
 1, 1845, a joint resolution was approved consenting to the erection 
 of the territory rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas into 
 a new State, and Texas, having accepted and complied with the con- 
 ditions of the resolution, was admitted by a joint resolution approved 
 December 29, 1845, as a State into the Union. (Crandall, Treaties, 
 p. 135; IV Richardson's Messages, 386.) 
 
 Much the same circumstances surrounded the annexation of the 
 Territory of Hawaii. An annexation treaty had been negotiated by 
 President Harrison, which was withdrawn by President Cleveland in 
 April, 1893. This treaty was returned to the Senate for its ivpproval 
 by President McKinley, after being signed at Washington Jime 16, 
 1897. This treaty was ratified by the Hawaiian Legislature, but not 
 by our Senate, and the cession was accepted and confirmed and the 
 treaty ratified on the part of the United States by a joint resolution 
 approved July 7, 1898. (30 Stat. L. 750; 2 Supp. R. S. U. S. 895; 
 Crandall on Treaties, p. 139.) 
 
 Many other instances might be stated. 
 
 ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 There is, however, the highest authority for the proposition that 
 the State ma}^ be estopped and is generally bound by an estoppel. 
 This is assuredly true of an estoppel by deed or legislative act. In 
 Fletcher v. Peck (6 Cranch. 83, 137) the Supreme Court considered 
 the case where the State of Geor<^-ia was held estopped by the act 
 of its legislature, Chief Justice Marshall saying: 
 
 A contract executed is one in which the object of the contract is performed; and 
 this, says Blackstone, differs in nothing from a grant. The contract between Georgia 
 and the purchasers was executed by the grant. A contract executed, as well as one 
 which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties. A grant, in its own 
 nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor and implies a con- 
 tract not to reassert that right. A party is therefore always estopped by hi ■ own 
 grant. 
 
MANDATORY FOR ARMENIA. 5 
 
 Stephen Girard had devised the bulk of his estate for charitable 
 purposes, and the Legislature of Pennsylvania had passed two acts 
 to enable the city of Philadelphia to accept and execute certain 
 trusts under the will, when it was attacked in the courts by the heii-s 
 at law charg-ing the incapacity of the city to accept the trusts so 
 created, among various allegations. In the opinion of th.e Supreme 
 Court of the .United States Mr. Justice wStory, speaking for the court 
 after quoting from the two acts referred to, says: 
 
 Here, then, there is a positive authority conferred upon the city authorities to aei 
 upon the trusts under the will, and to administer the same through the instrumentality 
 of agents appointed by them. No doubt can then be entertained that the legislature 
 meant to affirm the entire validity of those trusts, and the entire competency of the 
 corporation to take and hold the property devised upon the trusts named in the will. 
 
 It is true that this is not a judicial decision, and entitled to full weight and con- 
 fidence as such. But it is a legislative exposition and confirmation of the competencv 
 of the corporation to take the property and execute the trusts; and, if those trusts 
 were valid in point of law, the legislature would be estopped thereafter to contest the 
 -competency of the corporation to take the property and execute the trusts, either 
 upon a quo warranto or any other proceeding, by which it should seek to devest the 
 property, and invest other trustees with the execution of the trusts upon the gi'ound 
 of any supposed incompetency of the corporation. (Vidal v. Girard 's Executors, 
 2 How. 126, 191.) 
 
 To much the same effect, see Branson v. Wirth (17 Wall, 82, 42). 
 
 By the act of October 30, 1794, the legislature (of Vermont) granted to the town of 
 Berlin, forever, the use of this land for the benefit of the town. The State thereby 
 parted with all the interest it had in these lands and is estopped thereby from claiming 
 any right thereto. That the doctrine of estoppel applies to a State as well as to 
 private persons can not be questioned. It was so considered by the Supreme Court 
 ■of Massachusetts in the case of Commonwealth v. Pejepscut Proprietors, 10 Mass. 155. 
 ■(Vermont v. Society for Propagation of Gospel. 2 Paine, 545: 28 Fed. Cas. 1157.) 
 
 In another like case, Circuit Judge Walter Q. Gresham, at one time 
 Secretary ot State, uses the following language: 
 
 Resolute good faith should charac terize the conduct of States in their dealings with 
 individuals, and there is no reason, in morals or law, that will exempt them from the 
 doctrine of estoppel. Commonwealth c. Andre, S Pick. 224; Commonwealth r. 
 Pejepscut Proprietors, 10 J\Iass. 155; People v. Society, 2 Paine 545; State v. Bailey, 
 19 Ind. 452; People v. Mavnard, 15 Mich. 4(53; ('ahn r. Barnes, 5 Fed. 32(5. (Indiana 
 r. Milk. 11 Fed. :«9, 397;\see also 1(5 Cyc. 714.) 
 
 To the effect that the State is subject to the law of estoppel see the 
 following additional cases: Stone v. Bank of Kentucky (174 U. S. 
 799), Cunningham v. Shanklin ((iO Ca. 118), State ex rel. Smyth v. 
 Kennedy (60 Nebr. 300), State v. Ober (34 La. Ann. 359), State v. 
 Taylor (28 La. Ann. 4(i0), St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeier (7 Wall. 
 272), Chicago & St. P. M. & O. R. Co. v. Douglas Countv (184 Wis. 
 197, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1074). 
 
 The law being as stated, it necessarily follows that, if the Congress 
 accepts from the Council of the League of Nations a mandate for 
 Armenia either by act or by joint resolution, or makes any appropria- 
 tion to carry out the purpose of the mandate referred to, such action 
 may amoimt to a ratification of the covenant of the League of Nations 
 without any reservation whatever; and certainly will estop both the 
 Congress and the Nation from denying that the Nation is subject to 
 the council of the League of Nations, wholly without regard to the 
 question of its right to representation in the council and the league, 
 -and any rights it may be supposed to have acquired by the treaty 
 of Versailles. 
 
b MANDATORY FOR ARMBNIA. 
 
 WHAT IS A MANDATORY? 
 
 The President has urged the Congress to accept for the United 
 States an assignment by the representatives of the League of Nations 
 as mandatory for Aj-menia. 
 
 The covenant of the League of Nations, by article 22, contemphites 
 general!}^ protectorates for territories ''inhabited by the peoples not 
 yet able to stand by themselves," providing "that the tutelage of 
 such peoples should be intrusted to advanced nations, who by reason 
 of their resources, their experience, or their geographical position 
 can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept 
 it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as manda- 
 tories in behalf of the league." 
 
 Certain duties are imposed by the covenant on the mandatories, 
 clearly manifesting that all mandatories are subject to the council. 
 
 The following statement of duties may be quoted: 
 
 111 every case of mandate, the maBdatory shall render to the council an annual 
 report in reference to the territory committed to its charge. 
 
 The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the manda- 
 tory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the league, be explicitly 
 defined in each case by the council. 
 
 A permanent commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual 
 reports of the mandatories and to advise the council on all matters relating to the 
 observances of the mandates. 
 
 The very name "mandatory" is unfamiliar. Under another spell- 
 ing the word has been defined by our Supreme Court : 
 
 Persons who have gratuitously agreed to perform certain duties, and who are- 
 therefore bound to applv ordinary skill and diligence, but no more. (Briggs v. 
 Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132,''l48.) 
 
 The law of mandatum is of Roman origin and is analogous to the 
 modern law of agency. The name has survived in the Louisiana 
 Mandate, the French Mandat, the Italian and Spanish Mandato. 
 The principle also exists under the German civil code. 
 
 Although the Roman mandatum was agency without remunera- 
 tion, its fundamental rules as to the scope, revocation, and dissolu- 
 tion of an agent's authority underlie the modern law of all agency, 
 (Sherman, Roman Law in the Modern World, sec. 800.) 
 
 One feature is especially worthy of mention. The prmcipal may 
 revoke the agent's authority at any time; but, while the agent may 
 resign or renounce his authority, the resignation must not be untimely; 
 if the renunciation is made at a time when the principal can not 
 accomplish his object without suffering a detriment, the latter can 
 bring an action at law against the agent. (Ibid., sec. 803.) 
 
 In Briggs v. Spauldmg (141 U. S. 132, 145), speaking of directors' 
 liability. Fuller, Chief Justice, says, quoting Judge Sharswood in a 
 Pennsylvania case : 
 
 They are undoubtedly said in many authorities to be trustees, but that, as I appre- 
 hend, is only in a general sense, and we term an agent or any other bailee intrusted 
 vvdth the care and management of the property of another. It is certain that they are 
 not technical trustees. They can only be regarded as mandatories, persons who have 
 gratuitously undertaken to perform certain duties, and who are therefore bound to 
 apply ordiiiary skill and diligence, but no more. fSpering's App. 71 Pa. St. 11, 20; 
 Marshall r. Nashville Rv. Co., 118 Tenn. 254; 9 L. R. A. (X. S.) ]'24ii; 12 Ann. ('as. 
 675.) 
 
MANDATORY FOR ARMENIA. 7 
 
 It will be observed that with characteristic ambiguity the President 
 in his message speaks of the conference of statesmen now sitting at 
 San Remo for the purpose of working out the details of peace with the 
 Central Powers as the "Council at San Remo" making the offer; and 
 urges "the acceptance of the invitation now formally and solemnly 
 extended to us by the council at San Remo," and that in his message 
 he quotes from the covenant of the league. The offer, in fact, comes 
 from a conference of the three premiers of England, France, and Italy 
 at San Remo, whose "definite appeal" to this Government to accept 
 the mandate for Armenia appears to be simply in the nature of an 
 inquiry whether if the mandate is offered by the league council the 
 American Congress will accept the mandate and bear the entire 
 burden of acceptance. 
 
66th Congress, ) 
 
 M Session, j 1 Part 2. 
 
 MANDATE FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 June 4, 1920. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. Flood, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, submitted the 
 
 following 
 
 MINORITY VIEWS. 
 
 [To accompany S. Con. Res. 27.] 
 
 Senate concurrent resolution 27: 
 
 Resolved by the Senate {the House of Representatives concurring), That the Congress 
 hereby respectfully declines to grant to the Executive the power to accept a mandate 
 over Armenia, as requested by the message of the President dated May 24, 1920. 
 
 The purpose of this concurrent resolution is to preclude the Presi- 
 dent of the United States from accepting the mandate for Armenia. 
 The text of the resolution goes far beyond that. Its language is a 
 direct, deliberate, gratuitous insult to the head of the Nation. It 
 not only withholds authority to the President to accept a request 
 made to him by the supreme council for a people in whom America 
 and Americans always have had a peculiar and special interest, but 
 it injects the spirit of political partisanship into a question of im- 
 portance to peace and civilization and flings an affront to the Presi- 
 dent. 
 
 Tlie minority members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs sup- 
 ported a resolution as a substitute for the Senate resolution, which 
 provided that Congress should not pass upon the request of the 
 President to be given authority to accept a mandate for i\j-menia 
 until treaties of peace have been ratified by the Central Powers. 
 They proposed that more time be permitted for mature stud}^ -of the 
 subject before Congress shall take such action as would render recon- 
 sideration of the matter impossible. There are many people who 
 faithfully reflect lofty American ideals whose views apparently have 
 not been taken into consideration. 
 
 This question should not be decided arbitrarily and peremptorily. 
 There should be opportunity, when the question of ratification of the 
 peace treaties is finally disposed of, to determine, unhampered by 
 any premature action, whether the American people should have the 
 opportunity of assisting in bringing about a suitable government in 
 Aj-menia. Congress at this time is not prepared to exercise a snap 
 
"L MANDATE FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 judgment foreclosing any action in behalf of Armenia. The United 
 States is a world power, and it, among all the nations of the earth, 
 should be the last to shirk a serious responsibility. 
 
 There is a great deal of confusion and misinterpretation regarding 
 the scope and effect of the proposed mandate for Armenia. It 
 does not entail the wide scope of expenditures and responsibilities 
 indicated by the report of Gen. Harbord, so often referred to in the 
 discussion of this subject. The Armenian mandate would apply 
 only to appr< ximately one-seventh of the area contemplated by 
 Gen. Harbord. The proposed mandate does not mean involving 
 this country in war. It does not mean interference in the slightest 
 way with the integrity of the territory of Russia. It does not mean 
 that the United States by accepting such a mandate would come 
 under the League of Nations. It does not mean that the United 
 States would in any sense be subordinate or responsible to any other 
 nation. 
 
 The effect of a mandate wovld be to make the United States an 
 administrative and fiscal adviser of the Armenian people with a 
 view to preserving to civilization a count r}" in which millions of 
 American people are sentimentally, pecuniarily, religiously, or other- 
 wise interested. Armenia by its natural growth would evolve its 
 (vwn reclamation into normal conditiems. The mandate as proposed 
 c(»ntemplates a definite expressicm, by definite act and not by mere 
 words, of the special interest of the United States in a people for 
 whom in the past the American people have contributed many 
 millions of dollars, for whom relief organizations have been created 
 in the past to put into effect the warm sym])athetic interest America, 
 feels for Armenia, and in whose country the United States has 
 millions of dollars of property interests., Such a mandate would be 
 a powerful deterrent to any aggressive ambitions of neighboring 
 States toward the Armenia that is so close to the hearts of many 
 Americans. A mandate would redeem the reputation of the Gov- 
 ernment and people of the United States for consistency in their 
 declarations with respect to Armenia. 
 
 Much of the opposition to the mandate for Armenia has been 
 based upon misconceptions growing out of Gen. Harbord's report. 
 Gen. Harbord approached the subject in the spirit of a military 
 commander with a broad perspective, with ideal and perfect con- 
 ditions as a standard and with a view to building that devastated 
 and depopulated country — preyed upon by its great enemy, the 
 Turks, the allies of the countries with which the United States was 
 at war — to a complete enlightened condition comparable to con- 
 ditions among the greater powers of the world. He had in mind a 
 mandate over Transcaucasia and all of the Ottoman Empire (except 
 Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Hedjaz, and Thrace). This would 
 hkve approximated an area of 343,000 square miles while the Armenia 
 contemplated in the present proposal of a mandate embraces only 
 56,000 square miles. 
 
 The Armenia involved in the proposal for a mandate now under 
 cUscussion is made up of the following regions: 
 
 (1) The area in Transcaucasia under the effective control of the 
 present Armenian Government — about 20,000 square miles. 
 
 (2) The area of the four former Turkish vilayets (Van, Erzerum, 
 Bitlis and Trebizond), mentioned in section 6, article 89 of the 
 
 •r* Af S)« 
 
MANDATE FOR ARMENIA. 3 
 
 French text of the Turkish peace treaty (excludiiio; non-Armenian 
 sections) — about 86,000 s(|uare mik^s. 
 
 The estimates are that there would be a total of approximately 
 3,000,000 people in tlie future Armenian state. 
 
 The proposal of a mandate submitted to (^ongress does not mean 
 an embarkation on the great expenditures which the Harbord report 
 tended to indicate. Tlie militaiy help to be extended to Armenia 
 would not be as formidable as has been claimed. On the contrary, 
 the presence of any number of American soldiers in Armenia, and tlie 
 showing of the American flag there, doubtless would have a restrain- 
 ing effect on the neighbors of the Armenians and would tend to avert 
 any fighting. 
 
 It siiould be borne in mind in this connection that — 
 
 (a) There is an Armenian army which, when properly equipped 
 and officered, can defend the Armenian boundaries and secure order 
 within the country ; 
 
 (b) According to the Turkish treat}^, the Turkish territory adjacent 
 to Armenia would be demilitarized'; and 
 
 (c) Obligatory military service in Turkey is to be suppressed and 
 the Turkish Army reduced to a maximum force of 50,000, including 
 the const abul a ry . 
 
 If the United States, giving definite and real expression to its 
 sympathetic interest in the Armenian people, should accept a man- 
 date for Armenia, it would at the same time control the finances of 
 Armenia. Ail the Armeniaji revenues would thus pass through the 
 hands of an American controller and the United States Government 
 naturally would be in a position to make certain that the Armenian 
 revenues would reimburse any sums spent by the United States 
 under such a mandate. 
 
 President Wilson has expressed the American feeling of deep 
 interest in Armenian aft' airs in saying that; 
 
 The sympathy for .\rmenia among our people has sprung from untainted consciences, 
 pure Christian faith, and an earnest desire to see Christian people succored in their 
 time of suffering. 
 
 The intimate relations between America and Armenia date back 
 to about 1830, when the American religious and educational work 
 began in the Near East. It was through the pioneer American 
 missionaries that America learned of the existence of the Christian 
 people of Armenia. American missionary enterprise among the 
 Armenians, at first almost entirely religious, developed into educa- 
 tional work, and these two branches of American enterprise have 
 created a deep and lasting influence over the entire system of the 
 Armenian religious and educational organizations. 
 
 A mandate for Armenia would be only a continuation of the 
 moral, intellectual, and sympathetic interest which America has 
 exercised on the Armenians for nearly a century. The influence of 
 American educational institutions among the Armenians always has 
 been strong and far-reaching. Thousands of Armenian children 
 have been educated in the numerous American colleges, high schools, 
 and other educational institutions in the Near East. In these 
 schools broad, sound American education is given and practically in 
 every one of them, according to the grade of the schools, a certain 
 amount of English is taught and textbooks in the English language 
 are used. 
 
4 MANDATE FOR ARMENIA. 
 
 Many of the graduates of these American coUeges have become 
 teachers in the Armenian schools and colleges. A large number of 
 those who studied in the Ai^meniah schools have come to the United 
 States, many settling as useful American citizens, and others, after 
 further studies in American universities or after learning some trade 
 in America, have retm*ned to Ai-menia with stronger American ideas 
 and ready to spread throughout Armenia the American ideas as they 
 received them in this country. With American education and 
 American ideas, American mode of living has been introduced among 
 certain classes of Ai-menians, followed by the natural desire on then* 
 part to use American equipment and supplies in the various arts and 
 crafts of Armenia. 
 
 Besides these activities, American medical mission work, with 
 numerous American hospitals and dispensaries, has been instituted 
 by Americans in Ai-menia and American textbooks, newspapers, and 
 other publications have been given wide circulation in Armenia. 
 
 Americans have rendered notable relief work in Armenia, particu- 
 larly after the Turkish massacres of Armenians in 1895-96 and 
 1915-16. A large number of American men and women, often at 
 the risk of their own lives, did everything humanly possible to find 
 food, clothing, and shelter for the sm'vivors of the massacres of 
 1895-96; they procured cattle, seed, and agricultural implements for ' 
 the peasants and they founded orphanages for the thousands of 
 Armenian orphans. They induced the Ai-menians to rebuild their 
 destroyed homes, schools, and churches. The Americans again were 
 in the fore in the relief work in the subsequent massacres. The ? 
 American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief raised millions 
 of dollars and the American people never wavered in cheerfully con- 
 tributing to the Armenians. 
 
 Through American effort and generosity since the year 1915, thou- 
 sands of Armenian lives have been saved and children and women 
 rescued from bondage and from conditions worse than bondage. It 
 may be almost said that the creation of the Armenian State would 
 not have been possible but for America and its unflagging, unstinted, 
 sympathetic acts. : 
 
 Ever since 1830 there has been a strong bond between the American 
 and Armenian peoples. Both through the individualistic character 
 of the Armenians, through their long contact with Americans, the 
 Armenians, more than &nj other people in the Near East, are ready 
 to follow American leadership, American advice, and welcome Amer- 
 ican help and American cooperation. Armenians know America and 
 have faith and confidence in our institutions. For 90 years they have ; 
 experienced American religious and educational guardianship. Such 
 a mandate as that which has been under discussion would be merely 
 a consummation of American work begun 90 years ago. Many of ; 
 the great American religious denominations, ecclesiastical and other ' 
 organizations in this country, have expressed, through resolutions 
 and otherwise sent to the President of the United States and to the 
 Department of State, their strong desire to see the United States j 
 take a mandate over Armenia or to extend a helping hand toward j 
 the Armenian people. ' 
 
 H. D. Flood. , 
 
 Chas. M. Stedman. I 
 J. Chas. Linthicum. ; 
 
 o 
 
 u 77 
 
 -.^79ili 
 

 .^;5, 
 
 ^ ->^^*- "^^