Foreign Relations 1

Since there is so much information in these Foreign Relations books I decided to post them as I have: a certain amount, rather than hit you all at once with a massive amount that you would not take the time to read. I will make no comments whatsoever as to what I think it all means. I will add comments of fact, where needed, at the end of the article. I will bold words that you need to take the time to research yourself so that it can be fully understood as to what has happened to the present thoughts of people today. Vol. I is short on what I wanted to bring out. Vol. II has 740 pages out of 769 totally devoted to China. I will not get into that, except to say that US big business interests is why China had so many treaties; wheeling and dealing so that big businesses, like the Standard Oil of the Rockefellers, could protect their interests from Japan taking control in case of war. Vol. III is the most important and there are many pages that will be posted.

The pages are as they appear in the book. They are not run together but kept as their separate page. Footnotes are in ( ) and listed at the end of each page

One must remember all these proceedings were carried to the UN when the UN assumed all the League of Nations documents. Basically the UN is a glorified version of the defunct League of Nations that was so corrupt it self destructed. Yet the players remained the same when creating the United Nations which means you still have the corruption just under another name.

71st Congress,
3d Session
House Document
No. 825

Papers Relating to the
Foreign Relations
of the
United States
(In Three Volumes)
Volume I
United States
Government Printing Office Washington: 1945


500.C Covenant/62

The British Embassy to the Department of State

 In execution of the resolution of the Assembly of the League Nations of September 24th 1929, (26) a Committee met recently in to consider amending the Covenant of the League in order to it into harmony with the Pact of Paris. (27) The resolution of the Assembly declared that “it is desirable that the terms of the of the League should not accord any longer to members of a right to have recourse to war in cases in which that right has renounced by the provisions of the Pact of Paris.”
 The Committee produced a report dated March 8th 1930,(28) posing that amendments be made in certain articles of the These proposed amendments have been discussed by His Government in the United Kingdom and it has been decided to instruct the British Delegation at the next Assembly of the League Nations, subject to the concurrence of His Majesty’s Governments the Dominions, to support the inclusion of the proposed in the Covenant. This decision was brought to the notice of Secretary of State of the United States by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a letter dated April 8th, (28a) with which Mr. Henderson enclosed a copy of the report of the League Committee.
 From page 10 of the report it will be observed that amongst amendments the Committee proposed the addition of a new to Article 15 of the Covenant, entitled paragraph 7 bis. The effect of this new paragraph is to provide that in a dispute likely to lead to a rupture the Council of the League of Nations may by a majority ask for an advisory opinion on any point of law involved. In present state of the Covenant such an opinion can only be by unanimity.
 In Article 5 of the Protocol of Accession of the United States America (29) to the Protocol of signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice it is stated that: “With requesting an advisory opinion of the Court in any case covered by

(26) League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 75, Records of Tenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly, pp. 167-169.
(27) Treaty for the Renunciation of War, signed at Paris, August 27, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. x, p. 153.
(28) League of Nations, Report of the Committee for the Amendment of Covenant of the League of Nations In Order To Bring It Into the Pact of Paris (A.8.1930.V.).
(28a) Not printed.
(29) Foreign Relations, 1929, vol x, p. 53


the preceding paragraphs, there shall be attributed to an objection of the United States the same force and effect as attaches to a vote against asking for an opinion given by a Member of the League of Nations in the Council or the Assembly.”
  The effect of the adoption by the Assembly of the new paragraph to Article 15 of the Covenant will be to diminish the power of Members of the League to prevent an advisory opinion from the Court being requested, and will therefore similarly diminish the power of the United States in this respect, because if the paragraph is adopted the United States will not be able, as they would be if the proposed paragraph is rejected, to block any such request being made to the Court, seeing that the matter will be decided by a majority and not by unanimity.
  His Majesty’s Government are therefore anxious to ascertain whether the insertion of the proposed new paragraph 7 bis in Article 15 is likely adversely to affect the prospects of the Senate of the United States accepting the Protocol of Accession of the United States to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Although His Majesty’s Government have decided to support the inclusion of proposed amendments in the Covenant, the proposed new paragraph 7 bis can well be omitted without affecting the rest of the amendments, and should objection be taken to it in the United States, His Majesty’s Government would for their part be disposed to move the new paragraph 7 bis should not be accepted.

Washington, May 22, 1930.


500.C Covenant/62

The Department of State to the British Embassy
Aide M'emoire

  With reference to the inquiry which you made during your call on May 22, 1930, at the time the United States Senate reservations of January 27, 1926,(30) were formulated, there existed no provision in the Covenant specifically empowering the Council to request an advisory opinion from the Court by other than unanimous vote. The adoption an amendment to the Covenant specifically providing that the Council may request an advisory opinion from the Court by majority rather than unanimous vote in cases arising under Article 15, would effect a fundamental change in the situation which existed at the time the Senate reservations were formulated, as well as at the time the Protocol of Accession of the United States to the Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was signed.

Washington, May 27, 1930.

30 Foreign Relations, 1926, vol. x, p. 1.


500.C Covenant/65

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Western European
Affairs (Martinet)
[Washington,] May 27, 1930

  I handed Mr. Campbell, Counselor of the British Embassy, a memorandum in reply to a memorandum which the Ambassador left with the Secretary of State on May 92, 1930, on the subject of the amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations, concerning unanimity of the majority of the requests for advisory opinions. I pointed out to him that the point of the memorandum was that an such alteration of the Covenant would change the conditions under which the reservations of the Senate to the Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the World Court were made and that this was our only observation in the matter, as we did not, under any circumstances, wish to interfere with any action the members of the League of Nations might care to take with respect to altering the Covenant. I told him that I felt that the matter should not be given undue publicity and that the United States would not, under any circumstances, wish to be put in the position of preventing the League from carrying out its wishes in the matter.   Mr. Campbell said he understood fully and would report the matter immediately to the Ambassador.

J [ames] M [arriner]


462.00R296 Bank for International Settlements/71

The Charge in Switzerland (Moffat) to the Acting Secretary of State

No. 1336 Berne, March 5, 1936
[Received March 29.]

  Sir: Referring to my despatch No. 1308 of February 14, 1930, I have the honor to report that the convention concerning the Bank of International Payments (33) was ratified by the Swiss Federal Chambers on February 25, 1930. This took the form of the approval of two decrees, the one putting the convention into force insofar as Switzerland is concerned for fifteen years, the other prolonging the term of the convention for the life of the Bank. This second decree is subject to a referendary delay which expires on May 27; except for the improbable event of a demand for a national referendum, final

(31) For previous correspondence concerning the Bank for International Settlements, see Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. II, pp. 1032-1073, passim.
(32) Not printed.
(33) League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. civ, p. 441.


ratification of the convention for the duration of the Bank will have been on that date.

  Preparations are now afoot in Basel for opening the Bank on April 1. In the circumstances, and with a view to receiving advance rulings Department I respectfully request instructions as to:
  1. The nature of reports desired with regard to the work or position of the Bank.
  2. Whether the Consulate at Basel should cover such reporting or there are certain phases which the Department desires the Legation to follow.
  3. What attitude the Legation should adopt in the event that the American members of the Bank should request assistance.
  4. Whether the Legation should grant such American members facilities over and above customary courtesies accorded to Americans.

I have [etc.] President Moffat

462.00R296 Bank for International Settlements/86

The Acting Secretary of State to the Charge in Switzerland (Moffat)

No. 873 Washington, April 29, 1930.

  Sir: With reference to your despatch No. 1336 dated March 5, there is enclosed a copy of an instruction of this date to the American Consul at Basel regarding the Bank for International Settlements. (34) The Legation should exercise a general supervision over the Consulate’s execution of this instruction, carefully reviewing the Consulate’s reports and making to the Consul such suggestions as may seem appropriate..   It is presumed that the American members of the Board of Directors the Bank will report primarily to the American banking group interested in the establishment of the Bank and will not have occasion to request the assistance of the Legation in their capacity as Directors or officers of the Bank. They should be granted the customary courtesies accorded to all distinguished Americans. Any request from any special facilities over and above such courtesies should be carefully considered in each case and not treated as a matter of routine.

I am [etc.] J.P. Cotton

462.00R269 Bank for International Settlements/85

The Acting Secretary of State to the Consul at Basel (Hitch)

Washington, April 29, 1930.

  The Department has received the Consulate’s despatch No. 329 dated February 4, 1930(35) requesting instructions regarding the

(34) infra
(35) Not printed


attitude of the Consulate toward the Bank for Settlements.

  The establishment at Basel of so important an institution as the Bank for International Settlements will make it a particular of the Consul there to study the Bank and its operations; it may make it possible for the Consulate to submit valuable economic political reports; the Consul will naturally maintain the most possible relations with the Bank, its officers, directors and personnel however, the Consul is charged with no special mission toward the Bank and should avoid any attitude which might be misconstrued evidencing such a mission.
  The Department has hitherto designated an officer as an American Observer with the Reparation Commission; the succeeds to some of the functions of the Reparation Commission but not in a way that will admit of the participation of representatives in its activities. The United States is not a party to the international agreements pursuant to which the Bank is founded, nor will it have contractual relations with the Bank such as will be between the Bank and several other governments by the Trust Agreement (Annex VIII to The Hague Agreement of January 1930 (36). The United States has negotiated an agreement with Germany which contemplates direct payment by Germany of its indebtedness to the United States.(37) Similar arrangements are in force with the other European debtors of the United States. The Secretary of State on May 16, 1929, issued a statement (copy of which enclosed) (38) that the American Government will not permit any officials of the Federal Reserve System either to themselves serve or to select American representatives as members of the proposed International Bank.
  In some respects the position of the Consulate will not be dissimilar from that of the other Consulates at Basel. As stated in the preamble to the Constituent Charter of the Bank, the Bank is founded by Central Banks pursuant to a Plan 89 adopted by the Powers signatory to The Hague Agreement of January 1930. The Plan (Young Plan, paragraph 148) “recommended the creation of the Bank for International Settlements in order to provide machinery for the removal of the Reparation obligation from the political to the financial sphere." The Plan states (paragraph 72) that “the

(36) Agreement regarding the complete and final settlement of the question of reparations, signed at The Hague, January 20, 1930, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. civ, pp. 243, 328.
(37) See vol. III, pp. 106 ff.; for text of the agreement signed at Washington, June 23, 1930, see Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1930 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 341, or League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. civ, p. 121.
(38) Foreign Relations, 1929, vol. II, p. 1070.
(39) "See Great Britain, Cmd. 3343 (1929): Report of the Committee of Experts on Reparations, p. 10.


Bank excludes from its procedure all political influences” and again (paragraph 54) “its organization will be outside the field of political influences.” The British Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the of Commons February 20, 1930:
  “While His Majesty’s Government welcome the creation of the Bank for International Settlements, it is, as I have previously stated, a non political institution, and national Governments will not be concerned with the direction of the policy of the Board. Neither the action of individual directors, nor the action of a Central Bank under Article 20 of the Statutes requires the prior approval of the Treasury country to which the director of the Central Bank belongs …. There will be no Treasury representatives at Basel."

  In view of these antecedents and of the traditions of the Central Banks represented on the Board of Directors of the Bank, the Consul should avoid over-ambitious initiatives in informing himself regarding its operations.
  It is not known what reports the Bank will issue regarding its activities.
  It is presumed that on mere request, the Bank will furnish the Consulate in a routine way, such information and notices as it makes generally to other consulates and information agencies in Basel. While such routine information will probably receive wide publicity, the Department, and other Departments in Washington, will wish to build up files of information on the Bank which should include the texts of the more important formal announcements which Consulate can make available. The Consul will, of course, not refuse such additional economic information as comes to him, with due regard to the proprieties, through personal contacts in view of known interest of the United States Consular Service in economic reporting.
  In spite of the desire of the founders of the Bank to minimize influences, it is obvious that the operations of the Bank, particularly the annual election of Directors, will not be devoid of political interest. The Consul’s opportunities for observation and study may enable him to render reports in this regard which will be of interest both to the Department and to its several missions.

  The Consulate should address its despatches and reports regarding the International Bank to the Legation at Berne, which will forward to the Department and provide for their further distribution through the European Information Center at Paris and assure the Consulate the reciprocal delivery of information from other European missions.

I am [etc.] J.P. Cotton


The Present Secretary of Treasury, Lawrence Summers, is a officer of The Bank and The Fund as found in 60 Statutes at Large 1401 et seq.