tions of the 21 American Republics. Contributions are based on a scale of assessment which takes into account the contributions of the members of the United Nations which are located in the Western Hemisphere and the population of the different countries. In 1949 our share of the Pan American Union budget was approximately 72 percent. As a result of the position taken by our Government, the Council of the OAS has agreed that the United States percentage should be reduced to 66 percent in equal steps over the next 2 years. The committee wants to stress again that the matter of contributions, however, is not affected by the present Charter and is a separate problem being dealt with by our representative in the Council of the OAS.

11. COMMITTEE RESERVATION

During the committee consideration of the Charter much of the discussion centered upon the nature of certain provisions contained in part I of the treaty and the possible effect of some of them upon the reserved powers of the 48 States. These provisions provide, among other things, for cooperative effort among the American Republics with respect to certain social, economic, and cultural standards. Some committee members took the position that these provisions might be interpreted as imposing obligations upon the United States to enact legislation relating to matters reserved to the 48 States under the Constitution.

The State Department contended that the provisions of the Charter in question are very general in nature and represent merely a statement of the common ideals and aspirations of the American Republics. In subscribing to these general goals or standards, the United States does not assume any binding obligation to propose or enact any particular legislation.

Without endeavoring to go into these matters in detail, it is clear that the implications raised by this discussion go to the very roots of our Federal-State relationships. The recent decision of the California courts holding that the alien land law of 1920 is invalidated by certain provisions of the United Nations Charter underlines the fact that, as our world relationships become more complex, our treaty obligations will have to be examined with increasing care. In order to clarify the nature of the obligations assumed by the United States under the OAS Charter, the committee agreed that ratification should be recommended subject to a reservation. That reservation is designed to make perfectly clear that the provisions of the Charter do not enlarge the authority of the Federal Government with respect to the reserved powers of the States. The test of the reservation follows:

That the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Charter with the reservation that none of its provisions shall be considered as enlarging the powers of the Federal Government of the United States or limiting the powers of the several States of the Federal Union with respect to any matters recognized under the Constitution as being within the reserved powers of the several States.

**

*

12. CONCLUDING COMMENTS

*

There are three basic reasons why the committee favors ratification of the Charter at this time. In the first place, the committee and the Senate have consistently supported the idea of inter-American co

operation. There are many ties which bind the countries of the New World together the ties of geographic propinquity, common ideals, and love of freedom and independence, to mention only a few. With the aid of these ties, we have developed an effective association of free nations based upon the principles of sovereign equality, cooperative action, and nonintervention. Working together we have been able to maintain relative peace and freedom in a and freedom in a large and important region of the world. The committee is proud of this record and believes that we should do everything possible to foster it.

In fact, the Organization of the American States-created 50 years before the League of Nations-is the oldest general international organization of independent, sovereign nations in existence. Since 1890 it has reflected the mutual desire of the 21 American Republics for cooperative action and for peace. That mutual desire, which led to new world solidarity during two great wars, has again been demonstrated by the vigorous support which Latin America has given to United Nations action in Korea. It is entirely fitting that after all these years we should make a determined effort to consolidate the machinery and the principles we have developed and place them on a permanent treaty basis.

The second reason is a very practical one. The Organization of American States, pretty much like Topsy, has grown up in a relatively unorganized and haphazard way during the past 60 years. The reorganization contemplated in the Charter will give to the agency new strength and efficiency which is badly needed at this crucial time in world history.

In the third place, the forces of freedom must continue to show their determination, through cooperative action, to work together on behalf of peace. The committee believes that the Charter should be ratified. and put into full effect at an early date as a further manifestation of the political, economic and moral solidarity of the 21 American Republics.

200. SENATE CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, AUGUST 28, 1950 1 Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of Executive A, Eighty-first Congress, first session, the Charter of the Organization of American States, formulated at the Ninth International Conference of American States and signed at Bogota in the English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish languages on April 30, 1948, by the plenipotentiaries of the United States of America and by the plenipotentiaries of the other American republics, subject to the following reservation:

That the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Charter with the reservation that none of its provisions shall be considered as enlarging the powers of the Federal Government of the United States or limiting the powers of the several states of the Federal Union with respect to any matters recognized under the Constitution as being within the reserved powers of the several States.

1 Congressional Record (Daily Record), August 28, 1950, p. 13807.

B. Special and Technical Problems (1919–1955)

(1) Materials Adaptable to Mass Destruction

201. REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ON THE PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS, OR OTHER GASES, JUNE 9, 19261 The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, having had under consideration the protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare, signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, by representatives of the United States and of 29 other nations, recommends that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the said protocol. The protocol is in the following language:

The undersigned plenipotentiaries, in the name of their respective Governments: Whereas the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials, or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world; and

Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in treaties to which the majority of powers of the world are parties; and

To the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of international law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;

DECLARE: That the high contracting parties, so far as they are not already parties to treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to extend this prohibition to the use of bacteriological methods of warfare, and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration. The high contracting parties will exert every effort to induce other states to accede to the present protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Government of the French Republic, and by the latter to all signatory and acceding powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the Government of the French Republic.

The present protocol, of which the French and English texts are both authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear today's date.

The ratifications of the present protocol shall be addressed to the Government of the French Republic, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding powers.

The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic.

The present protocol will come into force for each signatory power as from the date of deposit of its ratification, and, from that moment, each power will be bound as regards other powers which have already deposited their ratifications.

The representative of the United States at Geneva in the negotiation of this treaty was Hon. Theodore E. Burton. I attach here his statement and his views on the protocol.

STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE E. BURTON

This protocol in its language substantially adopts article V of the treaty between the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, relating to the use of submarines and noxious gases in warfare, signed at Washington February 6, 1922, except that it adds a prohibition of the use of bacteriological methods of warfare. It may be said of the treaty of 1922 that it has not been ratified by all the signatories, though approved by the Senate. It is a matter of general knowledge that the obstacle preventing ratification was not the provision in regard to the use of noxious gases but that relating to the use of submarines. It is, however, understood that England, Japan, and Italy are ready to deposit ratifications.

Two points may be stressed: First, the United States had an unusual part in the bringing forward of this treaty at Geneva; second, it is in accordance with U. S. Congress. Senate. Proceedings of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 68th to 72d Congress. Senate Report No. 1, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session] Washington, 1934, pp. 95-99.

our settled policy. At the very beginning of the conference in May of last year the delegation from the United States suggested that they would present a proposition relating to asphyxiating gases. It was not easy to incorporate a provision in the general treaty because of the difficulty of discriminating between gases used for legitimate commercial purposes and those used for war. Again, at the beginning of the conference the secretariat of the League of Nations was opposed to acting upon any proposition not included in the agenda or draft treaty presented to the delegates. That opposition, however, was dissipated and the delegation from the United States offered as a separate proposal the treaty or protocol above set forth. It is reported that this proposition was received with more commendation than any other that was brought before the conference, and, after full consideration, it was adopted.

The delegation from the United States at Geneva had been instructed to act before leaving the United States, and when there was some hesitation as to the competence of the conference for the adoption of such a treaty a cablegram was received under which the President authorized the delegation to say to the conference that if no action be taken he would be willing to call a conference at Washington for the consideration of this special subject. It was stated that this would involve no very great difficulty as the phraseology for such an agreement was already in existence, and the negotiations could be conducted by the ministers or ambassadors of the various powers here in Washington. Thereupon the protocol was adopted as part of the work of the conference, and it was signed on the 17th of June 1925, by the representatives of 30 countries.

In the second place, such a prohibition is in accordance with our settled policy. Reference should be made to the action of the Conference for the Limitation of Armaments here in Washington in the winter of 1922-23. A general commission was appointed which reported that they differed in their conclusions, but the committee from our own country presented to the conference the following resolution, which is given on page 732 of the account of the Conference for the Limitation of Armament:

"Resolved, That chemical warfare, including the use of gases, whether toxie or nontoxic, should be prohibited by international agreement, and should be classed with such unfair methods of warfare as poisoning wells, introducing germs of disease, and other methods that are abhorrent in modern warfare." The report favoring this resolution was signed by Gen. John J. Pershing as chairman of the subcommittee on land armament of the advisory committee. The question was presented to the General Board of the United States Navy, and the following is the answer with comments:

"Question. Should gas warfare be prohibited?

'Answer. Yes.

"Comment 1. The United States would undoubtedly give up a material advantage if gas warfare were abolished. The resources and scientific development of this country place it in the front rank of nations in the ability to wage efficient gas warfare and insure an adequate supply of special gases. Nevertheless, its abolition would be popular in this country even though its effectiveness as a weapon in war has been clearly proved when employed under special conditions.

"2. The tendency of rules of modern warfare is toward restraint in the employment of weapons that produce unnecessary suffering. The limitations in the employment of the different weapons have that end in view. The dumdum bullet and the explosive bullet are well-known examples. Following this general principle, gases which produce unnecessary suffering should be prohibited.

"3. Gas warfare has a peculiar quality different from any method heretofore employed, in that, though directed toward a particular target, its destructive effect is not limited to that target, but passes beyond control of the belligerent agent and may involve a sacrifice of innocent lives over a wide area. On account of this peculiarity the use of gas which causes death is objectionable because not only the combatant is killed, a perfectly legitimate target, but many noncombatants may also be victims, and these innocent persons may deliberately be made the objects of gas attack by unscrupulous belligerents. Lethal gases should therefore be prohibited."

In conclusion, it was stated:

"7. The General Board believes it to be sound policy to prohibit gas warfare in every form and against every objective, and so recommends."

One of the strongest advocates of such a prohibition was Senator Root, a member of the committee. In accordance with these recommendations, a treaty was signed by the five leading nations represented at the Washington Conference.

At the meeting of the Conference on Central American Affairs, held at Washington December 4, 1922, to February 7, 1923, the five States of Central America were represented, and during all their deliberations Secretary Charles Evans Hughes acted as presiding officer. This Conference, although its various conventions were not signed by the United States, was held in pursuance of an invitation sent by our Government, and our Secretary of State and Mr. Sumner Welles were in constant attendance, making suggestions and participating in the deliberations.

Included in a convention for the limitation of armaments, no. IV, page 339, of the report of the proceedings, there is this provision as article V:

"The contracting parties consider that the use in warfare of asphyxiating gases, poisons, or similar substances, as well as analogous liquids, materials, or devices, is contrary to humanitarian principles and to international law, and obligate themselves by the present convention not to use said substances in time of war."

In the meeting of the Fifth International Conference of American States, held at Santiago, Chile, March 25, to May 3, 1923, attended by our present Secretary of State, Ambassador Fletcher, ex-Senators Pomerene, Saulsbury, and others, a resolution was adopted-appendix to report of the delegates of the United States of America to the Fifth International Conference of American States to the following effect:

"The Fifth International Conference of American States resolves:

To recommend that the Governments reiterate the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating or poisonous gases and all analogous liquids, materials, or devices, such as are indicated in the Treaty of Washington dated February 6, 1922."

It has been alleged against this treaty that the employment of these gases is more humane than some other agencies of destruction. This general statement has been vigorously contradicted. These poisonous gases have proved most malignant in the destruction of human life and in creating permanent disability. It affords an additional means for killing and maiming people, and it may well be maintained that it should be our aim to limit as far as possible additional methods for the destruction of human life, particularly noncombatant civilians, women, and children, whose lives the internationally accepted rules of warfare have been designed to protect.

Again, if the United States is interested in the cause of disarmament this must be classed as one of the most offensive forms of warfare, and its abolition would be a step in the direction of peace. It is to be noted that the treaty will be binding only on those who join in it, and the Chemical Warfare Service of the Government will still have to be maintained, at least for the present, to carry on experiments and make adequate preparation in case of war with a nonsignatory power. This was recognized in the last military appropriation bill for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1927. Other nations are waiting for the United States to act, maintaining that such a treaty or protocol would be ineffective unless the United States should join.

As regards the final exchange of ratifications-as in the case of the Washington treaty on the same subject-it may be desirable to await the action of other nations, but the committee regards action by the Senate, in the form of advice and consent, as desirable at this time, not merely as a step in the direction of limiting the horrors of war and promoting possible measures for disarmament, but as in accordance with the record of the United States upon this and similar questions. LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, May 28, 1926.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have learned today that in the hearings on Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs opposition developed on the subject of the conclusion or ratification of the protocol on poison gas and bacteriological warfare concluded at Geneva on June 17, 1925. I therefore desire, for your information, to set forth the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this protocol.

The instructions to the American delegation to the International Conference on the Traffic in Arms, which met in Geneva on May 4, 1925, were elaborated in consultation with such delegates as the War and Navy Departments had chosen to name, and contained the following paragraph:

"In connection with the definition of categories, or wherever in the convention it might be considered most appropriate, the Department would desire to see an article inserted absolutely prohibiting international trade in asphyxiating, poison