The New York herald., 1921-03-26
BULLITT COMMENTS
ON LANSING BOOK
Open Letter Criticises Former.
Secret&ry's Position on
Treaty Ratification.
REVELATIONS TOO LATE
Cites His Own Testimony to,
Senate When Issue Was
in Doubt.

The follotoi,io is an open l6Nter ad-
dressed to Robert Lansing, foa a,ser Sec
retdry OF State, By William %. B1lhtt
formerly of the Department. of State
0rtd the American Commissie A. to Nego-
tidte Peace, 4, reDly to CT frt1fr criti-
ctsnss n, Mr.. Lanstng's book. "The Peace
Negotiattons':
"My Dear Mr.. Ldnstng:
Il regret that / cannoif allow certain
statements In your book, "rhe Peace Me-
gotiations.' to pass with out comment
You quote. as expire ssing your views
concerning the treaty, at the time OF
your conversation of day 10, 1919, with
me, a lengthy men opandum Of yours
dated May s, 1919, the general tenor OF
which is expressed m the following pass
age:
"This war was, fought by the United
States to destroy forever the conditions
which produced. it. These cond itions
have not bee a destroyed They have
peen suppiar ted by other conditions,
equally PROD Elctive of hatred jealousy
and suspic' bn. In place of the Triple
Aihance End the Entente has arisen
the Quint nple Alliance, which is to rule
tne woril The victors in this war in
tend 10 impose their combined will upon
tne VI aquished and to subord mate all
inter kJts to their own
~ 40 IEuo lldL 10 please Io0 dIOuS6Q
pu,Aic opinion Of mankind and to
re Apond to the idealism OF the moralist
hey have surrounded the new alliance
with a halo and called It 'the League
OF Nations" but whatever 1t may be
called or however It may be disguised
1t is an alliance OF the FIVE great mill
tary Powers
You will note that in the entire
memorandum from which this is a rep
resentative excerpt you did not once
advocate ratihcations of the treaty nor
in any other memorandum written in
Paris and quoted in your book did you
advocate ratification of the treaty.
I'm your telegram to the President.
written some four months later and
made public in your book. you added
contrary statements, giving radically
different meaning to your words. You
said that although you had criticised
the treaty In your conversation with me,
you had followed your criticisms by
saying that nothing ought to be done
to prevent the speedy restoration of
peace by signing the treaty. and that
anything which was an obstacle to rati-
hcation was unfortunate. because we
ought to have peace as soon as possible
This telegram. written four months
after the event, Is the sole evidence upon
which you base an allegation that I.
possibly unintentionally' by
emitting the context. entirely changed
the meaning of your statements In our
conversation of May 10, 1919.
Comparison of Views.
II have compared this telegram of
yours of September 16. 1919. with your
memorandum Of May g. 1919, and with
the memorandum which ! dictated to
my secretary immediately after our con-
versation Of May 10. 1919. And / cam
not reconcile the statements in the tele-
gram. which four months later you sent
to the President, with either your MEM
orandum of May or my memorandum
of May 10. / find that my memoran-
dunn OF our conversation contains among
others. precisely the same criticisms Of
the treaty which you gave In your MEM
orandum OF May 8. and just as there is
no mention in your memorandum OF
your advocating ratification OF the
treaty, just so there Is no mention of
your advocating ratification In my MEM
orandum OF our conversation. Your own
contemporary record agrees with mine.
In ii there is no trace OF your advocat-
ing unconditional ratification.
"In your statement on page 276 of
your book lies, perhaps. the explanation
OF the discrepancy between the contem-
to the President. There you say that
when you became convinced after con-
versations with the President In July
and August. 1919, that he would not
consent to any effective reservations, the
polite course seemed to be to endeavor
to secure ratification without reserva-
tons Had you believed in May what
In September you said you had believed
in May. you would not have had to be
T.. T..1. ~.I -
telegram of September 16 to the Presi-
dent was clearly an evasion and the
argument you base on 1t in your book
has no foundation in the facts estab-
lished by the contemporary evidence.
As to other Criticisms.
"In regard to your other criticisms. /
have only this to say: As you point out
ably in your book. hostility to the treaty
was widespread throughout the Ameri-
can delegation in Paris. Apart from the
t.t& .@rttfciornc M mo at,dn