The New York herald., 1921-03-26

you record that on the very day you re-
ceived my letter of resignation you re-
ceived also letters from five of our prin-
cipal experts protesting against the
terms of peace and stating that they
considered them to be an abandonment
of the principles for which America
fought In addition you record the
fact that one of the officials, whose re-
lations with the President were of a
most intimate nature, said that he was
in a quandary about resigning' and that
another and more prominent adviser of
the President was most bitter.
"Of this bitter feeling against the
treaty, among those sent to negotiate
1t, which is now revealed in your book
no first-han word had come TO those
representatives of the American people
elected to consider the ratification of
treaties, when l was summoned to tes-
my before the Committee on Foreign
Relations Of the Senate If the open
diplomacy which you advocate in your
book, means anything, 1t means. in the
case Of the United States. that the
American people, through their elected
representatives, have a right to know
what a treaty means. and the opinions
of the men actively engaged in Its nego-
tiation as to the obligations It I'M
poses. No conversation about official
business can honorably be kept secret
from the representatives of the Ameri-
can people, elected to deal with that
business and engaged in seeking facts
upon which to base their judgment.
Our conversation of May 10. 1919. dealt
with the most vitality important official
business before the United States.
''As you say on page of your book in
explaining Ito employ a phrase you use
elsewhere). your conduct in voluntarily
repeating conversations which were from
their nature highly confidential:
at is unsatisfactory, IL not critis-
able. to leave the American people in
doubt as to disagreement between two
of their official representatives upon a
matter of SO grave importance to the
country as the negotiation Of the Treaty
Of Versailles. They are entitled to know
the truth in order that they may pass
judgment upon the merits of the differ
ences which existed
You here express the conviction which
1 have always held and upon which
acted.
"And IL may quote you again as ex-
pressing a realization which /, too, had {:
" In the circumstances 1t is far too
much to expect to escape criticism. The
review of facts and comments upon them
may be characterized in certain quarters
as disloy9l to superior and as vio,ative
Of the seal OF silence, which Is consid
cred generally to apply to the inter-
course and communications between the
President and his official advisers.
"In spite of your realization of the
criticisms which must follow. you have
at last laid bare your personal relations
with your superior officer and all your
knowledge of the peace negotiations.
When,I was Summoned to appear before
the Foreign Relations Committee Of the
Senate followed the same course, with
the same realization of the consequences
to me- The real difference between us
is this: You now publicly urge that the
American people were and are entitled
to know the truth. You have taken
them into your confidence after they
have given Judgment upon the treaty.
when 1t Is too late for the facts you
reveal to help them. acted when the
issue Was still doubtful and it seemed
certain that the treaty would be passed.
Your present. criticism seems to spring
from the single difference that ] spoke
to representatives of the American peo-
pie at an hour when the American
people needed facts and were seeking
facts upon which to base their decision
on the treaty. Very respectfully yours.
WILLIAM c. BUI.IITT.
New York. March 25."