seeing that the food reaches the starving, the medicines the sick, the clothing the naked.  Subject to the supervision of such a commission, this is a problem which should be solely under the control of the people of Russia themselves so far as it is humanly possible to put it under their control.  It is not a question of class or of race or of politics but a question of human beings in need, and these human beings in each locality should be given, as under the regime of the Belgian relief commission, the fullest opportunity to advise the commission upon the methods and the personnel by which their community is to be relieved.  Under no other circumstances could it be believed that the purpose of this relief was humanitarian and not political, and still more important, under no other conditions could it be certain that the hungry would be fed.  That such a course would involve cessation of hostilities by Russian troops would of course mean a cessation of all hostilities on the Russian fronts.  Indeed, relief to Russia which did not mean a return to a state of peace would be futile, and would be impossible to consider.

     Under such conditions as we have outlined, we believe that
     your plan could be successfully carried into effect and we
     should be prepared to give it our full support.

Senator KNOX.  What I am anxious to get at is to find out what became of your report.

Senator FALL.  I should like to know whether Col.  House approved Mr. Auchincloss’s and Mr. Miller’s report, or the report of the witness.

Mr. BULLITT.  I should like to have this clear, and if I can read just this one page I shall be greatly obliged.  On this proposition I wrote the following memorandum to Mr. Auchincloss [reading]: 

     APRIL 4, 1919.

     Memorandum for Mr. Auchincloss: 

DEAR GORDON:  I have studied carefully the draft of the reply to Dr. Nansen which you have prepared.  In spirit and substance your letter differs so radically from the reply which I consider essential that I find it difficult to make any constructive criticism.  And I shall refrain from criticizing your rhetoric.

     There are two proposals in your letter, however, which are
     obviously unfair and will not, I am certain, be accepted by
     the Soviet Government.

1.  The life of Russia depends upon its railroads; and your demand for control of transportation by the commission can hardly be accepted by the Soviet Government which knows that plots for the destruction of railroad bridges were hatched in the American consulate in Moscow.  You are asking the Soviet Government to put its head in the lion’s mouth.  It will not accept.  You must moderate your phrases.

2.  When you speak of the “cessation of hostilities by Russian troops,” you fail to speak of hostilities by troops of the allied and associated Governments,