February 2d

I had been told by the Colonel (who, being a man of one language himself, with generous exaggeration regarded me as a master of many tongues) that I was to act as interpreter for the President and himself in the sessions of the League of Nations Commission; that is, that I was to interpret from French into English for their edification. While by no means eager for the task, I was not greatly afraid; of course I had never done any long-winded verbal interpreting before, but then, in wartime, you have to do many things you could avoid in the piping days of peace. However, as the great men of some seventeen nations assembled in the charming salon of the Hotel Crillon, for the first meeting of the Parliament of Man, I was advised by the Colonel of a shift in plan and a new responsibility from which, but for the respect I knew was due my uniform, I would have fled incontinently. The non-English-speaking members of the Commission had approached him with a request that, as it was reasonable, he concluded must be complied with. They did not speak or understand English, they admitted, and yet they did not want to lose the meaning of a single word that fell from the President’s lips. They requested that an interpreter be placed in their midst to pass on to them the winged words and the message of the one whom they (or at least many of them) regarded as their Messiah. And so in a moment I was drafted away from the head of the Council table, Frazier was given my place, between and a little behind (within whispering distance) the President and House, and I was catapulted to the other end of the table where I was beset on all sides by inquiries from Venizelos, in Cretan French, from Diamandy in Roumanian French, from Dmowski in Polish French, and from Vesnitch in the French of Belgrade. They were patient and kind and I, indeed, survived the first session, but could I continue?

That was, indeed, a question! Kind Fate now intervened and I was relieved from a painful situation. Sorry I am that the change brought discomfort to the immensely capable Frazier; he caught a terrible cold, and his voice trailed off into a treble, and I was reinstated in my original position, while Frazier was sent out upon important business which required brains and not merely a stentorian voice.

But what was to be done now for our non-English-speaking foreign Ministers? Means certainly had to be contrived to let them know what it was all about. In my quandary I looked into the “linguistic pool,” as we called it, and drew out a young professor of high attainments and also excellent French, and placed him in the uneasy chair I was so glad to vacate. But, unfortunately, this scholarly professor was awe-stricken by his august surroundings; instead of passing on the golden words of the President, he would hem and haw; indeed in diplomatic reticence he excelled the trained plenipotentiaries by whom he was surrounded! After one completely blank evening, at the unanimous request of those who had with increasing indignation listened to his eloquent silences, the professor was withdrawn and duties more in harmony with his undoubted talents were assigned to him. Again I dived deep down into the linguistic pool and fished out a young lieutenant from Louisiana, who spoke excellent French and also the musical English of the Deep South. He was drafted to the job in which he acquitted himself admirably. He, an American “sovereign,” was not at all awe-stricken by his close association with the representatives of the shattered monarchies of Europe, or with the outstanding new men of the budding democracies. As a matter of fact, he ruled them with an iron hand, but it was gloved, and they liked him, in fact they ate out of his hand! The youngster was born to command, and someday I expect to see him representing his state under the dome of the Capitol in Washington.¹

The job of whispered interpretation to the President on one side and House on the other that again devolved on me was the most arduous task that I shouldered during the Conference. And even when the speeches ran on for three or four hours, as they often did, my taskmasters would not let me condense, which I thought, and always shall think, was a mistake. But my vocal cords survived the test. However, as I saw Frazier rushing about upon his important duties, always lowering his words to a gentle whisper as I appeared, I often wondered whether his voicelessness had not been merely diplomatic! After all, Frazier was a trained diplomat, the most successful exponent of the art that we produced at the Conference.

At the first meeting of the Commission to draft the Covenant of the League, with Woodrow Wilson presiding, the following were present:

United States of America:

• President Wilson
• Colonel House
• Lord Robert Cecil

British Empire:

• Lieutenant General J. C. Smuts

France:

• M. Léon Bourgeois
• M. Larnaude
• M. Orlando

Italy:

• Senator Scialoja
• Baron Makino

Japan:

• Viscount Chinda

Belgium:

• M. Hymans

Brazil:

• M. Epitacio Pessoa

China:

• Mr. Wellington Koo

Portugal:

• M. Jaime Batalha Reis

Serbia:

• M. Vesnitch

At the fifth meeting, held on the evening of February 7, the following were admitted to the Commission and from then on took part in the deliberations:

Greece:

• M. Venizelos

Poland:

• M. Dmowski

Roumania²:

• M. Diamandy

Czechoslovakia:

• M. Kramar

Thus bringing the membership of the Commission to nineteen.

The first meeting, as I have noted, took place on Monday afternoon, February 3d. Fifteen delegates should have been present, two for each of the Great Powers, and one each for the five lesser powers, with special interests—in distinction to those with general interests. However, the delegate from Portugal was late. After the proceedings were under way he came bustling in with the announcement that his instructions had been delayed. Nobody seemed to attach the same importance to his instructions that he did. The President, presiding, opened the proceedings without fanfare of any kind. He told the delegates they were about to undertake a most difficult task. He told them that never again should civilization be confronted with a situation such as they all met with in 1914. It was their task to see that what happened then could never happen again. Then, he continued, the civilized powers, inspired by their common interests, had combined against the Central Empires and so the basis was laid for a League which today world conditions make imperative. Then,

“For some days we have discussed methods of procedure and they have been put together in a skeleton plan which I now hold in my hand. This I will now submit to you and, if you approve, we shall use it as a basis for discussion.”

Bourgeois (France) protested. Delegates should be given an opportunity to study the draft before being called upon to discuss it.

Orlando (Italy) agreed, however, to discuss the draft, which he understood had been arrived at in informal conversations between the President, Cecil, House, and Smuts.

Bourgeois yielded, but stated that in his judgment, if the meetings were to be more than a formality, a secretariat should be chosen and should assist at all the sessions.

Wilson: “The important thing is to make progress. We must get under way. The record will take care of itself.”

Cecil: “We should get down to work; we must push ahead. There has already been a great deal of discussion. We must get down to the details. The whole world is watching, anxiously awaiting the result of these deliberations.”

Wilson: “I call this an informal meeting because we have not had the time to organize. It also seems to me that if our sessions are formal, with secretaries making copious reports, each day’s proceedings would be subjected to prolonged discussions.”

At the second session (evening of February 4th) the Preamble and Articles I and II were adopted without too much difficulty. But with Article III a snag was struck; it deals with the composition of the Council and the representation on it of the lesser powers. In deference to the wishes of Cecil, it had been omitted from the Hurst-Miller draft. It very soon developed that the majority of the delegates were strongly in favor of admitting representatives of the lesser powers to the Council, as a minority of one, however, as had been provided for in all the Wilson drafts.

Wilson now opposed enlarging the Council. The larger the membership, the slower would be the progress.

“It is of course our purpose to call in the lesser powers and also the neutral powers as progress is made. It should be remembered the Commission is not settling the fate of any particular nation. It is settling the fate of all.”

Wilson then pled for informal exchange of views until the instrument had taken shape; then formal conversations would be in order. Orlando concurred; he stated that the function of the Commission was to study, to explore the field.

In face of the general opposition, Cecil now withdrew his plan. Nine delegates voted in favor of the admission of the lesser powers, and none in the negative. It was agreed, then, to place the situation before the Conference at a later date. Apparently Greece, Poland, Roumania, and Czechoslovakia for the present are to represent the lesser powers on the Council.

Still the discussion did not die down. Hymans (Belgium) was very vehement in his opposition to what he called the control of the Council of the League by the Great Powers, and he was supported by Vesnitch (Serbia), in a more moderate tone, however. Hymans declared that the lesser powers would not accept any plan by which they were excluded. Wilson stated that he believed there was no objection to a plan providing for the membership of the five Greater Powers and a minority representation of the smaller powers to be selected by themselves. Hymans apparently accepted this proposal, but with no enthusiasm. We shall hear from Belgium again.

There now followed heated discussions over the language of the Preamble and the first two Articles. It was quieted by a statement from Wilson to the effect that the delegates should bear in mind that the language of the document was provisional and of course subject to review. At the third session, on the following day, this dispute came to the fore again, and I think it wise to give what was said then in this place.

Cecil: “I strongly advise going slow on the proposal to give the smaller powers four representatives on the Council. Our purpose is, of course, to make the League a success, and that demands the support of the Great Powers. Two representatives of the lesser powers should suffice.”

“What you propose,” shouted Hymans, “is a revival of the Holy Alliance of unhallowed memory! ”

Wilson sought to placate the little man by saying:

“We should remember that the political independence and the territorial integrity of each State, member of the League, is to be guaranteed by all powers, great and small alike. Bearing this in mind, I do not think injustice would be done the lesser powers by limiting to two their representation.”

Later

At the third session (February 4th) the President read Article IV of the draft which deals with the executive officer of the League and its seat. The executive is spoken of as Chancellor (later changed to Secretary General), and the seat of the League was left in blank. Hymans (Belgium) took the floor. “I see that the future seat of the League is not designated, and while my action may be premature I avail myself of this opportunity to express the hope of my government and my people that Brussels may be designated. We are all of the opinion that this choice would be symbolic of all that we have fought for and may have to fight for again in future battles.”

Wilson said all present had the greatest admiration for the gallant Belgian people and also full appreciation of the facilities that would be available in Brussels, but it was deemed advisable to defer the choice to a later meeting. The President’s statement was greeted by all present with energetic nods of approval. I am confident that the matter will be turned over to a subcommittee and I am equally certain that Brussels will not be chosen and that Geneva will be.

III Session

At the first meeting (turning back for a moment) of the Commission nothing was said about recording the deliberations and no arrangements were made for so doing. At the second session, however, M. Bourgeois again urged the appointment of a secretariat with a staff of stenographers working under the secretaries. Larnaude supported the request of his colleague. “Unless a record is kept we shall be working in the dark.” The President tried to defeat the French demand, with a light touch, however. Laughingly he said, “I am opposed to a record being kept because I want to keep an open mind; I want to be able to say on Wednesday quite the opposite of what I may have said on Monday.” Then, growing serious, he added, “The task of this Commission is like that of the body of men who drew up the Constitution of the United States. On that great occasion the proceedings were withheld from the public until their work was concluded. I hope this Commission will see fit to follow this illustrious example. We should proceed in an informal manner for the purpose of safeguarding our discussions from misrepresentation. I want to keep an open mind, and I think we all do. Informal procedure would, I have no doubt, assist us to this desirable end. Nothing should be given out until our work is completed and we can present it to our governments and to our peoples as a rounded whole. I am afraid if a detailed record is kept there may occur leaks, and this would increase our difficulties— already considerable.”

The French delegates returned to the charge after the meeting. They were supported by all the delegates except the President, and at the third session the President gave way and secretaries were appointed. At the fourth session they were placed at a side table some distance from the conference table at which the delegates sat and must have had difficulty in following the proceedings. They were most discreet and their reports, I am told, were meager, although I admit I have never seen any of them. Bourgeois carried his point, but it was a triumph of form rather than of substance.

We then adjourned to meet tomorrow evening at the same place and at eight-thirty. There had been much desultory talk and even suggestions of revolt against the method of procedure which the President and House have worked over. But with a little grumbling our plan has been approved. During the first reading the rough draft is to be taken up and debated article by article. There are to be secretaries but no stenographers present. At this announcement moans from the French, and the President graciously consented to “putting out communiqués to the press when we agree that it is advisable—when we all agree.”

I have gloomy forebodings. Not a few of the delegates will “leak” to their favorite newspaper when leakage promises to be helpful, and of course the burden of newspaper unpopularity under which the President suffers will be increased by what many have already called “the revival of Star Chamber proceedings by one who promised Open Covenants, openly arrived at.”

While they may prove helpful, my records made in this haphazard manner³ are certainly not so reliable as would have been a report of the proceedings drawn up by a competent shorthand man who, keeping out of the verbal melee, would have had nothing to do but to retain the words as they were spoken. While generally written up within a few hours of the conclusion of the sessions, on at least two occasions other duties delayed the write-up of these notes for several days. Under these circumstances it would be absurd to insist that my report is verbatim et literatim correct; but, on the other hand, I am confident that in the main I have set down accurately what was said and that the manner and the bearing of the speakers is faithfully recorded. Perhaps still another word of explanation may not be amiss. These post-sessions records of the deliberations have grown so voluminous that I find they are crowding out more important papers from the Colonel’s safe where, as an extra precaution, they were stowed away every evening. Yesterday I went over these records, and this morning I have, as our instructions demand, taken down to the incinerator in the cellar those memoranda whose period of usefulness is at an end.

Further, I shall not retain in my diary my running accounts of some of the major battles that were fought over the Covenant. The results will be found in the draft that is now or soon will be open to world inspection and, after all, it is the results that count. I am hopeful that I shall be serving a more useful purpose by giving the details of some of the unsuccessful skirmishes and also by preserving the language of many of the amendments and additions which were not adopted, but may well be heard from later on. I shall also retain anything that may be helpful in drawing a picture of the men who for the moment are masters of the world. Each and every one of them wants to redeem this war-racked world and make it a better place to live in; unfortunately each wants to achieve this desirable end in his own way and has a very poor opinion of the other fellow’s way!