March 25th

House had sent to Mr. Root some weeks ago the draft of the racial-equality provision which Baron Makino wishes to have inserted in the Preamble, or attached to some appropriate Article of the Covenant. Here is Root’s answer, at least in paraphrase:

“Don’t let it in, it will breed trouble. In any event, you’re going to have hard sledding, but with the racial provision, you will get nowhere in the Senate. And the people . . . ? On the Pacific coast, at least, they would think there lurked behind it a plan for unlimited yellow immigration.”

Dmowski, the Polish delegate, came in today and made a statement in regard to Makino’s proposal which pleased the Colonel. In his judgment, a Preamble should suggest, and perhaps even enumerate, what is pledged and agreed to in the Articles of the main instrument that follows, and certainly nothing else.

“As there is no reference to racial equality in any of the Articles,” said Dmowski, “although implicit in all of them, a reference in the Preamble would be out of place and, indeed, misleading. It seems to me like giving a promise in a table of contents, and then omitting all reference to it in the text that followed. I think this would provoke criticism and perhaps excite suspicion. It had better be left out.”

The outlook for the racial-equality proposal¹ of the Japanese is far from bright. Prince Saionji remains behind the curtain, but Makino and Chinda, harassed by cables from Tokyo, are evidently perturbed. They call on the Colonel almost every day, and he gives them all the consolation the situation affords. He maintains that racial equality is implicit in the fact that now for the first time the Rising Sun Empire sits with all the Great Powers in a world conference and he argues that with this recognition the Japanese should be content.

There was much talk today in regard to the German Colonial Empire, with particular reference to German East Africa. Fortunately, it was, for the most part, off the record. It covered again the ground which had been gone over by the Council of Ten in January. General Smuts led whatever discussion there was. There was very little, however, all being in agreement that German Africa had to be destroyed. I was particularly interested because I was in Berlin in 1890 when the Protectorate was established through agreements arrived at by the British, Portuguese, and the German governments, and when the Sultan of Zanzibar ceded his mainland possessions to Germany for a sum which was said to have been approximately one million dollars. It was about this time when the news came of the massacre of a large German force by the Wahabi tribe, that Bismarck, never an enthusiastic Kolonialmensch, is reported to have said that the disputed territory was not worth “the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.” After the fall of the Iron Chancellor, the important element of prestige came into play, and very different ideas were advanced and accepted in Berlin.

While I never visited the Protectorate, I became at this time very well acquainted with the German pioneers in Africa, and in particular with Karl Peters, who distinguished himself by his cruel methods of dealing with the natives, particularly in the Kilimanjaro district; indeed, I listened to his recital of how he had executed men and women of many tribes who opposed German domination. It was a bloodcurdling confession, and perhaps it is only fair to say that he was drunk at the time. However, it should be added that he was generally drunk throughout his disgraceful administration. After a long delay, Peters was brought before a military court, removed from office, and lost his commission in the German Army.

His successor, Major Herrmann von Wissmann, who went out as Imperial Commissioner, was a gentleman as well as an able officer. By his intelligent and conciliatory methods he effected something approaching a pacification of the disturbed regions. He was recalled, however, and shortly afterwards died. Then Count von Gôtzen was sent out; he is well known to many of us from having acted as Military Attaché of the German Embassy in Washington for many years, and he participated as an observer during our Santiago campaign (1898). He, however, was opposed by the Kolonialmenschen of Hamburg, who liked the Peters methods, and he was also unsuccessful in securing from the Reichstag the subsidies needed to build railways, or even roads, to the lake regions of the interior which might have developed the unfortunate country and given its inhabitants work. Later, in 1907, Herr von Dernburg was sent out; he now found all the tribes arrayed against German domination and is reported to have said (not in an official report, however) that he found the region to be “a hell on earth.” “We must not allow such disgraceful conditions to be revived” was the comment of General Smuts, pounding the Peace table with his heavy fist.

The following discussion flared up in several of the ensuing sessions of the Commission. I am permitting myself to dovetail it as though what was said was a continuous performance.

A long and somewhat academic discussion followed upon the reading of the Article dealing with the question as to which states are eligible to membership in the League.

“I now propose,” said Mr. Wilson, “a slight, but what I think is an important, change. In my original draft, I wrote ‘Only States are eligible whose governments are based upon the principle of popular self-government.’ While I think some such phrase highly desirable, I would like to insert now a more simple expression. I believe that the words ‘self-government’ more nearly approximate the idea we all want to express.”

Lamaude, somewhat sadly:

“I once delivered fourteen lectures on pays libres and non-libres. Certainly Germany is not a pays libre, yet there are many here who advocate her admission into the comity of civilized nations.” (A dig at the Colonel!)

Bourgeois made a long speech. His words were diffuse, but this is apparently what he had in mind to say:

“The definition which you seek is most difficult. What countries do not enjoy self-government? I suggest the phrase ‘No State can be admitted unless its government is responsible to the nation’; in my judgment, whether the form is monarchical or republican is immaterial. We only have to ask is the government responsible to the people?” Larnaude: “You are raising a thorny question of droit publique; for example, I believe I am correct in saying that Japan does not enjoy a responsible government, yet no one would suggest excluding her from the League.”

“With us,” countered Baron Makino dryly, “the Ministry is responsible to the Emperor,” and then he added, “and, through His Imperial Majesty, also to the people.”

“I’m afraid self-government is hard to define,” admitted Cecil, and then President Wilson made a confession.

“For twenty years I have lectured on the subject, but I am reluctant to commit myself to a definition. To illustrate our dilemma, before the war no one regarded Germany as self-governing. The Reichstag was controlled by the Chancellor. On the other hand, there are many governments who live under legislation in some respects less liberal than that of Germany, and yet we regard them as self-governing and rightly so.”

Then the President went far afield. He said:

“If we admit India, can we reject the Philippines? While we propose to grant the Filipinos their political freedom at the earliest practicable date, at present they are satisfied with their status, and I think it would be unwise to admit them to the League, although I am frank to say that I consider them farther advanced in the art of self-government than are some other peoples who are applying for recognition. We must admit that not all the States here present are regarded by all the other States as of good character. I therefore suggest that the Article with my amendment be provisionally adopted.”

And so it was. It reads:

“Only self-governing States shall be admitted, also colonies enjoying self-government privileges.”

The proposal to abolish compulsory military service, now taken up, was objected to from many quarters. This is Mr. Wilson s pet proposal and it was set forth in all his drafts. He succeeded in having it restored and provisionally approved. (It ultimately became Article VIII dealing with disarmament.) The President also succeeded in having restored the provision forbidding the private manufacture of munitions that had been omitted from the Hurst-Miller draft. This was evidently the President’s good day, and when we adjourned he was bright and smiling.

It was at the twelfth session, on the evening of Monday, March 24th, that Wilson formally submitted the amendments which he had brought back with him none too cheerfully from Washington. As this fact was well known to them all, the President did not seek to disguise from his colleagues what an important bearing these changes would have on the American attitude. (They were all ultimately adopted, but none of them in the form in which they were first presented.)

The President proposed an addition to Article X, which ultimately became the Monroe Doctrine reservation. Also an addition to Article XV to the effect that, when a question submitted should be found by the Executive Council and the Body of Delegates (later the Assembly) to be one solely within the domestic legislative jurisdiction of one of the parties, it should so report and make no recommendation as to its settlement.

The President’s third proposal was an amendment to Article XXIV permitting a member to withdraw from the League after a period of ten years and upon one year’s notice. These amendments were phrased, it was hoped, to satisfy the criticisms contained in the Hitchcock letter, the cable of ex-President Taft (March 18th), and other criticisms of men who, while favoring the Covenant, were of the opinion that it could not be ratified in the form of the February 14th draft. The discussions on the Monroe Doctrine reservation continued off and on throughout the twelfth and the thirteenth sessions, and it was only adopted near the conclusion of the fourteenth session. But at this meeting there was a very heated discussion as to the withdrawal provision. Larnaude said bitterly:

“If the people of France thought that the League was to last for ten years only, they would regard it as bankrupt from the very beginning.”

As usual, Bourgeois spoke at great length on the subject. He pointed out that the provision for withdrawal only after ten years of service, or membership, would be interpreted that the members expected a breakup, and, further, that an attempt was being made to hold them under duress in the meanwhile. He said he was willing to accept withdrawal after two years’ notice, but he wanted the requirement of ten years’ membership eliminated.

In the course of the discussion Orlando made several witty remarks. He said liberty of action was, of course, essential.

“Mais Vimportant vï est pas tant d’être libre que de se croire libre [The important thing is not so much to be free, but to think you are free]. If the States think they are bearing chains, they may decide to snap them in a brutal moment. I am in favor of membership, but the right of withdrawal must be reserved.”

The President then formally introduced the Monroe Doctrine reservation with these words:

“The Covenant provides that the members of the League will mutually defend each other in respect to their political and their territorial integrity. The Covenant is therefore the highest tribute to the Monroe Doctrine, for it is an international extension of that great principle by which the United States said that it would protect the political independence and the territorial integrity of other American States.

“I have told my friends at home that the Covenant is but a confirmation and an extension of the Monroe Doctrine. This being so, they ask that a specific statement to this effect be placed in the text. So, as a concession to this reasonable request, I am asking the Commission to state definitely and explicitly what has already been taken care of.”

This seemed to the French a favorable moment to renew the proposals that were nearest to their hearts; namely, some form of an international army on the Rhine frontier. This time they asked merely for an international general staff, but in a new and less pretentious form. They asked for:

“Un orgcmisme permanent, to see that the obligations imposed by the Treaty are carried out and to assure their efficacy in moments of emergency.”

And now, suddenly, doubtless with the best intention and yet it was confusing, Cecil harked back to the withdrawal proposal. This was probably by arrangement with the President, who now took the floor and spoke at considerable length. He said he was willing to abandon altogether the ten years’ membership condition and to substitute a proposal to withdraw at any time upon two years’ notice. Larnaude opposed this vehemently. He maintained that the fact of quitting by a great power would throw the League into confusion and perhaps result in a complete breakup. In answer, Wilson developed his views as follows:

“I have not the slightest fear that any State would take advantage of this permissive withdrawal clause. To me it is clear that any State so doing would become an outlaw; it would mean the cancellation of an arrangement on which most of us believe the world has set its heart.

“One of my difficulties,” continued the President, “is that Americans demand complete assurance that they are not being called upon to give up the sovereignty of their States. I am confident, however, that the day is near when they will become as eager partisans of the sovereignty of mankind as they are now of their national or State sovereignty. But, for the moment, it is necessary to take into consideration current prejudices and make concessions to their sense of independence, of will and action. I confess I would find myself in a very awkward position if the amendment is not approved. Of course no State, once it has entered, would have a moral right to withdraw, but it would have a legal right, and that and that only is what the proposal concedes. I certainly assured my colleagues in America and other friends of the League that all here were convinced that the right to secede was implicit in the Covenant. They want it stated frankly and openly, however, and I am afraid the Senate will not come in if this is not done. I share with M. Larnaude his hopes and his noble aspirations as to what the League should be, but the most important thing of all is to make a start. If the Senate is not assured of a chance to withdraw, the difficulty of inducing it to ratify the League is very great. But once we have entered into the Covenant, I am convinced that the United States will stay in for all time.”

Larnaude, the dean of the law school, evidently in a very bad humor tonight, followed with another violent attack on the President and the Monroe Doctrine reservation which we are insisting upon. “You come over here,” he shouted, “and dictate what we should do and what we should not do, and yet you do not let us have our say as to what you propose doing over there! ” The President, as always under these attacks, kept his poise admirably, but I fear that it was largely this perfect poise that infuriated Larnaude. Smilingly the President said: “I am convinced by what the French delegate has just said that at least for one of the delegates a more careful exposition of the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine is required and I shall endeavor to give it. At least one charge now advanced cannot be sustained. We most certainly did not come to Europe uninvited. We were urged to come, indeed we were besought to come, and our ideas as to how a settlement could be reached and a durable peace secured’were formally accepted by France and by the other powers with whom in the world emergency we became associated. Indeed they became their war objectives and as such were proclaimed to the world—and to Germany.”