April — undated

Much appears in the press, and there is even more talk in the corridors of the Crillon and the other meeting places of the delegates, in regard to what is termed the President’s stubborn determination to “intertwine or interweave” the Covenant with the Treaty. If there has been a struggle on this point, as many claim, I did not know anything about it-and this seems strange. The “intertwining” was definitely decided upon in the conferences which took place between House and Lord Robert Cecil¹ about January 22d (probably because of the manifest of the opposing Senators under the leadership of Lodge published a few hours before, the delegates got down to work) and the President was very insistent that his point of view should prevail. But he really does not have to be insistent as, in so far as I can see, there is little or no opposition to his plan—at least not to binding the two documents together. His argument is, and I have heard him develop it in conversation with House three or four times and always in practically identical language, “While I hope for the best, the Treaty, like all human documents, may prove imperfect. It may not live up to our ideal, but with the Covenant an integral and inseparable part of the Treaty, the mechanism to perfect our work, to adjust it to the needs of situations which may arise, will be close at hand.” And in this attitude the President was supported warmly by Cecil.²

Lloyd George and Clemenceau, whatever their real feelings may have been, remained neutral in the fray if there can be said to have been one. On at least one occasion Clemenceau said to House in my presence that he regarded the Covenant of doubtful present utility but he hoped that the President was not mistaken in basing high hopes upon its ultimate value. It is, however, quite true that at the beginning of the negotiations, early in January, both Lloyd George and Clemenceau were as slow moving as the President was eager and indeed impatient to go ahead with both the Treaty and the Covenant. In explanation of his desire for speed the President said on several occasions that he could not remain for long in Paris—that in a very few weeks he would have to return to Washington. Many think that the outstanding delegates who heard these words did hope that the President would return to the White House and that once there his presidential duties would make his return to Paris difficult, if not impossible. This sounds plausible, and it may be the true explanation of their attitude. On one occasion at least I heard Clemenceau say to House: “Your President is a mauvais couchem!”—an “ugly” not an accommodating fellow—and from his point of view this was an apt description of the President’s attitude at the time.