April 16th

Two of the most bitterly contested batdes over the final shape of the Covenant were not fought out in the closed sessions of the Commission but in the Colonel’s study and conference salle which, with a touch of characteristic humor, he called his “cloakroom,” for as usual it was the silent man from Texas who bore the brunt of the struggle, and was only concerned to escape public notice much less acclaim; the praise of his chief and of his conscience for him was reward enough.

These less-spectacular but vital struggles, in which great bitterness was displayed, centered around two reservations (although of course, officially, this too-revealing word was avoided) which are insisted upon by men of both political parties in Washington who have studied the outlook for ratification of the work of the Conference. Indeed here all are in agreement. These changes are pronounced indispensable.

The first is “no Power need accept a Mandate against its will,” or, as it was later phrased, only to be vested in those “who are willing to accept it” (Article XXII, second paragraph). Many of the delegates made bitter charges on this proposal, and personally the President was in agreement with them. They argued and the President was at least in tacit agreement, “Should not all the enlightened and democratic peoples share the responsibility for those who because of oppression throughout the generations, or for other reasons, are clearly unequal to the task of self-government? Verbal blueprints are not enough, all the more fortunate and better equipped nations must accept their fair share of the duties of trusteeship and above all of guidance.” It was only after a long struggle and much recrimination, which left scars, that this exceptional clause went into the Covenant.

If possible there was an even more bitter if also quite clandestine battle over the decision which now at last is inserted as paragraph 8 of Article XV, which reads:

“The Council is to make no recommendation in cases affecting a member’s domestic jurisdiction.” And this leaves the United States, as well as other powers of course, in complete control of its immigration laws and its school regulations. The Japanese are bitterly disappointed. The Colonel likes Makino and admires the dignity with which he has received several rebuffs and also the brickbats which are hurled at him from the Younger rather than the Elder Statesmen in Tokyo. I think—wisely—the Colonel avoids detailed discussion of these prickly problems. He simply says, “My dear Baron, without these explanatory clauses, rather than reservations, the Congress of the United States will not, I fear, accept the New Order, they may not enter the League. They may not be bound by the Covenant. It is as simple as that. There is no room for discussion. We can take it or leave it.” Makino, without even making a wry face, took it. But of course it is not a total defeat for him. The reservation as to the Monroe Doctrine and “similar regional understandings” (Article XXI) has a soothing influence on his wounds.

In regard to avoidance of a mandate, for the moment at least, House argued at greater length and in more detail. “We have no desire to shirk our share of responsibility in re-establishing the world upon an even keel. No, not that; but we, at least many of us, doubt that our form of government is suitable for a people of different mentality and alien traditions. Some of our leaders, and Very important and influential they are, think that our stewardship in the Philippines, although unselfish and certainly most costly to us, has not been an unqualified success. These are but small groups, it is true, but there is a strong and very powerful group who wish to confine our political activities to the American hemisphere. They argue that for one reason or another mandates degenerate into imperial appendages—and they would have none of them. I may, of course, be mistaken—I hope I am —but I confess that unless these prejudices are humored, the Senate and even the American people will not subscribe to Article X on which our hope of world peace and national security depends.”

I admit that only the four walls of the “cloakroom” know all that was said in these interminable conferences, but I think that these few words reveal the arguments that were advanced and oh, so often repeated!