April — undated

Both the French delegates are still bitterly opposing the Monroe Doctrine reservation openly in the Commission and anonymously in the press. Larnaude, at least, speaks beautiful French and has a sharp legalistic mind. M. Bourgeois, on the other hand, is dull and repetitious. On this subject alone he has now spoken for twenty hours! On this I am the best authority, as I have to translate his every word, the President with a bitter smile having refused a plea that I be allowed to “condense.” In his opening Bourgeois said, “I oppose this change because I see clearly that if it is adopted there will be two separate and distinct groups of States under the Covenant; the United States on the one hand and the European states on the other,” and in all the hours he talked he added nothing to this but simply poured out a Niagara of words.

House and many others ascribe the opposition of Bourgeois to the fact that its acceptance or rejection offers a broad field for trading. This may be so, but, on the other hand, I think his feelings have been hurt and he resents the way in which he has been ignored. As a matter of fact, he has been talking, at great length, which is his habit, about “a Society of Nations” in France for the last ten years, and now that the League is on the carpet he is not consulted or even listened to; that rankles and naturally.

Wellington Koo, evidently greatly worried over what seems to him implicit in the Monroe Doctrine amendment, wishes these clarifying words added—after regional understandings “which are not in conflict with the Covenant.” But on the advice of Miller the President opposed the suggestion. “It would seem to intimate that there are provisions in the articles not in complete harmony with the spirit of our new-world charter—and that would never do,” were the President s final words.

A feeling akin to remorse comes over me as I look at the picture I have drawn of M. Bourgeois. In extenuation of what I have written I can say, however, that my criticism is mild in comparison to that of the President as he listened, because he had to listen, to the interminable speeches of the former French Premier. Yet it was from M. Bourgeois that I received the only praise for my services as the interpreter of the proceedings that I can recall, rack my memory as I will. One evening after he had delivered a discourse even more discursive than was his habit, and I had put it into English as best I could, M. Bourgeois came over to me and said, “Il faut avoir de-Vesprit pour saisir la parole au vol et recueillir dans ce qu’on entend ce qu’il importe de conserver [One must have intelligence to catch words in flight and to note in what one hears the words that should be remembered]. In recalling this nosegay I must, however, in fairness, admit that M. Bourgeois’ knowledge of English is most fragmentary—that he could not really have known how I acquitted myself, that his praise came from the heart rather than from the head!