March 24th

I am probably the only person in the Crillon who is not working on a draft of the reservation which the Senate demands on the Monroe Doctrine and which the President will see to it is inserted in the Covenant. Excellent draftsman that he is I’m surprised that the President does not take the matter in hand himself. But he doesn’t, and my explanation is that the whole business disgusts him and he will have nothing to do with it except to see that it goes in—because it must. And scores of people outside the Crillon are also working on drafts. They come from all quarters. Lord Robert Cecil submitted one and the President did not like it. He turned down Hunter Miller’s plan also. It seems that Miller did not even mention the Doctrine. “The Senate will not be satisfied by mere innuendo,” said the President. Secretary of the Navy Daniels offered his plan, and then T. W. Gregory, the Attorney General of the United States here for a few days, on holiday, he thought—mistakenly—was put to work and he has produced the following:

“No coercive action shall be taken in the Western Hemisphere under Articles X, XVI, or XVII except at the request of the United States of America and the other states, members of the Council, if any, situated in that hemisphere.” Nobody liked this, and when House broke this news to the Attorney General he said in perfect good nature, “That does not surprise me. I do not like it myself.”

“That’s splendid. You make it unanimous,” said House. “Many changes and amendments to the Covenant have been rejected but none so unanimously as yours.” Both Texans, Gregory is one of House’s men and the Colonel is very fond of him. I think he has really been brought over to see if some way cannot be found to consider the war debts before our friends and Allies have forgotten all about them. But Gregory says “the money was lent by act of Congress and Congress will have to act, or delegate its authority, before the problem can be tackled by the President in any shape or form.”

Later

The suggestion and indeed the very language of President Taft have been accepted for the much-discussed reservation which is to be an amendment to Article XV. I wonder if there is any politics in this? Some undoubtedly will suspect the Colonel’s fine Italian hand. In any event, the ex-President is now involved in the Covenant, indeed very closely.

House today endeavored to soften the President in his attitude toward The Hague Conference, but the President proved adamant and the Colonel’s suggested “pat on the back” for poor M. Bourgeois went into the waste-paper basket. In fact, the suggestion seems to have irritated the President, and so he brought the matter up in open session.

“We have a great many difficulties ahead of us,” he said. “I think it unwise to point out the failures of those who did not make the grade on the path upward and onward which we are now pursuing.”

Nothing daunted, however, Larnaude proposed an amendment to the Preamble to the effect that,

“Our purpose is to take up and complete the work commenced at the Conference of The Hague.”

It was meant, of course, merely as a consolation prize to Bourgeois, who had suffered so many defeats in the debates on the first draft. At the suggestion of Wilson, Cecil now spoke out in meeting; although his repugnance to all mention of The Hague incident was well known, he had certainly taken little or no pains to conceal it. He now said: “The Commission has considered it advisable, especially from the point of view of the nations who will later enter the League, not to mention The Hague Conference. It has seemed wise that the instrument we are now drafting should be presented as a new plan and so avoid the criticisms and the strictures that have been directed toward the work of the earlier conferences. I have great respect for the work that was attempted at The Hague, but for the reasons stated I should regret any allusions to it.”

Bourgeois now demanded a vote on the Larnaude amendment and he got it promptly. His amendment was rejected ten to five. Poor Bourgeois was brokenhearted. He came over to House and said:

“My life’s work is wiped out.”

House consoled him by saying that he would always be remembered as the precursor of the era of peace that now was dawning.

The rereading of Article III, especially the part dealing with the situation of the neutrals, led to a long and somewhat acrimonious debate. Smuts asked whether the neutrals who would adhere to the Covenant should be considered as original signers, or as later adherents. In this case, he maintained, they would have to be chosen by a two-thirds vote and, in his judgment, they would not like this. Wilson thought those who fulfilled the requirements of membership and who desired to loyally co-operate would not be frightened away by the test vote.

“They should welcome it,” he asserted.

Later today (March 24th), in private conversation with Cecil and House, the President explained why he was far from patient when M. Bourgeois took the floor (and yet I the interpreter with the parched throat was the principal sufferer!) and came near to an explosion whenever The Hague was mentioned. “If I am correctly informed,” he said, “M. Bourgeois was the leader of the talkfest at The Hague in 1899. He blazed the trail, or so his friends claim, but it ended in fog overhead and in bog underfoot. The whole business was wishy-washy—though well meant, of course. After talking for weeks, these loquacious delegates wound up with, not agreements—oh no, but with voeux or wishes. ‘Pious’ wishes they were, I grant you, but they were without binding force upon those who signed, or upon those who declined to sign. Now we are met here for hard-and-fast agreements, for binding stipulations, for commitments, and it is my task to see that no nation or group of men holds out on us—those silly pawns in the murderous game of power politics!” Then, after a pause, he added: “But of course I would not hurt M. Bourgeois’ feelings. I respect them more than I do his plans for peace or the brains that hatch them.”

More, much more than this happened in the session. But I shall have to postpone my account to a later, a more leisurely hour, I hope.

* * *

This morning a memorandum came to House in which the President states the changes in the Covenant he is willing to ask of the Commission for the purpose of placating the opposition that has developed at home, at least in Washington. They have been under discussion between the President and House for several days. “They go far, but I do not know whether they go far enough to ease the way to ratification by the Senators,” said House. The President has little enthusiasm for them. He would greatly prefer to stand by the Draft Covenant (February 14th). He says: “I am yielding to men, to the judgment of men, who have little knowledge or appreciation of the world situation, but who, alas! control votes.” And he added—and this is a belief in which I concur—“These changes we shall put through, but I fear we will find in the end that we have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Certainly the way will be opened for a flood of amendments which will surely delay us and may disfigure our solemn agreement— so patiently, so painfully arrived at.”

The most important of the changes which the Senators demand and which the President will ask for and indeed insist upon is an addition to Article X. Roughly, in its present form, it reads: “Nothing in the Article denies to any American State the undoubted right to protect the integrity of American territory, when threatened, whether by a member of the League or by a non-member; or to prevent the further transfer of American territory to any power outside of the Western Hemisphere.” Further, as an addition to the above or as a separate Article, the President proposes:

“If the difference between the parties in Conflict shall be found by the Council or the Assembly to be a question which under international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of one of the parties, it shall so report and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.” This aims at continued control of the possible influx of yellow men.

The third amendment advanced at the suggestion, really the demand, of some in Washington is an addition to Article XXII which, if accepted as presented, will read:

“Ten years after ratification, a member State may withdraw from the League after having given one year’s notice of its intention so to do, provided that all its international obligations under the Covenant shall have been fulfilled.” Here is outlined the terrain over which the more arduous battles are to be fought. The President will win but he will have to make concessions-and even give hostages. Whatever may have been their purpose the recalcitrant Senators have handicapped the President in his fight to “make the world safe for Democracy.”