March 26th (thirteenth meeting—and the withdrawal amendment)

M. Larnaude, while admitting that his dear colleague, M. Bourgeois, had talked for two hours yet merely skimmed the surface of the vital subject, now whirled in with, “We shall astonish and depress an expectant world if we say, or merely imply, that we are making an experiment for a period of ten years. The world wants something definite and final.”

Wilson: “I—none of us have the most remote idea of limiting the life or the duration of the League. Yet Sovereign States cannot be permanently bound. The ten years’ period would safeguard their rights.”

Orlando also wanted the right to retire, safeguarded, but he admitted that the provision of a definite time limit had its disadvantages.

“There is a possibility that all the withdrawals might come at the same moment.”

Wilson then agreed to cancel the requirement of ten years’ membership and also to substitute notice of only two years as a preliminary to withdrawal.

But Larnaude was far from satisfied.

“You are assuming that the League will prove tyrannical and that the States will be eager to withdraw. Such an impression might be disastrous. Non-member countries might combine against the League. The notice of withdrawal by a major power would throw the League into confusion,” he contended.

As it neared midnight Bourgeois again brought up his amendment providing for an international staff. It provoked an uproar in which the protesting voices of Orlando, Cecil, Venizelos, and even Vesnitch could be distinguished. They would have none of it, and the troublesome question was again postponed. Wilson now appointed a committee to revise the work done or rather the amendments that have been submitted, and Cecil, House, Larnaude, and Venizelos were appointed to it. We were all so sleepy that it was only on the following day we realized that the humble drafting committee had been promoted and was now practically charged with the functions of a committee on revision. House told Miller that he was not good at phrase-making or word-splitting and that he, Miller, must sit for him on this committee.

It was at this meeting that a letter from Mr. Bryan was made available, at least to the American delegates. He stated that he was favorable to the League, but he thought that the Commission was neglecting “the waste places of the earth.” He did not define them geographically. Mr. Bryan gave himself a pat on the back for his “cooling-off treaties the subject of so much newspaper ridicule during the stay of the Great Commoner in the Department of State. He certainly deserved the “pat” and more. Indeed the Bryan idea is implicit in the Covenant. Mr. Bryan also contended in this letter that the United States should have a larger representation in the League, one “proportioned to our voting strength, our wealth, and moral influence.” He also opposed the two-thirds vote necessary for the admission of new members. “Many would be blackballed,” he feared, and he concluded with the sonorous phrase: “The World League is for the World.”

The French now propose a new article to establish an economic section of the League, with the objective of regulating freedom of transit and equitable handling of commerce. This drew fire from Mr. Wilson, and he spoke at considerable length. Obviously he had the Mexican situation in mind.

“This new clause,” he said, “while doubtless not so intended, would introduce a dangerous principle. It is known, unfavorably known, in my country as the principle ‘the Flag follows the Dollar.’ My judgment is that no government should support its nationals in claims detrimental to the country in which their investments have been made. The League must be on its guard against accepting proposals of this nature. Since I have had anything to do with the Government of the United States, we have refused to support capitalists who have made unreasonable investments abroad and who seek unfair advantage over the people of the country where their investments are lodged.”

Much desultory discussion followed, and then the Belgians proposed a clause dealing with international agriculture. The talk became discursive and Bourgeois, for the third or fourth time, brought up his plan for an international army or at the very least an international general staff. On the insistence of Orlando, Cecil, and Venizelos, the troublesome question was shelved again. It was now past midnight and everyone was sleepy. It should be admitted that the Commission now disintegrated rather than adjourned.