March 28th

Bourgeois now offered an amendment to Article VIII dealing with disarmament. It called for what he said was a Commission of Contrôle and Vérification:

“Its members should keep us fully advised as to the actual condition of the armament, both military and naval, of the member States; also give us full information as to the status of such of their industries as could furnish, in emergency, war materials. In other words,” he said, “I want a Commission to keep us informed as to military activities in the States that are members of the League, and in others as well.” The President opposed the proposal at some length.

“I fear,” he said, “and indeed I anticipate that the visits of a Commission, such as our French colleague proposes, to ascertain whether the nations are living up to their engagements or not, would be far from pleasing to many. It might even be irritating. If we were proposing to form a Union of States and so constitute a Super-State, much might be said in favor of this method of supervision and control. But our purpose is well known. It is to avoid any suggestion of a Super State, and under these circumstances, the supervision of the internal affairs of member States would be most difficult; I cannot approve the plan.” Cecil joined with Wilson in his opposition. The proposal was dropped, but Bourgeois reserved the right to bring the matter up again, both in the Commission and at a Plenary Session.

The reservations to, and the changes in, the Covenant which evidently much against his will (only at the behest of Senators) the President is pressing upon the unwilling members of the League of Nations Commission may soften his enemies in the Senate, but they are playing hob with his popularity and even his power here. In a quiet, tactful way the Japanese are supporting him on the Monroe Doctrine reservation, for they hold that the term “and other regional agreements” readmits the Ishii agreement into the new code of public law which is being drawn up. The proposal that a member state should be permitted to withdraw from the League upon two years’ notice is, however, the one that excites the most opposition in press and public. Lord Robert Cecil is doing missionary work among the delegates which it is hoped will prove helpful, but he has carefully abstained from committing himself either in the debates or in public upon the question. He asks only that the proposal be looked at “objectively.” Only Orlando supports the President’s stand on this point and last night he spoke for twenty minutes on the subject. I have no doubt he expects a substantial return for his support, which is important at the moment. Boiled down, this was the sense of his rambling remarks: “He valued highly membership in the League. It seemed to him to be a precious privilege, but in case the League does not work out the way you expect it will, it is a comfort to know that you can throw off your membership with but a short delay.”

With other and perhaps more important groups the President has lost prestige and I fear support because of these last-minute changes. There is always the dishonest opposition that will sulk until the President consents to pay the price which they demand for their support, and there is the honest opposition, that of the men who believe and say the President initiated the Covenant and that now he smashes it with a proposal which converts it into just another treaty that anyone can treat as “a scrap of paper.” “Indeed now you can do it quite honorably, if you are not too precipitate, and give two years’ notice. We were told and indeed we believed there was something sacramental in the word Covenant, that it was a holy compact that would in time redeem the world. Now it would seem it is not more important or lasting than a trade treaty you can throw over the moment it becomes unprofitable.” So Larnaude-privately at least.

Important men of the Commission are not saying much but they are thinking a great deal. House hopes the changes will facilitate ratification in the Senate and stem the isolationist sentiment which he is advised is growing stronger in many quarters at home, but he admits that over here the President is paying a fearful price for these same changes. At public meetings and in their papers both Jean Longuet of the Populaire and Cachin of the Chamber are turning against the President and are doing all they possibly can to thwart what they consider is his purpose. Mme. Cachin who, having lived long in America, knows many of our phrases said to me yesterday, “Your President has sold the Liberals of Europe down the river.” Longuet is even more bitter. Yesterday he wrote in his paper: “We must look our situation straight in the eye unpleasant as it is. We are confronted with the complete failure of the policy of the one man in whom we put our confidence.” His bitterness is all the greater because in the beginning Longuet evidently regarded the President as a bashful “Red”; now he has concluded that the President is a hard-shelled, if cleverly veiled, Conservative, and is determined to “smoke him out.”

I had quite an argument with the long-haired editor last night but accomplished litde or nothing, I fear. He is not only disappointed; he believes that he has been deceived, and that, of course, leaves a sting. The only suggestion of a concession he made was the fact, which he admitted, that all the other delegates to the Peace Conference are more despicable than Wilson. “Of them, however, we expected nothing and indeed we did not allow them to enter into our calculations. One and all we knew them to be insignificant hypocrites. But Wilson— These men accepted the Fourteen Points but with reservations; they would still pursue their Machiavellian path. Now we see, however, that a sinister comedy has been played before our eyes and Wilson is a party to it.”

This evening session, in my judgment, was a total loss. It was marked by an outburst of bad temper from the English delegate who is variously described by the French delegates as Lord Robert, or “Sir Cecil.” There were, I must admit, extenuating circumstances for this, from him at least, unusual departure. His nerves had been worn to a frazzle by verbal clashes with Hymans, who is so generally referred to as the pestiferous Belgian.” And more indeed in overflowing measure, for the fourth or fifth time, M. Larnaude pinch hitting for M. Bourgeois-and reversing his attitude of three days ago-had brought up the French proposal for an international general staff to contrôler the military and naval establishments of the recent allies as well as those of the recent enemy states. And I had faithfully translated what he had to say. As a matter of fact, he had put in his plea so often that I could have reeled it off in my sleep. Being in an angry mood, Cecil took exception to my translation and taking the floor he said—and I had to translate his reproof—that I was putting an entirely wrong construction on the words of the French delegate. He asserted that the French proposal was not merely to control the armed forces of all nations but to dominate them, “to establish a supersovereignty in the world we are planning. He asks that the role of an autocrat be assigned to the League and that it be invested with powers which only a vassal state would submit to.”

We are told that even the crushed worm will turn, and so I saw no reason why an interpreter, however humble, should not defend his work. Be this as it may, I sailed right in. I should say that in his youth Cecil had evidently known a little French, of the Stratford-Atte-Bow variety, but it had grown rusty. I began with the remark that of course I had no idea what the French delegate had in mind, that my simple duty was to faithfully translate what he said. In doing this I find that the word contrôler which they use so frequently does not suggest domination or even control in the English sense of the word but simply to watch over, and to register the actual muster rolls of the various armed forces.

Dmowski (Poland) evidently enjoyed the verbal bout hugely and kept the French delegates informed as to how it was going. As a result warm smiles of approval came from Bourgeois and Larnaude while the atmosphere in the Anglo-Saxon corner grew plutôt glaciale.

For at least an hour the session degenerated into a talkfest. Words such as surveillance, supervision, inspection, audit, were trotted out and put through their paces in a way that would have amused, but certainly not have edified, the late Archbishop Trench and the very-much-alive H. W. Fowler. I kept out of it except to say, with Fowler, how often verbs derived doubtless from the same root in the passage of time acquire very different meanings. This for the instruction of Cecil, who was still trying to give the same interpretation to the French contrôler and the English control.

The incident depressed me, and not unduly I think. Here world leaders were assembled to form a federation of the world. It was indeed an opening session of the Parliament of Man. Almost everywhere the “war drams” were still throbbing, there are battles along the Baltic and everywhere in the Balkans, the Allied forces have been driven out of southern Russia, misery and starvation prevail almost everywhere, and in French garrison towns mutiny had raised its ugly head and the men who were to prepare for the “peace of Jerusalem” were engaged in kindergarten studies as to the value of words! What diable had embarked me dans cette galère? I asked myself, and determined to abandon the crazy ship and return again to the study of my Ethnic Factors, my colleagues of the Congress of Submerged Nationalities,¹ so many of whom were still hanging on in Paris and hoping for hearings before the Great Assizes of the World Court. But the Colonel refused to accept my resignation, and when on the following day Cecil very handsomely apologized for his attack and said I was entirely in the right I consented to hang on—but none too cheerfully.