the American Commission for Paris, on
December 4, 1918, the President did not consult me as to his plan for a
League of Nations. He did not show me a copy of the plan or even mention
that one had been put into writing. I think that there were two reasons
for his not doing so, although I was the official adviser whom he should
naturally consult on such matters.

The first reason, I believe, was due to the following facts. In our
conversations prior to 1918 I had uniformly opposed the idea of the
employment of international force to compel a nation to respect the
rights of other nations and had repeatedly urged judicial settlement as
the practical way of composing international controversies, though I did
not favor the use of force to compel such settlement.

To show my opposition to an international agreement providing for the
use of force and to show that President Wilson knew of this opposition
and the reasons for it, I quote a letter which I wrote to him in May,
1916, that is, two years and a half before the end of the war:

"_May 25, 1916_

"My DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

"I had hoped to see you to-morrow at Cabinet meeting, but to-day the
Doctor refused to allow me to leave the house this week. I intended
when I saw you to say something about the purposes of the League to
Enforce Peace, which is to meet here, and at the banquet of which I
understand you are to speak on Saturday night. I would have preferred
to talk the matter over with you, but as that is impossible I have
taken the liberty to write you this letter, although in doing so I am
violating the directions of the Doctor.

"While I have not had time or opportunity to study carefully the
objects of the proposed League to Enforce Peace, I understand the
fundamental ideas are these, which are to be embodied in a general
treaty of the nations: _First_, an agreement to submit all
differences which fail of diplomatic adjustment to arbitration or a
board of conciliation; and, _second_, in case a government fails to
comply with this provision, an agreement that the other parties will
unite in compelling it to do so by an exercise of force.

"With the first agreement I am in accord to an extent, but I cannot
see how it is practicable to apply it in case of a continuing
invasion of fundamental national or individual rights unless some
authoritative international body has the power to impose and enforc