But I do think that it is more practical in operation and less objectionable from the standpoint of national rights and interests than the one proposed by the League.  It does not appear to me that the use of physical force is in any way practical or advisable.

“I presume that you are far more familiar than I am with the details of the plans of the League and that it may be presumptuous on my part to write you as I have.  I nevertheless felt it my duty to frankly give you my views on the subject and I have done so.

   “Faithfully yours

   “Robert Lansing

   “The President

   “The White House”

The President, thus early advised of my unqualified opposition to any plan which was similar in principle to the one advocated by the League to Enforce Peace, naturally concluded that I would look with disfavor on an international guaranty which by implication, if not by declaration, compelled the use of force to give it effect.  Doubtless he felt that I would not be disposed to aid in perfecting a plan which had as its central idea a guaranty of that nature.  Disliking opposition to a plan or policy which he had originated or made his own by adoption, he preferred to consult those who without debate accepted his judgment and were in sympathy with his ideas.  Undoubtedly the President by refraining from asking my advice spared himself from listening to arguments against the guaranty and the use of force which struck at the very root of his plan, for I should, if I had been asked, have stated my views with entire frankness.

The other reason for not consulting me, as I now realize, but did not at the time, was that I belonged to the legal profession.  It is a fact, which Mr. Wilson has taken no trouble to conceal, that he does not value the advice of lawyers except on strictly legal questions, and that he considers their objections and criticisms on other subjects to be too often based on mere technicalities and their judgments to be warped by an undue regard for precedent.  This prejudice against the legal profession in general was exhibited on more than one occasion during our sojourn at Paris.  Looking back over my years of intercourse with the President I can now see that he chafed under the restraints imposed by usage and even by enacted laws if they interfered with his acting in a way which seemed to him right or justified by conditions.  I do not say that he was lawless.  He was not that, but he conformed grudgingly and with manifest displeasure to legal limitations.  It was a thankless task to question a proposed course of action on the ground of illegality, because he appeared to be irritated by such an obstacle to his will and to transfer his irritation against the law to the one who raised it as an objection.  I think that he was especially resentful toward any one who volunteered criticism based on a legal provision, precept, or precedent, apparently assuming that the critic opposed his purpose on the merits and in order to defeat it interposed needless legal objections.  It is unnecessary to comment on the prejudice which such an attitude of mind made evident.