After much discussion and vehement opposition on the part of the French delegates an Inter-Allied commission under Mr. Charles Crane was sent to visit the countries in dispute and to report on the leanings of their populations.  After having visited forty cities and towns and more than three hundred villages, and received over fifteen hundred delegations of natives, the commission reported that the majority of the people “prefer to maintain their independence,” but do not object to live under the mandatory system for fifty years provided the United States accepts the mandate.  “Syria desires to become a sovereign kingdom, and most of the population supports the Emir Faisal as king.[312] The commission further ascertained that the Syrians, “who are singularly enlightened as to the policies of the United States,” invoked and relied upon a Franco-British statement of policy[313] which had been distributed broadcast throughout their country, “promising complete liberation from the Turks and the establishment of free governments among the native population and recognition of these governments by France and Britain."[314]

The result of the investigation by the Inter-Allied commission reminds one of the story of the two anglers who were discussing the merits of two different sauces for the trout which one of them had caught.  As they were unable to agree they decided to refer the matter to the trout, who answered:  “Gentlemen, I do not wish to be eaten with any sauce.  I desire to live and be free in my own element.”  “Ah, now you are wandering from the question,” exclaimed the two, who thereupon struck up a compromise on the subject of the sauce.

The tone of this long-drawn-out controversy, especially in the press, was distinctly acrimonious.  It became dangerously bitter when the French political world was apprised one day of the conclusion of a treaty between Britain and Persia as the outcome of secret negotiations between London and Teheran.  And excitement grew intenser when shortly afterward the authentic text of this agreement was disclosed.  In France, Italy, Germany, Russia, and the United States the press unanimously declared that Persia’s international status as determined by the new diplomatic instrument could best be described by the evil-sounding words “protectorate” and the violation of the mandatory system adopted by the Conference.

This startling development shed a strong light upon the new ordering of the world and its relation to the Wilsonian gospel, complicated with secret negotiations, protectorates without mandates, and the one-sided abrogation of compacts.