New-York tribune., 1922-04-15

Treaty of London at that time knu
about it because everybody else di
In the text of the memorandum u,s
by Colonel House in the pre-arnissa
negotiations find the Treaty Of L,.
don referred 20 as a matter Of cour.
/ believe further that the man VI,
wrote Article TX Of the Fourteen Pom
knew the substance of the Treaty 4
London. He wrote that q readjustnn
OF the frontiers of Italy should be-
fected along clearly recognizable ls
of nationally" 7 submit that l.
words were not leap in the dart,s
a clear diplomatic reference to the il
perialistic lines laid down in the Tsss
of London.
l believe further that the man VI
wrote Article VIII had read the ssc.i
treaty between France and Russis All
knew that France would claim, IS ,ai
did claim. the inclusion Of the Ssr
Valley in Alsace-L Lorraine and sans
kind of veiled annexation of the Rhine
land.
Naturally [ take Mr.. Bakers Tor
for it that ne mas not found the ni9'
and documents calculating French an'
Italian aspirations as revealed BY To-
secret treaties published in the Anisr'
can press before the Fourteen Points
were written. But repeat thE
Articles VII and TX are unintellsioh
except on the assumption that thef
author understood the secret treaties
1t is admitted that Colonel House snss
of the secret treaties. It is undenfs'
that within few months SecreisH
Lansing was discussing two Of the na''l
important Of these tresties. The PIX
sumption of the Presidents compl@
Ignorance through this whole pe-s''
beginning with the inter-Allied con
ference in the autumn Of 1911, eorn"
through the Brest-Litovsk parleys' NJ
Lloyd Georges speech, the fourle''
Points speech. Mr.. Lansing's Jugo'''''
policy, and the pre- -armistice deps'es-
say President Wilson's compisU
ignorance is 10 me unthinkable.
There remains President "hsoa
statement to the Senate committee ~
Baker more or less invites me 70 'a'
whether I think the President told 'h'
truth when he denied knowledge o. ~
secret treaties before he went to fsi'''
1t is puzzling question. Mr. "i1'', !,
denial is so positive. the presumps'N :
the contrary is so strong, that -. :.
we'll understand that Mr.. Baker sa',''
find the subject complicated a.. ~
the liberty, therefore. Of teh's"'A -.
suggesting an hypothesis which u -. ~
light of all the facts seems to ms 'A'
most plausible. IN,
1t is that Mr. Wilson was unpn'', ~.
cognizant of the treaties and oD's. q,
ignorant of them, that be dslIoe's''s
chose not to have them officially w. w.,
municated to him so as to avoid sl'1.
the diplomatic controversy "
diplomatic recognition which ep /,
communication would have inpe''.. 4,
think this is the probable truth v =.
matter. and before publishing MS :,
I think Mr.. Baker would do well "
out this hypothesis. He can, Ds. 4.
End people who actually dlseuS'ss sss
treaties with President Wiisob
would support this interpre'atl0a, \.
Finally, / wish to say that u.
tion,s. caption on my letter was ?. =,
leading. l do not think MI. T,.s
guilty of misrepresentation i'., =,
is no more transparently n's.r. r's.
Journalist than Ray stannard pa ~
But in this instance his own : ~
sincerity has, / think, made h"
credulous to be the chronlcier
sinister history. ns
New York City, April {.