763.72119/627a
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: Senator Owen called to see me yesterday and left with me a copy of a resolution which he had drafted and which is embodied in a speech which he proposes to deliver in support of the resolution.27
While he did not say so I assume that he wished me to submit it to you for comment as to the desirability of introduction at the present and as to the terms of the resolution.
I did not have time to read the Senator’s speech until today. I think that it is based on the essential principles which will be the foundation of a permanent peace, but I am not at all sure that this is the time to invite controversy over the terms of peace in Congress and, as a consequence, throughout the world. I am not sure how the various Allied Governments would view this formal declaration on our part of arrangements, in which they are so vitally interested, without [Page 35] our consulting them or giving them an opportunity to object to one or more of the provisions.
In fact I believe that any resolution at the present time would precipitate a debate in Congress which might give opportunity to those hostile to you to criticize your declarations as to the purposes which we seek to accomplish in the war. That would be very undesirable and might cause serious differences with our co-belligerents.
I do not know quite how to explain this to Senator Owen who has evidently given much thought to the subject and is strong in the belief that Congress should declare our purposes. I am afraid that my objection alone would not restrain him from acting.
It seems to me that the best way is for you to ask Senator Owen to come and see you, and then give him orally your views rather than write them to me for transmission to him.
I will tell the Senator that I have sent you his resolution and speech for your consideration.
Faithfully yours,
- No enclosures with file copy of this letter. For text of Senate Joint Resolution 94, introduced by Senator Owen, and his remarks on the subject, see Congressional Record, vol. 55, pt. 6, pp. 6164, 6288–6298.↩