500.A4a/73b
The Secretary of State to Mr. Frank H. Simonds
My Dear Mr. Simonds: I notice that in your article in this morning’s Washington Herald you say:
“It is no secret now, for example, that M. Viviani went home because of his indignation over the way France had been treated about the four-power treaty—which was wholly prepared by three powers and referred to France for signature alone.”
I cannot believe that M. Viviani had this feeling and certainly, if he had, there was no basis for it.
The facts are these. I had proposed that France be included in the Treaty. As soon as I was advised by Baron Kato, who had communicated with Tokio, that his Government had no objection to the inclusion of France I immediately—that is, within a few hours and as soon as an appointment could be made,—presented the matter to M. Viviani, who expressed his gratification. Instead of the Treaty being referred to France for signature alone, M. Viviani and M. Jusserand sat in two long consultations with the representatives of the other Powers, in which the final text of the Treaty was determined upon. M. Viviani went over the matter with the representatives of the other Powers and had the same opportunity as they had to make any suggestions that he desired. When the last consultation ended M. Viviani was the only one who was not prepared to give a final assent on behalf of his Government, and this was simply because he had not heard definitely from Paris. This was the day before the plenary session and I held up the call of the session awaiting M. Viviani’s reply. M. Viviani came to see me in the evening with the statement that he had just heard from his Government approving the Treaty, and then I called the plenary session [Page 41] for the next day. When M. Viviani saw me he seized me by both hands and was most profuse in his expression of pleasure. You, of course, know what he said the next day at the plenary session.36
Sincerely yours,
- See Conference on the Limitation of Armament, pp. 166 ff.↩