500.A15a3/721: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chairman of the American Delegation (Stimson)
199. Your telegram No. 97, February 28, 7 p.m.
[Here follows the substance of Mr. Root’s letter of March 7, printed on page 51.]
We have not yet heard from Mr. Moore. My feeling is that articles III and IV, to which Mr. Root refers, are of even less importance than he views them. To me, article III always seemed and still seems definitely unwise. I cannot imagine that a naval officer in command of a submarine would be affected by it in the least and I certainly do not believe in post-war trials. I should not think that it would be necessary to insert the clause he suggests preventing a new treaty from impairing in any way the obligations under articles III and IV of the powers which have entered into them. I agree with Mr. Root that inclusion of article IV in a three-power treaty is not desirable, and I do not regard it as essential in a five-power treaty.
With regard to articles I and II, I agree with Mr. Root that they are far better than the proposed French clause, but I would not agree that these articles could not be changed or modified in expression to meet the wishes of any of the powers; but because of its vagueness, the particular French expression seems to me very objectionable.