My dear Miss Addams,
I object seriously to the word "demands" in the second line of our statement, a copy of which has just reached me. We begin every paragraph with "I believe" or "I desire" and do not and ought not to make demands, only desires, hopes or wishes. Possibly the replies to the Pope, each government sending separately, will take the place of the "approaching" conference and we would better say "desires regarding the American policy of dealing with [page 2] the Allies" or some such phrase. I should say "are or become responsible to their people" otherwise it does not seem clear that Germany might sometime come in.
I see some advantage in publishing this before the Allies and the U.S. reply to the Pope. Otherwise we might be expected to refer to their decisions and it would seem queer to ignore them. This statement seems to me valid no matter what they say.
I yield of course to the opinion of the others of the board if they advise delay.
I hurry this off in the next mail.
You must have been glad of Pres. Eliot's long letter in the [page 3] Times. It would seem that he has been reading The New Republic and learned something since his last Times letter three weeks ago. I sent him a copy of our [anonymous?] letter that I wrote regarding it and referred him to the New Republic, but of course that may have had no influence whatever. He evidently now sees that the deadlock is bound to continue and that we must try something else. I think his letter [illegible words].
I shall anxiously watch the outcome of the People's Council and hope the talk will be discreet and mighty.
Lucia Ames Mead
I reached here in [illegible]