Emily Greene Balch to Kathleen D'Olier Courtney, June 17, 1925

Vienna, June 17th 1925

Dear Miss Courtney

I was much pleased [today] to get your letter of June 8th. I have long been meaning to write to you and have even made one or two false starts without getting a letter really off.

How very nice to have Dr. Clark and Miss Pye with us at Innsbruck! And nevertheless I do very much wish you were to be too. But I do not urge it -- would not if I could -- for I realize it is too much to ask of yourself.

I feel that part of the reason that we pull apart somewhat at our Congresses is that our right wing does not get adequately represented in our smaller and more intimate gatherings.

Especially in the matter of the new statement of our object as a League did I want a chance for all of us to talk at once with you. I have been convinced that the Washington procedure in the matter had been entirely regular. The matter was submitted by the Executive Committee previous to the Congress, to a [subcommittee] ad hoc. Its draft was agreed on, I think unanimously. The Executive Committee discussed it and accepted it and recommended it to the Congress plenum. There no one spoke against it and it was adopted with no dissenting voice by the Congress in a business session.

I was puzzled to know why it seemed to you that Miss Addams had allowed an irregularity.

Now I understand from Miss Sheepshanks that the objection is that the matter did not appear in the agenda.

I thought that it was on the agenda but in this my memory is probably at fault.

But in any case I thought that our Congresses and Executive Committees were, like Parliament, free to take any action at any time so far as (in the case of W.I.L.) this is not contrary to any provision of our Constitution or to any previous unrepealed decision of the W.I.L.

But about this matter of the Agenda I am hazy and do not recall what previous decisions may have been binding on that point.

Now one more thing. The wording did not appear to me to introduce new matter but simply to reword the old. "All wars" includes "offensive and defensive, civil wars and foreign wars" (I quote the sense [page 2] of the new form. It is not before me).

But the psychological effect is doubtless different and doubtless scares off some who might accept the other wording. Also I do not doubt this was what was intended by the drafter. I was on the subcommittee at the Executive Committee meeting and hoped we had found a "formula" which satisfied the left without adding anything contrary to the wishes of the right until after the Congress this appeared to be the case (although I don't think Miss Addams ever liked the change. Quite the contrary).

One last found, although ↑point. Although,↓ as said, it did not appear to me at the time, that the new wording added any new matter to our basis ↑[which] it↓ has since been pointed out to me that there is a point that can be considered -- or must be considered -- as new and additional. (Writing without the two forms before me I forget just what this is.)

I hoped to have talked this all out with you and that you would have talked out the whole matter with our whole group. Perhaps you will be interested to see that Dr. Clark and Miss Pye are ↑came↓ prepared to clarify it all.

I also very much want your [judgment] about the secretaryship. Your proposal of a new person from London seems to me unlikely to be satisfactory. I note, what I had forgotten, that the Secretary must be a member of the Executive Committee.

(Has the Executive Committee, between Congresses, the right to elect new members? I forget how this stands).

While in Budapest I felt very unhappy in this matter. Miss Glücklich had told me she had not spoken of the matter of her relegation ↑resignation↓ or her offer to resign and they all spoke of how happy they were that she was in Geneva, how happy it made her to be there etc. And I felt in a false position and also sad to think how grieved they all would be if she left.

At the same time it is obvious that personal considerations should not determine the question of who is the best secretary of the League.

I should prefer to have Miss Glücklich stay on till the next Congress in any case. Otherwise my choice for Secretary would be Madame Jouve if we could get her.

Personally I should like to have Madame Ramondt if we could get her but I think our left wing would not accept her. [page 3]

Other questions that are before us are that of the next Congress. I should be glad if we could put it off till 1927 but that is both contrary to the Constitution as it stands and difficult from the financial point of view as we have money at best only enough to run for the next ten months or so and it would be impossible to raise money on any large scale except in connection with a Congress, I suppose.

Which raises also the prior question of whether the League is now really the best channel for the energies that now go to support its activity and that find their channel in the facilities for work that it offers.

You will not wonder that I wish the head of the British Section were with us as such, and that I wish we could have Kathleen Courtney's personality and ability to strengthen our deliberations!

Internationally organized work of the type of ours is not easily kept together and made effective.

I am sorry to trouble you with such a very long letter and only hope that I may be so fortunate as to have made my points clear. I have left out all the softening words of courtesy and fellowship because I think you know and understand the spirit in which I write, of appreciation and friendship and confidence.

Seeing you again now would be a real personal pleasure.

Yours cordially always

Emily G. Balch