Gabrielle Laforcade Duchêne to Kathleen D'Olier Courtney, May 25, 1927

I had- Miss Marshall must have told you intended to write to Dr. Clark after our Liege meeting about the changes that had been made to the resolution on China when this after his departure was discussed in plenary meeting.

Unfortunately the overwhelming work that we had to carry out a struggle - fortunately by the way - against the Paul-Bono project to completely monopolize me and prevent me! to realize my intentions. I deplore this resolution even more deeply.

I summarize the facts.

I must have, together with Miss Marshall, Miss Doty and G. Baer, to give up the work of the Committee for a few hours to go as a delegation to the rector about the decision taken by him to withdraw the room from the university for the evening meeting. While we were away, our colleagues were to discuss the China issue. On our return a certain excitement reigned caused on the one hand by the story of our reception on the other hand by the decision taken to send a given reading of the resolution on China resolution to which we immediately gave an adhesion in principle without delving into the terms.

Re-reading it after the session, I was particularly struck by this sentence to continue conciliatory methods for settlement of all points of difference between China and other countries... it seemed to me that if such a resolution were passed we could not use it in France. where it would be impossible for us to admit that when the great powers send armed forces to China every day, it is enough to lead.
parallel some negotiations - which can be a simple negotiation - which can be a simple trompe-l'oeil to say that it is about a peaceful policy. As Dr. Clark had to leave before we had any news as Dr. Clark had to leave before we had a new work meeting, it was during the small reception organized by L. Dejardin that I was able to have a few moments conversation with her and that we agreed to modify this sentence as follows "to use only conciliatory methods..."

In this connection, Dr. Clark expressed to me his satisfaction with the manner in which our common work had been carried out and with the friendly spirit which had never ceased to reign.

This meant that when, at a following meeting, the resolution was analyzed in all its details, while I could not but associate myself with the requests for modifications which were presented since they corresponded to my personal feelings, I felt embarrassed by the Absence of Dr. Clark. I then asked those of us who had taken part in the discussion which had taken place on the Chinese resolution in the presence of Dr. Clark if in their minds they envisaged the withdrawal of the armed forces and I was told that for them it was surely "implied" in this resolution.

As I cannot imagine that what is said "implicitly" cannot be said "explicitly", I no longer have any qualms about supporting the proposed amendment. (see minutes p.)
However, as I would have been sorry that this had happened in the absence of Dr. Clark, my attitude could, for lack of explanations, be misinterpreted, I wanted to explain to him exactly the facts persuaded that then, knowing my will to reconcile and knowing above all that I am never afraid to defend my ideas and to express my thoughts clearly, even in the circumstances where this is the most difficult and the most painful, she could not doubt the uprightness or the correctness of my attitude.

I will add that the original text could not, after examination, not be reworked. Thus it was said: "The Executive Committee of the W.I.L. urges the Governments concerned...to oppose..." which it was impossible to maintain. How indeed can a government be asked to oppose the measures it takes itself?
There are three conclusions to be drawn from this:
1) that the drafting of resolutions must be done with great care

2) that it is essential that the people who are to participate in the executive come from the beginning and stay until the end (so far the English section has- and you know how much I have always regretted it - often limited when she was not completely absent the time she devoted to committee work.)

3) that it is absolutely necessary that the text of the proposed resolutions be put in the hands of the delegates to the executive long enough before the discussion so that they have time to study it and pass the terms.

This is all the more necessary since if the resolution is written in a language which is not the mother tongue of certain delegates, they are thus terribly internalized, as happens in discussions when, as the Germans and French generally do at each meeting they strive not to lengthen the Discussion Liège, the absence of Miss Marshall at our current meeting and her particularly delicate positions in the present case, make me think of a responsibility whose full weight I feel.
However, I will not accept a presidential tone” and it is simply as a friend that very frankly, very clearly I will tell you all my thoughts about what the British Section has just done about the Chinese resolution.

The British Section thought it necessary to give a personal interpretation and restrictiveness of the resolution on China with regard to the withdrawal of troops. I would never have thought that one could accuse the text of the resolution as it was voted of ambiguity.

On the other hand (and this point of view is shared by all the members of our League to whom I have exposed the question a section cannot in any case, if they consider a text ambiguous, give it a personal interpretation without referring ,not to an absent person - in the present case the President -but to the authorized persons who participated in its discussion.

And this is where we touch on the fundamental question: our League has never been a federation of autonomous organisations, it would lose its character and, in my view, its main raison d'être, if any possibility of international action was removed because Branches would no longer feel bound by Convention and Executive Committee decisions and if decisions could be overruled by opposition from any Branch.
There are a minimum of rules and discipline that we must have, it is impossible that a section so important it is, can escape it for any reason.

Do you also believe - given the principles of the League - that it could really be envisaged by us a limitation in the withdrawal of troops?

Did you finally imagine the singular situation in which the British section whose government was going to find itself You finally imagined the singular situation in which the British section whose government is most seriously committed in China was going to find itself - by making a restriction of this order?

Do you think this is likely to promote a rapprochement between East and West? and don't you believe, on the contrary, that this could irreparably compromise the action we have planned in China?

I will only indicate, on the other hand, what could paraphrase discourteous and unfriendly in the fact that whereas
Mrs Drevet - and I voluntarily forget that she is French - had been appointed regularly with the participation of the British delegation, the British section now seems determined to devote the best part of the funds raised by it to sending a delegate English which can prevent the realization of the project or postpone it regrettably.

Believe that we recognize the interest there may be in the participation of an Englishwoman in this delegation, but it is regrettable that the British section born
did not realize earlier the need for this participation and did not have its proposal approved by the Liège committee.