Dear Madeleine Doty; In response to your request, I can only repeat what I have always replied, when various National Sections have written to me in regard to the “Object” of the Women’s International League, that each Section was at liberty to use the form of statement which best met its requirements, if such variation in no wise endangered the underlying meaning, and provided also that its general terms had been authorized by an International Congress.
I may of course be mistaken in this, but I should consider it perfectly legal if one National Section printed on its literature “Object of the W.I.L.P.F. as adopted by the Vienna Congress in 1921”
While another National Section printed “Object of the W.I.L.P.F. as adopted by the Washington Congress in 1924.”
One of the great difficulties in all international organizations lies in the discussion of the use of words, not only because of the differences in language, but because of differences in the stress placed upon the exactitude of words.
I should of course be rejoiced if we could find a form of statement which expresses us all, but nevertheless I venture to consider it fortunate that we have authorized two forms so that each Section may use the one which best meets its requirements, taking care each time to state the authorization. Anticipating the Dublin Congress with eagerness.
Comments