David Lawrence to Woodrow Wilson

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

My dear Mr. President
I think I may be of service to you in straightening out the censorship tangle. I believe, as do many who have thought the thing out, that there should be a censorship law to prevent the revelation to the enemy of military information. I believe such a law can be obtained if the proper strategy is pursued.
Today several things happened which you ought to know about and which I am telling you not as a correspondent but as a friend in the hope that an amicable solution can be reached. First, I will set forth briefly the situation and then suggest a remedy.George Creel submitted some regtulations. With the greater part of them, most correspondents agreed. They would have been approved today but the effort in Congress to revive the censorship provision in the espionage law stopped such ation action. Such was the temper of the correspondents that at a meeting today even a motion which I made to secure the adoption of the reglulations as a tenatative basis was defeated. The argument was made that the Administration purposed to enact the regulations into law anyway and that the approval by the correspondents would be used as a means of bringing that about in Congress. It was argued that George Creel was all right, that he had the right point of view and promised much but apparently he had no authority. The correspondents claimed that they had been assured at their Monday meeting that if the regulations submitted were approved there would be no censorship law. They claimed that Mr Lansing has one set of ideas, Mr Creel another, and now Congress is to be asked to enact a law superseding all. In view of what was termed a chaotic situation, the point was made that the Washington correspondents xxxx oughjt not go on record at all. As I said before, a few of us tried to have some action taken which would indicate our approval of the regulations in principle. I triesd finally to secure the appointment of a committee of ten correspondents to confer with you personally and learn your views as well as exchange ideas. The point was made that you might not desire to receive such a delegation and finally the motion was not acted on at all, a motion to adjourn having been adopted.
Now, I think there is a distrust which ought not to exist, an antagonism that is has no just foundation and a beginning of friction that will infect kill the very spirit of cooperation which must prevail in order to enable the people to understand thoroughly what their government is doing. My remedy would be this:I would suggest that you invite the Washington correspondents to the White House, the whole body of them, so that they may express to you their viewpoint. Similarly, I am sure they will not fail to be impressed by such information as you must have which prompts you to ask for some kind of a censorship law. If there is an understanding, even of a general nature, the obstacles to legislation will have been removed. I do believe, however, that the censorship provision should be detached and separately introduced after conferences with the leading newspaper editors. The moment the necessity for some legislation is thoroughly understood and the desire of the Administration to consult the editors is manifest, I think the latter will voluntarily indicate the lines on which a bill could be drawn that would cover the needs of the situation.
The trouble now is that the correspondents here and the editors outside believe there has not been good faith on the part of the Government. The promises made at the Department of Justice that the editors would be conslulted before legislation was introduced are held up as proof of the charges. In a situation like this, I am confident that only you can bring harmony out of confusion. And instead of an irritated press, ready to pounce on every slight thing and hammer men who are trying only to do their best with a machinery and a people unused to war, we will have a press that will be charitable in its criticisms and will inspire the people with a confidence in theirgo government. I write you very infrequently and only when I think something is going to happen that should not happen when I think, indeed, trouble for you can be avoided. I believe that in the censorship situation likes lies enough danger of every kind to make your task twice as difficult as it would otherwise be. Prompt action, the introduction of a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust, will bring about a better atmosphere all around.

I am,
With best wishes,
Very sincerely yours,
David Lawrence

P. S. – At The meeting of the correspondents with you, would afford a splendid opportunity to indicate how completely you are behind George Creel whose work will be much easier if you touch on the confidence you have in him etc.