David Lawrence to Woodrow Wilson

The morning papers today represent you as being very much annoyed over the publication of certain reports about Col. House. I have been informed by newspaper men that you particularly disliked my article of yesterday in this connection.

I know you are not given to offhand judgment, so I wonder whether it is not possible that in your haste you merely glanced at the headline in yesterday's Washington Times. The body of the article did not say that you had selected anyone for the Peace Commission, but on the contrary, I specifically dealt with that phase of it in this paragraph:"What will the personnel of the Peace Commission be? It is safe to say that the President has not crossed that bridge yet... Whether the Colonel will be the head of it is difficult to predict. He has never held office, and the impression that prevails here is that he is disinclined to break his precedent."My article emphasized that Col. House's commission has nothing immediately to do with peace negotiations, and such names as were mentioned were entirely suggested by me personally as men whom it would be desirable to select to aid in the work of preparing data for peace discussion. Editorial suggestion of this kind I am quite sure it is not your wish to see curtailed.

I really thought that I was doing a friendly thing by suggesting men of prominence without regard to party, and without regard to their affiliation with the present Administration.

There has been some criticism in the editorial press concerning the placing in the hands of one man such an important work as that of gathering data for the Peace conference, and my purpose was to show that men of prominence, of all political parties, and every variety of view, would certainly be consulted, and a true consensus of opinion thus obtained. I made this suggestion entirely on my own authority, and without committing you, Col. House, or the Government to any specific intention.

I was surprised, therefore, to read in the newspapers that you were disturbed by this story, which, if it does anything, certainly meets a growing criticism which you may or may not have noticed in the editorial press within the last few days.

I cannot believe that what I have heard, that you deprecate editorial discussion of these very important matters, and I am confident either that you were told only about the headlines over the article in question, and did not have time to read it, or that you could not have had in mind the article I wrote.

With best wishes, I amDL-R