M. Land are members of the Governing Commission. But that is just the point: 
to my mind the Saar problem is a problem of how the Commission should be 
composed and I consider it as a grave aberration when public opinion has con¬ 
centrated on the so-called provisional Decrees, I have not worked on the Saar 
questions for more then 3V2 years only to see everything break down because of 
ill-advised public opinion, and the League blamed for misadministration where I 
feel that the administration has been, almost in every respect, admirable. I, there¬ 
fore, had to make my point quite clear to the Directors Meeting206. I did the 
same in several long discussions with Lord Robert before the last Council Ses¬ 
sion, and also during a visit to Paris where I saw a number of persons concerned 
with the Saar. 
There was once more reason, and a capital one, for stepping in and trying to 
put matters straight: the imminent danger of the Saar question leading to a quite 
serious quarrel between London and Paris. The view may be held that that would 
have been only for the good; I personally do not think so. The League is not 
here to make or to favour trouble, but to make peace, and if, as I hope, the 
League is called up to assist in settling the greater problem of Europe, it was 
of considerable importance to avoid trouble on the Saar problem. 
Don’t believe that this means that in any way I have favoured a solution of com¬ 
promise, or even bad compromise. If you read the resolution, of which, by the 
way, I myself drafted the greater part, you will see that there is not a word 
contrary to what has been our standing policy. I think you will even see that 
our policy has been put forward with considerable accuracy, and that the League 
has gained great strength for its future work on the Saar question. 
I am, therefore, quite hopefull with regard to the future. It has been a good 
thing, a very good thing indeed, to have the Saar problem thrashed out, but if 
I had not stepped in and done my best to get the question handled with a view 
to a peaceful settlement, great harm might have been done on the League“.207 
Dieser Standpunkt Colbans als Standpunkt der Sachverständigen im Sekre¬ 
tariat wird noch ergänzt durch einen Brief, den Gilchrist am 25. August 
1923 an den Engländer Elbert I. Badwin schickte, als dieser ihn um Aus¬ 
kunft über den Rücktritt Waughs bat. Gilchrist beklagte sich in diesem Brief 
über die Journalisten, besonders die liberalen, die die gesamte Saarsituation 
nicht richtig sähen. Der Vertrag habe Frankreich viele Vorrechte gegeben, 
und außerdem sei die Tatsache zu beachten, daß Frankreich Mitglied des 
Völkerbundes sei und Deutschland nicht. 
„If the League were universal, as I soon hope it will to be, one of our most 
serious handicaps would be removed. Then every government directly interested 
in a problem like the Saar problem would be on an equal footing inside the 
League. As it is, today, however, the situation is distinctly weighted in favour 
of France. It must be remembered that the League is an organization composed 
of certain governments and that it acts, according to its covenant, are the re¬ 
presentatives of those governments dictate. It is not directly subject to the dic¬ 
tates of any group of idealists or even to the dictates of the Divine power ... 
It is a human institution, placed as regards the Saar problem in a somewhat one¬ 
sided position, and yet expected by a large part of public opinion to act as if 
the scales were balanced evenly. However much truth there may be in the pro- 
206 Gemeint ist die Arbeitsbesprechung der Direktoren der einzelnen Ressorts des 
Völkerbundssekretariats. 
207 S.D.N., Archives des Sect, du Secretariat, Sect. Pol. Sarre, Nr. 57,12. Brief Colbans an 
Gilchrist v. 18. 7. 1923. 
80