Miller and Auchincloss no suggestion of a Court of International Justice appears, which seems to indicate that the provision in the revised draft did not originate with them or with Colonel House.

In fact on more than one occasion I had mentioned arbitration to the Colonel and found his views on the subject extremely vague, though I concluded that he had almost as poor an opinion of The Hague Tribunal as did the President.
The probability is that the change was suggested to Mr.Wilson by one of the foreign statesmen in a personal interview during January and that upon sounding others he found that they were practically unanimous in favor of a Permanent Court of Justice.

As a matter of policy it seemed wise to forestall amendment by providing for its future establishment.
If this is the true explanation, Article 12 was not of American origin, though it appears in the President's revised draft.
To be entirely frank in stating my views in regard to Mr.Wilson's attitude toward international arbitration and its importance in a plan of world organization, I have always been and still am skeptical of the sincerity of the apparent willingness of the President to accept the change which was inserted in his revised draft.

It is difficult to avoid the belief that Article V of the original draft indicated his true opinion of the application of legal principles to controversies between nations.

That article, by depriving an arbitral award of finality and conferring the power of review on a political body with authority to order a rehearing, shows that the President believed that more complete justice would be rendered if the precepts and rules of international law were in a measure subordinated to political expediency and if the judges were not permitted to view the questions solely from the standpoint of legal justice.