If so, some deep, popular instincts in France will be at once appeased and softened, and Franco-American relations, I believe, greatly improved.
No doubt, if the President made a mistake in not going at once to the wrecked districts before the Peace Conference opened--and no one has insisted on this more strongly than American correspondents--it is clear that it was an idealist's mistake.

Ruins, the President seems to have said to himself, can wait; what is essential is that the League of Nations idea, on which not Governments only, but _peoples_ are hanging, should be rapidly "clothed upon" by some practical shape; otherwise the war is morally and spiritually lost.
Certainly the whole grandiose conception of the League, so vague and nebulous when the President arrived in Europe, has been marvellously brought out of the mists into some sort of solidity, during these January weeks.

Not, I imagine, for some of the reasons that have been given.

An able American journalist, for instance, writing to the _Times_, ascribes the advance of the League of Nations project entirely to the close support given to the President by Mr.Lloyd George and the British Government; and he explains this support as due to the British conviction "that the war has changed the whole position of Great Britain in the world.

The costs of the struggle in men, in money, in _prestige_ (the italics are mine), have cut very deeply; the moral effect of the submarine warfare in its later phase, and of last year's desperate campaign, have left their marks upon the Englishman, and find expression in his conduct....