on 12 September 1917 by Louis Loucheur. International Labour Office Thomas was elected Deputy for the Tarn. In November 1919, during the inaugural Session of the International Labour Conference in Washington, at which he was not present, the Governing Body of the ILO chose him to be the Director of the Office. From then, Thomas gave himself up entirely to the work of the ILO. Thomas gave ILO a strong impetus from the very beginning. In a few years, he created, out of a small group of officials housed in a private residence in London, an international institution with a staff of 400 and a building of its own in Geneva. In the first two years, 16 international Labour Conventions and 18 Recommendations had been adopted. From 1920 onwards, the ILO launched an ambitious programme of publications, which included the Official Bulletin, the monthly International Labour Review and various other periodicals and newspapers. As Director, Thomas took personal interest in recruiting an international team to form the Secretariat of the Organisation. His leadership helped to establish the image of the ILO as one of boundless enthusiasm and explosive energy. Opposition between national governments, organised labour and employer representative bodies soon began to develop, and the optimism that had prevailed immediately following the end of the war gave way to doubt and pessimism. Some members sought to restrict the powers and activities of the Organisation. Firstly, it was felt that the Conference had gone too far and too quickly in the output of Conventions and Recommendations. National governments and parliaments could not or would not keep up. Thomas, noting the disappointing number of ratifications reached the conclusion that over-production of Conventions and Recommendations should stop. The publications programme of the Office became a target for criticism, namely that its research was not objective and impartial. At the same time, efforts were being made to restrict the competence of the ILO. In 1921, the French government took the position that the ILO was not competent to deal with agricultural matters and the Permanent Court of International Justice was requested to give an advisory opinion on the question. The Court found that the competence of the ILO did extend to international regulation of the conditions of labour of persons in agriculture, rejecting a restrictive interpretation of the Constitution. Other attempts to induce the Court to restrict the scope of action of the ILO