Chapter XV: Section 14: of the Lever Bill, which became the Food Control (7)

"The census report shows a reduction of more than 25 per cent.
in the output of civilian men's shoes in the quarter ending
with March, 1919, as compared with production in the quarter
ending with December, 1918, and nearly 25 per cent. reduction
as compared with the quarter ending with September, 1918. The
reduction in output of women's shoes amounted to approximately
30 and 25 per cent., respectively, in comprising corresponding
periods. The reduction in the output of shoes for youths, boys
and misses was even more marked."

COAL AND IRON

What has been said of the production of cotton and woolen goods applied equally to the mining of coal and to the output of iron and steel. During the war we increased our coal production. In 1918 it amounted to "685,000,000 short tons, almost 50 per cent. of the world's estimated output for that year. Production for 1913 was 571,000,000 short tons." The coal situation since the armistice is stated as follows:

"Coal, the source of a vast proportion of our industrial power
as well as our chief source of heat and light, is a commodity
the production of which is itself an index of our economic
life. Coal output since the armistice has been greatly reduced,
the weekly production of anthracite for the first half of 1919
being from 1,200,000 to 1,800,000 net tons, as against
1,800,000 net tons to 3,000,000 net tons for the corresponding
period of 1918. Bituminous production was 9,147,000 net tons
for a typical week in 1919, as against 12,491,000 net tons for
the corresponding week in 1918. Coke production for the week
ending June 28, 1919, amounted to only 287,000 net tons, as
compared with 627,000 net tons for the week ending June 29,
1918. The total amount of coal produced up to July 5, 1919, was
261,000,000 long tons, as compared with 364,000,000 long tons
for the corresponding period of 1918."

The production of iron and steel which was greatly stimulated by the war was allowed to decline as soon as the concentrated effort of the nation to win the war was abandoned. The resulting condition is succinctly described by the Council:

"The record of our after-war steel and iron output furnishes us
with another warning that we have been neglecting to keep pace
with the established American rate of industrial improvement
and expansion and foresighted preparation for future
requirements and progress.

"The iron and steel business was considerably stimulated by
war-time requirements. There was a governmental agency whose
business it was to for see the war needs and to place orders so
that those productive forces which are wrapped up in the steel
industry might be utilized to capacity. The steel industry's
activity has, however, since the armistice greatly declined.
Pig-iron production for April, 1919, was 82,607 tons per day,
as against 109,607 tons in April, 1918. Birmingham properties
are reported to have been working in April, 1919, at about 50
per cent. of the 1918 production. For the period January to
May, 1919, pig-iron production was only 2,114,000 tons, as
against 3,446,000 tons during the same period in 1918.
Steel-ingot production fell in the spring of 1919 to lower
figures than had been reached in more than two years. In fact,
a regular decline in production was in evidence after December,
1918.

"The figures representing the unfilled orders of the United
States Steel Corporation at the end of May, 1919, were smaller
than they had been since 1915."

Women Doing Night Farming

Girls running a tractor plow and harrow at Farmingdale, Long Island.]

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Council summarized its findings and recommends remedial measures as follows:

"The findings of the Reconstruction Research Division Council
of National Defense, indicate that the high cost of living is
primarily due to curtailment in the production of nearly all
commodities except raw food products, to hoarding of storage
food products, to profiteering, conscious and unconscious, and
to inflation of circulating credit. The findings indicate that
the situation may be most advantageously met by:

"1. Stimulated production.

"2. Some readjustment of incomes to the basis of higher price
levels.

"3. The repression of hoarding and profiteering.

"4. Improvement and standardization of methods and facilities
for distributing and marketing goods.

"5. The perfecting of means of keeping the nation frequently,
promptly, and adequately informed regarding probable national
requirements and of current production and stocks of the more
important commodities.

"The findings emphasize the fact that high standards of living
can not be maintained upon a basis of reduced production,
regardless of whether price levels be high or low."

_PART II_

I--THE PEACE CONFERENCE AT WORK

A Vivid Account from the Inside of the Machinery Which Produced the Peace Treaty. How the Crises with Japan, Italy and Belgium Were Averted

By THOMAS W. LAMONT

Financial and Economic Adviser at Paris to the American Commission to Negotiate Peace

When we finally gain an historic perspective of the work of the Peace Conference we shall realize that, instead of being unduly delayed, it was accomplished in an astonishingly brief period. The Treaty of Vienna, back in 1815, took eleven months, and the factors to be dealt with were nothing like so numerous nor so complex. The Paris Conference occupied only about six months, and the earlier weeks were largely given over to questions relating to the renewal of the Armistice, rather than to the actual framing of the Peace Treaty. The Treaty text itself--aside from the League of Nations Covenant--was whipped through in a little over three months; for the active work of the Commissions which were to draft the various chapters did not get under way until February 1st; and the Treaty was presented to the German delegates at Versailles on May 7th.

COVENANTS "OPENLY ARRIVED AT"

No adequate history of the Peace Conference can be written until years have elapsed--until it is possible, as it is not now possible, to make public a multitude of intimate details. Hundreds of important documents were woven into the completed text of the Treaty. Such documents must eventually be made available to the chroniclers of history, who must finally have access to the official records, so that in course of time they can acquaint the world with the details of those momentous conferences which were held among the Chiefs of State, where the ultimate decisions settling every important question were made. There have been complaints that the covenants of the Treaty were not as President Wilson had promised, "openly arrived at." In point of fact, as far as lay within the bounds of possibility, the covenants of the Treaty _were_ "openly arrived at," inasmuch as their essence was made public just as soon as an understanding upon them had been reached, and in many cases, long before the final agreement. Nothing was held back which the public had any legitimate interest in knowing. It would, of course, have been quite out of the question for the Chiefs of State to discuss in public all the highly delicate and complex situations which were bound to, and which did, arise at Paris. Every man of strong character and powerful conviction has a view of his own upon any given subject, and naturally maintains that view with vigor and tenacity--even at times, if he be bitterly opposed--with acrimony.

To take a familiar instance, it is an open secret that M. Clemenceau's first solution of the question of the Saar Basin did not at all suit President Wilson. Not unnaturally, M. Clemenceau simply wanted in effect to annex the Saar Basin, on the grounds that the Germans had destroyed the coal mines of Northern France. Mr. Wilson was in entire accord--to this extent, that France should, until her coal mines had been repaired, enjoy the entire output of the Saar coal fields; but to have France permanently annex the Basin was contrary to his profoundest convictions, as expressed in the well-known Fourteen Points.

In the course of the discussion between M. Clemenceau and Mr. Wilson, their ideas at the start being so divergent, vigorous views were undoubtedly expressed; quite possibly tart language was used, at any rate by the French Premier, who was feeling all the distress of German frightfulness and war weariness. But to what possible good end could the detail of such intimate conversations have been made public? I allude to the possible conversations on the Saar Basin not as an historical fact, but as an example of what might have taken place, and very likely did take place; and if such temporary disagreements existed on that question, undoubtedly, among so many Chiefs of State as were gathered together at Paris, they existed on others. But in all cases amicable and cordial agreements were finally reached.

Whenever agreements were even in sight, the press was informed; so that, when the Treaty of Peace and the summary of it finally came out, there were no surprises for the public. Every covenant, every clause, had been already foreshadowed and accurately pictured.

THE "BIG THREE"

Naturally, the question is often asked: Who were the peacemakers at Paris? Were they two or three powerful Chiefs of State? The answer is both "Yes" and "No." The final decision on every important matter lay in the hands of the so-called Big Four, and after Premier Orlando's defection and return to Italy, it narrowed down to the Big Triumvirate, Messrs. Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau. Yet while they made the final decisions, these were almost invariably based upon reports and opinions expressed to this trio, or to the quartet, by their advisers and experts. The actual text of the Treaty was, of course, written by the technicians, and there is hardly a phrase in the whole of it that can claim as its original author any one of the Chiefs of State. In every true sense, then, the Treaty of Peace has been the product, not of three men, not even of three-score, nor of three hundred, but of thousands; for quite aside from the official delegations at Paris, which comprised several hundred persons, we must remember that the data and the various suggested solutions on most of the questions had been canvassed at home for each delegation by large groups of office and technical experts.

Of course it sounds well to say that the Treaty was written by three men: the picture of those few Chiefs of State sitting in conference day after day is dramatic in the extreme. That is, I must confess, the picture which comes back oftenest to my mind. I see them today, as I saw them for months at Paris, sitting in that large but cosy salon in the house allotted to President Wilson on the Place des États Unis; for, by common consent, it was there that the Supreme Council finally held all its meetings. It is in that theatre, with the three or four Chiefs of State taking the leading rôles, that we saw the other characters in the great drama moving slowly on the stage, playing their parts, and then disappearing into the wings. Today it might be Paderewski, pleading with all his earnestness and sincerity, to have Danzig allotted to the sovereignty of Poland. To-morrow it might be Hymans, the Belgian Secretary for Foreign Affairs, begging that there should be a prompt realization of those pledges to Belgium, which Belgium felt had been made by all the Allies; or it might even be word brought by special aeroplane from the King of the Belgians at Brussels, with fresh and important instructions to his delegation in the matter of Reparation. Or it might be a group of the representatives of those newer nationalities, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Jugoslavia, arguing some burning question of boundary rights. Or it might be the British shipping experts, maintaining that the captured German ships should be restored to the various Allies upon a basis dividing the ships _pro rata_ to the losses sustained by submarines, and contending against the American claim that the United States should have all the German ships finding lodgment in American harbors. Or it might be Herbert Hoover, that brilliant American, come to describe to the Big Four starvation conditions in Vienna, and to emphasize his belief that, enemy or no enemy, those conditions must be relieved or Bolshevism would march into Austria and directly on west until it reached France--and beyond.

THE PLACE OF MEETING

The stage for this world drama was originally set at the Ministry of War, behind the Chamber of Deputies and across the Seine; and here Premier Clemenceau--who, it will be remembered, was Minister of War as well as President of the Council of French Ministers--was the presiding genius. But eventually, as the result of an interesting trend of circumstances, the all important conferences took place at President Wilson's house.

=David Lloyd George=

Ray Standard Baker, who attended the Peace Conference, wrote in his book, "What Wilson Did at Paris": "Lloyd George personally was one of the most charming and amiable figures at Paris, full of Celtic quicksilver, a torrential talker in the conference, but no one was ever quite sure, having heard him express an unalterable determination on one day, that he would not be unalterably determined some other way the day following."]

The original theatre of operations at the War Ministry had been so large, and there was such an enormous chorus brought into play, that progress was interminably slow. There were usually present all five of the plenipotentiaries of each of the five great powers, including Japan, and very frequently Marshal Foch as well. His presence automatically commanded the attendance of the chief military experts of the other delegates. With the innumerable secretaries who had to attend the plenipotentiaries, with the interpreters and whatnot, the Supreme Council came to look like a legislative chamber, in the midst of which sat Clemenceau, presiding with his usual incisiveness. At such meetings progress could be made only upon rather formal matters which had been threshed out beforehand. When it came to a point of great delicacy, where the discussions could be only on a most intimate basis, it became quite impossible to "carry on." Nobody would feel like speaking out in meeting and calling the other fellow names--as was necessary at times in order to clear the atmosphere--if there were half a hundred other people around, to hear those names, and promptly to babble them to an expectant throng outside.

So finally the Supreme Council was boiled down to the four Chiefs of State, including Japan's representative on any questions not strictly confined to Western Europe; and the small Council began to meet alternately at Clemenceau's office in the War Ministry, at Mr. Lloyd George's house, and at Mr. Wilson's, which was just around the corner from the British Premier's. Then in March, shortly after President Wilson's second coming from the United States, he fell ill with the grippe. After a rather severe attack he was able to get on his feet again and to do business, but was warned by his vigilant friend and physician, Admiral Grayson, to keep within doors for a time. Mr. Lloyd George, M. Clemenceau, and Signor Orlando were glad to accommodate themselves to Mr. Wilson's necessities, and formed the habit of meeting regularly at his house. His large salon was much better adapted for these conferences than the room at Mr. Lloyd George's. So there it was they met during all the final weeks of the Conference, leading up to the very end.

A DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBER

In the middle of the salon, facing the row of windows looking out upon the Place, was a large yet most inviting fireplace. On the left of this, a little removed from it, President Wilson usually ensconced himself on a small sofa, where he made room for some one member of his delegation, whom, for the particular subject under discussion, he desired to have most available. On the other side of the fireplace sat Mr. Lloyd George in a rather high, old-fashioned chair of carved Italian maple, and at his left sat his experts. Opposite the fireplace, to the right of it, and about half-way across the room, sat M. Clemenceau, with such of his Ministers as he needed, and then between him and President Wilson was Signor Orlando with the Italians. This made a semi-circle around the fireplace, and whenever Viscount Chinda of the Japanese delegation was present, the circle was usually enlarged so as to give him a seat in the middle of it. Behind this first semi-circle was a second one, made up of secretaries and various technical experts, but the conference was always a limited one, and was not allowed to grow so large as to become unwieldy.

Directly in front of the fireplace, almost scorching his coat-tails, sat Professor Mantou, the official interpreter for the Big Four. Mantou is a Frenchman, Professor of French in the University of London, so he had a perfect mastery of both French and English, with a good working knowledge of Italian. Mantou was quite an extraordinary character, and the most vivid interpreter I have ever heard, or rather seen; for at times he entered into the spirit of the discussions more vigorously than the original actors. M. Clemenceau, for instance, might make a quiet, moderate statement, in French, of course; and when it became Mantou's time to interpret it into English, he would enliven and embellish it with his own unique gestures.

The Secretary of the Council was Sir Maurice Hankey, a British Army officer of great skill and tact, who had a marvelous aptitude for keeping everything straight, for taking perfectly adequate, and yet not too voluminous minutes, for seeing that no topic was left in the air without further reference, and in the last analysis, for holding the Chiefs of State with their noses to the grindstone. He knew French and Italian well, and was a distinct asset to the Council. I note that, in the honors and money-grants disbursed by Parliament to Marshal Haig, Admiral Beatty and others, Hankey received £25,000. Everybody who worked with him at Paris will be glad of this just recognition. I have described this Council Chamber in the President's house rather minutely because, as I have said, it formed the stage for all of the momentous decisions which went to make up the final peace settlement. At these conferences there was no formal presiding officer, but to President Wilson was usually accorded the courtesy of acting as moderator.

HOW THE TREATY WAS COMPOUNDED

What, then, is the Treaty? The answer is that it is a human document, a compound of all the qualities possessed by human beings at their best--and at their worst. People might expect a Treaty of Peace to be a formal, legal, mechanical sort of document; and undoubtedly an effort was made by some of the drafting lawyers, who bound all the different clauses together, to throw the Treaty into the mold of formality. But all the same, it is a compound quivering with human passion--virtue, entreaty, fear, sometimes rage, and above all, I believe, justice.

The reason fear enters into the Treaty must be manifest. Take, for instance, the case of France. France had lived under the German menace for half a century. Finally the sword of Damocles had fallen, and almost one-sixth of beautiful France had been laid waste. Her farms, her factories, her villages, had been destroyed; her women ravished and led captive; her children made homeless; her men folk killed. Do we realize that almost 60 per cent. of all the French soldiers under thirty-one years of age were killed in the war? Is it any wonder France could not believe that the German menace was gone forever, and that the world would never again allow German autocracy to overwhelm her? She could not believe it, and for that reason she felt it essential that the terms of the Treaty should be so severe as to leave Germany stripped for generations of any power to wage aggression against beautiful France. If her Allies pointed out that to cripple Germany economically was to make it impossible for Germany to repair the frightful damage she had wrought in France, France would in effect reply that this might be so, but never again could she endure such a menace as had threatened her eastern border for the previous half century. If certain of the Treaty clauses appear to some minds as unduly severe, it must be remembered that the Allies, little more than France, could bear the thought of letting Germany off so easily that within a few years she might again prepare for war.

There was fear, too, on the part of those new nations, which had been largely split off from the effete and outworn Austro-Hungarian Empire, that in some way their ancient oppressors would once more gain sway over them. And, every nation, great and small, was overshadowed with the constant terror of Bolshevism,--that dread specter which seemed to be stalking, with long strides, from eastern Europe west towards the Atlantic. Unless peace were hastened that evil might overtake all the Allies. Such apprehensions as these, far more than imperial ambition or greed, were factors in the Treaty decisions. Judgments that might take many months in the ripening could not with safety be awaited.

THE PROTECTION DEMANDED BY FRANCE

France, I say, was thoroughly shocked at the frightful fate which had come upon so great a portion of her land and population. She seemed to have real fear that out of the ground, or from the sky, or from the waters of the earth, at the waving of the devil's wand, there would spring into being a fresh German army, ready to overwhelm her. It was this fear that led France to ask for a special Treaty by which England and America would pledge themselves to come to her aid in case of Germany's unprovoked attack against her. Those Americans who object to this have no conception of the real terror in France which led her to entreat her two most powerful Allies to make such a special treaty with her. France maintained, and with some reason, that during the formative period of the League of Nations, before it might become an effective instrument, if she did not have the psychological and practical protection of England and America, she must look to her own defense, and the only real defense she could conceive was to make the Rhine her eastern boundary. This suggestion of Marshal Foch, based upon sound military concept, was rejected by President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George on the theory that it would mean the annexation of German territory, would change Germany's ancient boundary line of the Rhine, and inevitably lead to future trouble.

President Poincaré With the Swiss President, M. Gustave Ador, Driving to the Peace Conference in Paris.]

"Very well," in effect answered M. Clemenceau, "we see your point, but if you will not allow us to fix this natural boundary for defense, then we must beg you to guarantee us by treaty your coöperation against German aggression. That coöperation you will never be called upon to render with military force, because if Germany knows you are pledged to come to our defense, that very fact will act as a complete deterrent to any aggression."

This was the sound reasoning which led President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George to agree to submit respectively to Congress and Parliament this special French Treaty; this is the reasoning which ought to lead Congress, as it has led Parliament, to ratify the French Treaty promptly. My belief is that after five years, this special Treaty will be abrogated by mutual consent, because by that time the League of Nations will be built up into such an effective instrument for the prevention of future wars, any special treaties will be deemed unnecessary.

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT

If, in the foregoing paragraphs, I have given some idea as to how the Treaty of Peace was compounded, how it was made up of a mixture of virtue, selfishness, fear and justice, then perhaps I can proceed to describe briefly how the document was actually evolved. First, then, we deal with the drafting of the League of Nations Covenant:

The world has come to regard President Wilson as the special promoter and sponsor for the League of Nations. It is perfectly true that Mr. Wilson went to Paris with a fixed determination, above all else, to bring about some definite arrangement which would tend to prevent future wars. It is also true, however, that English statesmen had, for an even longer time than President Wilson, been giving this same subject earnest thought and study. Some of the more enlightened French statesmen, like Leon Bourgeois, had also been sketching out plans for a League of Free Nations. In England Viscount Grey of Falloden, England's really great Minister of Foreign Affairs for almost a decade prior to the war, the man who did everything that human intelligence and wisdom could devise to prevent the war, and now happily named as British Ambassador to the United States, had long worked for a League of Nations. Lord Robert Cecil, a worthy son of a noble father, was another British statesman who had given his mind to the same subject. General Smuts of South Africa, recently made Premier in succession to the late General Botha, was another. So that President Wilson, Colonel House, and the other delegates, upon their arrival in Paris, found themselves in a not uncongenial atmosphere. To be sure, on the part of Clemenceau and of course of the militarists, there was great scepticism. Nevertheless the French joined in, and early in January the Covenant for the League of Nations began to evolve. It was built up step by step, President Wilson taking a most active part in the work.

Finally the Covenant was adopted in a preliminary way and made public late in February. It was subject to amendment, and those who drafted the document welcomed amendments and urged that they be offered. An especial effort was made to secure suggestions from various Republican statesmen. No amendments, so far as I have been able to learn, were offered by any of the Republican Senators, but ex-President Taft suggested certain changes, some of which were adopted. President Lowell of Harvard contributed one or two which were taken over almost verbatim. Ex-Senator Elihu Root also made valuable suggestions, some of which were utilized in the final drafting of the Covenant, made public early in April.

ESSENCE AND SPIRIT OF THE LEAGUE

Roughly, as the situation developed, the purpose of the League of Nations became two-fold. The initial purpose, of course, was to set up the machinery for a body, representative of the nations, keeping in such close contact and guided by such general principles as would tend to make it impossible for one nation to begin war upon another. Elsewhere in this volume ex-Attorney General Wickersham has described in detail the clauses of the Covenant; but even in this brief allusion it is proper to set down the essence and spirit of the League. It is this: No two peoples, if they come to know each other and each other's motives sufficiently well, and if by certain machinery they are maintained in close personal and ideal contact, can conceivably fly at each other's throats. Now no machinery can be devised that will absolutely prevent war, but a carrying out of the spirit and principles set forth in the present Covenant ought to make war well-nigh impossible. The machinery that was thus set up at Paris was deemed at the time to be of course imperfect and subject to constant improvement.

The second purpose of the League was to act as the binder, and in a way, the administrative force of the present existing Treaty. That is to say, we found as time went on there were many situations so complex that human wisdom could not devise an immediate formula for their solution. Hence, it became necessary for the Peace Conference to establish certain machinery which, if necessary, should function over a series of years, and thus work out permanently the problems involved. Therefore, as it fell out, there were established under the Treaty, almost a score of Commissions, most of them to act under the general supervision of a League of Nations. Here, then, is another great function that the League of Nations is immediately called upon to fulfil.

WORK OF THE COMMISSIONS

With the Covenant of the League of Nations more or less complete, the next business of the Conference was the setting up of the Treaty proper. The method for this work was roughly as follows: About the first of February there was appointed a large number of special Commissions, made up of members of the various delegations. These Commissions, which were each to treat of separate topics, having arrived at a solution of the special subject, were then to draft their reports in such language that they could readily be embodied in the final Treaty of Peace itself. Thus, for instance, there was appointed a Commission on Reparations, a Commission on Economic Phases of the Treaty, a Commission on Finance, a Commission on Boundaries, a Commission on Military and Naval Armament, a Commission on German Colonies, a Commission on the Saar Basin Coal Fields, a Commission on Inland Waterways, and so on to the number of perhaps twenty. These Commissions immediately organized, and if the subject were particularly complex and many-sided, resolved themselves into sub-commissions. These sub-commissions in turn organized, each with its chairman and vice-chairman, its secretariat, and its interpreters, together with experts called into attendance.

DELAYS TO THE TREATY

The sittings of all these Commissions began, as I say, about February 1st, and at that time the plan was that the work of the Commissions should be concluded in the form of a report to the Supreme Council six weeks later, or about March 15th. The plan, further, was for the Supreme Council to pass upon these various reports, amend them if need be, and then have them drafted in such form as together would go to make up the Treaty, which, under this scheme, would be presented to the Germans on or about April 1st. The Germans would presumably sign within a fortnight, and we should all be going home about April 15th. As a matter of fact, the Germans signed the Treaty at Versailles at three o'clock on the afternoon of June 28th, two and one-half months later than the time originally planned.

This delay was, however, not at all unreasonable, if one stops to consider the number of questions involved, their magnitude, and the difficulty of dealing with them promptly. In the first place, each Commission was supposed to present the Supreme Council a unanimous report. The Council had ruled that the Commissions should not report by majority vote, for if in any given instance the majority overruled the minority, the minority might have such bitter complaint that there would be left in the situation the seed for future trouble. Therefore the Council determined that in the case of divergence of opinion in the same Commission, the two or more groups in the Commission should make separate reports to the Council, each having its own day in court. The Council would act as judges of the last resort, and no delegation would go away feeling that it had not had ample opportunity to present its case. Inevitable and sharp differences of opinion did arise, so that at least half the reports, I should say, as presented to the Big Four had to be thrashed out there in considerable detail.

The second handicap to rapid progress, of course, lay in the composition of the various Commissions. Each of the large five powers had to be represented on each Commission, and in most instances smaller powers also demanded representation. On some of the important Commissions the larger powers had two or more delegates sitting. Owing to the fact that Paris was full of influenza, each delegate had to have his alternate so as to keep the ball rolling. When they first met these delegates were not well acquainted with each other. They did not know how to get along together. It took weeks for them to shake down, so as to understand each other's methods and points of view; so as to be prepared to make the necessary give and take, certain meetings of views which are always essential where people are gathered from the four corners of the earth with a single aim, but with vastly different ideas for attaining it.

Where the Peace Treaty Was Signed

This was the table and chair at which the delegates sat and signed the peace document.]

POLITICS AT THE CONFERENCE

Still another difficulty was the question of politics which could not be eliminated. It is easy enough to say, "cut out politics," but in any international gathering it is never possible to do it. I must say right here, however, that--as it seemed to me--the American delegation well-nigh attained that ideal, and be it to President Wilson's credit, I never once saw him throughout the length of the conference, "play" politics. But some of the other delegations naturally felt that at home there was a "list'ning senate" to applaud or to condemn, and many of these delegates, being members of their respective parliaments or ministries, naturally had their ear to the ground for the effect that their course at Paris was producing. Then if, at the sittings of a Commission, one delegate made a particularly eloquent speech, his fellow delegate might feel it incumbent upon him to make another equally long. Some of the delegates deemed it their duty to make an extended speech every day and seemed to feel that they were lacking in patriotism if they failed each morning to cover several pages of the record with their views.

THE DIFFICULTY OF LANGUAGE

Then the final difficulty, uniting with the other troubles to prevent rapid progress, was that of language. The Paris Conference was, of course, a regular Tower of Babel. There were two official languages--French and English. Each delegation used the language with which its delegates were most familiar, and every word uttered by those delegates had to be translated into the vernacular of the others. Not only did this interpretation consume a vast amount of time, but of course it frequently proved most unsatisfactory. Both the English and French languages are so idiomatic that the finer shades of meaning can never be well transmuted from one to the other. Hence, frequent and sometimes serious mistakes arose. For instance, a Serbian delegate who knew not a word of English would misunderstand something said by the British delegate, poorly translated into French. As the Serbian delegate's knowledge of French was also very limited he could not readily understand. So he would fly into a towering rage, and for an hour a heated argument would volley back and forth. Perhaps, at the end of that time, some cool-headed delegate (frequently an American), would point out that neither of the honorable delegates had any conception of what the other had said, and at bottom their views were precisely similar. Each of the competitors would then listen to reason, the situation would clear up, and things move on more happily.

I use here as an example a Serbian delegate, not that the Serbian delegates were more prone to passion than anybody else. We were all fighting like mad to make peace. We realized that though fundamentally we all had the same aim, yet as to methods our views were so divergent, that when we entered into conference at ten o'clock in the morning we should probably have one continuous struggle, with interludes for luncheon and dinner, until perhaps late in the evening. These struggles never ceased altogether, but as we got to know one another better, they of course let up materially, and we got on amicably and effectively.

THE COMMISSION ON REPARATIONS

No sketch of the Peace Conference, even one as cursory and superficial as this, could give any idea of the picture without a more detailed reference to the workings of some particular Commission that played an important part in the building up of the Peace Treaty. Hence I may be permitted to mention the Commission on Reparations. All things considered, this was perhaps the most important Commission at work.

The original Commission on Reparations was divided into three sub-commissions. Commission Number One was to determine upon what principles reparation should be demanded from Germany, that is to say, what items of damage should be included. In addition to physical damage inflicted by Germany upon the Allies, by reason of her aggression on land or sea, and from the air, should the cost of pensions for dead French soldiers be claimed? Was the entire cost of the war as waged by England, for instance, to be included as a charge against Germany? In other words, just what categories should be adopted in order to define Germany's liability?

This Commission Number One sat for weeks, and it was only towards the very end that it succeeded in establishing the categories. At the start there was a sharp divergence of opinion among the various delegations. The American delegation pointed out that under President Wilson's Fourteen Points costs of war would have to be excluded. The British delegation maintained otherwise. The French thought the costs of war ought to be included, but deemed the matter academic, inasmuch as Germany could never pay the total war costs. And so the argument ran.

Sub-commission Number Two on reparations had for its object to determine what Germany's capacity to pay was, and what the proper method of payment should be. Sub-commission Number Three was to devise sanctions or guarantees by which the Allies should be assured of receiving the payments finally determined upon.

For weeks I was active upon Sub-commission Number Two, and in fact was charged with the duty of drawing up the initial report covering the question of Germany's capacity to pay. Early in the deliberations of this Sub-commission it became apparent that its work was of momentous import, for whatever the Sub-commission determined as Germany's capacity to pay, undoubtedly that sum would be fixed as what Germany should be obligated to pay. Theoretically, as the French had pointed out, it did not make a great difference what categories of damage were included, because Germany would probably be unable to pay even the extent of material damage she had wrought. It was equally evident that she would be compelled by the Allies to pay to the utmost extent of her capacity. Therefore Sub-commission Number Two was in effect, naming the amount of the German "indemnity."

AN ESTIMATE OF GERMANY'S CAPACITY TO PAY

This knowledge rendered the work of the delegates on Sub-commission Number Two considerably more difficult. To estimate Germany's capacity to pay over a series of years was by no means a purely scientific matter. No banker, or economist, or financier, whatever his experience, could look far enough into the future to be able to say what Germany could or could not pay, in ten, twenty, or thirty years. The initial estimate made by one of the delegations, as representing Germany's capacity to pay, was one thousand million of francs. Another estimate was twenty-four billion sterling, about one hundred twenty billion of dollars. Now Germany's entire wealth was estimated at not over eighty billion dollars, so it was inconceivable how it could be possible, even over a series of years, for Germany to pick up her entire commonwealth and transfer it to the Allies. Most of Germany's property consists of the soil, railroads, factories, dwellings, and none of those things can be transported, none can be made available for the payment of reparation. Hence the question arose as to how much liquid wealth Germany could export year after year and still maintain her own economic life. This was the estimate upon which the British, French and American delegations wrangled pleasantly for weeks. Whenever we reached too tense a point, tea and toast was served, with jam to sweeten the atmosphere a bit, and then we would start afresh.

As a matter of fact, as we encouraged newspaper reporters to surmise, we had nearly arrived upon a basis of agreement for demanding a fixed sum from Germany. That sum would not have exceeded forty or forty-five billion dollars, with interest added. The American delegation believed it to be far sounder economically to name a fixed sum and thus limit Germany's liability, so that all nations could address themselves to a definite end and arrange their fiscal and taxation policies accordingly. But both Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau urged that public opinion in both their countries would not acquiesce in any sum that fell far below previous expectations; that, therefore, inasmuch as it was difficult anyway to arrive at once upon the exact amount of damage caused, it would be wiser to leave the amount of reparation open, to be determined by a commission which should examine into the damage sustained, and fix the total amount within two years. America's material interest in the question was so limited that President Wilson finally did not oppose Mr. Lloyd George's and M. Clemenceau's judgment. This, in brief, is the history of the Reparation clauses in the Treaty. As I have already said, if we realize that in almost every one of the other chapters similar complex courses of procedure had to be followed, we shall not be surprised at the time which the Treaty took for drafting.

THE ITALIAN CRISIS

The world is already familiar with the several crises which arose during the course of the Peace Conference. The so-called Fiume crisis, when the Italian delegation walked out and returned to Rome, was regarded as the most serious. I am not sure it was, although it was generally so considered. I believe most of Italy's warmest friends maintain that her action in going home was a mistake. The question of putting Fiume under Italian sovereignty was not covered nor even touched upon in the Treaty of London. In face, the question of Fiume arose long after the Peace Conference was under way. Signor Orlando, the Italian Premier, was accused of fostering Italian feeling on Fiume and of fanning it into flame. I believe there is no truth in this. At any rate, if the Italians had been wise, they would have prevented the matter of Fiume from becoming such a _cause celèbre_. I think that by judicious work they could have prevented it. Then, too, probably the difficulty would have been lessened if President Wilson's statement to the Italian people had previously met Signor Orlando's approval. Mr. Wilson made his statement with the best will in the world, with the intent to allay and not inflame Italian public opinion. It should have been possible to coördinate his idealism with Signor Orlando's position.

Later on the Italian delegation returned to Paris, realizing that the question of Fiume, which was formerly an Austrian port, did not bear one way or another upon the Treaty with Germany. But the Italians had lost a certain tactical position which was important to them, and in my judgment the move cost Italy much more than the whole question of Fiume amounted to.

Awaiting the Decision of the German Peace Delegates.

President Clemenceau is shown standing. Next to him from right to left are: President Wilson, Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Commissioner Henry White, Colonel House, Gen. Tasker H. Bliss, Stephen Pichon, French Minister of Foreign Affairs; Louis Klotz, French Minister of Finance, and André Tardieu, French High Commissioner. From Clemenceau, left to right: Premier Lloyd George, Bonar Law and A. J. Balfour.]

THE QUESTION OF SHANTUNG

The Shantung crisis was another serious one. It was so realized at the time by the conferees at Paris. The Japanese delegation considered that it had already suffered one or two rebuffs. Their clause to embody race equality in the League of Nations Covenant had not been accepted. They, as the leading Far Eastern Power, were being urged to take an active part in the organization and development of the League of Nations, yet they could see nothing for Japan in the idea except a chance to help the other fellow. It was at this time that the Treaty clause was being drafted covering the disposition of German rights in the Far East, including those on the Shantung Peninsula. It will be remembered that at the outbreak of the war Germany, by reason of treaty rights with China, had possession of Kiauchau, upon the neck of the Shantung Peninsula. Back in 1916, at a time when the war was going badly, after Japan had driven the Germans out of the Far East and had prevented German submarines from getting a base there to prey upon British troop ships from Australia, Japan had demanded from England and France that she become the inheritor of whatever rights Germany had in Shantung. England and France readily granted this request, as America probably would have done if she had been in the war at the time. Later on, according to the record, China confirmed Japan in these rights.

President Wilson's idea, however, was "China for Chinamen"; therefore Shantung should be turned over to China. This was a proper point of view. It was a great pity that it could not be made to prevail. The difficulty, however, was two-fold: first, the agreement which I have just cited between England and France on one hand, and Japan on the other; second, Japan's statement to President Wilson that if he began his League of Nations by forcing England and France to break a solemn agreement with Japan, then Japan would have no use for such a faithless confederation and would promptly withdraw. At the same time, however, Japan reiterated that her inheritance of Shantung was largely a formal matter, and that if the Allies gave her that recognition, she would feel in honor bound to withdraw from Shantung in the near future. This statement, made repeatedly by the Japanese delegates to President Wilson, finally led him to refrain from forcing Great Britain and France to break their agreement, as he might perhaps otherwise have done. The climax, of course, came when Japan gave her ultimatum and said that unless she had her rights she would retire from the Conference.

DEMANDS OF BELGIUM

Then came the third and last crisis--the Belgians threatened to withdraw and go home. They had, as they claimed, been promised by their Allies, as well as by their enemies, including specifically Germany, that their country, trampled over and devastated in order to defend France and England from attack, was to be fully restored and reimbursed for its expenditures. Early in the Conference Colonel House projected a plan to Mr. Balfour of the British delegation and Mr. Klotz of the French delegation, granting Belgium a priority of $500,000,000 on the German reparation, this sum being sufficient to set Belgium well on her way to recovery. There was, however, great delay in getting the final assent to this priority. The American delegation worked hard to bring it about and to push the plan on every occasion, but it still hung fire.

The Belgian delegation, finally becoming alarmed, insisted on formally taking up the question with the Council of Four. The Belgian delegation, under the leadership of Mr. Hymans, Minister of Foreign Affairs, made two chief demands, one for the priority already mentioned, and one for reimbursement for what the war had cost her. To this latter item there was vigorous objection on the ground that it was inadmissible to provide for Belgium's "costs of war" and not for those of England, France, Italy and the other Allies. As a compromise to meet the situation, a formula was finally proposed in a phrase to the effect that Germany was to be obligated especially "to reimburse Belgium for all the sums borrowed by Belgium from the Allies as a necessary consequence of the violation of the Treaty of 1839." Inasmuch as all such sums borrowed by Belgium were used for the prosecution of the war, this phrase was simply a euphemism for granting to Belgium the war costs which she had demanded. But it was finally agreed to on all hands, and the crisis was averted.

The George Washington

It was on this ship that President and Mrs. Wilson made their two trips across the Atlantic and back during the Peace Conference.]

THE TREATY PRESENTED TO THE GERMANS AT VERSAILLES

The Treaty in its final form was presented to the Germans at Versailles May 7th. The Germans were hoping they would be permitted to discuss certain phases of the Treaty in person with the Allied delegates, and in fact repeatedly requested the opportunity. Some of us believed such conversations might be advantageous if they were held; not between the chiefs of the Allied states and the heads of the German delegation, but between technical experts on both sides. Mr. Wilson favored this view, as tending to enlighten the Germans on certain phases of the Treaty, which from their written communications it was evident they did not understand. We thought that some weeks of delay might possibly be averted by sitting around the table with the Germans, distasteful as that task might be, and holding a kind of miniature peace conference. This suggestion, however, was strongly opposed by M. Clemenceau, although it was favored by some of his ministers. In fact, some of the latter, as well as many of the British, were for a time convinced that the terms of the Treaty were such that Germany would never sign them. Again and again Clemenceau was urged to give way on this point, but he sturdily opposed the view and declared positively that he knew the German character; that the only way to secure a German signature to the Treaty was to insist upon purely formal and written communications. Clemenceau had his way, and then began the laying of a good many wagers as to whether the Germans would sign. This was after the original German delegation, or at least the chiefs of it, had returned to Berlin and declared that they would not come back again to Versailles. My own opinion was, that after making as great a kick as possible the Germans would undoubtedly sign. The logic of the situation was all for their signing, the reasoning being this: If the Treaty were a just Treaty, then they ought to sign any way; if it were an unjust Treaty, then, even if signed, it would eventually fall of its own weight, and the Germans would run no risk in signing it. I felt that the German psychology of the situation would be acute enough to see these points and to lead to a signature.

GERMANY SIGNS THE TREATY

This proved to be the case, and on Saturday, the 21st of June, after questionings and misgivings, we finally got the word that the Germans were to sign. I shall never forget the moment that the news came. Some of us were in session with the Council of Four at the President's house. Mr. Wilson sat on the right of the fireplace, Mr. Lloyd George on the left, and M. Clemenceau in the middle. Mr. Orlando was in Italy but his foreign minister, Baron Sonnino, was there in his place. The afternoon was a tense one, for the time was growing short and the Germans had, as I say, not yet signified their intention of signing the treaty. In the mind of every one of us there lurked the question as to the terrible steps that would have to be taken in the event the Germans refused to sign. Late in the afternoon an orderly slipped into the room and whispered into M. Clemenceau's ear. He struggled to his feet, marched up to President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George, and, drawing himself up, said in solemn tones, "I have the honor to announce to you that the Germans will sign the treaty."

And then a moment later the cannon boomed forth to the expectant populace the news that the Germans would sign, and M. Clemenceau, turning to me, breathed: "Ah, that is the sound that I have been waiting to hear for forty-eight years."

II--WILSON'S FOURTEEN POINTS

An Attempt to Raise International Morality to the Level of Private Morality

On January 8, 1918, President Wilson outlined the fourteen points on the basis of which the Allies should make peace. This program was the startling climax of a whole series of peace proposals which had kept coming from both camps of belligerents, from neutrals, Socialists, and the Pope. It is without doubt one of the greatest and most inspiring State documents in the history of the world. It struck a vital and telling blow at the basic causes of modern wars. For that reason it electrified into complete unity the masses of the Allied countries. Liberal, radical and pacifist opponents of the war rallied around it as the last great hope of civilization. Its most important effect was to give a democratic basis to the weary and disillusioned masses of the Central Powers who were longing for peace. It was on the basis of the fourteen points that the enemy surrendered.

THE WILSON PROGRAM