V

LEGALITY OF CLAIM FOR PENSIONS

137

superseded it, more particularly regarding Reparation ;and alternatively that the wording of PresidentWilson 's notification properly understood does notexclude Pensions.

The first line of argument was adopted by M. Klotzand the French Government during the PeaceConference , and has been approved more recentlyby M. Tardieu. 1 It was repudiated by the wholeof the American Delegation at Paris, and neverdefinitely supported by the British Government.Responsible writers about the Treaty, other thanFrench, have not admitted it. 2 It was also explicitlyabandoned by the Peace Conference itself in its replyto the German observations on the first draft of theTreaty. The second line of argument was that ofthe British Government during the Peace Conference, and it was an argument on these lines which finallyconverted President Wilson. I will deal with thetwo arguments in turn.

1. Various persons have published particulars,formerly confidential, which allow us to reconstructthe course of the discussions about the Armistice.These begin with the examination of the Armistice

1 The Truth about the Treaty, p. 208.

2 E.g. The History of the Peace Conference of Paris, published under theauspices of the Institute of International Affairs, delivers judgement asfollows (vol. ii. p. 43) : " It is this statement then (i.e. President Wilson 'snotification of Nov. 5, 1918) which must be taken as the ruling documentin any discussion as to what the Allies were entitled to claim by way ofreparation in the Treaty of Peace, and it is difficult to interpret it other-wise than as a deliberate limitation of their undoubted right to recover thewhole of their war costs."