142

A REVISION OF THE TREATY

CHAP.

in the text handed to the Germans for signature. 1 Thisword was not so suitable. But M. Klotz sufferedless inconvenience from this mistake than might havebeen expected, since at the Peace Conference no onenoticed that the French text of the Armistice Agree-ment as officially circulated, which M. Klotz used inarguing before the Separation Committee, agreed inits wording with what he had intended it to be andnot with the text which Germany had actually signed.Nevertheless it is the word renonciation which isstill to be found in the official texts of the Britishand German Governments. 2

2. The other line of argument raises more subtleintellectual issues and is not a mere matter ofprestidigitation. If it be granted that our rightsare governed by the terms of the Note addressed toGermany by President Wilson in the name of theAllies on November 5, 1918, the question depends onthe interpretation of these terms. As Mr. Baruchand M. Tardieu have now published between themthe greater part of the official reports (including

1 That is to say, this text ran, " Sous reserve de toute renonciation etreclamation ulte>ieure," instead of " Sous reserve de toutes revendicationset reclamations ulterieures."

2 I record this episode as an historical curiosity. In my opinion itmakes no material difference to the argument whether the text runs" revendications et reclamations " or " renonciation et reclamation " ;for I regard either form of words as merely a protective phrase. But theplausibility of M. Klotz's position is decidedly weakened (if so weak a caseis capable of further weakening) if it is the latter phrase which is authentic.The Editor of the Institute of International Affairs' History of the PeaceConference of Paris , who was the first to discover and publish the discrepancyin question (vol. v. pp. 370-372), takes the view that the question of whichtext is used makes a material difference to the value of M. Klotz's argument.