v LEGALITY OF CLAIM FOR PENSIONS 147

peace, and the action of the Allies in especially stipu-lating at that time for an enlargement of theoriginal proposal respecting reparation is explicableonly on the theory that it was understood that oncean agreement was concluded they would no longer befree to specify the reparation which Germany mustmake. We have thus agreed that we would giveGermany peace if she would do certain specifiedthings. Is it now open to us to say, ' Yes, butbefore you get peace you must do other and furtherthings ' ? We have said to Germany , ' You mayhave peace if among other things you perform certainacts of reparation which will cost you, say, ten milliondollars.' Are we not now clearly precluded fromsaying, ' You can have peace provided you performother acts of reparation which will bring your totalliability to many times that which was originallystipulated' ? No ; irrespective of the justice of theenemy making the latter reparation, it is now toolate. Our bargain has been struck for better or forworse ; it remains only to give it a fair constructionand practical application."

It is a shameful memory that the British delegatesnever withdrew their full demands, to which theywere still adhering when, in March 1921, the ques-tion was taken out of their hands by the SupremeCouncil. The American Delegation cabled to thePresident, who was then at sea, for support inmaintaining their position, to which he replied that