V

LEGALITY OF CLAIM FOR PENSIONS 149

it was a very short step back to the claim for theentire costs of the war, on the ground that thesecosts must fall on the taxpayer who, generallyspeaking, was a civilian. The sophistry of the argu-ment became exposed by pushing it to its logicalconclusion. Nor was it clear how pensions andallowances could be covered by words which werethemselves an interpretation of the phrase " restora-tion of invaded territory." And the President'sconscience, though very desirous by now to beconverted (for he had on hand other controversieswith his colleagues which interested him more thanthis one), remained unconvinced.

The American delegates have recorded that thefinal argument which overbore the last scruples ofthe President was contained in a Memorandumprepared by General Smuts 1 on March 31, 1919.Briefly, this argument was, that a soldier becomes acivilian again after his discharge, and that, therefore,

1 This Memorandum, which has been published in extenso by Mr. Baruch(op. cit. p. 29 seq.), belonged to the category of most secret documents.It has been given to the world by itself without the accompanying circum-stances which, without justifying its arguments (on which indeed no furtherlight could be thrown beyond what we already have in the narrative of Mr.Baruch), might yet throw light on individual motives. I agree with thecomment made by The Economist ( Oct. 22, 1921) in reviewing vol. iv. ofthe History of the Peace Conference of Paris ( published under the auspicesof the Institute of International Affairs), which has reprinted this Memo-randum, that " a very serious injustice will be done to the reputation ofGeneral Smuts if this document continues to be reproduced and circulatedwithout any explanation of the circumstances in which it was prepared."Nevertheless it is well that the world should have this document, and itmust take its place in a story which is more important to the world than thomotives and reputations of individual actors in it.