million dollars.’ Are we not now clearly precluded from saying, ‘You can have peace provided you perform other acts of reparation which will bring your total liability to many times that which was originally stipulated’? No; irrespective of the justice of the enemy making the latter reparation, it is now too late. Our bargain has been struck for better or for worse; it remains only to give it a fair construction and practical application.” It is a shameful memory that the British delegates never withdrew their full demands, to which they were still adhering when, in March 1921, the question was taken out of their hands by the Supreme Council. The American Delegation cabled to the President, who was then at sea, for support in maintaining their position, to which he replied that the American Delegation should dissent, and if necessary dissent publicly, from a procedure which “is clearly inconsistent with what we deliberately led the enemy to expect and cannot now honorably alter simply because we have the power.”[105] After this the discussions entered on a new phase. The British and French Prime Ministers abandoned the contentions of their delegates, admitted the binding force of the words contained in their Note of November 5, 1918, and settled down to extract some meaning from these words which would compose their differences and satisfy their constituents. What constituted “damage done to the civilian population”? Could not this be made to cover military pensions and the separation allowances which had been made to the civilian dependents of soldiers? If so, the bill against Germany could be raised to a high enough figure to satisfy nearly every one. It was pointed out, however, as Mr. Baruch records, “that financial loss resulting from the absence of a wage–earner did not cause any more ‘damage to the civilian population’ than did an equal financial loss involved in the payment of taxes to provide military equipment and like war costs.” In fact, a separation allowance or a pension was simply one of many general charges on the Exchequer arising out of the costs of the war. If such charges were to be admitted as civilian damage, it was a very short step back to the claim for the entire costs of the war, on the ground that these costs must fall on the taxpayer who, generally speaking, was a civilian. The sophistry of the argument became exposed by pushing it to its logical conclusion. Nor was it clear how pensions and allowances could be covered by words which were themselves an interpretation of the phrase, “restoration of invaded territory.” And the President’s conscience, though very desirous by now to be converted (for he had on hand other controversies with his colleagues which interested him more than this one) remained unconvinced.