As a matter of fact, as we encouraged newspaper reporters to surmise, we had nearly arrived upon a basis of agreement for demanding a fixed sum from Germany. That sum would not have exceeded forty or forty-five billion dollars, with interest added. The American delegation believed it to be far sounder economically to name a fixed sum and thus limit Germany's liability, so that all nations could address themselves to a definite end and arrange their fiscal and taxation policies accordingly. But both Mr. Lloyd George and M. Clemenceau urged that public opinion in both their countries would not acquiesce in any sum that fell far below previous expectations; that, therefore, inasmuch as it was difficult anyway to arrive at once upon the exact amount of damage caused, it would be wiser to leave the amount of reparation open, to be determined by a commission which should examine into the damage sustained, and fix the total amount within two years. America's material interest in the question was so limited that President Wilson finally did not oppose Mr. Lloyd George's and M. Clemenceau's judgment. This, in brief, is the history of the Reparation clauses in the Treaty. As I have already said, if we realize that in almost every one of the other chapters similar complex courses of procedure had to be followed, we shall not be surprised at the time which the Treaty took for drafting. THE ITALIAN CRISIS The world is already familiar with the several crises which arose during the course of the Peace Conference. The so-called Fiume crisis, when the Italian delegation walked out and returned to Rome, was regarded as the most serious. I am not sure it was, although it was generally so considered. I believe most of Italy's warmest friends maintain that her action in going home was a mistake. The question of putting Fiume under Italian sovereignty was not covered nor even touched upon in the Treaty of London. In face, the question of Fiume arose long after the Peace Conference was under way. Signor Orlando, the Italian Premier, was accused of fostering Italian feeling on Fiume and of fanning it into flame. I believe there is no truth in this. At any rate, if the Italians had been wise, they would have prevented the matter of Fiume from becoming such a _cause celèbre_. I think that by judicious work they could have prevented it. Then, too, probably the difficulty would have been lessened if President Wilson's statement to the Italian people had previously met Signor Orlando's approval. Mr. Wilson made his statement with the best will in the world, with the intent to allay and not inflame Italian public opinion. It should have been possible to coördinate his idealism with Signor Orlando's position.