Copyright by Underwood & Underwood

Where the Peace Treaty Was Signed

This was the table and chair at which the delegates sat and signed the peace document.

[Click for a larger image.]

POLITICS AT THE CONFERENCE

Still another difficulty was the question of politics which could not be eliminated. It is easy enough to say, "cut out politics," but in any international gathering it is never possible to do it. I must say right here, however, that—as it seemed to me—the American delegation well-nigh attained that ideal, and be it to President Wilson's credit, I never once saw him throughout the length of the conference, "play" politics. But some of the other delegations naturally felt that at home there was a "list'ning senate" to applaud or to condemn, and many of these delegates, being members of their respective parliaments or ministries, naturally had their ear to the ground for the effect that their course at Paris was producing. Then if, at the sittings of a Commission, one delegate made a particularly eloquent speech, his fellow delegate might feel it incumbent upon him to make another equally long. Some of the delegates deemed it their duty to make an extended speech every day and seemed to feel that they were lacking in patriotism if they failed each morning to cover several pages of the record with their views.

THE DIFFICULTY OF LANGUAGE

Then the final difficulty, uniting with the other troubles to prevent rapid progress, was that of language. The Paris Conference was, of course, a regular Tower of Babel. There were two official languages—French and English. Each delegation used the language with which its delegates were most familiar, and every word uttered by those delegates had to be translated into the vernacular of the others. Not only did this interpretation consume a vast amount of time, but of course it frequently proved most unsatisfactory. Both the English and French languages are so idiomatic that the finer shades of meaning can never be well transmuted from one to the other. Hence, frequent and sometimes serious mistakes arose. For instance, a Serbian delegate who knew not a word of English would misunderstand something said by the British delegate, poorly translated into French. As the Serbian delegate's knowledge of French was also very limited he could not readily understand. So he would fly into a towering rage, and for an hour a heated argument would volley back and forth. Perhaps, at the end of that time, some cool-headed delegate (frequently an American), would point out that neither of the honorable delegates had any conception of what the other had said, and at bottom their views were precisely similar. Each of the competitors would then listen to reason, the situation would clear up, and things move on more happily.

I use here as an example a Serbian delegate, not that the Serbian delegates were more prone to passion than anybody else. We were all fighting like mad to make peace. We realized that though fundamentally we all had the same aim, yet as to methods our views were so divergent, that when we entered into conference at ten o'clock in the morning we should probably have one continuous struggle, with interludes for luncheon and dinner, until perhaps late in the evening. These struggles never ceased altogether, but as we got to know one another better, they of course let up materially, and we got on amicably and effectively.