made up the Hapsburg monarchy, and in especial of men of Slav speech.  These soldiers, with notable exceptions, discharged their duty to the Austrian Emperor and state conscientiously, according to the terms of their oath.  Their disposition toward the Italians was not a whit less hostile than was that of the common German man against the French and the English.  Why, then, argued the Italians, accord them privileges over the ally who bore the brunt of the fight against them?  Why even treat the two as equals?  It may be replied that the bulk of the people were indifferent and merely carried out orders.  Well, the same holds good of the average German, yet he is not being spoiled by the victorious World Powers.  But the Croats and others suddenly became the favorite children of the Conference, while the Germans and Teuton-Austrians, who in the meanwhile had accepted and fulfilled President Wilson’s conditions for entry into the fellowship of nations, were not only punished heavily—­which was perfectly just—­but also disqualified for admission into the League, which was inconsistent.

The root of all the incoherences complained of lay in the circumstance that the chiefs of the Great Powers had no program, no method; Mr. Wilson’s pristine scheme would have enabled him to treat the gallant Serbs and their Croatian brethren as he desired.  But he had failed to maintain it against opposition.  On the other hand, the traditional method of the balance of power would have given Italy all that she could reasonably ask for, but Mr. Wilson had partially destroyed it.  Nothing remained then but to have recourse to a tertium quid which profoundly dissatisfied both parties and imperiled the peace of the world in days to come.  And even this makeshift the eminent plenipotentiaries were unable to contrive single-handed.  Their notion of getting the work done was to transfer it to missions, commissions, and sub-commissions, and then to take action which, as often as not, ran counter to the recommendations of these selected agents.  Oddly enough, none of these bodies received adequate directions.  To take a concrete example:  a central commission was appointed to deal with the Polish frontier problems, a second commission under M. Jules Cambon had to study the report on the Polish Delimitation question, but although often consulted, it was seldom listened to.  Then there was a third commission, which also did excellent work to very little purpose.  Now all the questions which formed the subjects of their inquiries might be approached from various sides.  There were historical frontiers, ethnographical frontiers, political and strategical and linguistic frontiers.  And this does not exhaust the list.  Among all these, then, the commissioners had to choose their field of investigation as the spirit moved them, without any guidance from the Supreme Council, which presumably did not know what it wanted.