the distinguished statesmen of the Conference by faultfinders, a lack of words was assuredly not among them.  This cheery outlook on the future reminded me of the better grounded composure of Pope Pius IX during the stormy proceedings at the Vatican Council.  A layman, having expressed his disquietude at the unruly behavior of the prelates, the Pontiff replied that it had ever been thus at ecclesiastical councils.  “At the outset,” he went on to explain, “the members behave as men, wrangle and quarrel, and nothing that they say or do is worth much.  That is the first act.  The second is ushered in by the devil, who intensifies the disorder and muddles things bewilderingly.  But happily there is always a third act in which the Holy Ghost descends and arranges everything for the best.”

The first two phases of the Conference’s proceedings bore a strong resemblance to the Pope’s description, but as, unlike ecclesiastical councils, it had no claim to infallibility, and therefore no third act, the consequences to the world were deplorable.  The Supreme Council never knew how to deal with an emergency and every week unexpected incidents in the world outside were calling for prompt action.  Frequently it contradicted itself within the span of a few days, and sometimes at one and the same time its principal representatives found themselves in complete opposition to one another.  To give but one example:  In April M. Clemenceau was asked whether he approved the project of relieving famine-stricken Russia.  His answer was affirmative, and he signed the document authorizing it.  His colleagues, Messrs. Wilson, Lloyd George, and Orlando, followed suit, and the matter seemed to be settled definitely.  But at the same time Mr. Hoover, who had been the ardent advocate of the plan, officially received a letter from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs signifying the refusal of the French government to acquiesce in it.[100] On another occasion[101] the Supreme Council thought fit to despatch a mission to Asia Minor in order to ascertain the views of the populations of Syria and Mesopotamia on the regime best suited to them.  France, whose secular relations with Syria, where she maintains admirable educational establishments, are said to have endeared her to the population, objected to this expedient as superfluous and mischievous.  Superfluous because the Francophil sentiments of the people are supposed to be beyond all doubt, and mischievous because plebiscites or substitutes for plebiscites could have only a bolshevizing effect on Orientals.  Seemingly yielding to these considerations, the Supreme Council abandoned the scheme and the members of the mission made other plans.[102] After several weeks’ further reflection, however, the original idea was carried out, and the mission visited the East.