spring of 1919, as to whether inhabitants of the devastated area receiving compensation should be compelled to expend it in restoring the identical property, or whether they should be free to use it as they like.  There was evidently a great deal to be said on both sides; in the former case there would be much hardship and uncertainty for owners who could not, many of them, expect to recover the effective use of their property perhaps for years to come, and yet would not be free to set themselves up elsewhere; on the other hand, if such persons were allowed to take their compensation and go elsewhere, the countryside of Northern France would never be put right.  Nevertheless I believe that the wise course will be to allow great latitude and let economic motives take their own course.

[88] La Richesse de la France devant la Guerre, published in 1916.

[89] Revue Bleue, February 3, 1919.  This is quoted in a very valuable selection of French estimates and expressions of opinion, forming chapter iv. of La Liquidation financiere de la Guerre, by H. Charriaut and R. Hacault.  The general magnitude of my estimate is further confirmed by the extent of the repairs already effected, as set forth in a speech delivered by M. Tardieu on October 10, 1919, in which he said:  “On September 16 last, of 2246 kilometres of railway track destroyed, 2016 had been repaired; of 1075 kilometres of canal, 700; of 1160 constructions, such as bridges and tunnels, which had been blown up, 588 had been replaced; of 550,000 houses ruined by bombardment, 60,000 had been rebuilt; and of 1,800,000 hectares of ground rendered useless by battle, 400,000 had been recultivated, 200,000 hectares of which are now ready to be sown.  Finally, more than 10,000,000 metres of barbed wire had been removed.”

[90] Some of these estimates include allowance for contingent and immaterial damage as well as for direct material injury.

[91] A substantial part of this was lost in the service of the Allies; this must not be duplicated by inclusion both in their claims and in ours.

[92] The fact that no separate allowance is made in the above for the sinking of 675 fishing vessels of 71,765 tons gross, or for the 1855 vessels of 8,007,967 tons damaged or molested, but not sunk, may be set off against what may be an excessive figure for replacement cost.

[93] The losses of the Greek mercantile marine were excessively high, as a result of the dangers of the Mediterranean; but they were largely incurred on the service of the other Allies, who paid for them directly or indirectly.  The claims of Greece for maritime losses incurred on the service of her own nationals would not be very considerable.

[94] There is a reservation in the Peace Treaty on this question.  “The Allied and Associated Powers formally reserve the right of Russia to obtain from Germany restitution and reparation based on the principles of the present Treaty” (Art. 116).