Emily Greene Balch to Jane Addams, May 20, 1924

REEL0016_0710.jpg
REEL0016_0711.jpg
REEL0016_0712.jpg
REEL0016_0713.jpg
REEL0016_0714.jpg
REEL0016_0715.jpg

May 20, 1924

Dear Miss Addams,

I felt rather dismayed when Mrs. Post told me that Proceedings are after all to appear all in one edition with the three languages, and I think she did too though she wants to do whatever is wanted of her.

My feeling -- or my question has 3 bases:

(1) The other decision was arrived at after discussion in Committee and was definitely voted, with Fraülein [Heymann], Mme Duchêne them thinking it best.

(2) Expense: We at once saw the printer; it can be done here at an extra expense of 2.40 a page for the foreign pages. Mrs Post estimates [page 2] It would have to be set up letter by letter by men who don't know the languages. That means many mistakes & difficult proof reading. Mrs Post estimates 75 pages or so of French & the same of German. This added to 240 pages (+ 75+75) ↑150↓ =390. The extra expense of 150 pages of foreign matter would 1162.50 which is more (though perhaps not very much more) than the estimate for a complete French & a complete German Edition.

(3) Practical considerations. Before we had separate items like the opening address, Resolutions & some others in all the 3 languages but the bulk of the proceedings was all in one unbroken account ↑series↓ without repetition. Now if certain speeches are selected to be rendered three times will this occur, so, in the midst of the Proceedings or will these be taken out of their context & given separately in the 3 versions, or will they appear in the [illegible] main text [in] English only, with a German & French version in an appendix? [written up left margin] 3 possible suggestions [page 3]

And if the Report is to appear in 3 langua with 3 languages in it then I should think the original French should appear wherever it was used, with an English translation when this seems necessary. Or isn't this best? Shall all that was ↑spoken↓ in French appear in English translation (as [proposed?]) with the French version added in situ or in an appendix. If in situ it [page 4] doesn’t make any difference perhaps which comes first. Of course the

Of course the [basis] of all our troubles is the Tower of Babel, isn't it!

Seriously speaking, it is and always has been a puzzling problem and I was pleased to see the experiment tried for once [page 5] tried for once of 3 separate editions, though that certainly has its disadvantages and means an enormous lot of work for L G H & Mm Duchêne Is Mm Duchêne willing to have this arrangement & Mm at Swarthmore because they both preferred that plan. Was it possible to consult Mm Duchêne as to this change?

I have not seen the letter so I don't know the grounds of the ↑new↓ decision. Moreover [page 6] I am writing when I am pretty tired just before bed-time and I think all I say may sound rather out-of-sorts and that I am much exaggerating my feeling about it.

I honestly don't even think I know what is best on its merits. And as to the propriety of altering a Committee vote you and Fraülein [Heymann], each of you, have far better judgment then I. I certainly don't [illegible] I have [that?] [page 7] want to stickle for formalities. I leave that to our English constitutionalists!

Of course as I am not Editor it is not my business but I don't think that is the way you will look at it either -- [that?] I am meddling. I want to be of all the help I can be without carrying the main responsibility & work. I am glad to do all the French proof reading unless a better qualified person is found. Mrs Post thinks that reading proof letter by letter as it would have to be would strain her eyes.