Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume IV

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/4

FM–4

Secretary’s Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, 15th April, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, April 15, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Mr. R. Lansing	Mr. Davis
Secretary	Mr. Scott
Mr. L. Harrison	Major Kountz } For Question 1 only. Captain Smith
British Empire	Dr. Williams } For Questions onwards Mr. Beer Capt. Hornbeck
The Rt. Hon. Sir R. Borden	British Empire
Lord Hardinge	Mr. C. J. B. Hurst
Secretaries	Mr. L. C. Christie
Mr. H. Norman	France
Mr. E. Phipps	General Weygand
France	M. Fromageot
M. Pichon	M. Lasteyrie
Secretaries	Italy
M. Berthelot	M. Ricci-Busatti
M. de Bearn	M. Piacentini
M. de Peretti
Cdr. de St. Quentin
Italy
Baron Sonnino
Secretaries
Count Aldrovandi
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E., Baron Makino
Secretary
M. H. Ashida

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Col. U. S. Grant.
British Empire	Major A. M. Caccia.
France	Captain A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.

1. M. Pichon declared the Meeting open, and said that the Agenda of the Meeting had been circulated, together with a large number of draft articles relating thereto. With the approval of the Meeting he proposed to take up the various questions in regular sequence. Cost of Allied Army of Occupation in Rhenish Districts

The first question dealt with the cost of the Allied Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish Districts. He would call upon General Weygand to make an explanatory statement.

General Weygand said that Marshal Foch had circulated to all the Missions a note concerning the expenses of the troops of the Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish districts. The paper gave full details in regard to the manner in which the estimates had been drawn up, and the manner in which payments should be made by the Germans. An Inter-Allied Sub-Commission had been convened at Spa and to it had been entrusted the duty of determining the extent of the obligations for which Germany was liable by virtue of the Second Paragraph of the Armistice Convention.¹

The Sub-Committee had arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the reckoning of the expenses should be fixed at the rate of an average daily sum per officer, per man and per beast. In arriving at this figure it had been agreed that all possible charges should be included; that is to say, not only the actual maintenance charges, but also pays, transport charges and upkeep. As a result, it was found that the total expenses would amount to a comparatively high figure, more than 600 million francs a month, and they would therefore probably reach a sum of about three milliards of francs at the end of the fifth month of occupation. Marshal Foch had been struck by the high figures of these costs, and had come to the conclusion that they should properly be divided into two parts: a first part to include the actual cost of maintenance, and the items which the Allied and Associated Armies, when they entered the Rhineland, would have had the right to demand, by levies on local resources, and apart from lodging and billeting, the ordinary supplies and provisions necessary to satisfy their immediate wants. This first part should be immediately payable by the German Government. A second part would include all other expenses, such as general items of maintenance, transportation, salaries, and such other items as were properly a part of the cost of the war in general, and should be reckoned under war costs, subject to arrangement in a special order in proportion to their urgency. Accordingly, Marshal Foch had asked the Sub-Commission to enquire whether it would not be desirable to limit the cost of maintenance to be at once claimed from Germany to the amount representing the keep of the men and beasts and to that of billeting, charging the other expenses under the head of war costs, and in his report to the Governments, the Marshal had clearly shown what should be the distribution of the total of those two categories of expenses between the different armies. It was only right to state that the conclusion so reached by Marshal Foch was not based on the unanimous decision of the members of the sub-commission, and that various delegates had dissented from his recommendations, as would be seen from perusal of the Minutes of their Meetings.

M. Lasteyrie said that the matter had been submitted to the Financial Committee, and that the latter had passed the following resolution in this regard:—

“I. The Treaty of Peace with Germany shall establish a first charge upon all the assets and revenues of the German Empire and its constituent States, for the purpose of defraying the cost of reparation and all other costs arising out of the Preliminary Treaty or any supplementary Treaty or out of arrangements concluded between Germany and the Allied or Associated Powers during the Armistice or its extensions.

“The first charge hereby established shall be deemed to extend to the assets and revenues of the Nationals (persons individual or corporate) of the German Empire who will remain within its jurisdiction after the Treaty of Peace.

“II. The priority of the charges established by Article I shall, subject to the qualification made below, be as follows:

(a) The total cost of the maintenance of the Allied and Associated Armies of Occupation during the Armistice and its extensions.

(b) The total cost of the maintenance of any armies of occupation after the signature of the Treaty of Peace.”

The United States of America, Great Britain and Japan had asked that the words “total cost” should be substituted for “cost of maintenance” in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article II, since they held that the total cost of the Armies of Occupation should be recovered from the Germans at once.

On the other hand, France, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Roumania, Czecho-Slovakia, Greece and Serbia had voted in favour of the words “total cost of the maintenance”.

Mr. Lansing said he would first of all like to ask how this question had come before the Council of Foreign Ministers, and by what authority. It seemed to him to be a question for the Supreme Council to settle.

M. Pichon agreed, and said that he himself had intended to raise this question. In his opinion, the question fell outside the province of the Conference of Foreign Ministers, as they had no means of appreciating the financial aspects of the case. Furthermore, the conclusions which had been reached by the Council of Four on this question and embodied in the Peace Terms were not known. Consequently, no decision could be taken without first obtaining further information from the Council of Four.

Sir Robert Borden called attention to the fact that the question seemed intimately connected with that of Reparations, which was still before the so-called Council of Four, For that reason he agreed that the question had better be left for that Council to settle.

Baron Makino stated that the general question of reparations was of great interest to Japan, who was represented on the Commission handling that subject, but not on the Council of Four. On the other hand, Japan was not specially interested in the question of the cost of the Army of Occupation in the Rhenish districts. He was, therefore, in favour of the action recommended in regard to the question under consideration.

M. Sonnino said that Italy also was interested in the general question of reparations; but not, in the limited question of the cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine. He had no objection, therefore, to offer to the question being referred, as proposed, to the Council of Four.

Mr. Lansing said that on March 8th General Pershing had written a communication to Marshal Foch on this subject which had remained unanswered. He did not think the United States could discuss the subject until some answer had been made to General Pershing’s enquiry.

General Weygand replied that he was not clear what answer should have been made to General Pershing’s letter, since he had thought the latter was itself an answer. But the question on which General Pershing and Marshal Foch were not in agreement was the very question which the Governments were now asked to decide. He would observe that the Armistice was already in existence, and that the payment by the Germans of the cost of maintenance of the Army of Occupation was due under the terms of the Armistice. If all the costs were entered under the head of reparations the Allied and Associated Governments would be foiled. It would be better to collect what was due under the terms of the Armistice as a separate item than to include it in reparations, all of which would not be paid.

Mr. Lansing said he was very much obliged to General Weygand for his explanations, as it had brought out the fact that this was really a political and economic question, rather than a strictly military one. He, therefore, recommended its reference to the Supreme Economic Council and not to the Supreme War Council.

General Weygand pointed out that on several occasions the Germans had expressed a desire to know what they owed, and had asked the Allied Chief Command that their enquiry on this subject should be answered. The Military Authorities had established a basis for such a reply, which they now submitted to the Governments. If further enquiry was made by the Germans, they would have to say they were not ready to give a definite reply.

M. Pichon stated that he was in full agreement with General Weygand, and concurred as to the distinction to be drawn between the Armistice and the Peace Treaty, but he thought the matter could only be referred to the Heads of the Governments to settle. If the latter should say that the Council of Foreign Ministers were competent to decide the question, they could then proceed under that authority.

(It was agreed that M. Pichon should inform the Heads of the Governments that the Council of Foreign Ministers were of opinion that the question of the cost of the Allied Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish districts should be submitted to the Council of Four for decision.)

2. Insertion of an Article in the Treaty of Peace Regarding Opium Traffic M. Pichon said that the British Delegation had proposed the following draft, which had been circulated:—

“Germany agrees to proceed at once to ratify the Opium Convention signed at the Hague on the 23rd January, 1912.²

As soon as its ratifications have been deposited Germany undertakes to sign the special protocol, providing for the bringing into force of the Convention, which was opened at the Hague as a result of the resolutions adopted by the Third International Opium Conference held in that City on the 15th–25th June, 1914.³

Germany recognises that the signature of the above-mentioned special Protocol involves the obligation on her part to bring the Convention of 1912 into force and to enact forthwith the legislation required for this purpose.”

M. Sonnino said that he had a slight amendment to suggest, namely, that for the word “forthwith” some definite period of time, such as “within six months” should be substituted.

Mr. Lansing said that the American Delegation had written on the subject at the same time as the British Delegation. In fact, the two drafts had crossed in the post. He proposed, as a substitute, the following text which he thought would cover the objection made by M. Sonnino to the British text:—

“Germany agrees to ratify and hereby ratifies the International Opium Convention concluded at The Hague, January 23, 1912, whereof it is a signatory Power and Germany further agrees to pass the legislation necessary to give effect to the provisions of the said Convention within a period not exceeding three months after the deposit of ratifications of the present Treaty. Germany likewise agreed to notify the five Allied and Associated Powers (United States of America, British Empire, France, Italy and Japan) immediately upon the passage of such legislation.

The Allied and Associated Powers which have not hitherto signed or ratified the International Opium Convention or passed the legislation necessary to carry its provisions into effect, hereby agree to sign and ratify the said Convention, and by their acceptance of this article hereby sign and ratify the same, and the said Allied and Associated Powers hereby agree to pass the legislation necessary to give effect to the provisions of the said Convention within a period not to exceed three months from the deposit of ratifications of the present treaty.”

Mr. Lansing, continuing, pointed out that this latter text provided for the ratification of the Opium Convention by the very act of signing the Peace Treaty, and that there were several Allied and Associated nations who had never signed or ratified the Opium Convention.

Sir Robert Borden was very glad to have the support of the American Delegation in favour of the inclusion of the Opium Convention in the Peace Terms. He would point out however, that whereas in the draft proposal put forward by the British Delegation it would be possible to obtain the assent of all the powers in the world to the Convention; the American draft would have the effect of excluding all Powers that had not been a party to the Convention.

Mr. Lansing said that his attention had just been called to an item in the British draft which would bring the Opium Convention into force immediately, while the American draft might require its execution to be left until ratifications had been exchanged with the last Power. He therefore recommended a reference of the two drafts to the Drafting Committee.

Baron Makino said that Japan was in favour of the action proposed, as they were parties to the Hague Convention, but there might be technical difficulties, since it was proposed that legislative action should be begun within three months. In his country the Legislature met in the spring, and then for three months only. It might therefore be technically impossible to secure legislative action within three months, as required. Provision should be made to meet this difficulty.

M. Pichon called attention to the fact that Japan had a representative on the Drafting Committee, who could see that this objection was provided against.

Baron Makino said that with that understanding he was satisfied with the reference proposed.

(It was agreed that the British and American draft articles for insertion in the Treaty of Peace regarding Opium Traffic should be referred to the Drafting Committee for revision with a view to including in a new text the principles contained in both.)

3. Draft Article in Regard to Belgium M. Pichon read the following draft article, prepared by the British Delegation, for insertion in the Treaty of Peace, whereby Germany bound herself to recognize a new regime, replacing the Treaty of 1839 in regard to Belgium⁴:—

“Belgium. Treaties of 1839.

Germany, recognizing that the treaties of April, 19, 1839, which established the status or Belgium before the war, no longer conform to the requirements of the situation, consents to the abrogation of the said treaties and undertakes to adhere, when invited, to whatever conventions may be entered into by the Five Allied and Associated Powers, or by any of them, in concert with the Governments of Belgium and of the Netherlands, to replace the said treaties of 1839”.

M. Pichon, continuing, enquired whether the British draft was accepted.

Mr. Lansing said he wished to submit the following alternative draft for consideration:—

“Germany agrees to recognize and hereby recognizes the abrogation of the status of neutralization created by the Treaty of April, 19, 1839, to which Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia were High Contracting and Guaranteeing Parties on the third day of August, 1914, when the neutrality of Belgium, thus created, and guaranteed, was violated by the civil and military authorities of the then German Empire. Germany further agrees to recognize and hereby recognizes the new regime which may be created in respect to Belgium in lieu of the status of 1839, the provisions of which new regime shall be communicated to Germany by the Five Allied and Associated Powers; and Germany further agrees to obligate itself and hereby obligates itself, not merely to recognize such new regime, but also to observe its provisions, to conform its actions thereto, and to take no action inconsistent therewith.”

M. Pichon suggested that the same procedure should be followed as in the case of the two drafts relating to the opium traffic, namely, that the alternative drafts should be referred to the Drafting Committee to collate.

(It was agreed that the British and American draft clauses for insertion in the Treaty of Peace, by which Germany recognizes the new regime replacing the Treaty of 1839, in regard to Belgium, should be referred to the Drafting Committee for the purpose of drafting a single clause embodying the ideas contained in the two proposals.)

4. Renunciation by Germany of Territorial Privileges in Egypt Mr. Lansing said that the following draft article regarding the recognition of British Protectorate of Egypt had been circulated by the British Delegation:—

5.

“The German Government, recognising the Protectorate over Egypt declared by Great Britain on the 18th December, 1914, renounces all rights of extraterritoriality in Egypt. The German Government agrees that pending the coming into force of an Egyptian Law of Judicial Organisation creating Courts of Universal Jurisdiction, provision shall be made by decree of His Highness the Sultan for the exercise of jurisdiction over German nationals and their property by the British Consular Court. Question of Morocco

“The German Government agrees to the repeal or to the modification to such extent as the Egyptian Government may think desirable of the Decree issued by His Highness the Khedive on November 28th, 1904, relating to the Commission of the Egyptian Public Debt.⁵

“The German Government agrees to the transference to the Government of His Britannic Majesty of the powers conferred upon His Majesty the Sultan by the Convention signed at Constantinople on October 29th, 1888, respecting the free navigation of the Suez Canal.”⁶

Mr. Lansing expressed his inability to accept the draft articles relating to these two questions, for the reason that, in his opinion, a “blanket” clause should, in the first place, be prepared to cover all German interests outside the actual territory of Germany in Europe. In his opinion, a general clause should be prepared, clearly stating that Germany, once and for all, agreed to abrogate all her rights outside the recognised territorial boundaries of Germany in Europe. Such a procedure would obviate the necessity of preparing an indefinite number of Articles for insertion in the Treaty of Peace, dealing with territorial and other rights and privileges possessed by Germany in various parts of the world. He would point out that in addition to the rights and privileges owned by Germany in Morocco and in Egypt, dealt with in the draft clauses under consideration, the meeting would be asked later on to deal with the question of the abandonment of German claims in the Antarctic regions.

He thought that following the same train of thought, the meeting would next be asked to deal with Germany’s claim in the Arctic regions. There would, therefore, be no end to the questions which would thus have to be dealt with.

M. Pichon thought that Mr. Lansing’s proposal raised a very broad and difficult question. In his opinion it was essential that the renunciation of Germany’s claims and privileges should be made in favour of some one party or other. Therefore, should a general clause be introduced, as proposed by Mr. Lansing, it would not be possible to say in each case in whose favour Germany abrogated her rights and privileges. That being the case, it was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that each case should be dealt with separately.

Mr. Lansing held that if the course suggested by M. Pichon were followed, things would not be ready for the Peace Conference. He maintained that Germany should renounce her rights and privileges in favour of the Five Great Powers; a clause being inserted in the Peace Treaty, empowering the latter forthwith to appoint Commissions to determine without delay the fate of the territories so abandoned.

M. Pichon pointed out that the questions relating to Morocco and Egypt were not territorial ones; the draft clauses merely related to rights and privileges. In regard to Morocco a Commission had been appointed by the Council of Four and that Commission had submitted a draft text, which had been unanimously adopted. Should Mr. Lansing’s proposals now be accepted, it would amount to the rejection of the work carried out by the Council’s Commission.

Mr. Lansing expressed the view that all questions relating to the renunciation of territorial rights and privileges and to the abandonment of claims by Germany should be decided en bloc. In his opinion the question of Morocco could not be given special treatment. He enquired whether France and Great Britain would be prepared to discuss the Chinese question and other German territorial rights in China.

M. Pichon pointed out that the latter constituted a territorial question, whereas Morocco and Egypt dealt purely with a matter of status.

Mr. Lansing pointed out that the question of Shantung was also merely a matter of status. Similarly, the question of Consuls not only in China but also in Siam would come under the same head.

Baron Makino said that the matter of China having been raised, he wished to invite the attention of the Meeting to the fact that the territory in question was a leased territory, and not a purely German one. Furthermore, in regard to the disposition of that territory, a Treaty had been entered into between Japan and China and in consequence he maintained the question required special treatment. That being the case, the question of the disposal of German Territory in China could not be dealt with in a general clause dealing with the abandonment of German claims in other regions.

Mr. Lansing drew attention to the fact that China had prayed the Conference that the territory in question should be restored to her.

Baron Makino explained that the Treaty between Japan and China to which he had referred, dealt with the restitution of the territory in question to China. It had been agreed that the areas leased by Germany in China should positively be returned to China.

Mr. Lansing enquired in view of Baron Makino’s statement that the German leased territory would be returned to China, and that it was meanwhile merely being held in trust by [for?] China, whether Japan would object to the Five Great Powers acting as trustees.

M. Pichon said that the Meeting was perhaps getting far away from the question under reference. The question of Kiauchau was not one of the items included on the Agenda paper. On the other hand, to give effect to Mr. Lansing’s views, he submitted the following resolution for consideration:—

“Germany renounces all rights, titles and privileges whatsoever which may appertain to her in any form in regard to territories outside the territory of Germany proper as defined by the present treaty. She binds herself to recognise and to accept all measures which may be taken by the Five Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these rights, titles or privileges.”

Mr. Pichon, continuing, pointed out that the draft he had just read only related to territorial questions.

Mr. Lansing said that he would be prepared to accept M. Pichon’s draft; but suggested that the whole question should be referred to the Drafting Committee, with instructions that the clause should be so re-drafted as to include all rights, privileges and claims possessed by Germany. The draft so amended would be referred back to the Committee of Foreign Ministers for final acceptance.

M. Pichon pointed out that Mr. Lansing’s proposal would not in reality solve the question of Egypt and Morocco.

M. Sonnino thought that the Drafting Committee might be able to produce a draft Article which would cover those two questions also.

M. de Peretti, (President of the Morocco Commission), held that it would be quite impossible to draw up an Article that would cover all these questions. Should the Committee stipulate for a clean sweep of all Germany’s rights and privileges throughout the world, the Allied and Associated Governments would run the risk of perpetrating a grave injustice. In justice, Germany could only be asked to renounce certain definite rights and privileges and these would in each case have to be specified, otherwise endless trouble would hereafter arise.

Mr. Lansing reiterated his view that a clause should be drawn up whereby Germany made a general renunciation of all her rights, privileges and claims throughout the world; Commissions would then forthwith be appointed to consider each case individually.

M. de Peretti said that he would gladly accept Mr. Lansing’s proposal. On the other hand, in his opinion, the question could forthwith be settled by appointing the necessary Commissions. As a matter of fact, a certain number of Commissions had already reported. It was therefore merely a question of appointing other Commissions. But even should a general clause be drafted for inclusion in the Peace Treaty, as suggested by Mr. Lansing, such a clause would be extremely dangerous, unless Commissions were at once appointed to consider each case individually, as otherwise Germany might thereby be deprived of rights which she should, in reality, be permitted to retain.

Sir Robert Borden expressed the view that the draft clauses contained a number of provisions which it would be impossible to include in a general clause. For instance, should an attempt be made to put everything included in the draft articles relating to Morocco in a general clause, it would become extremely lengthy and unwieldy. He inquired whether the Committee would be prepared to accept the draft articles relating to Morocco, subject to the proviso that all matters which could be included in a general clause would be omitted from the special articles relating to Morocco.

M. Sonnino said that it would be impossible for him, without further consideration, to accept the concluding portion of the draft article relating to Egypt, wherein it was stated that the German Government agreed to the transference to the Government of His Britannic Majesty of the powers conferred upon His Imperial Majesty the Sultan by the Convention signed at Constantinople on October 29th, 1888, respecting the free navigation of the Suez Canal. He pointed out that it was proposed to make over to the British Government the rights of the Sultan of Turkey, which meant a great deal more than the mere surrender of rights by Germany. In his opinion, such a proposal would require the approval of all the Powers.

Mr. Lansing agreed that special reasons existed in the case of Egypt, which called for special treatment. At the same time he thought it would be felt by the world at large that the Great Powers represented here had paid special attention to their own interests. For instance, the question of the German rights in Liberia and in Turkey; the extraterritorial rights of Germany in Siam and in China; Germany’s claims in the Arctic and Ant-Arctic regions had apparently so far received no proper consideration. In his opinion the further consideration of the questions of Morocco and Egypt should be postponed until the Drafting Committee had tried their hand at drafting a clause which would cover all the rights and privileges of Germany everywhere. As soon as such a clause had been prepared by the Drafting Committee, it would be time enough to decide whether Egypt and Morocco required special treatment. He wished to suggest, therefore, that the question be referred to the Drafting Committee with a request that they should submit a draft of a general clause to this Committee by Thursday next.

M. Pichon pointed out that Commissions had already reported on some of these questions. For instance, in regard to Morocco definite recommendations had unanimously been made. He wished to enquire whether Mr. Lansing proposed to ignore the work of these Commissions.

Mr. Lansing replied that he did not object to the Morocco clauses as such; but before taking any further action in the matter he asked that a general renunciation clause should be drafted and then each question could be disposed of separately in connection with the general clause. Unless this procedure were followed the Great Powers would undoubtedly be accused of taking care of their own interests whilst neglecting the rights of all other nations.

M. Pichon expressed the opinion that in the Peace Treaty all questions directly concerning Germany and the other signatory Powers should alone be included. All other questions could then be postponed to a later date. No doubt questions such as those relating to Liberia, China and Siam would eventually have to be studied; but in his opinion that was no reason for postponing the immediate consideration of such questions as Morocco and Egypt which were ready for settlement.

Sir Robert Borden wished to press for the acceptance of the draft article relating to the British Protectorate of Egypt, subject to the reservations he had already made. It appeared, however, that this procedure was objected to by the American and Italian representatives. Therefore he would agree to the Drafting Committee being instructed to endeavour to draft a general article as suggested by Mr. Lansing. He foresaw, however, great difficulties in introducing in such a general article all the conditions contained in the draft relating to Egypt. Consequently should the Drafting Committee not be able to draw up a satisfactory general article he would then press for the acceptance of the British draft article relating to Egypt, failing which the whole question would have to be referred for decision to the Council of Four.

Mr. Lansing explained that he held the following theory: a “blanket” article should be drafted to cover the renunciation of all territorial privileges, rights, and claims of Germany throughout the world outside European Germany. Should it be found that the general clause did not cover all cases then special additional clauses could be added to the general clause.

M. Pichon understood that the Drafting Committee would be instructed to draw up a summary of all the draft articles so far prepared and then all special cases that were not covered by the general clause would form the subject of special additional clauses.

Baron Makino said that if Mr. Lansing’s proposal were adopted it would be necessary to make a reservation in the case of Kiauchau since that formed the subject of a special treaty and could not therefore be included in a general clause.

Baron Sonnino pointed out that Japan had a special representative on the Drafting Committee who would be able to raise any question requiring special treatment.

M. Pichon agreed that the question of Morocco would likewise be referred to the Drafting Committee. He understood, however, that the Committee did not wish to raise any objection in regard to the unanimous findings of the Morocco Commission. Therefore the report presented by the Committee for the examination of the provisions to be inserted in the preliminaries of peace with regard to Morocco was adopted in principle by the Committee and it would merely be referred to the Drafting Committee with a view to these provisions being included as far as possible in a general clause. The balance of the clauses would then form the subject of special articles.

(This was agreed to.)

M. de Peretti suggested that in order to facilitate the work of the Drafting Committee it would be advisable also to refer to them definite draft clauses relating to China, Liberia and Siam and so forth.

Sir Robert Borden pointed out, in regard to the report relating to Morocco, that some of the articles (namely 6 to 9) might be open to revision in the event of their not being in conformity with the general principles of the clauses proposed by the Economic Committee or by the Committee on Reparation and accepted by the Supreme Council of the Allies and the duty of ensuring such conformity was left with the Drafting Committee. He thought, therefore, that the attention of the Drafting Committee should also be drawn to this matter.

M. Pichon explained that the Commission on Reparation had so far merely submitted a report, but no draft clauses for insertion in the Peace Treaty.

(It was decided to instruct the Drafting Committee to draft a general clause whereby Germany would renounce all her claims, rights and privileges outside the territory of Germany in Europe as defined in the Peace Treaty. The Drafting Committee would at the same time be instructed to submit additional clauses to include such special rights and privileges of Germany as would not be covered by the general clause.)

6. Minor Amendments of the Military Terms M. Pichon said that the following two amendments to Military Peace Terms⁷ had been proposed by the British Delegation:—

I. “To Article 11 add the following Sub-Section”.

“Within the same period the German Government shall put the Allies in effective possession of all chemical processes (including drawings of plant, works instructions, and reports of research to the latest date) used during the war for the production of munitions (including explosives, and also gases and analogous matters as defined in Article 13 of these stipulations) or for the production of substances from which such things were or can be made”.

II. “In Article 10, Sub-Section (i) add after the words “the location of which shall be communicated to …” the words “and approved by”.

Mr. Lansing said that he was altogether opposed to the inclusion of the proposed amendment to Article 11 of the Military Peace Terms. In making this statement, he expressed the views of President Wilson. As a matter of fact the communication of details relating to chemical processes really constituted an economic question rather than a military one and since the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and all analogous matters or devices had been prohibited, including their manufacture and importation, he thought that was sufficient safeguard without asking the German Government to put the Allies in an effective possession of all their chemical processes, including the production of substances from which such things could be made.

Sir Robert Borden explained that the proposal had been put forward by the British Delegation from the standpoint that during the war Germany had made great progress in production of chemicals for the destruction of life. He fully admitted that the processes employed for the production of asphyxiating and poisonous materials were also required for commercial purposes, but the British Military authorities were of opinion that those chemical processes so employed should be divulged in order to reduce the danger of their use in any future wars. Should the Allied Nations be prepared to allow Germany to preserve her secrets, he would bow to that decision, but he must point out that the danger was one which affected the European Nations to a far greater extent than America.

Mr. Lansing said that he had very little to add to the statement which he had just made. He wished, however, to say that the American Military Authorities considered the insertion of such a clause to be superfluous and President Wilson held that the clause could not be justified from an economic point of view.

Sir Robert Borden expressed the view that from an economic point of view, if Germany diverted her manufacture for the production of death-dealing gases, she could not complain if she were obliged to disclose her methods of manufacture. A knowledge of the methods by which these tortures were produced would enable steps to be taken by the Allied and Associated Powers to protect themselves. He spoke with considerable emotion on this subject after having witnessed Canadian soldiers still gasping for breath two or three months after having been gassed.

Mr. Lansing said he did not excuse inhuman methods of warfare. At the same time, he believed that the secrets of gas manufacture were with Great Britain and America. Why, therefore, should they wish to be placed in a position to manufacture an inferior article?

M. Sonnino enquired how the knowledge of these secrets could bring about a cessation of the manufacture of the gases in question. The knowledge would only place the other Powers in a position to manufacture the same articles. In his opinion, from an economic point of view it would be extremely difficult to define what exactly was included in the secrets of manufacture to be divulged by the Germans.

Mr. Lansing expressed a view that all the processes could be covered by the term “dyes”.

Sir Robert Borden asked that the question should be referred to the Council of Four.

Baron Sonnino pointed out that the proposed amendments to the Military Peace Terms included a second proposal relating to Article 10 which he would be prepared to accept.

Sir Robert Borden explained that the first paragraph of Article 10 read as follows:—“The manufacture of arms, munitions, or any war materials shall only be carried out in factories or works, the location of which shall be communicated to the Allied and Associated Governments, the number of which they retain the right to restrict.” It was now proposed that this sentence should read:—“The manufacture of arms, munitions, or any war materials shall only be carried out in factories or works, the location of which shall be communicated to and approved by the Allied and Associated Governments, the number of which they retain the right to restrict”. Sir Robert Borden continuing said that the effect of the addition of the words “and approved by” would be that the Allies would have the right of naming the particular works which would have to be closed if so decided by the Allied and Associated Governments. For instance, if the Germans were carrying out the manufacture of arms and munitions in, say, twelve places, of which two were important and ten unimportant, the Allies could restrict the work by suppressing one or other of the important factories, but without the insertion of the words “and approved by” the Germans would be entitled to suppress the unimportant works.

(It was agreed that article 10 sub-section I of the Military Peace Terms should be amended to read as follows:—

“The manufacture of arms, munitions, or any war materials shall only be carried out in factories or works, the location of which shall be communicated to and approved by the Allied and Associated Governments, the number of which they retain the right to restrict”.

It was further agreed that the amendment to article 11 of the Peace Terms should be provisionally rejected owing to want of unanimity. The British Delegation should be entitled, if it so desired, to re-submit the question for the consideration of the Council of Four.)

7. M. Pichon read the following draft article, submitted by the British Delegation, binding Germany to recognise Allied and Associated Prize Court decisions:—

“Germany accepts and recognises as valid and binding all decrees and orders concerning German ships and cargoes and all orders relating to the payment of costs made by a Prize Court of any of the Allied or Associated Powers, and undertakes not to put forward any claim arising out of such decrees or orders on behalf of any German national”. Insertion of Articles in the Treaty of Peace Providing for the Acceptance by the Enemy of Allied Prize Court Decisions

Mr. Lansing said that he had an alternative draft which read as follows:—

“Germany agrees to accept and hereby accepts all decisions and orders of the Allied and Associated Courts of Prize rendered or issued before the deposit of ratifications of the present treaty as a final disposition of the property involved and of the questions decided, involved, or raised in the decisions and orders of the said Prize Courts.

The five Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to examine all such decisions and orders of German Prize Courts, whether affecting the property, rights of Nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, or the nationals of neutral Powers; Germany agrees to furnish, upon request, to the Allied and Associated Powers certified copies of all such decisions and orders, the evidence submitted and the proceedings of the German Prize Courts since the outbreak of the War; agrees to accept and hereby accepts the modifications of such decisions and orders which the five Allied and Associated Powers may make therein, and agrees to accept and to give effect to the modifications of such decisions and orders which shall be contained in the Convention to this effect, to be concluded subsequently and at a date to be fixed by the five Allied and Associated Powers.

Germany further agrees to recognise and hereby recognises the validity of the seizure, capture or confiscation, of all German merchant vessels, together with the cargoes thereon, which the Allied and Associated Powers, or any of them, have seized, captured or confiscated since the 1st day of August 1914, the disposition of which shall not have been decided by a Court of Prize of an Allied or Associated Power before the deposit of ratifications of the present treaty; and Germany also agrees to recognise and hereby recognises the right of any of the Allied and Associated Powers to retain possession of such vessels, together with the cargoes thereof, and to apply the same (their value) or the proceeds of the sale thereof, to the satisfaction of the claims against Germany of the Allied or Associated Governments so having seized, captured, confiscated or possessing the same.”

Mr. Lansing continuing said, he did not wish to insist on the third paragraph of his draft, but from the American point of view, it was very undesirable to continue Courts of Prize and similar War organisations after the signature of the Peace Treaty. The last clause was intended therefore to perfect titles without the necessity of maintaining such Courts of Prize.

He wished to propose that the British and American drafts should be referred to the Drafting Committee for consideration and report, and the submission of a single draft embodying the principles contained in both.

M. Fromageot observed that in regard to the French Prize Courts, a very great difficulty would arise, should it be laid down that only such captures should be validated as had been decided before the ratification of the Peace Treaty. In accordance with French Procedure, delays were deliberately imposed in order to benefit the claimants. Consequently, the clause should be amended to read that Germany agrees to accept all decisions and orders of the Allied and Associated Courts of Prize which “have been or shall be” rendered or issued before the deposit of the ratification of the present Treaty.

Mr. Lansing pointed out that since M. Fromageot was a member of the Drafting Committee, he thought his proposal to submit the drafts to the Drafting Committee should be accepted, in order that a single draft could be drawn up harmonising the American and British proposals.

Sir Robert Borden pointed out that the American draft raised certain differences in questions of principle. In the case of the British Empire it would be extremely difficult to break off proceedings in Prize Courts, particularly where neutrals were concerned.

Further, the second paragraph of the American proposed clause contained the suggestion that the Allied and Associated Powers should revise the decisions taken by the German Prize Courts but none in regard to the procedure necessary to effect the revision.

Furthermore, in regard to the third paragraph, the Economic Commission had made certain recommendations relating to the liquidation of German property inside Allied territories, and it had suggested the creation of certain machinery which might be used to deal with this very question.

Mr. Lansing explained, in reference to the second paragraph of the American draft, that the British draft contained no provisions covering a decision taken by the German Prize Courts, and consequently, this clause had been inserted to enable the Allied and Associated Powers to take the necessary action in the matter if they thought it necessary.

He asked, therefore, that the Allies should accept the principle that they had the right to question German Prize Court decisions which might attempt to justify submarine destructions.

Sir Robert Borden explained that the British representatives had fully expressed their reprobation of unrestricted submarine warfare. It was unnecessary, therefore, to say anything more on that question, but when it [came] to the decision of German Prize Courts, the question naturally arose as to whether such revision as might be found necessary was to be carried out on the basis of German law or on the basis of Allied laws. That was where the great difficulty lay, should the question of the jurisdiction of the German Courts come under discussion.

M. Pichon suggested that the question should be referred to the Drafting Committee, who would bear in mind the remarks made by Mr. Lansing and Sir Robert Borden.

(It was agreed that the Drafting Committee be asked to frame a single clause for insertion in the Treaty of Peace, containing as far as possible the British and American proposals concerning Prize Court decisions).

8. Abandonment of German Claims in the Antarctic Regions M. Pichon proposed that the following draft Article in regard to the Antarctic regions should also be referred to the Drafting Committee, in accordance with the conclusion taken on Items 4 and 5 above:—

“Germany renounces in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers all claims to any territories lying to the south of latitude 60° south.”

(This was agreed to.)

9. (It was agreed to instruct the Polish Commission to proceed forthwith with their investigation of the Polish territorial question). Commission on Polish Affairs

(The Meeting then adjourned to Thursday, 17th April, 1919, at 2–30 p.m.)

Paris, 15th April, 1919.

1. For text of the Armistice, see vol. ii, p. 1.
2. For text, see Foreign Relations, 1912, p. 196.
3. Ibid., 1914, pp. 938–939.
4. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xxvii, pp. 995–1002.
5. Ibid., vol. xcvii, p. 41.
6. Ibid., vol. lxxix, p. 18.
7. See annexure “A,” BC–52, p. 385.