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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/11

CF–11

Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s Residence, Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Wednesday, May 14, at 11 a.m.

Paris, May 14, 1919, 11 a.m.

• Present
  • United States of America
    • President Wilson.
    • The Hon. Henry White.
    • Dr. Manley O. Hudson.
  • British Empibe
    • The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
    • Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, K. C. B.
    • Colonel Henniker, R. E.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
    • M. Albert Claveille.
  • Italy
    • M. Orlando.
    • M. Crespi.
    • M. de Martino.

Secretaries	Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B.
	Count Aldrovandi.
Interpreter	Professor P. J. Mantoux.

Regime of Ports, Waterways & Railways

(1) Clause for Treaty With Austria The Council had before it a letter from the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways, notifying the amendments necessary in their text to render it suitable for inclusion in the Treaty with Austria (Appendix).

M. Crespi, as President of the Commission, reported that, as the Commission had drawn up one text envisaging the enemy countries as a whole, their present letter was solely confined to notifying the alterations necessary to apply that text to Austria. No questions of principle had arisen and no new proposals were put forward.

(2) Railway Regime to Adriatic Ports. Revision On behalf of the Italian Delegation, however, he desired to delete in Article 61. A. (now Article 42) the reference to Article 45 (now Article 26) relating to the regime of railway Railway Regime tariffs as regards traffic to Adriatic and Black Sea Ports. By including this paragraph in Article 61. A. it was subjected to the possibility of revision, or reciprocity, after five years; but as Italy already gave reciprocity, the Italian Delegation thinks that the matter can be settled immediately and finally.

M. de Martino explained that the Clause (last paragraph of Article 45) had no political bearing and was irrespective of the fate of the Adriatic ports in question. Before the war there existed a regime of tariffs which favoured Austrian and Hungarian ports on the Adriatic as compared with German, etc., ports. Now in place of Austria as the hinterland to those ports there will be a variety of States, and unless the pre-war arrangements as a whole were maintained there would be a state of anarchy as regards railway rates, etc., which Germany would doubtless be able to utilise for her benefit. It was to prevent this that the Italians had suggested the clause in question which would maintain a pre-war tariff system. It did not fix the rates of freight, but merely the existing railway arrangements as a whole. If this was to be revised after five years the results would be deplorable to the States owning the Adriatic ports. The clause was of benefit to the whole of the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy; and as Italy formally declares that she is ready to give reciprocity in the matter she desires that the possibility of revision after five years should be avoided.

Mr. Lloyd George understood that the intention of the Italian Delegate was to make the clause (last paragraph of Article 45) permanent.

President Wilson drew attention to Article 61 (now Article 41) under which the Council of the League of Nations could recommend the revision of any clauses relating to a permanent administrative regime. It did not, however, appear to him that this would affect the matter since a railway tariff regime could in all probability not be considered as a permanent administrative regime. He saw no danger to Italy for the possible reconsideration after five years.

Mr. Lloyd George agreed. He thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain pre-war rates for more than five years, even if they could be maintained as long. Railway wages had doubled and increases in other costs would of necessity involve increases of railway rates unless the railways were to become bankrupt.

M. de Martino said that they did not want to fix the rates of railway tariffs but only to keep the system as a whole in being. It was a matter of proportion.

Mr. Lloyd George thought that in practice the establishment of proportion would be very difficult.

He said that the British Delegation on the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had gone into the matter very carefully and that they would never have agreed to this if they had thought that it was going to be permanent.

Mr. Hudson said the American Delegation on the Commission had similarly only accepted the Italian proposal on the understanding that there was a time-limit.

M. Claveille was entirely in favour of the inclusion of Article 45 (now Article 26) in the Treaty. He pointed out that railway rates were of three kinds:

(1) General tariffs.

(2) Special tariffs.

(3) Export tariffs.

The object of the Italian proposal was that the proportion which the second and third categories bore to the first should be maintained for the traffic in question, and he thought this should be a fairly simple matter. He pointed out, however, that Article 61. A. (Article 42) did not mean that the clause would be revised after five years. It simply meant that the clause would in any case remain in force for five years and that after that time it would be revised only if the Council of the League of Nations thought fit. As Italy was ready to accept reciprocity he did not think they would risk losing anything by allowing the reference to remain.

M. Orlando suggested that in the interests of the stability of trade the period should be extended from five to ten years.

President Wilson emphasised that the clauses as they stood only provided for the possible revision by the League after five years. Inasmuch as Italy would be in the League of Nations he thought their position was abundantly safeguarded.

In view of these explanations M. Orlando withdrew the Italian proposal.

(3) Right of Access of Austria to the Sea Mr. Lloyd George wished to raise a question of principle. Austria and Hungary now became land-locked States without access to the sea. They had just been discussing provisions suggested by the Commission to protect Trieste, etc., against attempts on the part of Austria or Hungary artificially to divert traffic from them. He wanted to know whether there was any protection at all for Austria and Hungary as regards their access to the sea being cut off by artificial means. They have a right to get to the sea and he would like to know whether that was safeguarded in the Commission’s suggested clauses.

M. Claveille said that in the Commission’s clauses there was no such guarantee, but this would be given by the General Convention which the Commission had been instructed by the Supreme Council to prepare. Enemy States agreed beforehand in the Treaties to accept this Convention, so that the general rights thereby conferred would apply to Austria and Hungary. He agreed that such countries should not be cut off from the sea and thought that access was not only in the interests of those countries but of the ports through which their commerce would be carried on.

M. Orlando agreed that guarantees must be given to the countries concerned.

President Wilson understood that there was a possibility of the General Conventions not being pressed on with.

Mr. Lloyd George agreed. The Conventions might take many months to draw up and even longer to come into force. The Peace Treaty is, however, to be signed very shortly, and the matter now under consideration is one which affects the very life of the countries. They must have access to the sea; and as matters stand at present they had no guarantee that if they had some trivial dispute with the surrounding countries those countries might not cut them off. To refer them to a General Convention in the present indefinite conditions was not a satisfactory solution. He proposed that a clause should be inserted in the Treaty and that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways should be left to produce a suitable wording.

President Wilson agreed.

This proposal was accepted, and the Supreme Council nominated the following as a Committee to prepare a suitable article:

United States of America.	Dr. Hudson.
British Empire.	Sir H. Llewellyn Smith.
Italy.	M. Crespi.
Prance.	M. Claveille.

(4) Peace Treaty Articies Accepted Subject to the inclusion of this Article, which should also go into any Treaty with Hungary, the Supreme Council accepted the articles for inclusion in the Austrian and Hungarian Treaties as submitted by the Commission, it being understood that the alterations made by the Supreme Council in the Articles submitted for the Treaty with Germany should also be made in the Articles for the Treaties with Austria and Hungary so far as they are applicable.

(5) Communication of Decision to Drafting Commitee The following resolution, embodying the results of the meeting were initialled or signed, as shown below, for communication to the Dafting Committee.

The Supreme Council of the Allies, at a meeting at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 14th, accepted the clauses regarding Ports, Waterways and Railways, recommended by the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways, for inclusion in the Austrian Treaty, subject to the retention in Article 61. A. (now Article 42) of the reference to Article 45 (now Article 26) and to the inclusion of a new article safeguarding the right of Austria (and eventually Hungary) of access to the Sea. The drafting of this new article was entrusted to a small Committee nominated at the Meeting.

It was also decided that the alterations made by the Supreme Council in the Articles submitted for the Treaty with uermany should also be made in the Articles for the Treaty with Austria, so far as they are applicable.

• W. W.
• D. Ll. G.
• G. C.
• Orlando

Appendix to Minutes of Meeting at 11 a.m. May 14

Paris, 12 May, 1919.

From the President of the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways to the President of the Peace Conference

The Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways was requested by letter dated the 7th May from the Secretariat General of the Conference to submit its report on the clauses to be inserted in the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary.

The Commission has already forwarded (on the 25th April) a supplementary report,¹ in an annex to which appeared the text of the clauses to be imposed on the enemy Powers as a whole. The Commission acted on the supposition that the same text would be submitted for signature to all belligerent Powers, who would undertake severally to observe the stipulations which affected them.

For a separate treaty with Austria or with Hungary the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways has no addition to propose in the clauses submitted by it. The sole modification to be made in the text is a modification purely in form with the object, on the one hand, in the case both of the Treaty with Austria and of the Treaty with Hungary, of deleting such of the stipulations as do not affect the signatory enemy Power, and on the other hand of introducing the verbal alterations rendered necessary by the substitution of several special treaties and a general treaty. A statement of those deletions, drafting alterations, and renumberings, article by article, is appended to this letter. In drawing up the list of the articles in its general text which do not appear to it to affect the Treaty with Austria or the Treaty with Hungary, the Commission has acted on the supposition that in both these treaties will appear an article similar to Article 434 of the Treaty with Germany, that is to say binding both these States to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional Conventions which have been, or might be, concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers which fought on the side of Austria and Hungary.

The Commission desires to point out, moreover, that while it has deleted all stipulations which only affect such enemy Powers as still retain possession of maritime littorals, it has retained certain clauses regarding ports; the Commission, in fact, has always included under the word “port” river ports as well as sea ports.

Article 33 of the text transmitted on April 25th, dealing with reparation for damages suffered by the European Commission of the Danube, has been retained without change; the Commission is anxious to call attention to the necessity of not appearing, by inserting these stipulations successively in each of the treaties with the enemy Powers and by mentioning in each case only the signatory enemy Power, to impose in turn on each of such Powers the whole of the restitutions and reparations.

Lastly, as regards Article 61 (A) of the text forwarded on April 25th, in which are mentioned certain articles subject to future revision and to limited periods of application, the Italian Delegation maintains its reserve already mentioned in the report of the 25th April as to the insertion of the last paragraph of Article 45 (Régime of Tariffs applicable to Adriatic ports) among the articles subject to revision. The Italian Delegation declares that as Italy on her side proposes to maintain the regimes of tariffs applicable to the traffic of the Adriatic ports, she already gives to the enemy Powers the benefit of reciprocity as regards this clause.

From its ignorance of the delimitations of frontiers, the Commission has not considered itself in a position to decide whether the second paragraph of Article 55 of the text of April 25th referring to the line Bratislava-Mura Keresztur and to the Mura Keresztur-Pragerhof branch affects at one and the same time Austria and Hungary or only Hungary. The Commission has proposed its insertion in both treaties with these Powers only under reserve of correction by the competent Authorities.

Crespi

(President)

[Enclosure]

Modifications in the Articles Submitted by the Ports, Waterways, and Railways Commission To Fit Them for Insertion in Separate Treaties With Austria and Hungary

Consecutive Numbers of the Articles				Modifications for Treaty with Austria	Modifications for Treaty with Hungary
In the Report of the Commission (April 25th)	In a Treaty with Austria	In a Treaty with Hungary
1	1	1		Fifth line—omit the words: “for this purpose the crossing of territorial waters shall be allowed”.	Fifth line—omit the words: “for this purpose the crossing of territorial waters shall be allowed”.
2	2	2	}	No change.	No change.
3	3	3
4	4	4
5	5	5
6	6	6
7	7	7		Delete the words: “Under the reserve of restrictions concerning the exercise of maritime coasting trade”.	Delete the words: “Under reserve of restrictions concerning the exercise of maritime coasting trade”.
Heading			}	Delete Heading:—”Section B—Free Zones in Ports,” & the whole of Articles 8, 9 and 10.	Delete heading:—“Section B—Free Zones in Ports” & the whole of Articles 8, 9 and 10.
8
9
10
Heading				Delete heading & substitute “Section B. Clauses relating to the Danube.”	Delete heading & substitute “Section B. Clauses relating to the Danube.”
Sub-Heading.				Delete sub-heading and substitute “(1) General Clauses applying to all river systems declared international”	Delete sub-heading & substitute “(1) General Clauses applying to all river systems declared international”.
11	8	8		Delete reference to the Elbe, Oder and Nie-men. The Article will then begin:—“The following river is declared international— the Danube from Ulm; and all navigable parts of this river system which naturally provide …” etc.	Delete Reference to the Elbe, Oder & Nie-men. The Article will then begin:—”The following river is declared international—the Danube from Ulm; and all navigable parts of this river system which naturally provide …” etc.
				Line 10 for “river systems” read “river system”.	Line 10 for “river systems” read “river system”.
				Last line: for “Article 33 A” read “Article 24”.	Last line: for “Article. 33 A” read “Article 25”
12	9	9		First line: for “on the waterways” read “on the waterway”.	First line: for “on the waterways” read “on the waterway”.
13	10	10	}	No change.	No change.
14	11	11
15	12	12
16	13	13
17	14	14
18	15	15		First Line: for “Articles 12 to 17” read “Articles 9 to 14”	First line: for “Articles 12 to 17” read “Articles 9 to 14”.
				Fifth line: Delete reference to the Elbe, Oder & Niemen so that the wording becomes:—“above mentioned river system of the Danube and such other parts of this river system”.	Fifth line: Delete reference to the Elbe, Oder, & Niemen so that the wording becomes:—“above mentioned river system of the Danube and such other parts of this river system”.
				Lines 9, 10 & 11: Delete all after the words:— “said General Convention”.	Lines 9, 10 & 11: Delete all after the words:—“said General Convention”.
19	16	16		4th Line: for “river systems referred to in Article 11” read “river system referred to in Article 8”.	4th Line: for “river systems referred to in Article 11” read “river system referred to in Article 8”.
				6th Line: for “those river systems” read “that river system”.	6th Line: for “those river systems” read “that river system”.
Heading			}	Delete the heading “(2) Special Clauses regarding the Elbe,” etc. and the whole of Articles 20 to 25.	Delete the heading “(2) Special Clauses regarding the Elbe,” etc. and the whole of Articles 20 to 25.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Heading				Amend heading “(3) Special Clauses regarding the Danube” to “(2) Special Clauses regarding the Danube”	Amend heading “(3) Special Clauses regarding the Danube” to “(2) Special Clauses regarding the Danube”.
26	17	17		No change.	No change.
27	18	18		2nd Line—for “Article 11” read “Article 8”	2nd Line—for “Article 11” read “Article 8”.
28	19	19		1st Line: for “Article 27” read “Article 18”.	1st Line: for “Article 27” read “Article 18”.
29	20	20		No change.	No change.
30		21		Delete the whole Article	(Article remains.)
31	21	22	}	No change.	No change.
32	22	23
33	23	24
33A	24	25
Heading				For “Section D. Clauses regarding the Rhine & Moselle” read “(3) Special Clause regarding the Rhine”.	Delete whole heading.
34			}	Delete all these Articles.	Delete all these Articles.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42	25			Delete sub-paras. (1) & (3). The whole Article will then read: “The B States will offer no objection to any proposals of the Central Rhine Commission for extending its jurisdiction to the Rhine above Basle up to the Lake of Constance, subject to the consent of the Government of the Swiss Confederation”.	Omit the whole Article.
Heading				“Section E. Use of Northern Ports”. Delete the whole heading.	“Section E. Use of Northern Ports”. Delete the whole heading.
43			}	Delete both paragraphs.	Delete both paragraphs.
44
45	26	26	}	No alteration.	No alteration.
46	27	27
47	28	28
48	29	29	}	No alteration.	No alteration.
49	30	30
50	31	31
51	32	32		Last 2 lines. Delete all words after Poland and substitute “converted by Austria to the Austrian gauge such lines being regarded as detached from the Austrian system.”	Delete the last paragraph (“The provisions of paragraphs system”).
52	33	33		No change.	No change.
53	34	34		Line 9: Delete the words “of the improvement of the Bratislava (Pressburg)-Nagy-Kanisza Line.”	Line 8: Delete the words “the new transalpine lines of the Col de Reschen and the Pas de Pre-dil, of …
54				Delete the whole Article.	Delete the whole Article.
55	35	35		Last 2 lines: for “those of the B States” read “those of the railways over which the running powers are exercised.”*	Delete sub-paragraph (2) Last line: for “those of the B States” read “those of the railways over which the running powers are exercised.”
56	36	36	}	No change.	No change.
57	37	37
58	38	38
59	39	39
60	40	40
61	41	41
61A	42	42		1st Line: for “Articles 1 to 10, 12, 45, 47 to 49” read “Articles 1 to 7, 9, 26, 28 to 30”.	1st Line: for “Articles 1 to 10, 12, 45, 47 to 49” read “Articles 1 to 7, 9, 26, 28 to 30”.
61B	43	43		No change.	No change.

*Note: Until the exact frontiers of Austria are known the reference to Hungarian railways cannot be omitted from the Treaty with Austria. [Footnote in the original.]

1. Ante, p. 266.