Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/26
CF–26
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Friday, May 23, 1919, at 11 a.m.
Paris, May 23, 1919, 11 a.m.
-
Present
-
United States of America
-
France
-
British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
-
Italy
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries.
|
| Count Aldrovandi |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter.
|
1. Private Property: Letter From
Brockdorff-Rantzau
M. Clemenceau reported that he had received
from Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau a letter on the subject of private
property, dated May 22nd, 1919. (Appendix I.)
(It was agreed:—That this letter should be referred in the first instance
to the Committee which has been advising the Council of the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers on the subject of Reparation in connection
with the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary, who should be asked
to draft a reply for consideration. (See below, Minute 6, regarding the
composition of this Committee.))
2. International Labour: Further Letter From
Brockdorff-Rantzau
M. Clemenceau said he had received a further
note from Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau, dated May 22nd, 1919, on the subject
of International Labour. (Appendix II.)
(It was agreed:—That this letter should be referred in the first instance
to the Committee which had dealt with the previous letter from the
German Delegation on this subject, and which should be asked to draft a
reply for the consideration of the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers.)
3. Russia
M. Clemenceau said he had reason to believe
that the Japanese Government were about to propose to the Allied and
Associated Governments the recognition of the Omsk Government. He
thought that these Governments ought to anticipate them. He did not like
to leave it to Japan to take the initiative.
[Page 862]
President Wilson asked whether it was proposed
to recognise this Government as representing all Russia, or merely as a
local Government.
M. Clemenceau replied as representing all
Russia.
President Wilson said he could not do that.
Mr. Lloyd George said he also was opposed to
that. Mr. Kerr’s draft despatch to the Russian de
facto Government was ready, and he thought that it ought at
once to be considered.
(It was agreed:—To discuss Mr. Kerr’s draft letter in the afternoon.)
4. Luxemburg
M. Clemenceau read a Memorandum he had
received from the Quai d’Orsay, the gist of which was somewhat as
follows:—In March, there was a vote in the Luxemburg Chamber in favour
of the organisation of a double referendum on the following questions:—
- 1.
- The form of the future State of Luxemburg, including the
question of the dynasty.
- 2.
- An economic union with one or other of Luxemburg’s
neighbours.
The Belgian Government, apprehending that the political
referendum was a manoeuvre in opposition to their own negotiations with
Luxemburg, asked for its postponement. This was agreed to by the Council
of Four and was notified on April 16th to the Luxemburg Government
through the medium of the United States General in Luxemburg. Towards
the middle of May, a report was received from the First Secretary to the
United States Legation in Luxemburg to the effect that the referendum on
the economic question was being organised to take place immediately
after the signature of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. He added that
the vote would probably be in favour of economic union with France,
unless the French Government announced that it would not take it into
consideration. It was, however, difficult for the French Government to
take the responsibility for this, even though they were anxious to do
nothing in opposition to the interests of Belgium. Public opinion in
France would not stand it. The result of such action might be that
Luxemburg, unable to unite economically with France, and unwilling to
unite with Belgium, might relapse into her former relations with
Germany. Hence, M. Clemenceau suggested, it would be desirable that the
Council should notify Luxemburg that their request in regard to the
political referendum applied equally to the economic referendum, and
should advise the Luxemburg Government not to present the Peace
Conference with a situation which would be tantamount to a fait accompli.
[Page 863]
President Wilson reported that, as he had been
asked to, he had, after a short delay, written to the Luxemburg
Government to say that the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers would be glad to receive a deputation. He had, as yet,
received no reply.
M. Clemenceau said that his position was that,
if Luxemburg proposed economic union with France, he could not say no.
Nevertheless, he did not want to do anything which appeared detrimental
to Belgium.
Mr. Lloyd George said it was a question
primarily for the people of Luxemburg and no attempt ought to be made to
manoeuvre them into political or economic union with Belgium, if they
did not desire it. Their wishes ought to be obtained.
M. Clemenceau made the definite proposal that
President Wilson should inform the Luxemburg Government that the
invitation to them to abstain from a political referendum applied
equally to an economic referendum.
President Wilson hoped that the question would
be settled by the reception of the Luxemburg deputation.
Mr. Lloyd George agreed that this would be the
best solution. It was purely a matter for the Luxemburg people
themselves and the Powers should not meddle and compelled [compel] them to make up their minds.
President Wilson pointed out that it was
undesirable to complicate matters with Belgium just now.
M. Clemenceau agreed. He was very anxious not
to have any trouble with Belgium. If Luxemburg were to vote for union
with France, Belgium would say that it was the result of French
machinations. The Belgians were just beginning to see that France did
not want Luxemburg and he wanted to show them that France was playing
straight. He believed it to be a real fact that the people of Luxemburg
did not want political union with France, whom they regarded as a
heathen people, being themselves subject to clerical influence. He,
himself, would accept the union of Luxemburg with France, if offered by
Luxemburg, but his first object was to continue in close accord with
Belgium.
(It was agreed:—That President Wilson should wait a day or two and then
send a reminder to Luxemburg.)
5. There was a short discussion on the subject of the military forces of
Austria.
Military Forces of Austria
M. Clemenceau said he thought the question was
a very delicate one. He, himself, was prepared to come rather nearer
than he had been to the views of President Wilson. In regard to the
small States, there were two [Page 864]
aspects; one financial and one political, apart from the military. The
financial had been discussed yesterday. He was glad, however, that the
report of the Reparations Committee had not been finally approved, and
that it had been referred back for further drafting. He thought that the
financial authorities had viewed it too much from a purely financial
point of view and had not sufficiently taken political considerations
into account. The question was really not disconnected from the question
of the number of troops that small countries like Poland and
Czecho-Slovakia should have. He agreed to a limitation of their
armaments, but thought that they should not be reduced at once and too
hastily.
President Wilson suggested the possibility that
some gradual system of reduction might be introduced pending the
solution of the Russian question, and that the reduction to the final
figures might depend on the settlement of that question.
(It was agreed:—To adjourn upstairs and discuss this question in the
first instance with experts.)
6. Reparation Committee for the Treaties With Austria,
Hungary & Bulgaria Arising out of the previous discussion,
M. Clemenceau said he wished to add a
further political element to the Reparation Committee.
Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson said they had no objection.
M. Clemenceau proposed to add M. Loucheur and
M. Tardieu.
Mr. Lloyd George said that, in that case, he
would add General Smuts and Mr. Keynes.
(It was agreed:—That the Committee appointed to advise the Council of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the question of Reparation
with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria should be composed as follows:—
| United States of America. |
Mr. Norman H. Davis. |
| Mr. B. M. Baruch. |
| Mr. T. W. Lamont. |
| Mr. J. P. Dulles. |
| Mr. V. McCormick. |
| British Empire. |
Lord Cunliffe. |
| Lord Sumner |
| General Smuts |
| Mr. J. Keynes. |
| France. |
M. Klotz. |
| M. Loucheur. |
| M. Tardieu. |
| M. Jouasset. |
| Italy. |
M. Crespi. |
| M. d’Amelio. |
Villa Majestic, Paris, 23 May, 1919.
[Page 865]
Appendix I to CF–26
German Peace
Delegation,
Versailles
,
May 22,
1919.
german property abroad
Translation of German Note
Sir: The provisions of the Conditions of
Peace concerning private property of the nationals of both parties
are chiefly inspired by the tendency of the Allied and Associated
Governments to treat all German private property situated within
their sphere of power as an uniform mass for distribution, out of
which, in a bankruptcy-like procedure, both the private claims of
their nationals and the state-claims to war indemnity are to be
satisfied. This aim is to be arrived at by means of a series of
provisions which, if carried through, would lead to the result that
all German property situated in countries which are under the
influence of the Allied and Associated Governments would be
confiscated and all German nationals would be materially restricted
in their legal capacity.
In the first place it is provided that all measures taken during the
war against German private property in enemy countries are to remain
in force as legally binding (Article 297d).
This clause, it is true, provides for reciprocity, but only a
semblance of reciprocity is given. For the enemy nationals are to be
entitled to full compensation for all damages caused to them by
German exceptional laws; furthermore they are to be granted the
right of, in their free option, demanding restitution in full, and
eventually, if such restitution cannot be effected of even claiming
equivalents in specie (Article 297 e, f, g.).
On the other hand, however, German nationals who have been subjected
to exceptional laws of enemy countries are not only to be debarred
from all possibility of replacement into the former state, but are
also deprived of any claim to compensation against the enemy states
or their authorities, so that the latter are not even then liable,
if it can be proved that German property in enemy countries has
fallen a victim to corrupt and fraudulent machinations (para. 2 of
the Annex to Article 298).
The operation of the measures taken by the Allied and Associated
Governments during the war would, however, not suffice to lay hand
on all available German property for the purposes contemplated. It
is therefore on the one hand provided that, whereas Germany must
immediately abrogate all exceptional laws enacted by her, the
liquidation of German property in enemy countries may be proceeded
with after the conclusion of peace, even under new war measures
which may be enacted (Article 297 a and b). No time limit being [Page 866] fixed herefor, the enemy Governments
evidently go so far as to reserve for themselves the possibility of
extending the process of liquidation to such German property which
may come within their territory in the future. Besides this temporal
prolongation of war measures an extension as to the area of their
application is contemplated which is of even greater moment. For
Germany is to be forced to deliver up all securities held by her
nationals and relating to rights in property situated in the
territory of the Allied and Associated Governments, according to
this, all shares and debentures of enemy companies would, inter alia, have to be delivered up (para. 10
of the Annex to Article 298). Furthermore, German property situated
in the territories to be ceded by Germany is to be subjected to
liquidation, so that e. g., the property of the numerous Germans in
Alsace-Lorraine, who are not granted French nationality or are not
expressly permitted to remain in the country, and particularly the
whole of German private property in the German Colonies is subjected
to compulsory sale (Article 53, Article 121). Finally, almost all
German property situated in Russia, China, Austria, Hungary,
Bulgaria and Turkey is to be added to the mass for distribution. The
Allied and Associated Governments not being able to apply forthwith
a direct process of liquidation in these countries, they select the
circuitous way of empowering the Reparation Commission, beyond its
other capacities, to demand from the German Government the immediate
expropriation of all German public utility undertakings and all
German concessions situated in these countries (Article 260).
The appropriation of the net proceeds, derived from these sales of
German property, for distribution by way of bankruptcy, is provided
for in the following manner (Article 297. h.
and para. 4 of the Annex to Article 298). The net proceeds realised
in Germany are to be paid in cash immediately in the currency of the
enemy Government concerned at the pre-war rate of exchange, so that
Germany would eventually be obliged to pay back a multiplex sum of
the proceeds actually collected. On the other hand, the proceeds
realised by the Allied and Associated Governments from the
liquidation of German property are not to be paid to Germany, but,
instead, are to be charged with a treble mortgage and thus to be
wholly and finally withdrawn from the right of disposal by the
German entitled thereto. In the first place are to be satisfied
therefrom the claims of nationals of the enemy State concerned to
compensation on account of exceptional laws having been applied
against their property in Germany, further, private claims of such
nationals against German nationals, and lastly, claims of such
nationals to compensation growing out of all acts committed by the
German Government or by German authorities [Page 867] since July 31st, 1914, and before the enemy
State concerned entered into the war. (The authoritative
appreciation of compensation claims of the latter kind is evidently
to be left over to the free judgment of the enemy Government
concerned.) In the second place are to be satisfied claims to
compensation and private claims of nationals of the Allied and
Associated States against the States allied with Germany or against
the nationals of such States, thus making German private property
liable e. g. also for the claims of British nationals against the
Turkish Government or against Turkish nationals. The assets
remaining after these two categories of claims have been satisfied
are then to be applied to the payment of the war indemnity owed by
Germany by being transferred to the clearing account of the
Reparation Commission. This mode of procedure may, it is true, be
departed from, it being provided that the proceeds of German
liquidations need not be paid in cash but may be set off against the
proceeds of enemy liquidations. Such proceeding, the details of
which cannot clearly be inferred from the provisions of the draft,
is, however, only to be adopted if the enemy Government concerned so
thinks fit.
The German Peace Delegation feel bound to declare that the
arrangement set forth above appears to them to be inacceptable in
principle as being in different respects opposed to the most
elementary conceptions of a peace of Right. This inconsistency is
all the more manifest as the questions of private law here at issue
belong to a subject-matter which should under all circumstances be
excluded from a treatment guided by motives of political power.
If, as is proposed by the other side, the aggressions against private
property effected during the war on grounds of exceptional laws be
in principle acknowledged and upheld as final, this should of course
apply equally to both parties. In any case, however, such settlement
should only be applicable to measures adopted during the war. It may
be left out of discussion whether and to what extent such measures
may be regarded as admissible during the war; there should, however,
be no doubt as to the necessity of these measures—which have always
been designated as acts of warfare by the authorities responsible
therefor—being immediately brought to a close on the cessation of
the hostilities at the front. Germany must therefore in principle
maintain the point of view that all measures of the kind here
referred to which have been taken after the conclusion of the
Armistice are illegal, as representing a continuation of
hostilities. With still more emphasis, however, the imputation put
to Germany, of assenting to a continuation of the aggressions
against private property even beyond the conclusion of Peace, must
be repudiated. This would, instead of restoring Peace, in truth mean
to perpetuate economic war.
[Page 868]
Another point of view which has evidently also been disregarded by
the Allied and Associated Governments leads to the same result. The
proposed appropriation of the German private property situated in
foreign countries amounts to a so extensive confiscation of private
property of all kind, that a general undermining of the fundamental
principles of international legal intercourse will of necessity
result therefrom. Under the present conditions it ought to be the
special task of the Powers to bring the principle of inviolability
of private property, which has been subjected to so many
restrictions during the war, into full force again in international
intercourse. Germany has up to now presumed that this view would be
advocated by the Allied and Associated Governments with the same
consistency as has been expressed in a judgment of the highest
English Law Court, the House of Lords, on January 25th 1918 in a law
suit between a German and an English Firm. In this judgment the
following passage is contained:
“It was not the Law of this country that the property of
enemy subjects were [was]
confiscated. Until the restoration of peace the enemy could
of course make no claim to have it delivered up to him; but
when peace was restored, he was considered entitled to his
property with any fruits which it might have borne in the
meantime”.
The same view has been taken by the highest German
Court in a well known leading judgment of October 26th 1914, by
which the private rights of a French subject are acknowledged as
continuing to exist in Germany during the war. This conception which
has been upheld by the Courts of both parties during the war would
be turned into its reverse by the Treaty of Peace if the Allied and
Associated Governments henceforth lay hands on all German private
property within their reach in order to satisfy therefrom state and
private claims which are not directed against the concerned owner
himself. Such appropriation must appear as especially arbitrary if
not even claims against Germany or against German nationals are
involved but claims against the states allied with Germany and the
nationals of such states. If the Allied and Associated Governments
try to veil the confiscatory character of the procedure by expressly
providing for the indemnification of the owners through means of the
German Empire, they cannot thereby change the nature of the
matter.
The disastrous consequences which the contemplated confiscation of
Germany’s property abroad would entail from an economical point of
view have already been mentioned in my note dated 13th inst.1 and are too patent to
require further illustration. On the other [Page 869] hand the German Peace Delegation is conscious
of the fact that under the pressure of the burden resulting from the
Peace Treaty for the whole future of German economic life German
property abroad cannot be maintained in its former extent. In order
to be able to discharge her pecuniary obligations Germany will
rather have to sacrifice this property abroad in a large measure. To
do so she is prepared. Germany must however maintain that the right
of disposal over property abroad be regulated in a manner having
regard to the legal principle above enunciated. The German Peace
Delegation is convinced that between this point of view and the
interests of the Allied and Associated Governments a compromise
could be found. A number of the scruples pointed out would already
be made to vanish if the principle of reciprocity were applied, as
is in concordance with the spirit of the League of Nations. For the
rest it would indeed be requisite that the questions at issue be
discussed viva voce in detail by the experts of both parties.
Accept [etc.]
Appendix II to CF–26
German Peace
Delegation,
Versailles
,
May 22,
1919.
international labour
legislation
Translation of German Note
Sir: In the name of the German Delegation I
have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Reply-Note, dated
May 14th, 1919,2 which has been given us on our
Note concerning International Labour Legislation.
The German Delegation takes note of the fact that the Allied and
Associated Governments are of one mind with the German Democratic
Government in believing domestic peace and the advancement of
humanity to be dependent on the solution of labour questions. The
German Delegation, however, does not agree with the Allied and
Associated Governments as to the ways and means of arriving at the
solution.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and false impressions, the German
Delegation deems it to be necessary to elucidate the fundamental
conditions precedent underlying their Note of May 10th, 1919.3
[Page 870]
In the opinion of the German Democratic Government the final decision
in questions of Labour Law and Labour Protection belongs to the
workers themselves. It was the intention of the German Delegation to
give occasion, even while the negotiations of Peace are proceeding,
to the legitimate representatives of the working people of all
countries of casting their vote on this point and bringing into
conformity the Draft of the Conditions of Peace, the proposal of the
German Democratic Government and the resolutions of the
International Trade Unions Conference held at Berne from February
5th to 9th 1919. Contrary to this proposal, the Allied and
Associated Governments do not think it necessary to call a Labour
Conference at Versailles for this purpose.
The International Labour Conference contemplated to be held at
Washington, to which you refer in your reply-Note of May 14th 1919,
cannot replace the Conference demanded by us, because it is to be
held on the principles which are established by the Draft of the
Treaty of Peace for the organization of Labour. The latter, however,
disregards the demands raised by the International Trade Union
Conference at Berne in two material directions.
The first divergence is in respect of the representation of the
workers. According to the proposal of the International Labour
Conference at Berne, one-half of the members of the Conference
entitled to vote must consist of representatives of the workers of
each country who are organised in Trades Unions. The German
Delegation has endorsed this proposal by transmitting the Protocol
of the International Trade Union Conference at Berne. Contrary to
this, the draft of the Treaty of Peace grants to the workers only
one quarter of the total votes at the International Conference; for,
according to the Draft of the Allied and Associated Governments,
each country is to be represented by two Government Delegates, one
employer, and only one worker. The Governments are even in a
position, according to Article 390 of the Draft of the Treaty of
Peace, to exclude the workers’ vote by not nominating an employer
and thus giving to Governmental bureaucrats the casting vote as
against the representatives of practical life. This system is at
variance with the democratic principles which have, to the present
day, been upheld and fought for in common by the whole international
work-people, and will deepen the impression held among the workers
that they are, as before furthermore only to be the object of a
legislation governed by the interest of private capital.
The second divergence refers to the legally binding force of the
resolutions of the Conference. According to the resolutions of the
International Trade Union Conference at Berne the International
Parliament of Labour is to issue not only International Conventions
[Page 871] without legally
binding force, but also International Laws which, from the moment of
their adoption, are to have the same effect (legally binding force)
as national laws (Proclamation to the workers of all countries,
adopted by the International Trade Union Conference at Berne, 1919,
at the motion of Jouhaux, the delegate of France). The Draft of the
German Democratic Government endorses this resolution and makes the
passing of such laws depend on the assent of four fifths of the
nations represented. No such resolutions can be passed by a
conference which is called on the basis of Part XIII of the Draft of
the Treaty of Peace, but only Recommendations or Drafts which the
Governments concerned may adopt or repudiate, — and for such
non-obligatory proposals a majority of two thirds of the votes cast
is even required.
In so providing, the Draft of the Conditions of Peace deviates to
such an extent from the resolutions of the International Trade Union
Conference at Berne that a discussion and decision by the
Organisation of Labour, as part of the Peace Negotiations, is
absolutely imperative. This would at the same time be in accordance
with the demand raised by the International Trade Union Conference
at Berne that the minimum claims of Labour agreed upon be, already
at the conclusion of Peace, turned unto [into?] International Law by the Society of Nations.
Moreover a firm foundation for the Peace of the World shall be
erected by this means, whereas a Treaty concluded by the Governments
alone without the assent of the organised workers of all countries
will never bring fprth social peace to the world.
The Allied and Associated Governments give no place to these
considerations in their Reply. As have above been illustrated, the
resolutions of the International Trade Union Conference at Berne
are, in fact, not taken into consideration by Part XIII of the Draft
of the Treaty of Peace, so that the fears expressed by the German
Democratic Government with regard to social justice are in reality
not taken into account. This fact must be noted. If we are apprized
by the Reply-note that the representatives of the Trade Unions of
the countries represented by the Allied and Associated Governments
have taken part in the elaboration of the clauses of the Conditions
of Peace relating to labour, we must on the other hand make note of
the fact that they have made no announcement of any kind notifying a
change of their views on the resolutions of the International Trade
Union Conference at Berne, much less of an abandonment of these
resolutions which they themselves have adopted.
The German Delegation again moves to call a conference of the
Representatives of the national organisations of all Trade Unions,
before the Negotiations of Peace are terminated. Should this motion
[Page 872] again be rejected, an
utterance of the leaders of the Trade Unions of all countries is at
least necessary. In moving this in the second line, we desire to
bring about, that the provisions of the Treaty of Peace relating to
Labour may also have the approval of all Trade Union
Organisations.
Accept [etc.]
