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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/29

CF–29

Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, May 24, 1919, at 11 a.m.

Paris, May 24, 1919, 11 a.m.

• Present
  • United States of America
    • President Wilson.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
  • British Empire
    • The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
  • Italy
    • M. Orlando

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

N. B. The following business was transacted during the assembly of the larger meeting for discussion of the Economic Clauses in the Treaty of Peace with Austria.

1. Saar Valley. Revised Reply to Brockdorff-Rantzau (M. Tardieu and Mr. Headlam-Morley¹ were introduced.)

Mr. Headlam-Morley reported that, after further consideration, the Committee had come to the conclusion that the two replies to Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau’s letters of May 13th and May 16th, approved by the Council on May 22nd, (C. F. 24)² and which had been prepared somewhat hastily, were susceptible of improvement in drafting. They had therefore ventured to incorporate the two replies in a single draft, which he now submitted. He and M. Tardieu were in complete agreement and Dr. Mezes³ had approved it in place of Dr. Haskins,⁴ who was away.

(The revised reply (Appendix) was approved, and Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General, as superseding the reply forwarded on May 22nd, and for the following action:—

(1) To prepare a reply in French for M. Clemenceau’s signature and for despatch.

(2) To communicate to the Drafting Committee in order that the necessary alteration may be made in the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

(3) For publication as soon as signed and despatched.

(M. Tardieu and Mr. Headlam-Morley withdrew.)

2. Initials to Article Regarding Prisoners of War in the Treaty of Peace With Austria The Articles regarding the return of Prisoners of War, approved on the previous day for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace with Austria (C. F. 27)⁵ were initialled by the four Heads of Governments.

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward them through the Secretary-General to the Drafting Committee.)

3. Initials to Articles for Treaty of Peace With Austria. Air Clauses The Air Clauses approved on the previous day (C. F. 27)⁶ for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace with Austria, were initialled by the four Heads of Governments.

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward them to the Drafting Committee through the Secretary-General.)

4. Commissions of Control in Austria. Reservation by President Wilson President Wilson asked that the clauses in regard to Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, recorded as approved on the previous day (C. F. 27),⁷ might not be submitted for initials. He wished to reserve them for the present, as he was inclined to think that United States officers ought not to take part.

5. General Clauses of the Military, Naval and Air Terms of Peace With Austria After M. Clemenceau, President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George had initialled the General Clauses, namely, Articles 47 to 50 of the Military, Naval, and Air Terms with Austria,^7a M. Orlando withheld his initials, on the ground that the Armistice of 3rd November, 1918, which had been drawn up hastily, had been found to omit certain of the islands included in the Treaty of London, and he wished to have the Clauses re-examined by his military advisers.

(Note: This Meeting was continued after the conclusion of the discussion of the Economic Clauses with the Economic Experts.)

6. Danzig. A Drafting Error in Articles 102 & 104 of the Treaty of Peace With Germany President Wilson read the following memorandum which he had received from Dr. Mezes, pointing out alterations made by the Drafting Committee in Articles 102 and 104 of the Treaty of Peace with Germanv:—

“The Articles as drafted and as they appear in the Germany with Treaty are given below in parallel columns, the divergencies of importance being underscored⁸:—

Draft	Treaty
article 2.	article 102.
The Five Allied and Associated Great Powers undertake to establish the Town of Danzig together with the rest of the territory described in Article I as a free city.	The City of Danzig, together with the rest of the territory described in Article 100 is established as a free city and placed under the protection of the League of Nations.
article 4.	article 104.
The Five Allied and Associated Great Powers undertake to negotiate a Treaty between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig, which shall come into force at the same time as the establishment of said free city.	A Convention, the terms of which shall be fixed by the principal Allied and Associated Powers shall be concluded between the Polish Government and the free city of Danzig.

The effect of the changes is to bring Danzig into existence as a free city as soon as the Treaty is signed. According to the draft, Danzig comes into existence as a free city only after its representatives and representatives of the Five Principal Powers have worked out its constitution, and further have negotiated a satisfactory Treaty between it and Poland. It may well be more difficult for the Five Great Powers to provide Danzig with a constitution drafted with the general interest in view, and also difficult, maybe impossible, to negotiate a satisfactory Treaty between Danzig and Poland if the former is set up as an autonomous and going concern immediately upon the signing of the Treaty and without further need of assistance on the part of these Powers.

If these points are well taken, it is important that the articles of the Treaty above set forth, should be modified so that they may accord with the draft.”

M. Clemenceau, after consulting the French text, said that it was obviously a translation from the incorrect English text.

Mr. Lloyd George thought it possible that the Germans would make a strong resistance to the whole of the Clauses of the Treaty of Peace dealing with Poland. This would give an opportunity to the Allied and Associated Powers to make a correction.

(It was agreed that the Drafting Committee should be instructed to revise the articles in the final erratum or in the final Treaty of Peace handed to the Germans.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to prepare an instruction to the Drafting Committee for the initials of the four Heads of Governments in the afternoon.)

7. Russia President Wilson said that he had sent a copy of Mr. Philip Kerr’s draft despatch to Mr. Lansing, who had replied that he considered the statement right, and that the United States were justified in joining in it. Mr. Lansing would have preferred to withhold the despatch until a reply had been received from Mr. Morris, who had been sent to Omsk. He himself, however, did not agree in this. He agreed, however, to the following addition to the paragraph numbered “fifthly”, at the top of page 5, which Mr. Lansing had proposed:—

“and that until such settlement is made, the Government of Russia agrees to recognise those territories as autonomous, and to confirm the relations which may exist between the Allied and Associated Governments and the de facto Governments of those territories.”

(This was accepted.)

(It was agreed to discuss the question in the afternoon.)

8. The Polish Ukrainian Armistice President Wilson read a despatch from the American Diplomatic Representative in Warsaw, showing M. Paderewski still to be strongly favourable to the views of the Allied and Ukrainian Associated Powers, ending with a message that he had strongly defended President Wilson’s views.

Mr. Lloyd George read telegrams showing that General Haller’s Army was now being moved from the Ukraine to the Polish front, and that the Ukrainians had sent envoys to negotiate peace with the Polish Government.

Villa Majestic, Paris, 24 May, 1919.

Appendix to CF–29

Revised Reply to Letters From Herr Brockdorff-Rantzau of 13th and 16th May, 1919

(Approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on 24 May, 1919)

Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 13th, 1919,⁹ and also of your further letter of May 16th;¹⁰ as these two communications concern the same subject, it will be convenient that I should answer them in one letter.

With regard to the more general observations contained in your first letter, I must emphatically deny on behalf of the Allied and Associated Governments the suggestion contained in it that “German territories are by the Treaty of Peace made the subject of bargains between one sovereignty and another as though they were mere chattels or pawns in a game”. In fact the wishes of the population of all the territories in question will be consulted and the procedure followed in such consultation has been carefully settled with special regard to local conditions.

In the territories ceded to Belgium, full liberty is ensured for popular opinion to express itself within a period of six months. The only exception that has been made applies to that part of the territory of Prussian Moresnet lying west of the road from Liege to Aix-la-Chapelle, the population of which numbers less than 500 inhabitants, and in which the woods are transferred to Belgium as part reparation for the destruction of forests by Germany on Belgian territory.

As to Slesvig, I am to explain that this question was taken up by the Peace Conference on the request of the Danish Government and the population of Slesvig.

As regards the inhabitants of the Saar Basin, the “domination” which is termed “odious” in your letter is the administration of the League of Nations. The scheme contained in Section IV has been drawn up with the greatest care so that, while it provides compensation for the destruction of the coal mines in the North of France, it also secures the rights and welfare of the population. They are assured of the maintenance of all their present liberties and in addition there are guaranteed to them in financial and social matters a number of special advantages; moreover, definite provision is made, after a period of 15 years, for a plebiscite which will enable this population, which is of so complex a character, to determine the final form of government of the territory in which it lives, in full freedom and not necessarily to the advantage either of France or of Germany.

As a larger part of your two communications are devoted to observations on the scheme concerning the Saar Basin, I must explain that the Allied and Associated Governments have chosen this particular form of reparation because it was felt that the destruction of the mines in the North of France was an act of such a nature that a definite and exemplary retribution should be exacted; this object would not be attained by the mere supply of a specified or unspecified amount of coal. This scheme therefore in its general provisions must be maintained, and to this the Allied and Associated Powers are not prepared to agree to any alternative.

For this reason the suggestion you make in your first letter for some other means of making good the deficiency of coal—a suggestion which is developed with more precision in the annex to your second letter—cannot be accepted. In particular, I would point out that no arrangement of the kind put forward could give to France the security and certainty which she would receive from the full exploitation and free ownership of the mines of the Saar.

Similarly, the proposed handing over of shares in German coalmines situated in German territory and subject to German exploitation would be of doubtful value to French holders, and would create a confusion of French and German interests which, under present circumstances, could not be contemplated. The complete and immediate transfer to France of mines adjacent to the French frontier constitutes a more prompt, secure and businesslike method of compensation for the destruction of the French coal-mines; at the same time, by securing that the value of the mines should be credited to the reparation account due from Germany, it makes full use of them as a means of payment on the general account of reparation.

In some points your letter of the 13th seems to have been written under a misapprehension as to the meaning and purport of certain articles in the scheme. There is not, as you suggest, in the Treaty any confusion between trade contracts to be established for delivery of coal from the Ruhr districts (see Annex 5 of Part VIII) and the cession of the Saar mines; the two questions are essentially distinct.

The interpretation which you in your letter place upon Clause 36 of the Annex assumes that the effect of this clause will be to bring about a result which emphatically is not one which the Allied and Associated Governments ever contemplated. In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, and in order to avoid the difficulties which you apprehend as to Germany’s ability to effect the payment in gold contemplated in this clause, the Allied and Associated Governments have decided that some alteration is desirable; they propose, therefore, to substitute for the last paragraph of the said clause the following:—

“The obligation of Germany to make such payment shall be taken into account by the Reparation Commission, and for the purpose of this payment, Germany may create a prior charge upon her assets or revenues upon such detailed terms as shall be agreed to by the Reparation Commission.

If, nevertheless, Germany, after a period of one year from the date on which the payment becomes due, shall not have effected the said payment, the Reparation Commission shall do so in accordance with such instructions as may be given by the League of Nations, and if necessary, by liquidating that portion of the mines which is in question.”

May 24, 1919.

1. French and British representatives, respectively, on the special committee on the Saar Basin.
2. Ante, p. 826.
3. American representative on the Commission for the Study of the Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace on the Geographical Frontiers of Germany.
4. American representative on the special committee on the Saar Basin.
5. Ante, pp. 873–877 and 882.
6. Ante, pp. 882 and 892.
7. Ante, pp. 882 and 895.
8. Approved May 23, pp. 882 and 897.
8. The underscored words are printed in italics.
9. Appendix II to CF–23, p. 817.
10. Appendix III to CF–23, p. 820.