Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/30
CF–30
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, 24 May, 1919, at 11:15 a.m.
Present
U. S. A. | President Wilson |
British Empire | The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P. |
France | M. Clemenceau |
Italy | M. Orlando |
- Economic Commission
- Mr. Baruch
- Mr. Lamont
- Mr. Palmer
- Sir H. Llewellyn Smith
- Mr. Payne
- Mr. Carter
- M. Clémentel
- M. Alphand
- M. Serruys
- M. Crespi
- M. d’Amelio
- M. Lucciolli
Secretaries: | Sir Maurice Hankey |
Count Aldrovandi | |
Interpreter: | M. Mantoux |
1. The Council had before them the draft of Economic Clauses prepared by the Economic Commission for inclusion in the Treaties of Peace with Austria and with Hungary (Appendix). Economic Articles in the with Austria
President Wilson said he understood that there was complete agreement among the experts as to the Clauses.
M. Clemenceau said that this was so except for one point.
M. Clementel explained that the Treaty Clauses under discussion contained the following provision:—“If the annulment of a contract provided for in Article (4) would cause one of the parties substantial prejudice, the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Section VI of Part (X) (Economic Clauses) of the present Treaty shall be empowered to grant to the prejudiced party compensation calculated solely on the capital employed, without taking account of the loss of profits.” A reserve had been made regarding this by the Allied and Associated Powers acquiring territory from Austria-Hungary on the ground that no similar provision appeared in the Clauses relating to Alsace Lorraine in the German Treaty. The British Delegation had proposed to solve the question by inserting the Clause [Page 2] in the German Treaty, and the French Delegation were willing to accept this suggestion provided that a further stipulation, which was proposed for the Austrian Treaty but which did not appear in the German Treaty, was inserted in the latter, viz. the stipulation that all exceptional measures taken by Austria-(Germany) during the War with regard to property rights and interests of former Austro-Hungarian (German) nationals should be annulled.
Mr. Lloyd George said that the question was whether the last mentioned stipulation, which threw an additional burden on the Germans, could now be inserted in the German Treaty. The other stipulation under discussion, viz. the one about compensation, would be a concession to the Germans and we might perhaps say we would put it into the Treaty if the Germans would accept also the provision as to annulment of exceptional measures.
M. Clemenceau pointed out that the Council had decided to make modifications in the German Treaty in favour of the Germans with regard to certain important questions, and his opinion was that it was also open to them to put in modifications in a contrary sense.
President Wilson did not think there was any right to increase the demands on Germany.
Mr. Lloyd George agreed and added that he was not absolutely convinced about the annulment stipulation being entirely defensible.
President Wilson thought the question was whether the measures taken were within the legal right of the Government which had taken them or not. If they were, the stipulation to annul should not go into either Treaty. He asked what was meant by “exceptional measures.[”]
Sir H. Llewellyn Smith explained that exceptional measures meant measures applying to the inhabitants of the territories in question and not to Austrians generally. Such measures would be of a penal character, but there was not sufficient information to know whether they were all justifiable or not.
M. Clementel said that there had been during the war a systematic persecution by the Germans of Alsace Lorrainers who were known to sympathise with the French. Hence, if the stipulation were put in the Austrian Treaty it should go into the German Treaty also.
M. Orlando was of opinion that if the stipulation was agreed to be just, the Allied and Associated Powers had the right to add it to the German Treaty, but even if this were decided to be impossible the stipulation should appear in the Austrian Treaty as there was the same justification for it in Austria-Hungary as M. Clementel had described in Alsace Lorraine. As regards the provision as to contracts, he agreed that this should be included in the Austrian Treaty and added to the German Treaty.
[Page 3]President Wilson asked who would decide which measures were “exceptional”.
M. Alphand said that so far as the measures in question affected rights and property in the acquired territory, the acquiring [party?] could take all the necessary measures. The stipulation under discussion was necessary to secure the annulment of measures taken in regard to property of Allied and Associated nationals remaining in enemy territory.
M. Clemenceau suggested that perhaps both the stipulations under discussion might be omitted from the Austrian Treaty.
Mr. Lloyd George said he thought the Clause about compensation should be retained, but perhaps the one about annulment of exceptional measures should be omitted.
M. Clemenceau agreed with this view.
M. Orlando thought that as he understood everyone admitted that the provision as to annulment of exceptional measures was just, it ought to go into the Austrian Treaty. He agreed that provision would have to be made for deciding which measures were exceptional and he would be prepared to leave this to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. He also agreed that, so far as property and interests in acquired territory are concerned, the stipulation was unnecessary but he thought it important to cover also the case of property and interests in territory which still remains part of enemy countries.
President Wilson said that he conceived there would be many cases in which it would be impossible for either the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal or anyone else to decide whether the acts in question were exceptional and should be subject to annulment. He did not admit that the stipulation was just as it stood, and he felt it would be very difficult to secure that it should operate justly.
M. Orlando admitted the force of these objections, but thought the judges could be relied on to deal fairly with the doubtful cases, and added that there were many clear cases for which provisions should be made.
Mr. Lloyd George pressed the argument that the Government which acquires the territory in question can take all necessary measures to counteract what has been done during the war, and ought to be left free to do what it thinks fit. He did not think it practicable or reasonable to try and provide for dealing with all the action taken by the enemy in regard to Alsace-Lorrainers, Czecho-Slovakians, etc., wherever they might be.
President Wilson agreed with this view and:—
It was decided that the provision as to annulment of exceptional measures should be omitted from the Austrian Treaty, and that the provision as to compensation for the annulment of contracts should [Page 4] be retained in the Austrian Treaty and should be offered to the Germans for inclusion in the German Treaty, if they wished it.
2. M. Clementel then asked the Council to authorise certain errata in the German Treaty as follows:—
(a) Annex to Articles 297 and 298, add at the end Errata in of paragraph 1, the words:— Errata in Economic Clauses of German Treaty
“nor to such of the above-mentioned measures as have been taken by Germany or the German authorities since 11th November, 1918, all of which measures shall be void”.
M. Clementel explained that this covered certain confiscatory measures taken by the enemy since the Armistice. It appeared in the Economic Clauses proposed for the Austrian Treaty and ought to have been in the German Treaty but had not been included there.
President Wilson agreed and said he understood it had been accidentally omitted.
(b) Annex to Articles 297 and 298, paragraph 14, add after the words “rate of exchange” the words “of interest”.
M. Clementel explained that this likewise appeared in the Economic Clauses proposed for the Austrian Treaty but was not in the German Treaty, and ought to be added thereto.
Mr. Lloyd George raised the question whether it was desirable to send the Germans at this stage notice of small alterations of this character. He was not questioning their desirability but he thought as a matter of procedure it would be better to collect all these points and let them be communicated to the Germans with the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the German observations on the Treaty. To send notices of small alterations piece-meal might only be irritating at the very moment when they were probably considering whether they would sign the Treaty or not.
President Wilson agreed but thought that it would be well to deal with M. Clementel’s suggestions and vote on them with a view to their being noted for communication to the Germans later.
The above errata were therefore approved together with the other two notified by M. Clementel as follows:—
(c) Article 282:—
- (i)
- Modify No. 19 as follows:—
- (ii)
- Insert as No. 26, “Convention of the 12th June, 1902 as to the protection of minors”.6
The object of this erratum was to include items which had been omitted from the German Treaty by an oversight.
(d). Article 286. Omit the words “the agreement of 14th April, 1891 regarding the suppression of false indications of origin of goods,7 the agreement of 14th April, 1891 concerning the international registration of trade Marks”.8
The inclusion of the above in the German Treaty was an error, as Germany was not a party to the agreements.
3. It was decided that the Drafting Committee should be instructed to collect all errata in the German Treaty and to prepare a global list of them for communication later to the Germans. Errata in the Treaty With Germany
- William M. Malloy (ed.), Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910), vol. ii, p. 2066.↩
- British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxxiv, p. 12.↩
- Ibid., vol. lxxxv, p. 7.↩
- Ibid., vol. Lxxxvii, p. 78.↩
- Ibid., vol lxxxix, p. 159.↩
- Ibid., vol. xcv, p. 421.↩
- Ibid., vol. xcvi, p. 837.↩
- Ibid., p. 839.↩
- Filed separately under Paris Peace Conf. 185.22/37.↩
- Presumably this Article will, as in the German Treaty, appear in the Austrian Treaty in the part relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways. It is to be subject to the provisions as to revision embodied in Article 378 of the German Treaty. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- The Italian Delegation have made a reserve regarding the period of three years, and wish for a period of five years. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- The Polish Delegation have made a reserve regarding this article. [Footnote In the original.]↩
- Presumably this Article will, as in the German Treaty, appear in the Austrian Treaty in the part relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways. It is to be subject to the provisions as to revision embodied in Article 378 of the German Treaty. [Footnote in the original.]↩
- G. Fr. de Martens, Nouveau recueil général de tradés (Leipzig, 1923), troisième série, vol. xi, p. 304.↩
- British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xc, p. 303.↩
- Ibid., vol. xcix, p. 986.↩
- Ibid., vol. lxxiv, p. 44.↩
- Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 2953.↩
- British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 22.↩
- Ibid., vol. cii, p. 619.↩
- Ibid., vol. cvii, p. 353.↩
- Brackets here and elsewhere in this document appear in the original.↩
- The Italian, Polish, Roumanian, Serbian and Czecho-Slovak Delegations made formal reserves in regard to this Article. [Footnote in the original.]↩