Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/42

CF–42

Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Friday, May 30, 1919, at 4 p.m.

  • Present
    • United States of America
      • President Wilson.
    • British Empire
      • The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau.
    • Italy
      • M. Orlando.
Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B.—Secretary.
Count Aldrovandi.—Secretary.
Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter.

1. M. Orlando handed round the attached document in regard to the situation in Carinthia (Appendix 1). He suggested that Allied Commissioners should be sent to the scene of the fighting between Austria and the Jugo-Slavs with instructions to secure at once the cessation. Carinthia: Fighting Between Austrians and Jugo-Slavs

President Wilson suggested that the best plan would be for M. Clemenceau, on behalf of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, to present a note to the Serbo-Slovene-Croat Delegation.

(It was agreed that Mr. Philip Kerr should draft for consideration a note to the Serbo-Slovene-Croat Delegation warning them that the fighting must cease if they wished the boundaries to be settled, and that the result of the fighting would not prejudice the final decision as to the boundaries.)

With reference to C. F. 41, Minute 9,1 the following instructions to the Drafting Committee, prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey in accordance with directions, was approved and initialled by the four Heads of States:—

“With reference to the attached note C. F. 41, Minute 9, the Drafting Committee are instructed that any articles of the Treaty of Peace with Germany which are inconsistent with the text of articles 102 and 104 as notified to the Drafting Committee on May 24th., are to be brought into conformity with these articles.”

[Page 116]

2. M. Clemenceau said he had received an application from the Turkish Grand Vizier to come to Paris and enlighten the Peace Conference. Applications From the Grand Vizier for Turkish Representatives To Come to Paris

Mr. Lloyd George supported the proposal. He thought that it was unnecessary to treat the Turks in in the same manner as the Germans. He could see no harm in hearing the Turkish side of the case. The same would apply to the Bulgarians if they wished to come.

President Wilson said their first object would be to protest against what had been done in Smyrna.

M. Clemenceau asked why they should not protest.

Mr. Lloyd George said he would let them protest.

(It was agreed that the Turkish application should be granted and the [that?] Mr. Philip Kerr should draft a reply for M. Clemenceau to send.)

3. Sir Maurice Hankey read a note received from M. Fromageot on behalf of the Drafting Committee, proposing in Article 228 of the German Treaty to omit the word “military” before the word “law”, so as to make the sentence read “such person shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law”. (Appendix II.) Penalties: Articles 228 of the German Treaty

M. Orlando pointed out that if Belgium chose to send her military culprits before a Civil Tribunal, it was a domestic matter which did not affect the other States.

(After a short discussion, the proposals of the Drafting Committee were approved, and Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to notify the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

4. With reference to C. F. 37B, Minute 10,2 the question was raised as to whether the political articles affecting territory to be transferred to Italy would be ready for inclusion in the Treaty to be handed to the Austrian Delegates on Monday, June 2nd. Austrian Treaty: Political Articles in Connection With Territory Transferred to Italy

Count Aldrovandi reported that the Commissions to which some of the draft clauses had been referred, were meeting that afternoon at 3 o’clock.

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to ascertain whether the Reports of the Commissions would be ready for consideration on the following day.)

Note. Sir Maurice Hankey made enquiries, and ascertained that the Report of the Financial Commission was ready. The Report of the Reparation Commission, with which was bound up the Economic questions, was not ready.

[Page 117]

5. There was a short conversation in regard to the German counter proposals.2a

President Wilson said that he had sent the German document to his Experts, and asked them merely to summarise what counter proposals had been made by the Germans. He proposed to consider these, and not their counter arguments. German Counter Proposals

Mr. Lloyd George said he had had a preliminary conversation with his colleagues on the British Empire Delegation, and had invited several members of the British Government to meet him in Paris on Sunday. There were certain statements of fact in regard to the eastern frontier, for example, the distribution of population in Poland, on which he would like to elicit the truth.

President Wilson referred to the statement that 750 years had passed since Silesia was Polish.

(After some further discussion, it was agreed to adjourn until Monday at the earliest any further consideration of the question by the Council, in order to give members an opportunity to study the question with their respective Delegations.)

6. The Council had under consideration the second German Note dated May 22nd., on the subject of International Labour Legislation (Appendix III), and the reply suggested by Mr. Barnes’ Committee (Appendix IV). Reply to the Second German Note on the Labour Organisation

(After the reply had been read aloud, it was approved.)

(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to notify the Secretary-General in order that it might be presented for M. Clemenceau’s signature and forwarded to the German Delegation.

It was further agreed that the Note should be published after despatch.)

7. The Council had before them the remarks of the Drafting Committee on the proposals of M. Kramarz on the Political Clauses for the Czecho-Slovak State.

The discussion was adjourned owing to the fact that the Articles of the Treaty to which M. Kramarz’ observations referred, were not available. Austrian Treaty: Proposals by M. Kramarz

8. With reference to C. F. 41, minute 8.3 Mr. Lloyd George asked leave to refer to the despatches from Poland handed round by M. Clemenceau on May 29th. (Appendix V.) The Polish-Ukrainian Armistice: General Haller’s Position

The point to which he wished to call attention was the statement that General Haller had said he had no recollection of any promise made by him to anyone not to use his Army against the Ukrainians. This raised the [Page 118]question as to whether Marshal Foch had ever carried out his instructions to notify General Haller that he was not to do so. He recalled that Marshal Foch had, at one time, been exceedingly desirous of sending General Haller’s Army to Lemberg.

M. Clemenceau undertook to make full enquiry into the matter.

President Wilson read a report from a United States Officer, a Lieutenant Foster, who had visited Sambor and Stanisslau, and reported that in the districts he had visited, the peasants, who were Ukrainians by nationality, had returned to the land and showed no antipathy to the Poles; the Poles had behaved with great tact and judgment, and had released all their prisoners; the Ukrainian Government, according to this report, had proved most unsatisfactory—had been unable to keep order and had made many requisitions mainly at the expense of the Polish population. The Ukrainian transport had been disorganised and the currency system hopeless. The Ukrainian troops had perpetrated many outrages on the Poles, and this Officer marvelled at the restraint shown by the Polish troops. In his view, the Ukrainians were not capable of self-government, but he qualified his report by stating that he had only visited a limited part of the country, and this only applied to what he himself had seen.

9. With reference to C.F. 13, Minute I.4 M. Orlando again raised the question of the action to be taken in cases where subjects of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire had committed breaches of the laws of war and had subsequently assumed some fresh nationality such as Czecho-Slovak or one of the other nationalities formed out of the old Austrian Empire. He said that according to his recollection, the previous decision had been to refer this to the Drafting Committee but that the Drafting Committee had received no instructions.* Breaches of the Laws of War

President Wilson said that the difficulty was that the Austrian Treaty could not bind the Czecho-Slovak State.

M. Orlando made the suggestion that the Czecho-Slovaks should undertake in the Treaty to bring to trial in their own Courts, persons accused of Breaches of the Laws of War.

This proposal was accepted.

(The attached Resolution (Appendix VI) was approved and initialled, and Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it immediately to the Secretary General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 30 May, 1919.

[Page 119]

Appendix I to CF–42

situation in carinthia

After a period of violent disorders the situation in Carinthia had once more become relatively calm after the American Professor Coolidge, who had been asked to act as arbiter, had (January 31st ult.) marked out a temporary frontier line while awaiting the decisions of the Paris Conference.

On the night of April 29th ult. Jugoslav forces suddenly crossed the aforesaid temporary frontier line in the sectors of Arnoldstein, Villach, Rosenbach, Rain, making a determined thrust in the directions of Rosenbach–St. Michael and Pass of Leitel [Loibl?] Ferlach.

The Austrian troops were driven back to the left of the Drava losing men the number of whom has not been stated and leaving 10 guns in the hands of the Jugoslavs. On April 30th, however, the Austrian troops succeeded in re-occupying the lost territory, and on the following days they, in their turn, crossed the temporary frontier line, and came to a stand on what was practically the former administrative frontier of Carinthia.

It seems that on or about May 9th, negotiations were entered into, favored by the representatives of the Entente in Austria. They took place at Klagenfurt between the Austrian Minister Deutsch and the Jugoslav representatives, but no definite results were achieved, and at last, on the afternoon of May 16th they were broken off by the Jugoslav delegates (all Serbians). While the Austrians proposed that the whole question should be left to the decisions of the Peace Conference, the Jugoslavs insisted in maintaining their point of view and reestablishing themselves on the line occupied by the Jugoslav troops prior to April 29th.

The Austrian Government, and the Carinthian Provincial Government, made anxious by the breaking off of the negotiations, aware of their own weakness, and convinced of the imminence of a renewed attack by the Jugoslavs, appealed to the Entente Powers, asking them to interfere to obtain a cessation of hostilities.

The suspension of operations, which began about May 10th, lasted until the 26th inst., but during all this time insistent rumours of Jugoslav military preparations came to hand.

On May 27th, the Jugoslavs reopened hostilities. The attacks in the nature of demonstrations on the western sector (Arnoldstein–St. Jacob) have been conducted in a resolute way. On the eastern sector (Eisenkappel–Lavamünd), the Carinthian troops, compelled to retire on the lines of the Freibach and the Drava, are in a most critical position; so much so that yesterday afternoon, May 29th., the delegate of the Austrian Government to the Carinthian Government informed [Page 120]the nearest Italian Command that the Jugoslavs would probably enter Klagenfurt to-day, and that Villach also was in danger.

It would seem that the Austrians have already sent a bearer of a flag of truce to request the enemy to cease hostilities, unconditionally.

Appendix II to CF–42

Note for the Supreme Council

The Drafting Committee have the honour to submit the following point to the Council of Prime Ministers.

By Article 228 (Part VII, Penalties) the German Government is to recognise the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. These persons, if found guilty, are to be sentenced to punishments laid down by military law.

The intention of this article is quite clear. It imposes upon Germany the obligation to recognise the jurisdiction of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring these men to justice after the end of the war, but on the other hand it protects them by the prevention of the imposition of arbitrary or unjust punishments as it lays down that the punishments to be imposed by the military courts shall be punishments laid down by military law.

It appears that in the case of Belgium the presence of the word “military” before the word “law” will cause difficulty as it is the rule in that country that certain classes of offences, when committed by persons subject to military law, are tried, not by military courts, but are transferred to civil courts. Consequently military law in that country makes no provision for the punishment of such offences. It is, therefore, maintained that the effect of the above article as at present drafted will be in Belgium that though individual German officers were brought to justice for offences against the laws and customs of war committed during the German occupation of that country, they will escape all punishment as no punishments are laid down by the military law and, therefore, none can be imposed.

The remedy would be to suppress the word “military” before “law” and make the sentence read “such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law”. The punishments could then be imposed which are laid down by the civil law but the purpose of preventing arbitrary and capricious sentences would still be achieved as the punishments must be punishments laid down by law.

The Chairman of the Commission on Responsibilities (Hon. R. Lansing) has been consulted and concurs in the proposal to make the above change.

[Page 121]

The Drafting Committee therefore propose to omit the word “military” before the word “law” in article 228 of the German Treaty and in the corresponding Treaties with Austria and with Hungary unless the modification is disapproved by the Council of Prime Ministers.

Pour le Comité de Rédaction:
Henri Fromageot

Appendix III to CF–42

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, 1919,5 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, 1919.6

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 [Page 122]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 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 [Page 123]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 [of?] 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 forth 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 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.]

Brockdoeff-Rantzau

His Excellency
The President of the Peace Conference,
M. Clemenceau.

[Page 124]

Appendix IV to CF–42

international labour legislation

Reply to German Note

Sir: In the name of the Allied and Associated Governments I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your further Note dated May 22nd, 1919, on the subject of International Labour Legislation.7 (Conditions of Peace, Part XIII.)

The reply is as follows:—

1. The German Delegation states the principle for the German Democratic Government that to the wage-earners belongs the final decision in questions of Labour Law. The Allied and Associated Democracies, who have had a very long experience of democratic institutions, hold it to be their duty to collaborate with labour in the formulation of such Law. But the laws must be passed by representatives of the whole community.

2. The Allied and Associated Governments draw attention to a fundamental misconception in the Note of the German Government of the 22nd May, 1919, namely, that the views and interests of Governments must necessarily be antagonistic to those of Labour. Accredited Labour representatives now form part of some of the genuine democratic Governments of the world, and the assumed antagonism is not likely to be found anywhere save in the case of Governments which are democratic only in name.

3. The Allied and Associated Governments fail to find in your letter any useful guidance as to how the principles involved could in any case find definite expression in the Peace Treaty. The Labour Organisation which was submitted to representatives of Labour can deal in a practical manner with any proposal put forward by any one of the affiliated members. It is not correct to say that the demands raised by the International Trade Union Congress at Berne are disregarded, inasmuch as the points raised in these resolutions, as well as all other relevant considerations, were discussed and carefully considered, and for the most part are embodied in the preamble of Part XIII or in the general principles which are accepted to guide the League of Nations and the Labour Organization in the attainment of social justice. There is manifestly no need for another Conference to repeat those resolutions or to cause unnecessary confusion or delay by adding to or departing from them.

[Page 125]

The widest publicity has been given to the plan of Labour Organisation, and the responsible Trade Union Leaders have been given an ample opportunity to formulate definite suggestions.

4. The Allied and Associated Governments have already decided to accept the idea of early admission of German representatives and to ask the Washington Conference to admit them immediately thereafter to full membership and rights in respect to the International Labour Organization and the Governing Body attached thereto.

5. While the Resolutions passed by the Berne Conference in February, 1919, gave expression to the wishes of the workers and defined their aspirations for the future, the Washington Conference provides the means of giving effect to such of those aspirations as can be embodied in legislation without delay, and the Labour Organisation will give opportunities for progressive expression to others, in accordance with the guiding principles already mentioned. The Labour Commission set up by the Peace Conference, moreover, envisaged all the points mentioned in your letter, as coming within the scope of the Labour Organisation, including an International Code of Law for the protection of seamen, to be specially drawn up with the collaboration of the Seamen’s Union. (Copy annexed.)8

6. It also adopted a resolution (copy annexed)9 in favour of the Organisation being given power, as soon as possible, to pass resolutions possessing the force of international law. International Labour Laws cannot at present be made operative merely by resolutions passed at conferences. The workers of one country are not prepared to be bound in all matters by laws imposed on them by representatives of other countries; international conventions as provided for under the Peace Treaty are therefore at present more effective than international labour laws, for the infringement of which no penal sanctions can be applied.

7. In reply to the statement as to divergence from democratic principles, the proposal of the Allied and Associated Governments as has already been pointed out, goes farther than that of the German proposition for three-quarters of the Delegates at the Labour Conference will directly and indirectly represent the wishes of the population, the two Government delegates representing the people at large and the Labour delegates representing the workers directly, the employers of labour being granted a representation of only one-quarter. The theory of the German delegation that Article 390 of the draft [Page 126]“may exclude the workers” is wholly fallacious, as the so-called governmental representatives, at least those of the Allied and Associated Powers, would be representatives of the people of those countries. It is to be remembered that in many countries a very large part of the workers are engaged in agriculture and that these workers are not generally united in industrial organizations, and it is therefore peculiarly appropriate that their interest should be represented on labour conferences through the governments.

8. Furthermore, the proposal of the German Delegation would permit the prevention of the most beneficent legislation if it was opposed by one-fifth of the Governments represented at the Labour Conferences. It is of particular importance to notice that according to the proposal of the German Delegation, each country in such a conference would have one vote and thus the votes of Governments representing perhaps only an insignificant minority of the workers of the world would be able to defeat any proposal whatsoever. In striking contrast with this autocratic idea is the proposal of the Allied and Associated Powers, which not only permits voting in conference to be by delegates and not by Governments, but also permits a definite proposal to be made by two-thirds of the delegates.

9. At the present time active preparations are being made for the first meeting of the International Labour Organisation in October. It is obvious, therefore, that no need exists for interposing a Labour Conference at Versailles. Moreover, the suggestion of the German Delegation that the peace negotiations should be delayed in order to permit of another labour conference, is contrary to the interests of the workers throughout the world, who are more interested than anyone else in a return to peace and a relief from the conditions produced by four years of German aggression. The Allied and Associated Governments taking account of this most just desire, are endeavouring not to postpone, but on the contrary to hasten the conclusion of peace, and to secure the adoption of these measures of social amelioration which would doubtless have been adopted ere this had it not been that the commencement of the war by Germany turned the efforts and thoughts of the world’s population toward a struggle for liberty, during which time other ideals were necessarily subordinated to that of freedom itself.

[No signature on file copy]

To His Excellency Count Brockdorff-Rantzau
President of the German Delegation, Versailles.

[Page 127]

Appendix V to CF–42

Translation of Despatches From the French Minister at Warsaw

(Circulated at the request of M. Clemenceau)

I hastened immediately on its receipt to transmit to General Pilsudski Telegram No. 68 which Your Excellency had sent me on the subject of the employment of Haller’s Army in Galicia.10

On learning the contents of this document the Head of the Polish State immediately stated that he had never heard of the engagement taken by the Head of the late Polish Army in France to which the Supreme Inter-Allied Council referred. On the afternoon of the same day Mr. Udderewski made to me a similar statement. Thereupon the Head of the Polish State decided to make enquiries from General Haller.

The following reply was given to me yesterday evening by General Pilsudski for transmission to the President of the Peace Conference:—

From General Pilsudski to M. Clemenceau.

“On the 11th May at the time of Mr. Paderewski’s return from Paris, a part of Haller’s troops were grouped close to our frontier in the vicinity of Belz. Having been informed by Mr. Paderewski of the reservations which one of the Powers of the Entente had insisted upon in regard to the said troops, I at once ordered a fresh regrouping in order to avoid the possibility of a conflict between Haller’s troops and the Ukrainians. As a result, one part of Haller’s troops was transferred to Volhynia in the direction of the Bolshevik Front, and another part was withdrawn from the Front and placed in reserve with a view to its transfer to the Western Front. I would particularly draw attention to the fact that these movements were extremely difficult to carry out quickly, and called for great efforts both on the part of the troops and on the part of the Commanders”.

Pralon

Telegram No. 98 dated Warsaw, 27th May 1919, 23 hours 40.
Received 28th May 1919. 8 hours—15.

(Continuation of telegram No. 97)

It will not escape the notice of Your Excellency that in his telegram the Head of the Polish State only mentions the provisions which he has made in order to conform, as far as the situation permits, with the promise made in Paris by Mr. Paderewski to President Wilson, and to comply with the wishes directly expressed by the British Government [Page 128]in the stipulations which were reported to the Department in my telegram No. 60.

On the other hand, General Pilsudski refrains from making any mention of General Haller and of the precise engagements which the latter may have taken.

Now I have been able to learn that the Head of the Polish State sent one of his Aide-de-camps to General Haller and that the latter plainly stated that he had no recollection of any promise made by him to any one on the lines indicated by the Supreme Inter-Allied Council.

General Pilsudski decided to give the reply above quoted in order to avoid transmitting General Haller’s flat contradiction to the Supreme Council.

Pralon

Telegram No. 99 dated Warsaw 27th May, 1919. 23–43.
Received 28th May 1919. 9 hours.

(Continuation of telegram 98)

Furthermore I would add for the information of your Excellency that the sequence of events appears to have been as follows:—

The original position of Haller’s Divisions was along the portion of the Volhynia front opposite to the fortress of Lustk and extended beyond this on Galician territory opposite Rawa-Ruska north-west of Lemberg.

On Mr. Paderewski’s return, Col. Haller. the chief of the Polish General Staff reported that the Grey Divisions of Iwaskiswiewicz were alone advancing in Galicia in the sector south-west of Lemberg. But as a matter of fact Haller’s Divisions in front of Rawa-Ruska also took part in this movement. It was only later that Haller’s second Division left its position north of Lemberg in order to take up a position along the Silesian frontier in front of Czentochau; and it was only yesterday that the Polish General Staff reported that Haller’s 1st Division had left this sector of Volhynia in order to take up a position on the right of the 2nd Division on the Silesia front.

Pralon

Appendix VI to CF–42

[Translation]11

Resolution12

The provisions of articles 228 and 230 apply also to the governments [Page 129]of those states to which have been assigned territories formerly a part of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in so far as they concern persons accused of having committed acts contrary to the laws and customs of war and who may be in the territory or within the control of those states.

If the persons concerned have acquired the nationality of one of the said states, the government of that state obligates itself to take all measures necessary to ensure their pursuit and punishment, upon the request of and in agreement with the interested power.

  • G. C.
  • W. W.
  • D. Ll. G.
  • V. E. Or.
  1. Ante, p. 107.
  2. Ante, p. 85.
  3. Post, p. 795.
  4. Ante, p. 107.
  5. Vol. v, p. 605.
  6. Note by Sir Maurice Hankey:—My notes do not confirm M. Orlando’s recollection of any such decision. M. P. H. [Footnote in the original.]
  7. The text of the reply-note was identical with the draft reply in appendix II to CF–13, vol. v, p. 610, except for the substitution of the signature of M. Clemenceau for Mr. Barnes’ initials on the draft.
  8. Appendix I to CF–9. ibid., p. 571.
  9. Appendix III, supra.
  10. No copy of this document accompanies the minutes. For text, see Senate Document No. 149, 66th Cong., 1st sess., p. 53.
  11. No copy of this document accompanies the minutes. For text, see ibid, p. 53.
  12. Appendix II to CF–22A, vol. v, p. 806.
  13. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  14. In transmitting this resolution to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference on May 30, 1919, Sir Maurice Hankey stated that “in view of the very short time available, I handed the original initialled copy to Mr. Hurst, who, in company with M. Fromageot, happened to visit me immediately after the meeting.” (Paris Peace Conf. 180.03402/32).