Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/65
CF–65
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Friday, June 13, 1919, at 4 p.m.
Paris, June 13, 1919, 4 p.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
- France
- Italy
- Japan
Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
secretaries. |
M. di Martino. |
Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
1. Mr. Lloyd George said he had received a
letter from Sir George Riddell, suggesting that the newspapers would not
be able to handle on one day both the German proposals in respect to the
the Peace Treaty and the Allied reply. Publicity of
the Reply to the German Counter-Proposals
(After a short discussion, it was agreed:
- 1.
- To publish the German proposals in the morning newspapers of
Monday, June 16th.
- 2.
- To publish the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers in
the morning newspapers of Tuesday. June 17th.)
Sir Maurice Hankey reported that a summary was
in course of preparation by general arrangement between the British and
American Delegations, and which could be put at the disposal of any
other Delegation.
2. With reference to C. F. 63, Minute 3,1 the Five Heads of States in approved and
initialled the attached reply (Appendix the I) to the note of the
Superior Blockade Council, dated June 11th, 1919.2 Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed Peace Treaty
to communicate it to the Blockade Council. Blockade
in the Event of a Refusal by the Germans To Sign the Peace
Treaty
3. The following documents were initialled by the Four Heads of States:
- 1.
- The draft Convention relating to the Military occupation of
the Territories of the Rhine.3
Convention Regarding the Military Occupation
of the Territories of the Rhine
- 2.
- A memorandum defining: the relations between the Allied
Military Authorities and the Inter-Allied Rhineland High
Commission.4
[Page 396]
Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward them to the
Secretary-General for communication to the Drafting Committee, who
should use them as material for the drafting of the final Convention and
Agreement.
4. With reference to C. F. 62, Minute 16,5
Mr. Lloyd George circulated a draft reply
prepared by Mr. Philip Kerr, to the German note on the question of
“Responsibilities” to take the place of the note considered on the
previous day, Appendix 8 to C. F. 62. The note was approved subject to
the following alterations:Penalties for Individuals.
Reply to the German to the German Note
Page 2, line 3. Omit the words “in any way.”
Page 2, line 9. Omit the following sentence:—
“There can be no question of admitting the right
of jurisdiction of the representatives of countries which have
taken no part in the War.”
A copy of the Report as finally approved is attached in Appendix II.
(Sir Maurice Hankey was directed to forward the Report to the
Secretary-General for communication to the Editing Committee.)
5. The Council had before them a Report from the Commission on
International regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways. (Appendix
III.)
President Wilson read the Report aloud.
The Report was approved subject to the following alterations:— Ports, Waterways and Railways: Reply to the German
Note
Page 2. Delete the first paragraph.6 Also delete
the word “Supreme” before “Council of the League of Nations” in the
middle of the second paragraph.
6. The Council then considered the amendments to the Treaty of Peace
proposed by the Commission, annexed to their Report.
Article 89. President
Wilson felt some doubt as to whether this Article should be
approved, unless he was convinced that Poland would receive exactly the
same advantages under the Treaty as Germany was to receive under the
substituted Article. It would appear to him that under this Article
Germany would get rights the moment it became operative, while Poland
would have to wait for the conclusion of the Convention.
Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith7 and
Colonel Henniker8 were
invited to attend, and reassured President Wilson on this point. They
explained that in other portions of the document exactly the same
treatment was accorded to Poland by Germany.
[Page 397]
The amended Article 89 was then accepted.
Article 98. The amendments were accepted.
Article 325. President
Wilson read a letter from the United States Delegation urging
that the whole Article should be deleted.
Mr. Lloyd George concurred in the view of the
American Delegation. He considered the Article, either in its old shape
or in its new shape as unfair and unworkable.
M. Sonnino pointed out that the object of the
Article was to prevent something akin to dumping, but he admitted it
would be difficult to enforce. He did not press strongly against its
rejection.
(It was agreed to delete the Article.)
The amendments to Articles 341, 349 and 353 were approved.
Article 373. President
Wilson pointed out that both the British and American
Delegations wished to delete the whole Article.
(It was agreed to delete Article 373.)
Article 386 was accepted.
Subject to the above alterations, the annex to the Report was approved
and initialled by the Five Heads of States.
(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward an initialled copy of the
annex of the Report to the Secretary-General for the information of the
Drafting Committee.)
7. The Council had under consideration the Report of the President of the
Labour Committee commenting on the German reply to the Note.
The Proposals under heading 2, namely: the admission of Germany to the
League of Nations. Labour: Reply to the German
Note
Heading 3. The offer made by Germany to supply German labour for the
restoration of the devastated regions.
Heading 4. Rights and privileges of Allied workpeople admitted to enemy
territory and vice versa were not accepted.
Heading 5. Containing the proposed addition to Article 312 to the Treaty
with Germany, and the corresponding Article in the Treaty with Austria
was approved and initialled by the Five Heads of States.
(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General
for the information of the Drafting Committee. (Appendix IV.)
8. The Council had before them the Report of the Committee on the Eastern
Frontiers of Germany9 on the answer
to be given to the German reply.
[Page 398]
The report was read and generally approved, subject to the Eastern
following amendments:—
- 1.
- It was considered that the first paragraph of (A) should be
strengthened by a reference to the treatment of Poland [as?]
having been one of the most notorious historical crimes. Eastern Frontiers of Germany: Reply to the
German Proposals
- 2.
- A strengthening of the last sentence of the first paragraph
under the heading “East Prussia” on page 2, by developing the
reference to the fact of the slightness of the railway traffic
between East Prussia and Germany and the habitual use of the
sea.
- 3.
- The addition of a paragraph in regard to Upper Silesia.
(Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to invite the Committee to alter the
report accordingly.)
9. President Wilson drew attention to the
second paragraph under the heading “(B) Possible Concessions” on page 3
of the above report:— Enemy Proprietors in
Transferred Territory
“Further, two Delegations are of opinion that Financial Clause F
in regard to German proprietors in Upper Silesia ought to apply
equally to German proprietors in the territory transferred from
the sovereignty of Germany to that of Poland.”
Recalling that it had already been decided to apply this
to the rest of Poland, he said he thought this should be of application
also to the corresponding clauses in the Austrian Treaty.
Baron Sonnino said that he was in general
agreement, but he would not like to take a decision on the point without
considering each case in detail.
10. The Council had before them a report by the Prisoners of War
Committee,10 divided into the
following parts:
1. Proposed alterations to Articles relating to Prisoners of War and
Graves.
(It was generally agreed that, as these were stated to relate only to
form, it was too late to incorporate them in the German Treaty.) Prisoners of war & Graves: Reply to the German
Note
2. A draft reply to the German counter-proposals.
(The draft did not commend itself to the Council, and it was agreed that
the Editing Committee should be instructed merely to make a reference to
the note already sent to the German Delegation on the subject of
Prisoners of War.10a)
3. An Annex to the report, containing the revised text of Articles 217,
221 and 225 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.
[Page 399]
(It was agreed that the changes proposed were of such minor importance as
not to require action.)
11. (It was agreed that the reply to the German note on the subject of
Memel should be referred to the Committee on the Eastern Frontiers of
Germany.) Memel
12. (Mr. Balfour was introduced.)
Mr. Balfour read the attached telegrams
(Appendix V, A to F) which he had prepared at the request of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers. He explained that they consisted
of the following:— Military Situation in
Hungary
- 1.
- A general telegram to be addressed to the Hungarian,
Czechoslovak and Roumanian Governments. (5.A.)
- 2.
- Three additions attached to the general telegram and addressed
respectively to each of the above governments. (V. B., V. C,
& V. D.)
- 3.
- A separate telegram containing the frontiers between Hungary
and Czecho-Slovakia and Hungary and Roumania, respectively. (V.
E.&V. F.)
(Mr. Balfour’s drafts were approved, and the Council thanked him for
preparing them.)
(M. Clemenceau signed each of the telegrams and Sir Maurice Hankey was
instructed to communicate them to the Secretary-General for immediate
transmission, and for communication to the Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak
Delegations in Paris.)
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 13 June,
1919.
Appendix I to CF–65
re-imposition of the
blockade
[Reply to the Note of the Superior
Blockade Council]
Decision of the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers at a Meeting Held on June 13th, 1919
The Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have
considered the Note of the Superior Blockade Council, dated June
11th, 1919.11
They have decided that the Blockade Council should make every
preparation for the re-imposition of the Blockade but that its
actual enforcement should not be undertaken, even in the event of
the refusal by the Germans to sign the Treaty of Peace, without a
decision from the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers. No actual threat should be made public that the Blockade is
to be reimposed
[Page 400]
but, short
of this, steps should be taken to give the public impression that
preparations are in hand. If practicable, these steps should include
the despatch of destroyers to show themselves in the Baltic.
- W. W.
- G. C.
- D. L. G.
- S. S.
- N. M.
June 13, 1919.
Appendix II to CF–65
WCP–998
penalties for individuals
Reply to German Observations
(Approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers on June 13th, 1919)
The Allied and Associated Powers have given consideration to the
observations of the German Delegation in regard to the trial of
those chargeable with grave offences against international morality,
the sanctity of treaties and the most essential rules of justice.
They must repeat what they have said in the letter covering this
Memorandum, that they regard this war as a crime deliberately
plotted against the life and liberties of the peoples of Europe. It
is a war which has brought death and mutilation to millions and has
left all Europe in terrible suffering. Starvation, unemployment,
disease stalk across that continent from end to end, and for decades
its peoples will groan under the burdens and disorganisation the war
has caused. They therefore regard the punishment of those
responsible for bringing these calamities on the human race as
essential on the score of justice.
They think it not less necessary as a deterrent to others who, at
some later date, may be tempted to follow their example. The present
Treaty is intended to mark a departure from the traditions and
practices of earlier settlements which have been singularly
inadequate in preventing the renewal of war. The Allied and
Associated Powers indeed consider that the trial and punishment of
these proved most responsible for the crimes and inhuman acts
committed in connection with a war of aggression as inseparable from
the establishment of that reign of law among nations which it was
the agreed object of the peace to set up.
As regards the German contention that a trial of the accused by
tribunals appointed by the Allied and Associated Powers would be a
[Page 401]
one-sided and
inequitable proceeding, the Allied and Associated Powers consider
that it is impossible to entrust the trial of those directly
responsible for offences against humanity and international right to
their accomplices in their crimes. Almost the whole world has banded
itself together in order to bring to nought the German plan of
conquest and dominion. The tribunals they will establish will
therefore represent the deliberate judgment of the greater part of
the civilised world. The Allied and Associated Powers are prepared
to stand by their verdict of history as to the impartiality and
justice with which the accused will be tried.
Finally, they wish to make it clear that the public arraignment under
Article 227 framed against the German ex-Emperor has not a juridical
character as regards its substance but only in its form. The
ex-Emperor is arraigned as a matter of high international policy as
the minimum of what is demanded for a supreme offence against
international morality, the sanctity of treaties and the essential
rules of justice. The Allied and Associated Powers have desired that
judicial forms, a judicial procedure and a regularly constituted
tribunal should be set up in order to assure to the accused full
rights and liberties in regard to his defence, and in order that the
judgment should be of the most solemn judicial character.
The Allied and Associated Powers, however, are prepared to submit a
final list of those who must be handed over to justice within one
month of the signing of peace.
Appendix III to CF–65
Report From the Commission on the
International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways to the
Peace Conference Regarding the Remarks of the German Delegation
on the Conditions of Peace
The remarks of the German Delegation regarding the clauses affecting
communications (Part XII of the Conditions of Peace) are, for the
most part, too general to allow of a detailed reply, and, further,
are not in the nature of technical objections. On all points the
German Delegation seems to recognise that the proposed measures are
capable of practical application; its opposition is essentially one
of principle, both from the theoretical and the political point of
view.
These objections and criticisms can, indeed, be summarised as
follows:—
In the first place, Germany considers her sovereign rights to be
infringed by any stipulation introducing into the régime of her
ports, navigable waterways and railways any kind whatever of
international control, and indeed, by any stipulation introducing
any definite contractual
[Page 402]
obligation in the Treaty of Peace. Further, since Germany claims to
enter the League of Nations forthwith on a footing of complete
equality with other peoples, she therefore refuses to subscribe to
any engagements which would not be imposed on a basis of
reciprocity, and immediately, on the Allied and Associated Powers as
on herself.
Opposition on points of detail and objection to the solution of
particular problems are explained only on the basis of these two
fundamental differences. Germany seems to agree as to the rules of
freedom of transit and international circulation, but directly the
question as to the measures necessary to secure the application
thereof on her territory is raised, she alleges either that she
cannot submit to a “meddling in her internal organisation as regards
railway traffic and working,” or that “the vital strength of German
coast towns is intentionally weakened by the Allied and Associated
Powers securing to themselves the right to use the ports and
navigable waterways exempt, in practice, from any German control,”
or, finally, that adhesion in advance to future international
conventions on means of communication is an affront to her dignity,
and that the provisions for the construction of railways and canals
on her territory is a violation of her independence. In other cases
(régime of tariffs on railways, equal treatment for all nations in
ports and on navigable waterways), she accepts the proposed
stipulations subject only to certain reserves and on condition of
immediate reciprocity on the part of the Allied and Associated
Powers. Similarly, it is noted that, with regard to the question of
Danzig, Germany declares herself ready to accord, to assure Poland
free access to the sea, facilities and advantages similar to those
which are asked from her at Hamburg and Stettin on behalf of the
Tchecko-Slovak State; but without raising any objections of
principle she claims to make the matter in both cases the subject of
and a counter in a special negotiation with the interested parties
only, without any international guarantee; the regulation of the
Elbe, the Danube, and the Niemen, which also does not meet with any
technical objections, should for similar reasons be left to friendly
agreements which alone are compatible with the sovereign rights of
the German State.
The Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and
Railways cannot enter into a discussion of this kind with the German
Delegation which, in fact, is only one of the natural consequences
of the exclusion of Germany from the League of Nations, during the
period immediately succeeding a war imposed on the Allied and
Associated Powers, and the Commission confines itself to expressing
in this report the reasons of principle and of fact which have led
its members unanimously to agree upon the provisions which the
Commission proposed.
[Page 403]
The Covenant of the League of Nations refers specially in Article 23
(e) to “provision to secure and maintain
freedom of communications and of transit, and equitable treatment
for the commerce of all members of the League. In this connection
the special necessities of the regions devastated during the war of
1914–1918 shall be borne in mind.” This freedom of communications
and equal treatment for all nations on the territory of Germany are
exactly those laid down and guaranteed in Part XII of the Conditions
of Peace. Until general conventions which will be integral parts of
the statute of the League of Nations, can render possible a wider
application of these principles, it has appeared necessary to insert
at once the essential provisions of such general conventions in the
Treaty of Peace so that an enemy State may not, by future
obstructive procedure and for political reasons, prevent their being
put into force, and further to insist in advance that such general
conventions shall be accepted in their entirety in the future.
Provision is formally made for the extension of these provisions and
for the ultimate grant of reciprocity in respect of all such as are
capable of being made reciprocal, but only after five years, unless
the Supreme Council of the League of Nations decides to prolong that
period. It would not have been possible, by immediately granting
equal treatment to Germany, to allow her to profit indirectly from
the material devastation and the economic ruin for which her
Government and her armies are responsible. But at the end of this
period Germany will be able to claim on the territory of the Allied
and Associated Powers the application of those measures which she
to-day describes as constituting a meddling with her internal
organisation which cannot be borne, or, alternatively, she will
herself cease to be bound thereby.
Such are the principles which underlie and explain the texts
referring to the general régime of traffic on ways of
communications. The Allied and Associated Powers have in no case
attempted to prevent the legitimate use by Germany of her economic
independence, but have merely proposed to prevent the abusive use
thereof. Above all, they have aimed at securing freedom of
communications and transit to or from young landlocked States, which
in the absence of definite guarantees would have regained their
political independence only to fall once again under the economic
tutelage of Germany.
The same ideas have given rise to and inspired the solution of the
definite problems raised by the organisation of the particular
communication routes in question.
Thus, the provisions regarding internal communication routes, far
from governing the whole of the German river and canal systems,
apply only to five specially named river systems which are all
international as defined by the Congress of Vienna and by later
Conventions.
[Page 404]
The Oder, for
example, from its confluence with the Oppa, was declared
international under a Treaty between Austria and Prussia dated the
8th August, 1839; the Tchecko-Slovak State possesses therefore a
juridical interest in the navigation régime of this river. Nor are
the canals mentioned in the Treaty the general canal system of
Germany, but only (except in the case of the Rhine–Meuse and
Rhine–Danube navigable waterways) the lateral canals constructed to
duplicate or improve naturally navigable sections of the same
international rivers. It should be noted in this connection that the
Tchecko-Slovak State declares itself prepared to place under the
administration of the International Commission for the Oder a
certain number of canals to be constructed subsequently to extend
this system of waterways across its territory. Lastly, as regards
the functions of the River Commissions, these are limited to the
practical application of the principles laid down either in Articles
332 to 337 of the Treaty or in a future International Convention
which is subject to the approval of the League of Nations. Their
powers are not limited to German territory but extend in all cases
to the territory of at least one of the Allied or Associated Powers.
The internationalisation of the Elbe is even extended to one of its
tributaries whose course lies solely within Tchecko-Slovakian
territory, viz., the Vltava (Moldau) up to Prague. In conformity
with all precedents, the sole object of the regulation of navigation
on these rivers is to establish complete equality between the
subjects of all nations, and not to allow any riparian State to use
its geographical situation and the fact that a great route of
international communication passes through its territory as a means
of applying economic and political pressure on States dependent on
it. Delegates from non-riparian States are included in the River
Commissions as well as representatives of the riparian States, in
the first place as representing the general interest in free
circulation on the rivers regarded as transit routes, and, secondly,
so that within the River Commissions themselves they may act as a
check on the strongest riparian State abusing her preponderating
influence to the detriment of the others. For the same reason, in
deciding upon the number of representatives allotted to each
riparian State, the great factor of freedom of communication must
rank first.
The international régime has been, or is ultimately to be, extended
to certain connecting waterways. The Rhine–Meuse and the
Rhine–Danube waterways, the construction of which is contemplated,
and which are necessary for the development of communication by
inland navigation between the North Sea and the Black Sea and to the
vital economic interests of Belgium and the New States of Eastern
Europe, cannot be left without guarantee under the sole control of
Germany. The Kiel Canal, which was built solely for military ends,
and the administration
[Page 405]
of
which is left to Germany, must in future be open to international
navigation so that an easier access to the Baltic may be secured for
the benefit of all.
An undeniable regard for what is right underlies the provisions
relating to the use of the water-power of the Rhine on the
Franco-German frontier and those regarding the cession of railway
material which, nevertheless, Germany describes as contrary to
justice. The use of the water-power of the Rhine is, indeed, left
entirely in the hands of France, on whose territory almost all the
works will be carried out; the building of weirs on either bank by
two States who are necessarily competitors could only result in
interference with the navigability of the river and with the free
exercise of the right of passage by all interested parties, and
would diminish the economic yield from the use of the power. But
France undertakes to pay Germany the share due to her by natural
right in the use of the power, that is, one-half of the value of the
power produced after deducting the cost of the works.
As to the cession of railway material, including the cessions to
Poland, it is obvious that in making a fair distribution of the
available rolling-stock among the States concerned special account
must be taken of the necessity of the resumption of normal working
conditions. It is certainly the intention of the Commission that the
condition in which railways and rolling-stock should be handed over
is the actual condition in which such railways and rolling-stock
happened to be at the time of the signature of the Armistice; with
the exception however, as regards the cession of rolling-stock, of
cases where expert commissions might decide otherwise on account of
the allocation of repair shops resulting from the territorial
clauses.
The Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and
Railways is therefore fully convinced that the principles of these
clauses based on the desire to guarantee the free régime of
international routes of communication against all obstacles, are
those on which the Armistice was based and which have governed the
preparation of the Treaty of Peace. Nevertheless, actuated by the
spirit of justice which has always guided the work of the Peace
Conference, it has endeavoured to ascertain after a further careful
and detailed examination of the provisions what alterations could
equitably be made therein without infringing in any way the
principles set out above. The amendments submitted in the annex
hereto are proposed with this object.
[Page 406]
Annex to Report
Article 89
Delete, and substitute the following:—
“Poland undertakes to accord freedom of transit to persons,
goods, vessels, carriages, wagons, and mails in transit
between East Prussia and the rest of Germany over Polish
territory, including territorial waters, and to treat them
at least as favourably as the persons, goods, vessels,
carriages, wagons, and mails respectively of Polish or of
any other more favoured nationality, origin, importation,
starting point, or ownership as regards facilities,
restrictions, and all other matters.
“Goods in transit shall be exempt from all customs or other
similar duties.
“Freedom of transit will extend to telegraphic and telephonic
services, under the conditions laid down by the conventions
referred to in Article 98.”
Article 98
Line 2.—Substitute “conventions” for “a convention.”
Lines 4 and 6.—After “railroad,” insert “, telegraphic and
telephonic.”
Article 325 (Diversion of Traffic)
For “traffic of any kind” substitute “international traffic.”
[The United States Delegation wish to delete the whole Article.]12
Article 341 (International Commission for the Oder)
For “1 representative of Prussia,” read “3 representatives of
Prussia.”
Article 349 (Régime of the Danube)
Delete and substitute the following:—
“Germany agrees to accept the régime which shall be laid down
for the Danube by the Powers nominated by the Allied and
Associated Powers at a Conference which shall meet within
one year after the coming into force of the present Treaty
and at which German representatives may be present.”
Article 353 (Rhine-Danube Canal)
Delete and substitute the following:—
“Should a deep-draught Rhine-Danube navigable waterway be
constructed Germany undertakes to apply thereto the regime
prescribed in Articles 332 to 338.”
[Page 407]
Article 373
Delete, and substitute the following:—
“Within a period of five years from the coming into force of
the present Treaty, Belgium and the Tchecko-Slovak State may
require the construction of the lines specified below:—
“Special conventions between the interested States shall
regulate for each line the division of the initial
establishment expenses and the conditions of working. In the
absence of agreement, matters shall be decided by an
arbitrator nominated by the League of Nations.”
[The United States and British Empire Delegations wish to delete the
whole Article.]13
Article 386 (Kiel Canal)
Delete the words “and can demand the formation of an International
Commission.”
Appendix IV to CF–65
labour committee
(Note by Mr. Barnes)
Meetings of the above Committee were held on the 3rd, 4th and 6th
June. At these meetings the accompanying resolutions were passed and
the attached letter signed by me was sent to the General Secretary
of the Peace Conference.
G. N. B[arnes]
Paris
, June
6, 1919.
[Page 408]
[Enclosure]
I
Copy of Letter From the President of
the Labour Committee to the President of the Peace
Conference
In two sittings held at the Labour Ministry on the 3rd and 4th June,
1919, the Labour Committee set up in accordance with the decisions
of the Supreme Council of the 30th April14 and 10th
May, 1919,15 examined, so far as
they relate to the labour question, the remarks of the German
Delegates on the peace conditions.16
The majority of the observations put forward by the German Delegation
were already included in the two notes previously submitted by that
Delegation on the 10th17 and 22nd
May, 1919,18 and to which replies
were sent19 in accordance with the proposals of the
Committee dated 13th and 26th May. The Committee did not
consequently think it desirable to resume the examination of the
questions already dealt with in these notes and in the replies which
have been made to them.
The only two points on which it thought it useful to present a reply
are the following:—
- (1)
- The admission of Germany to the League of Nations as a
corollary to her admission to the international labour
organization.
- (2)
- The offer of Germany to supply labour for the restoration
of the devastated regions.
At its meeting of the 4th June, 1919, the Labour Committee adopted on
those two points the resolutions, copy of which I have the honour to
submit to you herewith.
There were present at this meeting:—
For the United States of America |
Mr. J. T. Shotwell |
For the British Empire |
Mr. G. N. Barnes. |
For France |
Mr. Colliard. |
Mr. Arthur Fontaine. |
For Italy |
Mr. di Palma Castiglione |
For Japan |
Mr. Otchiai. |
[Page 409]
There were also present at the meeting the following two
representatives of Belgium:—
Messrs. Anseele and Coppieters.
II
Admission of Germany to League of
Nations
Resolution Adopted by the Labour
Committee at Its Sitting of the 4th June, 1919
The Labour Committee, in view of the fact that it has on the one hand
previously adopted a resolution (endorsed and published by the
Supreme Allied Council) in favour of the admission of Germany to the
International Labour Organization immediately after the Washington
Conference, and with all the rights which this admission carries
with it; in view also of the fact that, on the other hand, the
organization of the League of Nations will be indispensable to
ensure the observance of the international regulations relating to
labour on the part of Germany as well as by the other members;
thinks it desirable that Germany should be admitted to the League of
Nations at an early date, in order that the League may ensure a
uniform application of the conventions and recommendations relating
to labour regulation.
III
Offer Made by Germany to Supply
German Labour for the Restoration of the Devastated
Regions*
Resolution of the Labour
Committee
The Labour Committee is of opinion that:—
- (1)
- It is impossible to recognise the right of Germany to free
herself from the obligation to make good the damage caused
in the devastated regions by supplying, for this object, of
her own will and to suit her own convenience, a supply of
German labour.
- (2)
- Germany should not be compelled to supply German labour
for this object, forced labour being always
inefficient.
- (3)
- As the Belgian Delegates declare that Belgium would be
averse to the employment of German labour, and as the
question appears consequently to concern France and Germany
alone, it rests with these two countries to come to an
agreement taking into account the two following principles:—
- (a)
- Before resource [recourse]
is had to the German labour supply the Allied
countries which are near France should be granted an
opportunity to supply the foreign labour which will
be recognised as necessary.
- (b)
- If resource [recourse] is
had to the German labour it will be as all foreign
labour will be—paid in accordance with the rates
customary in the trade and the district.
IV
Rights and Privileges of Allied
Workpeople Admitted to Enemy Territories, and Vice
Versa
Copy of Resolution Passed by the
Labour Committee, 4th June, 1919
The Labour Committee has the honour to propose to the President of
the Peace Conference the insertion in the Peace Treaties to be
concluded with the Enemy Powers of the following clause:—
“Workpeople belonging to one of the Allied and Associated
Powers who have been admitted to the territory of . . . . .
. . . . . and their families, will possess the rights and
privileges granted to workmen nationals by the Labour and
Social laws of . . . . . . . . . . , and the conditions
which regulate them, provided that the said Allied and
Associated Power guarantees reciprocal treatment to . . . .
. . . workmen admitted to her territories, and to their
families.”
So far as Germany in particular is concerned, the Committee proposes
that this Clause should be inserted in the Treaty with that Power,
in the event of any modifications being incorporated in the text of
the conditions of Peace presented to the German
Plenipotentiaries.
- Present:—MM. G. N. Barnes, (President),
- Shotwell,
- Arthur Fontaine,
- di Palma Castiglione,
- Otchiai,
- Anseele,
- Coppieters.
Paris, 4.6.19.
For the Committee—
Arthur
Fontaine
Secretary
General of the Commission on International Labour
Legislation
[Page 411]
V
Proposed Addition to Article
312 to the Treaty With Germany, and
Corresponding Article in the Treaty With Austria
Resolution Adopted by the Labour
Committee, 6th June, 1919
Draft of final paragraph to Article 312.
In case these special conventions are not concluded in accordance
with the above article within three months after the signature of
the present Treaty, the conditions of transfer shall in each case be
referred to a Commission of five members, one of whom shall be
appointed by the German Government, one by the other interested
Government and three by the Governing Body of the International
Labour Office from the nationals of other States. This Commission
shall by majority vote within three months after appointment adopt
recommendations for submission to the Council of the League of
Nations and the decisions of the Council shall forthwith be accepted
as final by Germany and the other Government concerned.
Appendix V (A) to CF–65
M–261
Telegram
General
In their telegram of June 7th,20 the
Allied and Associated Powers expressed their “firm determination to
put an end to all useless hostilities”. To this determination they
adhere; and they expect and require all the Nations and Governments
concerned to assist them in carrying it out.
They have reason to think that the chief motive animating those
responsible for what would otherwise seem senseless bloodshed is the
belief that the future frontiers of the New States will be modified
by the temporary accidents of military occupation. This is not so.
No state will be rewarded for prolonging the horrors of war by any
increase of territory; nor will the Allied and Associated Powers be
induced to alter decisions made in the interests of Peace and
Justice by the unscrupulous use of military methods.
They desire therefore to declare:—
- 1.
- That the frontiers described in the accompanying telegram
are to be the frontiers permanently dividing Hungary from
Czechoslovakia and from Roumania.
- 2.
- That the armed forces of these States must immediately
cease hostilities and retire without avoidable delay within
the national frontiers thus laid down.
The Allied and Associated Powers are aware that in certain places
these frontiers cut railways necessary for the economic service of
both the coterminous States: and also that there are a certain
number of small frontier adjustments which can only be finally
settled by impartial investigation on the spot. Provision for both
these cases is made in the Treaty of Peace; and in the meanwhile,
they should not be allowed to stand in the way of the policy
insisted on by the Allied and Associated Powers. With the smallest
goodwill they are capable of local arrangements; and, if differences
should arise, these should be referred to Allied Officers on the
spot, whose award must be treated as binding until Peace is finally
declared.
Appendix V (B) to CF–65
M–261A
Telegram
Hungary (Special)
In accordance with these general principles the Hungarian Army now
fighting in Czecho-Slovakia is required immediately to withdraw
behind the assigned frontier of Hungary, within which all other
Hungarian troops are required to remain. If the Allied and
Associated Governments are not informed by their representatives on
the spot within four days from mid-day on June 14th, 1919, that this
operation is being effectively carried out, they will hold
themselves free to advance on Buda Pesth, and to take such other
steps as may seem desirable to secure a just and speedy Peace.
The Roumanian troops will be withdrawn from Hungarian territory as
soon as the Hungarian troops have evacuated Czecho Slovakia. The
Allied and Associated Powers must insist that, during this
operation, the Roumanian troops shall be unmolested, and that no
attempt shall be made to follow them across the Roumanian
Borders.
Appendix V (C) to CF–65
M–261B
Telegram
Czecho-Slovakia (Special)
In accordance with these general principles the Allied and Associated
Governments have directed the Hungarian forces now in
[Page 413]
Czecho-Slovakia to retire
behind the Hungarian frontier; and they have the fullest confidence
both that the Czecho-Slovakian Government will see to it that this
retirement is unmolested, and that when it is accomplished the
Czecho-Slovakian forces shall remain within their own borders.
G. Clemenceau
June 13, 1919.
Appendix V (D) to CF–65
M–261C
Telegram
Roumania (Special)
In accordance with these principles the Hungarian Army has been
required to withdraw from Czecho-Slovakia, and the Hungarian
Government have been informed that when this is accomplished the
Roumanian Army will in its turn withdraw within the new Roumanian
borders. It is unnecessary to add that this operation will not be
interfered with by Hungarian troops, nor will the latter be allowed
to invade Roumanian territory.
The Allied and Associated Powers feel confident that Roumania will
carry out its share of this common policy, thus maintaining
unimpaired the solidarity of the Alliance.
G. Clemenceau
June 13, 1919.
Appendix V (E) to CF–65
M–263
Frontier Between Hungary &
Czecho-Slovakia
from point 123 (about 1.2 kilometres east of Magosliget in a
northwesterly direction to the Batar about 1 kilometre east of
Magosliget) thence the course of this river downstream, thence the
Tisza downstream to just below Badalo and near this village;
thence north-north-westwards to a point immediately north-east of
Darocz:—
a line leaving in Ruthenian territory Badalo, Csoma, Macsola, Asztely
and Deda, and in Hungarian territory Bereg-Surany and Darocz;
thence north-eastwards to the confluence of the Fekete-Viz and the
Csaronda:—
a line passing by point 179, leaving in Ruthenian territory Darui
Tn., Mezö Kaszony, Lonyay Tn., Degenfeld Tn., Hetyen, Horvathi Tn.,
Komjathy Tn., and in Hungarian territory Kerek Gorond Tn., Berki
Tn., and Barabas;
[Page 414]
thence the Csaronda downstream to a point in its course above the
administrative boundary between the Comitats of Szabolcs and
Bereg;
from this point westwards to the Tisza where it is cut by the above
mentioned boundary coming from the right bank;—
thence the Tisza downstream to the point about 2 kilometres east
south-east of Csap where it is cut by the administrative boundary
between the Comitats of Ung and Szabolcs;
thence the Tisza downstream to a point just east south-east of
Tarkany;
thence approximately westwards to a point in the Ronyva about 3.7
kilometres north of the bridge between the town and the station of
Satoralja-Ujhely:—
a line leaving to Czecho-Slovakia Tarkany, Perbenyik, Orös,
Kis-Kövesd, Bodrog–Szerdahely, Bodrog–Szog, and Borsi, and to
Hungary Damoc, Laca, Rozvagy, Pacin, Karos, Felsö–Berecki, crossing
the Bogrod and cutting the railway triangle south-east of
Satoralja-Ujhely, passing east of this town so as to leave the
Kassa-Csap railway entirely in Czecho-Slovak territory;
thence upstream to point 125 about 1½ kilometres south of
Alsomihalyi:—
the course of the Ronyva;
thence north-westwards to a point on the Hernad opposite point 167 on
the right bank south-west of Abaujnadasd:
a line following approximately the watershed of the Ronyva to the
east and the Bozsva to the west, but passing about 2 kilometres east
of Pusz tafalu, turning south-westwards at point 896, cutting at
point 424 the Kassa-Satoralja road and passing south of
Abaujnadasd;
thence downstream to a point about 1½ kilometres southwest of
Abaujvar:—
the course of the Hernad;
thence westwards to point 330 about 1½ kilometres south-southwest of
Pereny:—
a line leaving to Czecho-Slovakia the villages of Miglecznemeti and
Pereny and to Hungary the village of Tornyosnemeti;
thence westwards to point 291 about 3½ kilometres southeast of
Janok:—
the watershed of the Bodva to the north and the Rakacza to the south,
leaving in Hungarian territory however the road on the crest
south-east of Buzita;
thence west-north-westwards to point 431 about 3 kilometres southwest
of Torna:—
a line leaving to Czecho-Slovakia Janok, Tornahorvati and Bodva
vendegi; and to Hungary Tornaszenuakab and Hidvegardo;
[Page 415]
thence south-westwards to point 365 about 12 kilometres to
south-south-east of Pelsöcz:—
a line passing by points 601, 381 (on the Rozsnyo-Edeleny road) 557
and 502;
thence south-south-westwards to point 305 about 7 kilometres
northwest of Putnok:—
the watershed of the Sajo to the west and the Szuha and Kelemeri to
the east;
thence south-south-eastwards to point 278 south of the confluent of
the Sajo and Rima:—
a line leaving Banreve station to Hungary while permitting if
required the construction in Czecho-Slovak territory of a connection
between the Pelsöcz and Losoncz railway lines;
thence south-westwards to point 485 about 10 kilometres
east-northeast of Salgo-Tarjan:—
a line following approximately the watershed of the Rima to the north
and the Hangony and Tarna rivers to the south;
thence west-north-westwards to point 727:—
a line leaving to Hungary the mines and villages of Salgo and
Zagyva-Rona, and passing immediately south to Somos-Ujfalu
station;
thence north-westwards to point 391 about 7 kilometres east of
Litke:—
a line following approximately the crest bounding to the north-east
the basin of the Dobrida and passing point 446;
thence to a point on the Eipel 1½ kilometres north-east of
Tarnocz:—
a line passing through point 312 and between Tarnocz and Kalonda;
thence downstream to the bend of the river 1 kilometre south of
Tesmag:—
the course of the Eipel;
from there west to a point on the course of the Eipel 1 kilometre
west of Tesa.
a line passing 2 kilometres south of the junction of the railway of
Korpona and immediately to the north of Bernecze and Tesa.
from there downstream to its confluence with the Danube;
thence upstream to a point to be chosen about 4 kilometres west of
Pressburg, which is the point common to the three frontiers of
Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria:—
the principal course of the Danube.
[Page 416]
Appendix V (F) to CF–65
M–262
Frontier Between Hungary and
Roumania
From a point about 1 kilometre south-east of Point 84 and about 9
kilometres south-west of Mako, of the approximate position 46′ 10″
north, 20′ 22″ east of Greenwich:—
east north-eastwards to a point on the Maros 3½ kilometres upstream
from the railway bridge between Mako and Szeged:—
a line running;
thence south-eastwards, and then north-eastwards to a point 1
kilometre south of Nagylak Station:—
the course of the river Maros upstream;
thence north-eastwards to the salient of the administrative boundary
between the comitats of Csanad and Arad north-north-west of
Nemet-Pereg;
a line running between Nagylak and the railway station;
thence east-north-eastwards to a point half way between Battonya and
Tornya;—
this administrative boundary, passing north of Nemet-Pereg and
Kis-Pereg;
thence to point 123 (about 1.2 kilometres east of Magosliget) the
point common to the three boundaries of Hungary, Roumania and the
Czecho-Slovak State (Ruthenian territory):—
a line running west of Nagy-Varjas west of Kis-Varjas and
For-ray-N-Itratos [Nagyiratos?], east of
Dombegyhaza, Kevermes and Elek, west of Ottlaka, Nagy-Pel,
Gyula-Varsand, Ant and Illye, east of Gyula-Vari and Kotegyan,
cutting the Nagy-Szalonta-Gyula railway about 12 kilometres from
Nagy-Szalonta and between the two bifurcations formed by the
crossing of this line and the Szeghalom-Erdogyarak railway; passing
east of Mehkerek west of Nagy-Szalonta and Marczihaza east of Geszt
west of Atyas, Olah-Szt-Mikles and Rojt, east of Ugra and Harsany,
west of Körösszeg and Körös-Tarjan east of Szakal and
Berek-Boszormeny, west of Bors, east of Artand, west of Nagy-Szanto,
east of Nagy-Kereki, west of Pelbarthida and Bihardioszeg, east of
Kis-Marja, west of Csokaly, east of Nagy-Leta and Almosd, west of
Er-Selind, east of Bagamer west of Er-Kenez and Er-Mihalyfalva, east
of Szt-György-Abrany and Peneszlek, west of Szaniszlo,
Bere-Csomaköz, Feny, Csanalos, Borvely and Domahida east of Vallaj,
west of Csenger-Bagos and Ovary, east of Csenger-Ujfalu, west of
Dara, east of Csenger and Komlod-Totfalu, west of Pete, east of
Nagy-Gecz, west of Szaraz-Berek, east of Mehtelek, Gar-bolcz and
Nagy-Hodos, west of Fertös-Almas, east of Kis-Hodos, west of
Nagy-Palad, east of Kis-Palad and Magosliget.