Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/65


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.

  • Present
    • United States of America
      • President Wilson.
    • British Empire
      • The Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd George, M. P.
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau.
    • Italy
      • H. E. Baron Sonnino.
    • Japan
      • H. E. Baron Makino.
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:

To publish the German proposals in the morning newspapers of Monday, June 16th.
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:

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
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:—

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
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.
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

A general telegram to be addressed to the Hungarian, Czechoslovak and Roumanian Governments. (5.A.)
Three additions attached to the general telegram and addressed respectively to each of the above governments. (V. B., V. C, & V. D.)
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.)

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.

Appendix II to CF–65


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:—

  • “(a.)Belgium—

    “A branch going from Swalmen (Netherlands) toward Brüggen to a point situated half-way between Kempen and Kalden-kirchen, and a branch from Brüggen to Melick-Herkenbosch (Netherlands).

  • “(b.) The Tchecko-Slovak State—
    • “1. A connection between the station of Waidhaus and the Ronsberg-Tachov line;
    • “2. A connection between the station of Bärnau and the station of Tachov;
    • “3. A connection between the station of Schlauney and Nachod.

    “The Nuremberg–Schwandorf–Furth im Walde line to be made suitable for express traffic.

“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]

[Page 408]


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:—

The admission of Germany to the League of Nations as a corollary to her admission to the international labour organization.
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.

G. N. Barnes


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.


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:—

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.
Germany should not be compelled to supply German labour for this object, forced labour being always inefficient.
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:—
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.
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.


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]


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




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:—

That the frontiers described in the accompanying telegram are to be the frontiers permanently dividing Hungary from Czechoslovakia and from Roumania.
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



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.

G. Clemenceau

Appendix V (C) to CF–65



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

Appendix V (D) to CF–65



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

Appendix V (E) to CF–65


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


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.

  1. Ante, p. 371.
  2. Appendix I to CF–63, p. 374.
  3. Appendix II to CF–64, p. 389.
  4. Appendix III to CF–64, p. 393.
  5. Ante, p. 355.
  6. Beginning “The Commission on the International Regime …”
  7. British representative on the Commission on International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways.
  8. Col. A. M. Henniker, British representative at times replacing Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith on the Commission on International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways.
  9. The text of the report does not accompany the minutes of this meeting.
  10. The text of this report does not accompany the minutes of this meeting.
  11. Vol. v, p. 749.
  12. Appendix I to CF–63, p. 374.
  13. Brackets appear in the original.
  14. Brackets appear in the original:
  15. IC–178A, vol. v, pp. 370, 372.
  16. CF–6, ibid., p. 542.
  17. Post, p. 795.
  18. Appendix I to CF–9, vol. v, p. 571.
  19. Appendix III to CF–42, p. 121.
  20. Dated respectively May 14 and May 28. The text of the reply of May 14 as sent 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. For text of the reply of May 28, see appendix IV to CF–42, ante, p. 124.
  21. Remarks of the German Delegation on the Peace Conditions page 54. “The German Government has a keen desire to contribute to the restoration of France and of Belgium by means of German labour as a means of partly meeting the indemnity due from her and will make in due course propositions relating to the means under which this task, which falls on all civilised nations, can be accomplished as rapidly as possible in agreement with the Allied and Associated Powers.”

    note. The words underlined “of France and” have been omitted in the French version of the “Remarks” but they appear in the English version and in the German text. [Footnote in the original. The underlined words are printed in italics.]

  22. Appendix I to CF–52, p. 246.