Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/76
CF–76
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, June 21, 1919, at 11 a.m.
Paris, June 21, 1919, 11 a.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.
- France
- Italy
- Japan
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries. |
| M. di Martino. |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter. |
A large number of experts were present for a portion of the meeting in
connection with the different aspects of the German Note. Among them
were the following, but it is regretted that the list is probably
incomplete:—
- United States of America
- Mr. Norman H. Davis.
- Mr. J. F. Dulles.
- Mr. B. M. Baruch.
- Mr. T. W. Lamont.
- Mr. M. O. Hudson.
- Mr. J. Brown Scott.
- Dr. Taussig.
- British Empire
- Lord Sumner.
- Sir Eyre Crowe, K. C. B., K. C. M. G.
- Mr. C. J. B. Hurst, C. B., K. C.
- Mr. J. W. Headlam-Morley.
- Mr. H. Fountain, C. B., C. M. G.
- Mr. W. Carter.
- France
- M. Klotz.
- M. Loucheur.
- M. Clementel.
- General Le Rond.
- M. Fromageot.
- M. Jouasset.
- M. Cheysson.
- Italy
- M. Crespi.
- M. Ricci-Busatti.
- Japan
- M. Adatci.
- M. Nagoki [Nagaoka?].
1. The Council had before them a Note from the German Delegation, dated
June 20th, 1919. (Appendix I.)
On the previous day, M. Clemenceau, with his colleagues’ approval, had
instructed the various Com-of June 20th missions to prepare draft
replies on the various points raised in the German Note. Reply to German Note of June 20th
2. M. Klotz handed in a draft reply which had
been approved by all the experts on the Reparations Commission.
This draft reply was read and approved, subject to some minor
alterations. (Appendix II.) Reply in Regard to
Reparation
[Page 559]
3. M. Klotz then handed in a draft reply in
regard to Financial Matters.
This reply was read by the Interpreter in English and approved without
alteration. (Appendix III.) Reply in Regard to
Financial Matters
4. M. Clementel handed in a draft reply which
had been prepared by the “Economic Commission.
A translation of this was read by the Interpreter. (See Appendix IV.)
Reply on Economic Questions
In the course of the discussion on this letter, a point was raised in
regard to the powers of the Council of the League of Nations as
affecting the period of some of the provisions of the Treaty, namely, as
to whether the operation of these parts of the Treaty would continue
until put an end to by a decision of the Council of the League of
Nations, or as to whether they would cease unless the Council of the
League of Nations decided to terminate them. This point was referred
back to the Economic Commission to re-draft its letter.
(M. Clementel and other Economic Experts then withdrew to re-draft this
passage in their letter.)
(For draft as finally approved, see Appendix V.)
5. At this point, the question was first raised as to the general
character of the reply to be given to the German note.
Mr. Balfour pointed out that the Germans in
their Character of letter made two complaints. The first was that there
were two treaties, one which had been handed to them originally and a
second one which accompanied the reply to the German counter-proposals,
and which had been amended in manuscript by the Drafting Committee but
also included certain alterations in the print. Their second point was
as to whether M. Clemenceau’s letter1 commenting on
their counter-proposals was binding on the Allies. This appeared to be a
question of international law, which should be referred to the lawyers
members of the Drafting Committee who were in the adjoining room. The
question on which their opinion was required was as to whether this note
had the same binding effect as a protocol attached to the Treaty. General Character of the Reply
(President Wilson then left the room to consult the Drafting
Committee.)
President Wilson, on his return, said that the
opinion of the Drafting Committee was that M. Clemenceau’s letter as an
interpretation of the Treaty was binding in the sense that it could not
be controverted in an arbitral court. In explaining how the Treaty was
to be carried out, it expressed the limitation of the powers to be
exercised and this [Page 560] constituted
an undertaking binding, as he understood it, in honour but not in law.
Mr. Hurst had suggested that it would be very easy to prepare a protocol
to be attached to the Treaty, summarising the points which should be
binding in a legal sense.
M. Clemenceau suggested that the text of the
letter and memorandum in reply to the German counter-proposals should be
added as a protocol to the Treaty.
President Wilson suggested that it would be a
sufficient answer to the Germans to inform them that an answer would be
given in the shape of a protocol attached to the Treaty.
Mr. Balfour said that he was advised by Mr.
Hurst that it would be a bad precedent to put the whole of the letters
and memoranda, prepared in reply to the German counter-proposals, in the
Treaty of Peace. This would be very liable to raise all sorts of
difficulties of interpretation, since the letters were not couched in
legal language. It would be better to summarize the substantive results
of the letters and memoranda in the form of a protocol.
(There was prolonged discussion on this question, which was reverted to
and taken up again at frequent intervals. A considerable number of
experts, including the Drafting Committee, were invited to express their
views. Eventually, the Drafting Committee were instructed to prepare the
following documents:—
- 1.
- A reply to the German Note based on the material prepared by
the various Commissions.
- 2.
- A protocol for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace containing
assurances to the Germans on the various points raised in their
letter; these assurances to be extracted as far as possible from
the actual text of the Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers
to the Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions
of Peace.)
6. In the course of the discussion referred to above, a draft reply to
the Germans on the subject of Heligoland was approved.
(Only one manuscript copy was available and the Secretary was unable to
obtain a copy. It will be found included in the Drafting Committee’s
document.3) Heligoland
7. In the course of the discussion referred to above, a draft reply
presented by Viscount Chinda on the subject of Shantung was shantnns
approved. Shantung
(Here again, only a single manuscript copy was available and the
Secretary was unable to obtain a copy. It will appear in the Drafting
Committee’s document.3)
[Page 561]
(The meeting was adjourned to enable the Drafting Committee to prepare
the documents referred to in Minute 5.)
8. In the course of the discussion referred to above President Wilson read the attached memorandum from Mr.
Lansing, dated June 20th (Appendix VI). Responsibilities
He drew attention to Mr. Lansing’s comment that the list of individuals
to be handed over to justice could not be properly completed within the
period of one month from the coming into force of the Treaty. He feared,
however, that if a mistake had been made, it was too late to correct
it.
(This view was generally accepted.)
(The Council then adjourned to President Wilson’s Library.)
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 21 June,
1919.
Appendix I [to CF–76]4
WCP–1033
German Peace
Delegation,
Versailles, 20 June 1919.
To Monsieur Clemenceau.
Sir: In the name of the German Delegation I
have the honour to submit to the Allied & Associated Governments
the Note contained in the attached Annex.
I have [etc.]
Enclosure to Above
German Peace
Delegation,
19 June,
1919.
Sir: On examining the four documents
forwarded on the 16th inst., to the Commissary General of the
Delegation5 it appears that a certain number of
concessions are announced in the covering letter and in the
Memorandum which do not appear in the text as modified by hand.
Among the most important contradictions of this nature the German
Delegation has collected the following:—
- 1.
- It is said on page 7.6 of the Memorandum that directly
Germany is admitted into the League of Nations she shall
enjoy the advantages [Page 562] resulting from the provisions relative to freedom of
commerce and transit. On the other hand it is stated on page
42.7
of the Memorandum that for a minimum duration of five years,
unilateral conditions regarding commercial intercourse will
be imposed upon Germany.
- 2.
- It is stated on page 11.8 of the Memorandum that
France takes to herself the Public Debt of
Alsace-Lorraine.
- 3.
- It is stated on page 14.9 that for the plebiscite
in Upper Silesia a “Commission Independante” (in French in
the text) will be established, whereas, according to the new
Draft Conditions, that Commission will be appointed by the
Allied & Associated Governments alone.
- 4.
- It is stated on page 16.10 in regard to the
territory of Memel that the cession of that territory will
take place by means of transfer to the Allied &
Associated Powers because the status of the Lithuanian
territories has not yet been established. According to this
stipulation Lithuania should be considered as the State
which will finally acquire that territory.
- 5.
- According to page 17.11 of the Memorandum, the
Commission set up for Heligoland by the Allied &
Associated Governments is to decide what Works shall be
maintained for the protection of the Island.
- 6.
- On page 21.12 of the Memorandum it is promised that the
Railways and the German Mines of Shantung shall not be
considered as property of the German State if the Germans
can prove that private property is concerned.
- 7.
- On page 31.13 of the Memorandum it is stated that the
Allied & Associated Governments are prepared to submit,
within one month of the coming into force of the Peace
Treaty, a final list of those Germans who must be handed
over to their adversaries.
- 8.
- On page 33.14 it is stipulated that the Reparation
Commission cannot require the divulgation of Trade Secrets
and similar confidential data. It is furthermore stipulated
that it will have no executive powers within the territory
of Germany, and that it is not to interfere in the direction
or control of German Establishments.
- 9.
- On page 34.15 and the following pages
of the Memorandum special procedure is provided to establish
and cover the reparations demanded of Germany.
- 10.
- On page 36.16 of the Memorandum
facilities are promised for Germany to import food supplies
and raw material.
- 11.
- Page 38.17 of
the Memorandum indicates among the cases in which
authorisation to export gold will be considered, cases in
which the Reichsbank has furnished guarantees which it
cannot furnish by any other means.
- 12.
- On page 53.18 of the Memorandum the
assurance is given that persons named by the Allied &
Associated Governments who have committed punishable
offences in the liquidation of German property will be
proceeded against in accordance with penal law.
It is the duty of the German Delegation to render an exact account to
its Government and to the National Assembly: it is therefore
necessary that it should know absolutely to what degree its
adversaries will give binding force to these concessions; it begs
Your Excellency to confirm in writing that the contents of the
covering letter and of the Memorandum dealing with the points
mentioned above constitute an integral part of the New Peace
Proposals of the Allied & Associated Governments. In such case
it would be sufficient to establish this fact in a final protocol on
the text of which the Contracting Parties would have previously to
come to an agreement. A doubt was also raised in regard to a second
point when the documents were examined. The printed copy of the
Draft Peace Treaty handed to us19 differs
not only in manuscript corrections and additions from the printed
copy which the President of the German Delegation received on the
7th May from the Secretary General of the Peace Conference.
Owing to the exceptional amount of labour imposed on the Delegation
by the short time allowed for examination of the documents, it has
not yet been able to compare word by word the printed copy of the
7th May with the one and only copy which a great number of persons
have constantly to use. I am therefore obliged to reserve to the
Delegation the right to make subsequent communications on this
subject. For the moment I draw attention to the following
differences:—
- 1.
- On page 103.20 of the copy which was most
recently transmitted, paragraph 2. contains a third sentence
beginning with these words: “Each Government” (Chacun des Gouvernements); this
sentence is missing from the copies previously
transmitted.
- 2.
- On page 104.21 the English text of paragraph
12. differs in different copies: the paragraph of the
previous copies is only one sentence, whereas the copy
transmitted in the 1st instance is divided [Page 564] into two sentences, of which
the second begins by these words: “The Commission shall in
general …”.
Naturally the German Delegation cannot consider as authoritative
modifications in the text which are not made by hand, or which are
not evidently in the nature of additions, unless the Allied &
Associated Governments confirm the fact that these differences are
not due to the erroneous use of a false printed copy, but that they
answer to a deliberate intention. In the latter case the Delegation
requests that all differences of such a character should be notified
to it before the expiration of the time allowed to it to take a
decision.
For these reasons, which it is easy to understand, the Delegation
must consider it to be of the greatest importance that it should
receive a reply by return messenger if possible.
I have [etc.]
Appendix II to CF–76
Ministry of
Finance,
Paris, June 21, 1919.
(Approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers on June 21st, 1919)
The President of the Commission on
Reparations to the Secretary General of the Peace
Conference
You have kindly forwarded to me a note from the German Delegation
under date of June 20, 1919,23 concerning
contradictions alleged to exist between the text of the reply made
on the 16th of June by the Allied and Associated Powers to the
German counter proposals and the manuscript corrections on the copy
of the Conditions of Peace sent on same day to the German
Delegation.
I have the honor to inform you of the opinion of the Reparations
Commission on this matter which was discussed by it this
morning.
The questions raised under numbers 8, 9, and 10 of the new German
note are the only ones which relate to reparations. The passages in
the reply of June 16 under these numbers have exclusively for their
object either the interpretation of certain provisions of the treaty
or the explanation of certain procedures for its execution; but it
should not be said that there is intended on pages 34 and following
“a special procedure to fix and cover the reparations exacted from
Germany”: this is only the interpretation of a procedure already
adopted in the treaty. It is thus natural that the reply is not to
be interpreted as a modification of the Conditions of Peace. [Page 565] It is only in the
instructions which will be eventually addressed to the Commission on
Reparations that the assurances given by the Allied and Associated
Governments will be expressed.
On the other hand it does not seem necessary to add to the treaty a
final protocol, since the reply of the 16th of June signed by the
President of the Peace Conference in the name of the Allied and
Associated Powers fully binds these latter.
- L. L. Klotz
- G. C.
- W. W.
- A. J. B.
- S. S.
Appendix III to CF–76
(Approved by the Council of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers on June 21st, 1919)
The President of the Financial
Commission to the President of the Peace Conference
You have kindly forwarded to me a copy of the letter of the German
Delegation dated June 2025 relative to a
certain number of discrepancies between the reply of the Allied and
Associated Powers and the Conditions of Peace.
I have the honor to inform you that in the opinion of the Financial
Commission the observations Nos. 2 and 11 which concern the
financial clauses of the treaty are not well founded.
Observation No. 2. The memorandum declares on page 11 that
“concerning the local debt of Alsace-Lorraine and that of the public
establishments of Alsace-Lorraine before August 1, 1914, the Allied
and Associated Powers have always been in agreement that France
should take over this as a charge”.
Article 55 together with article 255 of the treaty relates to the
public debts of “the German Empire and the German States” and no
clause exempts France from payment of the local debt of
Alsace-Lorraine. There is, therefore, no discrepancy between the
memorandum and the treaty.
Observation No. 11. The memorandum provides that the Reparations
Commission will be “competent to grant to the Reichsbank, [Page 566] whenever it shall deem it
suitable, the right to export gold in cases of pledges which this
bank has made and which it could not fulfill by other means”.
This statement is in complete accord with the provisions appearing in
article 248 of the treaty according to which “up to May 1, 1921 the
German Government shall not export or dispose of, and shall forbid
the exportation or disposal of, gold without the previous approval
of the Allied and Associated Powers acting through the Reparations
Commission”.
Thus no modification of the text of the treaty is necessary to insure
agreement between the reply of the Allied and Associated Governments
and the Conditions of Peace relating to the Financial clauses.
For the President of the Financial Commission:
- Cl. Sergent
- W. W.
- S. S.
- G. C.
- A. J. B.
Appendix IV to CF–76
Rough Translation of Original French Draft Read by M.
Clémentel this Morning (not adopted)
Note in Reply to Paragraph 1 of
the Letter Addressed to the President of the Peace Conference by
the German Delegation on 20th June, 191927
The declarations submitted in the Memorandum on Page 7, on the one
hand, and on Pages 42 and 43 on the other hand, are mutually
complementary.
The Covenant of the League of Nations declares that the members of
the League will take all necessary measures to secure and maintain
freedom of communications and of transit, in addition to equitable
treatment for the commerce of all the members of the League, and
Germany will certainly benefit by these measures, as soon as she is
admitted into the League, in so far as the special conditions of the
transition period permit. These special conditions are set out on
Page 42 and explain the refusal to Germany of reciprocity for
clauses 264–267, 323 and 327 during a period of at least five
years.
The provisions of these clauses are reparation measures, as was
expressly laid down in the Memorandum, and Germany’s admission [Page 567] to the League of Nations
will not relax in the slightest degree her obligation to carry out
these measures.
If the period of five years, during which these clauses shall not be
reciprocal in effect, was considered as the minimum, and if
provision was made in certain cases for a prolongation of the period
by the League of Nations, this is still in conformity with the
spirit and the letter of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
which provides (Article 23, paragraph e,
already mentioned) that the special necessities of the regions
devastated during the war of 1914–1918 shall be borne in mind.
The reciprocity claimed by Germany may, indeed, be granted within a
shorter period by those States which have suffered least from the
war, while certain countries devastated by Germany must retain for a
longer time that liberty of action which is for them a vital
necessity, as the Memorandum has expressly laid down, until the
economic inferiority resulting from the German aggression has been
made good.
The League of Nations has the responsibility for not prolonging this
unilateral treatment any longer than is necessary.
Appendix V to CF–76
Reply to Paragraph 1 of German Note
of 20th June28
(as finally approved)
The statements made in the memorandum on Page 7 on the one hand, and
on Pages 42 and 43 on the other, are not inconsistent, but
complementary.
The Covenant of the League of Nations states that the members of the
League will take measures to secure and maintain freedom of
communications and of transit, and equitable treatment for the
commerce of all its members. Germany, on her admission to the
League, will share in the benefits of these provisions, in common
with other countries. However, during the period of transition
following peace, regard must be had to the special conditions which
are explained on page 42 of the memorandum. The obligations imposed
upon Germany as there stated, are in the nature of measures of
reparation, and their maintenance throughout the period of five
years, so far from being inconsistent with the principle of
equitable treatment, is designed to give effect to that
principle.
The discretion left with the League of Nations by Articles 280 and
[Page 568] 378 will be exercised
in accordance with the same principle, and in conformity with the
spirit and the text of the Covenant of the League.
- Clementel
- B. M. Baruch
- Crespi
- H. Fountain
June 21, 1919.
Appendix VI to CF–76
Memorandum Prepared by Mr. Lansing,
June 20, 1919
In the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the observations
of the German Delegation on the conditions of Peace, the section on
“Penalties” concludes with the following statement:
“The Allied and Associated Powers add that they are prepared
to submit a final list of those who must be handed over to
justice within one month of the coming into force of the
Treaty”.
The German Peace Delegation in a communication dated June 19th,31 states that a certain number of
concessions which are contained in the above mentioned memorandum,
do not appear in the original conditions of peace and calls special
attention to the paragraph quoted above asking to be informed of the
effect of these conditions.
The paragraph regarding the submission of a final list of persons to
be handed over to justice was not inserted at the instance of the
Commission on Responsibilities, and accordingly the Commission does
not feel in a position to answer the enquiry of the German
Delegation on this matter. In submitting the question to the Council
of Four, the Commission on Responsibilities ventures to point out
that certain of the Allied and Associated Governments represented on
the Commission on responsibilities may find that the list of
individuals which they desire to submit cannot be properly completed
within the period of one month of the coming into force of the
Treaty as stipulated in the paragraph dealing with this matter.
