Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Volume VII

763.72119/6227

HD–18

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, July 29, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.¹

Paris, July 29, 1919, 15:30 p.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. H. White.
    • (later)—Hon. F. L. Polk.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison.
  • British Empire
    • The Kt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. H. Norman.
    • Sir Ian Malcolm.
  • France
    • M. Pichon.
    • (later)—M. Clemenceau.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Berthelot.
    • M. de St. Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja.
  • Secretary
    • M. Paterno.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Chapin.
British Empire	Capt. E. Abraham.
France	Capt. A. Portier
Italy	Lt-Col. A. Jones.
Interpreter—Prof. P. J. Mantoux.

1. M. Berthelot referring to the decision taken on the previous day (H. D. 17, Para. 6²), said that he understood the decision to refer to Austrian notes despatched before the final Treaty had been handed to the Austrian Delegation. It would clearly be necessary to reply to any Austrian notes despatched since then. He proposed, therefore, that the note regarding minorities be examined by the Committee on new States. Question of Answering Austrian Notes

Mr. Balfour said that he thought the same principle might be adopted in dealing with the Austrian notes as had been adopted regarding the notes sent by the German Delegation. In the latter case there had been a Committee to survey the whole of the replies. He would, therefore, propose that M. Dutasta be asked to arrange for a similar machinery in order that the whole of the replies be co-ordinated.

(These proposals were accepted.)

Note:—The Resolution referred to was as follows:—

(It was agreed that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of editing the reply to the German Note. The Secretary-General was requested to arrange for this Committee to meet with the least possible delay, and to communicate to it the various portions of the reply as they were approved.)

2. M. Pichon said that the Austrians had asked for an extension of one week beyond the period of 10 days allowed them to present their observations regarding the Treaty. They justified their request by reference to the change of Foreign Minister which had lately occurred. He thought the demand could not be resisted, and asked his colleagues if they agreed with him. Note From Austrian Delegation Asking for Extension of Time Allowed for Reply

(It was agreed that the period of ten days allowed to the Austrian Delegation to present observations on the Treaty handed to them should be extended by one week and that this should be communicated to them by the Secretariat-General.)

3. (M. Loucheur, M. Seydoux and Mr. Waterlow entered the room.)

M. Seydoux said that on the previous day the question of the resumption of the parcels post and of the money order service had been raised by the British Delegation. He had raised no comment on the resumption of the parcels post, but he had asked for time to consult the Ministry of Finance regarding the money order service. He had consulted the Ministry of Finance and found that the question had already been considered. On the 26th June the French Postal Service had been addressed by the Ministry of Finance which took the view that the instability of the mark made it undesirable to resume any money order intercourse with Germany. He found that the same opinion still prevailed. From this he concluded that the objection of the French Finance Ministry was a technical one and was not concerned with any political consideration. If the British Government therefore felt that there was no technical objection from the British point of view, there seemed no reason to object to the resumption of money order interchanges between Great Britain and Germany. The British Government, as far as France was concerned, was, he thought, free to act as it wished. The French Government, however, did not for the time propose to restore the money order service. Re-establishment of Postal Communications With Germany

M. Pichon said that the only objection would be that the Allies would not be acting identically, but as the question was not a political one the matter was not of great importance.

(It was agreed that there was no objection to the resumption by Great Britain of parcels post and money order interchange with Germany in accordance with the proposal of the British Delegation (Appendix A).

It was further agreed that the proposals of the Special Committee as modified on the previous day (H. D. 16, Para. 4³) should be accepted.

(For these proposals see Appendix B.)

4. The Council had before it the proposal made by M. Tittoni on the previous day (H. D. 16, Para. 2⁴).

Creation of Inter-Allied Organisation for the Distribution of Raw Material M. Loucheur said that M. Tittoni’s proposal really amounted to the perpetuation of the Supreme Economic Council. The very functions he wished exercised were those hitherto exercised by the Council with the help of the Wheat Executive, the Interallied Maritime Transport Council, and similar organisations. The problem before the Government [Council?] was therefore merely restated in other terms. As the Council knew, the French and Italian Delegations favoured the continuance of the Supreme Economic Council. Great Britain latterly had taken the same view. Only the American Delegation disagreed, and had wired to Washington for instructions. On the following Friday and Saturday there was to be a meeting of the Council in London. Everything depended on the instructions that might be received from the Governments. Without them the members could take no action.

Mr. Balfour said that he had prepared a draft resolution to the following effect:—

“That the problems arising out of the present difficulties of providing food, coal and raw materials to the Allied Powers be submitted to the Supreme Economic Council for examination and report.”

He had expressed his resolution in these terms in order not to bind the Supreme Economic Council in any way. M. Tittoni’s proposal appeared to dictate the conclusion in some manner.

M. Loucheur observed that neither resolution offered a solution of the question. All that could be done was to postpone it unless instructions were received for the Supreme Economic Council to continue its functions. In regard to the primary necessity of finding coal for Italy, he wished to inform the Council that he had had a conversation with M. Tittoni. There was information that between the dates of August 5th and September 5th, Germany would furnish one million three hundred and fifty thousand tons of coal. This coal was intended for French uses according to agreement. France, however, had agreed, in order to assist Italy, to despatch out of this one hundred and seventy-five thousand tons to the latter country. This would save the situation. In addition to this, in spite of considerable shortage in France, he had given an order for the despatch from the Saar Basin to Italy of one thousand two hundred tons daily. He hoped that Great Britain would also help to ease the situation and he expected to have a conversation with Sir Auckland Geddes⁵ at the end of the week.

(It was then resolved that the problems arising out of the present difficulties of providing food, coal and raw materials to the Allied Powers be submitted to the Supreme Economic Council for examination and report.)

5. (At this moment Mr. Hudson, Mr. J. F. Dulles, M. Fiori,⁶ and Major Greig entered the room.)

Appointment of Commission of Experts for the Distribution of Rolling Strock in Enemy Countries Mr. Loucheur said that on the previous day he had asked that the Expert Commission for the distribution of Rolling Stock in Europe should work in harmony with the Reparations Commission. This had apparently been interpreted by the Committee on Ports, Waterways and Railways, as meaning that the Expert Commission should work under the orders of the Reparations Commission. This was not what he meant to convey. It was clearly necessary that the work of the Expert Commission should be co-ordinated with that of the Reparations Commission. He therefore, proposed that the following Note, prepared by the British Delegation, be accepted:—

“The Presidents of the Main Expert Commissions on the distribution of rolling-stock, will work in close touch with the Reparations Commission in order that the latter may take the necessary measures for effecting financial adjustments resulting (a) from the transfer or liquidation of the above rolling-stock, craft and installations and (b) from such other decisions within the competence of the above Expert Commissions as may affect the Reparations Commission. No final decision will be communicated to the States affected without the previous concurrence of the Reparations Commission.”

He would like to add that, should there be disagreement between the Expert Commission and the Reparations Commission, the disagreement should be referred to the co-ordinating Committee, the setting up of which had been agreed to on the previous day.

Mr. Balfour said that two quite different considerations had to be reconciled. It was obvious that the rolling stock of Europe, as being a financial asset, should not escape the grasp of the Reparation Commission, but it was clearly important that for the economic reconstruction of Europe, so essential an instrument of reconstruction should be employed to the best purpose. Without this, work on Mines, Farms, Factories etc., would be wasted. From this point of view, there was no more important resource than rolling stock for the economic revival of Europe. This resource must be husbanded by the Experts. It was therefore necessary to reconcile these two important objects.

Mr. Hudson said that the Commission of Experts which was to deal with the distribution of rolling stock was, according to the Treaty, entirely independent. It could not be subjected to the Reparations Commission. Should it be so subjected the Germans would have cause for complaint that the Treaty was not being observed. He quite agreed that it should work in harmony with the Reparations Commission, but if it were unable to take any decision without the concurrence of the Reparations Commission, the object for which it was created would be defeated. It was essential that it should be able to take independent decisions and have them executed speedily; should it have to wait for the previous sanction of the Reparations Commission it could not do its work.

M. Loucheur said that the experts might be allowed to make provisional allotments of the railway stock, subject to sanction by the Reparations Commission. He disputed that the experts under the Treaty had any right to dispose finally of such material. The Reparations Commission, it had been stipulated, could intervene in all matters touching the disposal of material. He quite agreed that every day lost was a serious thing for the economic fate of Europe, but he could not admit that any of the material resources of the enemy countries could be disposed of irrespective of the Reparations Commission.

Mr. Balfour said that he understood M. Loucheur to agree to a temporary allotment of railway stock by the experts. They were bound, however, to inform the Reparations Commission of what they were doing. Their action would then be considered in its financial aspect, and the result of the action would be considered by the two Commissions together.

M. Loucheur pointed out that according to the Treaty, only the Reparations Commission could receive material in discharge of the reparations debt. No transfer of material could, therefore, be made without the knowledge and concurrence of the Reparations Commission. He could not therefore admit the complete independence of the experts.

Mr. Hudson maintained that the experts should be entirely free to make a distribution of the railway stock according to the technical necessities of the case. It was the role of the Reparations Commission to consider the financial consequences of the action of the Experts.

M. Loucheur quoted Articles 19 and 20 of Annex II of the Treaty. He pointed out that the Reparations Commission did not propose to make the allocation of the rolling stock, but should the experts make such an allocation that Germany was not able to restore her economic life in such a manner as to pay reparations at all, it was clear that the Reparations Commission had a right to intervene. In his view a mistake had been made in drawing up the Treaty, and the Experts should have been placed under the Reparations Commission. Without this there would inevitably be constant conflict of authority. However the Treaty had been signed and so he proposed that the experts should make a distribution, that they should inform the Reparations Commission, and that in case of disagreement the matter should be referred through the co-ordinating Committee to the Governments.

Mr. White said that he saw no objection to this course.

Mr. Dulles said that as the American representative on the Reparations Commission he sympathised with M. Loucheur. Should the Reparations Commission think it necessary to order a supply of coal from one country to another its intentions might be defeated, if the experts had allocated rolling stock in such a way that coal could not be moved.

Mr. Hudson said that he thought the subjection of the experts to the Reparations Commission a violation of the Treaty.

M. Loucheur said that what he proposed was no violation of the Treaty, but a matter of internal arrangement among the Allies.

Mr. Balfour said that the last sentence of the proposal under consideration seemed to imply that final decisions could be taken but not communicated to the Governments concerned. This appeared to be an absurd situation. He thought that the experts could make provisional allocation, but that no communication of their allotment as final should be made till the Reparations Commission had sanctioned it.

Mr. Hudson pointed out that the experts could only decide how the rolling stock should be distributed. They would be bound to utilise the Governments in order to have their plans carried out. For instance, should they decide that a proportion of German rolling stock was required in Denmark, they would be bound to inform the German and Danish Governments in order that they could execute the proposals. It was impossible to wait for the sanction of the Reparations Commission.

Mr. Balfour said that a test question would be, should the Technical Committee desire to send 500 wagons to Czecho-Slovakia, were they entitled to do so without the consent of the Reparations Commission.

M. Loucheur said that the answer in the case of experts would be yes, and in his own case it would be no. The experts, for instance, might lose sight of the necessity of transporting coal. If the Council of Five were in existence reference could be made to it, but, if it were not in existence, chaos would ensue. He thought it absurd that experts should act irrespective of orders. They should receive instructions from the Governments. The Clauses of the Treaty operated as against Germany, not as against the Allies among themselves. The various parts of the machinery employed for the execution of the Treaty must work together, otherwise there would be complete disorder. He therefore asked that definite instructions be given to the experts, so that they should not work independently of the Reparations Commission.

Mr. Hudson said that M. Loucheur had stated the issue very clearly. Poland, for instance, had been attributed certain territory which had been German. The accepted theory was that a certain amount of rolling stock went with this territory, in order to make its economic life possible. It might, in the opinion of the Reparations Commission, be necessary to allot Poland some rolling stock by way of payment in the Reparations account. Restitution was no business of the experts, but, after the Reparations Commission had done what it thought fit, it might appear to the experts that Poland required more rolling stock. The experts would then take a decision for the sole purpose of employing the rolling stock available to the best general advantage. According to M. Loucheur, Reparations questions came in at this point. This, he submitted, was widening the sphere of the Reparations Commission unduly. The Expert Committee, in his view, ought to be able to say that for technical reasons, rolling stock was required at such and such a place. M. Loucheur’s view falsified the intentions of Article 371. Was this Article to be applied in its obvious interpretation, or was its application to be made subject to the political situation of Europe as a whole? For instance, was Poland to be deprived of necessary rolling stock because the Reparations Commission decided to pay Belgium in coal?

M. Loucheur said that he thought the clauses drawn up by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had entirely left financial considerations out of account. He did not say that the Expert Commission should not allocate rolling stock, but that this allocation should be provisional. The value of the rolling stock thus assigned, must be determined by the Reparations Commission. If, for instance, Poland could not pay for the rolling stock allotted her, was she to receive it for nothing? This would entirely stultify the work of the Reparations Commission. What he asked for was coordination. It was regrettable that better liaison had not been maintained by the various Commissions which had framed different portions of the Treaty. As the Treaty itself did not provide for coordination, arrangements must be made for co-ordination in its execution.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought perhaps the following proposal would reconcile the two points of view:

“The immediate distribution of rolling stock shall be made on the authority of the Expert Committee; but no such distribution shall be final until the financial aspects of the question have been considered and approved by the Committee of Reparation.”

(This proposal was accepted provisionally subject to further examination by the Experts present of the Reparations Commission and of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.)

Mr. Hudson asked that subject to this, the nomination of the experts should be made in accordance with proposal annexed. (See Appendix “C”.)

(With the addition of a French member in the Principal Com-mission Para. 1(a), the proposals contained in the Report—Appendix “C”—were accepted.)

(M. Loucheur, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Dulles and M. Fiori withdrew.)

(At this point Mr. Polk entered the room.)

(M. Clementel, M. Alphand, M. Nogara and Mr. Hutchinson⁸ entered the room.)

6. M. Clementel said that the draft Clauses now before the Council had been unanimously agreed to. (Appendix “D”.) He explained the various clauses in which alterations had been made since the last edition. Some discussion arose concerning Article 29. Economic Clauses for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria

Mr. White asked whether the Smaller Powers might not claim equal rights with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in respect to the “most favoured nation” treatment.

M. Clementel explained that this provision had been inserted at the request of the Japanese Delegates.

Mr. Balfour asked why it was proposed to re-impose Consular Courts on Bulgaria.

M. Clementel said that it was merely a case of re-stating preexisting rights.

Mr. Balfour said that he had not been aware of any right of Consular jurisdiction in Bulgaria, but, in any case, he would have thought it more in keeping with the times to abolish or curtail such a right rather than to re-assert or extend it.

Mr. White said that the United States did not wish to claim extra-territorial rights in Bulgaria.

M. Pichon said that the French Government were negotiating just before the outbreak of war for the abolition of the capitulations in Bulgaria.

M. Clementel pointed out that the formula employed was permissive. Special conventions might be entered into by each of the Allied and Associated Powers with Bulgaria. There was nothing to compel them to do so. The sentence regarding “most favoured nation” treatment had been added at the request of Japan.

Mr. Balfour observed that things were not left just as they had been before the war, as the United States and Japan were added to the list of Powers entitled to negotiate with Bulgaria regarding special rights which they had not possessed before the war.

M. Pichon observed that they need not avail themselves of this right. France had rights which had not been put into practice. Just before the outbreak of the war, negotiations were going on for the abolition of those theoretical rights. The object of the Article was therefore quite a restricted one, namely, to enable France to resume these negotiations.

Mr. Balfour remarked that it was odd that an Article with so restricted an object, contrived to add two Powers to the list.

M. Matsui said that he understood that there was in practice, no consular jurisdiction in Bulgaria. Japan, however, had been for a long time urging her right to exercise such jurisdiction in Turkey. Japan would therefore seem to be weakening her position unless this sentence were inserted in the Article. If none of the Powers chose to exercise their rights under the capitulations, Japan would do nothing; should the Powers wish to do so, Japan desired to be in the same position as the rest. Nothing very substantial was being asked for, and he thought that any exercise of the right was improbable. In view of the negotiations with Turkey, however, the Japanese Delegation had thought it desirable to have this sentence inserted.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought it was strange to insist in a Treaty on a right which no one wished to exercise, and which no one approved. With this comment, however, he would be content, and would not oppose the acceptance of the Article.

The Economic Clauses as drafted (see Appendix “D”) were then adopted for insertion in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

It was further decided to communicate these Clauses in the same manner as the other Clauses, through the President of the Committee, to the Smaller Powers concerned.

(M. Clemenceau and M. Tardieu entered the room.)

7. Mr. Balfour read the following telegram. He thought this amounted to a refusal on the part of General Pilsudski to obey the orders of the Council:— Line of Demarcation Between Polish and Lithuania Forces

(M. Clementel, M. Alphand & M. Nogara withdrew.)

Telegram From Sir P. Wyndham,⁹ Warsaw to Mr. Balfour

July 25th, 1919.

“On July 24th I saw General Pilsudski as instructed by you in your telegram of July 23rd.

Upon my raising the question of the Polish troops being withdrawn to the line of demarcation General Pilsudski said that this was a responsibility which he would not take as the immediate result would be the outbreak of disturbances, possibly leading to regular warfare. He declared that he would resign Office and leave Poland for Lithuania if we insisted on the Polish troops being withdrawn, and showed absolute determination on this point.

The internal situation is now so difficult that, as it seems to me, General Pilsudski would gladly avail himself of any opportunity to resign which might be afforded to him by foreign pressure in opposition to a cause which is popular in Poland. The political consequences will be serious if he carries out his threat.”

M. Clemenceau observed that the telegram was dated July 25th and that the decision of the Council had been taken on the 26th.¹⁰

Reply to Herr Voi-Bethmann-Hollweg

8. It was decided that no answer need be made to Herr Von Bethmann-Hollweg’s letter regarding his personal responsibility for the outbreak of war.¹¹Reply to Herr Von Bethmann-Hollweg

9. (At this point M. Venizelos and the Members of the Commission on Greek Affairs, entered the Room.)Hearing of M. Venizelos Regarding Frontiers of Bulgaria

M. Clemenceau, addressing M. Venizelos said that of the Council thought that he would probably have something to say regarding the frontiers of Bulgaria.

M. Venizelos said that he would have something to say on the subject, but before dealing with that, he would like to give an explanation regarding the document produced by Mr. White at a previous meeting (see H. D. 16. para. 7¹²). This document had been communicated to him by the Chairman and the Council would understand that he was considerably upset by it. It was implied that he had made use of a forged document to influence the Conference. He had never stated that the Mussulmans of Western Thrace desired to join Greece. Should they be given the choice, it was obvious that they would be inclined to choose the Allies of Turkey rather than the enemies of Turkey. What he had suggested was that Allied Officers should consult the Mohammedan Deputies without the knowledge either of Bulgaria or Turkey. He then read a letter addressed to him by 8 Mussulman Deputies of Western Thrace (Appendix “E”). This petition he had sent to M. Cambon, but he had never attempted to represent the Mussulmans of Thrace as desiring a union with Greece.

M. Venizelos then read a series of observations he had prepared on this subject (see Appendix “F”). He added that he had made complaint to the Government at Washington regarding the imputation made against him by the American Delegation.

Mr. White said that the document had been communicated to M. Venizelos confidentially. M. Venizelos had therefore no right to make any communication to Washington on the subject.

M. Venizelos said that the document had been communicated to him by the Chairman of the Council, and he thought he had a right to defend himself vis-à-vis the American Government.

M. Clemenceau said he thought M. Venizelos would have done better to reserve his justification for the Council.

M. Venizelos said that he would withdraw his complaint at Washington.

M. Venizelos said that in Thrace as claimed by him for Greece there were more than five times as many Greeks as Bulgarians. There were, in addition, a large number of Greeks in Constantinople and in the districts surrounding it. To these he made no claim and he argued that this reinforced his claim to the other parts of Thrace. Against the ethnographical argument which entirely favoured Greece an economic argument was alleged in favour of Bulgaria. He recognised that free access to the sea was one of the principles of the Conference. Whenever interests were opposed which could not be reconciled, it was necessary to decide which deserved the greater respect. The principle of nationality should take precedence over economic considerations. Bulgaria had excellent ports on the Black Sea. An outlet on the Aegean Sea was not a matter of primary necessity since the opening of the Straits would convert the Black Sea into an open sea. The inclusion of Greek populations in Greece was however a vital interest. Bulgaria could have commercial access to the Aegean either at Dédéagatch or, if this port were regarded unsuitable, at Cavalla. Similar rights might be guaranteed to Bulgaria as had been guaranteed to other land-locked states. Four states, each of them larger than Bulgaria, namely Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Hungary and Poland had been left by the Conference without direct access to the sea. Why should a similar arrangement not be enough for Bulgaria? Poland had not been given Dantzig, in order that the nationality of the intervening populations should be respected. It had been alleged that the arrangement he proposed served Bulgarian purposes well enough in peace, but would not suit them in war. He thought this argument operated in his favour. There would be no chance for Bulgaria to establish a submarine base on the Aegean. Bulgaria was a continental power. Greece was very largely an island power. Should Bulgaria have complete control over a port in the Aegean, she could intercept the movements of Greek troops by means of submarines. He knew that strategic arguments were not in favour at the Conference but he only used this as a secondary argument and in reply to an objection. It was needless to attempt to satisfy Bulgaria. Nothing but Hegemony in the Balkans would satisfy her. She would undoubtedly attempt to upset the settlement made by the Conference. The only hope for peace in the Balkans was to set up her neighbours as ethnic units each individually too big to be attacked. It had also been said that the Greeks had left Western Thrace. This was true. They had been driven out by the Bulgarians and had for five years been refugees in Macedonia and Greece. M. Venizelos then read copious extracts from a work entitled “Rapports et Enquêtes de la Commission Interalliée sur les violations du droit des Gens commises en Macédoine orientale par les armées Bulgares”. He added that the American Red Cross Society which had worked in Eastern Macedonia thoroughly corroborated the report of the Interallied Commission. He argued that it was undesirable to entrust to the rule of a nation which could behave in the manner illustrated by these extracts, any foreign population whatsoever.

(M. Venizelos then withdrew.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 29 July, 1919.

Appendix “A” to HD–18

M–392

[Note From the British Delegation]

Resumption of Parcel Post and Monet Order Services With Germany

These two services between the United Kingdom and Germany were, before the war, governed by special agreements between H. M. Government and the German Government, and not by the general international postal agreements. Under Article 289 of the Peace Treaty each of the Allied or Associated Powers is, within a period of six months from the coming into force of the Treaty, to notify to Germany the bilateral Treaties or Conventions which it is desired to revive with Germany. As regard the two agreements covering parcel post and money order services with Germany, H. M. Government propose, in advance of the coming into force of the Peace Treaty, to take steps at once, through the channel of the British and German post offices, for the resumption of these services. In order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, they wish the Supreme Council to be informed of this proposal, although the agreements in question were not general international agreements. They presume that the Council will raise no objection. The Treaty Revision Committee have recommended the reviving of the two Treaties in question when the Peace Treaty permits.

Appendix “B” to HD–18

[Report of the Special Committee Charged by the Supreme Economic Council To Study the Question of the Re-establishment of Postal Relations With Germany]

The Special Committee charged by the Supreme Economic Council to study the question of the re-establishment of postal relations with Germany, has unanimously taken the following decisions which are submitted for the approval of the Supreme Council of the Heads of Governments.

1. The post Offices of the Allied and Associated Countries are authorised to enter into direct relations with the German Post Office for the immediate re-establishment of postal relations both for ordinary and registered post, and for samples and parcels.

2. The question of transport of postal matter by Germany will be examined by the German Delegation at Versailles together with the Allied and Associated Delegates.

3. The telegraph offices of the Allied and Associated Countries are authorised to enter into direct relations with the German telegraphic office for the provisional re-establishment of telegraphic and telephonic communication.

4. The public will be notified as soon as possible that postal and telegraphic relations with non-occupied Germany will be reopened under the following conditions:—

(a) Commercial “and private” correspondence can be sent “closed”.

(b) The above-mentioned correspondence can be registered.

(c) Telegrams should be written en clair and only in the following languages: French, English, Italian, German “or Japanese”.

(d) Each administration will later publish the conditions under which telephone service will be re-started.

5. The postal and telegraphic control services will be notified of the above decisions so that they may take any necessary measures.

6. In submitting the above propositions to the Supreme Council of the Heads of Governments, the special Committee recommends that the resolution of the Communications Section concerning the immediate re-establishment of international railway services with Germany may be adopted, in order to render the lifting of the Blockade effective, and that this resolution be passed for action to the Governments concerned.

Appendix C to HD–18

[Translation¹³]

Paris, July 19, 1919.

commission on the international regime of ports, waterways, and railways

From: The President of the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways.

To: The President of the Allied Supreme Council.

The Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways at its meeting of July 17, decided to propose to the Allied Supreme Council that the commissions of experts provided for in articles 371 and 372 of the treaty with Germany, as well as in the corresponding articles of the treaties with the other enemy powers, be constituted as soon as possible after the coming into force of each of these treaties and in the following manner:

I. Germany

(a) principal commission

1 American delegate, President	1 Czecho-Slovak delegate
1 Belgian delegate	1 Danish delegate
1 Polish delegate	1 German delegate

(This Commission shall have only advisory powers and shall be exclusively designed to afford liaison among the various special commissions.)

(b) special commissions

(1) Special Belgian Commission

• 1 American delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Belgian delegate
• 1 German delegate

(2) Special Polish Commission

• 1 American delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Polish delegate
• 1 German delegate

(3) Special Czecho-Slovak Commission

• 1 American delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Czecho-Slovak delegate
• 1 German delegate

(4) Special Danish Commission

• 1 American delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Danish delegate
• 1 German delegate

II. Bulgaria

(a) principal commission

1 Japanese delegate, President	1 Yugo-Slav delegate
1 Greek delegate	1 Bulgarian delegate

(This Commission shall have only advisory powers and shall be exclusively designed to afford liaison among the various special commissions.)

(b) special commissions

(1) Special Greek Commission

• 1 Japanese delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Greek delegate
• 1 Bulgarian delegate

(2) Special Yugo-Slav Commission

• 1 Japanese delegate (President of the principal commission), President
• 1 Yugo-Slav delegate
• 1 Bulgarian delegate

III. Austria-Hungary

(a) plenary commission

1 British delegate, President	1 Roumanian delegate
1 Italian delegate	1 Polish delegate
1 Yugo-Slav delegate	1 Austrian delegate
1 Czecho-Slovak delegate	1 Hungarian delegate

(This Commission shall decide all questions of interest to more than two states. Its decisions shall be adopted by a three-fourths majority of the members present. Failing by this majority, the President shall decide.)

(b) sub-commissions

Sub-commissions of three members, composed of one representative of the state ceding rolling stock and one representative of the recipient state, with the President of the Plenary Commission as President, shall be organized to settle questions interesting only two states, as well as to carry out in each particular case the decisions made by the Plenary Commission.

The Commission for Austria-Hungary shall be established at the time of the coming into force of the treaty with Austria. Pending the coining into force of the treaty with Hungary, it shall act validly in the absence of the Hungarian delegate.

The Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways brings to the attention of the Allied Supreme Council how important it is that the Presidents of the above-mentioned commissions be officially appointed immediately by their respective governments, and be able to confer as soon as possible at Paris on the conditions for the work of their missions.

President:

Crespi

Appendix D to HD–18

July 28, 1919.

economic commission

Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria.—Economic Clauses

(Note.—In this edition there have been included modifications in the following clauses, agreed upon by the Representatives on the Economic Commission of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at a meeting on the 28th July, 1919, and shown in footnotes to the appropriate Articles:—

1. Amendment to Article 29, proposed by the Japanese Delegation.

2. Amendment to Article 81, relating to liquidations in transferred territories.

3. A new Article, relating to concessions, in place of Article 35.)

The Clauses proposed by the Economic Commission for the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria are based to a very large extent on the Treaties with Germany and Austria, and the following statement indicates which articles can be derived from the corresponding articles in those Treaties by substituting the words “Bulgaria” or “Bulgarian” for the corresponding terms, and by making the necessary changes in the dates mentioned, e. g., the date of entry into the war (20th September, 1915), date of the Armistice (30th September, 1918), &c.

The text of the articles in the German and Austrian Treaties, on which the Economic Commission based their articles for Bulgaria, is the text as originally presented to the Germans and Austrians respectively. Since then modifications have been made in the German Treaty, and it is assumed that these should be embodied in the clauses for Bulgaria. If further modifications are made in the Austrian Treaty, the question of embodying them likewise will need consideration.

July 7, 1919.

Section I.—Commercial Relations

Chapter I.—Customs Regulations, Duties and Restrictions

Article 1–4.

Same as Articles 264–267 in German Treaty.

Article A.^*

Same as Article 323 of German Treaty.

Article 5.

During the first twelve months after the coming into force of the present Treaty, the duties imposed by Bulgaria on imports from Allied and Associated States shall not be higher than the most favourable duties which were applied to imports into Bulgaria on the 31st July, 1914.

Chapter II.—Shipping

Article B.^*

Same as Article 327 of German Treaty.

Article 6.

Same as Article 271 of German Treaty.

Article 7.

Same as Article 273 of German Treaty.

Chapter III.—Unfair Competition

Articles 8 and 9.

Same as Articles 274 and 275 of German Treaty.

Chapter IV.—Treatment of Nationals of Allied and Associated Powers

Article 10.

Same as Article 276 of the Treaty with Germany, with the modification indicated below of paragraph (c):—

“Bulgaria undertakes:—

. . . . . . .

“(c.) Not to subject the nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, their property, rights or interests, including companies and associations in which they are interested, to any charge, tax, or impost, direct or indirect, other or higher than those which are or may be imposed on her own nationals or their property, rights or interests, or on the nationals of any more-favoured nation or their property rights or interests”

Articles 11–13.

Same as Articles 277–9 of the Treaty with Germany.

Chapter V.—General Articles

Article 14.

The obligations imposed on Bulgaria by Chapter I and by Article 8 of Chapter II above shall … (as in Article 280 of the Treaty with Germany).

Article 15.

Same as Article 281 of Treaty with Germany.

Section II.—Treaties

Article 16. (Article 282 of German Treaty.)

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, and subject to the provisions thereof, the multilateral Treaties, Conventions and Agreements of an economic or technical character enumerated below and in the subsequent articles, shall alone be applied as between Bulgaria and those of the Allied and Associated Powers party thereto:—

1. Convention of the 11th October, 1909, regarding the International Circulation of Motor-cars.¹⁴

2. Agreement of the 15th May, 1886, regarding the sealing of railway trucks subject to Customs Inspection,¹⁵ and Protocol of the 18th May, 1907.¹⁶

3. Agreement of the 15th May, 1886, regarding the technical standardisation of Railways.¹⁷

4. Convention of the 5th July, 1890, regarding the publication of Customs Tariffs and the organisation of an International Union for the publication of Customs Tariffs.¹⁸

5. Convention of the 20th May, 1875, regarding the unification and improvement of the Metric System.¹⁹

6. Convention of the 29th November, 1906, regarding the unification of pharmacopæial formulae for Potent Drugs.²⁰

7. Convention of the 7th June, 1905, regarding the creation of an International Agricultural Institute at Rome.²¹

8. Arrangement of the 9th December, 1907, for the creation of an International Office of Public Hygiene at Paris.²²

Note.—All the Conventions mentioned in Article 282 of the Treaty with Germany to which Bulgaria was not a party are imposed upon her in Article 24 with the exception of the following, which have been omitted, as they do not concern Bulgaria:—

Convention of the 25th April, 1907, as to the Turkish Customs Tariff.²³ (7.)

The three Conventions of 1857,²⁴ 1861²⁵ and 1863²⁶ relating to redemption of toll dues on the Sound, Elbe and Scheldt. (8, 9, and 10.)

Suez Canal Convention of the 29th October, 1888.²⁷ (11.)

Convention of the 4th February, 1898, regarding the tonnage measurement of vessels for inland navigation.²⁸ (14.)

Conventions of the 16th and 19th November, 1885, regarding Concert Pitch.²⁹ (22.)

Convention of the 12th June, 1912 [1902], relating to the guardianship of Minors.³⁰ (26.)

Article 17.

Same as Article 283 of Treaty with Germany.

Article 18.

Same as Article 284 of Treaty with Germany.

Article 19 (new).

The Convention of the 29th November, 1901, between Roumania and Bulgaria, concerning fishing in the waters of the Danube,³¹ is again brought into force from the date of the ratification of the present Treaty of Peace, and cannot be denounced for a period of five years unless it is previously revised by the mutual consent of the contracting States.

Article C.^†

Same as Article 366 of Treaty with Germany.

Article 20 (new).

Bulgaria undertakes, within twelve months of the coming into force of this Treaty:—

1. To adhere, in the prescribed form, to the International Convention of Paris of the 20th March, 1883,³² for the protection of industrial property, revised at Washington on the 2nd June, 1911,³³ and the International Convention of Berne of the 9th September, 1886,³⁴ for the protection of literary and artistic works, revised at Berlin in 1908,³⁵ and the Act and Protocol of the 20th March, 1914,³⁶ relating to the protection of literary and artistic works;

2. To recognise and protect by effective legislation in accordance with the principles of the said Conventions the industrial, literary and artistic property of nationals of the Allied and Associated States.

In addition and independently of the obligations already mentioned, Bulgaria undertakes to continue to assure such recognition and such protection to all the industrial, literary and artistic property of the nationals of each of the Allied and Associated States to an extent at least as great as upon the 1st October, 1915, and upon the same conditions.

Article 21 (new).

Bulgaria undertakes to adhere to the Treaties, Conventions and Agreements hereunder enumerated, or to ratify them:—

1. Conventions of the 14th March, 1884,³⁷ 1st December, 1886,³⁸ and 23rd March, 1887,³⁹ and Final Protocol of the 7th July, 1887,⁴⁰ regarding the Protection of Submarine Cables.

2. Convention of the 31st December, 1913, regarding the unification of Commercial Statistics.⁴¹

3. Conventions of the 23rd September, 1910, respecting the unification of certain regulations regarding collisions and salvage at sea.⁴²

4. Convention of the 21st December, 1904, regarding the exemption of hospital ships from dues and charges in ports.⁴³

5. Convention of the 26th September, 1906, for the suppression of nightwork for women.⁴⁴

6. Convention of the 26th September, 1906, for the suppression of the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches.⁴⁵

7. Conventions of the 18th May, 1904,⁴⁶ and the 4th May, 1910,⁴⁷ regarding the suppression of the White Slave Traffic.

8. Convention of the 4th May, 1910, regarding the suppression of obscene publications.⁴⁸

9. Sanitary Convention of the 3rd December, 1903,⁴⁹ and the preceding Conventions signed on the 30th January, 1892,⁵⁰ the 15th April, 1893,⁵¹ the 3rd April, 1894,⁵² and the 19th March, 1897.⁵³

10. Conventions of the 3rd November, 1881,⁵⁴ and the 15th April, 1889,⁵⁵ regarding precautionary measures against phylloxera.

11. Convention of the 19th March, 1902, regarding the protection of birds useful to agriculture.⁵⁶

Article 22.—(Same as Article 289 of German Treaty, in the form proposed in the reply to the Germans and with the omission indicated in the footnote.)

Each of the Allied or Associated Powers, being guided by the general principles or special provisions of the present Treaty, shall notify to Bulgaria the bilateral treaties or conventions which such Allied or Associated Power wishes to revive with Bulgaria.

The notification referred to in the present Article shall be made either directly or through the intermediary of another Power. Receipt thereof shall be acknowledged in writing by Bulgaria. The date of the revival shall be that of the notification.

The Allied and Associated Powers undertake among themselves not to revive with Bulgaria any conventions or treaties which are not in accordance with the terms of the present Treaty.

The notification shall mention any provisions of the said conventions and treaties which, not being in accordance with the terms of the present Treaty, shall not be considered as revived.

In case of any difference of opinion, the League of Nations will be called on to decide.

A period of six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty is allowed to the Allied and Associated Powers within which to make the notification.

Only those bilateral treaties and conventions which have been the, subject of such a notification shall be revived between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria; all the others are and shall remain abrogated.

The above regulations apply to all bilateral treaties or conventions existing between all the Allied and Associated Powers^‡ and Bulgaria, even if the said Allied and Associated Powers have not been in a state of war with Bulgaria.

Articles 23 and 24.

Same as Articles 290 and 291 of Treaty with Germany.

Article 25.—(Same as Article 292 of German Treaty, with the omission indicated in the footnote.)

Bulgaria recognises that all treaties, conventions or arrangements which she concluded with Russia, or with any State or Government of which the territory previously formed a part of Russia^§ before the [1st August, 1914],^56a or after that date until the coming into force of the present Treaty, are and remain abrogated.

Articles 26–28.

Same as Articles 293–295 of the Treaty with Germany.

Note.—The following articles of the German Treaty have been omitted in the Treaty with Bulgaria:—

• Article 285, North Sea Fisheries.
• Article 287, Civil Procedure.
• Article 288, Samoa.

Article 29 (new).^‖

The immunities and privileges of foreigners, as well as the rights of jurisdiction and of consular protection enjoyed by the Allied and Associated Powers in Bulgaria, by virtue of the Capitulations Usages and Treaties, may form the subject of special conventions between each of the Allied and Associated Powers concerned and Bulgaria.

The Allied and Associated Powers concerned undertake among themselves to propose only such conventions as shall conform to the stipulations of the present Treaty. In case of difference of opinion among them, the League of Nations will be called upon to decide.

Section III.—Debts

Article 30 and Annex thereto.

Same as Article 296 (and the Annex thereto) of the German Treaty, with the same change as in the Austrian Treaty, namely, the addition to paragraph 3 of Article 296 of the words shown in italics below^¶:—

“3. Interest which has accrued during the war to a national of one of the Contracting Powers in respect of securities issued or taken over by an opposing Power provided that the payment of interest on such securities to the nationals of that Power or to neutrals has not been suspended during the war.”

Section IV.—Property, Bights and Interests

Article 31.

Same as Article 297 of German Treaty, except as here indicated^**:—

At the end of paragraph (a) the following provision to be added:

“The Bulgarian Government will revoke all legislative or administrative provisions which it may have made during the war forbidding Companies of Allied and Associated nationality or Companies in which Allied or Associated nationals are interested to enjoy the benefit of concessions or contracts in Bulgaria.”

Paragraph (d)—”As between the Allied and Associated Powers or their nationals on the one hand, and Bulgaria or her nationals on the other hand, all the exceptional war measures, or measures of transfer, put into operation by the Allied and Associated Powers, or acts done or to be done in execution of such measures as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Annex hereto shall be considered as final and binding upon all persons except as regards the reservations laid down in the present Treaty.

“The same measures and all others affecting the property, rights and interests of nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers—notably, acts of requisition or seizure, wheresoever effected, by the civil or military authorities, the troops, or the population of Bulgaria, or effected in Bulgaria by the civil or military authorities or the troops of the Powers allied with Bulgaria—are declared void, and the Bulgarian Government will take all measures necessary for the restoration of such property, rights and interests.”

Article 32.

Same as Article 298 of the German Treaty.

Article 33.

Diplomatic or Consular claims made before the war by the Representatives or Agents of the Allied and Associated Powers with regard to the private property, rights or interests of nationals of those Powers shall, on the application of the Powers concerned, be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for in Section VI.

annex to section iv

Same as Annex to Section IV of German Treaty, except for the following alterations in paragraph 1:—

“1. In accordance with the provisions of Article 34, paragraph (d), the validity of vesting orders and of orders for the winding-up of businesses or companies, and of any other orders, directions, decisions or instructions of any court or any department of the Government of any of the Allied and Associated Powers made or given, or purporting to be made or given, in pursuance of war legislation with regard to enemy property, rights and interests is confirmed. The interests of all persons shall be regarded as having been effectively dealt with by any order, direction, decision or instruction dealing with property in which they may be interested, whether or not such interests are specifically mentioned in the order, direction, decision, or instruction. No question shall be raised as to the regularity of a transfer of any property, rights or interests dealt with in pursuance of any such order, direction, decision or instruction. Every action taken with regard to any property, business, or company, whether as regards its investigation, sequestration, compulsory administration, use, requisition, supervision, or winding-up, the sale or management of property, rights or interests, the collection or discharge of debts, the payment of costs, charges or expenses, or any other matter whatsoever, in pursuance of orders, directions, decisions, or instructions of any court or of any department of the Government of any of the Allied and Associated Powers, made or given, or purporting to be made or given, in pursuance of war legislation with regard to enemy property, rights or interests, is confirmed. Provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not be held to prejudice the titles to property heretofore acquired in good faith and for value and in accordance with the laws of the country in which the property is situated by nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers.”^††

Section V.—Contracts, Prescriptions, Judgments

Article 34.

Same as Article 299 of the Treaty with Germany, paragraph (c), as to nonapplicability of certain provisions to the United States of America, Brazil, and Japan being amended or omitted, in the event of the Treaty not being signed by one or more of those Powers.

Article 35.^‡‡

Bulgaria is ipso facto substituted for the Ottoman Empire as regards the rights, charges and obligations of the latter with regard to concessionaires and persons entitled to rights under contracts in the territories ceded by the Ottoman Empire to Bulgaria, following upon the Balkan wars.

The same rule is applicable in the case of States which acquire Bulgarian territory as a result of the present Treaty.

The substitution will take effect in the case of each State acquiring territory as from the date of the Treaty under which the territory is ceded, and shall not cause any prejudice to the interests of the concessionaire.

Provided that nothing in this Article prejudices the right of any State to which territory is transferred to cancel any concessions, so far as concerns such territories, if the said State considers such cancellation to be desirable in the public interest, on condition that equitable compensation is paid, the amount to be determined, in case of disagreement, by an independent arbitrator.

If the State to which territory is ceded does not avail itself of the right provided in the preceding paragraph, it may enter into negotiations with the persons entitled to rights under concessions and contracts with a view to adapting their provisions to the new legislation or the new conditions of working.

If these negotiations do not lead to any result within six months, the State or the persons concerned may submit the dispute to an independent arbitrator.

Article 36.

Concessions, guarantees of receipts, and rights of exploitation in which nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, or Companies or Associations controlled by such nationals, are interested may in case either of abnormal conditions of working or of dispossession be extended on the application of the interested party for a period to be determined by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, which shall take account of the period of dispossession or of abnormal conditions of working.

All arrangements approved or agreements come to before the entry of Bulgaria into the war between the Bulgarian Authorities and companies or associations controlled by nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers are confirmed. Nevertheless, periods of time, prices and conditions therein laid down may be revised having regard to the new economic conditions. In case of disagreement the decision shall rest with the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

Article 37.

Any company incorporated in accordance with some law other than that of Bulgaria owning property, rights or interests in Bulgaria, which is now or shall hereafter be controlled by nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, shall have the right, within five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, to transfer its property, rights and interests to another company incorporated in accordance with Bulgarian law or the law of one of the Allied and Associated Powers whose nationals control it; and the company to which the property is transferred shall continue to enjoy the same rights and privileges which the other company enjoyed under the laws of Bulgaria and the terms of this Treaty. This company shall not be subjected to any special tax on account of this transfer.

Articles 38–41.

Same as Articles 300–3 of the Treaty with Germany, with the same modification as in the Austrian Treaty, viz., the substitution of the following text for the second paragraph of Article 302 of the German Treaty:—

“If a judgment or measure of execution in respect of any dispute which may have arisen has been given during the war by an Austrian judicial authority against a national of an Allied or Associated State or a company or association in which one of such nationals was interested, in a case in which either such national or such company or association was not able to make his defence, the Allied and Associated national who has suffered prejudice thereby shall be entitled to recover compensation, to be fixed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for in Section VI.”

annex to section v

Same as Annex to Section V of the Treaty with Germany, with the following modifications in the paragraphs specified:—

Paragraph 2.

“The following classes of contracts are excepted from dissolution by Article 37 and, without prejudice to the rights contained in Article 34 (b) of Section IV, remain in force subject to the application of domestic laws, orders or regulations made during the war by the Allied and Associated Powers, and subject to the terms of the contracts:

. . . . . . .

“(e.) Contracts between individuals or companies and States, provinces, municipalities, or other similar juridical persons charged with administrative functions and concessions granted by States, provinces, municipalities or other similar juridical persons charged with administrative functions, including contracts and concessions concluded or accorded by the Turkish Government in the territories ceded by the Turkish Empire to Bulgaria before the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

Paragraph 4.

The following clause is omitted:—

“(c.) The closure of contracts relating to cotton ‘futures,’ which were closed as on the 31st July, 1914, under the decision of the Liverpool Cotton Association, is also confirmed.”

Section VI.—Mixed Arbitral Tribunal

Same as Section VI of the Treaty with Germany.

Section VII.—Industrial Property

Articles 44 and 45.

Same as Articles 306 and 307 of German Treaty.

Articles 46 and 47.

Same as Articles 309 and 310 of German Treaty, with omission of the last paragraph in each (which excludes the United States from the Articles), if the United States do not sign the Treaty.

Article 48.

Same as Article 311 of German Treaty.

Note.—Article 308 of the German Treaty, relating to rights of priority under the Industrial Property Convention, is omitted, as Bulgaria was not a party to the Convention.

Section VIII.—Special Provisions Relating to Transferred Territory

Same as Section VIII. of the Austrian Treaty, subject to the modifications indicated below in Article 49 (the definition Article) and consequential changes in the rest of the text^§§:—

Article 49.

“Of the individuals and juridical persons previously nationals of Bulgaria, those who acquire ipso facto under the present Treaty the nationality of an Allied or Associated Power are designated in the provisions which follow by the expression ‘former Bulgarian nationals’ the remainder are designated by the expression ‘Bulgarian nationals.’”

Appendix E to HD–18

Sofia, December 31, 1918.

[The Mohammedan Deputies of Western Thrace to the President of the Council of Ministers of Greece (Venizelos)]

[Translation]⁵⁷

To His Excellency Mr. Eleutherios Venizelos,
President of the Council of Ministers of Greece, etc. etc.

Excellency: The undersigned, Mohammedan Turks, deputies from Western Thrace in the Bulgarian Parliament, although probably holding views different from yours regarding the political future of Western Thrace, firmly convinced of your liberalism, address you to inform you of the following facts and to beg you, if only for humanitarian reasons, to intervene on our behalf in the sense that we are indicating to you.

We have already sent a letter on this subject to the chief of the Greek Mission in Sofia, Colonel Mazarakis. Now we proceed to inform you that we have just sent a letter to General d’Esperey, commander in chief of the Allied armies, which reads as follows:

“Sofia, December 31, 1918.

“My dear General: The undersigned Mohammedan Turks, deputies from Western Thrace in the Bulgarian Parliament, consequently qualified to represent this region, after being thoroughly convinced that it is quite impossible for our compatriots remaining there to live under the Bulgarian Government in view of the complete lack of tolerance that the Bulgarians have exhibited, and that they still exhibit toward us, as toward those among their subjects who are not of Bulgarian ancestry, because of the frequent annoyances and abuses unworthy of a civilized nation which they commit, and in harmony with all our fellow countrymen of Western Thrace, have the honor to request an audience with General Chretien, commander of the Allied occupation troops in Bulgaria.

“Our object is to explain to him that all the region included between the Mesta, the Maritza, the sea, and approximately the old Turco-Bulgarian boundary of 1912, divided in two prefectures: that of Gumul Djina (District of Gumuldjina, Isketche, Egridere, Dari-Dere, Pachmakli, Aki-Chelembi, Kirdja-Ali, Kochi-Kavac, Ortakeui, Sofoulou, Fere, Dedeagatch) and that of Kara-Agatch-Odrin (District of Kara-Agatch, Moustapha-Pacha, Svilen-Grad, and Dimotika) is inhabited by a compact mass of Mohammedan Turks, a minority of Greeks and a few Bulgarians.

“We would like, in addition, in the name of this overwhelming majority to beg of him kindly to protect us so that those of our fellow countrymen of Western Thrace who have emigrated to Turkey can freely return to their homes, so that the Bulgarian vexations and abuses in Thrace against our unhappy compatriots may be brought to an end, and so that a measure may be adopted at the Peace Conference in our favor,—considering that without guarantees our life would be impossible under Bulgarian domination.”

“Not having been received as yet by General Chretien, we have taken the liberty in a report, of which a copy is enclosed, to set forth the situation in Western Thrace with accurate statistics in support of it, which we have sent to him, and we reserve the right to request of him his intervention for the actual protection of our compatriots in Thrace.

“Unhappily, the Bulgarian vexations and abuses go on increasing and multiplying every day against our compatriots; an underlying irritation against the Bulgarians is being felt in Thrace; and it would not be improbable that it break forth one day or other against its oppressors.

“We have, more than once, interpellated the Bulgarian ministers in the Sobranye⁵⁸ on the subject of their impossible administration of Western Thrace, but the Government does not intend to give any satisfaction. It has even reached the point of wishing to demolish the only Turkish Mosque to be found in Sofia—which shows how tolerant it is.

“My dear General, at a time when the World War, carried on for the immortal principles of equality and justice, has just ended, at a time when the Peace Conference is about to establish in a permanent form these eternal principles, it would not be just to allow us to suffer under the hardest and most unpitying yoke that one can imagine,—under the Bulgarian yoke.

“While waiting for the measures which will be taken by the Peace Conference on this subject, and which, we hope, will be of such a kind as to free us, by no matter what means, from the Bulgarians, during the whole duration of the armistice, we urgently beg of you, my dear General, to take military measures, even of a provisional character, to ameliorate our condition, which is intolerable.

“The occupation of Western Thrace by Allied troops would put an end to our misfortunes, and prevent all disturbances which, as we have just explained, are to be feared. It would be desirable that Greek troops take part in this occupation, considering that the Greeks in Thrace are subjected to the same vexations as we are, that the Greeks have always taken a liberal attitude toward us, that they are a nation with which we can very easily agree, and that they could, while protecting their compatriots, protect us, who find ourselves in the same situation, against the abuses and vexations of the Bulgarians.”

Excellency, as we have indicated in this letter, it would be desirable, from our point of view, that, in the future, Western Thrace be liberated in every way from the Bulgarian yoke, which is intolerable.

But, while awaiting the solution which will be adopted regarding this subject by the Peace Conference, we urgently beg of you, Excellency, in the name of all of our oppressed co-nationals to do everything that you possibly can in favor of the occupation which we have requested in our letter addressed to General d’Esperey.

Kindly accept, Excellency, the assurances of our most profound respect.

• Mehmet Djelal
• Ismail Hakki
• Calim Nouri
• Tevfik
• Edhem Rouhi
• H. Cafet
• Hachim
• Kemal

Appendix F to HD–18

[Translation⁵⁹]

Observations [by the Head of the Greek Delegation (Venizelos)] on the Note Dated July 24⁶⁰ From the Chargé d’Affaires of the United States at Sofia

1. A petition, bearing the signature of the Mohammedan deputies from Western Thrace in the Bulgarian Sobranye, is alleged to have been presented to the Conference requesting the cession of this province by Bulgaria to Greece. Most of these deputies are alleged to have entered an official denial that they had either signed or had knowledge of this petition.

This denial had no raison d’etre, since the petition to which it referred had never existed.

The denial would not in any manner count against the letter dated December 31, 1918,⁶¹ which these same deputies sent to General Franchet d’Esperey and to M. Venizelos with the purpose of affirming that the Mohammedans of Western Thrace could no longer live under “the hard and unpitying Bulgarian yoke” and to solicit, while awaiting deliverance therefrom “by no matter what means”, the occupation of their country by Allied and Greek troops. This letter, bearing the signatures of eight Mohammedan deputies from Western Thrace, reached M. Venizelos on February 19, 1919 and was communicated by him the next day, February 20, to His Excellency M. Jules Cambon, President of the Commission of the Conference charged with the examination of Greek affairs. General Franchet d’Esperey, on his part, delivered to the French Government the same letter addressed to him.

2. The Chargé d’Affaires of the United States at Sofia considers that if the Mohammedan population of Western Thrace had to choose between the Greek and Bulgarian regimes, they would much prefer the latter.

This opinion is in flagrant contradiction with that of the deputies who signed the letter of December 31, who would seem to be better judges in the matter. In this letter, in which they declared their desire to see Western Thrace “liberated in every way from the Bulgarian yoke, which is intolerable”, they have at the same time declared that “the Greeks have always taken a liberal attitude” towards them, and that they constitute a nation with which they could very easily agree.

This twofold feeling is very old among the Mohammedans. Those who live under Greek sovereignty have always declared themselves very well satisfied with their lot. In a study by M. Franchet d’Esperey in the Revise du Monde Musulman, 1911, p. 87 and following, one finds the positive and irrefutable proof of this. It is entirely otherwise with the Mohammedans in Bulgaria, and more especially with those in Western Thrace. Their deputies in the Sobranye have on several occasions protested against the Bulgarian regime and have formulated from the tribune of Parliament the gravest accusations against the Bulgarian civil and military authorities. This was especially the case in the famous interpellations made in the Sobranye on November 11 and December 12, 1917. It was the same in December last. The Mohammedan deputies complained of the demolition of the Mosque of Sofia, and of the oppressive character of the Bulgarian administration. Menaced and terrorized, they could not complete the development of their interpellation. Moreover, not obtaining from the Bulgarian Government the least promise of satisfaction, they resolved to present their grievances to the Allies. On December 18, 1918, they sent a report to General Chretien, Commander of Allied Troops at Sofia. They described the Bulgarian oppression in Thrace, solicited the return to their homes of thousands of Mohammedans arbitrarily removed by the Bulgarian authorities, and claim for Mohammedans the right of determining their lot.

Not having succeeded in obtaining from General Chrétien either a reply or an audience, they decided to present their case to General Franchet d’Esperey. They sent him the letter of December 31 which they sent at the same time to M. Venizelos, informing him that, while probably having views different from theirs on the subject of the political future of Western Thrace, their conviction of his liberalism induced them to beg of him, if only for humanitarian reasons to intervene on their behalf and to support the request for the military occupation of their country addressed to General Franchet d’Esperey.

3. All of these events, taking place in Sofia itself, necessarily came to the attention of the Bulgarian Government which was naturally moved by them. The latter did not hesitate to adopt, one after another, strong methods to stop the scandal and its disastrous effects: the Mohammedan deputies were closely watched, ferreted out, threatened, terrorized. The President of the Council, Minister of Foreign Affairs, invited them to furnish an explanation of the memorandum sent to General Franchet d’Esperey. It is understood that the deputies, thus called upon to exonerate themselves, had to reply in an evasive manner, confining themselves to saying that they had above everything wished to emphasize their preferences for Turkey. The intervention of the Government was a sufficient notice to them that sojourn in Sofia was not free from inconveniences, and most of the deputies hastened to leave. Some of them took refuge in Constantinople.

Meanwhile the news of the letter of December 31 spread outside Conference circles, and was not long in being distorted to the point of attributing to the Mohammedan deputies of Western Thrace, instead of the desire to free their country from the Bulgarian yoke, that of seeing it reunited with Greece. The story, thus altered, deserved a denial. The deputies in refuge in Constantinople, no doubt obliged to take account of the point of view of the Ottoman Government, did not fail to make the denial. On June 20, last, the Turkish journal, Ikdam, appearing in Constantinople, published the text of a telegram addressed to the President of the Conference and to the Plenipotentiaries of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers by four Mohammedan deputies to the Sobranye: Kemal, Hachim, Housni, and Hadji-Chafep, of whom the two first named were among the signatories of the letter of December 31. According to the Ikdam, this telegram read as follows:

“We, the undersigned, deputies of Thrace in the Bulgarian Sobranye, issue a denial of the story published in the Greek press that we had submitted a memorandum demanding the annexation of Thrace to Greece, and declare that if, as this paper pretends, such a memorandum was presented by M. Venizelos to the Council of Five, it is absolutely apocryphal, because, not only have we not submitted such a memorandum, but we had neither mandate nor right to do so. We beg of you to have the truth established by your High Commissioners in Constantinople, either by means of an investigation or by questioning us, since we are now present in Constantinople; and we entreat you in the name of the peace and tranquility of men to take our request under consideration.

It is very possible that this denial, which should have delighted the Bulgarian Government, was republished and repeated in Sofia.

It is evidently to this same denial, thus made public in Sofia, that the note of the United States Chargé d’Affaires makes allusion.

But it is manifest that it cannot be applied to the letter of December 31 which still retains its force as much against Bulgaria as in favor of Greece.

4. The Chargé d’Affaires of the United States did not restrain himself from giving an entirely personal interpretation of the feelings of the Thracian Mohammedans. He stated as a fact that the Greeks spent in this region large sums of money for propaganda. That is a gratuitous accusation against which the Greek Government hastened to make a most vigorous protest to the Secretary of State in Washington.

5. The Chargé d’Affaires of the United States considers that the interpretation given by him of the feelings of the Mohammedans of Thrace would without a doubt be confirmed by an impartial inquiry or by a plebiscite.

Such a consultation had been desirable and possible several months ago. M. Venizelos, himself had made the suggestion for it before the Supreme Council of the Conference, in its session of February 3,⁶² in order to learn the preferences of the Mohammedan population between the present Bulgarian regime and the Greek administration which would be substituted for it. Replying to a question from Mr. Lloyd George on the method of such a consultation, M. Venizelos proposed that an Allied general officer be charged with the duty of seeing the Thracian deputies in the Sobranye in order to ask their opinion on this subject. But he had taken care to recommend that they proceed with the greatest discretion, for it was evident that if the project for this consultation came to their knowledge in time, the Bulgarian and Turkish Governments would not fail to take every step to influence or intimidate the interested parties whose opinion, ceasing to be free, would from that time on be deprived of all value.

The danger pointed out at that time has come to pass: the two Governments have had time to act and to take their precautions. An impartial consultation is henceforth practically impossible.

But it is, at the same time, perfectly useless, for the preferences between the Bulgarian and Greek regimes, which it is a question of determining, have already been freely and clearly manifested by the legitimate and authorized representatives of the Mohammedans of Thrace in their letter of December 31.

The Bulgarian Government could not by any maneuver weaken the value of this document which formulates in crushing terms the irrevocable condemnation of its domination in Thrace.

1. These notes have been corrected in accordance with an errata sheet filed under 763.72119/6232.
2. Ante, p. 362.
3. Ante, p. 345.
4. Ante, p. 343.
5. President of the Board of Trade of Great Britain.
6. Dr. Manley O. Hudson, United States representative, Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways; John Foster Dulles, United States representative, Commission on the Reparation of Damage; and F. Mori, Italian representative, Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways.
8. Etienne Clémentel, French representative and president, Economic Commission; Charles Alphand, French representative, Section on Permanent Commercial Relations, Economic Commission; B. Nogara, Italian representative, Financial Commission; and H. J. Hutchinson, British secretary, Economic Commission.
9. Sir Percy Wyndham, British Commissioner at Warsaw.
10. HD–15, minute 1, p. 315.
11. Appendix I to CF–99, vol. vi, p. 756.
12. Ante, p. 352.
13. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
14. Presumably, this Article will, as in the German Treaty, appear in the Bulgarian Treaty, in the Part relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways. It is to be subject to the provisions as to revision embodied in Article 378 of the German Treaty. [Footnote in the original.]
15. Presumably, this Article will, as in the German Treaty, appear in the Bulgarian Treaty, in the Part relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways. It is to be subject to the provisions as to revision embodied in Article 378 of the German Treaty. [Footnote in the original.]
14. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cii, p. 64.
15. G. Fr. de Martens, Nouveau recueil général et traités et autres actes relatifs aux rapports de droit international, 2 sér., tome xxii, p. 42.
16. Ibid., 3 ser., tome ii, p. 878.
17. Luigi Palma, Nuova Raccolta dei Trattati e delle Convenzioni in Vigore fra il Regno d’Italia ed i Governi Esteri (1881–1890), vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 783; see also Germany, Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1887, p. 111.
18. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1996.
19. Ibid., p. 1924.
20. Ibid., p. 2209.
21. Ibid., p. 2140.
22. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 2214.
23. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. c, p. 575.
24. Ibid., vol. xlvii, p. 24.
25. Lewis Hertslet, Commercial Treaties (London, 1864), vol. xi, p. 355.
26. Ibid., p. 1097.
27. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxix, p. 18.
28. Ibid., vol. xc, p. 303.
29. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér, tome xi, p. 245.
30. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xcv, p. 421.
31. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 2 sér. tome xxxiii, p. 277.
32. Presumably, this Article will, as in the German Treaty, appear in the Bulgarian Treaty in the Part relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways. [Foonote in the original.]
32. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1935.
33. Ibid., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 2953.
34. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvii, p. 22.
35. Ibid., vol. cii, p. 619.
36. Great Britain, Treaty Series, 1914, No. 11 (Cd. 7613).
37. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1949.
38. Ibid., p. 1956.
39. Jules De Clercq, Recueil des traités de la France (Paris, 1891), vol. 17, p. 295.
40. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 1958.
41. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér., tome xi, p. 304.
42. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ciii, p. 434.
43. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 2135.
44. Great Britain, Treaty Series, 1910, No. 21 (Cd. 5221).
45. Ibid., 1909, No. 4 (Cd. 4530).
46. Malloy, Treaties, 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 2131.
47. Great Britain, Treaty Series, 1912, No. 20 (Cd. 6326).
48. Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 2918.
49. Ibid., 1776–1909, vol. ii, p. 2066.
50. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxxiv, p. 12.
51. Ibid., vol. lxxxv, p. 7.
52. Ibid., vol. lxxxvii, p. 78.
53. Ibid., vol. lxxxix, p. 159.
54. Ibid., vol. lxxiii, p. 323.
55. Ibid., vol. lxxxi, p. 1311.
56. Ibid., vol. cii, p. 969.
57. The words “signatories to the present Treaty,” which appear in the German Treaty, are omitted at the request of the Belgian Delegation. [Footnote in the original.]
58. The words “or with Roumania” are omitted. [Footnote in the original.]
59. Brackets appear in the original.
60. The following sentence has been accepted by the Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers for insertion after the first paragraph of this Article:—“The Principal Allied and Associated Powers will enjoy in Bulgaria in the matters above mentioned most-favoured-nation treatment.” [Footnote in the original.]

61. It is presumed that the final part of paragraph (d) of Article 296, viz.:—

    “In the case of new States the currency in which and the rate of exchange at which debts shall be paid or credited shall be determined by the Reparation Commission provided for in Part VIII (Reparation).”

    will be omitted, as there win be no new States in relation to Bulgaria. [Footnote in the original.]

62. Having regard to the modifications since introduced into the German and Austrian Treaties in regard to the right of liquidation in new States and transferred territory, it has been necessary to reconsider the Article on this subject approved by the Economic Commission for inclusion in Section VIII of the present Treaty. The Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have unanimously agreed upon the inclusion in Article 31 of the foUow-ing paragraph based upon the corresponding provision in Article 297 of the German Treaty (see separate memorandum):—

    “In the case of liquidations effected in new States which are signatories of the present Treaty as Allied and Associated Powers, or in States to which Bulgarian territory is transferred by the present Treaty, or in States which are not entitled to share in the reparation payments to be made by Germany, the proceeds of liquidations effected by such States shall, subject to the rights of the Reparation Commission under the present Treaty, particularly under Articles (235 and 260), be paid direct to the owner. If, on the application of that owner, the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Section VI of this Part, or an arbitrator appointed by that Tribunal, is satisfied that the conditions of the sale or measures taken by the Government of the State in question outside its general legislation were unfairly prejudicial to the price obtained, they shall have discretion to award to the owner equitable compensation to be paid by that State.” [Footnote in the original.]

63. The following paragraph omitted:—

    “The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to such of the above-mentioned measures as have been taken by the German authorities in invaded or occupied territory, nor to such of the above-mentioned measures as have been taken by Germany or the German authorities since the 11th November, 1918, all of which shall be void.” [Footnote in the original.]

64. In place of this Article, the following new Article has been agreed upon by the Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers:—

    “The private rights referred to in the Treaties of Constantinople (1913), Athens (1913), and Stamboul (1914) shall not be affected by transferences of territory made under the present Treaty. Private rights in all territories transferred by or to Bulgaria under the present Treaty shall equally be respected under the same conditions.

    “In case of disagreement in regard to the application of this Article, the difference shall be submitted to an arbitrator nominated by the Council of the League of Nations.” [Footnote in the original.]

65. It has since been unanimously agreed between the Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers that Article 51 (liquidation of Bulgarian property in transferred territories) should be omitted in view of the inclusion in the paragraph for insertion in Article 31, given in the third footnote on p. 5, of the words “States to which Bulgarian territory is transferred by the present Treaty.” [Footnote in the original; reference is to the footnote on p. 391.]
57. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
58. The Bulgarian national assembly or parliament.
59. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
60. See p. 352.
61. Supra.
62. BC–21, minute 8, vol. iii, p. 859.