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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/38

HD–38

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Monday, August 25, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

Paris, August 25, 1919, 3:30 p.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon, F. L. Polk.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison.
  • British Empire
    • Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. H. Norman.
    • Sir G. Clerk.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
    • M. Pichon.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta.
    • M. Berthelot.
    • M. de Saint-Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Tittoni.
  • Secretary
    • M. Paterno.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
United States of America	Captain Chapin.
British Empire	Captain E. Abraham.
France	Captain A. Portier.
Italy	Lt-Colonel A. Jones.

• Interpreter—M. Meyer.
• The following also attended for the items in which they were concerned:—
  • United States of America
    • Prof. Coolidge.
    • Mr. Woolsey.
    • Mr. J. F. Dulles.
  • France
    • M. Loucheur.
    • M. Tardieu.
    • M. Jules Cambon.
    • M. Clémentel.
    • M. Sergent.
    • M. Aubert.
    • General Le Rond.
    • General Belin.
    • M. Hermitte.
    • M. Massigli.
  • British Empire
    • Field Marshal Sir H. H. Wilson.
    • Mr. J. W. Headlam-Morley.
    • Colonel Peel.
    • Mr. Nicolson.
    • Mr. Hutchinson.
    • Colonel Henniker.
  • Italy
    • Count Vannutelli-Rey.
    • M. Russo.
    • M. Brofferio.
    • General Cavallero.
    • Lt-Colonel Toni.

1. After an exchange of views between M. Clemenceau and M. Tittoni, regarding the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Fiume Incidents (Appendix “A”),

Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Incidents at Fiume It was agreed to accept the conclusions of the Commission’s Report. The French and Italian Governments undertook to give effect to these recommendations.

2. M. Clemenceau said that he had heard from General Graziani, who had been the last of the Generals to reach Budapest, that his colleagues had already decided that the Chairmanship of the Meetings should be held by each in turn. He had accepted provisionally, but asked for orders, as he was the senior officer. M. Clemenceau thought that for purposes of continuity, it was better to have one Chairman. He would not insist, however. Chairmanship of Interallied Military Mission at Budapest

M. Tittoni thought that it was best to let the Generals settle this question among themselves.

Mr. Balfour said that, although alternating chairmanship was a bad system, it was, perhaps, the best way of avoiding friction.

Mr. Polk said that in General Bandholtz’ view, rotation was necessary.

(It was agreed that M. Clemenceau should inform General Graziani that the Council saw no objection to the maintenance of the system of rotation in the chairmanship of the Inter-Allied Military Mission at Budapest.)

3. Situation in Hungary Mr. Polk said that he was informed by General Bandholtz that General Graziani had sent a report to the effect that, in the opinion of the Allied Generals, it was necessary to break off relations with the Roumanian. He begged to communicate the following telegram to the Council:—

“Budapest—August 24, 1919.
Received 1:20 a.m. August 25.

Ammission. Paris.

“The following instances of Roumanian requisitions and seizures are given for your information. August 17, all the typewriters of the Underwood Agency about 20 were seized. August 18—30 car-loads of wool, the property of the Hungarian Wool Trust, were shipped [out] of Budapest. August 18—the Hungarian Minister Hygiene reported the seizure of all their supplies by Roumanian officials. August 21—there was seized car-loads of coal which belong to the Municipal Water Plant of Budapest. August 21—there was seized 110 race horses at the Alge Farm. These were the property of private individuals. August 22—all the machinery of the Hungarian State shops was dismantled, resulting in six thousand men being out of work. August 22—a demand was made on the Minister of Agriculture for topographical charts, instruments, etc, stating that if they were not delivered, same would be taken by force of arms. August 22—the Minister of Foreign Affairs reported that the Roumanians had requisitioned all of the valuable breeding animals on the three Hungarian State stud farms. On August 23—50 per cent of all the material of the Ganz Danubius Company, Limited, a large building concern, was taken, throwing out of employment over 4,300 persons. August 22—there was being loaded the remaining half of these supplies of the Ministry of Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones, the other half having been previously taken about August 10. On August 22 mechanics were being sent around to remove 4,000 telephones from private houses.

“All of the foregoing occurred subsequent to the promise of the Roumanians that they would comply with instructions of the Inter-Allied Mission. Many delicate instruments were thrown into boxes and other receptacles in such a careless manner that they could never be of use to anybody. Many other similar instances occurred during the period indicated. As near as can be now estimated, the Roumanians have seized about 60% of all Hungarian locomotives in good condition, 95% of all passenger equipment and about 5,000 freight cars.

Bandholtz.”

Mr. Polk added that he had received another communication from General Bandholtz. He said that in his view the time of the Mission had been wasted, and that nothing was to be gained by any further intercourse with the Roumanian authorities. The latter maintained their policy of procrastination and had repeatedly broken their promises. The Roumanians, in his opinion, were making the Council appear ridiculous.

Mr. Balfour said that he had received a telegram to the effect that the Roumanian plenipotentiaries had brought the Generals in Budapest a note from their Government, stating that they were ready to act in friendly agreement and in accord with the instructions sent by the Council on the 5th August,¹ but not without certain modifications. The security of Roumania and her economic needs were considerations which must modify the instructions. The Roumanian Government meant to move all war material into Roumania on the ground that there would be no force able to compel Hungary to give it up when the Roumanian Army was withdrawn. In addition, Roumania would have to requisition all that her Army required, and 30% besides for her own population. She must also take away the rolling stock, as Germany had only left her sixty engines out of twelve hundred. They also declared that they had a right to take any goods recognised as previously belonging to the Roumanian Government; these goods not counting as a portion of the spoil to be divided among the Allies.

M. Diamandy, questioned as to his attitude, should the Commission refuse to discuss these conditions, had replied that he would be forced to refer to M. Bratiano. Every means of procuring delay was being employed, and in the meantime the despoiling of Hungary continued.

M. Tittoni said that one thing he could not understand was why the Mission did not make a corporate report to the Conference.

M. Pichon said that one such report had just been received. (See Appendix B.)

M. Loucheur pointed out that what was practically an ultimatum had been sent to the Roumanian Government on the previous Saturday. He suggested that an answer be awaited before any further decision was taken.

Mr. Polk said that for the last fortnight the Council had been sending telegrams to Roumania. No attention had been paid to those telegrams. It was intolerable that the Council should be flouted in this way by the Roumanians.

M. Tittoni said that what the Council required was an answer from Bukarest. It could not be satisfied with answers given by Roumanian Generals. Should the Roumanian Government delay its reply, the Allied representatives in Bukarest should demand an explanation.

Mr. Balfour asked whether the Council could take any steps short of belligerency to signify their displeasure, should the Roumanian Government unduly delay its reply.

Mr. Polk said that at a previous meeting, it had been decided to stop the sending of all supplies to Roumania. He noticed in the minutes that the decision was limited to “war supplies”.

Mr. Balfour said that in referring to the British Government, he had mentioned all supplies.

M. Clemenceau said that he had done likewise, and that the export of all supplies from France had already been stopped.

(It was agreed, with reference to H.D. 37, Minute I,² that the export of all supplies to Roumania should be stopped from the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, until further orders. It was further decided to send the Roumanian Government, through the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bukarest, a reminder that a reply to telegrams was expected. (See Appendix C.)

4. M. Clemenceau said that he had received information that the British and American Armies on the Rhine were selling horses and cars to the Germans. (See Appendix D.)Sale of Horses and Motors to the Germany by the American and British Troops of Occupation

Mr. Balfour said that he had at once spoken about this matter to Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, who had tries to telephone to Cologne for news. The occupation telephone, however, was not working. As soon as he obtained news, the Council would be informed.

Mr. Polk said he had no information whatever but that he undertook to obtain it.

(It was agreed that the British and American Delegations should give the Council any information available regarding the alleged sales to the Germans by the Armies of Occupation.)

5. Notification to the Ottoman Government by United States High Commissioner Regarding American Massacres M. Clemenceau drew attention to a report stating that Admiral Bristol, the American High Commissioner in Constantinople, had presented a threatening memorandum to the Grand Notification to the Vizier, without previous consultation of the Allied High Commissioners. (See Appendix E.) He did not think that President Wilson would approve of this policy. He drew special attention to the twelfth of the Fourteen Points:

“The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured, an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees”.

All the Allies had adhered to this and the policy could not now be changed. Least of all could one High Commissioner dictate terms to Turkey, with whom his State had not been at war, without consultation with the Associated Powers. As to saving the Armenians, he did not know what could be done. There were no American troops. British troops were employed elsewhere. The French were not allowed by the British to play any part in Asia Minor. The Italians, it was true, had gone to Asia Minor in spite of the British, but they declined to replace the British in the Caucasus. As to the Turks, they were themselves powerless, as they could not control their own troops. He did not see from what quarter the Armenians could expect any assistance.

M. Tittoni said that this was one of the inevitable consequences of delaying Peace with Turkey.

M. Clemenceau said that even when Peace had been made, it was not likely that the Armenians would be better off.

Mr. Balfour said that this situation was really the consequence of a lack of troops. He understood that the United States were raising a volunteer army. If so, perhaps some of these troops could be employed in Armenia.

Mr. Polk said that recruiting for the volunteer army was beginning.

Mr. Balfour asked M. Clemenceau whether, but for British opposition, he would send French troops to prevent the massacres in Armenia.

M. Clemenceau said that he would consider the matter.

Mr. Balfour said that he took note of this declaration.

M. Clemenceau said that he made no undertaking. The French had very few troops in Cilicia, but he would enquire whether they could do anything to save the Armenians. What he had meant to convey was that nothing could be expected from the Americans, who were hampered by their constitution, from the British, who were leaving the Caucasus, from the Italians, who would not go there, or from the French who were not allowed a free hand. The Turks, not being masters in their own house, were equally impotent. The Armenians were therefore no-one’s responsibility.

Mr. Balfour asked M. Clemenceau whether he thought it worth while to ask the French Military Authorities whether they could do anything.

M. Clemenceau said he had not come to the Meeting with this idea. As he was pushed, however, he would consent to be pushed. He would make enquiries. Possibly the French Army might be able to do something.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought it would be well worth while to find out.

(It was agreed that the French Government should enquire into the possibility of sending military protection to the Armenians.

It was also agreed that no pressure should be brought on the Sultan by any of the Allied and Associated Powers, acting alone.)

6. M. Cambon explained the procedure followed by his Committee. He proposed to begin by explaining the covering letter.

Reply to the Austrian Delegation on the Treaty of Peace M. Clemenceau suggested that as the covering letter was a result of the various answers on particular questions, it had better be reserved for the end.

(a) Frontiers M. Cambon said that the first question to be discussed was that of frontiers. (The covering letter, the various draft replies, and the minority reservations are all contained in Appendix “F”.)

On the subject of frontiers, the Austrian objections had been rejected. The only dissentients were the British and American Delegates, who desired to give Gmünd to Austria.

Mr. Headlam-Morley said that the question was a simple one. The principle of the historic frontier had been adopted for Czechoslovakia. By it, the inclusion of a considerable number of Germans in the new State was justified. It was undesirable to deviate from this principle in order to add still more Germans to Czecho-Slovakia. The attribution of Gmünd to Czecho-Slovakia constituted a derogation from the principle of the historic frontier, and still further aggravated the ethnological anomaly. It was justified on grounds of railway communication. He had consulted General Mance, who told him that, on purely technical grounds, it was better to leave Gmünd in Austria. If this was so, there was no sufficient reason for taking Gmünd out of its natural surroundings. He understood that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had never been consulted.

M. Tardieu said that the question had been studied carefully before, both in Commissions, and in Council. The Czecho-Slovak Delegation had also been heard on the subject. A change now would amount to a third alteration in the decisions of the Council.³ It was true that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways had not been consulted, but territorial committees had never consulted that body as such. Each representative consulted his own experts. The case had therefore been judged and re-judged, and the opinion now brought forward by Mr. Headlam-Morley was merely that of an individual expert.

Mr. Balfour said he recognised that it was a pity to re-open questions which had been settled. Nevertheless, the argument on the merits in this case was very strong. The rule of following the historic frontier was being broken to hand over a purely German population to Czecho-Slovakia. There were already too many Germans in Czecho-Slovakia, even if the historic line were followed. The two or three million Germans already included would certainly be a great perplexity to a new State. Nevertheless, the whole history of Bohemia afforded some justification for preserving the country as a unit. The district of Gmünd had never been Bohemian. The only ground for putting Gmünd within Czecho-Slovakia was economic. He was told that Gmünd was the first big railway junction out of Vienna. The population was incontestably German, and the British railway expert thought that the junction was better in Austria than in Czecho-Slovakia, on purely technical grounds. M, Tardieu had said nothing on the merits except that the Council had twice decided to give Gmünd to the Czechs. If the Council was never to revise its decisions, its task would doubtless be rendered easier. It did not follow, however, that its results would be better.

M. Tardieu said that he had not only referred to the decision of the Council; he had pointed out that there had been an agreement with the Czecho-Slovak Delegation itself. The attribution of the junction of Gmünd to Czecho-Slovakia had been part of a general arrangement which extended to Pressburg and other places. If this arrangement were changed at the last moment, the Czecho-Slovak Delegation would have reason to complain of bad faith. All the previous decisions had been unanimous. It was therefore a political reason, and, in addition, two essential Bohemian railway lines converged at this point.

Mr. Polk said that Mr. Lansing and the American experts had felt at the beginning that Gmünd should be Austrian. Nevertheless, in order to obtain agreement, they had yielded to the majority opinion. They still thought, however, that the rule established in favour of the historic frontier should not be broken. For this reason he supported the British view.

M. Tittoni said that there appeared to be good arguments on both sides. He was ready to accept either solution.

M. Matsui said that the Japanese adhered to the former decision of the Council, and wished to maintain it.

(After a long discussion, Mr. Balfour and Mr. Polk, seeing that Gmünd had been attributed to Czecho-Slovakia as part of a compromise, the other parts of which were not called in question, withdrew the objection raised by the British and the American Delegates.

The answer prepared to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the frontier between Austria and Czecho-Slovakia was accepted.)

M. Cambon pointed out that there was a difference of opinion on the subject of Styria. The American, British, Italian and Japanese Delegations thought that the Austrian demand for a plebiscite in the region of Marburg should be accepted. The French Delegation was not of this opinion. It was recognised that Marburg was German, but the surrounding districts were undoubtedly Slovene.

M. Tittoni said that as the neighbouring region was to have a plebiscite, it was easy to extend it to Marburg.

M. Clemenceau said he thought it would be difficult to refuse the plebiscite.

M. Tardieu said he had no prejudice against plebiscites, but in this case he thought it was unnecessary. Marburg was certainly German, but in a region peopled by Slovenes. The result of a plebiscite was a foregone conclusion, Marburg would vote German and the country round it would vote Slovene. What could then be done? Was the town to be sacrificed to the country or the country to the town? No frontier line could be obtained as a result of the plebiscite. In Carinthia, on the other hand, a frontier might be obtained. There would therefore be quite needless trouble without any useful result.

(After considerable further discussion, it was decided to accept the Austrian demands and to extend the plebiscite zone in such a manner as to include in it the district of Marburg and Radkersburg.)

M. Cambon observed that the British and Italian Delegations held a minority view on the subject of the plebiscite zones in Carinthia, They proposed four instead of two plebiscite zones.

(After some discussion, the British and Italian reservations were withdrawn and the reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of Carinthia was accepted.

The reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the frontier between Austria and Hungary and on the frontier between Austria and Italy was likewise accepted.)

(b) Nationality Questions The reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of nationality questions was accepted.

(c) Austrian Interests Outside of Europe The question was adjourned.

(d) Military Naval and Air Clauses The British Delegation withdrew its objections, and the reply prepared to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses was accepted.

(e) Prisoners of War The reply drafted to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of prisoners of war was accepted.

(f) Penalties M. Cambon pointed out that there were two draft replies on this subject, one prepared by the Commission and the other suggested by the British and Japanese Delegation.

Mr. Headlam-Morley observed that on the substance, he was in agreement with the majority. He wished to defend the Treaty but he thought that the draft he proposed defended it more accurately. There was a very technical legal point involved.

(It was decided to refer both drafts to the Drafting Committee for co-ordination.)

(g) Reparations The draft reply to the Austrian Delegation on the subject of reparations was accepted.

(h) Financial Clauses After long discussion, the proposed reply to the Austrian Delegation on the financial clauses was accepted, with the exception of the alternative proposal of the American, British and Japanese Delegation regarding Article 199 which was adjourned until the following day.

7. The agreement annexed in Appendix G was accepted.⁴ Agreement Between the Allies Regarding the Contribution of Poland, Roumania, Jugo-Slavia and Czecho-Slovakia to the Cost of Liberation of the Territories of the Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

8. The agreement annexed in Appendix H was accepted.⁵ Agreement Between the Allies Regarding Italian Contribution Towards Cost of Liberating Territories of Former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy

9. Declaration by Austria That All Action Tending To Overthrow of the Austrian State as Constituted by the Treaty Would Be Prohibited M. Tardieu proposed that a Committee be charged with the examination of a proposal which had been drafted in the following terms:—

“Austria undertakes not to tolerate on her territory any act whether of propaganda or of any other sort by Austrian subjects or by foreign subjects with a purpose subversive of Austria as an independent State. Acts of this character should be regarded as directed against the security of the State and treated as such. The Austrian Government should interpret on its part this enactment as an undertaking not to compromise or allow to be compromised, directly or indirectly, the independence of the State, particularly in the legislative sphere, by preparatory measures, and in the sphere of public or private instruction by propaganda. No law or regulation or official action of any sort shall conflict with these stipulations. In case there should be any divergence of interpretation between the Austrian Government and one, or several, of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the discrepancy will be referred either to the Council of the League of Nations or, when instituted, brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice. These Bodies will also pass decrees regarding measures desirable to ensure the carrying into effect of their findings and to prevent the recurrence of similar difficulties.”

M. Tittoni said that this was a very serious proposal. It attempted to regulate the internal Constitution of Austria for all time, not on a special point, but through the whole of its extent.

Mr. Balfour said that he hoped the Council would be very careful before putting into the Treaty, or into a letter having the force of a Treaty, any form of words which would compel the Allied and Associated Powers to impose domestic legislation on Austria, and to maintain police authority over private, as well as public, speech. He thought the proposal was really very repugnant to all that constituted an independent state. He believed, moreover, that if agreed to, it would remain ineffective. The only way to prevent Austria from gravitating towards Germany was to make terms such that she would be content to live apart. Any attempt to prevent an Austrian from saying that he wished to join Germany would, he thought, cover both the Council and the League of Nations with ridicule.

M. Tardieu said that he was impressed by Mr. Balfour’s criticisms regarding the methods suggested. He thought that perhaps the first sentence alone would suffice. The suggestion was a corollary to what had been put into the German Treaty.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought that the omission of the bulk of the document would be an improvement. He observed that the corollary to the provisions of the German Treaty would be to forbid the Austrian Government to do certain things. This might be done without incurring the objections he had previously stated.

M. Tardieu said that the Austrians were already saying that they had no hope of living apart unless the League of Nations took special care of them. The Council was trying to give the Austrians conditions which might make it possible for them to live independently. What he now suggested was a counterpart to those favours. He believed that Dr. Renner would readily agree, seeing that Herr Bauer had resigned because he could not convert the Government to the contrary view. It would be enough, he thought, if the mere principle were agreed to.

Mr. Polk asked whether M. Tardieu suggested that this should be said in the Treaty.

M. Tardieu said he thought it would be sufficient if agreed to in the covering letter sent with the replies.

Mr. Polk thought this was preferable.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought this proposal had better be put into a new form, and suggested that M. Tardieu should propose one.

M. Tardieu said that he would do so; what he suggested was to say in the covering letter that the Allies were confident that the Austrian Government meant to do what the Allies hoped would be done, and he believed that the Austrian Delegation would give a satisfactory answer.

(It was decided that a sentence to the effect desired should be introduced in the covering letter, and considered on the following day.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 25 August, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–38⁶

Report of the Commission of Enquiry Into the Fiume Incidents

The work of the Commission instructed by the Supreme Council to make an enquiry into the events which took place, at Fiume in the first days of July are summed up in the 20 procès-verbaux annexed to the present report (81 annexed documents).⁷

A. The Causes

1. The armistice which marked the end of the hostilities between Austria-Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers of the Entente was signed at Villa Giusti on November 4 [3], 1918.⁸ The conditions had already been studied and fixed at Versailles by the Supreme War Council.

The conditions authorized the occupation of the strategic points judged necessary beyond the line of demarcation that had been established, and prescribed that the local governments which were found already in power in the territories occupied by the Allied forces should continue to exercise their power during the occupation.

2. On November 17, 1918, by virtue of paragraph 4 of the armistice convention signed by General Diaz with the commander in chief of the Austro-Hungarian Armies, the Italian Army entered Fiume, which was considered by the Italian command as a strategic point, and which had previously been occupied, then evacuated, by a Serb battalion of the Interallied Army of the East. Considerable forces (13,000 men still officially present on July 15, in spite of the reduction of effectives resulting from the demobilization) occupied the city and its environs within a radius of 6 or 8 kilometers. French, English and American detachments completed the corps of occupation, which thus became Interallied, under the command of General Grazioli of the Italian Army. (The American battalion left the city in the first days of February, 1919.)

3. While the Italian occupation was being accomplished, the commander of the Interallied Army of the East, thinking it necessary to establish at Fiume a basis for the supply of its troops, gave the order to occupy it.

It is to be noted here:

(a) that no line of demarcation had been fixed at Versailles to separate, in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the territories which might be occupied for strategic reasons by the Army of Italy, from those which might be occupied by the Army of the East;

(b) that the order to occupy Fiume with French and Serb troops, given by the commander of the Armies of the East, engaged only the responsibility of the general that had given it, and not that of the Supreme War Council at Versailles, who were not cognizant of the question.

This was the first cause of the conflicts. The Italian commander at Fiume alleged his right, which was incontestable and based on an international convention. The French commander at Fiume could allege only the orders of his general. The difficulties encountered by the French in establishing their base and the irritation in the relations with the Italian command in lodging their troops there, have no other cause.

It was then that the question was referred by the Governments concerned to Marshal Foch, who proposed to the Supreme War Council that the occupation of Fiume should be Italian, but that a French base should be established there for the supply of the Army of East, as well as Franco-Serb detachment for the service of this base. The Interallied troops of Italy were to depend on the Italian Army, those of the French base on the Army of the East. In case of conflict, the two commanders in chief were to inform their respective Governments through the intermediary of Marshal Foch. These propositions were approved by the protocol of London.

4. The coexistence of Italian troops and of the French base at Fiume was thus established de jure, and the disagreements between the two commands virtually ceased in fact, but new causes for conflict were not long in arising, among which were the following:

a) The fact of the respective dependence of the Italian and French troops of two different commands acting independently of each other led to conflicts of jurisdiction which left ill feeling.

b) The constitution of a French base within the lines of the Interallied army of Italy—a base which, in the opinion of the population and the Italian troops, was supplying the Jugoslavs, among whom were the Slovenes and Croats who had fought against Italy to the last day and whom Italy will consider as enemies until peace is signed—led to a situation which profoundly irritated the Italians.

c) The commander and certain officers of the French base were never willing to recognize the Italian National Council which governs at Fiume as a government de facto, if not de jure.

It must be added that, in the mixed population of Fiume, there had always been conflicts between the Italians and the Croats, and that the city enjoyed under the Hungarian Government a large autonomy founded on ancient privileges which in general left the administration to the Italians.

d) The nomination of an Italian National Council named without regular elections to replace the Council which had seized, under the presidency of Dr. Lanaz, the administration of the city after the departure of the Hungarian authorities, in the name of the Jugoslav National Council of Zagreb, likewise nominated without elections.

This Italian National Council, whose legitimacy the Croats rightly protested, overstepped its rights by proclaiming annexation to the Kingdom of Italy.

Sustained by the Italian command, it very rapidly took a number of-measures destined to place the Allied Governments in the presence of a fait accompli which they would have merely to sanction.

In particular, the streets and the squares of the city had their names changed and received Italian names; justice was dispensed in the name of the King of Italy, and the oath was required of the lawyers.

e) The French did not conceal their sympathy for the Jugoslav element; the Italian command, on its side, openly supported the Italian element and its support went so far as to tolerate the constitution of such societies as “Giovine Fiume” (Young Fiume) and “Giovine Italia” (Young Italy) and the formation of a Fiume battalion, which proposed to carry out the annexation, even if it had to use violence. The lax censorship allowed the press to publish articles stirring up revolt and a too indulgent police gave the professional agitators a feeling of immunity.

f) This situation, already very difficult in itself, became more acute still after the Peace of Versailles, when the recognition of Jugoslavia by the Allies of Italy became an accomplished fact and when it was understood that the aspirations of this power over Fiume and a part of Dalmatia had not received satisfaction. The exasperation of Italian public opinion, directed especially against France, brought about the fall of the ministry in Italy and gave rise to a violent press campaign which had its effect in Fiume and which contributed indirectly to the painful events which led to the investigation.

g) Some unimportant acts of the French soldiers, who under the existing circumstances did doubtless offend the Italian population, may also be included among the immediate and occasional causes of the local hostility to the French troops.

h) The Third Italian Army itseli also distributed anti-Allied propaganda in the form of bulletins distributed among the troops.

i) The very great preponderance of the Italian troops in the city of Fiume over the troops of the other Allies encouraged the population in its attitude toward the French and the Jugoslavs in the city of Fiume.

j) A considerable display of posters also contributed to excite Italian sentiment.

k)

k) On April 25, the manifesto of President Wilson relative to the fate of Fiume⁹ caused a great excitement in the city. A manifestation of several thousand persons took place before the palace of the Governor. The general commanding the corps of occupation, in a speech, declared himself openly in favor of annexation to Italy and recommended calm.

l) On June 17 the General commanding the corps of occupation requested the general commanding the French troops to take the Serbs out of the city; the French general refused.

B. The Facts

5. June 29. A group of French soldiers, cheered up by a good meal at the barracks in celebration of the peace, came from the suburb of Susak into the city accompanied by a bugler. The soldiers were rather gay; they were singing and interlarding their songs with cries, among others: “Vive la France”, “Vive la Yougo-Slavie” and “A bas l’Italie”. This last cry is disputed. That of “Vive la Yougo-Slavie” was considered as a provocation, which was all the more resented by the Italians of Fiume that day when they were greatly excited by the nature of the peace that had just been signed. Happily the affair stopped there, but it contributed to create in the crowd the state of feeling which provoked the incidents of the following days.

6. July 2 Two intoxicated French soldiers, coming from Susak, met two girls wearing the Italian cockade on their breasts; one of them tore off one of the cockades; some Italian grenadiers beat them and, with some other people, took them back to the barracks, where the French commander gave them the maximum of imprisonment. In the meanwhile, the news spread like wildfire through the city and all the French who were walking unarmed in groups or alone were violently attacked by a howling mob armed with clubs, in which Italian civilians and soldiers were mingled in a proportion which it has been impossible to determine, as the testimony is contradictory. The alarm was sounded to recall the Italian soldiers to their barracks, while armed pickets and patrols sought to clear the streets, to establish barrages to protect the French barracks and to protect the French by getting them into shelters. They succeeded thus in saving them, but were unable to prevent 9 French officers and 41 soldiers from being wounded, one of them seriously so. The Italian soldiers are reproached with having feebly defended the French, which they were to protect, and even having struck them themselves; some witnesses affirm this, others deny it; it is proved however that this happened in a number of cases and in particular to a French officer and an adjutant whose testimonies leave no doubt.

While these events were going on, a mob of civilians broke into the Croat Club. They broke the mirrors and threw out of the windows some furniture which the crowd broke to pieces. Finally the Italian soldiers went in and put the mob out, but arrested no one.

The attack on the Croat Club was not premeditated and it is all the more surprising since during the occupation there had been no conflict between the Italian and Croat civilians of Fiume and since the Italian soldiers are on the best of terms with the Croats of Susak. This attack, therefore, can be explained only by the excitement of the mob resulting from the causes above mentioned. Order was badly maintained, and the absence of arrests is not explained.

7. July 5. A group of six French soldiers were quarreling with some civilians; a Frenchman fired a revolver, then another fired. An Italian officer ran up and in his turn fired a shot at them. A French soldier was struck. The French fled in the direction of their barracks. A crowd, which gathered, grew rapidly and pursued them. During the flight three of them took shelter in an Italian barracks, one disappeared and the other two reached their barracks and gave the call to arms. Rifles and machine guns were fired from the barracks. The Italian officer proceeded across the square which remained empty and parleyed with the French soldiers, who promised to cease firing if the mob went away. They kept their word and ceased firing; an Italian armed picket pushed back the mob, which had taken shelter, and established a barrage, and order was restored. During the pursuit a grenade thrown by a civilian exploded and wounded two Frenchmen; some shots were fired from a house opposite the barracks and from No. 3 rue Parini, where a civilian of Croat nationality was arrested. A few minutes later the mob found a French patrol from the “Sakalave”, surrounded it and insulted it without reason; two armed Italian pickets got the patrol between them and conducted it back to its boat but could not protect it from stones thrown by the mob which was being kept at a distance. A cordon of Italian sailors was formed on the wharf for the protection of the “Sakalave”, which was moored there.

It was a Frenchman who fired first, and what followed was the consequence of this, in view of the state of mind of the crowd which was becoming more and more excited. The shots from the barracks occupied by the French soldiers were justified; the French soldiers who were greatly excited themselves and who, believing themselves to be attacked, had a right to defend themselves. The police service was no more satisfactory than on previous occasions, and, as usual, no arrests were made. They might at least have arrested the ones that were insulting the patrol of the “Sakalave”, seeing that the Carabinieri were there. For the first time the mob threw a grenade and somebody fired from a window.

8. July 6. On this day, which was Sunday, three armed French soldiers were coming from Susak, where they had bought some cigarettes and had drunk wine and vermouth; they were crossing the center of the city, contrary to the orders of their chiefs. They were not molested and they molested no one. An Italian patrol and a crowd followed them. Several times shots had been fired in the city. On the quay one of the soldiers left his comrades and joined his post without being molested. The other two reached the top of the Palazzo Adria; one of them turned and fired in the direction of the crowd. The Italian patrol following them hid behind the customs house and fired a few shots at the Frenchmen. No one was struck and the two Frenchmen ran, pursued by the crowd, in which there were quite a number of Italian soldiers; one of them was stopped and disarmed by a civilian, who received a bayonet thrust in the leg; the other was mortally wounded by a revolver shot, it is not known exactly by whom. Several revolver shots were fired by the crowd, in which there were also Italian officers, who, according to the statements of witnesses, were seen to fire. One of them, who was identified, testified; he acknowledged that he fired four times at the soldier at a distance of forty paces; but he added that he had missed him, not having seen him fall.

The participation of some Italian officers in this unequal combat, who should have defended this soldier, is established. Once more to be noted is the absolute inadequacy of the measures taken for the maintenance of public order and the absence of arrests.

This incident was scarcely ended when the crowd started, no one knows why, for the French depots of Porto Barros. There had never been any trouble in this vicinity, neither provocations nor quarrels; a small garrison of 27 men, partly Annamite soldiers and partly French administrative personnel, were guarding these depots and were cantoned there. Two revolver shots were fired from the mob, fired by civilians at the Annamite sentinel, who fired back. Revolver shots were fired from the windows of houses which faced the Christopher Columbus Quay and Marco Polo Street; other revolver and rifle shots came from across the basin of the inner port, coming from an unknown direction, leaving some marks on the Italian cruisers in the harbor. Just as this fire ceased three companies of Italian sailors, armed and officered, were landed. The company of the “Emmanuele Filiberto” went to the quay where the French destroyers were moored and formed a cordon for their protection; the company from the “Dante” went to the Piazza Dante with orders to keep the people moving and to prevent any assembly gathering. Neither company was attacked and both succeeded in carrying out their orders without hindrance. The third, the company of the “San Marco” received from Commander Acton the definite order to place itself between the mob and the French depots of the base in order to protect them without the use of arms. The company advanced in columns of four and as soon as it passed the drawbridge it heard shots whistle by. It took combat formation. First it deployed and fired a salvo; following this it proceeded to divide into three columns which surrounded the depots and searched them, killing or wounding the few Frenchmen and Annamites who had taken refuge inside. Survivors were taken on board the “Emmanuele Filiberto”, where the wounded were Cared for. During the short fight, about twenty rifle shots were fired by the French and Annamites, as far as can be judged by the number of cartridge shells found; almost two hundred were fired by the Italian sailors according to the statement of their officers. One French and one Italian civilian were killed near an Italian fishing boat moored at the wharf by revolver shots fired from the crowd of civilians; two Annamites were killed inside the post by the Italian sailors; two others were killed although they were unarmed and had already surrendered, one by a stab in the back and the other by a blow on the head with the butt of a rifle; two grenades were thrown by the mob, one falling into the water and the other exploding, killing an Annamite and wounding an Italian sailor. The mob and the Italian sailors committed barbarous acts, which are verified by numerous witnesses.

It is incomprehensible how such an incident could have taken place and how a few shots fired by a post that thought itself threatened by the mob could have caused the officers of the “San Marco” to lose their heads to the extent of attacking the very post that they were to have defended, and to attack it with a hundred men using arms when they knew that the garrison was very small and that it had not the the least idea of defending itself, since the sentinel surrendered with four other men at the first summons. It would have been so easy to come to an understanding; bloodshed would have been spared and the civilians, who might have been and who should have been kept at a distance, would not have been able to penetrate within the boundaries of the Porto Barros, where they killed three men with revolver shots and grenades. It is possible that these officers and sailors, who had never fought on land, did not judge the situation with reality, but in accordance with the erroneous suggestions of their over excited imaginations.

They raided several houses, without any result except the arrest of a French officer who had done nothing but watch events out of a window, and of a Croat, a hotel waiter at Susak.

The absence of all penalties is still more incomprehensible than on the previous occasions.

The total French losses on July 6 were 9 killed and 11 wounded, while the Italians had three sailors slightly wounded.

C. Responsibility

9. There is no doubt that the responsibility for the tension in the relations between the Italians of the Kingdom and of Fiume on the one hand and the French on the other is due, not to individuals, but to facts that belong henceforth to history. These are: the recognition of Jugoslavia by the Allies, except Italy; the Peace of Versailles, in which the settlement of all the questions relative to Italy was postponed to an indefinite date; the belief of the Italian nation in a Slavophile and Hellenophile policy on the part of France which, according to this belief, is tending to reconstruct, under the form of a Danubian confederation, its old enemy Austria-Hungary, to bar Italy from the East.

10. This situation de facto, which no one could change and which should have been accepted by all, was none the less of a very delicate nature, especially at Fiume where the interests concerned were in immediate contact and where, consequently, a shock was due to take place at any moment. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that all the authorities who, for any reason whatever, were exercising jurisdiction at Fiume should endeavor, in perfect accord with each other, to remain above the passions exciting the city and to maintain a perfect balance between the parties, trying not to dissatisfy any, since it was impossible to satisfy all. Now this is precisely the opposite of what happened.

11. The Italian National Council, the political authority de facto, though disputably de jure, overstepped its rights in proclaiming the annexation to the Kingdom of Italy, as if there did not exist at Paris any Peace Conference to decide these great questions. It then took irritating measures against the Croats who would not recognize it, and tolerated the existence of clubs of young men who were working for the annexation, proclaiming that they would not hesitate to have recourse to violence, if necessary, to obtain it.

12. The Croat National Council at Susak, which no longer had authority, either de jure or de facto, since the administration was in the hands of a district captain, directly under Zagreb, continued nevertheless to exist in order to issue Croat propaganda.

13. The Italian military authority, in place of confining itself to its military functions devolving upon it by reasons purely strategic, for which it had taken up the occupation of Fiume, openly supported the Italian National Council in its machinations and, in spite of the forces at its disposal, avoided taking measures against the Italian elements of the city, even the most turbulent, and while rigorously censoring the Croat newspapers, allowed the publication of dangerous articles in the Italian journals.

14. The French command and officers were criticised on account of their Jugo-Slav sympathies, either because the Italians refused to associate with them or because the French preferred to go with the Jugo-Slavs. There resulted in the mind of the Italians the belief that the French were with the Jugo-Slavs, against the Italian aspirations, which developed a profound local grudge.

15. Therefore, there is no doubt that the general responsibility of what has just happened belongs to all these authorities, less on account of their functions than because of the manner in which they understood and exercised them.

16. The responsibility for slackness in the police service and the total lack of punishments belongs to the Italian command.

D. Proposals

17. Taking into consideration the above, the best means to reestablish order and prevent the renewal of troubles, would be to decide as soon as possible the fate of Fiume, to put an end to that period of waiting which encourages the subversive elements to act in order to obtain the solution they desire.

In the meantime the following measures might be taken:

1. Replace the Italian National Council of Fiume by a government, elected under the control of an Interallied military commission which would guarantee its impartiality.

2. Create an Interallied military commission charged with the supervision and civil administration of the “Corpus separatum” of Fiume and Susak. This commission would be composed of one representative for the United States of America, France, Great Britain, and Italy. It would also control the elections mentioned in the paragraph above. The chairman should be the American or the British representative.

3. a) Change the personnel of the Italian command, and the troops which took part in the recent troubles. Notify the new command that its action must be exclusively military and must not intervene in the civil administration.

b) The Italian troops of occupation east of the armistice line should be reduced to one infantry brigade and one squadron of cavalry, only one battalion of this brigade to be quartered in Fiume-Susak. The commanding general of that brigade could reside in Fiume where he would exercise the tactical command of the Interallied forces. No power should have more than one battalion stationed in the city, the military police included.

4. a) Believe the whole battalion of French Colonial Infantry;

b) Change the personnel of the French base;

c) By reason of the hostility of the Fiume population regarding this base, it is desirable that it should be suppressed as soon as possible.

5. A maximum of two warships per nation should be present at the same time in the harbor, excluding the French and Italian warships with their personnel, which have been in Fiume at any time since the armistice.

6. Until such time as a local military police is formed, create, for the maintenance of order, a police corps, either English or American, one battalion strong, directly under the Interallied military commission provided for in paragraph 2. The chairman of that commission could apply for reinforcements, in case of need, to the commander of the Interallied Corps of Occupation and to the commanders of the Interallied warships.

7. Immediate suppression of the Fiume battalion.

8. Judicial inquiry:

a) Into the death of the French soldier Penuisic;

b) Into the acts charged against:

• The superior officer commanding the leading companies;
• The commander of the landing company which attacked the post of Porto Barros;
• The officer who broke into the apartment of a French officer without orders in order to arrest him.
• The commander of the Italian carabiniers.

9. Reparations of a moral and material nature due to France for the death of her soldiers and the damage caused to the depots of the base should be regulated, according to diplomatic usages, by a direct agreement between the Governments concerned.

10. Nothing to be neglected in order that the perfect entente and comradeship which have always existed outside of Fiume between the French and the Italian Armies, so worthy of each other, may be reestablished in the common interest and thus complete the great work for peace.

11. Immediate and effective action on the part of the Allies in view of furnishing Italy with all she needs to resume her industry and insure her prosperity. This would help a great deal to revive good feelings and would be, on the part of the Allies, a demonstration of their appreciation of Italy’s sacrifices for the common cause.

12. On account of the lack of food, the Commission recommends strongly that Serbia be invited to remove at once the prohibitions on the exportation of food stuffs consigned to Fiume and Dalmatia.

Fiume , August 9, 1919.

Appendix B to HD–38

[Translation¹⁰]

Budapest , August 23, 1919—9 a.m.¹¹

Telegram [From the Inter-Allied Military Mission in Hungary] to the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference, Paris

No. 181. From Prot[ocol]. Report of meeting afternoon of August 23. Commission communicated to Archduke telegram of August 23 from Supreme Council^11a together with letter in which he was given two hours’ time to make known his decision, informing him that if the decision was not in conformity with the intentions expressed by the Peace Conference, the Commission would be forced to give the document out for publication. At eight o’clock in the evening, President of the Hungarian Council Friedrich informed the Commission by letter that Archduke and present Government are resigning and ask to do everything that seems necessary to them. Commission for all useful purposes believed it well immediately to summon M. Friedrich and remind him that as the Commission had already advised what the Peace Conference believes necessary, it expects the present Government to carry on, as is customary, the despatch of current business until formation of the new government in which all parties are represented. M. Friedrich promised that he hopes to be able to present the list of the new cabinet within a few days.

Interallied Military Mission

Telegram to the Inter-Allied Supreme Council, Paris

Budapest , August 24—8:31 p.m.

Telegram 180 from Prot[ocol]. Report of morning session of August 23.

The Commission this morning heard M. Diamandy who, having received instructions from Bucharest, came to set forth the thesis of the Roumanian Government with respect to material. According to these statements, this thesis is to be sustained at the same time in Paris before the Supreme Council.

“Roumania sees its own locomotives and cars in the hands of the Hungarians, while it has none for its own needs.

“The material which the Hungarians took from it cannot be considered as a security belonging to the Allied Powers.

“Furthermore, Count Czernin enumerated before the whole Parliament what has been taken in Roumania. As compensation Roumania considers that it should demand not only what is strictly necessary for the needs of the occupation troops, but also 30% of all the articles in Hungary.

“What would happen if the Roumanians withdrew? What guarantees that the material left by them in Hungary would be restored to them? Who will protect Roumania against the use which could be made of them against it? The delay shown in seizing Hungarian material is to the Hungarian advantage and causes great damage to Roumania.

“It must not be forgotten that Roumania is also threatened on the Russian front.

“A little less rigidity in the Paris decision could facilitate an agreement which, otherwise, would be difficult.”

Without enumerating the other arguments presented by M. Diamandy, it is certain that the requisitioning and the shipments into Roumania are being continued.

The Commission will be able to supervise the shipments through commissions of officers, one of which will begin to function tomorrow at Szolnok where the railway bridge is to be rebuilt and the others within a short time at other points.

It is not within the power of the Commission to prevent requisitioning and it can only refer the matter to the Supreme Council. Up to this time, with regard to the Roumanians, the work of the Mission has been practically of no value.

Accordingly, this Mission is of the opinion that it would be useless to continue these conversations with the local Roumanian authorities who follow a policy of procrastination with the obvious intention of taking possession of anything of value which remains in Hungary and who have continually failed to keep their promises.

Interallied Military Mission

Appendix C to HD–38

[Translation¹²]

Paris , August 25, 1919.

Telegram From the Supreme Council of the Allies to the Roumanian Government

(Sent through the intermediary of the Chargé d’Affaires of France at Bucharest)

The reports of the Interallied Commission of Generals at Budapest establish that Roumanian military authorities are continuing to empty Hungary of its resources of all kinds, despite the assurances given both by the Roumanian Government and by its representatives in Paris.

The Peace Conference has received this information with the most painful surprise. It awaits with the greatest impatience the reply of the Roumanian Government to the telegram which the Supreme Council addressed to it on the 23rd instant,¹³ which definitively confirmed its views already expressed on several occasions, but it must hereupon warn the Roumanian Government that if the conduct of the Roumanian authorities in Hungary does not undergo a complete and immediate change, such attitude will entail the most serious consequences for Roumania.

G. Clemenceau

Appendix “D” to HD–38

August 23, 1919.

general staff of the army
2º bureau a

Sale of Material Belonging to British and American Troops

The newspapers of Cologne continue to publish for the British authorities, announcements of auction sales of automobiles, horses and mules belonging to the army. The Americans also circulate announcements: at Boppard they are proceeding to conduct sales of military material.

Annexed is the original and the translation of an announcement of the Koelnische Volkszeitung relative to an auction sale of horses and mules. Other similar announcements, relative to the sale of automobiles and trucks by the British, recently communicated to the General staff, have been destroyed.

“notice.
Upon the order of the British Army
Sales at auction of
250 surplus horses and mules
Mr. Carl Polhaus
will sell these animals at public auction
at Solingen.
Loup-Garou Sebastian-Schutzenplatz.
The sale will commence at 9 o’clock.

Payments will be made in cash. Checks will not be accepted. The animals will be delivered without halters; they can be taken away immediately after payment for same. Their transfer into the non-occupied zone is authorized.”

Appendix “E” to HD–8

August 23, 1919.

Telegram From the French High Commissioner at Constantinople on the Action of Admiral Bristol in Presenting a Telegram to the Turkish Government Before Consultation With the Inter-Allied High Commission

Translation

Admiral Bristol, recently appointed American High Commissioner to Constantinople, remitted a comminatory memorandum to the Grand Vizier on the 22nd instant without having advised the Allied High Commissioners.

The following is a résumé of the note:

“President Wilson notifies the Turkish Government that if immediate measures are not taken to prohibit all violences or massacres on the part of the Turks, Kurds, or other Mussulmans against the Armenians in the Caucasus or elsewhere, the President will withdraw Article 12 from the Peace Conditions¹⁴ (rules concerning the maintenance of Turkish sovereignty). This action would result in the complete dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. If the Turks desire to continue to exercise any sovereignty over any part of the Empire they must show that they not only have the intention, but the authority to prohibit their nationals from engaging in these atrocities: no excuse [of?] being powerless in the matter will be accepted from the Turks.”

The Grand Vizier communicated this memorandum to the English and French High Commissioners. He is very uneasy and declares that he has not been authorised to control the necessary forces to maintain order or to obtain the financial resources indispensable for the payment of his soldiers and functionaries; under these conditions he is completely at bay. He could not help remarking that America, a country which has not been at war with Turkey and did not sign the Armistice, gave this imperative notification separately and without participation on the part of the Allied Powers.

Appendix F to HD–38

[Translation¹⁵]

August 25, 1919.

coordinating committee
for the reply to austria

Note for the Supreme Council

At its session of August 19,¹⁶ the Supreme Council, wishing to reserve to itself the examination of the drafts of the reply to the Austrian note from the point of view of substance, decided that the functions of the Coordinating Committee should be limited to changes in form.

However, the Supreme Council gave instructions that the members of the Committee should submit to it reports on all points in which it appeared to them that changes of substance might be introduced.

In execution of these instructions, the Coordinating Committee has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council:

1. A draft of the covering letter;

2. An attached memorandum containing the drafts prepared by the Commissions in reply to the Austrian counterproposals and coordinated by the Committee;

3. An appendix enumerating the various points to which in the opinion of one or several members of the Committee, the attention of the Supreme Council should be drawn. There is hardly need to add that the authors of these notes had no other intention than to facilitate the task of the Supreme Council in the examination of the drafts of the reply.

J. Cambon

Chairman

Draft of a Covering Letter to the Chairman of the Austrian Delegation of the Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers

Paris , August …, 1919.

peace conference
the president

To His Excellency M. Renner,
Chairman of the Austrian Delegation,
Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

Mr. Chairman: The Allied and Associated Powers have examined with very special attention the observations of the Austrian delegation relative to the conditions of peace.

Enclosed you will find their reply, which contains all the amendments the introduction of which into the treaty has seemed equitable and possible in practice.

The Austrian delegation raised objections of principle against certain clauses of the original draft treaty of peace; it pointed out that they imply, first of all, that Austria is an enemy state and, further that it is heir to the obligations of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The Austrian delegation claims that Austria is an entirely new state, born of the dissolution of the Monarchy; created after the armistice, it has not in fact ever been at war with the Allied and Associated Powers, which thus cannot treat it as an enemy; it would not be just to make it, especially, heir to the obligations of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and to make it bear the weight of indemnities and reparations which would certainly have been imposed on the Monarchy if it had still existed.

The Allied and Associated Powers cannot admit this point of view. It must not be forgotten that the war originated in the very severe ultimatum sent from Vienna to Serbia on July 23, 1914, followed by a declaration of war on July 25, in spite of a reply from the Serbian Government which was universally considered conciliatory. Nor must it be forgotten that from the first days of August 1914, Austrian large-caliber artillery pieces bombarded Belgian forts, thus associating the Austrian Government in the violation of that country’s neutrality.

It is doubtless true that the prime responsibility for the war rests on the Government of the former Monarchy and that that Government has disappeared; but to stop with such a statement is to give an incomplete picture of the situation. During one whole generation the policy of the Austro-Hungarian state, whether in internal constitutional affairs or in foreign relations, had no other object than to seek the support of the German Empire in order to fasten the hegemony of German and Magyar elements on the Slav and Latin elements of the Monarchy and to extend it over the independent states of the Balkans. The events of the last six years show the war as a struggle between the Germanic, Slav and Latin elements of eastern Europe. The success of the Central Powers would unquestionably have led to the establishment of a complete and permanent hegemony of German military power, of German political thought, of German intellectual ideas over the greater part of the European continent.

The rupture of the bond which united Austria to Hungary has in no way changed their status as belligerents in the present war; it has doubtless affected the position of the international organism until then recognized by the Powers, but it would be rather difficult to deny that in fact—and the war is a question of fact-r-the state of war existed. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the establishment of a new government at Vienna was an event to modify the relations of Austria with its enemies. No more than the rupture of a federal bond, does a change in government bring about peace. These are acts of form which do not go to the inwardness of such serious matters. It is in the character of nations that the roots of war lie; so long as they have not come to an agreement to live in peace, governments can be made or unmade, disintegrate or endure: the peoples will nonetheless continue to fight. Thus the Allied and Associated Powers consider that the state of war created by the Monarchy in July 1914 has continued until today and that Austria participated therein and still participates therein. In the eyes of the Allied and Associated Powers Austria is, accordingly, an enemy state.

On the contrary, in the midst of the war and long before the Armistice, the Slavs and Latins of the former Monarchy rallied to the legions of free men under the banners of the great Powers. Their soldiers enrolled ill the armies of liberty; they served on various fronts, organized independent units and were recognized as co-belligerents by the Allied and Associated Powers. Their example inspired their fellow-citizens and the long restrained aspirations of their people were given free course in an explosion of national life. They took their place among the other states. It was not of their own will that they made war in the ranks of the soldiers of the Monarchy; they afterwards showed this by uniting with their alleged enemies who admitted them into their alliance.

This dismemberment of the Monarchy did not extinguish its prewar obligations or the obligations which it contracted in order to make war and the victorious Allied and Associated Powers have had to solve the difficult problem of the liquidation thereof in a spirit of equity and justice. No theory or practice regulating the relations between states existed which would guide them in this unprecedented situation.

Although Austria (with Hungary) may be the heir of the Monarchy, it would still have to be recognized that, reduced to the condition of a small nation of six million souls, it cannot bear or extinguish the obligations contracted by a great power of about fifty million inhabitants occupying immense territories such as the former Monarchy was before its overthrow.

Understanding these facts, we have inserted in the treaty which accompanies this letter sufficiently elastic provisions relative to the responsibilities of a material order devolving on Austria as to permit it now and in the future to adapt its existence to these new conditions. In addition, certain of these obligations have been divided between the states born of the former Monarchy or enlarged at its expense; thus the liquidation of the great Empire may be effected by taking account of the facts which the present situation implies as well as of that other unforgettable fact, the fact that the Empire brought on the world a train of destruction, misery and horror.

Furthermore, the Allied and Associated Powers recall that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, when requesting an armistice and accepting its clauses without conditions, fully recognized its complete defeat on the field of battle.

Austria is a great enemy state; it inherits the responsibilities which it incurred when it formed part of the former Monarchy; it is on the side of the vanquished in this war. These are the just deductions which served as bases for the study of the Austrian counter-proposals and which constitute the foundation of the peace which the Allied and Associated Powers are to conclude with Austria.

We have not believed that we should revise the territorial clauses, for the reasons given in the reply of the Allies. Here we shall limit ourselves to indicating that while certain geographic or economic considerations of a higher order led us to keep some German populations outside Austria, it is because the establishment of this state of affairs seemed more necessary to the existence of the new states born of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and the interests of other bordering states than the keeping of these populations by the present Austria seem indispensable to it. The solution adopted is, in any case, of a kind to insure the welfare of these German populations, by keeping them under the jurisdiction of the countries with which they have all their commercial and industrial relations and in which they can most easily develop their industries. Such is the case, in particular, for the Germans in Bohemia.

The Allied and Associated Powers are thoroughly convinced that the solutions adopted for tracing the frontiers are indispensable if it is desired to assure the existence of all the nations born of the former Austria-Hungary, without exposing them all, including the new Austria, to anarchy and to rivalries which could drag them into war.

Noting, further, that the Austrian delegation does not exclude the hope of making arrangements regarding the new geographic distribution of territories, thanks to the happy influence which the League of Nations will be able to exercise over all the nations of the world, the Powers take this occasion to renew to the Austrian delegation the assurance that it is their sincere desire to see Austria soon admitted into the League of Nations.

With respect to the economic and financial clauses indicated with particular emphasis in the delegation’s note, the Allied and Associated Powers have endeavored to seek out all possible adjustments.

First of all, they must assure Austria that the Reparation Commission, while carrying out its mission, will prove itself imbued with high humanitarian principles and will show the consideration required by the present critical situation of Austria from the point of view of foodstuffs. Trusting in the loyalty with which Austria will seek to comply with all the stipulations of the treaty, the Allied and Associated Powers will instruct the Commission to see that the indispensable supplies are at no time in danger.

From a financial point of view, the first effort of the Allied and Associated Powers has touched on the question of the sharing of pre-war debts and war debts between Austria and the various states born of the former Empire. They have decided to make important changes in this regard in the provisions originally established and their reply gives the changes in detail. It is not possible for the Powers to go further and to put the new states on the same footing as Austria and Hungary.

In addition to the question of the settlement of debts, several other changes conforming to the desires of the Austrian delegation have been introduced into the treaty.

Further, the Allied and Associated Powers have provided for the insertion in the treaty of certain necessary provisions to bring it into harmony with the agreements which will settle the relations of all the successor states. This is only a question of secondary clauses not affecting the rights of sovereignty of Austria, the insertion of which would constitute a reciprocal advantage for all the parties.

The Government of Austria has on many occasions claimed the right to speak not only in the name of the populations inhabiting the territories over which it has in fact exercised its sovereignty since the dissolution of the Empire, but also in the name of all German-speaking populations in the Monarchy. Peace cannot be signed unless it represents only the population of the territories assigned to it and with regard to which it will henceforth be officially recognized as the regular government. The Austrian delegation has many times alluded to the situation of the German-speaking populations in the north of Bohemia. That is a question which in no way concerns it. It is not on the Austrian Government that the duty of representing the desires or watching out for the interests of these populations devolves.

In accordance with this principle, the Conference decided that the state which you represent shall be known under the name of Austria and not under the name of German Austria.

If this latter denomination had been accepted, such decision could have been interpreted as the recognition of a right which does not exist. To speak of a German Austria would imply that another Austria exists which is not German. Now, no other Austria does exist. Austria, Bohemia and Hungary, for long united in a single political system, have separated; each of these countries resumes the status which it formerly had as a separate state.

The modifications which we have just made in the initial draft of the treaty are the last to which it has seemed to us to be susceptible; otherwise, it would not be a peace of justice. But, in concluding, we must recall that the Austrian Government could not expect greater clemency and a more complete absolution from the events which occurred during the recent war.

The Allied and Associated Powers have not expressly replied to all the points raised by the Austrian delegation in the notes transmitted by it. But they wish it clearly understood that the absence of reply on their part does not imply acquiescence in the objections formulated or acquiescence in such interpretations of the text of the treaty to which this absence of reply might give rise.

The wording of the treaty which we send you today, coming after that of July 20 last in which considerable modifications in the initial text of June 2 had already been made, must be accepted or rejected in the same terms in which it is conceived.

Accordingly, the Allied and Associated Powers expect from the Austrian delegation, within five days from the date of the present communication, a declaration informing them that it is ready to sign the treaty as it stands. As soon as this declaration has reached the Allied and Associated Powers, measures will be taken for the immediate signing of the peace at Saint-Germain-en-Laye.

In the absence of such a declaration within the above period, the Armistice concluded November 3, 1918¹⁸ would be considered as having terminated and the Allied and Associated Powers would take the measures they might consider necessary to impose their conditions.

Please accept, Mr. Chairman, the assurances of my high consideration.

Reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the Remarks of the Austrian Delegation of the Conditions of Peace

part ii.—frontiers of german-austria

Called upon to sanction the spontaneous separation of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Allied and Associated Powers ascertained that the breaking of the centuries-old bonds between the various parts of that state had not been effected everywhere according to the same laws. They believed that they could not assure their work of reconstruction ‘a better guarantee of justice and of permanence than by heeding the lesson of events and holding in each case to the principles which, violated by the Union, have rendered the separation necessary.

It is in this spirit that when the Conference met they studied the future frontiers of the Republic of Austria without neglecting any of the historic, geographic, ethnic, economic and political aspects of the question. They examined with the greatest care the observations which the Austrian delegation presented respecting the frontiers of which it was notified on June 2. They took great consideration thereof in the definitive conditions of peace transmitted on July 20. Thus, the counterproposals formulated in the memorandum of August 6 did not, in their opinion, advance any new argument in the discussion or give the Powers any reason to change the decisions which they had taken with respect to the frontiers of the Republic of Austria as they were described in the conditions of peace.

I.—Frontier Between Austria and the Czechoslovak State

In the course of the last one hundred years, the Czech nation was little by little dispossessed of the rights which had been granted it by a long series of formal documents, imperial rescripts or decisions of the sovereign diets. While its independence was restricted by a regime of subordination, its moral integrity had to defend itself against the Germanizing effort which had spread from the territories of German race.

The Czech nation, wounded and menaced, sought justice of the Allied and Associated Powers. The latter wished to reestablish it in the fullness of its rights. That is why they agreed to keep their historic frontiers, so far as possible, for the former Czech provinces of the Crown of Bohemia. They thought that the German-speaking populations inhabiting the confines of these provinces should remain associated with Czech populations, to collaborate with them in the development of the national unity, for which history has made them jointly responsible.

The Allied and Associated Powers considered that the best guarantee of such national unity would lie in economic unity, of which the imperial and royal administration had not taken account. They accordingly endeavored to assure the Czechoslovak state a complete system of means of communication. In doing this, they were led to go slightly beyond the historic frontier at two points: in the Thaya region, to include within Czechoslovak territory the Lundenburg-Felsberg-Znaim line, which is necessary for the west-east communications of Southern Moravia; in the Gmünd region, to attach to Bohemia the junction of two great lines serving this province over almost their whole length—the line from Prague via Tabor and that from Pilsen via Budweiss.

Thus, while in the course of the second examination which preceded the delivery of the definitive conditions, they made appreciable concessions to Austria and reduced to the strictly necessary the territories assigned to the Czechoslovak state beyond the historic frontier, the Powers did believe and do believe that they must maintain the principle of the double rectification which has been mentioned.

II.—Frontier Between Austria and Hungary

The Allied and Associated Powers considered that it was just to attach to Austria the districts of western Hungary which are inhabited by a German mass and the agricultural products of which form an important element in supplying Vienna and other centers.

The line which they established and communicated to the Austrian delegation on July 20 follows the ethnographic border very closely, particularly in the region of Saint Gothard. However, it is behind that line around Presbourg. In this case, the Powers were concerned with guaranteeing the Czechoslovak state access to the sea. Accordingly, they wished that Presbourg, the great market of Moravia, should have its communications with the Adriatic assured through Hungarian territory as well as through Austrian territory.

Accordingly, they left the Csorna-Szentjanos-Hegyeshalom Railroad in Hungarian territory and considered it impossible to cut the railroad in order to accede to the Austrian claim for the Wieselburg district.

Within the frontier thus fixed, the ethnic and national sentiment of the populations too clearly recommend their attachment to Austria for the Allied and Associated Powers to think it necessary to resort to a plebiscite or, in any case, to share in the organization and supervision of such measure if Austria should proceed to take it.

III.—Frontier Between Austria and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State

The policy of assimilation pursued by the imperial and royal administration with respect to the Slovene race was one of the principal reasons which prevented moral unity from taking form within the former Monarchy. Bent under the pressure of officials foreign to their race, deprived of schools teaching their language, overwhelmed by the immigration of state employees and workers, the Slovenes nevertheless conserved their national aspirations intact. The Allied and Associated Powers have recognized the right of these Slav populations to share in the destinies of a Slav state.

The application of this principle occurred in different circumstances in Styria and Carinthia.

styria

The Allied and Associated Powers considered that the Marburg basin, in its geographic, ethnographic and economic unity, should be attached to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

They hold that this natural region, bounded to the west by the great mass of the Bacher Mountains, has as easy communication with the Slav countries to the south as with the Austrian country to the north and opens out broadly to the east through the valley of the Drave which, up to its confluence with the Danube, never ceases to border Serb-Croat-Slovene territory.

They recognize that certain cities, particularly Marburg, are German in character. But they hold that the Slovene element is clearly dominant in the rural population where the action of the authorities succeeds only with difficulty in creating artificial majorities.

They consider that in spite of the efforts of the former Austrian administration to divert the commercial current of these regions from Hungary, the Marburg market already had close economic relations with Croatia. They believe that these relations will naturally grow stronger following a political attachment to the Serb-Croat-Slovene state, while the bonds created with the north by the attraction of the Austrian capital will weaken.

Under these conditions they are convinced that their solution responds at once to the sentiment and the interest of the majority of the people.

carinthia

The Allied and Associated Powers admit the geographic unity of the Klagenfurt Basin and recognize that this region formed to the south by the barrier of the Karawanken has easy relations with the north.

Further, they distinguish therein a very clear ethnic line of demarcation constituted by the Gurk, the Glan, the Glanfurt, and the Wörthersee, the Slovene element dominating to the east and south of this line, the German element to the west and north.

Finally, they find that the lines of communication constructed inside the basin by a centralizing administration converge on the Klagenfurt market and that, to the present, the economic orientation of this region was directed rather towards the north.

In these circumstances, they wished to leave to the populations all latitude to set their economic interests at the side of their national aspirations and to decide whether or not they wished to maintain their regional unity and, in such case, continue united to Austria, or whether they wished to join the Serb-Croat-Slovene state.

Such is the idea which gave rise to the decision to hold a plebiscite. The Powers sought, in placing the whole basin under the supervision of their representatives, to surround this vote with all the necessary guarantees to allow a free expression of the popular will.

With a view to the plebiscite, they have divided the basin into two zones, following the line of ethnic demarcation. Each of these zones, which will be summoned to give one group vote, includes an almost homogeneous population and if the separation becomes final may reconstitute its economic unity in close liaison with the state whose lot it has decided to follow.

The reasons which led them to arrange the interval between the two votes, against which the Austrian delegation protests, seem convincing. If the first zone should pronounce for attachment to Austria, it would in fact be useless to consult the second, when geographic conditions would make it impossible for it to choose a different destiny.

The Allied and Associated Powers recognize the foundation for the observations of the Austrian delegation regarding the supplying of Klagenfurt with water. They have inserted in the treaty an article guaranteeing this city the water necessary for its use and for the operation of its factories run by electrical energy.

IV.—Frontier Between Austria and Italy

The Allied and Associated Powers consider that no change should be made to the frontier laid down between Italy and Austria as presented to the Austrian delegation in the conditions of peace. As appears from the very clear statements made by the President of the Council of Ministers of Italy to the Parliament at Rome, the Italian Government proposes to adopt a very liberal policy toward its new subjects of the German race with respect to their language, culture and economic interests.

part iii

Section II.—Reply to the Austrian Observations on Nationality Questions

With regard to the observations of the Austrian delegation relative to nationality questions, it is to be noted that the treaty has been altered in this respect.

The provisions relative to these questions are now together in a special section. The changes made in the original text take into consideration so far as possible those of the observations of the Austrian delegation which seemed justified with respect to the possible contradiction between certain provisions applying to the transferred territories.

Further, the Austrian delegation pointed out the possibility which would be offered any Austrian subject to escape, through the rights of option, from the legal obligations devolving upon nationals of Austria.

It should be pointed out that the option is granted only on condition that the persons who use it transfer their domicile outside Austrian territory. That is one check placed on attempts which Austrians might make to continue to have the advantage of living in Austria without bearing the burdens resulting therefrom.

In addition, the Austrian delegation itself recognizes that the interested states will not accept requests for option unless they are based upon serious indications making it possible to determine that the applicant has reason to claim the nationality which he requests. To consider as valueless a request based upon community of language or of origin is to dispute all the essential data on which nationality is established. The new states, furthermore, have no interest in increasing the number of those of their nationals who do not belong to their nationality either by race or by true feelings.

Finally, there is no reason to fear that people desirous of escaping the obligations resulting from the treaty which affect Austrian nationals only may avoid them through the option, because the provisions of the treaty, while excluding from these burdens Austrian nationals who have acquired a new nationality, are careful to specify that they must have acquired this nationality automatically. The fear set forth in this respect by the Austrian delegation thus rests upon a misunderstanding.

The observations concerning article 86 attribute to the Allied and Associated Powers mental reservations and intentions which they do not have and which they can not have. It is not plausible that the circumstances brought up by the Austrian delegation should be of a kind to exercise any influence whatever on an individual determination to change his nationality or not to change it; that could happen only in extremely rare cases.

These Same considerations remove all value from the objections relative to article 90 which, furthermore, in paragraph II, contains a provision necessary to prevent in advance any possible impediment to the settlement of the legal position of territories which have not been assigned to a specific state.

reply to the austrian proposals relative to articles 46 and 50

In the “drafts” which follow the observations presented by the Austrian delegation changes are proposed in articles 46 and 50 without any supporting justification being given.

There is no need to touch on article 46. It would not be possible to impose on the Italian Government the obligation of paying the cost of a palace which it has rightfully claimed as having belonged to the former Republic of Venice. The transfer of this palace ought to have been effected at the time when Venice was incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy. Special circumstances, of an exclusively political character, alone prevented this restoration until now.

With respect to article 50, the provision of the last paragraph relative to Lake Raid [Rabil] has no other purpose than to guarantee to Italy the full enjoyment of the use of the waters of this lake to the exclusion of any contrary claim, either by Austria or by its nationals. In these circumstances, the proposal of the Austrian delegation for which, in addition, no reason is given, does not seem well founded.

part iv.—austrian interests outside europe

The Allied and Associated Powers consider that there is no reason to modify in substance the provisions inserted in part IV of the conditions of peace relative to “Austrian interests outside Europe.”

The greater part of the counterproposals presented by the Austrian delegation spring from the principle that Austria should not be considered as one with the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

Now, the Allied and Associated Powers consider that Austria is one of the states which are successors of Austria-Hungary. They further note that Austria does not contemplate refusing this heritage, when it means keeping the diplomatic and consular buildings in Siam (article 108), and in China (article 112); and that Austria does not hesitate to claim it in order to seek to remain in possession of such properties in Morocco (article 96) and in Egypt (article 105) or in order to reserve the possibility of obtaining a share of the indemnity established in the final protocol signed at Peking on September 7, 1901¹⁹ (article 110).

The Allied and Associated Powers consider that Austria is bound by the treaties and contractual obligations of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. They must ask it formally to renounce, insofar as it is concerned, the rights, titles, and privileges having belonged to that state, and in particular those which resulted from the General Act of Algeciras²⁰ and from the Franco-German agreement relative to Morocco²¹ (article 93), from the system of capitulations in Egypt (article 99) or from the provisions of the final protocol of Peking (article 110). In addition, they cannot guarantee the Austrian representatives in Morocco (article 95), in Egypt (article 102) and in China (article 111) as favorable treatment as that which, in general, will be enjoyed by nationals of the powers which are members of the League of Nations, for they would thereby grant to Austria, before its admission into the League of Nations, the benefit of such admission.

The Allied and Associated Powers have applied a general principle of international law in providing that all goods and property having belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, an enemy state, in Morocco, in Egypt, in Siam, and in China, would be transferred without indemnity to the Government of the Maghzen (article 95), to the Egyptian Government (article 105) to the Siamese Government (article 108), and to the Chinese Government (article 110).

They see no reason to extend to all the countries outside Europe without exception the derogations which, as an unusual measure, they were able to agree to either in European territory or in Siam or China.

With respect to this latter country, they consider that the “quarters” of the detachment of the former Austro-Hungarian Navy is not distinguishable from “barracks”, the disposition of which is regulated by article 112 and they could not be likened to diplomatic and consular buildings, as the Austrian delegation would wish.

The Allied and Associated Powers, in the liquidation of movable and immovable property belonging to Austrian nationals in Morocco (article 96), in Egypt (article 105), in Siam (article 108), and in China (article 114), have applied the general provisions provided by section IV of part X of the treaty.

The Allied and Associated Powers would be lacking in that solidarity which exists among them and which they have wished to sanction by a general treaty if in this treaty they provided for the direct understandings which Austria asks to conclude with Siam and China.

They furthermore consider that Austria has no basis for claiming the advantages which it wishes to secure through these understandings.

On the one hand, the internment of enemy nationals by the Allied and Associated Powers constitutes a security measure which could not give rise to any right of indemnity against these Powers.

Furthermore, the Allied and Associated Powers, having decided that China should be definitively liberated vis-à-vis Austria-Hungary, as well as Germany, from the obligations imposed on it by the final protocol of September 7, 1901, are not disposed to contemplate allowing China to bind itself under a separate treaty to revive these obligations to the advantage of Austria.

Annex

amendments proposed by the committee on the reply

Article 92

In territory outside its frontiers, as fixed by the present treaty, Austria renounces, so far as it is concerned, all rights, titles and privileges whatever in or with relation to territory outside Europe which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or to its allies, and all rights, titles and privileges whatever their origin which it held as against the Allied and Associated Powers.

Austria undertakes immediately to recognize and to conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in agreement where necessary with third powers, in order to regulate the consequences resulting from the foregoing provision.

Article 108

Austria, so far as it is concerned, cedes to Siam all its rights over the goods and property in Siam which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, with the exception of premises used as diplomatic or consular residences or offices as well as the effects and furniture which they contain. These goods and property pass ipso facto and without compensation to the Siamese Government.

The goods, property and private rights of Austrian nationals in Siam shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of part X (economic clauses) of the present treaty.

Article 112

Austria, so far as it is concerned, cedes to China all its rights over the buildings, wharves and pontoons, barracks, forts, arms and munitions of war, vessels of all kinds, wireless telegraphy installations and other public property which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and which are situated or may remain in the Austro-Hungarian concession at Tientsin or elsewhere in Chinese territory.

It is understood, however, that premises used as diplomatic or consular residences or offices, as well as the effects and furniture contained therein, are not included in the above cession; and, furthermore, that no steps shall be taken by the Chinese Government to dispose of the public and private property belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated within the so-called Legation Quarter of Peking without the consent of the diplomatic representatives of the powers which, on the coming into force of the present treaty, remain parties to the final protocol of September 7, 1901.

part v.—military, naval, and air clauses

By a letter dated August 6, 1919, the Austrian delegation sent the Peace Conference a memorandum of counterproposals relative to the conditions of peace presented by the Allied and Associated Powers.

After a study of these counterproposals, the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers have the honor herein below to make known their decision with respect to the military, naval, and air clauses.

Military Clauses

1. The modification proposed in article 115 would have the effect of postponing to an indeterminate date the demobilization of Austrian military forces, an operation which, according to the decision of the Allied and Associated Powers, must be completed within a period of three months.

This modification cannot be accepted.

2. The modifications proposed in articles 116, 122, and 123 seek to authorize the Austrian state to constitute, both for staffs and troops, a militia in which military instruction could be given to the whole able-bodied population, which would thus constitute the nucleus of an important military force, without, further, ever being in a position to meet the obligations imposed by article 117 of the treaty of peace.

Whatever may be, from the financial point of view, the value of the arguments advanced by the Austrian delegation, the establishment of a military regime resting on obligatory service is absolutely contrary to the principle of the reduction of armaments which the Allied and Associated Powers have felt obliged to impose upon their former enemies as the only means capable of assuring the peace of the world in the future.

These modifications can accordingly not be accepted.

3. The modification proposed in article 120 would authorize the Austrian Government to increase at will the number of gendarmes, customs officers, foresters and police officers while maintaining the prohibition against giving them military instruction.

This modification cannot be allowed.

4. The modification proposed in articles 127 and 130 and seeking to postpone from three to six months the delivery of arms above the authorized figure, does not seem justified by any material impossibility.

This modification is not accepted.

In case, however, some impossibility of this kind should arise, it would devolve upon the Interallied Commission of Control to indicate it and to propose the measures to be taken as a result.

As, furthermore, this material is state property, there is no justification for the value thereof being placed to the credit of the Austrian state in connection with the indemnities to be paid by this state (article 130).

The proposed addition to article 130 in this sense is accordingly not accepted.

5. The modification proposed in article 129 seems to have the purpose of safeguarding the interest of Austria’s flourishing industry in military and sporting weapons.

With respect to sporting arms and ammunition, as well as explosives intended for use in mines and in other technical works of a purely commercial type, article 129, as drafted in the conditions of peace communicated by the Allied and Associated Powers, does not forbid their manufacture.

With respect to the manufacture of military arms for export, the authorization of which is requested by the Austrian delegation, it could not be permitted without necessitating a close and permanent supervision, which is full of difficulties and which is not envisaged by the Allies.

The modifications of article 129 requested are accordingly not allowable.

The Allied and Associated Governments believe that they should, however, specify that the manufacture of sporting arms is not forbidden, on the reservation that any sporting weapon manufactured in Austria and using ball cartridges shall not be of the same caliber as that of military weapons employed in any of the European armies.

Accordingly, the following addition will be inserted between the first and second paragraphs of article 129 of the treaty of peace presented to the Austrian delegation:

The manufacture of sporting weapons is not forbidden, provided that sporting weapons manufactured in Austria taking ball cartridges shall not be of the same caliber as that of military weapons used in any European Army.

6. The modification in article 131 requested is, therefore, unnecessary.

Naval Clauses

The addition to article 133 requested (authorization to keep three patrol boats on the Danube) is granted provided that the choice of the vessels shall be made by the commission the designation of which is provided for in article 150 of the present treaty.

The addition proposed by the Austrian delegation in its article 138b is granted with respect to paragraph 1, on condition that this paragraph be worded as follows:

Austria is held responsible for the delivery (articles 133 and 138), the disarmament (article 134), the demobilization (article 135), as well as the disposal (article 134) or use (article 136) of the objects mentioned in the preceding articles only insofar as these objects remain in its own territory.

The proposed addition to paragraph 2 cannot be granted however, as this material is state property. There is no justification for its value being placed to the credit of the Austrian state, in connection with indemnities to be paid by this state.

Ant Clauses

The observations presented by the Austrian delegation touch on articles 140, 141, 143, and 144 relative to:

1. The abolition of military and naval air forces (article 140);

2. The demobilization of personnel (article 141);

3. The prohibition against manufacturing, importing and exporting (article 143);

4. The surrender of material (article 144).

a) The abolition of military and naval air forces (article 140).

In deciding on this abolition the great Allied and Associated Powers are inspired only by the desire which appears at the beginning of the treaty of peace, namely, the establishment of a durable, just and firm peace.

Such peace would not be assured if our enemies should keep at their disposal an instrument of aggression as powerful as an air force prepared for war.

It is, accordingly, necessary that the use thereof be forbidden them in the future. That is what has already been decided as regards Germany; there is no reason to make an exception in favor of Austria.

It is indisputable that this prohibition leaves Austria disarmed as against its neighbors, but its admission into the League of Nations, contemplated within a brief period after the ratification of the treaty of peace, constitutes the best guarantee for it against any aggression.

In these circumstances, the armed forces of Austria will have only to guarantee internal order, the principal duty assigned to them by the treaty of peace. For these police operations an air force is not indispensable.

b) Demobilization of personnel (article 141). Specialized aircraft workers (mechanics, electricians, wood-workers, wing makers, coppersmiths) have no trouble in finding employment in other industries. These specialists are very much sought after and the offers made them in France and in England are such that the army is powerless to keep them in its ranks, even in the low proportion of its most indispensable needs. Austria must long ago have wondered whether its aeronautic industries—solely military industries by its own admission,—could continue to employ so large a personnel and it ought to have taken measures, through a progressive demobilization, against the disadvantages of an abrupt dismissal of that personnel.

c) Prohibition against manufacturing, importing and exporting (article 143). The maintenance of these prohibitions is required on the same basis as that of the provisions laid down in the foregoing articles, to which they are the indispensable complement.

Of what use, indeed, would it be to decree the abolition of a military air force in Austria if, through freedom to manufacture and import, it were allowed the possibility of building up again its destroyed material?

As to the prohibition against exportation, it is justified by the fact that all material now in existence in Austria is war material. As it has become useless to Austria, it could only serve to arm other states, for the commercial use of such material—a use to which it is not adapted—is not to be envisaged.

Furthermore, it is an exaggeration to claim that the above prohibitions are of a kind to hinder the reestablishment of economic life in Austria.

In fact, the development of a civil air force is subject to improvements which could not be expected to be effected within a short period.

The decision of the Supreme Council limiting the period of these prohibitions to six months, in spite of the danger of easy adaptation of any aircraft to military ends, whatever may be the destination of such aircraft,—a danger which the military experts without exception have agreed to recognize—safeguards this development as far as is possible. This decision thus constitutes a minimum guarantee of security without irretrievably compromising the future of the aeronautic industry in Austria in works of peace.

Finally, it cannot be forgotten that Austria was the ally of Germany.

The freedom of production and traffic which it requests, if granted, would offer Germany every facility for evading the special conditions imposed on it, either by concealing its material under the Austrian flag or by placing orders in Austria to renew its war reserves.

d) Delivery of material (article 144). Since all the material in Austria is war material, it is logical that it should be surrendered in its entirety.

The damage which will result therefrom to industrial enterprises, great as it may be, is not mortal; in any case, this consideration cannot constitute a check as these industries have until now worked only for war.

With respect to the proposal to disarm the planes, it does not constitute a guarantee which can be taken into consideration, as rearmament could be effected so rapidly as to remove all value from the proposed measure.

Briefly, the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers decide that the clauses of the treaty of peace relative to an Austrian military and naval air force must be kept without modification.

No matter how small the air forces which Austria can put in line, they nevertheless constitute, in the eventuality of an understanding with Germany, a danger against which precautions must be taken.

In any case, all the measures taken to disarm Germany would become entirely illusory if its neighbor continued in a position to furnish it military or industrial assistance in order to help it secretly to reorganize its military [air] fleet. In order for these measures to be really efficacious, it is absolutely necessary to apply the same treatment to the two countries.

The considerations of an economic order which Austria alleges to escape this treatment are not valid, as the clauses imposed upon it are not of the kind to injure its peace industries so seriously as it claims.

General Clauses

1. The modifications of article 152 requested seek to postpone until July 1 next the effective date of the stipulations provided in the general clauses of the treaty, the execution of which must be effected within a period of three months according to the text drafted by the Allied and Associated Powers.

This modification is not accepted.

2. The modifications proposed in article 153 subordinate to a decision of the Council of the League of Nations the terms of the obligations imposed on Austria in virtue of the said article.

This modification is not accepted.

However, the provision of paragraph 4 of chapter 1 (military clauses) of the armistice of November 3, 1918 having been drawn up with a view to eventualities which the present situation seems to have obviated, there is no further reason for maintaining these provisions.

The text of article 153 will, accordingly, be changed as a result thereof and this article will be drafted as follows:

The following provisions of the armistice of November 3, 1918, namely, paragraphs two and three of chapter I (military clauses), paragraphs two, three and six of chapter I of the annexed protocol (military clauses), remain in force so far as they are not contrary to the above stipulations.

3. The modifications proposed in article 154 restrict to official military, naval or air missions alone the prohibitions against members of Austrian forces going to serve abroad.

This modification is not adopted.

part vi.—prisoners of war

The modifications proposed by the Austrian delegation affect articles 156 to 165 of the conditions of peace. The Allied and Associated Powers consider that there is no reason for them to change their previous decisions in any respect.

The conditions of peace relative to prisoners of war and interned civilians are based on the principles of humanity which the Allied and Associated Powers have always felt bound in honor to respect and the Powers cannot admit as legitimate the complaints expressed in the Austrian note of July 26 [27?]. The counterproposals of August 6, furthermore, contain nothing to oblige them to change their opinion on this subject.

The Austrian delegation requests that it be specified that article 156 concerns only the repatriation of nationals of the new Austrian Republic and that the provisions of this article cannot be extended to the nationals of the other states born of the dismemberment of the former Monarchy. From a careful reading of the article it is apparent that, in its new wording, it provides exclusively for prisoners of war and interned civilians of the Republic of Austria; accordingly, the fear indicated by the Austrian delegation that Austria might have to bear either the, responsibility or the costs of repatriation of prisoners of war and interned civilians who are nationals of the other states born of the dissolution of the Monarchy is without foundation. There is no object to the requested modification.

The Allied and Associated Powers share the desire of the Austrian delegation to see the sufferings of Austrians who are prisoners of war or interned civilians and who are now held in Siberia or Central Asia lightened; they will be happy to do what is within their power to ease these sufferings and at the same time to appease the inevitable anxiety of the families of the prisoners. But they must point out that this unhappy situation is one of those for which they are not responsible and that, in addition, no regular government exists in Russia with which they can enter into relations for this purpose.

They are nevertheless ready to do everything possible by uniting their own efforts and the assistance which they can furnish to the efforts of the Austrians themselves to effect this repatriation as soon as occasion shall present.

Neither have the other suggestions of the Austrian delegation seemed deserving of reception. No reason exists for applying to the transportation of Austrian prisoners rules different from those applied to transportation of German prisoners; nor does any reason exist to change the stipulations of the conditions of peace concerning prisoners who may be held under arrest by the Allied and Associated Powers. The latter have never contemplated holding prisoners who were guilty of breaches of discipline or of refusal to obey, except as provided in paragraph 2 of article 160. Only common law criminals will be detained, for whom the status of prisoners of war must not constitute a guarantee of immunity; a common law crime is just as punishable when committed in the course of an attempted escape as when committed under any other circumstances.

The Allied and Associated Powers, furthermore, do not see any reason for which they should undertake to receive again into their territories Austrian prisoners who had formerly been domiciled in them and who had to leave them as a result of the state of war. The war, for which the Allied and Associated Powers are not responsible, is a fact the consequences of which will long be felt. Would it be just to eliminate the effects thereof for the benefit of the Austrian prisoners of war alone? As to having a certificate issued by the captor state to prisoners afflicted with infirmities as the result of labor performed in captivity, that is a proposal which it would sometimes be very difficult to put into practice and the usefulness of which has not been shown.

The Austrian delegation, finally, claims reciprocity for the causes relative to the search for the missing and the restoration of articles having belonged to Austrian nationals who were prisoners of war or interned civilians. As they previously replied to the German delegation, the Allied and Associated Governments reply to the Austrian delegation that the restoration to such nationals of their personal property is a legal right which it is their entire intention to respect. Similarly, they have always endeavored to furnish enemy governments with all the information which they possessed concerning missing persons. There is no need of the insertion of special provisions to impose on them the respect of rights which they have always spontaneously recognized and approved.

part vii.—penalties

No concession can be made to the Republic of Austria on the articles concerning penalties.

The Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to admit that the new states derived from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire are composed of populations having “belonged to various nationalities of the former Monarchy.” They consider, however, that there is no authorization for concluding from this fact that the present Austrian state can be assimilated to the said states as regards the responsibilities originating in violations of international law brought, during the course of the present war, against the Austro-Hungarian Army. These “various nationalities” in revolt showed their will to independence by absolutely conclusive indications, such as the formation of legions of volunteers who actively participated in military operations at the side of the Allied and Associated forces.

The deep disapproval which these nationals showed with respect to the motives and methods of war of the Monarchy, by giving their adherence and their help to the claims of the Entente, and their recognition as co-belligerents in the present war is sufficient to justify a difference in treatment between the Republic of Austria and the new states.

From this point of view, at least, the Republic of Austria can only be considered as the constitutive nucleus surviving from the dislocation of the Austrian aggregate.

The objection raised from the alleged inapplicability of international law to war operations between the Armies of the former Monarchy and the insurgents of the various nationalities of the Empire does not bear careful examination. The recognition of the insurgents as belligerents implies a relation governed by international law which is justly affected by the play of circumstances which led to the formation of the new states.

In drafting articles 169 to 172, the Allied and Associated Powers desired to insure, in full justice but firmly, that the hour of punishment would come for those guilty of the acts contrary to the laws and customs of war committed by Austro-Hungarian troops.

They mean to have recognized the freedom of each of them to bring before its military courts the authors of acts of this kind committed against their nationals.

They exclude from this prerogative neither the new states nor, to any degree whatever, the states to which new nationals are attached.

Territorial changes could not create, as regards the victims, a status from which a prospect of immunity for the guilty would spring.

As to claiming that the laws of the Austrian Republic are opposed to the surrender of Austrian nationals to foreign courts, that is an argument which the Allied and Associated Powers cannot admit. In international law it pertains to the powers which are parties to a treaty to put into force the laws necessary for the application of such treaty.

part viii.—reparations

I.—General Observations

The Allied and Associated Governments have studied with care the observations presented by the Austrian delegation concerning the responsibility of the Republic of Austria for all the losses and damages suffered by them during the course of the war.

They cannot, however, allow that the Republic of Austria be discharged of all responsibility as the result of the revolution which occurred in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy at the end of the war and as a result of the creation of the new states born of the dismemberment of this Monarchy.

They recognize that the modification which took place in the form of the Austrian Government will make it possible for them more easily to renew friendly relations with Austria.

However, after a thorough study of the question, they feel that they cannot depart from the principle under the terms of which the Republic of Austria must be considered as responsible for the policy and acts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy during the course of the war.

It is no less true that, while considering themselves bound to maintain this principle, the Allied and Associated Governments have never lost sight of the reduction in territory suffered by the new Austria and the financial and economic difficulties which it must inevitably face. They must in this regard point out that the present financial situation of the Republic of Austria is in no way due either to the acts of the Allied and Associated Governments or to their present proposals; it is the consequence of the financial and military policy pursued by the Austro-Hungarian Government over many years.

At the same time, and considering matters from the point of view of the preservation of social peace in Europe, the Allied and Associated Governments take fully into account the point beyond which the new Austria must not be burdened with a heavier load than one the weight of which it is in a condition to bear. That is the preoccupation which they have consistently had in mind in drafting the articles on reparations which appear in the conditions of peace. Thus, article 175 does not specify the total of the amounts to be paid by Austria and, for the purpose of determining it, gives very wide powers to the Reparation Commission.

In paragraph 12b of annex II, it is expressly stated that the Reparation Commission will receive instructions to take account of:

1. “The actual economic and financial position of Austrian territory as designated by the present treaty”;

2. The diminution of its resources and its capacity for payment resulting from the clauses of the present treaty.”

In order to make it more clearly apparent that the Allied and Associated Governments appreciate the difficulties of the present financial situation of Austria, they decided to strike out, at the beginning of article 177, and in annex I [II], paragraph 12c, the words “in order to permit the Allied and Associated Powers immediately to undertake the restoration of their economic and industrial life while awaiting the definitive determination of the amount of their claims.”

II.—Detailed Examination

The Allied and Associated Governments refer the Austrian delegation, with respect to annex III, to the part of the present note which concerns article 294 of the conditions of peace.

The Allied and Associated Governments consider that the legitimate interests of the Republic of Austria will be safeguarded effectively by the provisions contained in that article; they cannot therefore accept the modification proposed by the Austrian delegation for annex III.

The Allied and Associated Governments examined with particular care the observations of the Austrian delegation with regard to annex IV, relative to surrender of livestock. They are not unaware of the sufferings and misery occasioned in Vienna by the present scarcity of milk and they have already given practical proofs of their sympathy by sending considerable quantities of condensed milk there. But, at the same time, they cannot lose sight of the fact that there is also a serious and alarming scarcity of milk in the Allied countries and that it is directly due, in large measure, to the great number of animals carried off during the course of the war by the Hungarian Government from the occupied parts of Allied territories.

The problem which faces the Allied and Associated Governments thus consists in alleviating the sufferings and misery caused by the want of milk in Allied countries in such a way as to aggravate as little as possible the lot of the Viennese population. Now, according to the opinion of their experts, certain sections far removed from the center of the Austrian Republic are not in a position, because of the topography of the soil and the difficulties of transportation, to assist in supplying Vienna with milk, but they can transfer a limited amount of livestock to Italy, to Serbia and to Roumania as partial restoration for the much greater quantities which were taken from these same countries during the war. Such a measure will not have the effect of appreciably increasing the scarcity of milk from which Vienna suffers.

Because of these facts and in the presence of the claim, which must be considered a privileged claim, from districts in which the scarcity of milk has been principally occasioned by the depredations committed during the war, the Allied and Associated Governments do not feel that there is any reason to change or eliminate annex IV.

As to annex V, the Austrian delegation proposes that, with respect to the options on timber, iron, and magnesite provided in the conditions of peace, the prices fixed shall be those of the international market and not the prices of the Austrian domestic market.

The observations formulated in this regard by the Austrian delegation appear to rest on an inaccurate interpretation of the said annex.

The intention of the Allied and Associated Powers is not, by this provision, to bring the price of these articles on the domestic market to the level of the price on the international market; they merely desire that the option be granted them to purchase the articles at the prices of the domestic market, and that any advantage resulting from this privilege be considered, as is said at the beginning of the annex, as a partial reparation for the damages caused the, Allied and Associated Governments during the war.

Furthermore, this option will be exercised only through the Reparation Commission which, as has been said above, will receive instructions to take into account financial and economic conditions in Austria and which may accordingly take the necessary measures in order that Austria shall not be deprived of the possibility of making purchases abroad and of importing such products as may be essential to its economic existence.

The observations of the Austrian delegation concerning articles 187 and 188 likewise seem to rest, to a certain degree, on an erroneous interpretation. These articles refer expressly to article 180, the special applications of which they constitute. Accordingly, they concern, as does this latter article, such articles as it “will be possible to identify either on territory belonging to Austria or its allies, or on territory remaining in the possession of Austria or its allies until the complete execution of the treaty.”

The date of June 1, 1914, which appears in article 188 was inserted there to take account of this circumstance that certain articles were, shortly before the war, taken from the territories ceded in execution of the present treaty apparently in order to withdraw them from the injuries which they might have suffered in the course of hostilities. This article likewise refers to article 180 and thus applies only in cases in which it would be possible to identify the articles in question on the territories of Austria or of its allies.

With respect to article 189, it seems clear that, generally speaking, the Allied and Associated Governments and the Austrian delegation are in agreement. However, in order that no doubt may exist, they agree to substitute the words “belonging to” for the words “concerning the” in paragraph one.

The Allied and Associated Governments consider that the questions raised by this article are among those which may on the proper occasion be the subject of supplementary conventions between the interested governments. But as the same questions will be regulated by the Reparation Commission, which is bound to give the Austrian Government a fair opportunity to be heard, it does not seem to the Allied and Associated Governments that it is necessary to insert special provisions on this subject in the treaty.^*

The Allied and Associated Powers propose to add to the end of article 190, in order to take into account, to the widest possible degree, the objections formulated by the Austrian delegation, the words “insofar as the articles referred to have not in fact been executed in their entirety, and insofar as the documents and objects in question are situated in the territory of the Republic of Austria or its allies.”

With respect to article 191, the Allied and Associated Governments do not consider it advisable either to eliminate the references to Poland and to Czechoslovakia or to increase the number of members of the Committee of Jurists. It will pertain to the Reparation Commission to employ such experts as it considers necessary and the Allied and Associated Gevernments believe that it is preferable in the interests of everyone to leave the Reparation Commission the greatest freedom of choice in this respect.

They consider that the words “right of the Italian provisions” are sufficiently clear in sense that they cannot give rise to the interpretation which the Austrian delegation fears.

III.—Proposed Modifications of Texts

a) Article 177. Elimination of the words “in order to permit the Allied and Associated Powers immediately to undertake restoration of their industrial and economic life, while awaiting the definitive determination of the amount of their claims.”

b) Annex II. Paragraph 12c. Elimination of the words “in order to facilitate and carry out the commercial restoration of the economic life of the Allied and Associated countries.”

c) Article 187. Read “article 180” instead of “article 183.” It involves a printing error which does not appear in the English text.

d) Article 189. Substitute for “concerning the administrations” the words “belonging to the administrations.”

e) Article 190. Add to the end of the article the words “insofar as the articles referred to have not in fact been executed in their entirety, and insofar as the documents and objects in question are situated in the territory of the Republic of Austria or its allies.”

And at the Beginning of the article eliminate the words “in their entirety.”

On the request of the Belgian Delegation, the text of Annex II is modified as follows:

• “I. The triptych of St. Ildephonse by Rubens, from the Abbey of St. Jacques sur Cowdenberg at Brussels, bought in 1777 and removed to Vienna.”
• II. “Objects and documents removed for safety from Belgium to Austria in 1794.”

  a)b)c). No change.

  d) The original manuscript copies of the “carte chorographique” of the Austrian Low Countries drawn up by Lieutenant General Comte Jas de Ferraru [Ferraris] between 1770 and 1777 and the documents relating thereto.”

part ix.—financial clauses

The Allied and Associated Governments have studied with the greatest care the observations offered by the Austrian delegation on the subject of the financial clauses. They are perfectly aware of the capital importance which these clauses possess for the Austrian Republic and it is in that spirit that they have examined them.

In order to make the general scope of the financial clauses well understood, it is perhaps advisable to recall certain essential principles which governed the Allied and Associated Governments in drawing up the conditions of peace: the Allied and Associated Governments find themselves obliged to consider the Republic of Austria as the successor of the former Austrian Monarchy. The states to which some Austrian territory is transferred or the states born of the dismemberment of Austria are considered, in effect, as among the Allies and the war imposed sacrifices and sufferings on them.

Accordingly, the Allied and Associated Governments cannot admit the possibility of imposing on those states the burden of the war debt of the former Austrian Monarchy, a debt contracted to carry on an unjust aggression and used to the injury of the Allies.

Furthermore, in preparing the financial clauses, the Allied and Associated Governments never lost sight of the extremely complicated financial situation of the Republic of Austria. Their policy in no way tends to bring about bankruptcy and disorder in the finances of the Republic of Austria. On the contrary, it is their sincere desire that the Republic may, as peacefully as possible, again find its financial and economic balance and that it may have entire freedom to follow the new and enlightened policy which is advocated by its representatives, as the Allied and Associated Governments are pleased to recognize. The end sought by these Governments is to alleviate the financial burden of the Republic of Austria to the degree compatible with the essential principles mentioned above. It is with this intention that special provisions were inserted concerning the war debt of the states to which some Austrian territory was transferred or which are born of the dismemberment of Austria, as well as clauses relative to property belonging to the nationals of the Republic of Austria in the said states.

The Allied and Associated Powers have therefore examined with special care the figures relative to the financial situation of the Republic of Austria, as it results from the present treaty. In broad outline, the situation which these figures show was already familiar to these Governments and it had been taken into most careful account by them in drawing up the financial clauses of the treaty.

The counterproposals made by the Austrian delegation were likewise the object of most careful study and every clause was again examined in the light of the Austrian observations. In many cases, however, it was found that the arguments presented in the Austrian note of August 6, 1919, had already been weighed and discussed at length at the time when the treaty was drafted and that the changes now proposed had then been considered unacceptable.

The present reply will not include an individual examination of each of the observations of the Austrian delegation; it will be limited to indicating the points on which it seemed necessary to furnish explanations intended either to obviate a misunderstanding on the part of the Austrian delegation or to show the slight basis for certain of its observations.

Article 193.—The Austrian delegation seems not to have understood the article well in proposing to add after the first paragraph of the present text a paragraph concerning Austrian nationals. Article 193, in fact, considers only the situation of the Austrian state; the situation of Austrian nationals is regulated by the following part of the conditions of peace, that is, by the economic clauses.

The provision inserted in paragraph 2 of the present text (exportation of gold) constitutes a guarantee for the Allied and Associated Governments and, as such, it seems that it should be maintained. However, it will be permissible for these Governments to authorize exports of gold in such circumstances and in such amounts as may seem to them necessary for the economic life of Austria.

Article 197.—This article does not confer any new right on the Allied and Associated Governments, but stipulates that the charges created by the preceding articles shall not affect Austrian assets and property which are under the jurisdiction of such Governments. Accordingly, the article does not seem to give rise to the objections brought up by the Austrian delegation.

Article 199.—Pre-War Debt, a) The Reparation Commission has express instructions to give the representatives of the Republic of Austria fair opportunity to be heard before passing on questions relative to the distribution of the pre-war debt. The Allied and Associated Governments thus see no reason for changing the provisions of this article.

b) Furthermore, it does not seem necessary to regulate in this article or in its annex questions raised by the distribution of the secured debt, since, from the technical point of view, this distribution is less complicated than that of the unsecured debt.

c) The power given the Reparation Commission to modify, as it considers it advisable, the provisions for the conversion of the currencies in which the debts are quoted seems to the Allied and Associated Governments to be a necessary guarantee to assure the holders of securities that the capital of the debt which they hold will be equitably determined.

Section 2. a) With respect to the distribution of the unsecured pre-war debt, the Austrian delegation raises an objection with regard to the basis chosen to evaluate the financial capacity of the respective territories. The intention of the Allied and Associated Governments is that, for the distribution of this debt, account shall be taken so far as possible of the present financial capacity of the respective territories and they consider that their intention is expressed with sufficient precision by the text of article 199 as it is at present drafted. It clearly appears from this article, in fact, that the Reparation Commission will have the duty of selecting the pre-war revenues which will be most suitable for the establishment of a basis of equitable distribution of the debt, while taking into account the changes in present circumstances.

b) The Allied and Associated Powers see no reason to abandon the principle that the Republic of Austria will alone be responsible for pre-war engagements of the former Austrian Government which are not represented by securities; but they are ready to admit that the category of debts to which the Austrian delegation especially draws their attention, such as the annuities due for the purchase of rail ways, can in all justice be considered as forming part of the debts represented by securities.

Accordingly, they agree to add the following words after the third paragraph of section 1 of article 199: “For the purposes of the present article there shall be regarded as secured debts, payments due by the former Austrian Government in connection with the purchase of railways or similar property. The distribution of the liability for such payments will be determined by the Reparation Commission in the same manner as in the case of the secured debt.”

Article 201.—War Debts. For the reasons explained above, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot renounce the general principles which inspired the wording of this article. However, they examined with the greatest care the argument presented by the Austrian delegation and, while studying again and in detail the provisions of the article in question, they sought changes which might be made in the text to satisfy the request of the Austrian delegation without being unfaithful to the general principles. After this new study, they decided to modify the text of article 201 and at the same time to make it more clear by introducing the following provisions therein:

1. To add a new paragraph after the second paragraph:

“The stamping and replacement of a security by a certificate under the provisions oi this article shall not imply that the state so stamping and replacing the security thereby assumes or recognizes any obligation in respect to it unless the state in question desires that the stamping and replacing should have this implication.”

2. At the end of the present paragraph three instead of the words:

“held within the limits of their respective territories by themselves or by their nationals,” to put:

“of which they or their nationals are the real owners.”

3. In paragraph four of the present text, instead of the words:

“The liability because of the war debt … by the nationals or the Governments of …,” to put:

“The liability because of the war debt of the former Austrian Government which was prior to the signature of the present treaty in the actual possession of the nationals or the Governments of …”

Article 202.—After a new examination of this article, it has been decided to make no change in its present text.

It may, however, be opportune to assure the Austrian delegation once more that the Allied and Associated Governments greatly desire to avoid bankruptcy and disorder in the finances of the Republic of Austria. These Governments do not doubt that in applying the provisions of article 202 the Reparation Commission will do everything in its power to prevent the collapse of Austria and that it will attempt to surmount the immense difficulties inherent in the situation and which cannot fail to arise whatever may be the method employed to settle the various questions raised in this article.

Without doubt a new institution or new institutions will have to be created immediately and substituted for the Bank of Austria-Hungary in order to fill the void caused by the liquidation of that institution, an inevitable consequence of the downfall of the former Empire of Austria-Hungary. No provision of the treaty prevents the Austrian Government from taking measures for this purpose without delay.

Article 207. The Allied and Associated Governments do not wish to permit any contradiction to remain between articles 207 and 261 and they have decided to modify article 207 as follows:

Instead of “… and which, having belonged to Austria or its allies, must be transferred by Austria or its allies …,” to read:

“… and which having belonged to these States, must be ceded by them.”

Article 211. While the Allied and Associated Governments cannot amend this article in the sense proposed by the Austrian delegation, they desire to inform it of their great desire to see the financial problems raised by the dismemberment of the former Empire of Austria settled as soon as possible by understandings among the successor states. They are confident that the Reparation Commission, in applying the provisions provided in this article, will not cease to pursue this aim.

modifications proposed in the present text of conditions op peace with austria (part ix)

a) Article 199. Add after the third paragraph of section I of this article the following words: “For the purposes of the present article there should be regarded as secured debt, payments due by the Austrian Government in connection with the purchase of railways or similar properties. The distribution of the liability for such payments will be determined by the Reparation Commission in the same manner as in the case of secured debts.”

b) Article 201. 1) After the second paragraph add the following: “The stamping and replacement of a security by a certificate under the provisions of this article shall not imply that the state so stamping and replacing a security thereby assumes or recognizes any obligation in respect of it unless the state in question desires that the stamping and replacing should have this implication.

2) At the end of paragraph 3, instead of the words “held within the limits of their respective territories by themselves or by their nationals”, put: “of which they or their nationals are the real possessors.”

3) In the fourth paragraph, instead of the words “the liability because of the war debt … by the nationals or the Governments of …” put: “the liability because of the war debt of the former Austrian Government which previous to the signature of the present treaty was in the actual possession of the nationals or the Governments of …”

c) Article 207. Instead of “… and which, having belonged to Austria or to its allies, must be transferred by Austria or its allies …” put “which having belonged to these states must be ceded by them.”

part x.—economic clauses

I.—Customs Regulations, Duties, and Restrictions

The Allied and Associated Powers, after having examined the note of the Austrian delegation dated July 16, are unanimous in declaring that as respects possible arrangements of Austria with the countries born of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or countries which have been ceded territories which made a part thereof, they could not go beyond the concessions to which they agreed in their note of July 8.²³

They cannot admit as valid the argument invoked by the Austrian delegation according to which Austria would find itself prevented from concluding a special arrangement with Czechoslovakia regarding customs and tariffs because of the fact that it is obligated to grant Czechoslovakia most-favored-nation treatment for three years. Austria will have absolute liberty, aside from unimportant exceptions, to establish its own general tariff and will find itself in a position to grant reductions in this tariff in favor of Czechoslovak trade, if it so desires, against corresponding concessions, without being bound to extend the benefit of such reductions to any other country. A similar provision is applied to Hungary.

There are no stipulations in the treaty preventing any one of the Allied and Associated Powers, including Yugoslavia and Roumania, from granting Austria most-favored-nation treatment immediately. But, except in the special case of coal which will be defined below, the Allied and Associated Powers are not disposed to exceed in the treaty of peace the provisions already communicated to the Austrian delegation, under the terms of which Austria—unless the League of Nations decides otherwise—will be released after three years from the obligations imposed upon it by articles 213, 214, 215, and 216 with respect to any Allied or Associated Power which should not accord it reciprocal treatment.

The Allied and Associated Powers have studied with special care the difficulties relative to supplying the coal necessary to Austria, which are the subject of the notes of July 16 and 27. Although they see no reason to suppose that the Czechoslovak Government will take any measure for the purpose of restricting or regulating Austrian purchases of coal in Czechoslovakia, they are, however, disposed, in order to allay the apprehensions of the Austrian Government, to consent to the insertion in the treaty of an article relative to the supplying of coal to Austria by Czechoslovakia and Poland, worded as follows:

“Czechoslovakia and Poland undertake that for a period of fifteen years they will not impose on the exportation to Austria of the products of coal mines in their territories any export duties or other charges or restrictions on exportation of any kind whatever, different from or more onerous than those imposed on such exportation to any other country.

“Czechoslovakia and Poland further undertake during each of the first three years of that period not to impose any export duty or other restriction on exportation to Austria of coal or lignite up to a reasonable quantity to be fixed, failing agreement between the states concerned, by the Reparation Commission. In fixing this quantity the Reparation Commission shall take into account the quantities of coal and lignite normally supplied the territories of the present Austria by Upper Silesia and the Austrian territories ceded to Czechoslovakia and Poland in execution of the treaty of peace.

“Czechoslovakia and Poland undertake further to take all necessary measures to insure that these products may be available to purchasers in Austria on terms as favorable as those applicable to the sale of the same products in the same situation to purchasers from Czechoslovakia or Poland, in their respective countries or in any other country.”

In case of dispute relative to the execution of the interpretation of one of the provisions in the preceding paragraphs of this article, the Reparation Commission will decide.

II.—Unfair Competition

Article 221. The addition to this clause of the words proposed by the Austrian delegation is unacceptable. It is not, indeed, desirable to adopt a formula which can be considered as admitting the possibility of an exception to the general principle that words, marks, names, inscriptions, or signs of any kind which involve false indications of origin must not be employed. Furthermore, there is nothing in the clause which prevents wording on merchandise in the language of the country where the goods are to be sold, provided that the words thus used are not of a kind to give a false indication of origin.

Article 222. With respect to the criticism made of article 222, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot accept the proposed modification. This article is applicable only under the condition of reciprocity, and it should not be impossible for the Austrian Government to take measures for the application of judicial decisions relative to regional appellations, taken in express conformity with the laws on the subject in the countries which are prepared to grant Austria reciprocal treatment. Such decisions may, in fact, be fully assimilated with the ordinances and regulations mentioned in the Austrian note.

III.—Treatment of Nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers

Article 225. The observations formulated by the Austrian delegation on the subject of nationality (observations pages 19 and 20) spring from an erroneous interpretation, at least as regards article 225.

It is to be pointed out that this article is in harmony with the provisions of a certain number of naturalization treaties and that it tends principally to obviate international difficulties which may result from a conflict in national laws on the subject of nationality.

Article 226. In the memorandum attached to its note No. 707 of July 12, the Austrian delegation requests reciprocity with respect to the right reserved to the Allied and Associated Powers by virtue of article 226 of appointing consuls in the cities and ports of Austria. The Allied and Associated Powers are not disposed to grant such reciprocity to Austria. In may however be pointed out that nothing in this article is contrary to bringing into force again, under the terms of article 226, the pre-war consular conventions between certain Allied and Associated Powers and Austria, or to the conclusion of new agreements between Austria and these Powers in connection with the admission of Austrian consular agents to their territory.

IV.—Treaties

The Allied and Associated Powers have already expressed their opinion with respect to the claim of the Austrian delegation that Austria should be considered as an entirely new state which, having no bond of solidarity with the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, would not be bound by the contractual obligations which the Dual Monarchy had entered into; they thus do not consider it useful to renew this discussion with respect to the special question of treaties.

Articles 229–242 relative to bringing the treaties into force again impose on Austria, in terms appropriate to its situation, the obligations which are proper to it; these articles must be maintained and it is to be remarked that the Austrian delegation does not oppose them as being unduly severe but opposes them only in view of the principle mentioned above.

However, if the Allied and Associated Powers cannot admit the thesis of principle on which the Austrian delegation supports its counterproposals, they recognize the justice of two points of detail relative to articles 240 [229?] and 241.

Article 229. It is as a result of a material error that the mention of a convention of June 12, 1902,²⁶ relative to the guardianship of minors disappeared at the end of article 229. It is advisable to replace it as follows:

“23. Convention of June 12, 1902, relative to the guardianship of minors.”

Article 241. The limitation requested by the Austrian delegation may be assured by changing the wording as follows:

“From the coming into force of the present treaty Austria undertakes, so far as it is concerned, to give the Allied and Associated Powers and their nationals the benefit ipso facto of the rights and advantages of any kind which it or the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has guaranteed by treaty, convention, or arrangements to “non-belligerent states or their nationals since July 28, 1914, until the coming into force of the present treaty so long as those treaties, conventions, or agreements are in force for Austria”

general observations on sections iii and iv

The Allied and Associated Powers have studied with the greatest care note No. 661 of the Austrian delegation as well as the subsequent notes relative to the economic clauses and the texts proposed to replace them.

The Austrian delegation’s note and the greater part of the observations detailed therein oppose an objection of principle to the continuation of the liquidation of Austro-German assets after the conclusion of peace.

This objection has been acknowledged as justified to a very large measure by the concessions granted in the reply of July 8 to a preceding note.

Under the terms of this reply, the assets of Austrian nationals in territories which formerly were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire will not be subject to the liquidation provided by article 244 of the treaty, as a result of special consideration raised about the properties located in these territories, but the Allied and Associated Powers cannot extend this concession to other properties of Austrian nationals located abroad.

They have, however, no intention of applying the liquidation procedure provided by the treaty to German properties which will come into their territory only in the future.

The provisions of article 244 (b) will be applied only to Austrian properties as they exist at the moment when the treaty of peace comes into effect.

The detailed observations of the Austrian delegation with respect to other points are considered in the remarks below.

V.—Debts (Section III)

Article 243. The Allied and Associated Powers cannot accept the proposal that a period of six years be granted for the collection and payment of debts due by Austrian nationals to Allied creditors.

With respect to the observations of the Austrian delegation relative to the interest on securities issued by the former Austro-Hungarian state, it may be remarked that the article applies only to interest due or to capital payable before and during the war. Accordingly no question arises in this article as to ascertaining whether such interest or such capital may become payable after the conclusion of peace. There is no reason to exclude the interest and capital mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 from the system of the Compensation Office; but in order to specify that, with respect to Austro-Hungarian debts, Austria will be charged, in the application of this system, only the sums referring to the part of the debt for which it is bound in conformity with the other provisions of the treaty, the following words may be added to the end of these paragraphs:

“In the case of interest or capital sums payable in respect to securities issued or taken over by former Austria-Hungary, the amount to be credited and paid by Austria will be the interest or capital in respect only of the debt for which Austria is liable in accordance with the financial clauses of the present Treaty and the principles laid down by the Reparation Commission.”

Article 243. a)—Annex, paragraph 3—The prohibition against communication between debtors and creditors given in this paragraph envisages only relations tending to the settlement of debts payable through the intermediary of the Compensation Office.

In addition, communications of this kind may always take place through the intermediary of this Office and it does not appear that any modification is necessary for this purpose.

Article 243. b) The Allied and Associated Powers agree to eliminate the last sentence of this paragraph which stipulates that debts due by the inhabitants of territories invaded and occupied by the enemy before the armistice will not be guaranteed by the states of which these territories form part. The corresponding sentence at the end of article 14 of the annex is likewise to be eliminated.

Article 243. d) The Austrian delegation declares that it cannot understand the fourth paragraph of article 243 (d). The Allied and Associated Powers have decided to change the wording of this paragraph in order to make it more explicit.

The text of the paragraph will be as follows:

“In the case of Poland and Czechoslovakia, newly created powers, the currency of settlement 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 unless they shall have been previously settled by an agreement between the interested states regulating the unsettled questions.”

Article 243. e) It is not possible to give both the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria the right of opting or not opting the system of the Compensation Office for the result might be that one of the Powers would adopt it and the other would not.

The treaty provided the possibility of applying special rules with respect to the currency and rate of exchange according to whether the system is adopted or not and the adoption of this system by only one part of the Allied or Associated Powers will not impose excessive constraint on Austria. In these circumstances, the proposal of the Austrian delegation of leaving to the Reparation Commission the task of deciding whether the system should be generally applied cannot be accepted.

It may be further pointed out that the period of six months provided by Article 243 (e) for the exercise of the right of option was reduced, in the text of the economic clauses given to the Austrian delegation on July 19, to a period of one month from the ratification of the treaty of peace by the interested power.

As a result of this modification, it will no longer be necessary to provide any special provisions to guarantee the payment of enemy debts during the short period in which uncertainty may exist as to whether the system will be adopted.

There is no reason to grant delays in payment once it is known that the system will not be applied between two given countries.

Article 243—Annex, paragraph 16.—The reason for the distinction between the Credit or Compensation Office and the Debtor Office is that the proceedings before the courts for obtaining judgment on a disputed debt will, generally speaking, be carried out in the country of the debtor.

That is why, when a matter of this kind is involved, it is not admissible to allow the Debtor Office to bring the dispute before the courts of the country of the creditor.

Article 243—Annex, paragraph 20.—The sentence alluded to declares that the court may allow damages and interest to the amount of the costs of the suit and it does not seem that there can be any misunderstanding on the point. This provision is necessary to avoid the delays and costs which, without it, would be occasioned by appeals made with insufficient basis.

Article 243—Armex, paragraph 22—There are no adequate reasons for modifying the rights of creditors with respect to interest, in cases where they are authorized to receive interest by virtue of contract, law, or custom. The provision which provides for the payment of interest in other cases is reasonable because the debtor had the use of the sum during the war for a longer period than could have been contemplated by the parties.

VI.—Property, Bights and Interests (Section IV)

The Austrian delegation complains that the obligation to pay an indemnity for the damage caused property on account of measures taken by the Austro-Hungarian Government is imposed on Austria alone; but if, as is said, the property of nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers was protected by the former Austro-Hungarian Government and if such nationals were in no way hindered in their business, the amount of the indebtedness cannot come to a very large sum.

The Allied and Associated Powers will make use of the right to liquidate Austrian property in their territory, as circumstances require, but they do not intend to sell personal articles or souvenirs of little value.

Article 244 f) and g) The Allied and Associated Powers cannot accept the substitution of the words “before the signing of the peace” for the words “before the signing of the armistice” at the end of paragraph g.

Article 244 k) The ground on which the opposition to this clause is based is not easy to see; the necessity for it comes, in particular, from information gathered by the Allied and Associated Powers as to the methods which it is proposed to apply in Austria to levy taxes on capital, affecting the property of Allied nationals. In order to bring it into harmony with the treaty with Germany, the text of this article has already been modified as follows:

“The amount of all taxes or imposts on capital levied or to be levied by Austria on the property, rights, and interests of nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, from November 3, 1918, until three months after the coming into force of the present treaty or, in the case of property, rights or interests which have been subjected to exceptional measures of war, until restitution in accordance with the provisions of the present treaty, shall be restored to the owners.”

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 1.—The Allied and Associated Powers are not disposed to recognize in any way the measures taken by the Austro-Hungarian Government in invaded and occupied territories and this paragraph cannot be changed.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 4.—Taking into consideration the complete unity which existed during the war between the powers at war with the Allied and Associated States and, in particular, taking into consideration the negotiations entered into for the division of Allied property seized in occupied territory, the principle of joint responsibility must be maintained, but the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared not to burden the property of Austrian nationals with the obligation of satisfying unpaid debts of nationals of the powers which were formerly allies of Austria-Hungary.

It will be noted that the paragraph has already been changed in accordance herewith.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 5.—The scope of this paragraph seems to have been misunderstood. It applies only in the case of a company incorporated in Austria and controlled by a company incorporated in an Allied or Associated State.

The effect of the paragraph will be to reestablish the rights of trademarks in third countries to the benefit of the person who was virtually [actually?] owner thereof before the war and there can be no reasonable objection to such a provision.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 8.—The lack of reciprocity in this provision comes in part from the fact that no indemnity can be claimed by Austrian nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers, so that detailed information will not be required. For this reason the Allied and Associated Powers are not prepared to make an engagement to funish detailed information but they are nevertheless ready to examine favorably any request made after the treaty comes into effect for the purpose of obtaining adequate data as to the amounts realized in the liquidation of Austrian property.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 10.—As is explained above, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot abandon the rights of liquidation contained in article 244 (b) to a greater degree than has been indicated and they cannot accept a modification of paragraph 10.

The purpose of this paragraph, as is indicated in the Austrian note, is to allow these liquidations to be effected without needless inconvenience and expense.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 12.—The principle established in this paragraph that assets in cash received must be reimbursed in cash is absolutely justified for all parties and the Allied and Associated Powers see no reason to recognize investments in war loans of sums belonging to enemies. The paragraph applies to the Allied and Associated Powers as well as to Austria and they cannot consent to its modification.

Article 244—Annex, paragraph 14.—As in the case of the right to choose the system of the Compensation Office, it is not possible to give both the Allied and Associated Powers and Austria the right of option as regards the principles formulated for the rate of exchange and of interest.

Additional note—In their reply of July 8 to a preceding Austrian note, the Allied and Associated Powers agreed that the property of Austrian nationals located in territories which formerly were a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would not be subject to the liquidation under article 244 of the treaty.

Section VIII

Article 260. The Allied and Associated Powers are disposed to modify the second sentence of this article so as to stipulate that the property, rights, and interests in question will be restored free of any charge or tax on capital which may have been established or increased after November 1, 1918, and that they will not be subject to any tax imposed with respect to any other property or business belonging to the same person, from the moment when such property is removed from Austria or when such business ceases to be carried on there.

In view of the modifications made in the second paragraph of article 266, the text of the second paragraph of article 260 will be changed as follows:

“Cash assets shall be paid for in the currency and at the rate of exchange provided for the case of debts under articles 243 d) and 266.”

With regard to the last paragraph of the article, the last words, stipulating that account shall be taken of payments regularly made for the purpose of the trust, seem to have escaped the attention of the Austrian delegation, for these words sufficiently protect operations of this kind regularly effected since July 28, 1914.

Article 262. To meet the objections which the Austrian delegation raises against this article, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to substitute the following text for this article and article 263:

“All contracts for the sale of goods from overseas, concluded before January 1, 1917, between nationals of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy on the one hand and the administrations of the former Monarchy, of Austria, of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or Austrian nationals on the other hand, shall be annulled except in respect of any debt or other pecuniary obligation arising out of any act done or money paid thereunder. All other contracts between such parties concluded before November 1, 1918, and in force at that date shall be maintained.”

Article 264. No difficulty can result from the suspension of the period of prescription and limitation of rights of prosecution provided by this article; on the contrary, its effect is to prevent all the difficulties which would not otherwise fail to arise because of the difficulty or impossibility of communication between the parties.

Article 265. In order to meet the objection of the Austrian delegation according to which the obligations to which Austria is asked to conform by this article are not defined, the Allied and Associated Powers are prepared to substitute the following text:

“Austria undertakes not to impede in any way the transfer of property, rights, or interests belonging to a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in which Allied or Associated nationals are interested, to a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of any other power, to facilitate all measures necessary for giving effect to such transfer, and to render any assistance which may be required for effecting the restoration to Allied or Associated nationals, or to companies in which they are interested, of their property, rights, and interests, whether in Austria or in transferred territory.”

Article 266. The Allied and Associated Powers agree to substitute for article 266 the following provision:

“Section III shall not apply to debts contracted between Austrian nationals and nationals of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

“Subject to the special provisions laid down in article 243 (d) for the newly created powers, the debts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present article shall be paid in the legal currency, at the time of payment, of the state of which the national of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has become a national. The rate of exchange applicable to the said settlement shall be the average rate quoted on the Geneva exchange during the two months preceding November 1, 1918.”

Article 270. The observations of the Austrian delegation are based on the hypothesis that the delivery of social insurance or state funds must be effected under a form other than that in which they now exist; such is not the case and it may be pointed out that the article itself provides that the conditions of delivery shall be determined by special conventions to be concluded between the Austrian Government and the governments concerned.

In order to eliminate any ambiguity which might exist on this point, the Allied and Associated Powers declare that the proportion of reserve to be delivered in execution of this article shall be the exact proportion of the funds or debts existing on the date of the armistice. It may, in addition, be observed that a paragraph has been added to the article the provisions of which insure a just and reasonable settlement of the conditions of the transfer.

VII.—Contracts, Prescriptions, and Judgments (Section V)

Article 246b. The question of “the general interest” is one of those questions which must be determined by the Allied and Associated Governments concerned and a modification of this article with a view to providing an appeal to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal on this subject cannot be admitted.

It may be pointed out that the article provides that compensation may be granted by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to a contracting party who has suffered considerable injury.

Article 246d. The intent of the first part of this article is that the rules established by article 246 and the annex thereto do not apply to contracts between the nationals of an Allied and Associated Power, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the inhabitants of a transferred territory who acquired the nationality of an Allied or Associated Power under the terms of the treaty. Contracts between Austrians, on the one hand, and the inhabitants of a transferred territory, on the other, are the subject of article 262.

Article 247b and c and article 249. The Allied and Associated Powers are not disposed to apply the principle of reciprocity for these articles.

The treaty indicates that in certain cases the Allied and Associated tribunals are competent to settle the disputes, but this power is not given to the Austrian courts and reciprocity cannot be granted with the respect to requests for compensation introduced by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

VIII.—Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (Section VI)

The proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal calls for the following reply:

The role of the Tribunal is not merely to pass on the new rights resulting from the treaty, but also to form a new jurisdiction to which certain disputes relative to already existing private rights are referred.

With respect to these rights, the tribunals of the Allied and Associated Powers are already competent and certain of the said Powers find insurmountable difficulties in the way of removing such disputes from such jurisdiction.

According to their system of jurisprudence and in the present circumstances, they see no adequate reasons for withdrawing from their nationals the access to their own courts which the law opens to them.

No new jurisdiction is given to these courts and the Austrian litigants find no prejudice in the fact of the maintenance by these courts of the jurisdiction which they now have.

With respect to the obligations formulated in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the annex, the Allied and Associated Powers agree that paragraph 7 shall be modified so as to provide that the Allied and Associated Powers as well as Austria will give the Tribunal all necessary facilities and data which it may request to carry out its investigations.

It might have been noticed that the text of paragraphs 8 and 9 has already been modified as follows:

• Paragraph 8. “The language in which the proceedings shall be conducted shall, unless otherwise agreed, be English, French, Italian, or Japanese as may be determined by the Allied and Associated Powers concerned.”
• Paragraph 9. “Place and time for the meetings of each Tribunal shall be determined by the president of the Tribunal.”

Insurance Contracts. The point of view of the Austrian Government according to which provisions relative to insurance contracts contained in articles 246 to 250 and in the annex to section 5 do not apply to contracts between Austrians, on the one hand, and inhabitants of a transferred territory, on the other, is correct; as stated above these contracts are the subject of article 262.

The recommendation of the Austrian delegation represents the terms of the treaty, as respects insurance contracts, as very severe and contrary to the principle of reciprocity. But in fact the only paragraph of the annex which deals with insurance contracts and is not completely reciprocal is paragraph 12.

The objections formulated with regard to this paragraph have been taken into consideration and its elimination is agreed to.

The French text of the paragraph should not be modified. It is clearly apparent from this text that the value in question is the refund value.

There is no justification for a special provision granting long terms of payment for amounts which may be due by Austrian insurance companies to insurance companies in Allied and Associated countries.

Under these conditions the Allied and Associated Powers are not disposed to make any other modifications for the provisions of the treaty relative to insurance contracts.

IX.—Industrial Property (Section VII)

With respect to the general observations in the preamble of the Austrian memorandum on industrial property, the Allied and Associated Powers cannot agree that an essential change be made in the articles concerning the industrial property of inhabitants of territories which have separated from Austria. However, in order to guarantee the recognition and the protection of industrial property rights belonging to Austrians in the territories separated from Austria, a new provision has been added to article 269.

Article 253, paragraphs 2 and 3, and article 257, paragraph 2. It is not the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers to use without compensation the rights of industrial, literary, or artistic property belonging to Austrian nationals after the coming into effect of the present treaty.

The question raised regarding these articles has already been solved by the insertion of a new provision after paragraph 5 in article 253.

Article 253, paragraphs 5 and 8. The fifth paragraph of article 253, which provides that the Allied and Associated Powers will have the right to impose limitations, conditions, or restrictions on rights of industrial property belonging to Austrians, is in no way for the purpose of confiscating such rights. It seeks, on the one hand, to reserve to the Allied or Associated Powers the privilege of restricting industrial, literary, or artistic property when they consider it necessary for the needs of national defense or public interest. This power, which Austria is guaranteed by its domestic legislation, is a general and permanent right which will be applied, if necessary, to industrial, literary, or artistic property which should be acquired before or after the coming into effect of the treaty of peace.

It seeks, on the other hand, to permit the use of industrial, literary, or artistic property on the same basis as other Austrian property, as a security for the fulfillment of Austria’s obligations and for the reparation of the damages which it has caused. It is not the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers to use for this purpose industrial, literary, or artistic property which might be acquired after the coming into effect of the present treaty. Only industrial, literary, or artistic property acquired before or during the war may be subjected by the Allied or Associated Powers to the limitations, conditions, and restrictions provided to guarantee an equitable treatment by Austria of the rights of industrial, literary, or artistic property held on Austrian territory by their nationals or to guarantee the complete fulfillment of all the obligations contracted by Austria by virtue of the present treaty.

To define the different treatment in this respect which the Allied and Associated Powers intend to reserve for property acquired before the coming into effect of the treaty and that which may be subsequently acquired, paragraph 5 (e) of Article 253 has already been completed by a new provision.

The power given by paragraph 8 of the article to consider as fiull and without effect any total or partial transfer and any concession of rights over industrial, literary, or artistic property effected after July 28, 1914, must be maintained; otherwise an Austrian holding a right over industrial property might nominally divest himself of the legal title to the property in such fashion as to evade the effects of the provisions of this article.

Article 254, paragraph 2, last sentence. The observations of the Austrian delegation have been satisfied by the amendment made in article 253, which is the clause providing for the payment of royalties.

part xii.—ports, waterways, and railways

The Allied and Associated Powers have studied with care the detailed observations of the Austrian delegation concerning the clauses of part XII of the conditions of peace. Certain of these observations and criticisms refer to a text of the conditions of peace previous to the last text sent to the Austrian delegation. Others have seemed to proceed merely from errors in interpretation as to the sense of stipulations and as to the intentions of the Allied and Associated Powers. The majority represent less objections of detail regarding the practical application of the clauses than claims of principle of a general and political nature, taken up and transposed one after another, according to the diversity of the technical problems, on the occasion of the study of a great number of the articles. Thus the Allied and Associated Powers do not feel obligated to follow the exposition of the Austrian observations article by article in their reply; they are content to group here, on the principal questions raised, the reasons of fact and of law which justify the maintenance of all the clauses or, in certain cases, modifications which it has been considered just to make.

The principal, and without doubt the most constantly repeated of the protests of the Austrian delegation against the text of the stipulations of the part on ports, waterways and railways of the conditions of peace, concerns the application of the numerous articles on the general system of means of transportation, freedom of transit, transportation by railway, by navigable waters, and telegraph and telephone services, where unilateral obligations are imposed on Austria for a period of five years after the coming into force of the treaty of peace. The Austrian delegation, on the one hand, considers that the text of the article in which this general period of five years is laid down is drafted in such an indefinite way as to permit the Allied and Associated Powers to prolong it at will. On the other hand, while appearing to recognize that the powers which were at war with the former Austro-Hungarian monarchy have the right to exact such types of facilities, the Austrian delegation refuses to admit that the new Allied or Associated States which are successors of the said Austro-Hungarian Monarchy may likewise claim this right. Accordingly, as respects its relations with this last category, it claims the benefit of immediate reciprocity and, in particular, it opposes the special guarantees of a moreover, indeterminate duration, given to the Czechoslovak Republic over certain railways and certain telegraph lines in Austria.

The Allied and Associated Powers are desirous of giving partial satisfaction on this point to the requests of the Austrian delegation by reducing to three years the period of non-reciprocity. But they recall, however, that the reason for these unilateral obligations affecting the transportation system is not merely, as the Austrian delegation seems to believe, a will to prevent an enemy state from indirectly profiting by immediate resumption of equal competition, from the devastations committed by its armies but also—which particularly affects the relations between Austria and the new Allied and Associated States born of the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy—the necessity of safeguarding during a transitory period the establishment in these new states of the first economic set-up and the reorganization of the transportation system hitherto dominated by the preponderant centralization at Vienna. As to the fear that the period of non-reciprocity may be arbitrarily prolonged by the Allied and Associated Powers, Austria should find all guarantees in the thoroughly reasoned decision of the Council of the League of Nations.

Another series of observations, which reappears under various forms and apropos of various articles in the Austrian delegation’s note, concerns the advance acceptance by Austria of future technical conventions and agreements on freedom of transit, the international regime of ports, waterways, and railways, transportation by railroad, the adoption of a continuous brake, the regulations concerning the Danube, conventions to be concluded in the future without the participation or collaboration of Austria, according to articles 293, 298, 305, 309, and 323 of the conditions of peace.

It may be remarked on this subject that, with respect to the drafting of the new convention regarding transportation by railway intended to replace the Berne convention, article 305 expressly provides for possible collaboration of Austria in the new convention, and that, with regard to the future technical agreement relative to the continuous brake, there was never any question of compelling Austria to take part therein and to adopt the system of brake chosen by the Allied and Associated Powers, but only of obliging it to equip the cars with devices making it possible to join them to trains of the Allied and Associated Powers, furnished with the continuous brake, and, reciprocally, to join the cars of such Powers to Austrian trains; the Allied and Associated Powers are in addition quite willing to hear the representatives of Austria at the time of drafting of the technical agreement on the type of continuous brake. Similarly, in its new form, article 298, relative to the final regime of the Danube, stipulates that representatives of Austria may be present at the conference charged with drawing up the regulations. Finally, the general conventions on freedom of transit and the international regime of ports, waterways, and railways will by no means be issued by the Allied and Associated Powers but will obligate these Powers among themselves and, in order to bind Austria, must receive the approval of the League of Nations. While no possible equitable guarantee has been neglected, it has, on the other hand, seemed inadmissible—as the Allied and Associated Powers have already replied to Germany—to permit an enemy state, for reasons of resentment of a political nature, to prevent, through its opposition in principle, the) conclusion of agreements useful for the general welfare.

The Austrian delegation, indeed, does not hesitate to affirm that the Austrian state, defenseless as respects transportation enterprises, assumes the responsibility of executing certain clauses touching, for instance, on equality of treatment and internal navigation fees “only insofar as the application thereof may be carried on by public establishments or establishments over the operation of which the state or some type of public body has the right to exercise its influences,” though in fact the Austrian state, through subsidies or merely through the ownership of the majority of the stock, has entire control over the great internal navigation companies, and though, in any circumstances, it is its duty to take, in the name of its liability to the other contracting powers and in the full exercise of its sovereign rights, all internal legislative or administrative measures suitable to assure the strict execution of the terms of the treaty within the period specified.

The more specific and more concrete remarks of the Austrian delegation on the technical stipulations of construction and transfers of railways and, particularly, concerning the regime of the Danube have, however, allowed the Allied and Associated Powers either to state precisely their point of view, inaccurately understood no doubt, or to correct details in the text, while taking sincere account of the new objections. Article 313, providing for the construction of the new trans-Alpine lines of the Col de Reschen and of the Pas de Predil, had already been modified in the last text of the conditions of peace transmitted to the Austrian delegation; possible financial obligations of Austria had been defined and subordinated to the existence of corresponding receipts.

Similarly, article 311 had received the addition of a new paragraph relative to frontier railroad stations, which seems to respond to certain desiderata of the Austrian note. The last paragraph of article 310, concerning the lines in former Russian Poland transferred to the normal gauge, has been revised and made to conform better with the legal position of these lines during the war. If the rest of article 310, respecting the transfer of railways, has been maintained without change, it is not because the Allied and Associated Powers disapprove in general of the considerations which the Austrian delegation develops therein. They feel, as does the Austrian delegation, that the distribution of the rolling-stock of the Government railroads of the former Austrian Monarchy between Austria and the Allied and Associated States born of the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary or having received territory from the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy must be effected like an actual liquidation and placed under the direction of a commission of experts on which all the interested States shall be represented. But the text of article 310, in the opinion of the Allied and Associated Powers, is entirely in accordance with such interpretation and could only through a misunderstanding have given rise to the objections of the Austrian delegation. Likewise, the Allied and Associated Powers have never sought to compel Austria to repair in its own workshops all the rolling-stock transferred to the other states. They have only wished to guarantee the temporary provisions necessary for immediate repairs of the material until the new states have been able to set up their own autonomous workshops inside their territory.

Articles 283 and 284 have likewise been subject to an error of interpretation on the part of the Austrian delegation. The Allied and Associated Powers by no means proposed to bind Austria, as respects transports from and to river ports which, after transshipment, should not in fact be transports coming from or destined to a maritime port. Thus, taking into account the remark that the Austrian schedule of fees on the Danube is limited almost exclusively to the exchange of goods between the riparian states along this river, they agree to eliminate from the text of articles 283 and 284 the mention of Austrian ports. The combination of the new text of articles 283 and 284 with article 308 suffices in fact to establish that, each time that the transportation shall in fact be from or to any maritime port, such transportation shall be subject to the rules of articles 283 and 284, whether effected or not with transshipment at an Austrian or foreign river port; and that this last is the only case contemplated by the Allied and Associated Powers.

The observations of the Austrian note with respect to the special regime of the various international rivers have been given a similarly careful examination by the Allied and Associated Powers. For the Elbe, the Oder and even the Rhine, the Austrian delegation requests that Austria be represented on the river commissions, alleging on the one hand the economic interests of Austria in the Elbe and the Oder and on the other its position as a riparian state on Lake Constance, as regards the Rhine. The Allied and Associated Powers have not believed that they could accede to the Austrian suggestions on this point. The status of riparian state on Lake Constance can in no way give a right to representation on the Rhine Commission, as the Rhine is not navigable above Basel. Likewise, with respect to the Elbe and the Oder, the economic interests of Austria are not a sufficient reason for its admission into the commissions.

Doubtless other states than the riparian states form part of the commissions, but not because of their economic interest; rather, as the Allied and Associated Powers have already pointed out in their reply to the observations of the German delegation, in order that disinterested powers may, by their presence on the Commissions, introduce among the divergent interests of riparian states an element of reflection and balance and may represent the principle of free circulation on these rivers. For the Danube, on the contrary, certain specific remarks of the Austrian delegation can be usefully heeded. Article 294 concerning the transfers of vessels and material has been greatly revised with a view to delimiting with greater precision the powers of the arbitrator charged with the distribution and most effective safeguarding of the interests of the vessels’ owners. The Allied and Associated Powers take this occasion to declare that the purpose of this article, as well as of the corresponding article of the treaty with Germany, is to assure the best utilization of river vessels in Europe to the benefit of all the riparian states and is by no means to envisage compensation for damages suffered during the war, a question which has been considered in other clauses. The war did considerably decrease the facilities available for river navigation. Territorial readjustments, particularly those which provide the transfer of river ports, may require the redistribution of the vessels remaining, in order that they may be immediately utilized in the general interest. The arbitrator or arbitrators to be designated by the United States have been charged with making a distribution of river vessels such as territorial changes may require.

Just as a transfer of rolling-stock must accompany the transfer, of railways when a territory changes hands, so, in the case of a transfer of river ports, must the arbitrator determine what transfer of corresponding material must be made. Without being bound by this consideration, he must take into account the needs of the interested states as well as the river traffic during the five years preceding the war. Like article 294, article 297 providing for meetings of the International Commission for the Upper Danube has been modified and completed. It seemed necessary, in accordance with the requests of the Austrian delegation, to specify the attributions and method of operation of this provisional international Commission which will meet as soon as possible after the treaty comes into effect. In reply to observations concerning the Danube-Oder canal, it is understood that, as soon as this canal has been built by the Czechoslovak state, the regime provided for the Rhine-Danube canal will be applied to it. Austria will thus receive every guarantee of free circulation on this waterway which seems necessary to it for its economic outlet to the Baltic and North Seas. Finally, a new article assures the maintenance of works for irrigation, canalization, inundation, use of hydraulic power, et cetera, located in the territory of several states.

The Allied and Associated Powers have discussed whether, as the Austrian delegation proposes, it would be advisable to extend the international regime to the whole navigable course of the affluents of the Danube, the Drave, the Save, and the Theiss. For the moment it does not seem to them desirable to extend the international organization beyond what is given in article 286, that is, to internationalize equally a navigable section of a river system which would not naturally serve as access to the sea for more than one state, but they recall that the general convention provided in article 293 may apply internationalization to all or part of a river system which might be included in a new definition stated by such convention. And meanwhile, just as the internationalization of the Elbe has been extended to the Vltava up to Prague, on the express request of the Czechoslovak Republic, they herewith agree, by an amendment to the text of article 286, to give to special agreements concluded among riparian states the power of freely extending the application of the international regime.

The Allied and Associated Powers consider that the putting into practice of the clauses of part XII of the conditions of peace, as thus defined and completed, will prove by actual application their practicability and efficacy for the most rapid possible resumption of free communication in Europe, which the Allied and Associated Powers are particularly desirous, as is the Austrian delegation, of effecting and guaranteeing.

Annex II

amendments to the conditions of peace with austria

Article 283. Take out the words “for the benefit of Austrian ports or of any port of another power” and substitute “for the benefit of any port of another power.”

Article 284. Take out the words “which it granted to this same port or to the ports of another power” and substitute “which it granted to those of another power.”

Article 286. Add a third paragraph reading as follows:

“Any part of the above-mentioned river system which is not included in the general definition may be declared international by an agreement between the riparian states.”

Article 287. Take out the last paragraph.

Article 286 bis [287a]. New article constituted by the last paragraph of the present article 287.

Article 294. Take out and replace by:

“Austria shall cede to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned, within a maximum period of three months from the date on which notification shall be given it, a proportion of the tugs and vessels remaining registered in the ports of the river systems referred to in article 6 [286] after the deduction of those surrendered by way of restitution or reparation. Austria shall in the same way cede material of all kinds necessary to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned for the utilization of these river systems.

“The number of tugs and boats, and the amount of material so ceded, and their distribution, shall be determined by an arbitrator or arbitrators designated by the United States of America, due regard being had for the legitimate needs of the parties concerned, and particularly for the shipping traffic during the five years preceding the war.

“All craft so ceded shall be provided with their fittings and gear, and shall be in a good state of repair and in condition to carry goods, and shall be selected from among those most recently built.

“Wherever the cessions made under the present article involve a change of ownership, the arbitrator or arbitrators shall determine the rights of the former owners as of October 15, 1919, and the amount of compensation to be paid them and shall also direct the manner in which such payment is to be effected in each case. If the arbitrator or arbitrators find that the whole or part of this sum will revert directly or indirectly to states from which reparation is due, they shall decide the sum to be placed under this head to the credit of the said states.

“As regards the Danube, the arbitrator or arbitrators mentioned above shall also decide all questions as to the permanent allocation of vessels the ownership or nationality of which might cause a dispute among the states and the conditions of such allocation.

“Pending final allocation, the control of these vessels shall be vested in a commission consisting of representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and Italy. This commission will make provisional arrangements for the working of these vessels in the general interest by any local organization or, failing such arrangements, by itself without prejudice to the final allocation.

“As far as possible these provisional operations will be on a commercial basis and cash received by the commission for the hire of these vessels shall be disposed of as directed by the Reparation Commission.”

Article 297. Add “The decisions of this international commission shall be taken by a majority vote. The salaries of the commissioners shall be fixed and paid by their respective countries.

“As a provisional measure, any deficit in the administrative expenses of this international commission shall be borne equally by the states represented on this commission.

“In particular, this commission shall regulate the licensing of pilots, charges for pilotage, and the administration of the pilot service.”

Article 302. Instead of the words “in articles 332 to 338 of the treaty of peace concluded at Versailles on June 28, 1919, between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany” read “in articles 287 to 293 of the present treaty.”

Article 304. Last paragraph. Instead of the words “without prejudice to the provisions of article 284” read “without prejudice to the provisions of articles 283 and 284.”

Article 315. Take out No. 2. As a result No. 3 becomes No. 2.

Article 322. First paragraph. Take out the words “at the expiration of a period of five years” and substitute “at the expiration of a period of three years.”

Line two. Take out “Article 287” and replace by “Article 287 bis.”

Second paragraph. Take out the words “period of five years” and substitute “period of three years”.

Article 310. Last paragraph. Take out and substitute: “The provisions of paragraphs three and four above shall be applied to the lines of former Russian Poland converted by the Austria-Hungarian authorities to the normal gauge, such lines being regarded as detached from the Austrian and Hungarian state systems.”

New Article

Section II. Add: Chapter III, Hydraulic System.

Article 302 bis. In default of any provisions to the contrary, when, as the result of the fixing of a new frontier, the hydraulic system (canalization, inundations, irrigation, drainage, et cetera) in a state is dependent on works executed within the territory of another state, or when use is made on the territory of a state, in virtue of pre-war usage, of water or hydraulic power, the source of which is on the territory of another state, an agreement shall be made between the states concerned to safeguard the interests and rights acquired by each of them.

Failing an agreement, the matter shall be regulated by an arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

part xiii.—labor

The Government of German-Austria, while approving in principle the part of the treaty relative to labor, thus expresses one regret:

“In the opinion of the German-Austrian Government, it would be desirable not only to incorporate into the treaty of peace the rules of procedure with a view to developing and organizing legislation on labor insurance, but still more and above all to decree in this same instrument the essence of the rights and obligations on the subject of social provision.”

And after having advanced the reasons in the development of its own legislation it adds that “the spirit on which it is based obviously would require that the treaty on world peace shall put into force, in the field of international law, all provisions proposed and accepted at the International Trade Union Congress at Berne in 1919.”

Similar observations had been made by the German delegation and replied to.

It is not possible to solve these multiple and complex questions in the treaty of peace without indefinitely delaying the signature of this treaty. In the second place, it is desirable to discuss them with the assistance of the neutral nations whose legislation shows the same progress. Finally, it is to be pointed out that the permanent international labor organization created by the Peace Conference is set up just in order to approach the whole group of labor problems to be settled and that the field of action assigned to it contains them all.

It hence seems that the observations of the Government of German-Austria do not involve a modification of the treaty of peace. Also it offers no modification to the text of part XIII. All the observations are basically met: that appears from the conclusions in which, in assuming that German-Austria will be represented on the labor organization, the Austrian Government declares itself ready to accept the part of the conditions of peace concerning labor.

Appendix

Reservations Made by the Delegations

Covering Letter

british proposal

The British delegation proposes that the wording of the covering letter be modified so as to include the following principles:

I.—1. The state of war, which indisputably existed until the armistice, has not in fact ceased so far for the populations of Austria and the fact that a new government has been established has not put an end to it.

2. The Allied and Associated Powers are thus entitled to set for the conclusion of peace such conditions as it seems to them appropriate to impose.

3. By the very fact of signing the peace, these Powers recognize the new government of the Republic ot Austria; in doing so they are disposed to recognize also that Austria is a new state which inherits neither the rights nor the obligations of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or of the Cisleithan part of that Monarchy, other than the rights and obligations created by the actual text of the treaty.

That text would seem to need modifications in order to make it conform more clearly to these principles.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted by the other delegations which consider that they already appear in the letter and they reject the third point.

II. The British representative makes a reservation of a general order in the first paragraph concerning the frontier question until a definitive decision has been taken by the Supreme Council on the observations presented for this chapter.

Nor can the British representative accept the second paragraph which stipulates that the determination of frontiers entailing the attribution to Italy of the middle Tyrol is indispensable. He is in entire agreement with the decision unanimously taken by the Central Territorial Committee, declaring that, as the decision concerning the middle Tyrol has been taken by the Supreme Council, it pertains to no other organ to explain and justify the reasons on which this decision was based; ignoring these reasons, the British representative cannot associate himself with a declaration stating that the assignment of this territory to Italy was indispensable.

The American, French, Italian, and Japanese delegations opposed this reservation.

american proposal

The American delegation calls attention to the following observations:

The covering letter to the Austrian delegation adopts the point of view that Austria is, at least to a certain point, the successor to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This is a point of view which it seems has been before examined on several occasions, as is shown by the following extract of a letter sent on August 16 by the Finance Commission to the Secretary General of the Conference:

The Finance Commission considers that it is not competent to modify the instructions which it has received from the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers, particularly by the letter sent by M. Clemenceau to Lord Cunliffe on May 12, 1919.

1. The Republic of Austria is the successor of the former Monarchy; it cannot be placed on the same footing as the states to which territories of the former Empire of Austria have been transferred or as the states born of the dismemberment of the Empire: these states form part of the Allied and Associated Powers and the burden of the war debt of the former Austrian Monarchy cannot be imposed upon them …

Further, the letter from M. Clemenceau to Lord Cunliffe dated May 12, 1919, said:

Dear Lord Cunliffe:

I am instructed to inform you that the Supreme Council, in its session of Saturday afternoon, May 10,²⁸ studied your letter of May 8²⁹ in which you asked whether the newly created states, such as Poland, etc., must assume a part of the Austro-Hungarian war debt.

It has been decided that no portion of the Austro-Hungarian debt would be charged against these states. With respect to reparations, it has been decided that the Commission of which you form part would be requested to take as the basis of its work the principle of participation of all the states which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, in payments due on this account. On such basis, the Commission will have to determine the total amount which can be paid by all the states which formed part of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire; thus it will present proposals as to the part which each state concerned must pay, taking account of its previous obligations and its capacity to pay …³⁰

We also recall the declaration made by Great Britain and France on March 28, 1918, following the communication in which the Soviet Government of Russia expressed its intention of repudiating the whole Russian public debt. This declaration stated:

No principle is better established than that which demands that a nation be responsible for the acts of its government and that any change of government shall not affect obligations previously contracted.

The obligations of Russia still exist; they bind and will continue to bind the new states or the group of states which represent or will represent Russia.

In spite of the position adopted in the covering letter which is to be handed to the Austrian delegation, as well as the other declarations quoted above, the preamble of the treaty with Austria declares that:

Austria is recognized as a new and independent state, under the name of the Republic of Austria.

To the Supreme Council is left the task of deciding whether this sentence of the preamble of the treaty is not in contradiction with the declaration made in the covering letter as well as with the other declarations quoted above.

Furthermore, we point out that the clause of the Treaty declaring that “Austria is recognized as a new and independent state under the name of the Republic of Austria” might lead to errors of interpretation as to the rights and obligations (other than those mentioned in the treaty) of the new Austria, considered as forming part of the states which are heirs of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It cannot be foreseen on what points the Allied and Associated Powers will wish to hold Austria responsible as regards the rights and obligations which, from the point of view of international law and justice, devolve upon it by reason of its former position in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy—rights and obligations which do not enter into the present treaty. Furthermore, the neutral states rely on Austria’s fulfilling certain obligations and Austria relies on these states recognizing to it certain rights which result from its former position in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It is possible that the new state of Austria considers itself, by reason of its recognition through the treaty, “as a new and independent state” as released, under international law and practice, from all obligations respecting the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or neutral states, obligations which derive from its former bonds with the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

It may even, on the basis of this recognition as “a new and independent state” present the argument that it is beginning its existence free from any past, without other obligations than those imposed on it by the treaty of peace. It is pointed out that it would be dangerous and probably embarrassing for the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to permit Austria, in an official document such as the treaty of peace, to take such an attitude.

Accordingly, it is proposed that the clause of the treaty mentioned above be reworded as follows:

1. Austria is recognized as a Republic, under the name of the Republic of Austria,

or

2. That the clause be entirely eliminated and that the name “Austria” in the enumeration of the “High Contracting Powers” be replaced by that of “Republic of Austria.

Part II.—Frontiers of Austria

a. gmünd

In considering the determination of the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Austria, it was admitted that in general the present frontier between Bohemia, on the one hand, and Upper and Lower Austria, on the other, should be held to. It is essential to establish these principles in a clear fashion; otherwise it would be difficult to reply to the Austrians when they request that certain frontier regions in Bohemia and Moravia, where a German-speaking population predominates, be authorized to express their wishes as to their future allegiance.

In these circumstances, it is, necessary, if we are to discard the historic frontier, for us to be able to justify our decisions.

The draft treaty diverges from the historic frontier at two points; in the neighborhood of Feldsberg, and in the neighborhood of Gmünd. The effect of that is to assign to Czechoslovakia an almost entirely German region which has always been part of the Duchy of Austria. The Commission justifies its decisions in this respect by declaring that these modifications are rendered necessary because of communications. Now it seems that before taking this decision, neither the Czechoslovak Commission nor the Central Territorial Committee consulted the Committee on Ports, Waterways, and Railways. In these circumstances, the British representative consulted the senior British delegate on the Commission on Ports, Waterways, and Railways and asked him whether in his opinion the reason of communications alone justified this modification of frontiers. He received the reply that, for the case of Gmünd, “the arguments drawn from communications would justify the leaving of this territory to Austria.”

As to the district of Feldsberg, the railway which cut the former frontier is today of rather small importance. There is a small branch which was cut by the former frontier and it would be rather inconvenient to keep to this former frontier at this point. Now, it seems possible to correct it in such way as to bring the Feldsberg line into Czechoslovakia while making only an insignificant change. And as it is possible for the Czechoslovaks to develop the Feldsberg line in such way as to make it an important lateral line joining the main double line and that from Znaim with the important line from Brünn to Presburg, my opinion is to consent to the change mentioned above unless there are important objections of a political order.

Under these conditions, the British representative cannot admit any change in the frontiers fixed for the Gmünd district based on the communications system and suggests that, as no real justification of this proposed transfer of a purely German territory to Czechoslovakia is to be foreseen, the best method consists in changing the treaty in order to leave this territory to Austria.

Recommended by the American and British delegations.

Rejected by the French, Italian, and Japanese delegations.

b. styria (marburg)

The American, British, Italian, and Japanese delegations take the liberty of suggesting to the Supreme Council that the decisions taken on the subject of the frontiers of Austria in Styria be re-examined, in view of the observations presented by the Austrian delegation. They consider that satisfaction would be given to the Austrian requests if the zone of plebiscite were extended in such a way as to include the district of Marburg and Radkersburg.

The reasons for this modification are the following: In comparing the Austrian notes and the reply which it is proposed to make to them, it appears that there may be justification for fearing that in the eyes of impartial observers the reasons given for the rejection of Austrian proposals seem to be ill-founded. The Austrians request a plebiscite in the Marburg region. The Allies explain the refusal which they make by declaring that they are convinced that the transfer of this territory to Yugoslavia responds both to the sentiments and the interests of the majority of the population. Now it is certain that this transfer will not respond to the sentiments of an important minority of the population, and it may be doubted whether in their eyes it responds to the interests of the majority. As the advisability of the decision taken has been placed in doubt, it seems that this may be a point on which the interested parties should be consulted, that is, the population of the region. In certain cases of this kind it seems little desirable to proceed to a plebiscite because of the difficulties, expenses, and delay which result therefrom. But in the present case these reasons scarcely exist since, in reality, it is only necessary to extend the Klagenfurt zone submitted to a plebiscite in such way as to include Marburg. No difficulty would thus be caused.

Rejected by the French delegation.

c. carinthia (klagenfurt)

The British and Italian delegations take the liberty of suggesting to the Supreme Council that the decisions taken for Carinthia should be re-examined.

For Klagenfurt, the Austrians declare that the rather singular provisions providing for its division into two zones will falsify the result. If a plebiscite is to be taken, it is important that there be no doubt as to the good faith which should govern it. The reasons given for not taking a joint plebiscite obviously cannot be supported because if they were serious they would also have existed for regions in which, under the terms of the treaty of peace with Germany, it was decided to hold a joint plebiscite. It is thus suggested that the request of the Austrians might very well be accepted, that is, that the zone of plebiscite be either divided into four districts or that the plebiscite take place jointly. If one or the other of these two systems is accepted, there can be no excuse for refusal to accept the results.

Rejected by the American, French, and Japanese delegations.

Part III.—Political Clauses

The Commission on Political Clauses was summoned to discuss with the representatives of the Allied states to which territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy have been transferred a draft convention which the said Allies would sign. In this draft convention there is an article containing stipulations based on articles 187 to 189 of the draft treaty of peace with Austria.

In the course of this discussion, the Commission was led to insert in the draft convention between the Allied states concerned a stipulation to the effect that these states should communicate among themselves official documents of interest to the administrations of the transferred territories, documents which, while forming part of the archives of one of the transferred territories, would also be of interest to another of these territories. It seemed to the Commission that it would be advantageous both for Austria and the Allied states concerned for a similar provision to be inserted in the treaty with Austria, if possible as an addition to article 189.

Accordingly, the Commission on Political Clauses suggests to the committee charged with coordinating the reply to the Austrian delegation the insertion of the following additional paragraph in the treaty at the appropriate place. This paragraph would be communicated to the Austrian delegation as an addition conceived both in the interest of the Allied states in question and that of Austria:

Subject to reciprocity, Austria will communicate to the Allied and Associated Governments concerning all the archives, registers, plans, property titles, and documents of any kind whatever having relation to questions of a civil, financial, or judicial character in these territories which would be of interest to a public body in one of the territories transferred by the present treaty.

The Drafting Committee is considering this matter.

Part IV.—Austrian Interests Outside Europe

Diplomatic and consular buildings in Morocco and in Egypt should not be transferred. The whole question of the ownership of diplomatic and consular buildings belonging to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy should be the subject of a special convention between the states concerned and a clause to this effect should be inserted in the treaty.

Recommended by the American and British delegations.

Part V.—Air Clauses

section iii

Article 143 states:

During the six months following the coming into force of the present treaty the manufacture, importation, and exportation of aircraft, parts of aircraft, engines for aircraft, and parts of engines for aircraft shall be forbidden in all Austrian territory.

The Austrian delegation points out, with regard to this clause, that to prohibit the employment of labor in Austria for aircraft construction would have the effect of putting a great many men out of employment, which would increase the social disorganization from which the country suffers.

The draft reply refuses to take this argument into account. First, it is alleged that the workers will have no difficulty in finding other work, in support of which the example of France and England is quoted; secondly, it is asserted that there would be danger of a military land in allowing Austria to continue to manufacture aeronautic material because it might serve to supply Germany.

Neither of these reasons seems valid. As to the first, the analogy with France and England is likely to lead to error; other special reasons in Austria will render the search for employment very difficult for large industrial populations.

As to the reasons of a military order, it must first of all be pointed out that the clause in question will be applicable only for six months, and if a danger is ever to be feared from the side of Germany, it is quite improbable that it will arise during this period. If such danger should ever arise, it would be later, but then the article in question will have become inoperative. Furthermore, from the point of view of unemployment, it must be pointed out that the article would begin to operate at the beginning of winter, a period in which social disorganization has every chance of reaching its culminating point.

If the clause is maintained, it thus seems necessary to find a better justification for it. From the political point of view, the wording of all these paragraphs seems quite unwise. It must also be pointed out that by virtue of the treaty with Germany (article 201), the importation of aeronautic material is forbidden for the six months during which the clause in question is in effect. It would seem that this should be a sufficient guard against the danger feared that Austria will furnish Germany with this material.

Recommended by the British and Japanese delegations.

Rejected by the American, French, and Italian delegations.

Part VII.—Responsibilities and Penalties

The proposed reply of the Commission on Responsibilities can be divided into two parts. The first deals with the general question of Austria’s moral responsibility in the war and of Austria’s relations with the new nationalities. The British and Japanese delegations propose to deal with this question in the covering letter; it does not seem to them opportune to bring up this general question again here, in dealing with it as a simple question of coordination. It is thus proposed that this part of the reply be set aside.

The rest of the reply concerns a question raised by the Austrians in their note No. 914 of August 6.

As Czechoslovakia and Poland are not belligerents, it should be recognized that they have not acquired the right of exacting the surrender of persons accused of violation of the rules of international law in order that they might be charged and, as to Italy, Roumania, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene state, this right should be limited to the portions of their present territory and those of their nationals who belonged to the states in question before the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

The draft reply refuses to recognize the strong basis of this point and founds its refusal on “the recognition of insurgents as belligerents.”

This argument does not seem to correspond with the facts. In Czechoslovakia, for example, there were no insurgents, properly speaking, and it will be difficult to prove that there were insurgents in Poland who were or might have been recognized as belligerents, except the Legionnaires under the orders of General Pilsudski, who fought in the Austrian ranks.

The thesis sustained by the Austrians is just and it should be explained that as the clauses concern only infractions of the laws and customs of war, they obviously do not contemplate acts committed before the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy against nationals of that Monarchy or destruction done on its territory.

Our reply which might be presented to the Austrians, assuming that this point receives the approval of the Supreme Council, has been drawn up and is attached hereto.

Recommended by the British and Japanese delegations.

Rejected by the American, French, and Italian delegations.

draft reply to the austrian note

Sanctions

The Allied and Associated Powers have examined with great care the arguments contained in the Austrian note of July 12 [10?] stating that articles 169 and 172 concerning sanctions are, in the present form, inapplicable in the conditions which obtained in the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, for the reason that the laws of war are applicable only between belligerents and that the acts against which former Austrian nationals might complain on the part of officers of the Austro-Hungarian forces cannot, accordingly, constitute violations of the laws of war.

The Allied and Associated Powers do not wish here to take up acts committed by a member of the Austro-Hungarian forces against persons who at that time were likewise part of such forces, or against others who were subjects of the Empire of Austria or of the Kingdom of Hungary, and they agree that the laws and customs of war as set forth in the Convention on the Laws of War on Land (No. 4 of the convention signed at The Hague in 1907)³² and the rules laid down in that Convention do not apply to these cases.

It is only in the cases in which the laws and customs of war are applicable that the Allied and Associated Powers desire to open proceedings against individuals forming part of the forces of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; and it is to offenses of this kind that the proceedings instituted by them are limited. The individuals who will be surrendered shall be charged under conditions which will offer every guarantee for a just trial. Article 170 specially provides that in every case the accused will be authorized to appoint his own attorney. The situation is, thus, that if any individual finds that he is accused of a crime which does not constitute a violation of the laws of war, because it is an act to which the laws of war are not applicable, he will obviously be subject to acquittal.

The rights guaranteed to the individuals in question are so well defined in this regard that it is but little likely that a request will be made to surrender a specific individual forming part of the former Austro-Hungarian forces for acts to which the laws of war are not applicable. For these reasons, the Allied and Associated Powers do not consider that it is necessary to make a change in these articles. The argument set forth in the same note stating that the domestic laws of the Republic of Austria prevent the surrender of Austrian nationals to be tried by a foreign court is an argument which the Allied and Associated Governments can in no way admit and it is with some surprise that they have noted that it has been used. This is absolutely contrary to the principle which they considered essential, after a thorough study, to impose in all treaties of peace, that is, that the individuals guilty of the atrocities committed in this last war should be tried so as in the future to prevent a renewal of such conduct.

Recommended by the British and Japanese delegations.

Rejected by the American, French, and Italian delegations.

Part VIII.—Reparations

Paragraph 2 of annex IV gives to the Allied and Associated Governments the right to draw up, with the Reparation Commission, lists indicating the material and articles which were seized, consumed, or destroyed by Austria, this being done with a view to their replacement. If, generally speaking, it pertains to the Reparation Commission to determine the periods and the amount of these reparations, there is nevertheless an exception relative to livestock, a part of which must be delivered immediately to the Italian, the Serb-Croat-Slovene, and the Roumanian Governments. The Austrian delegation has raised serious objections against this condition. It alleges that it seems scarcely fair to compel Austria to give up valuable foodstuffs at the very time when the Allies themselves consider it necessary to import such articles into Vienna.

The delegations named below beg to suggest that a more thorough study might, in view of the food situation in Austria, consider it desirable to leave it to the Reparation Commission to pass on the question of the delivery of livestock.

In making this recommendation, they were moved by the following reasons:

1. Although it is undeniable that during the war a considerable quantity of livestock was taken from Italy, from Serbia, and from Roumania, it must not be overlooked that the great cessions of Austro-Hungarian territory made to these states will doubtless signify for them the acquisition of large quantities of livestock which have belonged to Austro-Hungary. In this respect, the case is very different from that of Germany, whose territory remains almost intact.

2. In a question of this kind, we cannot allow ourselves to neglect world public opinion now and in the future. Everyone, outside this Conference, will say that at the very moment when the people of Vienna are famishing, at the time when it is necessary to import food and in particular milk, to save the lives of small children, we are compelling Austria to deliver to us a part of its livestock on which its existence depends. Nevertheless, it seems doubtful even to assume—what has not been clearly shown—that a justification of this measure can be found in a comparison between the food situation in Austria and that in the other countries concerned so that the material advantage which it would mean for these states would counterbalance the political and economic disadvantages which would certainly result from maintaining this demand.

It is most unfortunate that certain and conclusive information or accurate statistics cannot be found as a basis for this demand, lacking which the draft reply of the Reparations Commission is not conclusive.

It is not a valid argument to say, as has been said, that there are remote villages in the distant confines of the Republic of Austria, for example in Vorarlberg or Salzkammergut, from which milk cannot be sent to Vienna. The milk produced by the cattle can be transformed into foodstuffs under the form of butter and cheese. Generally speaking, any surrender of the means of food production must tend to impoverish a state as a whole. Furthermore, it seems that the principal regions producing foodstuffs in Austria are among those closest to Vienna, particularly Upper and Lower Austria, Styria, and Carinthia, since the more remote mountainous districts are not able to produce what is necessary for their own population.

Recommended by the British and Japanese delegations.

Rejected by the Italian and French delegations.

The American delegation reserves its opinion.

Supplementing the reasons given by the American delegation in the chapter on ports, waterways, and railways, this delegation draws attention to the interpretative character of the following proposal in the draft reply prepared by the Reparation Commission.

The draft reply contains the following passage on page 3, fourth paragraph:

The intention of the Allied and Associated Governments is not, by this provision, to bring the price of these articles on the domestic market to the level of the international market price; they merely desire that the option be granted them to purchase the articles at the prices of the domestic market, and that any benefit resulting from this privilege be considered, as is said at the beginning of the annex, as a partial reparation for the damages caused the Allied and Associated Governments during the war.

The first paragraph of annex V of article 186 reads:

Austria gives each of the Allied and Associated Governments, as partial reparation, an option on the annual delivery, et cetera …

It does not appear that the words partial reparation have in this text the sense attributed to them in the draft reply.

It is thus suggested that this last clause be eliminated.

Recommended by the American delegation.

The other delegations reserve their opinions except the Japanese delegation, which rejects this elimination.

There would thus be reason to omit from the reply the phrase “and that any benefit … et cetera …”

Recommended by the American delegation.

The other delegations reserve their opinion, except the Japanese delegation, which is opposed thereto.

Part IX.—Financial Clauses

american proposal

Pre-War Debts—Article 199—Section 2

The draft reply proposed by the Commission is worded as follows:

“It clearly appears from this article that the Reparation Commission will have the duty of selecting the pre-war revenues which will be most suitable for the establishment of a basis of equitable distribution of the debt, while taking into account the changes in present circumstances.

“The Allied and Associated Governments see no reason to abandon the principle that the Republic of Austria will alone be responsible, et cetera …”

As these paragraphs are a paraphrase of article 199 of the treaty, and as they appear to be the interpretation of it, it is proposed that they follow the text of article 199 more closely so as not to seem to be an interpretation of it.

It is thus suggested that these sentences be worded as follows:

“It clearly appears from this article that the Reparation Commission will have to choose the pre-war revenues which in its opinion will be most suitable to give the just measure of the respective financial capacities of these territories.

“The Allied and Associated Governments see no reason to abandon the position which they have taken, that is …”

This proposal is supported by the American, British, and Japanese delegations.

The Italian delegation on the contrary makes a formal reservation.

Part X.—Economic Clauses

I. With respect to customs, there should be a reciprocity between Austria and the other successor states similar to that granted with respect to communication.

British proposal supported by the American and Japanese delegations.

Rejected by, the French delegation.

Reservation made by the Italian delegation.

II. A great number of the objections raised by the Austrian delegation against the treaty deal with the fact that the nationals of the new states, such as Czechoslovakia, born of the Austrian Empire, and those of the former Austro-Hungarian territories transferred to existing states, receive in fact certain advantages which are granted to nations which were previously enemies of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It is proposed to consider this view as just. We must distinguish carefully between two thingitem:

1. The termination of the state of war;

2. The liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Austrian Empire.

Even if those who were previously fellow-nationals of the inhabitants of the new Austria have in reality become enemies of Austria insofar as they have been recognized as members of the Alliance, it does not follow that they must obtain under all respects the privileges of the treatment reserved, for instance, to France and England.

It is extremely difficult accurately to determine at this time what the sense and the effects of the treaty are. First of all, a considerable number of modifications have been suggested by the Economic Commission itself and secondly, the Commission on Political Clauses is actively concerned with the consideration of these special problems.

In order to avoid a lengthy memorandum dealing with the great many separate clauses, it may suffice in these circumstances for the Supreme Council to give instructions with the following ends: Not to include in the treaty any clauses the result of which will be to impose disadvantages on Austrian nationals in the settlement of private debts, contracts, et cetera, existing between them and other former Austro-Hungarian subjects.

To clarify the position adopted, the following proposals are presented:

1. It should be clearly explained that the provisions of sections III, IV, V, VT, and VII, which deal with the relations between enemies, do not apply to the relations between Austrian nationals and persons who were previously nationals of either Austria or Hungary. It seems that this is, indeed, what it is wished to say, but it is in no way thus stated in the treaty and, accordingly, difficulties of interpretation might arise.

2. As a result of the foregoing, it must be clearly defined that in section VIII of the Economic Clauses, only relations between Austrian citizens and former nationals of Austria and Hungary are involved.

Section VIII will thus be revised with care, so as to establish equality between the various factions and not to impose unilateral obligations on Austria.

The Commission on Political Clauses is busy discussing these questions with the other Allied states. It is proposed to declare that the only equitable system is that according to which all agreements made between the Allied and successor states will apply also to Austria. Accordingly, the Austrians should be assured of the advantages of any one of these agreements now under preparation, whether such result be obtained by modifying the Austrian treaty so as to bring it into harmony with the other treaty, or by authorizing Austria to become itself a party to the other treaty. In addition to this, the Commission on Political Clauses is preparing a series of special conventions dealing with subjects which cannot be completed before the Austrian treaty is signed. It is absolutely essential to specify and to determine that Austria must be authorized to be a party in the negotiations which will be undertaken for these separate conventions, under the same conditions as the other successor states.

British proposal.

The other delegations reserve their opinion.

Part XII.—Ports, Waterways, and Railways

I. The restriction imposed on Austria by the second paragraph of article 287, which forbids it to share in the regular service on the Danube between the ports of any one of the Allied and Associated Powers without the express authorization of such Power, is very hard if it is considered in the spirit of article 294.

The object of this stipulation is to permit the other states to reserve to themselves a certain part of the traffic on the Danube; they seem to fear that they cannot secure it, for in reality all the vessels employed in this traffic belong to Viennese companies. On the other hand, if Austria is forced to transfer a certain part of these vessels, it seems quite unnecessary in addition to impose on it the restriction in question.

Recommended by the British delegation.

Rejected by the other delegations.

II. Article 310 seems to require revision. First of all, it is not correct to speak of the “cession” of ports, waterways, and railways. The present wording seems to imply that railways, ports, and navigable waters belong to Austria and are ceded to the other states. A more correct view seems to be that the railways, et cetera, belong to the territory on which they are located; the territory is not ceded by Austria, but is assigned to these states in the same way that Austrian territory is assigned to Austria.

The article in its present form seems to imply that Austria contracts an obligation to restore the railroads, for instance at Prague, to the Czechoslovak state in their entirety and in good condition. But from the time when the present state of Austria came into being, Austria has never at any time had any power or any authority over these railways, and this obligation cannot be imposed on it. Similarly, paragraph 2 does not seem to have any meaning. A system of railways possessing its own rolling-stock cannot, in fact, be restored by Austria, because any system of railways of this kind must be a system located entirely outside of Austria. The objection made to this paragraph by Austria thus seems just.

Recommended by the British, Japanese, and Italian delegations.

Rejected by the American and French delegations.

Paragraph 3 should be revised so as to give it a form of reciprocity for it is not impossible that the commissions may have to request the other territories to restore rolling-stock to Austria just as they will have to request Austria to restore rolling-stock to these other territories.

Recommended by the American, British, and Japanese delegations.

american proposal

The American delegation presents the following observations:

It has been remarked that, in several cases, the draft replies to Austrian notes prepared by the various Commissions contain phrases or passages which paraphrase the text of the treaty and thus accredit certain interpretations of the text without suggesting any modification in the wording. This raises the question of the scope of the reply now in preparation for transmission to the Austrian delegation. Is this reply to be considered as a modification of the terms of the conditions of peace, or as an interpretation, in addition to the changes actually proposed in the text of the treaty? The American delegation merely wishes to point out that this is an important point for the United States for the reason that if the reply must be regarded as officially modifying the text of the treaty, it becomes an integral part of the convention with Austria and must be presented to the American Senate at the same time as the treaty. It is important that the representatives of the other states at the Conference understand the American position with respect to the reply to the Austrian delegation.

It is to be pointed out that the reasons which influenced the conditions in which the reply to the notes of the German delegation concerning the treaty with Germany was drawn up, no longer exist at the present time. At that time, for political reasons, it was desirable not to make any changes in the text of the treaty, and all the changes which were made were subsequently included in a protocol attached to the treaty. In the present case, a small state whose position is very different from that of Germany is concerned. It would seem, accordingly, that the text of the treaty might be modified where the sense thereof is modified or interpreted in the draft replies of the Commission. If this manner of procedure is adopted, the text of the treaty will be the only document to which the signatories must refer for the interpretation of its contents. A paragraph may be added to the covering letter indicating that this letter and its annexes must not be considered as an official interpretation of the text of the treaty, or as modifying the terms thereof in any way whatsoever.

For the reasons indicated above, the American delegation insists on the following passages relative to the interpretation of the treaty:

On page 6, the present text reads thus:

“Such transportation shall be subject to the rules laid down in articles 283 and 284 whether effected or not with transshipment at an Austrian or foreign river port; and this is the only case contemplated by the Allied and Associated Powers.”

It seems that this wording constitutes an interpretation of the treaty and, in order to prevent the American reply from becoming an official interpretation, it is proposed to modify this clause by omitting the words “and this is the only case contemplated by the Allied and Associated Powers.”

The present text of the report, page 9, is worded as follows:

“Austria will thus receive over this navigable waterway all the guarantees of free circulation which will seem necessary in connection with its economic access to the Baltic and North Seas.”

This clause constitutes for Austria an assurance of guarantees of free circulation over the proposed canal from the Danube to the Oder. It is doubtful that this express assurance will be given by the treaty and it is suggested that it might without disadvantage be eliminated.

Recommended by the American delegation.

1. Appendix A to HD–24, p. 541.
2. Ante, p. 811.
3. CF–43, minute 5, vol. vi, p. 131; HD–5, minute 1, ante, p. 97.
4. Appendix G does not accompany the file copy of the minutes; for the agreement, see appendix I to HD–37, p. 830.
5. Appendix H does not accompany the file copy of the minutes; for the agreement, see appendix J to HD–37, p. 832.
6. The text of this appendix does not accompany the file copy of the minutes. The French text of the report is filed under Paris Peace Conf. 181.8201/21; this translation from the French has been supplied by the editors.
7. Not printed.
8. Vol. ii, p. 175.
9. Dated April 23. For text, see Bay Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (Garden City, N. Y., 1922), vol. iii, p. 287.
10. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
11. There is apparently some confusion in the date and time of this telegram and No. 180, infra. This telegram could hardly have been sent at the time given. No. 180, on the other hand, is dated August 24, 8:31 p.m., although it covers the morning session of the 23d. It would be more plausible for 180 to be dated August 23, 8:31 p.m., and No. 181, August 24, 9 a.m.
12. Appendix G to HD–36, p. 803.
12. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
13. Appendix A to HB–37, p. 819.
14. i. e., No. 12 of the Fourteen Points, Foreign Relations, 1918, supp. 1, vol. i, p. 16.
15. Translation from the French supplied by the Translating Bureau of the Department of State.
16. HI–33, minute 1, p. 713.
18. Vol. ii, p. 175.
19. Foreign Relations, 1901, Appendix (Affairs in China), p. 312.
20. Ibid, 1906, pt. 2, p. 1495.
21. Great Britain, Cd, 6010, Morocco, No. 4 (1911): Franco-German Convention and Exchange of Notes Respecting Morocco, signed at Berlin, November 4, 1911.
22. In case objects of art should have been seized by the Italian military authorities subsequent to the Armistice of November 3, 1918, and in case it should appear that these same articles do not come within the categories given in section II of part VIII of the draft treaty, the Italian Government declares that it will oppose no obstacle to their restoration being effected. [Footnote in the original.]
23. Annex 2 to HD–2, p. 53.
26. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xcv, p. 421.
28. CF–8, minute 5, vol. v, p. 560.
29. CF–4, minute 6, vol. v, p. 531.
30. Omission indicated in the original French.
32. Foreign Relations, 1907, pt. 2, p. 1204.