Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/41
HD–41
Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Thursday, August 28, 1919, at 11 a.m.
-
Present
-
America United States of
- Hon. F. L. Polk.
-
Secretaries
- Mr. L. Harrison.
- Colonel U. S. Grant.
-
British Empire
- Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
-
Secretaries
- Mr. H. Norman.
- Sir George Clerk.
-
France
- M. Clemenceau.
- M. Pichon.
-
Secretaries
- M. Dutasta.
- M. Berthelot.
- M. de Saint-Quentin.
-
Italy
- M. Scialoja.
-
Secretary
- M. Paterno.
-
Japan
- M. Matsui.
-
Secretary
- M. Kawai.
-
America United States of
| Joint Secretariat | |
| United States of America | Captain Chapin. |
| British Empire | Commander Bell. |
| France | Captain A. Portier. |
| Italy | Lieut-Colonel Jones. |
- Interpreter—M. Meyer.
- The following also attended for the questions with which they were
concerned:—
-
United States of America
- Mr. Woolsey.
- Mr. Nielsen.
-
France
- M. Tardieu.
- M. Loucheur.
- M. Jules Cambon.
- M. Laroche.
- M. Tyrman.
-
British Empire
- Major-General Sir C. J. Sackvffle-West.
- Colonel Henniker.
- Mr. Leeper.
- Mr. Headlam-Morley.
- Mr. Hutchinson.
-
Italy
- Count Vannutelli-Rey.
- M. d’Ameglio.
- M. di Palma.
-
United States of America
1. Mr. Polk suggested that before proceeding to the order of the day, the resolutions of the previous meeting might be read, and further suggested that this might be made the rule for the future. Procedure of the Council
M. Clemenceau said that such a procedure would waste the Council’s time.
[Page 957]Mr. Balfour agreed with M. Clemenceau.
(After some further discussion, it was agreed, that copies of all resolutions passed by the Council should be laid on the table of each Delegate, on the day following the meeting at which the aforesaid resolutions had been taken; and that, if no objections were raised by the Delegates, the text of the resolutions as submitted, should be considered to have been accepted.)
2. Mr. Balfour circulated the following draft declaration with regard to the repatriation of German prisoners:—
“In order to diminish as rapidly as possible the sufferings caused by the war, the Allied and Associated Powers have determined to anticipate the date of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, so far as the repatriation of German prisoners is concerned. The process of repatriation will begin immediately, and it will be conducted under the auspices of an Inter-Allied Committee to which will be added a German representative as soon as the Treaty comes into force. German Prisoners of War in British Hands. (Reference H. D. 40, Minute 61)
The Allied and Associated Powers desire to make it quite clear that the continuance of this benevolent policy, from which German soldiers will so greatly benefit, must depend on the fulfilment by the German Government and People of all their obligations.”
(The draft declaration prepared by Mr. Balfour was accepted for transmission and publication.)
The following nominations were then made for the Prisoners of War Committee provided for by the resolution taken on August 27th, (see H. D. 40, Minute 6).
| British Empire: | Mr. Vansittart. |
| General Bolfield. | |
| America, United States of: | Mr. Dresel. |
| Brig.-Gen. W. D. Connor. | |
| France: | M. Alphand. |
| Colonel Jouvin. | |
| Italy: | Colonel Toni. |
| Japan: | Mr. Shigemitsu. |
| Colonel Nagai. |
3. Mr. Polk said that Article 61 of the German Constitution should be referred to the Drafting Committee, who should advise the Council as to the measures which might be taken, since any subsequent action by the Council ought to be taken on the advice of competent lawyers. The German Constitution and Violation of the Peace Treaty (Reference H. D. 39, Minute 42)
It was decided that Article 61 of the German Constitution should be sent to the Drafting Committee, [Page 958] who should examine the extent to which the aforesaid Article violated the terms of the Peace Treaty with Germany, and should advise the Council as to the measures which ought to be taken.)
4. (Owing to the illness of M. Tittoni, this question was adjourned to the following day.)Reply to the Letter of the Austrian Delegation in the Subject of the Frontiers in Styris
5. M. Laroche read an Article for insertion in Part 3 of the Peace Treaty with Austria, on the subject of Special Conventions to be drawn up between Austria and the New States formed out of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. (See Appendix “A”.)Reply to the Austrian Delegation With Regard to Part 3 of the Peace Treaty with Austria. (political Clauses). See Annex F, H. D. 38)3
(It was agreed that a new clause on the subject of Special Conventions for Austria and the States formed out of the old Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, on the subject of the rights, privileges and goods of private persons in the aforesaid States, (see Appendix “A”), should be accepted.)
6. M. Cambon read and commented upon the British and American reservations with regard to the reply to the Austrian Delegation, on the subject of Part 12 of the Peace Treaty with Austria. (See Annex F, H. D. 38.4)Reply to the Notes of the Austrian Delegation With Regard to Part 12 of the Peace Treaty with Austria.—ports, Waterways and Railways
M. Tyrman said that the British reservations had been made before Article 322 of the Peace Treaty with Austria had been altered. By a previous decision of ways the Council, it had been laid down, that immediate reciprocity should be granted in the matter of Ports, Waterways and Railways, to Austria, and other states formed out of the old Monarchy. (See H. D. 37, Minute 85). By virtue of this decision, the British reservation fell to the ground.
Mr. Headlam-Morley agreed with M. Tyrman, and said that the reservation of the British Delegation had been satisfied.
M. Cambon explained the reservations of the British, Japanese and Italian Delegations on the subject of Article 310 of the Austrian Peace Treaty.
M. Tyrman said that the reservation formulated by the British, Japanese and Italian Delegations might be met by altering the expression “cession” of Ports, Waterways and Railways to the “transfer” of Ports, Waterways and Railways throughout. In addition to this, in Part 3 of Article 310 the word “proportion” should be altered to “distribution”, and the expression “handed over” should be altered to “be effected”.
[Page 959](It was decided that Article 310 of the Peace Treaty with Austria should be amended, so as to read:
Article 310
Subject to any special provisions concerning the transfer of ports, waterways and railways situated in the territories transferred under the present Treaty, and to the financial conditions relating to the concessionnaires and the pensioning of the personnel, the transfer of railways will take place under the following conditions:
- (1)
- The works and installations of all the railroads shall be handed over complete and in good condition.
- (2)
- When a railway system, possessing its own rolling-stock, is handed over in its entirety by Austria to one of the Allied and Associated Powers, such stock shall be handed over complete, in accordance with the last inventory before November 3, 1918, and in a normal state of upkeep.
- (3)
- As regards lines without any special rolling-stock, Commissions of experts designated by the Allied and Associated Powers, on which Austria shall be represented, shall fix the distribution of the stock existing on the system to which these lines belong to be effected. Those Commissions shall have regard to the amount of the material registered on these lines in the last inventory before November 3, 1918, the length of track (sidings included), and the nature and amount of the traffic. These Commissions shall also specify the locomotives, carriages and wagons to be handed over in each case; they shall decide upon the conditions of their acceptance, and shall make the provisional arrangements necessary to ensure their repair in Austrian workshops.
- (4)
- Stocks of stores, fittings and plant shall be handed over under the same conditions as the rolling-stock.
- The provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 above shall be applied to the lines of former Russian Poland converted by Austria to the Austrian gauge, such lines being regarded as detached from the Austrian system.
M. Cambon then explained the American reservation with regard to Part XII of the reply to the Austrian Delegation. (See Appendix F., H. D. 38.6)
Mr. Polk explained that the American proposal did not deal exclusively with the portion of the reply to the Austrians dealing with Ports, Railways and Waterways, but that it was concerned with the interpretative passages which had been introduced throughout the reply. Such passages referred to the Financial Clauses (Part IX), Reparation Clauses (Part VIII), the Waterways, and Railways Clauses (Part XII), and the Report of the Minorities Commission. By virtue of these passages, the Drafting Committee were really giving interpretations to the text of the Peace Treaty, and the fact might be of advantage either to Austria, or to the Allies. Such interpretations were official, and would, as such, become part of the agreement with Austria. If they did, they would have to be submitted to the [Page 960] United States Senate, together with the Treaty itself. If they were ratified by the Senate, the United States would be bound. He did not think that the United States should be bound by interpretative passages, unless it were understood that other Powers were bound also. It was therefore necessary either (a) to have it clearly understood that all Powers should be bound by such interpretative passages, or (b) to insert a clause in the reply to the Austrian Delegation, telling them that the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers was not to be taken as in any sense modifying the text of the Treaty.
Mr. Balfour said that he did not think that the Peace Treaty should be drafted in such a manner as to require any interpretation at all.
M. Cambon said that the interpretative passages referred only to the text of the reply, and not to the Peace Treaty itself.
(It was decided after some further discussion that:—
- (1)
- The reply to the Austrian Delegation should be referred, as a whole, to the Drafting Committee, to co-ordinate it with the terms of the Peace Treaty.
- (2)
- A clause should be inserted in the reply to the Austrian Delegation to the effect that the aforesaid reply was not to be taken as in any sense modifying the text of the Treaty.
7. M. Scialoja drew the attention of the Council to a resolution passed by the Labour Committee at its meeting of the 4th June, 1919.
Reply to the Austrian Note on the Subject of the Labour Clauses in the Treaty of Peace With Austria.—Part XIII (After some further discussion,
It was decided that the resolution passed by the Labour Committee (see Appendix “B”) should be referred to the Editing Committee for consideration and report, to the Council on August 29th.)
M. Scialoja said that a further problem on the subject of the labour clauses in the Peace Treaty with Austria, arose, the question being the admission of Austrian labour representatives to the International Congress of Labour.7
M. di Palma said that the admission of Germany into the International Congress of Labour had only been allowed for after the first Congress at Washington. M. Tittoni desired to place on record, that it was his wish that Austrian representatives should be admitted to the Washington Congress after the ratification of the Treaty. But workmen of various nations were saying that they would not convene a meeting unless all ex-enemy states of the Allied and Associated Powers were represented.
M. Pichon confirmed the last part of M. di Palma’s statement. He said, however, that if the admission of Austrian workmen to the International Congress of Labour were allowed, this would, ipso facto, involve the admission of German workmen on the same terms. The [Page 961] International Congress of Labour had originally decided against the admission of German workmen to the First Session at Washington. It had now changed its mind, and was demanding that German representatives should actually be admitted, after the order of business of the Session had been drawn up. This had been done in order to prevent Germany from having any say in the matters to be discussed.
Mr. Balfour asked whether any previous decision had been taken by the Council.
M. Pichon said that the Council of Four had taken a decision8 conformable to the resolution first passed on the subject by the Labour Committee.
M. Clemenceau said that the question ought to be referred to the Labour Committee, who should study the question of the joint admission of German and Austrian labour representatives to the International Congress of Labour.
(It was decided to submit at once to the Labour Committee the proposal of the Italian Delegation, regarding the admission of Austrian Labour Representatives to the Labour Congress to be held at Washington in the following autumn.
The Labour Committee should examine the question, keeping in mind the consequences that might result on the situation of Germany, in this Congress, as already defined. The Committee should make proposals regarding the admission of both countries to the Congress.)
8. M. Cambon read the covering letter to the reply to the Austrian Delegation. (See Appendix “F”, H. D. 389). He drew attention to the fact that the note had been drawn up on the basis of the reports of several separate Committees. Covering Letter to the Reply to the Austrian Delegation
The main object in the reply had been to settle finally the responsibility of the Austrian Government with regard to the war.
M. Clemenceau said that M. Cambon’s statement with regard to the character of the covering note was quite evident.
Mr. Balfour said that the draft reply read by M. Cambon was a most able document. He thought, however, that the procedure followed in the case of the Peace Treaty with Germany might be adopted in the present instance. Mr. Philip Kerr had drafted the covering letter accompanying the reply to the German counter-proposals, and his letter had been very favourably commented upon by the press in all the Allied countries. He suggested that Mr. Kerr should also draft the covering letter to the replies to the Austrian counter-proposals, and submit his draft to the Council on the following day.
M. Tardieu said that the Reparations Commission, together with [Page 962] M. Loucheur, had, on the previous day, drawn up a note, on the subject of reparations by Austria. He thought that the note in question ought to be embodied in the covering letter to the reply to the Austrian counter-proposals.
(It was decided:—
- 1.
- That the note drafted by M. Loucheur and the Reparations Commission should be embodied in the covering letter accompanying the answer to the Austrian counter-proposals;
- 2.
- That the draft of the covering letter prepared by the Editing Committee, together with the above note of the Reparations Commission, should be referred to Mr. Philip Kerr for re-draft, and that the new text, as prepared by him, should he submitted at the next Meeting of the Council.)
M. Cambon then drew attention to the fact that it might be considered necessary to make some allusion in the covering note to the independence of the Austrian State, since Article 61 of the German Constitution appeared to question it.
M. Clemenceau said that the whole question would be considered on the following day.
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Villa Majestic, Paris, 28 August, 1919.
[Page 963]- Ante, p. 945.↩
- Ante, p. 937.↩
- Ante, pp. 859, 889.↩
- Ante, pp. 859, 924.↩
- Ante, p. 817.↩
- Ante, pp. 859, 925.↩
- Officially known as the International Labor Conference.↩
- CF–16, minute 14, vol. v, p. 681.↩
- Ante, pp. 859, 860.↩
- Translation from the French supplied by the Translating Bureau of the Department of State.↩