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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/60

HD–60

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, September 25, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, September 25, 1919, 10:30 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. F. L. Polk
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman
  • France
    • M. Tardieu
  • Secretary
    • M. de St. Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • M. Barone Busso
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Mr. C. Russell
British Empire	Captain Hinchley-Cooke
France	Commandant Portier
Italy	Lieutenant de Carlo.
Interpreter—M. Camerlynck

The following were also present for the items in which they were concerned.

• America, United States of
  • Mr. A. Dulles
  • Mr. F. K. Nielsen
• British Empire
  • Mr. Carr
  • Mr. Nicolson
  • Lt Col. Kisch
  • General Sackville-West
  • Commander Lucas, R. N.
• France
  • M. Cambon
  • M. Laroche
  • General Le Rond
  • M. Lazard.
• Italy
  • M. Brambilla
  • M. DeirAbbadessa.

1. M. Tardieu said that M. Pichon would be unable to be present on account of the session of the Chamber and had therefore asked him to make his excuses for him to the members of plenary Labor the Council and to act in his place. Convention of the Plenary Labor Commission

The Secretriat of the American Delegation had transmitted to the Secretary-General of the Conference a note containing a telegram addressed by Mr. Gompers¹ to M. Arthur Fontaine² (See Appendix “A”). He wished to ask whether Mr. Polk was in position to say for what reason this meeting had been called and whether the members of the Council had any objections to the meeting of the Commission.

Mr. Polk said that he had no information as to the reasons of the meeting.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that it was unfortunate that the Council was without information as to the reasons for the meeting.

M. Tardieu said that it would be possible to call the Commission together and to await further information as to the subjects to be discussed at the meeting.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he was ready to telegraph to Mr. Barnes, but he had a further question to ask, and that was where the Commission was to meet. It would be difficult to take a decision on this point without knowing the reasons for the meeting.

Mr. Polk said that he had received a telegram from Washington dated September 23rd, according to which Mr. Gompers had stated that the Plenary Labor Commission would meet in Paris between September 25th and October 5th and that it was hoped that no decision to recommend postponing the Conference would be taken until further information in the premises was telegraphed. It would probably be possible to find a method to enable the United States to participate in the Conference, whether the Treaty was ratified in time by the Senate or not.

M. Tardieu proposed that the Council summon a Representative of the Ministry of Labor and that the discussion of the question be postponed until his arrival.

M. Lazard then entered the room. He said that he was not fully acquainted with the object of the meeting and that M. Fontaine, who would be in a position to inform the Council better than he, was, at the moment, in Rome. He was able to say, however, that the telegram from Mr. Gompers did not come entirely as a surprise. In the unofficial meeting held by several of the members of the Commission on September 7th, a number of members of the Commission expressed a desire to hold a further meeting, but nothing was said which would indicate what the subject of discussion would be. The telegram came unexpectedly and as a surprise, because the situation was the same now as it was a fortnight ago.

Mr. Polk said that he thought the best plan would be for him to telegraph Mr. Gompers in order to ascertain the nature of the subjects which would be discussed at the meeting.

M. Tardieu agreed, but added that he wished to point out that the French Government was entirely disposed to call the Commission together.

M. Lazard said that Mr. Gompers asked that the meeting take place before the 29th. At present that appeared impossible and it would seem better to meet early in October.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that that was his opinion, especially as the place of meeting had not been fixed.

M. Tardieu said that the Council would wait for further information. He understood that Mr. Polk would telegraph to Washington, and that Sir Eyre Crowe would communicate with Mr. Barnes.

2. Mr. Polk said that at the last meeting it had been decided that the Supreme Economic Council should be asked to take immediately the necessary steps to guarantee the delivery to the Allies of fourteen German oil tank ships.³ According to information which he had received no orders on the subject had been given in London. German Oil Tank Ships

M. Tardieu said that he was informed that the Supreme Economic Council had been acquainted with the decision of the Council, but he was without information as to whether the order had been carried out or not.

Mr. Polk said that it was necessary for the Supreme Economic Council to immediately carry out the measures which were asked of them, as in the meantime the ships would be delivered.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he telegraphed to London to arrange that an expert be sent to him to furnish information on the subject.

Mr. Polk said that in any event Admiral Charlton should be directed to keep the ships where they were until further orders were received.

M. Tardieu said that the situation appeared to be as follows: The Supreme Economic Council, which was in possession of the resolution of the Supreme Council, thought that there was something to be said in connection with the matter. The French Government held the same view. In 48 hours the Conference would be in possession of the Supreme Economic Council’s proposals.

Mr. Polk said that in awaiting this decision it was most urgent that the ships should not be moved.

Srir Eyre Crowe said that he had telegraphed to London in regard to the matter.

M. Laroche said that only the Armistice Commission was in position to stop the delivery.

Mr. Polk said that he considered it essential that the Supreme Council should act, for up to the moment it appeared to him that the only steps taken in the matter had been through the kindness of Sir Eyre Crowe.

M. Tardieu said that if a resolution was taken in a sense of what Mr. Polk asked, the Council would be doing exactly what had been done on the preceding day.

(M. Tardieu then read the resolution taken on September 23rd, H. D. 59.)

Mr. Polk said that in any case it would be necessary for the Supreme Council to take steps which had been asked of it. If they had not done this, it was necessary to know the reasons. The Armistice Commission should be asked to suspend all action.

M. Tardieu said that that had been decided at the previous meeting. He would ascertain in the afternoon just what the Supreme Economic Council had done and whether they had executed the order of the Conference and in what manner.

3. M. Tardieu said that the question before the Council was the report of the Spitzberg Commission and a draft Treaty which had been refused [revised?] by the Drafting Committee (See Appendices B & C). The members of the Commission were unanimous, and, in view of the resolution taken by the Council at the last meeting,⁴ he did not believe that it would be necessary to open a discussion of the question. Question of Spitzberg

M. Scialoja said that it would not be necessary to read or to discuss the report, but that it would be necessary to take a vote.

M. Laroche said that the conclusions of the report were as follows: (1) The Commission submitted to the Council the text of a draft Treaty, which had been modified in form by the Drafting Committee in such a manner as to make the French and English texts agree; (2) The Commission proposed that, as regarded the signature of the Treaty, the Treaty be communicated, first to the Norwegian Government, which would state whether it agreed. The other contracting parties would then be invited to state within a space of six weeks time whether they were prepared to sign.

It was decided to accept:

(1) the report addressed to the Supreme Council by the Spitzberg Commission, and

(2) to approve the draft Treaty as prepared by this Commission and revised by the Drafting Committee.⁵

4. M. Tardieu read an extract of a letter from Lord Milner to M. Dutasta dated August 14th, 1919 (See Appendix “D”). The Special Commission on Mandates at its meeting in London on August 5th had unanimously proposed that the Portuguese claims to the triangle of Kionga should be recognized. (This proposal was adopted.) Portuguese Claim to Kionga

It was decided:

to accept the proposal made by the Special Commission on Mandates at its meeting of August 5th, and to recognize Portugal as the original and legitimate proprietor of this part of the former German Colony of East Africa, situated south of the Kovuma and known as the “Kionga Triangle.”

5. M. Tardieu read a letter of September 14th, 1919, addressed by M. Tittoni to the President of the Conference asking that the Military Representatives at Versailles should be directed to study the question of organization of a military, naval and air control for Austria. (See Appendix E.) The proposal was adopted. Organization of Inter-Allied Commission of Control in Austria

It was decided:

that the permanent Military representatives at Versailles should be directed to prepare, together with the Naval and Air representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, a detailed proposal, in view of the constitution of Interallied Commissions of Military, Naval and Air Control, which should be charged to see to the execution by Austria of the Military, Naval and Air Clauses of the Treaty of Peace.

6. Sir Eyre Crowe said that he had received a telegram from Sir George Clerk who had proposed returning to Paris unless the Supreme Council directed him to remain. He had telegraphed to Sir George Clerk that the Supreme Council would undoubtedly desire to discuss the matter. Upon receiving this telegram Sir George Clerk decided to remain. He finally telegraphed him to come to Budapest and from there to Paris. He thought that this telegram had not reached him. Mission of Sir George Clerk

M. Tardieu said that he was grateful for this information, but he could not see that anyone was to blame for the delay.

Mr. Polk said that the Relief Administration had a telegraph line to Budapest and that he would be glad to place this wire at Sir Eyre Crowe’s disposal for any telegrams which he might desire to send to Sir George Clerk.

7. Sir Eyre Crowe said that Mr. Lloyd George was more than ever convinced that firm action should be taken to force the Germans to evacuate the Baltic Provinces. Mr. Lloyd George wished, but he would not press the point, that Polish troops should be utilized. He was now charged by the British Government to make a new proposal. The Allies had pledged themselves in previous conversations with the Germans to facilitate the importation into Germany of food-stuffs of which Germany was in great need, and they had authorized the Germans to communicate to the Supreme Economic Council a list of articles which they particularly needed. He proposed that the Supreme Economic Council should be asked to stop the shipment of food-stuffs and other necessities to Germany and that the German Government be notified accordingly. Mr. Lloyd George thought that this would have a very good effect. He thought also that the American Government were prepared to stop all financial transactions with Germany. If these measures were insufficient it would be necessary to take whatever further steps seemed advisable. Mr. Lloyd George had always advocated the utilization of the Polish Army and he now proposed that the head of the British Naval Mission in France place himself at the disposal of Marshal Foch to study with him the question of what military and naval measures might be advantageous at a future date. He had prepared the draft of a note (See annex F), the first three paragraphs repeating the words of the note prepared by General Weygand,^5a which had already been discussed. It would be necessary to change the end of the third paragraph in such a way as to take into account the remarks which Mr. Polk had made at the last meeting.⁶ The end of the note would be drafted in the manner which he had pointed out. If the American Delegation consented, it would be possible to insert a supplementary paragraph respecting the suppression of financial transactions. Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by Germany

M. Tardieu said that if he understood the British proposal correctly, it called for immediate action, first, the refusal of the German demands for the furnishing of food for Germany; second, the refusal of credits. If these measures were insufficient the British Government were willing to consider the question of military action. He agreed with this proposal, but wished to make two remarks, one as to form, and the other as to substance. In regard to form, the British Delegation proposed that the Allies reserve the right to take further steps. This was the fourth time that the question had been raised, and, in view of this fact, it seemed to him that the least which could be done, if the Allied and Associated Governments wished to make a real threat, was to take actual steps. He proposed, therefore, that the note should say that, if the Allied and Associated Governments did not receive satisfaction, they would take other steps.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he would accept this modification.

M. Tardieu said that he remembered that Mr. Polk had said that it might be advisable to stop the repatriation of German prisoners of war. He asked whether Sir Eyre Crowe had referred this matter to the British Government, and whether he had received any instructions.

Sir Eyre Crowe replied that he had received no instructions from his Government on this point.

Mr. Polk said that he was convinced that something ought to be done. He preferred action to a threat. In a conversation which had recently taken place at Versailles between Colonel Logan and Baron von Lersner, Colonel Logan had not failed to call attention to the bad impression which the attitude of the German Government had made upon the American Government. Colonel Logan had pointed out that it was most important that Germany should take action, and had let him understand that if the action were delayed, America would take definite steps. Baron von Lersner had replied that it was a political question and that the Army which was in the hands of the reactionaries would not obey the Government which was powerless. Colonel Logan then said that this explanation was not satisfactory and that if the German Government had no power it had better withdraw. It was necessary that that Government should take immediate measures to prove its good faith. He added that Colonel Logan had not spoken in the name of the Council, but the Germans had learned unofficially the view of the United States.

M. Tardieu asked whether the Council were in agreement as to the first three paragraphs.

Mr. Polk said that there remained the question of the alteration of the last phrase and that he would propose a draft.

M. Tardieu said that he thought that it would not serve a useful purpose to fix a delay and to say at the soonest possible moment for from the present moment the Allied and Associated Governments proposed to take action.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he would ask his Government whether it would be possible to make any statement in the note regarding the holding-up of the repatriation of the German prisoners of war, but he wished to ask if the repatriation of the prisoners of war were stopped it would necessarily apply to all the Allied Powers and whether it would not be possible to speak of a total of [or?] partial holding-up of the repatriation. He did not think that the British Government were prepared, so far as they were concerned, to stop the repatriation completely for the work of repatriation was in operation and it was difficult to stop it.

M. Takdietj said that this would nevertheless be a most efficacious method of action.

M. Scialoja said that he agreed that this method could be most usefully employed.

M. Tardieu said that for the sake of their own peace it was most necessary for the German Government that the repatriation be continued. If the repatriation were stopped pressure would be brought upon the German Government by the German people themselves. It was, therefore, highly important that an expression of this threat be made in the note.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that if the proposal was accepted he thought it would be advisable that the decision of the Council be made known to the public through the press. He wished to ask, however, what Powers had consented to the proposed repatriation of the German prisoners of war in their custody.

M. Matsui said that Japan was in a difficult situation. The repatriation had begun. He asked whether the prisoners’ transports should be held up en route, for instance at Singapore. That would be difficult. He thought that it would be preferable to adopt the formula: “total or partial suspension of repatriation.”

M. Tardieu said that the American, British and Japanese Governments had consented to the repatriation, but that the German Government had received a communication in the name of the Allied and Associated Powers. He wished to recall the terms of the note which had been addressed to the German Delegation and which had been prepared by Mr. Balfour.

(M. Tardieu then read the text of the declaration of the Allied and Associated Powers relative to the repatriation of prisoners of war. SeeH.D.41.)⁷

He said that it would be possible to insert in the reply the following phrase: “at the same time the Allied and Associated Powers, with reference to Paragraph 2 of their declaration of August 28th last, pointed out that the benevolent measures respecting the anticipated repatriation of German prisoners of war was to take place either for all the prisoners or for part of them.”

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he wished to make it quite clear that if the British Government did not interrupt the repatriation of prisoners of war they were not acting counter to the resolution of the Council.

M. Tardieu said that he wished to point out that if the British Government continued to repatriate the prisoners, the threat of the Council would be vain, and, in that event, he thought it would be better to make no threat. It would be necessary to ascertain from Sir Crowe and Mr. Polk whether Great Britain and America were prepared to interrupt the repatriation of prisoners.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he wished to point out that the interruption of the repatriation would be far more prejudicial to Great Britain than to Germany.

M. Tardieu asked whether Mr. Polk was in a position to furnish a paragraph in regard to the refusal of credits.

Mr. Polk said that he would take up the matter on that day.

M. Tardieu said that in any event it would be possible to refer the draft reply to the Drafting Committee in order that the Committee could agree upon a reply which would include Mr. Polk’s draft paragraph and the proposal of the British Delegation.

Mr. Polk said that he wished to point out that it would not be possible for him to receive a reply by the following day.

(It was decided:

(1) that the Drafting Committee should prepare a note to the German Delegation concerning the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces by Germany;

(2) that the Drafting Committee should take as a basis for its work the note prepared by General Weygand and modified by the British Delegation (Appendix F) with the changes in text approved by the Council;

(3) that the text prepared by Mr. Polk should be noted; and,

(4) that in case the American and British Governments agreed to an interruption of the repatriation of prisoners of war, an additional paragraph should be prepared to notify the total or partial interruption of the repatriation of German prisoners of war.)

8. M. Tardieu said that the Council had received new proposals from the Blockade Commission (See Appendix [G]).

Mr. Polk read and commented upon the annex to this Proposal (See Appendix H). Blockade of Soviet Russia

Sir Eyre Crowe said that his experts did not consider the American proposal sufficient. They thought that the following text should be adopted. (See Appendix I.) The British experts thought that this proposal would renew [sic]a number of difficulties. There would be no blockade. There would be no capturing of ships. Vessels would be instructed to turn back. They would be informed that there was danger ahead. If they still persisted they would be made to turn back.

Mr. Polk asked what would happen if the ships refused to obey the orders given them.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that they would not refuse.

M. Matsui said that he thought that it was quite probable that they would refuse.

Commandant Levavasseur said that the British proposal was a make-shift. If a ship wished to pass there was no method of stopping it. He desired to point out that from the day when peace was signed with Germany no warship had any longer the right to stop a merchant ship. If a merchant ship wished to pass in spite of the injunctions of the Allied warships there was nothing that could be done. The former proposals made it possible to avoid these dangers. He asked what would happen if a cruiser should meet a German convoy escorted by destroyers which insisted upon passing. He thought that this was a question which ought to be carefully studied.

M. Tardieu said that it was most important to avoid taking decisions which could not be applied. The British proposal undoubtedly presented serious inconveniences. He thought that so far as the American proposal was concerned it would be inconvenient to permit the Commander of each warship to judge as to the action which he chose to exercise. In both cases there was no impression of an operation well conceived and likely to be pressed to a successful conclusion.

Commandant Levavasseur said that in the proposals formerly presented the Commanders of ships of war were vested with the authority of all the Powers.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that that would also apply to the British proposal. It would be communicated by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the neutral Governments.

M. Tardieu agreed, but said that in the British proposal it was the means of execution which were inadequate.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he could not agree, for the British proposal gave vessels of war the right of turning back merchant ships.

M. Scialoja said that the proposal would not foreshadow any possible action in the event that merchant ships refused to obey the order.

Commandant Levavasseur said that he thought that in preparing the proposal for which he acted as spokesman, provision was made for the right of turning back ships.

M. Tardieu said that in fact there was a blockade without the right of capturing cargoes.

Mr. Polk said that he thought that there was danger of creating a new kind of blockade which would not be recognized in International Law. In view of the fact that the Allied and Associated Governments were not at war with Soviet Russia, they would be creating a dangerous precedent. The United States would not give clearance to vessels desiring to leave American ports for Russia. The danger lay in the case of leaving Scandinavia or Germany.

M. Tardieu asked Mr. Polk whether the reserve contained in the American proposal was sufficient to satisfy him.

Mr. Polk replied that it was. He added that if a neutral ship were stopped in its course, for example a Danish ship, the Allied and Associated Governments exposed themselves to the payment of damages.

Commandant Levavasseur said that the note of the Allied and Associated Governments would be addressed to the neutral Governments. If these Governments accepted the contents no difficulty would arise.

M. Tardieu said that the agreement of these Governments would serve as the basis for this new form of blockade.

Mr. Polk asked what the situation would be if the neutral Governments did not accept. The notification would not bind them or protect the Allies against claims for damages.

Commandant Levavasseur said that in one case as in the other the situation would be the same. It was a question of a blockade which was not a blockade.

Mr. Polk said that he would be equally frank and that if they wanted a blockade, the best means would be to declare war against Russia.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that it should be remembered that the warships were carrying on hostile operations in the Baltic against the Bolsheviks according to the orders of the Allies. It was necessary to give them means of fulfilling their mission.

M. Tardieu agreed.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the difficulty should not be exaggerated. A few ships would be stopped, they would learn that they could not pass and soon no ships would appear.

Mr. Polk said that the United States hesitated to create precedents. In the present war they had had difficulties with the precedents of the American Civil War.

M. Tardieu said that he wished to call Mr. Polk’s attention to the observation of Sir Eyre Crowe with which he entirely agreed. The Allied fleets in the Baltic were in fact playing the role of war vessels on war service. That being the case, he could not see how it was less serious to stop merchant ships than to bombard Cronstadt. A difficult question of form ought not to be sufficient to prevent a solution of the question. In view of these facts, he agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe, that even if the Allied and Associated Powers ran the risk of having to pay damages, they should be willing to take the risk in view of the present situation. There were many examples in history of pacific blockades, for example the case of Greece and of China. The pacific blockade had a recognized place in International Law.

Mr. Polk said that it was not a question of a pacific blockade.

M. Tardieu said that he did not agree. The blockade in question was a means of coercion.

M. Scialoja said that in order to conform to the regulations of International Law, it would be necessary to communicate the state of blockade to the Soviet Government, but in view of the fact that that Government was not recognized, he did not see that strictly speaking it was a question of blockade. He thought that it was rather a question of International police and that the precedents in this sense should be examined.

M. Tardieu said that the Council agreed as to the practical utility of the measures proposed. But Mr. Polk objected to the precedents which would be created. He suggested that the legal advisors be asked to study the precedents and find a formula to which all could agree. So far as the execution of the blockade was concerned the proposals of the Naval representatives would be adopted. He did not wish to delay the solution of a question which had already been too much delayed, but what he proposed appeared necessary.

M. Cambon said that he wished to recall precedents which existed. Great Britain and France had often used the pacific blockade as a means of coercion. The examples of Greece and of China had recently been mentioned. The difficulty in the present case was that there was no Government in Russia to which a notification of the blockade could be communicated.

M. Laroche said that the very fact of there being no Government would justify a measure of International police.

M. Tardieu said that he wished to sum up the situation as he saw it. It would be possible to impose a pacific blockade if a Government existed to which a notification of the blockade could be made. No such Government existed. It was therefore necessary to trust to the ingenuity of the legal advisors to find a means of justifying a measure of International police.

Mr. Polk agreed that the question should be referred to the Drafting Committee.

(It was decided:

(1) to request the Drafting Committee to immediately examine the arguments in International Law upon which the blockade of Soviet Russia could be based; and,

(2) to call to the attention of the Drafting Committee the fact that the absence of a Government in Soviet Russia recognised by the Powers prevented the Powers from notifying that Government in the regular way of a state of blockade.

9. M. Cambon read and commented upon the proposal of the Commission on Polish Affairs which it was hoped would be consistent with the opinion formerly expressed by the Supreme Council on the subject of agrarian legislation in Eastern Galicia. (See Appendix J.) Status of Eastern Galicia

Mr. Polk said he had no objection to make to this text.

M. Tardieu recalled the declarations which M. Paderewski had made before the Supreme Council.⁹ M. Paderewski had stated that he could not admit that the agrarian question was not one for the National Assembly at Warsaw to decide.

M. Cambon said that he wished to add that in a private conversation, M. Paderewski had told him that he was in favor of the League of Nations scheme. M. Paderewski had insisted that the attribution of Eastern Galicia be made in a definite way. If he (M. Cambon) might express a personal view, he wished to add that the Council were going beyond their rights in entrusting the fate of an entirely agricultural district to a population the majority of which was not Polish.

Mr. Polk said that M. Paderewski had opposed, above everything else, the provisional character of the statute. He (Mr. Polk) thought that it would be possible to satisfy M. Paderewski in suppressing the provisional character and in altering certain points of the proposal. With this end in view he had prepared a memorandum (See Annex “K”). He felt that in establishing a provisional regime the Council, were allowing the existence of a region in the Central Europe which would become a dangerous centre of discord.

M. Cambon said that he shared this view, but that he thought there was still another reason for giving Galicia more complete autonomy. Poland would be much more disposed to accept a more complete autonomy for Galicia if she knew that there was a question of definite organization. The question could not be solved on that day and it would be necessary to send the American memorandum to the Commission, but on this point it would be necessary for the Council to express an opinion by which the Commission could be guided. They should give their view as to whether East Galicia should be definitely attributed to Poland. He wished to point out that the American memorandum (Chapter I, Sec. B) dealt with this subject.

M. Scialoja said that in effect Eastern Galacia would be placed under a Polish mandate.

M. Tardieu said that this would not be altogether the case for this mandate would not have a temporary character.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he could not agree to the Council’s suppressing the temporary character of the statute. He recalled the fact that the British Government had originally opposed the union of Eastern Galicia with Poland. He had accepted a compromise because a plebiscite had been promised. Now the idea of the plebiscite had been given up. He could not, without instructions, accept this solution in view of the fact that it completely altered the principles which had been previously raised.

Mr. Polk proposed that the American memorandum be simply referred to the Commission.

M. Tardieu said that he wished to hold to what he had previously said, purely as his own opinion.

M. Scialoja said that it conformed to the proposal previously made by M. Sonnino.

(It was decided:

to refer to the Committee on Polish Affairs the memorandum presented by the American Delegation (Appendix K).)

10. General Le Bond read and commented upon Report No. 6 of the Commission on Polish Affairs [Appendix L].

Mr. Polk said he approved the proposals of the Commission. Eastern Frontiers of Poland

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he also approved of these proposals, but he wished to ask in what form the Council intended to communicate the decisions which they had taken to the Polish Government. He thought that the question of form was most important.

M. Laroche said that it would be sufficient to inform the Polish Government that the territories lying west of the line traced by the Commission would be definitely attributed to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether it would not be necessary to include a Treaty.

M. Laroche said that in any case it was not a question of a Treaty defining the eastern frontiers of Poland but a Treaty according certain territories to Poland.

Mr. Polk said that it would be possible to give Poland her choice between two solutions:

(a) The acceptance of the minimum line proposed in the Committee’s reports, with the assurance that this line would not prejudice any future negotiations regarding this frontier after the reestablishment of Russia or the obtaining of satisfactory information regarding the desires of the people to the east of this frontier; or,

(b) leaving the determination of this eastern frontier entirely open until such time as Russia and Poland considered it possible to make a definite settlement.

M. Laroche proposed that the Drafting Committee be requested to find a formula, taking the Report of the Commission as a basis.

(It was decided:

(1) to accept the conclusions of Report No. 6 of the Committee on Polish Affairs; and,

(2) to request the Drafting Committee to study, in taking the report as a basis, the means by which these decisions should be communicated to the Polish Government.)

(The meeting then adjourned.)

Appendix A to HD–60

Paris, September 23, 1919.

[The Secretary General of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace to the Secretary General of the International Labor Commission]

The Secretary-General of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the International Labor Commission of the Peace Conference, and begs to advise that the American Commission is today in receipt of the following telegram dated Washington, September 22, 1919, and addressed to Mr. Arthur Fontaine by Mr. Samuel Gompers:

“For Fontaine, General Secretary, International Labor Commission, from Gompers:

‘Will you please convoke meeting full Labor Commission which prepared Labor Convention to meet as soon as possible and not later than September 29th.

‘I suggest you consult with Barnes as to whether meeting should be in Paris or London. Gompers.’”

To the Secretary-General of the
International Labor Commission,
Quai d’Orsay, Paris.

Appendix B to HD–60

[Translation¹⁰]

commission on spitsbergen

Report to the Supreme Council on Spitsbergen

The Commission on Spitsbergen appointed by decision of the Supreme Council on July 7¹¹ has examined, in accordance with the mandate received by it, the “claims of the various powers relative to Spitsbergen,” and, after due consideration, has prepared a draft treaty which it has the honor to submit for the approval of the Supreme Council.

The Commission first made a complete inquiry concerning the viewpoints of the interested powers. It kept in touch with the Minister of Norway in Paris and also requested the Minister of Sweden in Paris to set forth the views of his Government on this question, Sweden and Norway, with Great Britain and Russia, being the countries having the most important interests in Spitsbergen. Interested Powers

The Commission also wished to learn the desiderata of the other powers. The Minister of Denmark in Paris informed the Commission that his Government would not oppose Norway’s demands; on the other hand, the Netherlands Government indicated that in its opinion the Spitsbergen archipelago should be placed under mandate of a power by the League of Nations and that if, on the contrary, the sovereignty of Spitsbergen were given to a new State, it would be obliged to reserve its rights. Finland considered that she should not be left out of the negotiations, requesting that her nationals might engage in fisheries and other industries in Spitsbergen.

As for Russia, the representatives in Paris of the Government and of Admiral Koltchak have transmitted to the Commission a detailed memorandum which has been given attentive consideration. The Russians accept in principle that the sovereignty of the archipelago be given to Norway, it being understood that a certain number of conditions safeguarding Russian interests shall be guaranteed by Norway, conditions in accordance with those accepted by the conference of 1912 held at Christiania.

As the archipelago is actually in a territory not Archipelago of the belonging to anyone, everyone agrees upon the necessity of ending this state of affairs by giving it a definite status. Sovereighty of the Archipelago

Two solutions have been considered to bring this about:

A first solution proposed by various powers and by certain members of the Commission consisted in giving Norway a mandate in the name of the League of Nations.

A second solution, advanced by Norway, provided for the assignment of the sovereignty of the archipelago to this power, subject to certain guarantees stipulated in favor of other countries.

Considering the great interests possessed by Norway in Spitsbergen, its proximity to the archipelago, and the advantage of a definitive settlement, the Commission unanimously agreed on the second solution, against which the powers most immediately concerned formulated no objection.

Under these conditions, it was necessary to prepare a treaty to be entered into by all the powers having interests in Spitsbergen, including the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. In the preamble of the draft below,¹² the nine powers mentioned represent the High Contracting Powers. Form of the Treaty

The sovereignty of Spitsbergen having been assigned to Norway, it was necessary, in order to reserve the interests of the High Contracting Parties, to state how the rights acquired in the archipelago were to be definitively established, and then, how the acquisition and enjoyment of new rights should be regulated thereafter. Acquired Rights

The Commission first of all concerned itself with guaranteeing fully the acquired rights belonging to all the nationals of the contracting parties or of powers who will adhere subsequently. All these acquired rights are recognized as valid in principle (art. 6), in order to enable the Norwegian Government to grant with certainty the necessary titles to property, and the applications for recognition of acquired rights presented by the Government of the party concerned will be examined by a commissioner of Danish nationality named by the Danish Government (Art. 1 of the annex to art. 6).

A special procedure has been provided for the consideration of claims regarded as litigious by the Commission (art. 2 of the annex to art. 6). A court organized in the manner specified will decide cases in the last resort and convey its decisions to the interested Governments, and in any case, to the Norwegian Government. The latter will then confer the titles of property to the applicant whose claims have been recognized by the court. Claims

All questions concerning rights acquired prior to New Rights the present treaty having thus been settled, the Commission considers that as regards new rights to be acquired and the enjoyment of these rights, the principle to be applied is treatment of perfect equality between the nationals of all the High Contracting Parties (Art. 7). It is upon this basis that all the clauses of the treaty have been formulated. New Rights

It has been specified in article 8 that the Government of Norway will have to prepare a mining regime applicable to Spitsbergen, based on the principle of equality for all nationals of the High Contracting Parties. The imposts, duties, etc. collected in Spitsbergen are to be devoted exclusively to this territory and the maximum proportion of taxes that may be imposed on the exportation of ores has been fixed. The draft mining regime will be submitted by the Norwegian Government to the other contracting parties, which will be able, in the time permitted, to refer this system of regulation to the examination of a commission. Mining Regime

According to the draft treaty, it is forbidden to establish any naval base in Spitsbergen or to use this region for war Prohibited purposes (art. 9). Naval Bases Prohibited

In order to guarantee the rights of Russians in the archipelago until the time when a recognized Russian Government will be in a position to give its adhesion to the treaty, it has been stipulated (art. 10) that by exception all claims made by Russian nationals shall be presented, in the conditions stipulated, by the Danish Government, which will be asked to use its good offices for this purpose. Russian Subjects

If the text below is accepted by the Supreme Council, the Commission has the honor to propose the following procedure: The treaty will first be communicated to the Norwegian Government which will at once make known whether it gives its adhesion. The eight other contracting parties will then be requested to announce within six weeks whether they are willing to sign the treaty. After the expiration of this period, those powers which have not replied will still be able to adhere subsequently, but only as third powers, in accordance with article 11, when an invitation will be extended to the third powers by the French Government, after ratification of the treaty signed by the High Contracting Parties. All the powers mentioned in the preamble as High Contracting Parties which declare within six weeks their readiness to sign the treaty, will be requested, at the end of the six-week period, to appoint their plenipotentiaries to sign at Paris. Procedure To Be Used in Signing the Treaty

Appendix C to HD–60

spitsbererg

[Draft Treaty Relating to Spitsbergen]

The President of the United States of America; His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Majesty the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Majesty the King of Sweden,

Desirous, while recognising the sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, including Bear Island, of seeing these territories provided with an equitable régime, in order to assure their development and peaceful utilisation,

Have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries with a view to concluding a Treaty to this effect:

The President of the United States of America:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And:
For the Dominion of Canada:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the Commonwealth of Australia:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the Union of South Africa:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the Dominion of New Zealand:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For India:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Denmark:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The President of the French Republic:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Italy:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Norway:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Sweden:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who, having communicated their full powers found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, comprising with Bear Island or Beeren-Eiland, all the Islands situated between 10° and 35° longitude east of Greenwich and between 74° and 81° latitude North, especially West Spitsbergen, North-East Land, Barents Island, Edge Island, King Charles Land, Hope Island or Hopen-Eiland, and Prince Charles Island, together with all islands great or small, and rocks appertaining thereto.

Article 2

Ships and nationals of all the High Contracting Parties shall enjoy equally the rights of fishing and hunting in the territories specified in Article 1 and in their territorial waters.

Norway shall be free to maintain, take or decree, suitable measures to ensure the preservation, and if necessary, the re-constitution of the fauna and flora of the said regions, and their territorial waters; it being clearly understood that these measures shall always be applicable equally to the nationals of all the High Contracting Parties without any exemption, privilege or favour whatsoever, direct or indirect, to the advantage of any one of them.

Occupiers of land whose rights have been recognised in accordance with the terms of Articles 6 and 7 will enjoy the exclusive right of hunting on their own land: (1) in the neighbourhood of their habitations, houses, stores, factories and installations, constructed for the purpose of developing their property, under conditions laid down by the local police regulations; (2) within a radius of 10 kilometres round the headquarters of their place of business or works; and in both cases, subject always to the observance of regulations made by the Norwegian Government in accordance with the conditions laid down in the present Article.

Article 3

The nationals of all the High Contracting Parties shall have equal liberty of access and entry for any reason or object whatever to the waters, fjords and ports of the territories specified in Article 1; subject to the observance of local laws and regulations, they may carry on there without impediment all maritime, industrial, mining and commercial operations on a footing of absolute equality.

They shall be admitted under the same conditions of equality to the exercise and practice of all maritime, industrial, mining or commercial enterprises both on land and in the territorial waters, and no monopoly shall be established on any account or for any enterprise whatever.

Notwithstanding any rules relating to coasting trade which may be in force in Norway, ships of the High Contracting Parties going to or coming from the territories specified in Article 1 shall have the right to put into Norwegian ports on their outward or homeward voyage for the purpose of taking on board or disembarking passengers or cargo or for any other purpose.

It is agreed that in every respect and especially with regard to exports, imports, and transit traffic, the nationals of all the High Contracting Parties, their ships and goods shall not be subject to any charges or restrictions whatever which are not borne by the nationals, ships or goods which enjoy in Norway the treatment of the most favoured nation; Norwegian nationals, ships or goods being for this purpose assimilated to those of the other High Contracting Parties, and not treated more favourably in any respect.

No charge or restriction shall be imposed on the exportation of any goods to the territories of any of the Contracting Powers other or more onerous than on the exportation of similar goods to the territory of any other Contracting Power (including Norway) or to any other destination.

Article 4

All public wireless telegraphy stations established or to be established by, or with the authorisation of, the Norwegian Government within the territories referred to in Article 1 shall always be open on a footing of absolute equality to communications from ships of all flags and from nationals of the High Contracting Parties, under the conditions laid down in the Wireless Telegraphy Convention of July 5, 1912,¹³ or in the subsequent International Convention which may be concluded to replace it.

Subject to international obligations arising out of a state of war, owners of landed property shall always be at liberty to establish and use for their own purposes wireless telegraphy installations, which shall be free to communicate on private business with fixed or moving wireless stations, including those on board ships and aircraft.

Article 5

The High Contracting Parties recognise the utility of establishing an international meteorological station in the territories specified in Article 1, the organisation of which shall form the subject of a subsequent Convention.

Conventions shall also be concluded laying down the conditions under which scientific investigations may be conducted in the said territories.

Article 6

Subject to the provisions of the present Article, acquired rights of nationals of the High Contracting Parties shall be recognised.

Claims arising from taking possession or from occupation of land before the signature of the present Treaty shall be dealt with in accordance with the Annex hereto, which will have the same force and effect as the present Treaty.

Article 7

With regard to methods of acquisition, enjoyment and exercise of the right of ownership of property including mineral rights in the territories specified in Article 1, Norway undertakes to grant to all nationals of the High Contracting Parties treatment based on complete equality and in conformity with the stipulations of the present Treaty.

Expropriation may be resorted to only on grounds of public utility and on payment of proper compensation.

Article 8

Norway undertakes to provide for the territories specified in Article 1 mining regulations which, especially from the point of view of imposts, taxes or charges of any kind, and of general or particular labour conditions, shall exclude all privileges, monopolies or favours for the benefit of the State or of the nationals of any one of the High Contracting Parties, including Norway, and shall guarantee to the paid staff of all categories the remuneration and protection necessary for their physical, moral, and intellectual welfare.

Taxes, dues and duties levied shall be devoted exclusively to the said territories and shall not exceed what is required for the object in view.

So far, particularly, as the exportation of minerals is concerned, the Norwegian Government shall have the right to levy an export duty which shall not exceed 1% of the maximum value of the minerals exported up to 100,000 tons, and beyond that quantity the duty will be proportionately diminished. The value shall be fixed at the end of the navigation season by calculating the average free on board price obtained.

Three months before the date fixed for their coming into force, the draft mining regulations shall be communicated by the Norwegian Government to the other Contracting Powers. If during this period one or more of the said Powers propose to modify these regulations before they are applied, such proposals shall be communicated by the Norwegian Government to the other Contracting Powers in order that they may be submitted to examination and the decision of a Commission composed of one representative of each of the said Powers. This Commission shall meet at the invitation of the Norwegian Government and shall come to a decision within a period of three months from the date of its first meeting.

Article 9

Subject to the rights and duties resulting from the admission of Norway to the League of Nations, Norway undertakes not to create nor to allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories specified in Article 1 and not to construct any fortification in the said territories, which may never be used for warlike purposes.

Article 10

Until the recognition by the High Contracting Parties of a Russian Government shall permit Russia to adhere to the present Treaty, Russian nationals and companies shall enjoy the same rights as nationals of the High Contracting Parties.

Claims in the territories specified in Article 1 which they may have to put forward shall be presented under the conditions laid down in the present Treaty (Article 6 and Annex) through the intermediary of the Danish Government, who declare their willingness to lend their good offices for this purpose.

The present Treaty of which the French and English texts are both authentic shall be ratified.

Ratifications shall be deposited in Paris as soon as possible.

Extra-European Powers may confine their action to informing the Government of the French Republic, through their diplomatic representative in Paris, that their ratification has been given, and in this case, they shall transmit the instrument as soon as possible.

The present Treaty will come into force, in so far as the stipulations of Article 8 are concerned, from the date of its ratification by all the signatory Powers; and in all other respects on the same date as the mining regulations provided for in that Article.

Third Powers will be invited by the Government of the French Republic to adhere to the present Treaty duly ratified. This adhesion shall be effected by a communication addressed to the French Government, which will undertake to notify the other Contracting Parties.

In witness whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed.

Done at Paris, the . . . . . . . . . . 1919, in duplicate, one copy to be transmitted to the Government of His Majesty the King of Norway, and one deposited in the archives of the French Republic, and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted to the other signatory Powers.

Annex

1

(1) Within three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, notification of all claims to land which had been made to any government before the signature of the present Treaty must be sent by the Government of the claimant to a Commissioner charged to examine such claims. The Commissioner will be a judge or jurisconsult of Danish nationality possessing the necessary qualifications for the task and shall be nominated by the Danish Government.

(2) The notification must include a precise delimitation of the land claimed and be accompanied by a map on a scale of not less than 1/1,000,000 on which the land claimed is clearly marked.

(3) The notification must be accompanied by the deposit of a sum of one penny for each acre (40 ares) of land claimed, to defray the expenses of the examination of the claims.

(4) The Commissioner will be entitled to require from the claimants any further documents or information which he may consider necessary.

(5) The Commissioner will examine the claims so notified. For this purpose he will be entitled to avail himself of such expert assistance as he may consider necessary, and in case of need to cause investigations to be carried out on the spot.

(6) The remuneration of the Commissioner will be fixed by agreement between the Danish Government and the other Governments concerned. The Commissioner will fix the remuneration of such assistants as he considers it necessary to employ.

(7) The Commissioner, after examining the claims, will prepare a report showing precisely the claims which he is of opinion should be recognised at once and those which, either because they are disputed or for any other reason, he is of opinion should be submitted to arbitration as hereinafter provided. Copies of this report will be forwarded by the Commissioner to the Governments concerned.

(8) If the amount of the sums deposited in accordance with clause (3) is insufficient to cover the expenses of the examination of the claims, the Commissioner will in every case where he is of opinion that a claim should be recognised, at once state what further sum the claimant should be required to pay. This sum will be based on the amount of the land to which the claimant’s title is recognised.

If the sums deposited in accordance with clause (3) exceed the expenses of the examination, the balance will be devoted to the cost of the arbitration hereinafter provided for.

(9) Within three months from the date of the report referred to in clause (7) of this paragraph, the Norwegian Government shall take the necessary steps to confer upon claimants whose claims have been recognised by the Commissioner a valid title securing to them the exclusive property in the land in question, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force or to be enforced in the territories specified in Article 1 of the present Treaty, and subject to the mining regulations referred to in Article 8 of the present Treaty.

In the event, however, of a further payment being required in accordance with clause (8) of this paragraph, a provisional title only will be delivered, which title will become definitive on payment by the claimant of the further sum required of him.

2

Claims which for any reason the Commissioner referred to in clause (1) of the preceding paragraph has not recognised as valid will be settled in accordance with the following provisions:

(1) Within three months from the date of the report referred to in clause (7) of the preceding paragraph, each of the Governments whose nationals have been found to possess claims which have not been recognised will appoint an arbitrator.

The Commissioner will be the President of the Tribunal so constituted. In cases of equal division of opinion, he shall have the deciding vote. He will nominate a Secretary to receive the documents referred to in clause (2) of this paragraph and to make the necessary arrangements for the meeting of the tribunal.

(2) Within one month from the appointment of the Secretary referred to in clause (1) the claimants concerned will send to him through the intermediary of their respective Governments statements indicating precisely their claims and accompanied by such documents and arguments as they may wish to submit in support thereof.

(3) Within two months from the appointment of the Secretary referred to in clause (1) the Tribunal shall meet at Copenhagen for the purpose of dealing with the claims which have been submitted to it.

(4) The language of the Tribunal shall be English. Documents or arguments may be submitted to it by the interested parties in their own language, but in that case must be accompanied by an English translation.

(5) The claimants shall be entitled, if they so desire, to be heard by the Tribunal either in person or by counsel, and the Tribunal shall be entitled to call upon the claimants to present such additional explanations, documents or arguments as it may think necessary.

(6) Before the hearing of any case the Tribunal shall require from the parties a deposit or security for such sum as it may think necessary to cover the share of each party in the expenses of the Tribunal. In fixing the amount of such sum the Tribunal shall base itself principally on the extent of the land claimed. The Tribunal shall also have power to demand a further deposit from the parties in cases where special expense is involved.

(7) The honorarium of the arbitrators shall be calculated per month, and fixed by the Governments concerned. The salary of the Secretary and any other persons employed by the Tribunal shall be fixed by the President.

(8) Subject to the provisions of this Annex the Tribunal shall have full power to regulate its own procedure.

(9) In dealing with the claims the Tribunal shall take into consideration:

(a) any applicable rules of International Law;

(b) the general principles of justice and equity;

(c) the following circumstances:

(i) the date on which the land claimed was first occupied by the claimant;

(ii) the date on which the claim was notified to the Government of the claimant;

(iii) the extent to which the claimant has developed and exploited the land claimed. In this connection the Tribunal shall take into account the extent to which the claimants may have been prevented from developing their undertakings by conditions or restrictions resulting from the war of 1914–1919.

(10) All the expenses of the Tribunal shall be divided among the claimants in such proportion as the Tribunal shall decide. If the amount of the sums paid in accordance with clause (6) is larger than the expenses of the Tribunal, the balance shall be returned to the parties whose claims have been recognised in such proportion as the Tribunal shall think fit.

(11) The decisions of the Tribunal shall be communicated by it to the Governments concerned, including in every case the Norwegian Government.

The Norwegian Government shall within three months from the receipt of each decision take the necessary steps to confer upon the claimants whose claims have been recognised by the Tribunal a valid title to the land in question, in accordance with the laws and regulations in force or to be enforced in the territories specified in Article 1, and subject to the mining regulations referred to in Article 8 of the present Treaty. Nevertheless, the titles so conferred will only become definitive on the payment by the claimant concerned of his share of the expenses of the Tribunal.

3

Any claims which are not notified to the Commissioner in accordance with clause (1) of paragraph 2, or which not having been recognised by him are not submitted to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 1, will be finally extinguished.

Appendix D to HD–60

London, August 14, 1919.

Extract From a Letter of Lord Milner to M. Dutasta

Pursuant to my letter of July 15, I have the honor of informing you that the Special Commission on Mandates held a meeting at London on August 5.

. . . . . . .

Concerning the Belgian and Portuguese claims in German East Africa, the Commission unanimously decided to propose:

. . . . . . .

Portuguese Claims. 1. That the claim of Portugal, according to the terms of which Portugal desires to retain the possession of the part of the former German colony of East Africa which is situated to the south of the Rovuma and which is known under the name of “Kionga Triangle” was recognized; and that no question of mandate was raised in this case, as Portugal is the original and legitimate proprietor of the territory in question, and that the present acknowledgment of her claim may justly be considered as an act of restitution.

2. That it was not desirable to give a mandate to Portugal over any part of the former German colony of East Africa north of the Rovuma.

. . . . . . .

Milner

Appendix E to HD–60

italian delegation to the
peace conference
hotel edouard vii

Paris, September 14, 1919.

Translation

From: M. Tittoni.

To: M. Clemenceau.

The Peace Treaty with Austria having been signed, I think that in conformity with the decisions taken by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers at the meeting of June 26 last¹⁵ relative to Germany, the Military Representatives at Versailles should be entrusted with the studying of the organization of Commissions of Military, Naval and Aerial Control for Austria. I wish you would be kind enough to submit for the approval of the Supreme Council the following resolution:

Resolution

The Permanent Military Representatives at Versailles are charged with preparing, together with the Naval and Aerial Representatives of the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers, a detailed project with a view to the formation of Interallied Commissions on Military, Naval and Aerial Control, charged with assuring the execution of the military, naval and aerial clauses of the Peace Treaty by Austria.

Please accept, etc.

Tittoni

Appendix F to HD–60

[Translation¹⁶]

Draft of a Note To Be Sent to the German Government

(British Proposal)

The German Government’s Note of September 3 postpones once more, under unacceptable pretexts, the carrying out of the obligations undertaken by Germany by virtue of the provisions of article 12 of the armistice of November 11, 1918, afterwards confirmed by article 433 of the treaty of peace.

The Allied and Associated Governments refuse particularly to admit that the German Government can, in order to avoid the responsibility incumbent upon it, shield itself behind the alleged inability to enforce obedience of its orders by the troops in the Baltic regions.

They therefore request the German Government to proceed without any further delay to the evacuation of their troops from the Baltic Provinces, and to apply this evacuation not only to the self-contained German units and to their general staffs and services,

(This phrase will be modified in order to take into account observations presented previously by Mr. Polk.)

}

but also to all isolated German officers and soldiers, including those who, after demobilization have taken service in the ranks of organized Russian corps in the Baltic Provinces.

The evacuation must be started immediately, continued without interruption, and completely accomplished with the least possible delay.

The Allied and Associated Governments give warning by this note that until they are satisfied their demand is being effectively executed, they will not entertain any of the applications by the German Government for the supply of foodstuffs and raw materials, which the Supreme Council at this very time is studying. They have, consequently, given instructions to the Supreme Economic Council not to examine these applications.

(Here should be inserted an analogous paragraph concerning the interruption of financial transactions.)

In the event the German Government continues not to comply with their demand, the Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right of taking any other measures which they may consider necessary in order to see that the clauses of the armistice are executed.

Appendix G to HD–60

Note on Blockade of Bolshevist Russia

[The same, except in French, as the note attached to appendix H, infrawith a final paragraph which reads as follows:

[Translation]

“It will be understood that the war vessels of an Allied or Associated Power charged with the execution of the above measures, will act in the name of all the Allied and Associated Powers.”]

Appendix H to HD–60

Blockade of Russia

(1) The Blockade Council has modified the draft note regarding blockade of Russia (hereto attached) as indicated thereon. There was no agreement, however, on the final paragraph which was left for the action of the Supreme Council.

(2) It is suggested that the final paragraph be:

(a) Deleted entirely,
or

(b) Made to read: “It will be understood that each of the Allied and Associated Powers will lend its sanction to the measures taken by the war vessels of any one of them to carry out this policy insofar as such measures are not in its opinion contrary to international law.”

[Annex]

Note

Draft

Blockade of Bolshevist Russia

The avowed hostility of the Bolshevists toward all governments and the international program of revolution which they are spreading abroad constitute a grave danger for the national security of all the Powers. Every increase of the strength of the Bolshevists would increase the danger and would be contrary to the desire of all peoples who are seeking to reestablish peace and social order.

It is in this spirit that the Allied and Associated Governments, after raising the blockade of Germany, have not authorized their nationals to take up commercial relations with Bolshevist Russia; these relations indeed could only be effected through the agency of the chiefs of the Bolshevist Government, who, disposing at their will of the products and resources which commercial liberty would bring them, would thereby achieve a considerable increase of their strength and of the tyranny which they are exercising over the Russian populations.

Under these conditions, the Allied and Associated Governments request the . . . . . . Government to be good enough to take immediately in agreement with them the measures indicated below to prevent its nationals from engaging in any commerce with Bolshevist Russia and to assure that it will rigorously execute this policy.

a) Refusal of clearance papers to every ship going to Russian ports in the hands of Bolshevists or coming from said ports;

b) Establishment of a similar measure for all merchandise destined to be sent to Bolshevist Russia by any other way.

c) Refusal of passports to all persons going to Bolshevist Russia or coming from it (except through understanding with the Allied and Associated Governments for special cases);

d) Disposition with a view of preventing banks from doing business with Bolshevist Russia.

e) As far as possible, refusal by each government to its own nationals of facilities of correspondence with Bolshevist Russia by post, telegraph or wireless.

Appendix I to HD–60

[British Draft Note on Blockade of Russia]

“On account of the military operations which are taking place in the Gulf of Finland, mariners are warned against the dangers to themselves of going there.

“With a view to avoid accidents, for which they cannot be responsible, the Commanders of the Allied and Associated Forces in the Baltic, will direct all merchant ships, which are found proceeding up the Gulf of Finland, to stop and turn back.”

Appendix J to HD–60

[Translation¹⁸]

Proposal of the Commission on Polish A fairs

(Addition to Article 12 of the Draft of the Statute for Galicia)¹⁹ However, with regard to agrarian legislation the right of veto cannot be overridden by the Diet, but in case any such measure, vetoed by the Governor, is within one year again voted by the Diet with a majority of two-thirds, the question shall be immediately referred to the Council of the League of Nations which shall by a majority vote take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

With regard to the laws respecting public instruction in secondary schools and universities, the veto of the Governor will be absolute.

Appendix K to HD–60

September 25, 1919.

Memorandum

[Presented by Mr. Polk]

The following suggestions are submitted with a view to reconciling as far as possible the present draft of the Treaty on East Galicia²⁰ including both the views of the majority and of the minority, and the objections which Mr. Paderewski expressed as regards

I The Provisional Nature of the Settlement

II Agrarian Legislation

III Representation in the Polish Diet

IV Military Service

I. The Question of the Provisional Nature of the Settlement

A. In the preamble the following phrase is to be omitted entirely: “until the time when they are called upon by a plebiscite, which is for the present postponed by reason of the disturbed condition of Eastern Europe, to declare their wishes with regard to the final political status of the territory.”

B. In Article 2 the second paragraph is to be omitted. This paragraph reads:

“Poland further undertakes to hold or allow to be held a plebiscite of the inhabitants with regard to the final political status of the territory, on a date and under conditions to be fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or by any other body which they may appoint. She recognizes in advance the limits and status which, as the result of this plebiscite, may be definitively determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or by the body appointed by them.”

C. In Article 33 the word “temporary” is to be omitted from Paragraph 2, and Paragraph 3 is to be entirely omitted. Paragraph 3 reads:

“The provisions of this Chapter in no way prejudge the allocation of the said property to be made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the event of Eastern Galicia being in whole or in part separated from Poland.”

D. To replace the provisions which have been dropped, it is suggested that the following clause be inserted as Article 39:

“The stipulations in this Treaty are matters of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and Poland hereby agree not to withhold their assent from any modification whatsoever of this Treaty in whole or in part which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

“Any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction of any of these obligations, and the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

“Any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Polish Government and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Polish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.”

(This article is borrowed with modifications from the minority treaties and is similar to an obligation which Poland had already assumed in its minority treaty.)

II. Agrarian Legislation

It is suggested that the arrangement proposed by the Supreme Council be maintained namely: agrarian legislation should be included in Article 12 as a subject of legislation in the Diet of Eastern Galicia. However, Article 13 should be modified in such a way as to include agrarian legislation in the category for which the Governor’s veto cannot be overridden by the Diet and to provide for a reference to the League of Nations in the event of a dead-lock. The second paragraph of Article 13 would then read:

“However, with regard to agrarian legislation the right of veto cannot be over-ridden by the Diet, but in case any such measure, vetoed by the Governor, is again voted by the Diet with a majority of two-thirds, the question shall be immediately referred to the Council of the League of Nations which shall by a majority vote take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.”

III. Representation in the Polish Diet

As on this point Mr. Paderewski is especially insistent, it is proposed to accept the article suggested by the majority, which provides for the representation of East Galicia in the Polish Diet.

IV. Military Service

It is proposed to accept the majority report, providing for Polish military service in Eastern Galicia, with the following changes:

Original Text	Revised Text
“Article 38, Laws of [in] force in Poland relating to military service may be applied by Poland in Eastern Galicia.	“Article 38. Laws in force in Poland relating to military service may be applied in Eastern Galicia.
“The contingent thus recruited shall form special units in the Polish army. In time of peace these units shall perform garrison duty in Eastern Galicia.”	“The contingent thus recruited shall form special units which in time of peace shall perform garrison duty in Eastern Galicia and in time of war shall be available for national defense.”

Appendix L to HD–60²¹

Report No. 6, Submitted to the Supreme Allied Council by the Commission on Polish Affairs

Eastern Frontiers of Poland

In its Report No. 2 to the Supreme Council dated 22nd April 1919, on the subject of the Eastern frontiers of Poland, the Commission on Polish Affairs thought it necessary to postpone any proposal regarding the line of the frontier to the south of the latitude of Kholm; it considered that this frontier could not be fixed until after the settlement of the question of Eastern Galicia.

At the same time, the Commission proposed:—

(a) that in certain districts situated to the East of the frontier line submitted by the Commission to the approval of the Conference, an enquiry should be made into the ethnological, linguistic and religious character and as to the wishes of the inhabitants;

(b) that this enquiry should be made, if possible on the spot.

(c) that a definite settlement of the question of the Eastern frontier of Poland should be made as soon as a Russian Government had been established, with which the Great Powers could deal in regard to this question.

The Commission now considersit to be its duty to submit fresh propositions to the Council on the points which thus remained in abeyance.

1. frontier south of kholm

In virtue of a resolution passed on June 25 by the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs,²² the Commission has considered a draft Statute for Eastern Galicia; this Statute formed the subject of Report No. 5 which the Commission had the honour to submit to the Supreme Council.²³ In these circumstances the Commission considers that it is now in a position to propose a line for the Polish frontier to the south of the latitude of Kholm.

Appendix 1 of Report No. 2 should therefore be completed as follows:—(penultimate line)

“Following this administrative boundary, then the Thalweg of the River Bug upstream to its junction with the former frontier between Russia and Austria (Galicia)”.

The frontier line of the Bug proposed by Report No. 2 and the present Report formed the frontier between the Kingdom of Poland and Russia from 1815 to 1912.

From the geographical point of view the line of the Bug constitutes a satisfactory frontier, indisputably superior to any other to be found in this flat region, which is destitute of natural features. It assigns to Poland a territory occupied by a mixed population, with a considerable percentage of Little Russians in the neighborhood of the Bug, who have, however, always lived and still live in complete harmony with the Poles without showing any separatist tendencies. It is also necessary to point out that since the commencement of the war, part of the Little Russian population has quitted the country, the emigrants having been replaced by Poles. It is probable that, at the present date the area in question contains a majority of Polish inhabitants.

Moreover, this region has formed part of Poland for close upon six hundred years; it has only been separated from her on two occasions: in 1912, by the former Russian Government, which was pursuing in the Province of Kholm a Russianising policy condemned even in Russia by liberal opinion; and in 1918, by the intervention of the German and Austrian Governments, at the time of the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty.²⁴

Finally, from the economic point of view, the territory is closely connected with Poland, and the trend of all its intercourse is far more towards the West than towards the East.

For these reasons the Commission is unanimous in proposing to the Supreme Council the line described above.

2. territory situated to the east of the frontier proposed on 22nd april

Having at its meeting of 27th August completed the task of fixing the boundaries of the indisputably Polish territory which can immediately be assigned to the Polish State, the Commission considered whether it were possible under existing conditions to deal with the question of the territory of mixed populations situated to the East of the frontier proposed on April 22, with regard to which it had put forward in its report No. 2 the principles recalled at the commencement of the present Report.

The Commission was unanimous in the opinion that new factors had intervened since April 22 rendering it impossible to make any progress in the near future with the question of the assignment of this territory.

(a) The greater part of the territory in question is occupied by Polish forces engaged in the conflict they have undertaken against Bolshevism;

(b) In its Note of May 27 [26],²⁶ addressed to Admiral Kolchak, the Supreme Council stipulated that “in the event of the frontiers and also the questions concerning the relations between Russia and Poland not being, settled by an agreement, all these matters should be submitted to the arbitration of the League of Nations”.

In his reply,²⁷ which was acknowledged by the Allied and Associated Powers,²⁸ Admiral Kolchak stated, on the other hand, that “the definitive ratification of the delimitation of the frontiers between Poland and Russia must be postponed until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly”.

At present it is impossible to foresee at what dates there will come into being the regular Russian Government whose co-operation is necessary to the definitive determination of the Eastern frontiers of Poland.

The Commission does not, however, overlook the fact that the prolongation of the present state of uncertainty offers very serious disadvantages, both to the population and to the Polish Government; it is necessary to put an end to this uncertainty. The Eastern frontier of Poland as defined in Report No. 2 and in the present report, represents a provisional frontier to the extent that, in the future, other territory situated to the East of that line may be incorporated with Poland. The Commission considers, however, that this frontier might be declared definitive as regards the territory situated to the West of the same line, where the sovereignty of the Polish State would henceforth be complete and permanent.

To sum up, the Commission unanimously recommends to the Supreme Council that the Eastern frontier of Poland, as described in Reports Nos. 2 and 6 of the Commission on Polish Affairs, should be considered as marking the line to the West of which the Polish Government may, from now onwards, legally exercise all rights appertaining to sovereignty.

Jules Cambon

President

September 1, 1919.

1. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor; United States representative and President, Commission on International Labor Legislation.
2. Arthur Fontaine, French representative and Secretary-General, Commission on International Labor Legislation.
3. HD–59, minute 1, p. 323.
4. For resolution concerning procedure in the Council meetings, see HD–59, minute 6, p, 332.
5. For text of the treaty signed February 9, 1920, see Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. i, p. 78.
6. Appendix B to HD–56, p. 267.
6. HD–56, minute II, p. 256.
7. Minute 2, vol. vii, p. 957.
9. HD–59, minute 5, p. 330.
10. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
11. HD–1, minute 5, vol. vii, p. 39.
12. Appendix C.
13. Treaties, Conventions, etc., 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3048.
15. CF–93, minute 14, vol. vi, p. 702.
16. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
18. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
19. Appendix C to HD–57, p. 280.
20. Appendix C to HD–57, p. 280.
21. The English text filed under Paris Peace Conf. 181.213202/10 has been substituted for the French text which appears here as appendix L.
22. FM–27, minute 1, vol. iv, p. 848.
23. Appendix C to HD–57, p. 280.
24. Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, vol. i, p. 442.
26. Appendix I to CF–37, vol. vi, p. 73.
27. Appendix II to CF–60, ibid., p. 321,
28. Appendix I to CF–62, ibid., p. 356.