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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/61

HD–61

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 Friday, September 26, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.

Paris, September 26, 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
    • later M. Cambon
  • Secretary
    • M. Dutasta
    • M. de St. Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • M. Barone Russo.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Captain Chapin.
British Empire	Captain Hinchley-Cooke.
France	M. Massigli.
Italy	M. Zanchi.
Interpreter—M. Camerlynck

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

• America, United States of
  • General Bliss
  • Mr. F. K. Nielsen
• British Empire
  • Hon. H. Nicolson
  • General Sackville-West.
  • Lt. Col. Kisch.
• France
  • General Weygand
  • M. Laroche
  • M. Kammerer
  • M. Pieyre.
• Italy
  • M. Dell’Abbadessa.
  • M. Pilotti.

1. M. Tardieu read the following memorandum of the Secretariat-General with regard to the action taken on the resolution of the Supreme Council of September 23rd:¹ German Tank Steamers

“The resolution of the Supreme Council dated September 23rd in regard to the German oil steamers was transmitted on the 23rd to the Supreme Economic Council by the Secretariat-General.

The Supreme Economic Council forwarded the resolution on the morning of September 24th to its permanent Committee in London.

The latter body immediately brought the matter to the attention of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission which functions likewise in London. This body gave the necessary orders at once to suspend the departure of the ships in question.”

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he had received a telegram from Lord Curzon dated September 25th (See Appendix “A”). He pointed out that the important portion of this telegram was that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive believed that the question of the disposition of the ships was one for the Supreme Council. The A. M. T. E. had recommended that the tank steamers be allocated to Allied management along with other vessels to which claim had been put forward under the terms of the Armistice. The first voyage, however, would be for the transport of oil to Germany. He added that in the event that the steamers had already left for the Firth of Forth they would be diverted and allowed to proceed to the United States for their cargo of oil.

Mr. Polk said that he was happy to hear of the measures which had been taken.

M. Tardieu said that he would at once communicate Lord Curzon’s telegram to the French members of the Supreme Economic Council.

2. (The Council had before it the proposed Treaty with New States prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses, together with the report of that Commission accompanying the Treaty. (See Appendices “B” and “C”.) Proposed Treaty With New States Clauses Relating to Reciprocal Relations in Transferred Territories

M. Laroche in commenting upon the Treaty and the report, said that the Commission was unanimous in the text of the clauses of the Treaty. It had not been unanimous on the question of what Powers should be parties to, and signatories of, the Treaty. The majority of the Commission had thought that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the document, but the United States had formulated an objection to its participation in the signature. The United States Delegation had felt that the matters embraced in the proposed Treaty were not broad questions resulting from the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and therefore of direct concern to all the Allied and Associated Powers, but were rather questions of local interest concerning only the new States and the States possessing ceded territory. If the Treaty came into force it would import [impose?] a specific legal obligation only on the directly interested Powers. The United States felt therefore that it was neither desirable nor advisable that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be signatories to the Treaty, although representatives of these Powers, in participating in the framing of the proposed articles, might be able to assist in facilitating the negotiations among the Powers directly interested.

As opposed to this point of view, the majority of the Commission had felt that it would be necessary for all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, for otherwise the Treaty would be deprived of its authority in the eyes of the New States. Although the Commission felt that the interests of the New States had been carefully safeguarded by the Treaty and that the clauses were for the common good of all, the latter might distrust a Treaty which did not carry the signatures of all the Allied and Associated Powers. Should the United States refuse to sign, the important point arose as to what steps the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers should take. It was possible for the Four Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, even though the United States did not do so. The second method of procedure would be to make a united presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the New States and jointly recommend that the same be signed by them.

Mr. Polk said that this was a matter which Secretary Lansing had had before him, prior to his departure for the United States. Mr. Lansing had felt that the Treaty was one between friendly Powers and involved no enemy states. He had taken the position that it was not necessary for the American signature to appear, as he felt that it was difficult to justify the interests which United States might have in signing.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that, following out the reasons advanced by M. Laroche, he believed that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the Treaty. The British Empire had no immediate interests in the matter but he believed that it should be a signatory power. He thought that, even in the absence of a United States signature, all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. A joint action of this kind would give the smaller States the impression that all the large Powers were interested in the matter, because the Treaty formed a portion of the liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. He was willing, however, to be guided by the wishes of the majority of his colleagues.

Mr. Scialoja said that he believed a refusal of the United States to sign the Treaty was a pure matter of internal interest. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers had taken part in Treaties in which they had no direct interest, as for example, in the case of Spitz-bergen. He pointed out that the United States had been represented on the Commission on Political Clauses, had taken an active part in the framing of the Treaty, and presumably had therefore felt that matters of general interest were being settled. He was unable to urge Mr. Polk to sign the Treaty against the wishes of his Government. He would like to ask Mr. Polk, however, whether he would agree to a joint presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the small States urging the latter to sign the same. In this way the Treaty would be given moral force.

Mr. Polk said that he had no objection to this method of procedure.

Mr. Matsui said that the Japanese Empire had no particular interest involved, but as the Treaty concerned the general liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. In view of the United States’ objection, and by taking advantage of the period of twenty days proposed between the presentation of the Treaty and the signature, he would obtain the instructions of his Government in the matter. He would recommend, that the Japanese Empire be a signatory party. Should M. Scialoja’s proposition be accepted, however, he would have no difficulty in joining on behalf of Japan in the common presentation by the five Principal Powers.

M. Laroche said that he gathered from the discussion that the Council agreed to approve the text of the Treaty and that the Treaty itself should be presented to the new States by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly with a recommendation that it be signed by the former. Furthermore a period of twenty days was to be accorded the New States between the time of presentation and the signature of the Treaty. He added that it was extremely necessary to decide upon a fixed period in order to prevent the matter being drawn out and any of the New States taking advantage of this to avoid signing.

M. Tardieu said that as it was better for all the great Powers to take the same attitude on the question, he proposed that M. Laroche’s solution of the matter be adopted.

It was decided:

(1) That the text of the proposed Treaty with the New States (Clauses Relating to Reciprocal Relations in Transferred Territories) prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses should be accepted.

(2) That the proposed Treaty should be presented to the Delegations of the interested states by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly. The latter should impress upon the Delegations of the New States the necessity for the signature of the Treaty in question, and should request them to obtain the consent of their Governments as soon as possible, but in any case within a period of twenty days, at the expiration of which the Treaty should be signed in Paris by the plenipotentiaries of the interested States.

(At this point M. Tardieu left the room and M. Cambon took the chair.)

Repatriation of Czecho-Slovak Troops in Siberia	3.	}	(These questions were adjourned)
Distribution of Allied Troops in the Plebiscite Areas	4.
Report of the Commission on Baltic Affairs on the Occupation of Memel	5.

6. The Council had before it a note from Marshal Foch, dated August 21st, 1919, (See appendix D).

Mr. Polk said that there was no objection to the proposals contained in this note from the point of view of the United States. Recommendation of Marshal Foch That the Military Experts Under Article 163 of the German Peace Treaty Should Be Member of the Inter-Allied Commission of Control Under Articles 203 and 210 of the Treaty

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the British representatives agreed with Marshal Foch’s proposals.

M. Scialoja said he had no objections to formulate.

M. Matsui said that he was not entirely familiar with the question.

General Weygand commented and explained briefly the note in question.

M. Matsui said that he had no objections to present.

It was agreed that:

The Conference of Military Experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers provided tor by Article 163 of the Peace Treaty to determine the reduction of effectives to be imposed on Germany for each period of 3 months following the coming into force of the Treaty, should be composed of the presidents and of the most important members of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control constituted in conformity with articles 203–210, and chosen in such a way that all the Allied and Associated Powers be represented in the said Conferences.

The President of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control should be charged with deciding the composition of this Conference and the dates of its sessions in agreement with the precedents of the Naval and Aerial Commissions.

7. (This question was adjourned.) Communication to German Government Relative to the Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces

8. (The Council had before it a note from the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses, asking that the German Government be requested to notify the Allied and Associated Powers of the Government property in German territory to be ceded to Poland.) (See Appendix E.) Note From the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses Relative to German Property in Territory To Be Ceded to Poland

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he was prepared to accept the proposals contained in the note.

Mr. Polk said that he was likewise prepared to accept the same, but wished to reserve his final decision until he had consulted the United States expert in the matter. (Mr. Polk later notified the Secretariat-General that he had no objections to formulate.)

It was decided: to accept the proposals in the note of the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses. (See Appendix E.)

It was further decided to request the German Government to furnish the Allied and Associated Powers all information relative to all Government property, which is required to be turned over to Poland within the territory to be ceded to the latter, under the terms of the Treaty with Germany.

9. (The Council had before it two notes of The German Delegation dated respectively August 1st and August 5th (See Appendixes F and G), together with a proposed reply thereto submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty. (See Appendix H).) The Question of Eupen and Malmedy

Mr. Polk said that he had a slight change to propose in the text of the reply. In the 3rd paragraph (English text) the expression, “with the sole reservation that the League of Nations might later order the return to Germany of the whole or part of these territories,” appeared. He believed that the use of the word “might” in this connection was not strictly in accordance with Article 34 of the Peace Treaty and the covering letter sent to the German Delegation on June 16th, 1919.² As the text now stood the proposed reply stated in substance that the League of Nations might disregard the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of Eupen and Malmedy, whereas, the covering letter referred to had said that, in the cases of the territories which it was proposed to transfer from Germany to Denmark and Belgium, this transfer would only take place as the result of a decision of the inhabitants themselves taken under conditions which would insure complete freedom of vote.

He proposed that the word “might” should be changed to read “will”.

M. Laroche said that Article 34 of the Treaty with Germany did not impose a fixed obligation upon the League of Nations to return the territory in question to Germany, should the majority of the population express its wish in that direction. He thought that a moral obligation was imposed upon the League of Nations but not an absolute one. The text of the reply as it stood seemed to him to clearly express the obligation created by the article in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that he agreed with M. Laroche’s interpretation of the matter.

M. Laroche added that the change proposed by Mr. Polk might result in adding something to the Treaty which was not included therein.

(After some further discussion on the matter Mr. Polk withdrew his proposal for the change in question, and

It was decided that the reply to the German notes on Malmedy and Eupen, as submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty, be accepted.)

10. (The Council had before it a letter from the British Delegation dated August 26th. (See Appendix I.).)

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the matter in question was Question of small importance but that he wished to obtain the decision of the Council before taking any action thereon. It has been originally agreed that the final text Germany German Treaty should alone be made public, and that the preliminary conditions of peace as handed to the Germans should be kept secret. However, the different notes which had been exchanged between the German Delegation and the Allies had appeared in the newspapers of several countries. Some of the passages in these notes were rendered unintelligible by the fact that they referred to clauses which had been proposed for the Treaty and later modified or withdrawn. These clauses had not been made public coincidently with the notes. The British Government wished to publish the clauses referred to in the notes as Annexes to the latter, but before so doing was anxious to obtain the approval of the Supreme Council. Question of Publication of Documents connected With the Treaty With Germany

M. Cambon asked whether it was desired to publish all the clauses which had been omitted from the final Treaty or only those to which reference had been made in the notes in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that only those referred to in the notes were contemplated.

Mr. Polk asked whether the Treaty as originally presented to the German Delegation had not been published in the Allied countries, as it had been made public in Germany.

Sir Eyre Crowe answered that it had not been possible to publish it in the British Empire because by so doing the Houses of Parliament would have been entitled to have the Treaty before them and to discuss the same even before it was known whether or not Germany would accept it. The mere fact that the preliminary Treaty had appeared in Germany did render its presentation to the British Parliament necessary.

M. Cambon asked that the decisions might be adjourned until he had had an opportunity to consult Mr. Clemenceau.

M. Scialoja pointed out that this was a mere question of form in view of the fact that publication had actually been made in many countries.

M. Cambon said that there was a difference between official and unofficial publication.

(It was decided:

to adjourn the decision of this question until the following day.) (The Meeting then adjourned.)

Hotel de Crillon, Paris , September 26, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–61

Telegram From Lord Curzon to Sir Eyre Crowe, September 25, 1919

German Tank Steamers

The Organizing Committee of the Reparations Commission referred this question to the A. M. T. E. on August 29th, with the knowledge of the American Representative on that Committee, Mr. J. F. Dulles. At the meeting of the A. M. T. E. held on September 17th, Mr. Anderson, who represented the United States, handed in to the Supreme Economic Council a memorandum with reference to the question. This memorandum was signed by Captain Tobey, U. S. N.

It was accordingly decided by the A. M. T. E. that the questions should be submitted to the Supreme Economic Council. Mr. Anderson concurred in this decision. The recommendation which the A. M. T. E. forwarded to the Supreme Economic Council was substantially as follows:—

“Allocate the tank steamers to Allied management along with other vessels to which claims were put forward under the terms of the Armistice, and, at any rate for their first voyage, use them for the transport of oil to Germany.”

The representative of the United States on the A. M. T. E. intimated that if the Supreme Council, by adopting this resolution, should approve the revocation of the clause in the Brussels Agreement^2a whereby these German tank steamers were provisionally exempted, no objection would be raised and on September 30th [20th] the Supreme Economic Council confirmed the resolution by the A. M. T. E.

No promise has been given to Germany with respect to these steamers nor have the Germans raised any objection to surrendering them but have, on the contrary, prepared them for surrender and have furnished them with coal only for the journey to the Firth of Forth. No breach of faith with Germany is therefore involved.

Neither the A. M. T. E. nor the Supreme Economic Council has any knowledge of the decision of the Supreme Council mentioned in your telegram of yesterday.

A full report is being sent for the information of the Supreme Council by the President of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission.

In view of a report received from H. M. S. Coventry that a seaman’s strike is imminent at Hamburg the tank steamers were ordered to the Firth of Forth on September 23rd., and the Ministry of Shipping put forward a strong plea that the action already taken should not be interfered with.

The following is the passage referred to:—“This action was in contradiction with the resolution of the Supreme Council, which had decided, in view of the pressing need of oil in Germany to leave these ships in German hands.”

Appendices B and C to HD–61

[Translation³]

September 2, 1919.

Report Presented to the Supreme Council by the Commission on Political Clauses

Summaey of the Papees

1. Purpose and Composition of the Commission

2. Report of the Commission

3. Conclusions

4. Text of the Articles of the Treaty.

Commission on Political Clauses

The Supreme Council, in its meeting of July 11, 1919,⁴ decided to name a Commission to examine M. Sonnino’s proposal that certain political clauses of the Treaty of Peace with Austria be applied to all the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This Commission is composed of five members, one member for each of the following great Powers: United States of America, British Empire, France, Italy [, Japan]. Purpose of the Commission

The Commission was able to hear the representatives of the interested States.

members

• United States of America Composition of the Commission
  • Mr. Fred W. Nielsen
• British Empire
  • Mr. J. W. Headlam-Morley
• France
  • M. Laroche
• Italy
  • M. M. d’Amelio
• Japan
  • M. Adatci

Equally assisted at the meeting as technical experts:

• British Empire
  • Mr. H. J. Hutchinson
• France
  • M. Tirman
• Italy
  • M. A. Dell’Abbadessa
  • M. Pilotti
• Japan
  • M. Kato
  • M. Kawai
  • M. H. Ashida

Secretary of the Commission: Baron Pieyre

The Commission has heard:

• For Poland
  • M. Stanislas Patek
  • M. Ladislas Grabski
  • M. Roman Bybarski
  • Representatives Heard
• For Roumania
  • M. Ef. Antonesco
  • For the Serb-Croat-Slovene State
  • M. Ivan Zolger
  • M. Velizar Yankovitch
• For Czecho-Slovakia
  • M. Jean Kramar
  • M. Hugo Vavrecka

Report to the Supreme Council by the Commission on Political Clauses

August 29, 1919.

In accordance with the mission assigned to it by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, pursuant to the resolution of July 11, 1919, the Commission on Political Clauses of the Treaty with Austria examined M. Sonnino’s proposal that certain political clauses of the peace treaty with Austria be applied to all the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Work of the Commission

These labors have resulted in the preparation of a draft treaty to be concluded between the Allied States to which Austrian or Hungarian territory has been or will be transferred or which came into existence as a consequence of the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary. The new order thus created raises, in effect, with regard to the immediate relations of the interested States and those of their respective nationals, problems which it is important to settle. Their settlement, by contributing to the establishment of a basis for perfect reciprocity of economic and legal relations between the States concerned, will have the most beneficial influence upon the development of confidence and friendly relations among these powers. Object and Nature of the Treaty

A treaty of this nature, in which only Allied States participate, should necessarily be agreed upon freely by all powers concerned. For this reason, the stipulations therein could not be of the same character as the analogous stipulations which had been drawn up as a result of a treaty of peace imposed on Austria, an enemy State.

The Commission has therefore modified the original text which was based on the treaty with Austria. Furthermore, with a view to facilitating the conclusion of this agreement, it received semiofficially, the delegates of the new States. Taking into account their observations, it modified certain clauses, while it abolished others or drafted new ones, seeking thereby to render more certain the adhesion of the interested States.

However, the Yugo-Slav delegates made a general observation. Considering the clauses submitted for their examination only of subordinate character, they expressed the opinion that a treaty of this kind should be much broader in scope, of a nature to include questions of the status of nationals, consular conventions, customs, and navigation, etc. In deference to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers as well as the other Allied States which would accept the treaty, the Yugo-Slav delegation, nevertheless, accepted in principle the articles of the draft prepared. It has made only two reservations: first, for article 3, which provides for a term of five years, whereas it would like to see 3 years fixed as the maximum term; second, for articles 4 (coastal trade) and 5 (fisheries) which it would like to make subordinate to the question of the restitution of Yugo-Slav boats. According to the Yugo-Slavs, since this question has not yet been settled, all semblance of reciprocity is removed from these two clauses. Reservations of the Yugo-Slavs

Likewise, the Roumanian delegation, not having received adequate instructions from its Government, did not consider it could pledge itself, even unofficially, to accept the different articles of the treaty. It was able, however, to furnish some interesting observations, which were taken into account during the discussion of the articles. Reservations of the Roumanians

The Commission was unanimous in believing that certain of these measures, which had not been provided for in the treaty with Austria, since it was an enemy State, should supplement the provisions of the latter document. This was taken into consideration for certain articles of the treaty with Austria, which as a consequence were revised, particularly those having to do with nationality clauses; thus article 42, which referred only to Italy, was extended to other Allied States to which Austrian territory has been transferred or which have come into existence through the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary; it is the same for the communication of archives of interest to the transferred territories (article 93). Application to Austria and Hungary

The draft treaty contains other stipulations without political interest, but having features of general interest which it would be desirable, for the immediate relations of the territories of former Austria-Hungary, to have extended to Austria and Hungary as soon as the peace has been signed. In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Council of August 8 [6]⁵ a special provision of the draft provides the possibility for these two States to participate in these measures. It is in the same spirit that the present Commission, in accord with the Economic Commission, presented to the Supreme Council, which adopted it in its session of August 28,⁶ the text of an article to be inserted in the treaty with Austria, by the terms of which questions concerning the nationals of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy not mentioned either in the present treaty, or in the treaty of peace with Austria, will be made the subject of special conventions drafted at a conference made up of delegates of the powers concerned.

As the Supreme Council may note in the preamble of the treaty, the participation of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in this agreement is specified. It is not a question of their direct intervention in the clauses of the treaty which are obligations only for the States to which Austrian or Hungarian territory has been or will be transferred or which have arisen from the dismemberment of Austria-Hungary. But, it seemed to the Commission, with the exception of the opinion expressed by the American delegation, that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, having determined, by the success of their arms, the dissolution of Austria-Hungary and contributed thus to the creation of new States or to the cession of important territories to States already existent, could not disregard the future of these States and have the duty of facilitating the conclusion of an accord determining the reciprocal relations of the territories separated from the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Participation of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers

But it is undeniable that the participation of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the treaty drafted, while not implying any obligation for them, will have the result of conferring on this document a “patronage” which will give it moral authority of a nature to render negotiation less difficult.

It cannot be concealed that, if they are left to themselves, the new States, at the risk of allowing their populations to endure the inconveniences caused by the delay in the settlement of questions which it is at the same time urgent to determine, will reach agreement only with difficulty, either because of mutual distrust which makes them suspicious of arrangements clearly suggested by their own interests, or because of the desire to have joined to this settlement those other questions of a political or economic nature, for which they desire a speedy solution, but whose addition to the present Treaty would only complicate the negotiations still more.

Conclusions

Consequently, the Commission has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council the draft treaty hereto annexed, the text of which has been reviewed by the Drafting Committee, requesting that it will:

1. Kindly approve the text of the articles;

2. Approve likewise the participation of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the treaty for the reasons given above and set forth in the preamble;

3. Decide that the draft treaty shall be transmitted to the delegations of the States concerned while informing them that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers recommend their signatures, and invite them to obtain the adherence of their governments as soon as possible, and, at the latest, within a period of 20 days, at the expiration of which the plenipotentiaries of the States assenting will proceed to Paris for the signing of said treaty.

The American delegation, by order of its Government, expressed as follows the views of the Government of the United States concerning the participation of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in the negotiations of the treaty drafted. Views of the United States Delegation

The issues which are the subject of the treaty drafted are not questions of broad scope resulting from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and affecting directly all the Allied and Associated Powers, but actually local questions directly interesting only the new States and the States to which territories have been ceded, including one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, Italy. If the treaty comes into effect, it will impose the legal obligations determined only on the States directly concerned. It is therefore neither desirable nor judicious that all of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be signatories of the treaty, although, by their participation in the elaboration of the articles drafted, the representatives of these powers were able to be of assistance in facilitating the negotiations among the powers directly concerned. It is for this reason that the United States, without wishing to influence the decision of the other powers on this subject, does not desire to appear among the signatories of the treaty.

Draft Treaty With the New States⁷

Clauses Relating to the Reciprocal Relations Between the Transferred Territories

The President of the United States of America,

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of The British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,

The President of the French Republic,

His Majesty the King of Italy,

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan,

The President of the Polish Republic,

His Majesty the King of Roumania,

His Majesty the King of the Serbs, the Croats and the Slovenes,

The President of the Czecho-Slovak Republic,

Whereas by the success of their arms the Allied and Associated Powers have precipitated the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and by thus restoring national life to the peoples who were anxious to free themselves from the said Monarchy have brought about the creation of new States or the transfer of important territories to States already existing; and

Whereas this new condition of affairs has given rise in the immediate relations of the States concerned and in those of their respective nationals to questions which it is necessary to determine; and

Whereas the settlement of these questions, by contributing towards the establishment on a basis of complete reciprocity of economic and legal relations between those States, must have the best influence on the development of ties of confidence and friendship between them;

Being desirous of establishing by a common agreement the principles and provisions in accordance with which the question thus arising should be settled, and of confirming by this means the friendly union which exists between the High Contracting Parties;

Have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries, with a view to concluding a convention to this effect, namely:

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

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of 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,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The President of the French Republic,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Italy,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The President of the Polish Republic,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Roumania,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of the Serbs, the Croats and the Slovenes,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The President of the Czecho-Slovak Republic,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Article 1

The Allied States to which territory of the former Austro-Hun-garian Monarchy has been or may be transferred, or which have arisen from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, mutually undertake to restore to one another such of the articles referred to below as may be in their respective territories.

1. Archives, registers, plans, titles and documents of every description relating to the civil, military, financial, judicial or other administrations of the transferred territories. It is agreed, moreover, that the States specified above will, in general, reciprocally communicate to one another, all records, registers, plans, titles and documents of any description relating to the civil, financial, judicial or other administrations referred to in this paragraph, which have no military character, and which, while forming part of their archives, may concern at the same time the organisation of one of the other States above mentioned;

2. Records, documents, objects of antiquity or art, and all scientific and bibliographical material taken away from the invaded territories, whether they belong to the State or the provincial, communal, charitable or ecclesiastical administrations, or other public or private institutions;

3. Articles of the same nature taken since June, 1914, from the transferred territories, with the exception of articles purchased from private owners.

In the event of one of the objects the restitution of which is provided for by the present Article being in the possession of a private person who is national of one of the said States and claims that he has become the legal owner thereof, the State to which the object is to be restored may be required to indemnify the owner, if his good faith is established, in accordance with the law in force in his country at the date of the signature of the present Treaty.

Article 2

The Allied States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has been or may be transferred, or which have arisen from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, shall take the necessary measures with a view to ensuring among themselves the restitution provided for by paragraphs (a)and (f) of Article 297 and by Article 238 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, and by Article 249, paragraphs (a)and (f) and by Article 184 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, and by any corresponding Articles in the other Treaties of Peace, in so far as the property, rights and interests to be restored to the nationals of the said Allied States (including companies and corporations in which they are interested) are in the territory of one of the said States.

The compensation provided for by the said Articles shall be borne by the countries by whom such compensation is payable in accordance with the said Treaties of Peace.

Article 3

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 289 of Part XII of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, the Allied States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has been or may be transferred, or which have arisen from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, undertake temporarily to maintain upon their own railway lines, on their navigable waterways, in their ports and in their maritime services connected with the ports of the transferred territories, a régime of tariffs of such a nature that the flow of traffic established before the war shall be subject to no changes which may favour the ports of the Powers with whom the Allied and Associated States have been at war, to the detriment of the Adriatic and Black Sea Ports.

This temporary provision shall terminate at the expiration of a maximum period of five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, unless in the meantime special agreements have been concluded between the interested States on the subject of their transport régime.

Article 4

During a maximum period of three years from the coming into force of the present Treaty each of the States to which maritime ports belonging to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall have been transferred under the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary will accord to all other such States the right of engaging in the coasting trade between these ports by means of vessels which are registered in one of the said ports for this kind of navigation, and subject to the same conditions as under the former Monarchy in respect of the tonnage employed and the rules of navigation.

Article 5

During a maximum period of three years from the coming into force of the present Treaty the provisions relating to fishing rights contained in the final protocol annexed to the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of November [February] 11, 1906, between Italy and Austria-Hungary⁸ (ad Articles 18 and 19, paragraph 2) shall remain in force between the States receiving territories bordering on the Adriatic which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, account being taken of the conditions existing before the war so far as concerns tonnage, description of vessels and the method of fishing.

Article 6

Persons, companies and commercial undertakings, including insurance companies, nationals of one of the Allied or Associated Powers, who before the war had established the headquarters of their business or industry in one of the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy assigned to one of the said Powers, shall have the right, during a period of five years, to carry on their trade, profession, business or industry in any one of the other transferred territories on the same conditions as persons, companies, undertakings or insurance companies, nationals of the Power exercising sovereignty over that territory.

During the above mentioned period the persons, companies, undertakings and insurance companies, and their property, rights and interests shall not be subject, in the territories in question, to any higher tax or charge than shall be imposed on the persons or undertakings, property, rights and interests of nationals of the States exercising sovereignty over such territories. No measure in derogation of their rights of property shall be imposed upon them in any of the territories in question which is not equally applied to the property, rights and interests of nationals of the States in question and which does not in any event involve suitable compensation.

If, at the expiration of the above period of five years, no special agreements have been concluded in this respect between the States concerned, the present undertaking shall be prolonged for a further period of five years.

In so far as Poland is concerned, it is agreed that this Article shall only apply to insurance companies.

Article 7

The following provisions shall apply so far as regards relations between persons having their habitual residence in the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which have been or may be transferred under the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary:

(a) If one of such persons was during the war outside the territories of the former Monarchy, or was imprisoned, interned or deported for political or military reasons, all periods of prescription or limitation of rights of action, whether they began to run before or after the outbreak of war, shall be treated as having been suspended in such transferred territories for the period from the date at which such person found himself in one of the situations above referred to until the expiration of a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

In the case of persons who have been in one of these situations owing to an act of the Hungarian Government, this period of three months shall run from the coming into force of the Treaty with Hungary.

(b) The provisions of paragraph (a)shall apply to the periods prescribed for the presentation of interest or dividend coupons or for the presentation for repayment of securities drawn for repayment or repayable on any other ground.

(c) No negotiable instrument made before the absence, imprisonment, internment or deportation referred to in paragraph (a)shall be deemed to have become invalid by reason only of failure to present the instrument for acceptance or payment or to give notice of non-acceptance or non-payment to drawers or endorsers or to protest the instrument or to complete any formality during the said periods.

Provisions may be made by special agreement between the Governments concerned to meet cases in which the rights of persons referred to in this Article shall have been prejudiced by measures of execution taken in the territories transferred under the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary on account of failure to perform any act or comply with any formality.

Article 8

Contracts concluded between persons residing in territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which are transferred to Allied States under the Treaties of Peace shall be maintained, except in cases of cancellation in accordance with the law under which such contracts were entered into. Nevertheless, contracts for the purchase or sale of overseas goods made before January 1, 1917, shall be cancelled, except in respect of any debt or other pecuniary obligation arising out of any act done or money paid thereunder.

Article 9

A special agreement to be made between the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has been or may be transferred or which have arisen from the dismemberment of that Monarchy shall regulate the payment of all civil, ecclesiastical or military pensions due to former Austrian or Hungarian nationals, including former Austro-Hungarian nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who have become nationals of the said States under the Treaties of Peace which have decided the future of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

Article 10

Special agreements shall determine the division of the property of associations or public corporations carrying on their functions in territory which is divided in consequence of the Treaties of Peace which have decided the future of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

Article 11

Special agreements between the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has been or may be transferred or which have arisen from the dismemberment of that Monarchy shall provide for the interests of persons resident in, or companies having their headquarters in, the transferred territories, particularly as regards civil rights, commerce and the exercise of professions.

Article 12

After the coming into force of the Treaties of Peace with Austria and Hungary, the High Contracting Parties will admit those States as parties to the special agreements provided for under the present Treaty, it being understood that such participation shall not involve, in the case of the said States, any modification of the provisions of the said Treaties of Peace.

The present Treaty, in French, in English and in Italian, shall be ratified as soon as possible.

Each Power will address its ratification to the French Government, who will inform all the other signatory Powers.

The ratifications will remain deposited in the archives of the French Government.

Powers of which the seat of the Government is outside Europe will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their ratification has been given; in that case they must transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible.

The present Convention will come into force for each signatory Power from the date of the deposit of its ratification, and from that moment that Power will be bound in respect of other Powers which have already ratified.

In faith whereof the above named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention.

Done at . . . . . in a single copy which will remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted to each of the Signatory Powers.

Appendix D to HD–61

commander-in-chief
of the allied armies
general staff
No. 4047

G. H. Q. August 21, 1919.

[Note From Marshal Foch]

Note

Article 163 of the Peace Treaty says, concerning the redemption of the German forces, that:

“at the end of the 3 months which shall follow the going into force of the Treaty, and at the end of each subsequent period of 3 months, a conference of military experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall determine the reductions to be made for the following three months so that, on March 31, 1920, at the latest, the total of the German effectives shall not exceed the maximum figure of 100,000 men provided for by Article 166 [160].”

On the other hand, Articles 203–210 provide for the constitution of Interallied Commissions of Control representing the Governments of the Allied and Associated Powers with the German Government and charged with the supervision of the regular execution by the latter of all the clauses of Part V of the Treaty.

It seems indispensable to select these military experts provided for by Article 163 from amongst the Interallied Commissions of Control which, by the very reason of their mission, shall be in possession of all the elements intelligently to decide the reductions of effectives to be fixed for Germany for each period of 3 months.

By proceeding otherwise, that is to say by choosing experts outside of these Commissions of Control, one would substitute at the moment of taking important decisions a new commission, consequently incompetent, for commissions already organized and well qualified.

As a consequence, we have the honor to submit to the Supreme Council of the Governments the following resolution:

“The Conference of Military Experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers provided for by Article 163 of the Peace Treaty to determine the reduction of effectives to be imposed on Germany for each period of 3 months following the going into force of the Treaty, shall be composed of the presidents and of the most important members of the Interallied Commissions of Control constituted in conformity with Articles 203–210, and chosen in such a way that all the Allied’and Associated Powers be represented in the said Conference.

“The President of the Interallied Military Commission of Control shall be charged with deciding the composition of this Conference and the dates of its sessions in agreement with the presidents of the Naval and Aerial Commissions.”

P. O. Le Major General

Weygand

Appendix E to HD–61

Paris, September 5, 1919.

Translation

[Note From] Committee on the Execution of the Political Clauses of the Treaty With Germany

The circular hereto annexed from the German Financial Minister, remitted to the Peace Conference by the Polish Delegation, expressly states (Article 3): “It is necessary to supervise as regards these acts . . . . . . . . etc., which establish the exact value of all the property before being remitted (to Poland) does not fall into Polish hands, etc.”

The Committee on the Execution of the Political Clauses of the Treaty with Germany estimates that, on the contrary, the German Government is obliged to communicate to the Allied and Associated Governments all information concerning this property, and is of the opinion that the Conference should inform the German Delegation of it.

[Annex]

Berlin, July 14, 1919.

minister of finance

S. J. 1657

According to Article 256 of the Peace Treaty, the States which are to take possession of German territories will also take possession of all the domains and of all the property of the German Empire and of the German States which is found on the said territories.

The domains situated in the territories which are not yet occupied by the Poles shall be ceded to the Polish Government according to a method established beforehand. As it is possible that the cession will take place very soon—it is necessary to take the necessary measures at this time for the determining of the bases according to which the beneficiary state will pay indemnities for the domains acquired. Therefore, in accord with the cointerested parties, I draw up the following:

1. All the services are instructed to prepare as soon as possible two copies of the Conventions concerning the delivery of all state property administered over by them. As instructions have been given concerning this matter on several occasions, a regulation of uniform indications is judged as superfluous. However, it is none the less necessary to be guided by the following indications:

• a) It is absolutely necessary to avoid specifying the value of the domains in the course of the negotiations, it is necessary, on the contrary, to make a summary exposé of the general condition, an exposé in which account could be taken in the appraisement, of the location, extent of the lands, number of buildings, rooms in the buildings, condition of the culture in the property and in the forests.
• b) An exact and separate list must be made of the objects to be delivered. A short explanation must be given concerning objects of special value. These documents should not be considered as inventories.
• c) The office through which the delivery is to be made must be accurately indicated on the first page.

2. The two copies concerning the delivery negotiations must be signed by the assignor and assignee. A copy shall be remitted to the Service of State which takes possession of the domains and the second immediately returned to the competent Minister. Should it be difficult to obtain the signature of the service representing the assignee, the two copies of the pourparlers must be returned to the competent Minister.

3. It is necessary to supervise as regards these Acts … etc., which establish the exact value of all the property before being remitted, does not fall into Polish hands. It is necessary therefore that all the documents concerning this question be remitted to the service which should retain the documents not destined to be remitted. In returning the documents concerning the negotiation to the competent Minister the place where they had been sent must be designated at the time.

4. All these provisions refer as well to all the domains of the State which belonged to the former Kingdom of Poland and which according to Chapter 92, Art. 3, of the Peace Treaty shall be returned to Poland without indemnity. Everything relating to the elucidation of the appurtenances of the domain of the former Kingdom of Poland must be brought to the attention of the said service under No. 3.

5. It is not necessary, for the time being, to prepare the negotiations concerning the delivery of the domains in the districts submitted to a plebiscite or in the arrondissement of Memel.

But all these provisions are applicable to the territories attributed to the free city of Dantzig.

6. Regarding the property of the administration of the railroads—a special order of the Minister of Public Works is to be followed.

Signature

Court of Appeals at Marienwerder

July 17, 1919.

To The Judge of the Court of Appeals.
To The Procureur of the Court of Appeals.
	i. A. 49
	10265

This copy is brought to the attention of the Court in order that the necessary measures may be taken. Referring to Chapter No. 3 it should be noted that all the acts and all the documents concerning the matter as well as the elucidations annexed should be sent to the Court of Appeals at Elbing.

Shelhan

Appendix F to HD–61

the president of
the german delegation

Versailles, August 1, 1919.

To His Excellency, M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference.

Mr. President: Following up my note of July 13, I have the honor to inform your Excellency that the Belgian administrative controller at Eupen has sent the following notice to the Council of the Circle and to the Mayor of the town of Eupen:

“Since the signature of Peace and by its ratification, Germany has renounced all its rights over the circles of Eupen and Malmedy, since from that time it has been necessary to direct administrative affairs while awaiting other more complete measures, I feel called upon to ask you to avoid treating further, insofar as possible with the German administrations. I think that you should only treat with the German administrations in liquidating your business affairs or in asserting your rights. In any event, all the orders of Berlin have no value whatsoever. Insofar as the regency of Aix-la-Chapelle is concerned, I deny it all jurisdiction in the circle of Eupen. I dare to hope that you will immediately try to follow out this measure; I declare myself entirely disposed to direct yon in the affairs under your jurisdiction and this in the interest of your administration and that of Belgium.

“The administrative controller of the Circle of Eupen
Signed: Leon Xhaflaire.”

The German Government requests that the substance of this notice be brought to the knowledge of the Belgian Royal Government. The German Government believes that the Belgian Royal Government will inform the administrative controller that such interference in the administration of the Circle of Eupen is not admissible until the coming into force of the Peace Treaty, and that, particularly, the relations of the local authorities with the Regency of Aix-la-Chapelle and the other administrative authorities must not, until then, be hindered in this way.

Accept, etc.

Freiherr von Lersner

Appendix G to HD–61

the chairman of the
german peace delegation

Versailles, August 5, 1919.

To: His Excellency, M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference.

Mr. President: Referring to my note of August 1,¹⁰ I have the honor to communicate the following to Your Excellency:—

According to information from Herbesthal, the Belgian local Commander in that place has notified the Director of the railway station that the Herbesthal station and the other stations situated in the Eupen Circle were, in the next few days, to be taken under Belgian Administration. At the same time, he requested that the station officials be informed that, in case they desired to enter Belgian service the Belgian Administration would continue to pay them their customary salary and allowances. Since the Local Commander has been contemplating the transfer, in the next few days, of the stations to Belgian Administration, he seems to be under the erroneous impression that the provisions of the Peace Treaty regarding the Circles of Eupen and Malmedy had already come into force, by the signing of the Treaty.

The German Government begs that the request be transmitted to the Royal Belgian Government to instruct the officer mentioned, as well as the other Belgian Military and Civil Authorities in Eupen and Malmedy, among whom similar erroneous impressions seem to exist, concerning the legal status, and to call their attention to the fact that all measures, contemplated on the part of Belgium as a result of the present relinquishment of sovereignty over the two Circles by Germany, can only be carried out when the Peace Treaty in its relations between Germany and Belgium, has come into force.

With regard to the possible taking over of the railroad officials, the German Government calls attention to the fact that the officials are not in a position, independently, without the approval of the Government which appointed them, to dispose of their services. The officials have been informed that negotiations concerning the question of officials are in the hands of the Imperial Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that special negotiations by individual authorities and officials would not be binding for the Government.

The German Government would, on its side, deem it expedient if, during the period until the decision of the people as to the final lot of the Eupen and Malmedy Circles, the smallest possible number of changes would be made in the railway personnel as well as in the rest of the Civil Service. It is of the opinion that, according to the agreements referred to in the note of July 13, concerning the execution of the provisions of the Peace Treaty pertaining to the district of Mores-net and the Circles of Eupen and Malmedy, precisely the taking over of the railway personnel and such railway questions should be dealt with, as demand a punctual settlement, in order that, after the coming into force of the Peace Treaty, the desired, orderly continuation of traffic on the lines and of rail communications across the frontier may be assured, which would also be in the interest of the other Powers concerned with the occupation of Rhine territory.

Accept, etc.

Freiherr von Lersner

Appendix H to HD–61

Proposed Reply to German Notes on Malmedy and Eupen,¹¹ as Submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty

Translation

committee on the execution
of the clauses of the peace
treaty

The Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the Peace Treaty has the honor to recommend for the approval of the Supreme Council the appended draft of answer to the notes of the German Delegation dated August 1 and 5 relative to the measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in the circles of Eupen and Malmedy.

September 5, 1919.

Mr. President: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your notes of August 1 and 5.

The measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in the circles of Eupen and Malmedy seemed to have caused the German Government an emotion which is hard to understand.

According to Article 34 of the Peace Treaty, Germany renounces in favor of Belgium all rights and titles over the territories which are making up the circles of Eupen and Malmedy, with the sole reservation that the League of Nations might later order the return to Germany of the whole or part of these territories, if, according to formalities determined by the same article, the majority of the population expresses the desire to do so.

According to these provisions the sovereignty over those territories in question shall pass effectively to Belgium as soon as the Treaty goes into force, namely the day of the signing of the first procès-verbal de dépôt of ratifications, if on this day the Belgian ratifications have been deposited. The obligation to proceed to a proper consultation within the forms fixed by Article 34 in no way affects the sovereign rights of Belgium.

The Belgian Government shall therefore, from the going into force of the Treaty, have to provide for all the public positions in the ceded territories; the railroad employees are among the officials whose nomination it will have to see to.

In taking at once the measures for the transfer of sovereignty and in preparing measures which are of a nature to facilitate that transfer later, the Belgian authorities, far from overstepping their rights, have only in view the interest of the populations of the territories which will soon pass under Belgian Sovereignty.

Besides, while waiting for the going into force of the Treaty, it is perfectly right for the Belgian authorities, as occupying power, to get into direct relations with the employees of the administration of Prussian railroads.

The Belgian Government does not refuse however to negotiate with the German Government regarding the questions relative to the execution of the Treaty, either within the circles of Eupen and Malmedy, or within the neutral Moresnet and the Prussian Moresnet. The only condition placed upon such negotiation is that the German government does not contest in any way the value of the sovereign rights of Belgium as they are recognized by the Treaty of June 28 over the territories dealt with in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of that Treaty,

Please accept, etc.

Appendix I to HD–61

Paris, August 26, 1919.

british delegation

To Secretary General Dutasta.

It has been promised to the British Parliament that the publication of the Peace Treaty with Germany in its final form would be completed by that of the other annexed documents so as to constitute a complete historical document. However, in order to make certain later documents fully intelligible, it would be well to publish at least certain parts of the first draft of that treaty.

It is however difficult to proceed thus in view of the fact that the former Supreme Council has decided that the Peace Treaty with Germany should be published only in its final form. To conquer this difficulty it is now proposed to place in a column opposite the corresponding part of the final text the parts of the first draft [which?] were later modified. This proposal has been submitted to the Prime Minister and has received his approval. Consequently, I have the honor to ask Your Excellency to kindly submit it to the examination of the Supreme Council in view of obtaining, if possible, the adhesion of the other representatives to the procedure suggested.

I can add that the German Society of the League of Nations has published the primitive text of the Treaty in English, French and German, that it seems certain that that publication has met with a great success in Germany and in the neutral countries and that a great number of copies have been introduced into the Allied countries. It is therefore evident that the publication of the excerpts of the primitive text would reveal nothing which is not already known.

Please accept, etc.

[No signature on file copy]

1. HD–59, minute 1, p. 323.
2. Vol. vi, p. 926.
3. G. Fr. de Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités et autres actes relatifs auto rapports de droit international, 3 sér., tome xi, p. 232.
3. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
4. HD–5, minute 4, vol. vii, p. 101.
5. HD–25, minute 12, vol. vii, p. 562.
6. HD–41, minute 5, and appendix A, ibid., pp. 958 and 962.
7. Printed from the English text which parallels the French text in file copy.
8. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xcix, p. 575.
10. Supra.
11. Appendices F and G, supra.