Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/70
HD–70
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
Wednesday, October 15, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, October 15, 1919, 10:30 a.m.
-
Present
-
America, United States of
-
Secretary
-
British Empire
-
Secretary
-
France
-
Secretaries
- M. Dutasta.
- M. de St. Quentin.
-
Italy
-
Secretary
-
Japan
-
Secretary
|
Joint Secretariat
|
|
America, United States of
|
Mr. C. Russell |
|
British Empire
|
Capt. Hinchley-Cooke |
|
France
|
M. Massigli |
|
Italy
|
M. Zanchi |
|
Interpreter—M. Mantoux |
The following were also present for the items in which they were
concerned:
-
America, United States of
- General Bliss
- Mr. E. L. Dresel
- Major Tyler
- Captain Gordon
-
British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Lt. Col. Kisch
- Mr. Carr
- Captain Fuller
- Commandant Dunne
- Mr. Shearman
-
France
- Marshal Foch
- M. Loucheur
- General Weygand
- M. Laroche
- General LeRond
- M. Fromageot
- M. Escoffier
-
Italy
- General Cavallero
- M. Brambilla
- M. Vannutelli-Rey
- M. Pilotti
-
Japan
[Page 639]
1. (The Council had before it a draft note addressed to the German
Government to be communicated by the Allied Naval Armistice Commission
(See Appendix “A”). This note was prepared by the British Delegation.)
Note to the German Government Relative to German
Ships Transferred During the War to Dutch Navigation
Companies
Sir Eyre Crowe said that pursuant to his
instructions from the Supreme Council in the preceding meeting the
British Delegation had prepared a draft note to be sent to the President
of the German Naval Armistice Commission.1 The
principles enunciated in this note had already been approved by the
Council at its preceding meeting.
M. Loucheur said that the French Delegation did
not agree to our demand being based on the terms of the Armistice, as
the Armistice would cease to be operative in a few days. The Reparation
Commission, and not the Armistice Commission, would have to take
possession of these vessels. He therefore thought that it would not be
well to act on the basis of the Armistice.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that we were still subject
to the terms of the Armistice; the only proper procedure therefore was
that proposed by him.
M. Loucheur said that, assuming that on the day
when our note would reach Germany the Peace Treaty should already have
become operative, the Reparation Commission alone would then be
qualified to take possession of the vessels. He proposed to add a
paragraph to the effect that if when our demands should be met the Peace
Treaty had become operative the Reparations Commission would take
possession of the vessels.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the matter had
dragged on long enough and that it was important to settle our
difference with the Dutch Government as soon as possible. He feared that
the draft proposed by M. Loucheur would be apt to result in the Germans
doing nothing. We should inform them of the reasons upon which our claim
is based and that it is formulated by virtue of the terms of the
Armistice. Moreover, he found no difficulty in admitting that if our
note should not arrive until such time as the Armistice would cease to
be operative, the Reparations Commission would take the matter in
hand.
M. Loucheur said that he could accept the terms
of Sir Eyre Crowe’s note as far as the Germans were concerned, but as
regards relations between Allies he could not admit that it should be
specified that the vessels should be delivered to the Armistice
Commission. At least he could only admit this on one condition; to-wit,
that it should be clearly understood that if, at the time of the
delivery of [Page 640] the vessels, the
Peace Treaty should be operative the Separation Commission would take
possession thereof.
Sir Eyre Crowe agreed.
Mr. Polk also agreed.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that a question of form
still remained to be settled. It seemed to him desirable that the note
should be published and a copy thereof be delivered to Baron von
Lersner.
(It was decided:
- (1)
- to accept the draft Note to be transmitted to the German
Government through the intermediary of the Naval Armistice
Commission, prepared by the British Delegation;
- (2)
- that in the event of the Treaty of Peace coming into force
before the delivery of the ships in question, the Separation
Commission should be charged with taking possession of
them.
It was further decided:
to publish the Note and transmit a copy to Baron von Lersner.)
2. Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the British Naval
Representative, had received a telegram from the Commander of the Naval
Forces in the Gulf of Riga. According to this telegram the Commander of
the Naval force had ordered the Germans to evacuate the Dvina front
before noon of October 15th, failing which he would open fire on them.
The Council was evidently face to face with a fait
accompli in view of the fact that this ultimatum had actually
been sent. The British Admiralty wished to know the views of the Supreme
Council in this respect. The situation was evidently abnormal inasmuch
as there was no definite information as to what had taken place and as
to what the Germans had done. According to the latest British
information the Letts were still holding out in Riga, but no one knew
how long they could resist. Situation in the Baltic
Provines
Marshal Foch said that he knew the situation of
the Letts and Esthonians as well as one could know it from Paris, but
that it was difficult to tell from here what should be done.
M. Piohon stated that it seemed to him that the
Council should confine itself to taking note of this communication; it
should consider that the officers on the spot had taken the necessary
measures.
Marshal Foch stated that he desired to call the
attention of the Council to the great importance of the Allied and
Associated Powers being represented at Berlin or at Riga by a General
Officer, whom it had already been proposed to the German Government to
send. The departure of this officer should be hastened.
M. Pichon stated that according to the telegram
which he had received that morning the National Assembly would that day
take action on the reply to be made to our note. As soon as this answer
was received measures would have to be taken and our representative
would have to be sent.
[Page 641]
Marshal Foch stated that this representative
should have instructions from the Council defining the attitude which he
should adopt toward the German Government.
3. (The Council had before it a note from the Committees on Polish and on
Baltic Affairs, drafted at a joint meeting, relative to the military
occupation of Dantzig and Memel. (See Appendix “B.”) Occupation of Dantzig and Memal
M. Laroche read and commented on the note of
these Committees and directed the attention of the Council to the last
paragraph of this note respecting Memel. It seemed to the Committees,
sitting in joint session, that it was not proper to interfere with local
administrative functions in view of the uncertainty of the future fate
of Memel. Therefore it had seemed advisable to specify that the
Commanding Officer of the forces of Occupation should only have such
powers as would be conferred upon him by International Law with a view
to the maintenance of order. When the Commission had settled upon a
battalion and a half of infantry, a squadron of cavalry and a machine
gun section—a total of about 1700 men—as the strength of the forces for
the occupation of Memel, it had taken a strictly local point of view. It
had not thought itself qualified to consider the question raised by
virtue of the presence of German forces in the Baltic provinces. The
Allied High Command would be competent to reinforce the troops of
occupation if it should deem it necessary in view of the actual
situation existing in the neighboring territory.
With respect to Dantzig, the situation was different. There was no
question in that case of a plebiscite region, and forces of occupation
had not been provided for by the Peace Treaty. The Allied Powers were
only to send a delimitation commission there at first; the League of
Nations was to appoint the High Commissioner. In view of this situation
the Supreme Council some time ago, on the motion of the Committee on the
Execution of the Treaty, decided to send an administrative commissioner
to Dantzig,2 but in the
actual state of affairs no one was able to say whether it was necessary
to send troops there.
In order to solve the difficulty therefore, the Council had adopted the
following expedient: in its last session it decided to send troops to
Allenstein and Marienwerder.3 A base at Dantzig was
necessary for the supply of these troops and this base would have to be
strong enough to insure its own safety. It was only in this manner and
on such grounds that troops could be sent to Dantzig at once, but the
troops at this base were not to interfere to maintain public order in
the free city itself unless commanded to do so by the High Commissioner
[Page 642] of the League of Nations.
However, if trouble should break out before the High Commissioner’s
arrival, the Administrative Commissioner could bring to the attention of
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers the necessity of occupying
Dantzig with Interallied forces. In such a contingency the base troops
could be used for police duties in the city.
(It was decided:
to accept the proposal made by the Commission on Polish Affairs
and the Commission on Baltic Affairs in regard to the occupation
of Dantzig and Memel.)
4. Marshal Foch observed that as the Council
now had a more or less solid base on which to work, he wished to revert
to his suggestion made the previous session; to-wit, that a commission
composed of military and diplomatic representatives must be formed for
determining the composition of forces of occupation. Composition of Interallied forces of occupation.
M. Pichon said that he did not see the
necessity for appointing diplomatic representatives; he thought it would
suffice if Marshal Foch should assemble the Military
Representatives.
Marshal Foch dissented and said that the point
which he always found troublesome was above all the question of Upper
Silesia. He wished to know to what extent the British Government was
disposed to take part in the occupation of this region.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that he did not minimize
the importance of the question of Upper Silesia, but it seemed to him
that the question of Allenstein, for instance, was of equal importance
and that all similar problems should be considered together.
General Weygand wished to insist on the
appointment of Diplomatic representatives. He felt that if the Allied
and Associated Powers were to let themselves be guided by purely
military considerations they would, for instance, be tempted to have the
same corps occupy Upper Silesia and the Duchy of Teschen; if this were
done, however, he thought it would contravene the spirit of the Treaty.
Similarly, they might think of grouping under the same command the
forces of occupation of Allenstein and Marienwerder; whereas,
politically, the situation of these regions was entirely different.
M. Pichon agreed with this opinion and thought
that each of the Allied Powers could designate a diplomatic
representative to be attached to the military representatives. He
designated M. Laroche.
(It was decided:
that Marshal Foch, together with the Military Representatives of
the Allied and Associated Powers, with whom diplomatic
representatives of these Powers might collaborate, should study
the question [Page 643] of the
Interallied forces which should occupy the districts which,
under the terms of the Treaty of Peace, were to be or might be
occupied by Interallied forces, and that these representatives
should submit their proposals to the Supreme Council at the
earliest possible opportunity.)
5. (The Council had before it a note addressed to it with respect to the
composition of the Commissions of Delimitation of the German and
Austrian frontiers (See Appendix “C”) and a draft set of instructions
relative to the Commissions of Delimitation. (See Appendix “D”.)) Organization of Commissions of Delimitation
General Le Rond stated that the instructions
now before the Council had been unanimously adopted, with the exception
that a difference of opinion had been developed relative to the salaries
of the members of these commissions. The British Delegation had not yet
indicated whether it had changed its point of view (See Appendix “D”,
Article III, A, Note I).
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the British
Government was still of the opinion that according to the terms of the
Peace Treaty, all charges arising out of delimitations should be borne
by the interested parties and not by Allied countries. This was a
question of principle and the payment of these salaries was one of these
charges. If this point of view were not admitted, the matter would have
to be taken to Parliament, as a fiscal measure was involved.
General Le Rond said that the four other
delegations did not agree with the British delegation with respect to
this interpretation of the Treaty. The Treaty provided that the expenses
of the Delimitation Commissions should be borne by the interested
countries, but do these expenses include the salaries of officers? He
was not inclined to think so. If an officer belonging to a Delimitation
Commission were on duty in his own country his Government would have to
pay his salary. Furthermore, a question of morale is involved which
should not be overlooked; he did not believe it possible to charge the
salaries of officers to Powers interested in this work of delimitation,
especially if they should happen to be our Allies. He insisted that a
distinction should be drawn between the salaries of officers and
allowances. The salaries of officers should only be charged to their
respective Governments. The allowances should be charged to the
countries interested in the work of delimitation and it is they who
should bear the heaviest part of the burden. He wished, moreover, to
repeat that several delegations were unwilling to compromise on this
point of morale.
Sir Eyre Crowe said that the difficulty was
that the British officers who were sent to these Commissions would
otherwise be demobilized; therefore, as he had already remarked, a
Parliamentary grant would have to be obtained.
[Page 644]
M. Pichon observed that the French delegation
had to take account of the fact that all additional expenses imposed
upon Germany diminished by so much the amount remaining available for
reparations. France, being the country most interested in this question,
since she had suffered the most in the war, felt that Germany should be
charged with as few expenses of this kind as possible. If Sir Eyre Crowe
were right in using the Parliamentary argument, the French were also
justified in doing so.
General Le Rond stated that two delegations had
declared that they would never agree to the salaries of their officers
being paid by a foreign Power.
M. Pichon asked Sir Eyre Crowe to impress upon
his Government the argument of the majority of the Commission.
M. Scialoja remarked that the draft set of
instructions relative to the Commissions of Delimitation mentioned the
creation of a central body.
General Le Rond observed that the creation of
such a body was not under discussion.
M. Scialoja remarked that it was at least
mentioned and added that there was already a central body, to wit, the
Committee on the Execution of the Treaty and its special
sub-committee.
General Le Rond stated that his Committee had
intentionally employed the expression “central body” to designate the
body, whatever it might be, charged with the constitution and
organization of the Delimitation Commissions and the supervision of
their activities. At present that body was the Sub-committee of the
Committee on the Execution of the Treaty.
Mr. Polk stated that the American Government
had already declared that it seemed very desirable that the Delimitation
Commissions should not be able to make separate communications to the
interested Governments and that one single central body should be
competent to make these communications and to coordinate the work of the
Commissions.
M. Scialoja remarked that this was not in
contradiction with what he had said.
(It was decided:
to approve the draft Note relative to the Composition of the
Commissions of Delimitation of the frontiers of Germany and
Austria (Delegations of Powers not interested) as well as the
draft instructions relative to Commissions of Delimitation,
dated the 6th October, 1919, (See Appendices “C” and “D”), with
the reservation that Sir Eyre Crowe should request the agreement
of the British Government to the opinion, expressed by the four
other Delegations, that the members of the Commissions of
Delimitation should be paid by their respective
Governments.)
[Page 645]
6. (The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation dated the
13th October, 1919. (See Appendix “E.”)) Putting Into
Force of the Versailles Treaty
M. Laroche desired to call the attention of the
Council to the importance of not proceeding to the deposit of
ratifications before being assured that the coming into force of the
Treaty would find the Allied and Associated Powers prepared. The
Committee on the Execution of the Treaty could be instructed to
immediately draw up a list of the measures which have to be taken during
the first weeks following the taking effect of the Treaty, as well as
the Commissions to be appointed, and to ask each Government if it had
prepared the nominations which it had to make under the Treaty.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he agreed fully to
what M. Laroche had suggested, and added that he desired to take
advantage of the presence of Marshal Foch to submit an even more general
question. He wished to ask if the Allied and Associated Powers were
inclined to substitute the means of action given by the Treaty of Peace
for those obtaining under the Armistice. He thought that they should
particularly ask themselves in view of the situation now existent in the
Baltic Provinces, whether it would be to the interest of the Allied and
Associated Powers to ratify the Treaty. There was no doubt that this
ratification would deprive them of weapons which the Armistice gave
them. At the present moment German ships could be stopped in the Baltic;
this could no longer be done were the Treaty in effect. If more
energetic action in the Baltic Provinces became necessary, were they
better armed by virtue of the Treaty or of the Armistice? He recognized
that the question had two sides; thus the use of Polish troops in the
Baltic Provinces had formerly been opposed for fear that their use might
have unfortunate results with respect to Upper Silesia and might cause
new disturbances in the coal districts. The Allied occupation of Upper
Silesia prescribed by the Treaty would obviate that difficulty. A
problem was here presented which should be carefully studied.
Marshal Foch stated that he agreed with Sir
Eyre Crowe.
(It was decided:
that the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty should be
requested
- (1)
- to submit to the Council at the earliest possible
opportunity a list of the measures to be taken by the Allied
and Associated Powers in the first weeks following the entry
of the Treaty into force, together with a list of the
Commissions to be appointed in these first weeks;
- (2)
- to notify the Supreme Council as soon as possible of the
steps taken by the Allied and Associated Governments and
those which remain to be taken, in view of the entry of the
Treaty into [Page 646] force,
pointing out those measures which these Governments were not
in a position to take immediately;
- (3)
- to compare the value under present conditions of the means
of action placed at the disposal of the Allied and
Associated Powers by the Treaty of Versailles with those now
available to them by virtue of the terms of the
Armistice.)
7. (The Council had before it a note from the General Secretariat of the
Peace Conference (See Appendix “F”).)
M. Fromageot read and commented upon the note
of the General Secretariat. The question of adhering to the Covenant of
the League of Nations was especially important with respect to Spam,
inasmuch as she was a member of the Council of the League of Nations and
the latter had immediately to make a large number of decisions. If Spain
were given two months to signify her adhesion to the Covenant she would
not be able to take part in the meetings of the Council, or at least she
could not take part in the deliberations which would have to take place
immediately. Adhesion of Neutral States to the
Covenant of the League of Nations
M. Pichon remarked that Spain had already
indicated that she would adhere to the Covenant.
M. Fromageot pointed out that she had only done
so unofficially; in order to avoid all difficulty it was necessary that
as soon as Spain had received the official invitation addressed to her
she should immediately signify her adhesion. With respect to the other
neutral Powers, it was equally urgent that their adhesion should be
obtained as soon as possible. Two methods of procedure might be used:
first, either the Minister of Foreign Affairs should deliver to the
heads of the diplomatic missions of the interested Governments in Paris
a certified copy of the Treaty of Versailles, notifying them of the date
of the coming into force of the Treaty; the neutral states would have a
two months period within which to signify their adhesion to the Covenant
by a declaration addressed to the General Secretary of the League of
Nations. Or, secondly, the President of the Peace Conference should
telegraph the heads of the various neutral Governments in question,
while at the same time a certified copy of the Treaty of Versailles
should be delivered to the heads of their diplomatic missions in Paris.
The second procedure seemed to him less practical.
Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that both methods
might be employed at the same time.
M. Fromageot agreed. He desired to insist upon
the fact that a certified copy of the whole Treaty of Versailles, and
not only a copy of the Covenant of the League, should be transmitted.
Indeed, the Treaty in its different parts contained a series of measures
to be taken by the Council of the League of Nations. In accepting
membership [Page 647] in the League the
Governments in question would have to take note of and must accept all
obligations arising out of the Treaty.
Sir Eyre Crowe agreed.
(It was decided:
- (1)
- that the neutral States which, under the terms of the Annex to
the Covenant of the League of Nations were to be invited to
agree to the Covenant, should be informed officially of the
contents of the Covenant and the obligations of the League of
Nations relative to the execution of the Treaty of Peace;
- (2)
- that these States should be notified of the entry of the
Treaty into force, as soon after such entry as possible.)
(It was also decided:
that these two notifications should be made at the same time by
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, acting under the
authority of the Supreme Council, to the Chiefs of the
diplomatic missions in Paris of the Governments interested, and
by a telegram from the President of the Conference to the Heads
of the neutral Governments interested. A certified copy of the
Treaty should be transmitted to the Representatives of the
neutral Governments at Paris.)
8. Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Council of the
League of Nations must immediately after the coming into force of the
Treaty formulate a complete series of measures to be taken. The
President of the United States must call this Council. Could he do it
before the Treaty had been ratified by the American Senate? Convocation of the Council of the League of
Nations
Mr. Polk stated that the question had already
been settled at the meeting of the Supreme Council of the 15th September
(H. D. 53).4 It had been agreed that he should suggest
to President Wilson the calling of the Council of the League for a
meeting which would be devoted entirely to the consideration of
questions demanding the action of the Council a short time after the
coming into force of the Treaty. He thought that he could obtain a
formal assurance to this effect. He added that he would welcome any
suggestions which the Drafting Committee might deem opportune.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that before the coming
into force of the Treaty there should be no doubt on the point of
President Wilson’s calling the Council. Otherwise, everything would
remain unsettled.
Mr. Polk said that he would immediately
communicate with Washington.
M. Fromageot called the attention of the
Council to the very delicate situation which the coming into force of
the Treaty would create at Dantzig, Memel and in the Sarre Basin. The
day the Treaty would come into force Germany would lose all authority in
these districts. [Page 648] If trouble
should arise the Allied and Associated Powers would be entirely
responsible.
Sir Eyre Crowe observed that the League of
Nations should begin to operate and formulate decisions the very day of
the coming into force of the Treaty. He would almost say that the
minutes of the first meeting of the Council should be drawn up
beforehand. He suggested that the Secretary General of the League of
Nations should now be notified of the questions on which the Council
would immediately have to take decisions.
M. Escoffier said that the Secretariat of the
League of Nations had itself to be confirmed by the Supreme Council.
M. Mantoux observed that this was not true of
the Secretary General, who was designated by the Treaty.
(It was decided:
- (1)
- that Mr. Polk should obtain an assurance from Washington,
that, without awaiting the ratification of the Treaty of Peace
by the United States Senate, President Wilson would convoke the
Council of the League of Nations for a meeting, which should be
held in Europe;
- (2)
- that the Secretary General of the League of Nations should, at
the present time, be notified unofficially by the Secretariat
General of the Peace Conference of the questions which, upon the
entry of the Treaty of Peace into force, would require immediate
action by the Council of the League of Nations.)
9. (The Council had before it a note from the Secretariat General of the
Peace Conference, dated 14th October, 1919. (See Appendix “G”.)) Wearing of Uniform by the Member of the Interallied
Missions of Control in Germany
M. Pichon commented briefly on this note of the
Secretariat General. He remarked that in the opinion of the French
Delegation there was no possible analogy between the position of members
of the Commissions of Control and Military Attaches. Moreover, Military
Attachés wear the uniform when on duty and officers of Commissions of
Control are always on duty. The French Government was entirely opposed
to the personnel of these Commissions of Control being obliged to wear
civilian clothing. Moreover, among this military personnel there were
noncommissioned officers and men. If they were obliged to wear civilian
clothing difficulties would arise. There was no intention of riding
rough shod over German prejudices or of abusing our victory;
nevertheless, Germany must accustom herself to the idea that she was
beaten. Allied officers in Germany have a definite military mission to
fulfil. They cannot be expected to wear civilian dress in the execution
of their duties.
Sir Eyre Crowe agreed entirely with M. Pichon.
He added that in his mind there was no doubt that the German demand was
not [Page 649] aimed at preventing
possible friction alone. It was a question of something more. Whoever
knew Germany knew that a man in uniform is far more respected than a
civilian. The idea of the Germans was to diminish the prestige of Allied
officers.
(It was decided:
not to grant the wish expressed by the German Government that,
upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace, the members of
the Interallied Missions of Control should wear civilian
clothing.)
10. (The Council had before it a draft note addressed to the German
Delegation, prepared by the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty
(See Appendix “H”), in reply to the note of Note of the German
Delegation prepared at Versailles 22nd September, 1919.) Reply to the Note of the German Government Respecting
the District of Memel
General Le Rond read and commented briefly upon
the note of the Committee on the Execution of the Treaty.
(It was decided:
to accept the draft reply to the Note of the German Delegation
respecting the District of Memel, prepared by the Committee on
the Execution of the Treaty. (See Appendix “H”.))
(The Meeting then adjourned)
Hotel Crillon,
Paris
, 15
October, 1919.
Appendix A to HD–70
Paris
, 15 October,
1919.
Draft Note From the Supreme
Council to the Allied Naval Armistice Commission for
Communication to the President of the German Armistice
Commission
You are requested to transmit the following note to the German
Government on behalf of the Supreme Council of the Allied and
Associated Powers, with as little delay as possible.
By the terms of the Armistice Convention signed at Treves in
January, 1919, Germany agreed to place the whole of the German
merchant fleet under the control and under the flag of the
Allied and Associated Powers.
In particular five vessels, namely the
-
Johann Heinrich Burchard,
-
William Oswald,
-
Braunschweig,
-
Denderah and
-
Nassau
[Page 650]
have not been delivered on the pretext that
these ships, having been sold in 1915–1916 by the
Hamburg-Amerika Line and Rosmos Line to Dutch Shipping
Companies, were consequently not German but Dutch ships.
The German Government have been repeatedly informed, through the
President of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission, that the
Allied and Associated Powers do not recognise any transfer of
enemy tonnage to neutral flags or ownership during the war,
except by special consent.
Under the head of Reparation, Annex 3, Section 7, in the Treaty
of Peace, it is provided that:—
Germany agrees to take any measures that may be indicated
to her by the Reparation Commission for obtaining the
full title to the property in all ships which have
during the war been transferred, or are in process of
transfer, to neutral flags, without the consent of the
Allied and Associated Governments.
It is thus definitely established by common agreement between the
Allied and Associated Powers and Germany that German vessels
transferred to a neutral flag during the war without Allied
consent must be regarded as German vessels. The obligation on
the part of the German Government to deliver them up cannot,
therefore, be called in question. In consequence the German
Government is required:—
- (1)
- to send without further delay the five vessels above
named to the Firth and [of] Forth
for delivery to the Allied and Associated Powers.
- (2)
- to remove the nucleus Dutch crews now on board and to
substitute for them German crews.
- (3)
- to have removed forthwith the Dutch name and Dutch
port of registry at present temporarily painted on each
vessel.
- (4)
- to permit a free inspection of the William Oswald by officers representing the
Allied and Associated Powers whenever desired by
them.
- (5)
- to have the Nassau and Braimschweig brought down the
river Weser from Bremen to Bremerhaven by German crews,
and berthed wherever directed by the Allied Senior Naval
Officer in German waters.
The German Government is requested to acknowledge this communication
immediately on its receipt and to reply to it.
British Delegation, October 14, 1919.
Appendix B to HD–70
Report of the Committees on Polish
and Baltic Affairs Relative to the Military Occupation of
Dantzig and Memel
The Commissions on Polish and Baltic Affairs, at a joint meeting,
understanding that the Constitution of the Free City of Dantzig has
[Page 651] for principle the
nomination of a High Commissioner by the League of Nations, consider
that it will be the duty of this High Commissioner to request,
should occasion arise, the despatch of a corps of occupation for
facilitating the organization of the Free City of Dantzig.
Moreover, it would appear necessary to establish at Dantzig a base
for the revictualing of troops charged with the occupation of the
territories of Allenstein and Marienwerder. This base should
immediately permit of sufficient effectives to assure, in case of
need, the maintenance of order necessary for its functioning.
Finally, the Commissions consider that the occupation, properly
called, of the territory of the Free City of Dantzig by Interallied
troops could be decided by the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers in case of necessity indicated by the official for the
administration of order temporarily designated by them as their
representative until the designation of the High Commissioner named
by the League of Nations.
The local administration would continue, in any event until the
establishment of the Constitution.
As regards Memel, the Commission considers that the territory should
be occupied by Interallied troops until such time as its final
disposition shall be definitely fixed by the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers.
The troops of occupation, being placed there for the sole purpose of
maintaining public order, should consist of a battalion and a half
of infantry, a squadron of cavalry and a section of mitrailleuses,
totalling 1700 men.
The local administration will continue to function, subject to powers
conferred upon the commander of the forces of occupation, under
international law, for the maintenance of order.
Appendices C and D to HD–70
Contents
| Appendix “C” |
{ |
I. Note from the Committee on Execution of the Treaty of
Peace with Germany on the subject of the composition of the
Commissions on delimitation of the frontiers between [of] Germany and [of] Austria. |
| Appendix “D” |
|
II. Instructions relative to Commissions of
Delimitation. |
[Page 652]
[Appendix C]
Note to the Supreme Council on the Subject of
the Composition of the Commissions on Delimitation of the
Frontiers Between [of] Germany and [of] Austria
(Delegations of the non-concerned Powers)
I.—Preliminary Measures
The Committee of Execution asks that a decision be immediately
arrived at by the Supreme Council on the following points:
1st. Designation by the Council of the League of Nations of the three
Powers, outside of France and Germany, charged with the appointment
of the members of the Commission on the delimitation of the Saar
Basin frontiers.
(Article 48, Part III) of the Peace Treaty with Germany.
2nd. Designation of the three Principal Allied and Associated Powers
charged with the nomination of the High Commissioner and of the two
members of the Commission on the Delimitation of the frontiers of
the Dantzig territory.*
(Article 101, Part III) of the Peace Treaty with Germany.
3rd. Designation of the three Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
outside of Italy, charged with the appointment of the members of the
Commission on the delimitation of the frontier between Italy and
Austria.
(Article 36, Part III) of the Peace Treaty with Austria.
4th. The Committee calls the attention of the Supreme Council to the
advisability of having the Commissioners of the various Commissions
on the Delimitations of the frontiers of Germany and Austria, those
of the Powers concerned included, meet very soon in Paris. The first
meeting could have only an unofficial character if certain Powers
consider that it will be better to postpone the official nominations
of their Commissioners; in any case, it would allow the latter to
study together the material preparation of their commissions and to
study in particular the organization of their means of
transportation.
II.—Composition of the
Commissions
The Committee on the Execution proposes that the Delegations of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers be composed as follows, the
Commissioners being chosen as far as possible among the technical
officers:
[Page 653]
a.—peace treaty with
germany
1st. Commission on the Delimitation of the frontiers between Belgium
and Germany. (Article 35, Part III.)
| One American |
Commissioner |
| One British |
“ |
| One French |
“ |
| One Italian |
“ |
| One Japanese |
“ |
Eventually a technician shall be added* upon the request of the President of the
Commission.
(Commission to be constituted within a fortnight following the going
into force of the Peace Treaty.)
2nd. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier of the Saar
Basin. (Article 48, Part III.)
The three powers, besides France and Germany, who shall be designated
to appoint the Commissioners of the Commission shall appoint each
one:
One Commissioner.
Eventually a technician shall be appointed* upon the request of the President of the
Commission.
(Commission to be constituted within a fortnight following the going
into force of the Peace Treaty.)
3rd. Commission on the delimitation of the Czecho-Slovak frontiers,
Eatibor Section.
(Article 83, Part III.)
| One American |
Commissioner |
| One British |
“ |
| One French |
“ |
| One Italian |
“ |
| One Japanese |
“ |
Eventually a technician shall be appointed upon the request of the
President.*
(Commission to be constituted within a fortnight of the going into
force of the Peace Treaty.)
4th. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier between Germany
and Poland.
(Article 87, Part III.)
America: 1 Commissioner, 1 Assistant Commissioner, 2 technical
officers.
England: 1 Commissioner, 1 Assistant Commissioner, 2 technical
officers.
[Page 654]
France: 1 Commissioner, 1 Assistant Commissioner, 2 technical
officers.
Italy: 1 Commissioner, 1 Assistant Commissioner, 2 technical
officers.
Japan: 1 Commissioner, 1 Assistant Commissioner.
That Commission shall be on the spot as soon as the Treaty goes into
force.
5th. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier of the Dantzig
territory.
The Commission is composed of three members, including one High
Commissioner, President, appointed by the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers, one member appointed by Germany and one by
Poland.
Eventually a technician shall be appointed* upon the request of the
President.
That Commission shall be on the spot as soon as the Treaty goes into
force.
The Committee proposes that the members of the Commission on the
Delimitation of the frontiers of the Dantzig territory be chosen
from among the members of the Commission on the Delimitation of the
frontier between Germany and Poland, since this last Commission has
a very large personnel. Under these conditions the President of the
Commission on the Delimitation of the frontier between Germany and
Poland should also be the President of the Commission on the
delimitation of the frontier of the Dantzig territory.
6th. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier between Germany
and Denmark. (Article III [111] Part
III.)
| One American |
Commissioner |
| One British |
“ |
| One French |
“ |
| One Italian |
“ |
| One Japanese |
“ |
Eventually a technician shall be appointed upon the request of the
President of the Commission.
Those Commissioners can be chosen from among the members of other
Commissions having finished their work.
Commission to be constituted within the fortnight following the vote
of the plebiscite.
b.—peace treaty with
austria
1st. Commission on the Delimitation of the frontier between Italy and
Austria.
(Article 27, Part III.)
[Page 655]
The three Principal Allied and Associated Powers, besides Italy, who
shall be designated to furnish the Commissioners to the Commission
shall appoint each one:
One Commissioner.
Eventually a technician shall be appointed* upon the request of the
President of the Commission.
(Commission to be constituted within the fortnight following the
going into force of the Treaty.)
2nd. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier between Austria
and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.
(Article 48, Part III.)
| One American |
Commissioner |
| One British |
“ |
| One French |
“ |
| One Italian |
“ |
| One Japanese |
“ |
Eventually a technician shall be appointed* upon the request of the
President of the Commission.
(Commission to be constituted within the fortnight following the
going into force of the treaty.)
3rd. Commission on the delimitation of the frontier between Austria
and the Czecho-Slovak State.
(Article 55, part II [III].)
| One American |
Commissioner |
| One British |
“ |
| One French |
“ |
| One Italian |
“ |
| One Japanese |
“ |
Eventually a technician shall be appointed* upon the request of the
President of the Commission.
(Commission to be constituted within the fortnight following the
going into force of the Treaty.)
[Appendix D]
Instructions Relative to Commissions of
Delimitation
I.—Generalities
1. The Delimitation Commissions have as a mission to determine on the
ground:
-
a)
- Primarily the frontiers described in the Peace
Treaty;
-
b)
- Ulteriorly the frontiers which shall be determined after
the execution of the several plebiscites provided for by the
said Treaties.
[Page 656]
They shall have full powers not only in the determination of the
fraction defined under the heading of “line to be determined on the
ground”, but, further, if one of the States concerned makes such
request, and if the Commission approves the opportunity, for the
revision of the fraction defined by the administrative boundaries,
except concerning the international frontiers existing in August
1914, where the role of the Commissions shall be limited to a
verification of the stakes on boundary markers.
They will make every effort, in both cases, to closely follow the
definitions given in the Treaties by taking into account, insofar as
possible, the administrative boundaries and the local economic
interests.
A central agency, instituted by the Peace Conference, shall proceed
with the constitution and organization of the Delimitation
Commissions and shall follow their operations.
II.—Organization
a.—composition
For the fixing of each frontier, the Peace Treaties establish in
principle the composition of a Commission and the number of the
Commissioners.
In cases of frontiers of great extent or of difficult delimitation,
assistant Commissioners may be named with a view to sub-dividing the
Commission into sub-commissions.
A technical personnel (technical assistants) is attached to each
Commission with a view to determining on the ground the survey
labors which may be judged necessary, to supervise the erection of
the frontier markers in accordance with the rules established and to
assure their correct placing.
An auxiliary personnel is also attached to the Commission
(topographical assistants, secretaries, interpreters, draftsmen,
etc.).
The combined personnel furnished by each State constitutes the
delegations from that State.
The Delegations of the Allied and Associated Powers to the
Commissions to be created for the fixing of the frontiers in Europe
are limited, in principle, to the following composition:
1 Commissioner; 1 interpreter; 1 topographer, and one secretary, and,
in exceptional cases, an assistant Commissioner.
The Delegations of the Powers concerned (on whom shall be incumbent
in principle the duty of operating the technical labors) may have a
surplus Commissioner and shall include the technical assistants
(officers) and the personnel for the labors on the ground. If the
countries concerned cannot furnish the technical assistants they
shall be furnished by the non-interested Powers.
[Page 657]
With a view to general economy these same commissioners may operate
on several commissions. To this end, the central agency shall study
the organization and the plan of action of the several commissions
and shall make all useful proposals to the Supreme Council.
In each commission the commissioners of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers shall elect a President from among the
commissioners of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers which
are not directly interested. The President shall have the right to
attach, as assistant, a technical expert of his choice, from among
the technical assistants of the commission. The personnel of the
Delimitation Commission must be military; the commissioners and,
insofar as possible, the assistant commissioners should be superior
or acting officers; the technical assistants should be subaltern or
acting officers; the secretaries, topographical assistants, etc.,
shall be, in principle, acting noncommissioned officers or soldiers.
The personnel of the commissions shall be in uniform and may, in
principle, be supplied with a revolver.
b.—nomination of the
personnel
In conformity with what is established by the Peace Treaties, the
Commissions should be in a position to operate at a date fixed by
the said treaties or following a decision of the Supreme
Council.
The central agency shall conduct the nominations in due time and it
shall take due dispositions to insure the first convocation of each
commission.
By the competency of this same central agency, each commissioner
shall be accredited to the different States concerned.
All replacements of personnel, for whatever cause, shall be proposed
by the President to the central agency, in the name of the
commission, except concerning the technical assistants and any
enlisted personnel, whose replacement shall be demanded directly
from the power to which they belong.
The central agency shall have full authority to decide if a
commission can or not operate in the absence of one or more
delegations of the non-interested Powers, and it shall decree the
procedures governing the operation of the commission under these
conditions.
c.—constitution
During their first meeting, the commissioners should proceed to the
constitution of the commission by nominating the President, and, if
need be, the sub-commissions.
The commission, thus constituted, shall establish a preliminary plan
of the labors to be executed, and shall determine the number of
technical assistants and settle the question of instruments. It
shall examine the question of large scale maps and documentation in
general, shall [Page 658] determine
the place and date for a first meeting on the ground in proximity to
a center of frontier in common to a same series of members.
d.—operations
The Commissions have full authority to establish their own
operations. They must, however, operate on the following basis of a
general order:
Each Commission shall provide for the creation of a courier service
every 15 days to insure liaison with the central agency and for the
transmission for all necessary information.
Each Commission or sub-commission before proceeding to the ground,
and after having assembled and taken cognizance of the documentation
placed at its disposition, should draw up a plan of action and
specify:
- 1st.
- If it is advisable to divide the frontier into several
sections or sub-sections, into clearly determined parts,
into parts to be determined locally, configuration of the
ground, etc.;
- 2d.
- The nature of the labors to be conducted in each section
or sub-section. Concerning the “lines to be determined on
the ground” they shall make every effort and in particular
by the use of the large scale maps and from information
obtained from the interested Commissioners, to specify an
outline beforehand;
- 3d.
- The best order to adopt for the execution of the
labors;
- 4th.
- A uniform type of frontier posts (bornes) to be adopted for each section or
sub-section, and the numbering of these posts;
- 5th.
- Directives for the technical labors to be operated.
Practically it seems advantageous to proceed as follows: after the
preliminary conferences, the commission shall confide to the
assistant commissioners interested or technical assistants
interested the task of proceeding to the delimitation.
In principle, they shall leave litigious questions aside, in cases
where they cannot reach a solution by agreement in common; the
commission shall settle the difference.
Only in cases of bitter conflict between the commissioners of
interested nationalities should members of noninterested
nationalities be designated by the commission for the preliminary
labors.
Concerning territory of which no maps have been made, the sketch
executed by the technical assistants shall be submitted to the
commission which shall determine the outline on the map; the
delimitation shall be made by the commissioners or assistant
commissioners of the States concerned.
If there are members who belong to several commissions, they shall
thus have time to accomplish their duties in connection with the
different groups to which they belong.
[Page 659]
The delimitation established, the commission shall verify the outline
as adopted, decide at the same time the text of the general
description and the rough draft of the map and shall assemble the
documents furnished in connection with the establishing of the land
marks. In the course of this general examination the commission may
be accompanied by local authorities, to whom they shall furnish the
indications which might be useful to them regarding the outline of
the frontier.
The decisions of the commissions shall be adopted on a majority of
votes and shall be obligatory for the parties concerned.
The final delimitation reports, maps and documents annexed, shall be
drawn up in triplicate, two of which shall be submitted to the
Governments of each of the bordering States and the third shall be
transmitted to the central agency which shall deliver an authentic
copy of it to the Powers signatory to the Treaty.
III.—Administrative
Questions
a.—indemnities
In addition to the salary or allowances received normally by each
member from his own government,* the commissioners
and the personnel of each commission shall receive the following
indemnities:
Officers
| Clothing indemnity (paid at their departure) |
80.00 lbs. Sterling. |
| Extra duty indemnity (monthly) |
75.00 |
| Monthly) President of the Commission |
40.00 |
| Operation) per Commissioner |
30.00 |
| Indemnity) per Asst. Commissioner |
10.00 |
non-Commissioned officers and
Soldiers:
(topographers, chauffeurs, secretaries, etc.)
| Non-Commissioned topographers |
40.00 lbs. Sterling |
|
35.00 |
| Soldiers |
30.00 |
Each Government should advance to its own Delegation, in addition to
the indemnities above mentioned, a sum sufficient to cover
travelling expenses.
Before leaving for duty the officers shall be paid a sum
corresponding to the clothing indemnity and also a month’s pay and a
month’s extra duty indemnity; the non-commissioned officers and
soldiers shall receive 15 days indemnity in advance.
[Page 660]
b.—expenses, means of
transportation and billeting
1. Expenses. In accordance with what was
established by the Supreme Council in its session of August
18th,6 all the expenses of the
delimitation commissions shall be distributed equally between the
two States concerned. There shall be, consequently, charged to the
countries concerned:
-
a)
- The indemnities of the personnel of the delegation;
-
b)
- all transportation expenses;
-
c)
- the billeting expenses of the entire personnel of the
commissions in the renting of all necessary buildings
(meeting hall, garage, offices, etc.)
-
d)
- office expenses and miscellaneous expenses incurred in the
operations of the Commission.
The several states interested agree to furnish to the delimitation
commissions, either directly, or through the intermediary of the
local authorities the means of transportation, billeting, manual
labor, material (posts, markers) necessary in the accomplishment of
the mission.
Each power represented in the delimitation commissions shall place at
the disposition of its commissioners the necessary funds for the
payment of all the expenses falling on its delegation and every
three months shall submit a statement to the central agency on whom
shall be incumbent the duty of effecting the reimbursement of
expenses incurred in connection with the Powers interested. If, on
account of local circumstances, a commission deems it advisable to
furnish means of transportation, the expenses pertaining thereto
shall be charged to the account of the Powers concerned.
During its first meeting, each Commission shall arrange the category
and the extent of these means which should be at the disposition of
each delegation, by taking the nature and the extent of their
territories where it is to operate into account.
The Delegations (personnel, material, vehicles, etc.) shall be
transported without charge on all the rail and waterways of the
powers interested.
The personal baggage as well as the courier of all the members of the
Allied Delegations shall be exempt of all duty rights and of all
other similar taxes. The couriers between the central agency and the
commissions shall enjoy full diplomatic franchise.
The escort over all materials transported for the commissions shall
be insured by the power over whose territory the transportation
shall be effected.
2.
Billeting. The various buildings necessary
for the billeting of the personnel and of the material of the
delegations (rooms for officers and soldiers, offices, storehouses,
garages, etc.) shall be placed at the [Page 661] disposition of the commissions by the Power
concerned upon the territory of which these commissions shall
sojourn.
The custody of these buildings shall be assured by the said
Power.
IV.—Technical Operations
a.—elements serving as a base for
the execution of the labors
The frontiers described in the various Treaties are outlined, in
their definite parts, on 1/1,000,000 scale maps annexed to the
Treaties. In cases of differences between the text and the maps, the
text shall supersede.
In each Commission, the Delegations shall receive, for the execution
of the labors, from their respective Governments:
- 1st.
- True copies of the Articles of the Peace Treaty referring
thereto, with their translations.
- 2nd.
- True copies of the original maps attached to the
Treaties.
- 3rd.
- Copies of the maps which were used in the elaboration of
the frontier outline.
- 4th.
- Copies of the reports made by the Territorial Commissions,
or of the extracts of these reports.
The various States interested agree to furnish the Commissions with
all documents necessary in their labors, in particular, authentic
copies of the minutes of the delimitation of present or former
frontiers, all the large scale maps existing, geodetic data,
sketches made and not published, information on the deviations of
the frontier water courses.
They agree, furthermore, to order the local authorities to
communicate to the Commissions all documents, notably plans, land
surveys and registrations, and to furnish them, at their request,
with all information concerning the property, economic tendencies
and any other information necessary.
In case of differences found in the maps, the Commission shall
execute rectifications by referring to the geodetic data at its
disposition.
It shall decide in each case the solution to be taken by following as
nearly as possible the line determined by the text of the
Treaty.
The various States interested agree to respect the trigonometrical
land marks, signs, posts or frontier markers set up by the
commission.
b.—demarcation of
frontiers
1. On Land
The frontier shall be marked by landmarks of durable materials,
clearly visible and of a uniform type in a same section or
sub-section. They shall be constructed in such a way as to indicate:
- 1.
- The serial number and the distinctive letter of the
section or sub-section;
- 2.
- The direction of the adjacent landmarks;
- 3.
- The two countries which they separate.
The landmarks common to three countries and those which terminate a
section or sub-section shall be of a special model and shall bear
the date of the Treaties.
The placing of each landmark shall be noted in such a way that in
case it should disappear, it could be replaced without
difficulty.
The Commission shall decide the method of laying to be chosen among
the means hereafter enumerated:
-
a)
- By junction with natural objects;
-
b)
- By geographical coordination (Latitude and longitude and
eventually altitude);
-
c)
- By rectangular coordination (X and Y for a known
projection);
-
d)
- By relation to neighboring landmarks;
-
e)
- By simple reference to the map;
-
f)
- By photographs taken in the known directions.
The landmarks shall be placed within sight of each other, closer if
the trace be winding and, as much as possible, at each change in
direction.
A landmark shall indicate the point of passage over ways of
communication (routes, important trails, railroads, rivers,
canals).
For the former frontiers, the verification of landmarks shall be
effected and the inscriptions on the existing landmarks shall be
changed in conformity with the above indications.
The emplacement and the number of the landmarks shall be carried on a
cartographic document.
2. On Water
Concerning the frontiers determined by a water course, the terms
“course” or “channel” employed in the descriptions of the Treaties
mean: on the one hand for unnavigable rivers, the median line of the
watercourse or of its principal arm or branch, and on the other, for
the navigable rivers, the median line of the channel of principal
navigation. However, it shall devolve upon the Commissions on
delimitation, provided for by the Treaties, to specify if the
frontier line shall follow in its eventual changes the course or the
channel thus defined, or if it shall be determined in a definitive
way by the position of the course or channel, at the moment of the
putting into force of the Treaty.
Ordinarily it shall not be possible to lay landmarks along frontiers
which follow water courses; but in certain cases it shall be
possible and desirable to demark the frontier with the aid of
alignments realized by landmarks placed on the banks or by the aid
of floating buoys or stationary beacons.
[Page 663]
Such cases may present themselves in lakes, at confluents or on the
shores.
The Commission shall examine and decide upon the spot the solution to
be employed to rejoin on sea the limits of the territorial waters,
either in following the prolongation of the last part of the
frontiers, or in following one normal to the coast.
Navigable and unnavigable water courses.
In the case of navigable water courses, the frontier is formed by the
axis of the channel of navigation; in the case of unnavigable water
courses, the Commission shall have to decide on the spot the
interpretation to give to the term “course” or “principal course”
adopted in the Treaty.
For the water courses, the Commission on delimitation should examine:
- 1.
- If there does not exist on a bank enclaves coming from
former rectified meanders which might be reclaimed by one of
the bordering countries. It would settle the question on the
spot;
- 2.
- In the case where the course of the river is not
stabilized, if new changes are to be anticipated, it will
call these points to the attention of those interested and
propose a solution basing itself on the history of the river
and of its deviations, and on the possible result of new
derogations as to the interests of the riparian
inhabitants;
- 3.
- In case of several navigable channels, it shall decide
which should be considered as the principal channel;
- 4.
- If there is reason to adopt a method of demarkation at
least in certain places (very large parts, confluents,
points common to three frontiers, etc.,) it shall decide the
method oi staking out (floating and stationary beacons,
alignments, resections) by inspiring itself on the
principles admitted for the establishment of markers on
land, pools, lakes, lagoons, etc.,
The Commission should decide on the spot and according to the large
scale maps on the interpretation to be given to the term “median
line” adopted in the Treaty.
It shall not lose sight of the attribution of the islands.
It shall have to decide in the case of a gulf or a lagoon on the
method of marking the frontier and its necessity.
3. Lines to be determined on the
terrain
a) In the case where a regular sketch
exists,—The Commission should try beforehand to determine the line
with the aid of large scale maps guiding themselves:
- 1.
- by the existing administrative limits;
- 2.
- by the limits established by survey;
- 3.
- by the natural lines of the soil or straight
alignments.
In the undetermined parts, it shall decide on the spot being inspired
as much as possible by the proposals made by the Commissioners of
the interested countries.
[Page 664]
b) In the case where no regular sketch
exists.—The Commission will then have to see that the sketches are
made by the technical experts; they will be given for that purpose
instructions under the form of directions.
The aim of this work shall be to obtain on a topographical scale to
be fixed by the Commission a strip of territory where the frontier
could be traced. It could be defined as follows: a strip having for
axis the trace such as it exists on the map 1/1–000.000 attached to
the Treaty, and sufficiently large to show the details cited for the
definition of this frontier in the Treaty, villages, crests, rivers,
railways, lines, roads.) The minimum breadth could also be
defined.
This map should comprise: the planimetry, the configuration of the
land contours.
It shall also contain in a special manner the natural or artificial
landmarks which might facilitate the laying out of landmarks (high
peaks, steeples, minarets, etc.).
The method of sketching should evidently be influenced by the
terrain. However, in cases where it shall be possible, one should
have recourse to a rapid triangulation with numerous intercalar
points and numerous resections, marked on the terrain by permanent
signals made of the materials at hand (wooden buoys, stone pyramids,
etc.). The points shall be figured by latitude, longitude and
altitude. The verifications shall be done by measures of bases,
latitudes and azimuths. The sketch of the details shall be executed
with a place table according to the desired scale. In a wooded
country one must proceed by polygonals, theodolite, tachometer,
completed by itineraries supported by numerous points of latitude
and azimuths.
The landmarks shall be bound to these permanent signals.
c.—documents to be furnished by
the commission for the work on delimitation
- 1.
- An ensemble map of a large scale bearing in a fine and
continuous line the trace of the frontier and the emplacements
of the international landmarks with their numbers and letters,
accompanied by a complete description of the frontier, from
landmark to landmark.
- 2.
- The documents assuring the locating of the landmark
emplacements.
- 3.
- The protocols established by the Commission for all the
decisions taken by common accord to complete or determine the
terms of the Treaty;
- 4.
- Eventually a general report on the subject of the progress of
the work and the various points on which the Commission would
like to call attention.
These documents shall be made in triplicate, (see II.D)
[Page 665]
Appendix E to HD–70
Note From the French Delegation
Regarding the Putting Into Force of the Treaty of
Versailles
Putting Into Force of the Treaty
of Versailles
The official report on the ratification by three of the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers involves the entry into force of the
Treaty, and from then will be dated all the delays in the execution,
which are to be guarded against.
Before drafting this report, it would therefore be necessary to
determine whether the interested Powers are ready to execute the
provisions which should enter into force immediately after the going
into force of the Treaty, or with the shortest possible delay.
It is advisable to ascertain whether the International Commissions
provided for are nominated and ready to operate, whether the troops
of occupation are ready to accomplish their task, whether all the
measures have been taken to effect the execution of all other
provisions, especially of the obligations imposed on Germany.
Appendix F to HD–70
[Note From the Secretariat
General]
peace conference
secretariat
general
Note
Article 1 of the Treaty with Germany and the Annex to Part I of this
Treaty provide that certain neutral States, not signers and
enumerated in the said Annex, are invited to accede to the Covenant
of the League of Nations within the two months from the going into
force of the Covenant, that is to say of the Treaty.
The date of the going into force being near, it would seem necessary
for the Supreme Council to take preparatory and necessary decisions
that:
- 1.
- The States invited to accede to the Covenant be officially
informed of the tenor of the Covenant and of the obligations
of the League of Nations relative to the execution of the
Treaty:
- 2.
- The said States receive notification of the putting into
force of the Treaty with Germany, at as early a date as
possible.
[Page 666]
The two notifications (tenor of the Covenant and of its obligations
and date of the going into force) can be made:
Either by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French
Republic, by delegation of the Supreme Council, to the
chiefs of diplomatic Missions of the states interested at
Paris,
Or directly by telegram from the President of the Conference
to the chiefs of the different Governments.
In either case, the double notification could be made only on the day
of the signing of the authentic minutes of the filing of the
ratifications, and a certified copy conformable to the Peace Treaty
with Germany should be addressed to the neutral Governments invited
to accede to the Covenant.
The double notification by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
French Republic to the Chiefs of diplomatic Missions at Paris could
be made in the form of a letter, a draft of which is appended.
If the procedure of notification by the President of the Conference
were adopted, it would be advisable to mention, in the telegram to
the Chiefs of Neutral States interested that certified copy
conformable to the Peace Treaty with Germany has been handed to
their respective representatives at Paris.
Annex
Paris
, (Date of signing of
minutes on file of the
ratifications).
Project of a Letter From the Minister
for Foreign Affairs to the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions in
Paris
Mr. Minister: By delegation of the Council
of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, I have the honor of
enclosing herewith a certified copy, conformable to the Peace Treaty
signed at Versailles June 28, 1919, between the Allied and
Associated Powers and Germany, and beg you to be kind enough to
bring it to the attention of the Government of . . . . .
I have also been charged with calling your attention to certain
clauses of this Treaty.
Article 1 of the Treaty and the Annex to Part I provide that the
(State . . . . . ) is invited to accede to the Covenant of the
League of Nations within two months after the going into force of
the Covenant, that is to say of the Treaty.
In conformity with the final clauses of the said Treaty, I have the
honor of informing you that the Treaty having been ratified by
Germany on the one hand, by the British Empire, France and Italy on
[Page 667] the other, a first
official report of the filing of these ratifications has been drawn
up under date of . . . . . . and that all delays provided for by the
Treaty will be counted beginning from this date, among the High
Contracting Parties.
Please accept, etc.
The Minister of the Argentine Republic
Republic of
Chile
Republic of Colombia
Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of
Spain
Kingdom of Norway
Republic of Paraguay
Kingdom of
the Netherlands
Kingdom of Persia
Republic of
Salvador
Kingdom of Sweden
Swiss Republic
Republic of
Venezuela
Appendix G to HD–70
peach
conference
secretariat general
Paris
, October 14, 1919.
Request Made by the German Delegation
That Officers of Control in Germany Wear Civilian Clothes After
the Coming Into Force of the Treaty
Baron von Lersner on October 13 visited the Secretary General of the
Peace Conference. He expressed to him in the name of the German
Government the desire, that beginning with the entry into force of
the Treaty of Peace, Allied officers belonging to Missions of
Control in Germany should adopt the wearing of civilian clothes
which is customary for officers exercising their functions in
foreign countries, for example, for Military Attaches. In this
manner incidents would be avoided which the German Government states
it is powerless to prevent in view of the present state of feeling
among the people.
M. Dutasta replied to the President of the German Delegation that the
request of the German Government would be submitted to the Supreme
Council at an early meeting.
[Page 668]
Appendix H to HD–70
Draft Reply to Note of German
Delegation of September 22, Regarding Memel
Project
Mr. President: I have the honor of
acknowledging receipt of the note which you addressed to me
September 22 regarding the territory of Memel.
In reply to this communication, I have the honor to inform you that
Article 99 of the Peace Treaty having allowed no bond to exist
between this region and Germany, the Allied and Associated Powers
could not enter into discussion with the German Delegation on the
future fate of the territory of Memel.
Please accept, etc.
Baron von Lersner,
President of the German Delegation,
Versailles.
