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

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
    • Mr. F. L. Polk
  • Secretary
    • Mr. A. W. Dulles.
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman.
  • France
    • M. Pichon.
  • Secretaries
    • 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	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
  • M. Shigemitsu
  • M. Nagaoka

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.)

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 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 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. 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 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

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 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.

[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

[October 6, 1919.]

(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:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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)

Appendix E to HD–70

October 13, 1919.

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.

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 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.

Appendix H to HD–70

October 14, 1919.

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.

1. HD–69, minute 7, p. 609.
2. HD–8, minute 3(c), vol. vii, pp. 160, 161.
3. minute 5, p. 604.
4. Minute 9, p. 213.
5. See Page 3, Par. 5. Note—Frontiers of Germany. [Footnote in the original.]
6. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
7. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
8. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
9. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
10. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
11. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
12. Intended to act as Secretary of the Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
13. Four delegations esteem that the members of the delimitation commissions should receive the salary and the allowances which are due them from their Governments. The British delegation withholds its opinion until after consultation with its Government. [Footnote in the original.]
6. HD–32, minute 10, vol. vii, p. 706.