Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/74
HD–74
Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great
Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday,
October 22, 1919, at 10:30 a.m.
Paris, October 22, 1919, 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta
- M. Berthelot
- M. de Percin
- Italy
- Secretaries
- M. Paterno
- M. Barone Russo
- Japan
- Secretary
| Joint Secretariat |
| America, United States of |
Capt. B. Winthrop |
| British Empire |
Capt. G. Lothian Small |
| 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
- Mr. E. L. Dresel
- Dr. I. Bowman
- Mr. A. W. Dulles
- British Empire
- General Sackville-West
- Mr. A. Leeper
- Commandant Lucas
- France
- Commandant Levavasseur
- Commandant Aron
- M. Cheysson
- Japan
1. Sir Eyre Crowe said that he wished to bring
to the attention of the Council a telegram which had just been received,
according to which a German aeroplane had made a forced landing in the
neighborhood of Kovno. This aeroplane car German civilian pilots and
three passengers,
[Page 732]
one of whom
was Russian and the other two Turkish; this aeroplane was travelling
from Berlin to Moscow and was being held until further orders. Landing of a German Aeroplane at Kovno
2. Sir Eyre Crowe wished to bring to the notice
of the Council the fact that the British Government, called upon by a
number of Delegates, was making every effort to secure berths for
Delegates who wanted to proceed to Washington in connection with the
Labor Congress, but was not absolutely sure of securing same. He would
make every effort for this purpose; perhaps the Council could give
direct orders to the Allied Maritime Transport Executive. Journey of the Delegates to the Labor Congress at
Washington
Mr. Polk said that he felt the same way, and
had already cabled to Washington asking whether it would be possible to
take care of these Delegates on transports which were sailing from Brest
within the next few days; he doubted, however, whether this could be
done, considering that every available berth had been taken. An answer
was expected the following day.
M. Pichon said that it would be wise to settle
the question at the meeting of the Council to be held on the following
day, and meanwhile to instruct the Allied Maritime Transport Executive
in the way suggested by Sir Eyre Crowe.
Mr. Polk feared that the Allied Maritime
Transport Executive would reply that all available tonnage which it
controlled had been allotted to commerce.
3. M. Tittoni wished to announce that Italy had
appointed Count Bonin-Langare, Italian Ambassador in Paris, as its
Delegate on the permanent Committee charged with the execution of the
Treaty, and Professor Pagliano as second Delegate. The Committee on Questions Relating to the Interpretation and
Execution of the Treaty of Peace
M. Pichon said that France would be represented
on the Committee by himself, and by M. Berthelot as second Delegate.
4. (The Council had before it a note from the Finance Commission dated
October 15th, 1919, relative to a telegram from the French High
Commissioner at Constantinople dated September 23rd, 1919, and a draft
telegram to be sent by the Government of the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers to the Allied High Conamissioners at Constantinople
(See Appendix “A”).) German and Austro-Hungarian
Banks in Turkey
M. Cheysson read and commented upon the note
from the Finance Commission.
Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he had consulted the
Legal Advisors of the British Delegation on the subject, and that the
latter felt that two points had to be distinguished, liquidation and
control. With regard to liquidation, the Legal Advisors approved of the
proposals of the Finance Commission. With regard to control, they had
remarked that two questions were to be considered, not only the Treaty
with Germany
[Page 733]
but also the
Armistice conditions with Turkey; the Armistice conditions prohibited
the Turks from allowing Germans to resume their position in Turkey. He
thought the question had better be referred back to the Drafting
Committee which would be able to furnish a report in short time.
M. Tittoni thought that the question should
certainly be submitted to the Legal Advisors. The question was
important: were the Armistice conditions with Turkey, or rather, as he
thought, the provisions in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to govern
the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey.
(It was decided:
to refer to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the
note of October 15th, 1919 from the Finance Commission, relative
to the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey, as well
as the draft telegram to the Allied High Commissioners at
Constantinople prepared by this Commission (See Appendix
“A”).)
5. (The Council had before it a note from the Greek Delegation to the
Peace Conference dated October 15th, 1919 (See Appendix “B”).) Sequestration of Property Belonging to the Greek
Orthodox Community of Budapest
M. Tittoni said that the Economic Commission
was competent to examine this note. The Draft Treaty with Hungary
contained, in Section 4, Part 10, clauses which were pertinent to the
above case in the protest of the Greek Delegation.
(It was decided:
to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report
the protest of the Greek Delegation relative to the
sequestration of property belonging to the Greek Orthodox
Community of Budapest. (See Appendix “B”).)
6. (The Council had before it a telegram from the High Commissioner of
the French Republic in the Near East, transmitting a telegram from the
Grand Vizier to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey, at Vienna (See Appendix
“C”).) Repatriation of Staff of Turkish Embassy at
Vienna
After a short discussion it was decided:
To authorize the repatriation of the Turkish Embassy Staff at
Vienna in accordance with the request made by the Grand Vizier
to the French High Commissioner, also to authorize the
transmission to the Turkish Chargé d’Affaires at Vienna of the
telegram prepared by the Turkish Government (See Appendix
“C”).
7. (The Council had before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene
Delegation, dated Paris, October 7th, 1919, requesting that authority be
given by the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to
exploit the coal mines situated in the basin of Pecs (Petchoui) for a
period of five years beginning with the coming into force of the
[Page 734]
Treaty (See Appendix “D”).)
Permission To Work the Pecs coal Mines
Commandant Aron said that M. Loucheur wished to
have this question postponed.
M. Tittoni did not think that a postponement
was necessary: the Reparation Commission had examined this question and
was unanimous in proposing that the Serbian request be rejected.
Commandant Aron then said that the Reparation
Commission had decided that the question was not one which came within
its province.
Mr. Polk wished to ask whether this application
had been referred to the Coal Commission.
Sir Eyre Crowe replied that he did not know. He
considered the question a local one because the competent local
Commission had already refused to accede to the Serbian request that the
mine district of Pecs should be included within the frontiers of the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State. On account of this refusal, the Serbs had
formulated their new demand.
M. Tittoni said that if the mines of Pecs were
taken away from Hungary, that country would have no coal at all. The
Coal Commission was not competent, and in his opinion, it was only the
Economic Commission which was qualified to deal with this question.
M. Pichon remarked that M. Loucheur wished to
be heard by this Commission.
(It was decided:
to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report
the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation dated October
7th, 1919 (See Appendix “D”), requesting for the
Serb-Croat-Slovene Government the exclusive right of
exploitation of the coal mines situated in the Petchoui (Pecs)
Basin for a period of five years after the entrance into force
of the Treaty of Peace.)
8. (The Council had before it a revised draft of a note addressed to the
Serb-Croat-Slovene Government dated October 20th, 1919, which had been
prepared by the American delegation (See appendix “E”).) Note to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government
Mr. Polk said that he had asked for certain
modifications of form in the draft1 which the
Council had examined at last Monday’s meeting; the text which he had
prepared had been distributed to the various Delegations.
M. Berthelot said that the Serbian delegation
had refused to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria on account of the
Minorities Treaty: this had not been done without hesitation on its
part. The only reason that the Serbs gave for not signing immediately
was that they were without a cabinet at the time. Now, however, after a
long crisis, a cabinet had been formed. Mr. Trumbić had left Belgrade
[Page 735]
and he and Mr. Patehitch
had instructions to sign. Under these circumstances it was a question
whether the proposed step was a necessary one. In a conversation which
he had had with Mr. Vesnitch, the latter had insisted upon his demand
that if the Minorities Treaty be modified to give satisfaction to the
Greeks or Roumanians, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government should also
benefit by these modifications.
Mr. Polk said he had received a telegram from
the United States Minister at Belgrade announcing the departure of Mr.
Trumbić who had received instructions to sign the Treaty: under these
conditions it was perhaps not necessary to send a note.
M. Pichon was of the same opinion.
M. Tittoni inquired whether the Serbs meant to
sign the Treaty only after it had been modified.
M. Berthelot stated that no modifications had
been made to the Treaty since the Council had last heard Mr. Vesnitch,
at which meeting Mr. Tittoni was present.
Sir Eyre Crowe thought that the situation was
not the same for the Treaty with Serbia as regards Minorities as for
Treaties with Greece and Roumania. The Principal Allied Powers had
already signed the Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.
M. Berthelot said that the question had already
been brought up in connection with Poland: Poland had asked that if on
any important point a more favorable situation was granted to the
Roumanians, concerning the Jewish question for instance, the same
advantages should be granted to Poland.
Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that it was important
that no promise should be given.
M. Berthelot said there was no question of
giving a promise, for should it be given, such a promise would not
amount to very much. The modifications requested by the Roumanians, as a
matter of fact, either concerned the very essence of the Treaty, and
therefore could not be accepted, or questions such as the Jewish
question did not concern the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. Under these
conditions the Serbs would have difficulty in availing themselves of the
Treaty with Roumania in order to ask for a more favorable regime. Should
it be necessary to introduce certain modifications in the Serbian
Treaty, the fact that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had
already signed would not be an obstacle thereto.
M. Pichon said that for the moment it was only
a question of finding out whether we could tell the Serbs that if the
other Treaties concerning Minorities were modified, they should benefit
by the same modifications. As far as he was concerned he thought it
advisable
[Page 736]
to ask the Serbs to
sign purely and simply. Mr. Trumbic had left Belgrade with instructions
to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria, therefore, it would be better
to await his arrival.
Sir Etre Crowe was of the same opinion.
It was decided:
to adjourn until a further meeting of the Council the sending of
a note inviting the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to sign the
Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaty. (See Appendix
“E”.)
9. (The Council had before it a note from the German Delegation dated,
Paris, October 17th, 1919, (See Appendix “F”).) Seizure of German Shipping in the Baltic
Sir Etre Crowe said that a certain latitude had
always been given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces in the
Baltic, and the Council had always avoided giving a decision on the
measures taken by him. We were bound to recognize the decisions by
virtue of which the German shipping in the Baltic had been stopped.
Perhaps these decisions had been executed too strictly; in fact, he was
informed that their execution sometimes entailed unnecessary
inconvenience not only for the Germans but also for Neutrals, and for
this reason sailings of German ships which were carrying food-stuffs
from Denmark to the plebiscite zone of Schleswig had been held up. It
was therefore necessary to direct the Naval Commanders to act with great
discretion and to carry out their measures in such a way as not to
affect without good cause navigation in the Baltic; we should instruct
the Admirals to interfere as little as possible with traffic between
neutral ports, and even, in certain cases, to authorize traffic between
German ports.
M. Tittoni remarked that it was the intention
of the Council to prevent in an effective way commerce with ports of
Bolshevik Russia: its object was not to interfere with traffic in the
Baltic.
Sir Etre Crowe said that it was not only a
question of the blockade of Russia; he also had in mind the situation
brought about by the action of the Germans in Courland. The Naval
experts should be requested to prepare the draft of an answer to the
German note.
Mr. Polk asked that the draft of this answer be
submitted to the Council.
It was decided:
- (1)
- that the Allied Naval Armistice Commission should be asked to
execute the measures prescribed by it with regard to the
situation in the Baltic Provinces in such a way as to take into
account the legitimate interests of neutral commerce and certain
urgent needs with respect to supplies for German ports;
- (2)
- that the Naval Experts should present to the Council as soon
as possible a draft answer to the German note of October 17th,
1919. (See Appendix “F”.)
[Page 737]
10. (The Council had before it a note from the Roumanian Delegation dated
October 18th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged
with the recovery of material, which were functioning in Germany in the
interests of France and Belgium in execution of the Armistice Clauses
(See Appendix “G”).) Representation of Roumanian on
the Armistice Commissions charged with the recovery of material in
Germany
M. Berthelot said that it was difficult to
accept the Roumanian demand. As a matter of fact the right which the
Roumanian Delegation was demanding had been recognized by the Armistice
in favor of France and Belgium alone; on the other hand, the Roumanians
had not hesitated to go ahead and recover alone material in Hungary. It
was therefore difficult to grant them this favor. He therefore proposed
that this note should be referred back to the Reparation Commission with
a request that it should examine and advise in what measure it was
possible to grant it.
M. Tittoni did not think that this was a
question of application of the Treaty. The Armistice only stipulated a
recovery of material taken away by German troops in favor of France and
Belgium. Once the Treaty came into force, the situation would be
different, and recovery of this kind would be made in favor of all the
Allies. He thought, however, that the Reparation Commission was best
qualified to examine the Roumanian request.
It was decided:
to refer to the Committee on the Organization of the Reparation
Commission for examination and report the note of the Roumanian
Delegation dated October 19th, 1919, (See Appendix “G”),
requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the
recovery of stolen material which are operating in Germany under
the clauses of the Armistice.
11. M. Pichon said that Mr. Henry Simon2 asked whether the Council would adjourn the
examination of this question. Offer of the National
Lutheran Council of the United States With Regard to the Exexution
of Article 438 of the Treaty of Peace With Germany
Mr. Polk said that he had only received
instructions to submit the document3 in question to the Council but
that he had not been asked to press with any special force its
conclusions: the opinion of the Council was only asked for.
(The examination of this question was therefore adjourned.)
(The meeting then adjourned.)
Hotel Crillon, Paris, October 22, 1919.
[Page 738]
Appendix A to HD–74
[Note From the Financial
Commission]
financial commission
The Financial Commission is in receipt of a telegram in which the
French High Commissioner at Constantinople requests specific and
identical instructions for all delegations as to the attitude to be
adopted in regard to German banks in Turkey from the date of the
coming into force of the Treaty with Germany.
The Commission wished, in this connection, to examine the questions
brought up by the attitude adopted by the High Commissioners since
the Armistice in regard to the German and Austrian banks and the
claims which have been brought in this connection by the parties
concerned, particularly a letter sent August 11th, 1919, by the
Wiener Bank Verein to the Financial Control at Constantinople.
The Commission is of the opinion that the decisions of the High
Commissioners were wisely taken. They should be regarded as due to
political rather than economic causes. German and Austrian banks in
Turkey were founded under the patronage of, and were favored by, the
German and Austro-Hungarian Governments and by their action they
helped to consolidate Germany’s and Austria-Hungary’s hold on
Turkey, and they may justly be considered as agents of German and
Austro-Hungarian propaganda. The measures taken in regard to them
are therefore primarily protective measures that come strictly
within the jurisdiction of administrators whose duty it is to ensure
the policing of occupied territory.
The Economic Commission considered that the decisions of the High
Commissioners may be regarded as “exceptional measures” according to
Article 297d and paragraphs 1 and 3 of the
annex to this article of the Treaty with Germany and the
corresponding articles in the Treaty of Saint Germain.
The Financial Commission is of the opinion that at least one article
should be inserted in the Treaty with Turkey to specify clearly that
no such measure can give rise to the payment of any indemnity nor
claim by Germany, Austria-Hungary or Turkey. This article would be
applicable to Germany, Austria and Hungary in accordance with
article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding
articles of the Treaties concluded or to be concluded with Austria
and Hungary, agreeing to “recognize the full force of Treaties …
which may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the
Powers who fought on the side of Germany.”
[Page 739]
As to the future, the Financial Commission considers that
“exceptional measures” cannot be maintained in regard to German and
Austrian banks when the Treaty of Peace with these Powers comes into
force. The German and Austrian banks should, from the date of the
going into effect of the treaty, be placed on the same footing as
neutral banks and not subject, in the future, to other than general
measures taken or to be taken by the High Commissioners to ensure
the policing of occupied Ottoman territory. Consequently, it seems
to the Financial Commission that in reply to telegram No. 1792 of
September 23d sent by the French High Commissioner, the Governments
of the Principal Powers should send the High Commissioners identical
telegrams of which the main lines are indicated in the draft
telegram attached hereto.
[Enclosure]
financial commission
Draft Telegram To Be Sent by the
Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the
Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople
After having reexamined the questions brought up by your telegram No.
1792 of September 23d, regarding the attitude to be taken with
respect to German and Austrian banks in Turkey, the Governments of
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in accordance with the
opinion expressed by the Financial Commission, consider that the
decisions of the High Commissioners have been wisely taken and that
they are, from all points of view, protective measures designed to
ensure the policing of occupied territory.
As for the future, the above mentioned Governments consider that no
exceptional measure can be maintained in regard to German and
Austrian banks after the coming into force of the respective
Treaties with Germany and Austria.
These banks will then be free either [to] resume their operations or
to proceed with their liquidations. They will, however, remain
subject to the police measures which the high Commissioners may find
necessary to take in view of maintaining order in regard to all
neutral banks.
[Page 740]
Appendix B to HD–74
greek delegation
to
the peace conference
Paris, October 15, 1919.
Note From the Greek Delegation
Relative to the Sequestration of Property Belonging to the Greek
Orthodox Community of Budapest
To the Secretary General of the Peace
Conference:
There were at Budapest, and in other cities of Hungary, Greek
orthodox communities which had property, the ownership of which in
the case of the dissolution of these communities, was to have been
returned to the Greek State.
The Soviet Government of Hungary proceeded July last to sequestrate
property belonging to the Greek orthodox community of Budapest,
recognized as having belonged to the community since the 18th
Century, by the law of 1868.
This measure, taken by a revolutionary government, being contrary to
the rights acquired and to prerogatives assured by the Treaties to
all ethnic minorities, the Greek Delegation has the honor of begging
the Peace Conference to be kind enough to insert in the Peace Treaty
with Hungary a clause by virtue of which she would pledge herself to
restore to their legitimate owners the property constituting the
patrimony of the Greek Orthodox Communities in its territory.
Appendix C to HD–74
high commissariat
of
the
french republic
political service
direction
of political
and commercial affairs.
Asia Oceania No. 545
Constantinople, September 27,
1919.
Letter From M. Defrance, Relative to
the Repatriation of the Staff of the Turkish Embassy in
Vienna
From: M. Defranee, High Commissioner of the French
Kepublic in the East.
To: M. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
In re: Sending of telegram
From Damad Ferid
Pacha.
The Grand Vizier having begged me to insure the transmission of a
telegram to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey at Vienna, relative to
the return to Constantinople of the personnel of the Ottoman Embassy
and the maintenance of Ottoman Consuls in the Austro-Hungarian
[Page 741]
ex-Empire, I deemed it my
duty to submit this request for the consideration of my colleagues
of Great Britain and Italy.
In their meeting of the 18th instant, the Allied High Commissioners
were of the opinion that the decision requested by the Ottoman
Government depended on the assent of the Allied Governments.
Consequently, I have the honor of transmitting herewith to your
Excellency, a copy of this telegram,5
leaving to your Excellency the care of forwarding it to the proper
party, if an agreement is reached on this subject with the British
and Italian Governments.
Appendix D to HD–74
delegation of the
kingdom
of the serbs, croats and slovenes
to the
peace conference
Paris, October 7, 1919.
To the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference,
Paris.
The total production of the coal mines located on the territory of
the present kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, including the
mines of Petchoui which are still in the territory occupied by our
troops, amounted in 1913 to 292,720 tons monthly. The monthly
consumption of coal in these territories amounted at the same time
to 322,230 tons. The difference of 29,510 tons was to be covered by
the importations from Germany, Austria and Great Britain.
It is well known that during the war the enemy has destroyed not only
all the means of communication but has as well, especially during
his retreat and by criminal action, rendered unexploitable and
flooded almost all the coal mines in Serbia. The coal production has
been thus completely annihilated and represents only at present, in
spite of all the hard works of reconstruction, only one-tenth (1.10)
of what it was before the war; it will only become normal again
after several years.
The total production of the mines in the Kingdom of the S. C. S. has
amounted in the month of July 1919, but only thanks to the help
furnished by the mines of Petchoui, to 208,100 tons, a quantity
which hardly suffices to assure the traffic of our roads of
communication, which are only partly reestablished. The difference
between the coal production before the war, for that matter
insufficient at that time, and the present production amounts
consequently to 300 carloads or 3,000 tons daily, which gives a
deficit of 90,000 monthly, and that fact has a fatal repercussion
upon the normal exploitation of the means of communication. If we
take into account the necessities of industry which is at present,
on account of the lack of coal, absolutely stopped, and also the
needs in coal for heating in our country where winter lasts
[Page 742]
six months (nine-tenths of
the territory being under continental climate), we can only foresee
profound distress for our populations in a short time. The lack of
coal necessary for the heating cannot be made up by wood because the
coal deficit in the railways renders impossible the exploitation of
the forests. There results for our country a pressing want of coal
which can only be satisfied by the cession of the exploitation of
the Petchoui mines under our administration.
The Petchoui mines are also indispensable to us for other
reasons.
All the mines of our Kingdom produce presently nearly 800 carloads a
day of which 300 carloads are extracted from the only mines of
Trifail, in Slovenia. But the coal of Trifail cannot be used alone
for the heating of the machines on account of its inferior quality
(insufficience of calories); in order to be used it must be mixed
up, as it has constantly been done so far, with coal of Petchoui. To
deprive us of the latter would be equivalent to put us in the
impossibility to use the coal of Trifail which would bring about a
veritable catastrophe in our railroad communications which are
considerably limited.
As we have just mentioned, our coal deficit before the war was
covered by importations from Austria, Germany and Great Britain. We
cannot rely upon the importations from Austria any more, the latter
being also in want of coal. It is the same with Germany on account
of her obligations of reparations, towards other Allied countries.
On our side, we have addressed several requests to the Supreme
Council in order to obtain the introduction into the Peace Treaty,
as well with Germany as with Austria, of clauses according us, as
reparations, the indispensable quantities of coal necessary to our
consumption. Neither in the Treaty with Germany nor in the Treaty
with Austria have our demands been taken into consideration, so that
we shall receive nothing at all from those two countries.
As to the importation of coal from Great Britain, it is out of the
question for a long period after the war, because the wants of Great
Britain itself, as well as those of France and Italy who also are
supplied by English mines, are very important. Moreover, the
neighboring countries of our Kingdom, such as Italy, Rumania and
Greece, either are deprived of mines, or have a small
production.
In the Treaty with Bulgaria, it is true, a quantity has been granted
to us but being only 50,000 tons a month, it is quite insufficient.
We must, besides, add that the Treaty with Bulgaria contains
restrictive conditions which render our right, even concerning that
small quantity, illusory, the Interallied Commission being in
reality, authorized to impose its veto if it deems that that coal is
necessary for Bulgaria.
Finally, we should like to mention that the maintenance of the
communications in our country depends exclusively upon the
indispensable quantity and upon the necessary quantity of coal we
shall dispose of; that maintenance has not only a vital importance
for us, but has also
[Page 743]
a
great international importance as it insures the liaison between the
Orient and the Occident. Moreover, we produce great quantities of
agricultural and forest products which would remain unutilized for
lack of means of transportation; that is what happened to the
harvest of last year which, after the armistice and for lack of
means of transportation, has been wasted in greater part, despite
the want which was felt for it in Western Europe and even in the
different parts of our country. The same would happen to the present
harvest if the present state continues.
All these facts are very well known to our Allies, who have verified
them by their different missions sent to our country for that
purpose. We hope that our State will succeed by working with great
activity to reconstitute the destroyed mines and to improve the
productions of the others, to produce in a few years a quantity of
coal which, added to that which we shall receive, thanks to the
facilities of the importation will satisfy our needs.
That is why we request that the exploitation of the Petchoui mines
be, by the Treaty with Hungary, given to us for a short period of
five years after which we think we shall be able to produce
sufficiently for our consumption.
Consequently, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. has the
honor to ask the Supreme Council to insert in the Treaty with
Hungary, in the Chapter of Reparations, the following text:
“In compensation of the destruction of the coal mines in
Serbia, and to be deducted from the amount of reparations of
war damages owed by Hungary, the latter cedes to the Kingdom
of the S. C. S. the exclusive right of exploitation of the
coal mines located in the Petchoui basin (Pecs), for a
period of five years after the going into force of the
present treaty.
“In order to insure to the Kingdom of the S. C. S. the full
liberty of exploitation of the said mines, Hungary promises
henceforth to respect all the regulations made by the
Government of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. concerning the
exploitation of the said mines, as well as all other
provisions relating thereto.”
Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs,
Croats and Slovenes to the Peace Conference
Appendix E to HD–74
Revised Draft of Communication
From the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government
Relative to the Signature of Peace With Austria
The Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers have the
honour to address to the Royal Government of the Serb-Croat-Slovene
[Page 744]
State an urgent
reminder that they have not yet signed the Treaty of Peace with the
Republic of Austria concluded at St. Germain-en-Laye on the 10th of
September last, and the Treaty between the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State which was signed
by the former on the same date.
Anxious to accord to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State every opportunity
for consideration of the many important questions now before them,
the Supreme Council have hitherto refrained from presenting to the
Royal Government any request which might embarrass their position
during a period of internal stress for the Council have always been
animated by the warmest feelings of friendship and sympathy for the
Serb-Croat-Slovene State, which they have been proud to consider an
ally and associate alike in the conduct of the war, in the work of
the Peace Conference and in the organization of the League of
Nations.
They feel confident, therefore that the Royal Government will not
persist in objections which could only be regarded as foreshadowing
a policy tending to separate that country from the Allied and
Associated Powers, who have heartily cooperated in the creation and
in the full international recognition of the Serb-Croat-Slovene
State.
It has, however, become impossible further to prolong the delay, and
the Supreme Council must earnestly request that the Royal Government
be good enough to notify them promptly that they are prepared to
sign the Treaties without reservation.
Appendix F to HD–74
Note From German Delegation Dated
October 17, 1919, on the Subject of Blockade Measures Enforced
in the Baltic Sea
german peace
delegation
The German Government urgently requests that the blockade measures
taken concerning the Baltic Sea be limited to those which are
militarily necessary and that the fishing rights, navigation between
German ports, ferry navigation, the maintenance of light ships (Seesichendampfer) be unmolested.
Furthermore, the German Government requests the liberation of the
German vessels captured because of unfamiliarity with orders issued,
as is particularly the case concerning the coal tenders plying to
Königsberg.
[Page 745]
Appendix G to HD–74
rumanian
delegation
to the peace conference
Paris, October 18, 1919.
Translation
From: M. Alex Voida Voevod.
To: M. Clemenceau.
The Rumanian Delegation has the honor of calling the kind attention
of the Supreme Council of the Conference to the following facts:
By the Peace Treaty with Germany it was decided (Article 258 [238]) that Germany was obliged to restore the
machines taken away, seized or sequestrated, as well as animals or
objects of all kinds and securities taken away, seized or
sequestrated; it is added that these restorations are to be made in
conformity with the procedure established by the Reparations
Commission.
We are informed that Members working on the execution of the
Armistice Convention with Germany, in the commissions entrusted with
effecting the said recoveries, have often found during the course of
their researches objects of all kinds belonging to Rumania. In the
same way, we are informed that in Germany endeavors have been made
to return objects, machines, etc., taken away from Rumania,
impossible of identification when the Commission, working in
conformity with the procedure of the Reparations Commission, shall
come to identify them.
This is why the Rumanian Delegation begs the Supreme Council of the
Conference to kindly permit the attachment of Rumanian Delegates to
the Commissions now operating in Germany for France and for Belgium,
in execution of the Armistice Convention, with a view to effecting
the recoveries. These delegates will indicate to the Commission, on
every occasion, the property which belonged to Rumania so that
proceedings may be drawn up, establishing the nature of the object,
the place where it was found, etc.
In the same way, we beg the Supreme Council of the Conference to
allow Rumanian Delegates to make researches in this respect, even in
the localities where the Commissions have already finished their
work.
Owing to the importance of the interests at stake, and that Rumania
is not in a position—as is shown above—to recover her property,
which in this way would remain to the profit of the Germans, I dare
hope, Mr. President, that thanks to the kind support which your
excellency will be good enough to give our demand, it will find in
the midst of the Supreme Council a speedy solution.
Please accept, etc.
[No signature on file copy]
