Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/46


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, September 3, 1919, at 11 a.m.

  • Present
    • United States of America
      • Hon. F. L. Polk.
    • Secretary
      • Mr. L. Harrison.
    • British Empire
      • Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
    • Secretaries
      • Mr. H. Norman.
      • Mr. P. Kerr.
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau.
      • M. Pichon.
    • Secretaries
      • M. Dutasta.
      • M. Berthelot.
      • M. de Saint-Quentin.
    • Italy
      • M. Tittoni.
    • Secretary
      • M. Paterno.
    • Japan
      • M. Matsui.
    • Secretary
      • M. Kawai.
Joint Secretariat
America, United States of Mr. C. Russell
British Empire Capt. E. Abraham
France M. de Percin
Italy Capt. Rossi
Interpreter—M. Camerlynck

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

  • America, United States of
    • The Hon. H. Gibson.
    • Dr. Lord.
    • Mr. A. Dulles.
    • Mr. Nielsen.
  • British Empire
    • Mr. A. Leeper.
    • Mr. Carr.
    • Col. Kisch.
  • France
    • M. Cambon.
    • M. Fromageot.
    • M. Serruys.
    • General Le Rond.
    • M. Cheysson.
    • M. Hermite.
    • M. Massigli.
  • Italy
    • M. Brambilla.
    • M. Ricci-Busatti.
    • M. Nagara.

[Page 77]

1. M. Tittoni said that before beginning the business of the day, he wished to draw attention to a matter of considerable importance.

The American Delegation had received news that on the evacuation of Koritza by French troops, General Franchet d’Esperey had ordered their replacement by Greek troops. He thought this would lead to great trouble. Evacuation of Albania

M. Clemenceau said that he had not seen any report to that effect. Moreover, he did not think it likely that the information was correct. General Franchet d’Esperey had asked what he was to do after the evacuation. No orders had as yet been given.

M. Tittoni said that it was very necessary to give orders that Greek troops should not occupy Koritza when the place was evacuated by the French. The Mussulman population was preparing partly to emigrate and partly to form armed bands to resist the Greeks. He understood that the French evacuation was imminent and whether or not the news to which he had alluded was correct, he thought the question should be examined.

M. Clemenceau said that French troops would certainly not stay in Koritza, but that on their departure it would be arranged that the place should not be occupied.

Mr. Polk said that the news he had received was merely a rumour. He had written to M. Clemenceau to inform him.

M. Pichon said that the French Government agreed with M. Tittoni and had already informed the Greeks that they should not occupy Koritza.

M. Berthelot observed that Pogradek was also to be evacuated. It was common agreement that both Koritza and Pogradek belonged to Albania. It was also an agreed policy that no occupation of contested territories should take place without an order from the Council.

M. Clemenceau asked that all documents on the subject be supplied to him in order that he should be able to give an opinion on the following day.

Mr. Balfour asked that a note on the subject be prepared as he had not been given any information.

(The question was then adjourned to the following day.)

2. M. Clemenceau said that on the previous day, Mr. Balfour had asked for an adjournment of 24 hours. He asked whether Mr. Balfour was able to give an opinion. Roumanian Affairs

Mr. Balfour said that he agreed with the policy of sending a representative of the Council to Bucharest. He no longer thought, however, that Admiral Troubridge would be the best representative, as he had very rightly taken strong [Page 78] action against the Roumanians. He thought a civilian representative would be better. The person selected should be ready to represent the views of the Council very strongly, but he should not have been previously identified with any controversial action. He begged to suggest M. Jonnart, who had carried out very difficult negotiations in Greece with conspicuous success. Should he agree to go, Mr. Balfour thought he would be the best possible representative.

M. Pichon said that he was convinced that M. Jonnart would not accept the mission. He had resigned the Governorship of Algeria in order to take up the work of reconstructing the devastated districts. He would not be ready to abandon this work.

M. Tittoni agreed that M. Jonnart would be an excellent appointment.

M. Clemenceau said that he would ask M. Jonnart whether he was willing to go, but he did not expect him to accept. He asked whether Mr. Balfour could not make a British appointment in this alternative.

Mr. Balfour said that another plan suggested to him was that in each capital the Roumanian diplomatic representative should be summoned and that the views of the Allied and Associated Powers should be clearly explained to him.

M. Clemenceau said that he did not think this course would be sufficient to meet the case. He wished to send a single individual to represent the Council in Bucharest and who would return with the answer of the Roumanian Government.

Mr. Balfour observed that the Council required more than an answer. It would be necessary for their representative to make public in Roumania the point of view of the Allied and Associated Powers. This point of view appeared to be much misunderstood in Roumania.

Mr. Polk said that the Roumanians regarded America as their one enemy. A distinguished Roumanian had informed an American of this. When told that all the communications sent to the Roumanian Government had been sent collectively from all the Allied and Associated Powers, he had, in reply, drawn attention to the views expressed in the French Press.

M. Clemenceau pointed out that during the incidents between France and Italy, the French Press had been consistently pro-Italian. The pro-Roumanian attitude of the French Press at the present time was, in the main, due to the activities of M. Robert de Flers. On the other hand, M. Bratiano had said that M. Clemenceau was his worst foe. The Roumanians were certainly friendly with the Italians, but he trusted that the Italian Government was not offering them any encouragement.

[Page 79]

M. Tittoni said that he occasionally saw M. Misu. On all occasions, he had impressed on him that the Conference took a very serious view of the Roumanian situation. He had warned him that Roumania was embarking on a very risky enterprise.

Mr. Polk said that on further reflection, he thought it would be & good thing to summon the Roumanian Minister at the four capitals.

M. Clemenceau said that the object might be attained by recalling the Allied Ministers from Bukarest.

M. Tittoni said that this step should be reserved for a later stage.

Mr. Balfour said that the results hitherto obtained by the discussion appeared to be (a) that a Commissioner must be found to represent the Council in Bucharest: (b) that M. Misu should be summoned to be present at the Council and that the Roumanian Ministers in Rome, London and Washington should be summoned by the Governments of those capitals. The Roumanian Ministers summoned should be warned that the Council regarded the actions of their Government with considerable disfavour and it should be explained to them that the Roumanian Government appeared to misapprehend the policy of the Allied and Associated Powers completely. (c) That they should be told that the Allied and Associated Powers were seriously considering the withdrawal of their representatives at Bucharest, as a token that they ceased to regard Roumania as one of the Allied and Associated Powers.

M. Clemenceau said that he would see M. Jonnart on that very day. He asked Mr. Balfour meanwhile to endeavour to find a suitable Englishman for the post. He further asked that Mr. Balfour should draft a document explaining the Allied policy towards Roumania. Should the Roumanian Government reject the ultimatum addressed to them, the representative of the Council, on leaving Roumania, should bring back with him all the Allied and Associated Ministers and officers in the country.

(It was agreed that Mr. Balfour should draft a document explaining the policy of the Council towards Roumania, and that this document should be submitted to the Council on the following day.

It was also agreed that both M. Clemenceau and Mr. Balfour should endeavour to find a suitable representative of the Council to send to Bukarest.)

3. The interpreter read a letter from Mr. Hoover to M. Clemenceau (see Appendix A), stating that the amount of railway rolling stock in locomotives and wagons was much larger in Hungary than had keen originally surmised. The rolling stock included equipment: formerly belonging to the Galician railways, and therefore due to the Polish Government; belonging to the Bohemian railways and therefore due to [Page 80] the Czecho-Slovak Government; belonging to the East Prussian railways and therefore due to the Polish Government; belonging to the Alsace-Lorraine railways and therefore due to the French Government; a considerable number of wagons belonging to the Trentino railways and therefore due to the Italian Government, and a large number of locomotives and wagons formerly belonging to the Roumanian railways and therefore due to the Roumanian Government. It seemed imperative that the Peace Conference should direct that the distribution of this rolling stock be dealt with by the Governments concerned; and Mr. Hoover recommended that the Communications Section of the Supreme Economic Council be authorised to undertake an immediate control of this rolling stock and that a preliminary distribution be authorised on the basis of the actual identification of the material. Allotment of Rolling Stock Found in Hungary

Mr. Balfour asked whether it was proposed that the rolling-stock belonging to each country should be returned to that country, as, for example, former Polish rolling-stock to Poland, or whether the whole should be pooled.

Mr. Polk suggested that, as the principle was not accepted, the matter should be discussed by the Commission on Reparations.

(It was then decided to refer Mr. Hoover’s letter (Appendix “A”) regarding the allotment among the Allies of rolling-stock found in Hungary, to the Organising Committee of the Reparations Commission, for study and early report.)

4. Mr. Polk said that M. Paderewski was expected in Paris on the following day. He suggested that the consideration of this Treaty should be delayed until his presence could be obtained in the Council. Treaty With Poland Relating to Eastern Galicia

(It was agreed that the question should be discussed on the following Friday.)

5. The Council had before it the request from Dr. Benes contained in Appendix “B”.

Clemenceau said that he thought that this request should be accepted. Demand of the Czecho-Slovaks Delegation To BE Heard on the Subject of Teschen

Mr. Balfour said that if the Czecho-Slovaks were heard it would be impossible not to hear the Poles.

M. Cambon asked that a solution of the question be hastened, as delay, was causing great anxiety both in Prague and in Warsaw.

Mr. Polk thought it might perhaps be best that the experts be heard at once, in order that the Council should be prepared for the hearing of the Czecho-Slovak and Polish delegates.

General Le Rond explained the report contained in Appendix “C”.

He said that on April 14th a report had been furnished by the joint Czecho-Slovak and Polish Committees, in which four Delegations proposed [Page 81] a certain line, and the Italian Delegation suggested another line, more favourable to the Poles. This report had not been examined by the Council. The Inter-Allied Commission in Teschen had since unanimously adopted another line, and the matter had been referred by the Council to the united Czecho-Slovak and Polish Committees. The matter was examined by sub-commissions. Three delegations agreed on a line very similar to that recommended by the Inter-Allied Commission in Teschen. The French and British Delegations made certain objections. They thought that the line proposed involved certain political and economic difficulties. This was implicity admitted by the other Delegations, as they regarded as necessary supplementary agreements between Poland and Czecho-Slovakia to regulate the railway and coal situation between the two countries.

When the question had been studied in the joint meeting of the two Committees, the British and French Delegations had withdrawn their objections, and adhered to the views of the majority. The report finally made deliberately set aside the political aspect of the question, which was reserved for the decision of the Council. He was bound to point out that if the line recommended were accepted by the Council, it would be necessary for the Council to arrange for the signature of Agreements between the two parties for the regulation of the economic relations and railway communications between the two parts of the territory of Teschen. It was only on these terms that the frontier could be made acceptable to Czecho-Slovakia.

It was suggested that the study of these agreements should be referred back to the Joint Committees.

M. Tittoni said that he thought the line should be adopted, and then the means of rendering it acceptable to the parties should be studied.

M. Clemenceau said he was unable to accept a line until he knew what was required to render it acceptable.

Mr. Polk said that the line formerly suggested would have required no such agreements as were now proposed. It gave a Polish population, however, to Czecho-Slovakia. The line now recommended broke up the economic unity of the country for ethnic reasons, and therefore required to be supplemented by economic agreements.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the Council should hear Dr. Benes and a Polish representative before deciding.

M. Tittoni said that any line suiting the Czecho-Slovaks would ipso facto not suit the Poles. The political effect in either case might endanger the existing Governments. Nevertheless, he thought that economic and ethnic reasons should prevail, and that the Council should not be unduly influenced by the prospects of any Government in power.

[Page 82]

(It was agreed that MM. Benes and Dmowski should be heard on the following day.)

6. M. Serruys said that, regarding Article 25, there had been in succession three proposals by Roumania. There was an Article in all the Treaties abrogating all Conventions made between the enemy Powers and Roumania, Russia or any portion of what had been the Russian Empire before or since the 1st August, 1914. Roumania had first wished to be excluded from these Articles, secondly, she had wished that the Articles should be identical in all the Treaties, thirdly, she had asked that the clause in the Treaty with Bulgaria should be so framed as not to affect the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913.1 The Economic Commission had, therefore, proposed the following text for Article 25:— Article 25 of the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria

“Bulgaria recognises as abrogated all Treaties, Conventions or Agreements concluded before the 1st August, 1914, or since that date up to the coming into force of the present Treaty, with Russia or with any State or Government the territory of which previously constituted any part of Russia as well as with Roumania, subsequent to the 15th August, 1916, up to the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

The Economic Commission had thought this text acceptable, as all the economic agreements it was desired to abolish had taken place since the war. It was unnecessary to touch the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913. The Drafting Committee had been asked to examine the questions and had reached very similar conclusions. (See H. D. 31, Minute 2.)2 The Drafting Committee pointed out that the maintenance of the Treaty of Bucharest only affected States parties to that Treaty and no others. (For the report of the Drafting Committee, see Appendix “D”)

(At this point, the members of the Drafting Committee entered the room.)

Mr. Balfour asked why the Roumanians wished to maintain this Treaty.

M. Serruys said they wished it maintained because it affected Roumanian prestige and because Roumania did not wish to give up any rights it established in her favour. In any case, these considerations were not the concern of the Economic Commission.

Mr. Polk said that the Council had no reason to bind itself to recognise this Treaty, as the Roumanians had offered no satisfaction on the Dobrudja question.

M. Tittoni said that the questions before the Council were:—

Could the Conference annul the Bucharest Treaty of 1913. The answer to this was in the negative.
Could the Conference enact economic or territorial regulations out of conformity with the Bucharest Treaty. Seeing that the Allied and Associated Powers were not party to the Treaty of Bucharest, they had the right to do so.

Mr. Polk asked whether the clause, as at present framed, did not imply some recognition of the Treaty of 1913?

M. Serruys said that the clause implied no such recognition.!It only stipulated for the abrogation of Conventions made since August, 1916, and was silent on the subject of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913.

M. Clemenceau said that, as the Conference had not yet settled whether Roumania was a friendly or hostile country, it might be as well to postpone the decision.

Mr. Balfour observed that this clause was necessary to complete the Treaty with Bulgaria.

M. Clemenceau said that he did not wish to help the Roumanians in any way, nor did he wish to take any action against them.

Mr. Hurst pointed out that the Treaty of 1913 was not only a bilateral agreement. It affected Roumania, Greece, Serbia, and, he thought, Montenegro. The Roumanians did not wish it abrogated as between themselves and the Bulgarians.

Mr. Balfour asked whether only the Roumanians had asked for the framing of the article as it was now proposed.

M. Serruys replied that Roumania alone had made the request, but that Greek and Serbian representatives had been present in the Economic Commission and had raised no objection to the framing of the article as now proposed.

Mr. Polk said that, if the Serbians and Greeks agreed, there appeared to be no reason why the Powers should not equally agree.

M. Tittoni said that, as, in his view, the Conference had no right to abrogate the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913, he could not agree to any article tending to do so.

Mr. Polk said that, though he thought the Conference would have a right to abrogate the Treaty of Bucharest, he was ready to agree to the adoption of the article as proposed.

(It was decided to accept the drafting of Article 25 as proposed above.)

7. Mr. Balfour asked what remained before the completion of the Treaty with Bulgaria.

Mr. Hurst asked whether the Council had come to any conclusion regarding the frontier between Roumania and Bulgaria in the Dobrudja. Completion of Treaty with Bulgaria

Mr. Balfour observed that the Council had decided that Roumania could not, as she was an Allied Power, be asked to yield any territory [Page 84] to Bulgaria. This decision had been taken some time ago and had never been cancelled. The Council, however, had not concealed its feeling that Roumania ought to give up a piece of the Dobrudja which was clearly not Roumanian. Strained relations with Roumania would not, he thought, justify a change in this policy. If the Powers were to go to war with Roumania, the situation would doubtless be altered. He thought that, for the purposes of the Treaty with Bulgaria, it might be assumed that the old frontier in the Dobrudja was maintained, though this might be neither equitable or conducive to peace in the Balkans.

M. Clemenceau said that he agreed with Mr. Balfour.

M. Tittoni also agreed.

Mr. Polk said that he would give his answer on the following day.

(The members of the Drafting Committee then withdrew.)

8. (At this point, M. Cheysson entered the room.)

M. Cheysson explained the report of the Financial Commission on Articles 38 and 67 proposed by the Greek Delegation for insertion in the Treaty with Bulgaria. The question had been referred to the Financial Commission by a resolution of the 12th August. (See H. D. 29, Minute 5.)4 He pointed out that the Greek Delegation asked for specially favourable terms in respect to properties in territory to be ceded by Bulgaria to Greece. In all other cases of ceded territories, the acquiring State gave credit for the value of property accompanying the territory in the Reparations account. The Financial Commission saw no reason for exceptional treatment in favor of Greece. (For the report of the Financial Commission see Appendix “E”.) Opinion of Financial Commission on Articles 38 & 67 of M. Venizelos’ Proposals for the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria. (See Appendix C to HD–22)3

Mr. Balfour asked what arguments were adduced by the Greek Delegation.

M. Cheysson said that no special arguments were put forward at all.

(It was decided to reject Article 38 proposed by the Greek Delegation for inclusion in the Treaty with Bulgaria.)

M. Cheysson observed that this decision carried the rejection of Article 67.

Mr. Balfour asked whether Italy paid Austria for the railway lines transferred to her.

M. Tittoni said that Italy paid for these lines in the Reparation Account.

(It was decided to reject Article 67 proposed by the Greek Delegation for inclusion in the Treaty with Bulgaria.)

[Page 85]

(The meeting then adjourned.)

Appendix A to HD–46

supreme economic council
office of the director general of relief

[The Director-General of Relief (Hoover) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

M. Georges Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference,
Ministre des Affaires Etrangères,
Quai d’Orsay, Paris.

Your Excellency: The great number of reports, which have come to my hands through the engineers who have been acting under the direction to me from the Supreme War Council in the co-ordination of railway operation in South Eastern Europe, indicate that the amount of railway rolling stock in locomotives and wagons in Hungary is much larger than was originally surmised. This rolling stock includes equipment formerly belonging to the Galician railways, and therefore due to the Polish Government; belonging to the Bohemian railways, and therefore due to the Czecho-Slovak Government; belonging to the East Prussian railways and therefore due to the Polish Government; belonging to the Alsace-Lorraine railways and therefore due to the French Government; a considerable number of wagons and cars belonging to the Trentino railways and therefore due to the Italian Government; and, of course, a number of locomotives and cars formerly belonging to the Roumanian railways and therefore due to the Roumanian Government.

Under all these circumstances, it seems to me imperative that the Peace Conference should at once direct that the distribution of this railway rolling stock should be taken up systematically on behalf of all the Governments concerned, and I would like to recommend that the Communications Section of the Supreme Economic Council be at once authorised to undertake the immediate control of all of this railway rolling stock, subject of course to the Allied Mission at Budapest, and that they should authorise a preliminary distribution of this railway rolling stock on the basis of the actual identification of the material.

The Communications Section, as you are aware, is comprised of eminent engineers representing the French, British, American and [Page 86] Italian Governments, and would therefore seem to me to be the appropriate body to at once undertake this matter.

A decision on the above lines on your part would allay the very considerable amount of feeling now existing in Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and elsewhere, with regard to the large diversions now being made to Roumania.

Faithfully yours,

Herbert Hoover

Appendix B to HD–46

czecho-slovak republic
ministry of foreign affairs

[The Czechoslovak Minister for Foreign Affairs (Benes) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

Mr. President: I have the honor to present to you on behalf of the Czechoslovak Delegation the following respectful request:

The Commission which is dealing with the question of Teschen has ended its labors. It appears that it has already transmitted its report to the Supreme Council.

The Czechoslovak Delegation presented its views before the Commission, and proposed a compromise which, in our opinion, would have been acceptable to both parties at once. I do not know what is exactly the opinion of the Commission, but I know that we have not been able to obtain the complete adhesion of the Commission. The interests of our Republic require us to try again, for the last time, to persuade the Supreme Council of the justice of our claims and of the spirit of moderation and of conciliation in which we proposed the compromise mentioned herein.

The problem for the Czechoslovak Republic is of mounting gravity; it is indeed absolutely vital to the future of our country. If it be impossible to consider our claims, which are in our opinion absolutely just and legitimate, the consequences would be very far reaching.

I venture, therefore, Mr. President, to request the Supreme Council, in the name of the Czechoslovak Delegation, to give us a hearing before it comes to a definitive decision.

Accept [etc.]

Edouard Benes

To H. E. Monsieur Georges Clemenceau

President of the Peace Conference Paris.

[Page 87]

Appendix C to HD–466

Report Presented Jointly to the Supreme Allied Council by the Commission on Polish Affairs and the Commission on Czecho-Slovak Affairs on the Questions of Teschen and Orava

Mandate and Summary of Meetings

By two decisions, dated 12th, and 27th [25th] July respectively,7 the Supreme Council referred the questions of Orava and Teschen to the Commission on Polish Affairs and the Commission on Czechoslovak Affairs jointly, for examination and report.

The two Commissions together, after having proceeded to a general examination of the questions of Orava and Teschen, at their meetings of 23rd, and 24th July, entrusted more detailed examination of the question to a Sub-Commission composed as follows:—

General Le Rond (France) Chairman

Dr. Lord } (United States of America)
Mr. Dulles
Hon. Harold Nicolson } (British Empire)
Lieutenant-Colonel Kisch
Marquis Delia Torretta } (Italy)
Mr. Stranieri
Mr. Otchiai (Japan)

This Sub-Commission met 5 times between 26th July and 18th August. It heard Mr. Benes, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, and Mr. Dmowski, First Delegate of Poland.

During three meetings held on the 19th, 20th and 22nd August, the two Commissions in joint session, drafted the present Report, which was unanimously adopted and which they have the honour to submit to the Supreme Council.

I. Question of Teschen

Two facts; necessitated further examination of the question of Teschen, i. e.:—

The failure of the Cracow negotiations destroyed all hope of a direct agreement between the Poles and the Czecho-Slovaks on the subject of Teschen.
The members of the Interallied Commission of Teschen, who had studied the question on the spot for several months, unanimously agreed upon a line more favourable to the Polish claims than the line formerly proposed at Paris by the majority of the members of the two Commissions, and very similar to the line favoured by the minority at that time.

Moreover, since the 14th April (on which date the Note of the two Commissions relative to Teschen was transmitted to the Supreme Council) the doubts entertained by the Commissions as to the real aspirations of part of the population of the Teschen district—(which, although speaking Polish, seemed rather to be opposed to union with Poland)—have disappeared, owing to very definite information received from Teschen. This information represents that population as giving proof of such Polish national feeling as to establish, beyond serious dispute the fact that the ethnical factor is clearly in favour of the Poles in the three districts of Freistadt, Teschen and Bielitz.

Moreover, the position of Poland from the point of view of coal production has become uncertain owing to the institution of a plebiscite in Upper Silesia.

Taking into account the considerations set forth above, the members of the two Commissions have unanimously agreed that:—

from the ethnographical point of view, the claims of the Poles to the three districts of Freistadt, Teschen and Bielitz are fully justified.
from the economic and railway points of view, the attribution to Poland of the coal basin of Karwin and the Oderberg–Jablunkau railway would present most serious drawbacks to the Czecho-Slovaks, who would be dependent on Poland for coal and coke production and would also be compelled to construct expensive railway connections to maintain communication between the mining district of Mährisch-Ostrau and Czecho-Slovakia.

From the political point of view, the two Commissions are of opinion that it is not for them to take into account considerations of general policy, as falling beyond their competence and exclusively within the scope 6f the Supreme Council.

Consequently, the members of the two Commissions have weighed only the economic considerations, which are strongly in favour of the Czecho-Slovaks, and the ethnographical arguments, which are indisputably in favour of the Poles. They have felt obliged in principle to grant preference to the ethnical factor, because they have been unable to find any means of inducing the Polish population of the Teschen [Page 89] district, whose national feeling is very strong, to live peaceably under Czecho-Slovak domination. At the same time they have thought it possible, by a number of provisions and guarantees not yet definitely determined, to lessen to a large extent the economic disadvantages imposed on Czecho-Slovakia by the attribution to Poland of the mining basin of Karwin and part of the Oderberg–Jablunkau railway.

Consequently, the two Commissions have the honour unanimously to propose to the Supreme Council the frontier line described in Annex I. This line only differs in a few details from the line unanimously proposed by the Teschen Commission.

At the same time, the two Commissions are unanimously of opinion that, in order to be fair, the settlement they propose must ensure that the Czecho-Slovak State be given reliable guarantees that Poland will contribute substantially towards meeting the deficit in the coal production of Czecho-Slovakia and will give her full transit facilities on the Oderberg–Jablunkau line until the completion of the railway construction required to join the basin of Mährisch-Ostrau with the Jablunkau pass.

They therefore request the Supreme Council:—

to decide as to the acceptance of the proposed frontier line;
if this frontier is accepted:—
to refer back to them the question of determining the economic and railway concessions which Poland should in justice grant to the Czecho-Slovak State;
to instruct them to draw up the clauses of a Treaty to be concluded between the principal Allied and Associated Powers, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia, for the purpose of guaranteeing to the latter any concessions considered necessary;
to authorise them to consult coal and railway experts with a view to the drafting of these clauses, and also to hear Czechoslovak and Polish Delegates on the subject.

The line described in Annex I follows generally the ethnical line of demarcation, leaving within Czecho-Slovak territory any districts the ethnographical character of which is uncertain. Indeed, owing to the fact that the Czecho-Slovak State is in greater need of coal than Poland, it seemed wise to give the Czecho-Slovaks the benefit of the doubt in that portion of the mining district where the ethnographical position was not perfectly clear.

Further, in the Jablunkau district a large number of Poles have had to be left in Czecho-Slovakia, owing to the necessity for ensuring to Czecho-Slovakia the free disposal of the Jablunkau pass, which is indispensable to them for ensuring railway communication between the Mahrisch-Ostrau mining districts and Czecho-Slovakia.

[Page 90]

The effect of the proposed line, from an ethnographical point of view, is shown by the following statistics, viz:—

austrian census of 1910

Territory assigned to Czechoslovaks Territory assigned to Poles
Total population 185,625 249,196
Czechs 105,161 10,443
Poles 62,080 171,770

According to the statistics of 1913 the production of coal is approximately as follows:—*

Total production 7,595,000 tons.
Portion of coal basin assigned to Poland. 3,000,000 tons (about 40%)
Portion of coal basin assigned to Czecho-Slovakia. 4,595,000 tons (about 60%)

As regards coke the approximate figures are as follows:—

Total production 1,718,000 tons.
Portion assigned to Poland 520,000 tons (i. e. 31%)
Portion assigned to Czechoslovakia. 1,198,000 tons (i. e. 69%)

II. Question of Orava

A report submitted by an officer, after an investigation conducted on the spot, led one of the Delegations to request the Supreme Council to initiate a fresh examination of the question of Orava.

The members of the two Commissions unanimously consider that the fresh information furnished by this report involves a modification of their previous conclusions in favour of the retention of the former administrative boundary between Czecho-Slovakia and Galicia.

That frontier, although satisfactory from the geographical point of view was open to objection from an ethnical point of view in that it placed under Czecho-Slovak rule the north-eastern part of the Orava district—which Czecho-Slovakia and Polish ethnographical experts alike recognise as comprising a Polish majority.

The frontier now proposed by the two Commissions runs along a series of heights and is clear from a topographical point of view. Moreover it follows the line of ethnical division almost exactly without, incorporating within Poland a single Village found to contain a Czecho-Slovak majority.

[Page 91]

In these circumstances, the two Commissions have no hesitation in proposing unanimously to the Supreme Council the adoption of the frontier defined in Annex 2. This line would assign to Poland a population of 25,000 inhabitants who are almost exclusively Polish.

Jules Cambon

Annex I

Frontier Between Poland and the Czecho-Slovak State in the Teschen District

From the point where the old frontier between Prussian Silesia and Austrian Silesia is met by the southern administrative boundary of the commune of Pudlau about 3½ kilometres south of Oderberg eastwards,

this administrative boundary;

then the southern administrative boundary of the communes of Zablacz and of Polnischleuten to a point to be selected on the ground, about 250 metres west of the point where the latter boundary is cut by the Polnischleuten–Orlau road;

thence southwards to a point on the Orlau-Dombrau road about 250 metres west of its junction with the road to Polnischleuten,

a line to be fixed on the ground at a distance of about 250 metres west of the latter road;

thence south-eastwards to a point on the western administrative boundary of the commune of Ober-Suchau about 1 kilometre south of the point where it is cut by the Ober-Suchau–Nieder-Suchau road,

a line crossing the Karwin coal basin, to be fixed on the ground in such a way as to respect as far as possible the integrity of the different mining concessions;

then passing between Mittel-Suchau and Ober-Suchau, leaving Suchau railway station in Czecho-Slovak territory;

thence south-eastwards to a point on the Teschen-Friedeck road about 1½ kilometres south-west of the point where it crosses the river Stonowka,

a line following the western administrative boundaries of the communes of Ober-Suchau, Zywotitz, Tierlitzko, Grodische and Nieder-Trzanowitz;

thence eastwards to the junction of the administrative boundaries of the communes of Ober-Trzanowitz, Hnojnik and Wielopoly,

a line to be fixed on the ground passing through the point where the river Stonowka is joined by a tributary from the east about 2 kilometres north of Hnojnik;

[Page 92]

thence eastwards to the point where the northern boundary of the commune of Trzitiesch cuts the river Rzeka,

this administrative boundary;

thence in a south-easterly direction to a point on the northern boundary of the commune of Niebory about 250 metres north-east of the point where it is cut by the Teschen–Niebory road,

a line to be fixed on the ground;

thence in a south-easterly direction this administrative boundary to the point of the salient which it forms about 1,600 metres east of Niebory;

thence eastwards to a point to be selected on the administrative boundary between the districts of Teschen and Bielitz in the neighbourhood of point 864 (Kl-Czantory),

a line to be fixed on the ground cutting the Teschen–Jablunkau railway south of Trzynietz, leaving the Friedeck–Jablunkau road entirely in Czecho-Slovak territory and giving to the Czecho-Slovaks the fullest facilities for constructing a connection between the railways from Friedeck to Teschen and from Jablunkau to Teschen entirely in Czecho-Slovak territory, then following as far as possible the watershed between the two right-hand tributaries of the Olsa which pass respectively through Ober-Lischina and Vendrin;

thence southwards the administrative boundary between the districts of Teschen and Bielitz to point 989 about 6 kilometres east-northeast of Jablunkau;

thence south-eastwards to a point to be selected on the old administrative boundary between Austrian Silesia and Galicia about 1 kilometre south of point 894 (Ochozdito)

a line to be fixed on the ground passing through points 946 and 838, then through the junction of the Olsa and the Gliniany P., ascending this latter river, cutting the Jablunka–Milowka road near point 683 about 1,500 metres south-east of Istebna, then reaching and ascending the valley of the Czadeczka;

thence southwards the old boundary between Galicia and Austrian Silesia.

Annex II

Frontier Between Poland and the Czechoslovak State in the Orava District

The old frontier between Galicia and Hungary along the crest of the Beskiden to the point where it meets the watershed between the Novotnanka and the Zasihlanka near point 967;

thence eastwards to point 934 (Marsalkov-Grun),

this watershed;

then to point 783 (Kicbra) about 2 Km. north-east of Zubrohlava, a line to be fixed on the ground passing through points 879 (Svinjarky), [Page 93] 1037 (Poperacka), 999 (Mlaki), 926 (Redikanovo), 922 (Va-hanow-Vrch), 797 (Cropa) and between Rapcsa and Zubrohlava;

thence south-eastwards to the confluence of the Schwarze (Faekete) Arva and the Jelesna Voda,

a line to be fixed on the ground passing north-east of Bobro;

thence to the point where the railway from Czarnydunajec to Trsztena crosses the Jelesna Voda,

the course of the river upstream;

thence to point 1230 (Magura) on the old frontier between Hungary and Galicia,

a line to be fixed on the ground passing between Hladovka and Vitanova, then following generally the watershed between the Jelesna Voda on the east and the Orawica on the west;

thence southwards the old frontier between Galicia and Hungary.

Appendix D to HD–46

peace conference
secretariat general

[Note From the Drafting Committee]

Treaty with Bulgaria (Article 25, Economic clauses)

In response to the request made to it by the Supreme Council, on August 23 last, the Drafting Committee has the honor to transmit the appended note.

For the Drafting Committee
Henri Fromageot

bulgarian treaty

(Economic Matters)

1. The Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 is not mentioned in article 25, as are also not mentioned all the other treaties not falling within the category of those declared abrogated.

None of these treaties either loses or gains validity as regards anyone by consequence of the said article 25.

2. The Powers recognize, simply by contrary inference, that the Treaty of Bucharest, of 1913 is not abrogated by the present Bulgarian Treaty.

[Page 94]

The Treaty of Bucharest, not being abrogated, keeps the same validity which it has had up to the present, and keeps that validity in relation to the same Powers and no other.

3. The stipulation in article 25 must not, therefore, be interpreted, so far as concerns those Powers which had not recognized the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913, as implying on their part a recognition of the territorial clauses contained in that Act, and particularly the clauses by which a part of the Dobruja was ceded to Roumania.

4. Finally, even if the Treaty of Bucharest were abrogated, that abrogation could not be likened to an annulment and entail of itself the disappearance of acquired rights, especially Roumania’s title to sovereignty over the Dobruja. The abrogation affects the parts of the treaty which are yet to be carried out and leaves intact those which have been carried out.

Appendix E to HD–46

peace conference,
french delegation,
commission on finance

[Report of the Financial Commission]

By a resolution of August 12, 191911 the Supreme Council decided to refer to the examination of the Commission on Finance, articles 38 and 67 which the Greek Pelegation has proposed for insertion in the treaty with Bulgaria.

The Secretariat of the Commission on Finance has the honor to inform the Secretariat General that the Commission on Finance sees no reason which might prompt, for the benefit of Greece, derogations from the principles assented to in all the treaties hitherto formulated.

It considers, therefore, that the general rule should be maintained, according to which a state receiving cessions of territory should pay for; the public properties situated in the ceded territories; and that article 38, which has been proposed by the Greek Delegation, cannot be accepted.

The questions raised by article 67 are not within the purview of the Commission on Finance, except for the third item according to which Greece would enter gratuitously into possession of all the [Page 95] rights of the Bulgarian State in concessions for railways and tramways. This provision, which is contrary to the rules hitherto accepted, is not at all justifiable, in the opinion of the Commission on Finance.

As for paragraph 4 of article 67, the Commission on Ports, Waterways, and Railways believes its insertion needless; it considers that the question of frontier stations has been settled by the article in the conditions of peace with Bulgaria which corresponds to article 311, §2 of the conditions of peace with Austria.

  1. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cvii, p. 658.
  2. Vol. vii, p. 686.
  3. Ibid., p. 673.
  4. Vol. vii, p. 491.
  5. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  6. The English text filed under Paris Peace Conf, 181.213302/2 has been substituted for the French text which accompanies the minutes as appendix C to HD–46.
  7. HD–6, minute 2, and HD–13, minute 2, vol. vii, pp. 117 and 257.
  8. These figures are based on the report of the Teschen Commission. [Footnote in the original.]
  9. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  10. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
  11. HD–29, minute 5, vol. vii, p. 673.