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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/49

HD–49

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 Monday, September 8, 1919, at 11 a.m.

Paris, September 8, 1919, 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. Massigli.
  • Italy
    • M. Tittoni.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Paterno.
    • Barone Russo.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Chapin.
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
  • Hon. H. Gibson.
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles.
• British Empire
  • Mr. Carr.
  • Colonel Kisch.
• France
  • M. Jules Cambon.
  • General Desticker.
  • General Le Rond.
  • M. Laroche.
  • M. Kammerer.
  • M. Hermite.
• Italy
  • Col. Castoldi.
  • M. Ricci-Busatti.
  • M. Brambilla.

1. The Council had before it a Note from the Drafting Committee asking for instruction as to the language in which the Conventions replacing the Acts of Berlin¹ and Brussels² should be drafted. (See Appendix “A”.)

M. Clemenceau pointed out that the Acts of Berlin and Brussels had been in French, and that some of their provisions were maintained, in the new Conventions.

Mr. Balfour said that in view of this he agreed that the new Convention ought to be in French. Language To Be Used in the Conventions Taking the Place of the Acts of Berlin and Brussels

Mr. Polk agreed.

M. Tittoni also agreed.

(It was decided that the Conventions replacing the Acts of Berlin and Brussels should be drafted in French.)

2. M. Clemenceau said that the Germans had first asked the Conference to send Commissions of Control to Germany before the Treaty came into force. Consequently advance detachments had been appointed and each of the Allied Powers had been represented in each section. The Germans had then sent a request that the despatch of the Commissions should be delayed as they appeared to them to be too numerous. The Council then decided to postpone the sending of the advance detachments (See H. D. 47, (l).).³ Now it appeared that the Germans withdrew their objection to the numbers and desired the Commissions to be sent at once. He suggested that the Commissions should accordingly be sent immediately and be composed in the manner already decided on. He was informed that General Nollet was ready to begin. Commissions of Control in Germany

M. Polk said that it was understood that the United States could not make appointments for the present.

(It was decided that the advance delegations of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control should be sent to Germany forthwith.)

3. The Council had before it a reply from the German Delegation regarding the ultimatum of the Conference and a draft answer to this reply. (See Appendices “B” and “C”.)

Mr. Balfour said that he thought the draft a somewhat rough answer. It was the general desire that Germany should carry out the Treaty, but no one constitution wished her to do so under compulsion, whether by arms or by blockade. This would be a misfortune not only for Germany but for the Allied and Associated Powers. Germany should be given every chance of behaving reasonably. The draft said very truly that the German Government was not the final authority on the interpretation of the Treaty, but the same might be alleged against the Allied and Associated Powers. The interpretation of the Treaty had now become a subject for jurists. He did not think that the Council was the final authority regarding its interpretation. Reply to the Note of the German Deiegation Regarding Article 61 of the German Constitution

M. Tittoni observed that two points in the German reply had not been met in the answer. The first was a legal point. Article 178 of the German Constitution declared that no Article in the Constitution should affect the Treaty of Peace. Article 61 was thereby rendered ineffective. The second was, that in threatening the extension of the occupation, the Allies were not taking their stand on any Article in the Treaty. Neither of these points were met in the draft reply.

M. Clemenceau said that this had been deliberately done. He did not think that either of these points required a reply. It was hardly tolerable that Germany should violate the Treaty and that the Allies should remain bound by it. The question of legality should have been raised when the letter had been drafted on behalf of the Conference to the German Government. It was impossible now to withdraw from the position then taken up. He reminded the Council that the Austrians were at the moment represented in the German Assembly. This could not be tolerated. He was persuaded that if the Allies threatened to carry out what they had indicated, they would not be forced to execute their threats. Austria had not yet signed the Treaty and was not, therefore, bound in the same way as Germany, but it must be remembered that she protested against the clause that prevented her from joining Germany.

Mr. Polk said that he agreed with M. Clemenceau’s contention that the Allies could not withdraw from the position they had taken up. He thought that perhaps it might be as well to begin by answering the German arguments. When this had been done the Council could be as stiff as it wished. He would like to consult the Jurists in respect to the first part of the answer.

M. Clemenceau said that he was quite ready to adopt this method and asked Mr. Polk to prepare the draft.

(It was agreed that a new draft answer to the German reply concerning Article 61 of the German Constitution should be prepared by Mr. Polk and submitted to the Council on the following day.)

4. The Council had before it a letter from M. Pachitch, dated September 4th, 1919 (Appendix “D”), protesting against certain of the provisions in the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, (see Appendix “E”). Protest of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation Against the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities

M. Berthelot said that the protest of the Delegation was a long one. The main desideratum was that no mention in the preamble should be made of the year 1913, in order that Serbian sovereignty over territories acquired in Balkan wars should not be limited. The argument was that, as Serbia had settled her own affairs then without the help of Europe, the settlement she had made ought not to be called in question now.

M. Tittoni asked whether this request applied to a matter of form only or to a matter of substance. If only a matter of form was involved, he would agree. Otherwise, the effect would be that minority clauses would not apply to Macedonia.

M. Pichon observed that they would not apply to the part of Macedonia acquired by Serbia in the Balkan War.

M. Tittoni reminded the Council that the Commission had recommended the appointment of a Commissioner to reside in Macedonia on behalf of the League of Nations the Council had decided against this.^3a It was now asked to go much further in the opposite direction and to exclude Macedonia from the protection of the League of Nations. This, he thought, was not acceptable.

M. Berthelot said that, if the passage of the preamble objected to by the Serb-Croat Delegation were suppressed, the change would be a matter of form, but the change carried with it an alteration to Article 9, the last paragraph of which would have to be struck out. This would have to be a substantial change. It was questionable, however, whether the Conference could enact any measures affecting the pre-war acquisitions of any State. If the last paragraph of Article 9 were suppressed, some other Article would be inserted to make the language and educational clauses applicable to Macedonia. This however represented intrusion in another form. It was questionable whether such intrusion was legitimate.

M. Pichon observed that, when the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913⁴ had been called in question in relation to the Boumanians, M. Tittoni had declared that the Conference had no power to modify pre-war Treaties.

M. Tittoni explained he had maintained the Treaty could not be abrogated, but that the Conference was free to introduce stipulations into its Treaties even in contradiction of the terms of that Treaty, by which they were not themselves bound. He observed that the Commission had unanimously decided that protection for minorities was necessary in Macedonia.

M. Clemenceau said that he did not feel bound by the unanimous decision of the Commission. In his opinion, the Council could attach conditions to territory which it gave; it could not attach any conditions to territory previously acquired. He suggested that M. Berthelot should draft the additional clauses intended to preserve the linguistic and educational guarantees of the population in Macedonia before discussing the matter any further.

M. Tittoni said that the view of the British Delegate on the Committee had been that the Balkan settlement in 1913 was not final until its recognition by the Powers. This recognition had not taken place, as negotiations on the subject had been interrupted by the outbreak of the Great War.

M. Berthelot said that the Treaty of Bucharest was valid, even without a recognition by the Great Powers.

M. Tittoni observed that recognition was necessary to give the Treaty full authority from a diplomatic point of view. He reminded the Council of its previous conclusion, that the protection of minorities was even more necessary in Macedonia than elsewhere. It was now suggested that Macedonia should be excluded from the operation of the Treaties intended to protect minorities.

M. Clemenceau said that the problem was exactly as M. Tittoni stated. It was for this reason that he would like to see a new formula before continuing the discussion of the question.

Mr. Balfour said that the discussion was concerned with two questions—one relating to international law and practice, and the other to the situation of the Macedonian population. In regard to the first, he thought there was no great difference of opinion between the French and British Delegations. Both thought that the Treaty of Bukarest of 1913 was not a completed transaction until ratified by the Great Powers. This ratification had not taken place because of the outbreak of the Great War. The French Delegation recognised that the general situation in the Balkans, especially regarding financial arrangements, was not final before the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. The French and British Delegations were, therefore, in accord in thinking that the Great War had cut into the necessary completion of the Balkan settlement. This appeared to afford some justification to those who thought that on the legal point, the Conference had a right to alter what had been agreed on in the Treaty of Bukarest of 1913. On the other point, he thought that all were entirely agreed. Special protection for the Macedonians was necessary. Some means might be found of affording the Macedonians special protection in a manner satisfactory to the Powers, but it was unlikely to be satisfactory to Serbia. The Serbians thought that all they had acquired in 1913 should be outside the control of the Powers. The Powers thought that the considerable accession of territory to Serbia and the special difficulties of Macedonia justified them in exercising control.

M. Clemenceau said that all he desired was to find a text which might be acceptable. The Minority Clauses were unpopular and must be made palatable by some concession.

Mr. Polk said that the Council had previously concluded that Macedonia required a special guarantee.

M. Berthelot said it would be very difficult to find a formula reconciling (a) the absence of reference to 1913, and (b) special protection for the Macedonians. As the Treaty now stood, the Serbians would probably refuse to sign on the following Wednesday. He, therefore, suggested, that he be authorised to have an interview with M. Vesnitch. If M. Vesnitch agreed to a compromise, the situation might be saved. If not, the reference to 1913 could be preserved, and if the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation refused to sign the Treaty with Austria, the risk must be run. As to the minor points raised in the letter (Appendix “D”), he suggested that the Committee be allowed to dispose of them.

Mr. Polk suggested that the compromise, as suggested by M. Berthelot, should, when drafted, be submitted to the Committee also.

M. Berthelot pointed out that the Delegation also asked for a modification of Article 11. He did not think this could be accepted, and he suggested that the request be refused.

M. Clemenceau said that this might be considered on the following day, together with the other points raised on the subject.

(It was decided that M. Berthelot should consult with M. Vesnitch as to a formula, affording protection to the population of Macedonia, in a manner acceptable to the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation. This formula, if agreed on, should be submitted to the Council after consultation with the Committee on New States, to which the other points raised in M. Patchitch’s letter (Appendix “D”) were also referred.)

5. M. Clemenceau said that he had just received a letter from the Roumanian Delegation, offering to sign the Treaty with Austria, with a reservation, regarding Article 60, concerning minorities, transit and trade. (Appendix “F”.) Roumanian Reservation Regarding Article 60 of the Treaty of Peace With Austria

Mr. Balfour asked whether any Power could sign a Treaty with reservations.

M. Clemenceau said that this had not been permitted in the case of the Treaty with Germany. He thought it was necessary that a Power should sign, or should not sign.

M. Pichon observed that Article 60, which he read, covered the whole case of the protection of minorities everywhere.

M. Clemenceau suggested that the substitution of the expression “League of Nations” for the expression “Principal Allied and Associated Powers” might perhaps induce the Roumanians to be more tractable. If so, he would adopt the alteration. The Roumanian argument was, that if each of the Allied and Associated Powers considered itself the protector of minorities in Roumania, there would be no end to their troubles. If, on the other hand, the League of Nations was the only Court of Appeal, the matter could be settled without repeated diplomatic interventions at Bukarest.

Mr. Balfour observed that if the words “Principal Allied and Associated Powers” were deleted, and the words “League of Nations” introduced, Article 60 would stipulate that there should be a Treaty with the League of Nations. This appeared to be impossible.

M. Tittoni said that he understood the Clauses for the protection of minorities had been formulated by the Conference, and accepted by the Poles, Serbs and Czechs in the Treaties signed with these small States. The League of Nations had been introduced to supervise the execution, but the clauses had been framed by the Allied and Associated Powers and the Treaties had been signed with them. If so, it was hardly possible to mention clauses to be framed by the League of Nations, which did not yet exist, seeing that the clauses had already been framed by the Allied and Associated Powers. He thought Roumania must accept the clauses as laid down, but that she might be asked to accept the supervision of the League of Nations for the execution of these clauses. Since the other small States had agreed, Roumania must also agree.

M. Pichon pointed out that Roumania would only acquire the Bukovina from Austria. The area she was likely to obtain from Hungary, i. e., Transylvania, was far bigger. If Article 60 in the Treaty with Austria were confined to the Bukovina, possibly Roumania would accept. At all events, she would be on worse ground for refusing.

M. Tittoni said that if this would induce Roumania to sign the Treaty with Austria, the expedient might be accepted.

M. Pichon said that he was not certain that this would induce Roumania to sign.

Mr. Polk said that he thought an exception in favour of Roumania could not be made. Poland had signed the minority Treaty, in spite of its extreme unpopularity in Poland. M. Paderewski had overcome great opposition before he was able to sign it. If Roumania were now allowed to evade a similar Treaty, M. Paderewski and his country would feel that they had been treated unjustly.

Mr. Balfour agreed. He thought that Poland had deserved far better of the Conference than Roumania.

M. Clemenceau said that Mr. Polk’s argument concerning M. Paderewski and Poland was very strong. If Roumania would not sign, he would like to know what effect this would produce on the rest of the Treaty.

M. Tittoni asked whether the Minority Clauses for Roumania were the same as those for the other new States.

M. Berthelot said that the clauses were the same for all. There was a special clause for the protection of Jews in Roumania, and this clause also applied to Poland.

(It was decided to consult the Drafting Committee on the legal issues involved.)

(The Members of the Drafting Committee then entered the room.)

M. Clemenceau asked M. Fromageot what legal effect would result from the absence of Roumanian signature to the Treaty. Roumania was unwilling to sign the Treaty without making a reservation on Article 60. The Council was unwilling to allow her to sign with a reservation. What, then, was the situation, for Roumania, should her signature be refused, and for the powers that did sign?

M. Fromageot said that if Roumania did not sign, she would not be a party to the Treaty, could claim no advantages under it, and be made subject to no obligations established by it.

Mr. Balfour asked whether Roumania would still be at war with Austria.

M. Fromageot said that war could cease without a Treaty, just as it could begin without a formal declaration. War was a state of fact. War, for instance, had ceased between France and Mexico without a Treaty.

M. Clemenceau asked what would happen to the Bukovina.

M. Fromageot said that, according to his personal opinion, Roumania could claim no rights over the Bukovina on the ground of a Treaty she did not sign.

M. Clemenceau said that the Roumanians would doubtless stay in the country without the consent of the Powers. He asked whether she could acquire any financial or economic rights.

M. Fromageot said that no such rights could be acquired under the Treaty, if Roumania did not sign it.

Mr. Balfour asked whether Austrian rights in the Bukovina would be extinguished.

M. Fromageot said that there was an article requiring Austria to give up her rights in the Bukovina. This article would stand, even though Roumania did not take up the inheritance. It might, perhaps, be stipulated that the abandonment of the rights in the Bukovina be made in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers, as it was clear that none but a signatory to the Treaty could acquire rights transferred by it.

Mr. Balfour asked whether it would be possible to adopt the suggestion of substituting the League of Nations for the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, as it was their supervision that Roumania appeared to resent.

Mr. Hurst pointed out that if the League of Nations were substituted for the Allied and Associated Powers, the question regarding the protection of minorities would come before the Council of the League. By the constitution of the League, Roumania, if concerned, would have the right to be present in the Council. As no decision of the Council was operative without unanimity, the mere presence of Roumania would secure no interference with her policy.

M. Tittoni pointed out that a similar difficulty would arise in respect of the Treaty with Hungary. Roumania might be satisfied with the actual possession of the Bukovina and Transylvania without a title de jure to either, because she might argue that neither Austria nor Hungary would be able for a long time to dispute her possession. But in the case of Bessarabia, unless she acquired treaty rights, it must be clear to her that Russia, once she was restored to power, would certainly wish to regain the country. In this instance, Roumania would see that she required the assistance of the Allied and Associated Powers or the League of Nations. This might be pointed out to her, and she might be influenced by this argument.

Mr. Polk said that he was not prepared to bribe Roumania into good behaviour. He did not think that the Council had fallen so low as to be forced to resort to such tactics.

Mr. Tittoni pointed out that he would not have made his proposal unless he had regarded Roumania as having a good title to Bessarabia.

Mr. Polk said that he quite understood this.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought the proper course was to make no mention of Bessarabia at all. He would confine himself to reasoning with the Roumanians, and pointing out that Poland, Serbia, Czecho-Slovakia, had all accepted similar treaties. This would put the Roumanians on bad ground for maintaining their refusal.

M. Clemenceau said that it might be added that Rotimania had failed to carry out what she had undertaken to do under the Treaty of Berlin of 1878.⁵

Mr. Polk thought it might be stipulated in Article [59?] that the surrender of the former Duchy of Bukovina should be made in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr. Balfour said this would do away with any necessity for a letter to the Roumanian Delegation.

Mr. Polk agreed that this might be reserved for use in case the Roumanians refused to sign. The change might be made by a special protocol added to the Treaty.

M. Clemenceau said he thought the Roumanians would be sufficiently punished if they did not sign, by the effects of their not being parties to the Treaty.

Mr. Balfour said that he would accept any suggestion which did not involve a postponement of the signature of the Treaty.

M. Tittoni said that he would adhere to Mr. Polk’s suggestion, if there were the time to spare. He pointed out that there was yet time to penalise Roumania in the Treaty with Hungary, from which she expected to receive Transylvania.

M. Fromageot pointed out that a special protocol could be contrived, permitting Roumania to sign the Treaty with Austria, after the other Powers.

Mr. Polk said that he had received visits from some of the Roumanian Delegation. He thought that the Roumanians wished to be conciliatory, but at the bottom of their attitude was a sense of grievance that they were not obtaining their due share of reparations. They thought that they were faring less well than France and Belgium in this respect.

M. Clemenceau said he thought the best suggestion to adopt was Mr. Balfour’s, namely, that an answer be sent to the Roumanians, arguing with them that Poland and the other new States had accepted the minority clauses. As to the Bukovina, Transylvania and Bessarabia, he thought it would be better to say nothing, but to wait and see what action the Roumanians would take.

(It was accordingly decided that no alterations should be made in Article 60 of the Treaty with Austria, and that Mr. Balfour should prepare a draft answer to the Roumanian Delegation, in the spirit of the above discussion, and that the draft should be submitted to the Council on the following day.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Hotel Astoria, Paris, 8.9.19.

Appendix A to HD–49

[Translation⁶]

Paris, September 3, 1919.

Note for the Supreme Council

The Commission which was directed by a decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers on June 25⁷ to prepare the three conventions in French relating to the regime of the Congo Basin, in the matter of trade in arms and traffic in spirituous liquors, by which it is proposed to revise or replace the Acts of Berlin and of Brussels of 1885 and 1890 respectively, has now finished its labors.

The Acts whose revision or replacement is in question were drawn up in French only.

The Drafting Committee would be grateful if the Supreme Council would inform it whether, instead of using French only, it is advisable now to use French and English, or French, English, and Italian,—the French text being authoritative in case of divergences.

It should be remarked that, since the new conventions allow certain provisions of the old instruments to stand, it seems difficult to adopt today a different procedure from that adopted in 1885 and 1890.

For the Drafting Committee

Henri Fromageot

Appendix B to HD–49

Versailles, September 5, 1919. the president of the
german delegation
No. 17

Translation

[The President of the German Delegation (Von Lersner) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

Mr. President: The Allied and Associated Powers are of the opinion, according to their note of September 2,⁸ that the provisions of Article 61, paragraph 2, of the German Constitution, on the subject of the right of German-Austria to participate in the Reichsrat, is a formal violation of Article 80 of the Peace Treaty, and they require the German Government to take within fifteen days appropriate measures to avoid this violation by declaring Article 61, paragraph 2, null and void. On this subject, the German Government replies as follows:

In this connection, the German Delegation at Versailles called attention in its observations on the peace conditions, during the discussion of Article 80 of the Treaty, which observation was sent to the Allied and Associated Governments on May 29,⁹ to the fact that Germany had never had and would never have the intention of changing the Germano-Austrian frontier by force, but that it could not undertake to oppose a possible desire of the population of Austria to reconstruct the unity of the state with the lands of the old German stock. The Allied and Associated Governments replied in their note of June 16, 1919,¹⁰ that they took note of Germany’s renunciation of any violent change of the Germano-Austrian frontier. The Germans concluded therefore that they would not be going counter to the prescriptions of Article 80 of the Peace Conditions; which ends in bringing forward the future possibility of a change to be brought about in the independence of Austria with the consent of the League of Nations, if this possibility could be brought about by the friendly rapprochement of the two nations, corresponding to the right of nations to self-determination. It is this interpretation which led to the insertion of the provisions of Article 61, paragraph 2, in the German Constitution. In the first part these provisions regulate the right of German-Austria to vote in the Reichsrat, purely and simply in case the union of the country with the German Empire takes place, without in any way dealing with the facts on which such a union might depend. In the second part of these provisions, the representatives of German-Austria are granted the right to a consulting voice in the Reichsrat until the union takes place. The independence of German-Austria, as well as the hypothesis admitted by Germany in the Peace Treaty of a change in that independence, were not to be infringed, for the provisions make the right to participate in the sessions of the Reichsrat depend on the free opinion of German-Austria, and bind the country to no relations of common or international law.

In spite of this state of affairs, the Allied and Associated Powers consider the admission of German-Austrian representatives as incompatible with the guarantees of independence for the country as specified by Article 80 of the Peace Treaty, because this admission would put this country on the same footing as the countries constituting the German Empire, because it would create a political bond between Germany and Austria and because it would bring about a political action common to the two countries. This interpretation by the Allied and Associated Governments brings forward an interpretation of Article 80 of the Peace Treaty which is in opposition to the interpretation hitherto admitted by the Germans. In the presence of the note of the Allied and Associated Powers, Germany is not in a position to maintain the point of view she has held up to the present. Hence a change in the contents of the German Constitution is not necessary. The Allied and Associated Governments have already brought out in their note the fact that Article 178 of the Constitution stipulates very simply that the conditions of the Peace Treaty cannot be affected by the Constitution. This article was inserted with a view to avoiding all possible contradictions that might arise between the provisions of the Constitution and the conditions of the Peace Treaty, of which the interpretation is in many cases doubtful. The reserves formulated in this article cover all the provisions of the Constitution, including the above-mentioned provisions of Article 61, paragraph 2. Therefore, if the prescriptions of Article 61, paragraph 2, in themselves are in contradiction with a clause of the Peace Treaty, it results automatically that this prescription remains null and void. The German Government declares consequently that the provisions of Article 61, paragraph 2, of the Constitution are null and void, that specifically the admission of German-Austrian representatives to the Reichsrat cannot be effected until the Council of the League of Nations consents, according to Article 80 of the Peace Treaty, to a modification in the relations which political law accords to German-Austria.

Although the affair in question is settled by the preceding declaration according to the desire of the Allied and Associated Governments, the German Government feels itself obliged to make the following fundamental remarks: from its point of view the German Government has never given, on the subject of the alleged contradictions between the German Constitution and the Peace Treaty, any occasion for a demand for explanation so peremptory as the terms of the note of the Allied and Associated Powers. If, in case of a refusal to meet their requirements, these Governments threaten to extend the zone of occupation, and if, in order to do this, they base their authority on Article 429 of the Peace Treaty, it is necessary to specify that the Treaty in no wise authorizes such a measure, quite independently of the fact that the Allied and Associated Governments have not yet ratified the Treaty and that for this reason they cannot support their claim from the juridical point of view. Article 429 provides under certain conditions a longer period of occupation, but no territorial extension. Consequently, the German Government can see in the menace of such a measure only an act of violence profoundly to be regretted.

Accept,

[No signature on file copy]

Appendix C to HD–49

[Translation¹¹]

Draft of a Reply to the Letter of August 5 [September 5] From the German Delegation, on the Subject of Article 61 of the German Constitution

By their note of September 2 last, the Allied and Associated Powers called upon the German Government to take appropriate measures to undo promptly, by declaring null and void the second paragraph of article 61 of the German Constitution, the violation of article 80 of the treaty of peace of June 28, 1919, which has resulted from the promulgation on August 11, 1919, of the said article 61–2nd of the Constitution.

The German Delegation at Versailles, in its note of September 5 last, has submitted to the Allied and Associated Powers an interpretative explanation, which the German Government (which has no competence to interpret the Constitution authoritatively) states that it gives to the said Article 61–2nd of the German Constitution, and which in the opinion of that Government would render needless a modification of the Constitution.

Since this explanation does not constitute the reply which, by the note referred to above of September 2 last, the German Government had been called upon to give, the Allied and Associated Powers inform the German Delegation that, as the German Government has failed to meet this request, they will find themselves obliged, at the expiration of the time fixed and now current, to resort to the means provided for ensuring the strict execution of the treaty.

Appendix D to HD–49

delegation of the kingdom of
the serbs, croats and Slovenes
to the peace conference
No. 3530

Paris, September 4, 1919.

Translation

From: M. Nik. P. Pachitch.

To: M. Clemenceau.

The Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes has received the project of the Treaty on the protection of minorities. It considers that the internal legislation of the S. C. S. State assures sufficient guarantees to the ethnic minorities; in fact, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia with its principles of greater religious equality, with proportional representation and by a broad local autonomy, excludes all persecutions of minorities. The Constituent Assembly which will meet in the near future for the establishment of the Constitution of the S. C. S. State, will go even further in the matter of tolerance, in conformity with the spirit reigning in the present epoch. Therefore, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. regrets that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have deemed it necessary to give to the ethnic minorities an international guarantee which supposes a certain distrust with regard to the legislation and the administration of this State.

In spite of what has just been set forth, the present Delegation is ready to accede to the wishes of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, knowing that they have been guided in this question only by the principle of tolerance, and convinced that their intention was in no way to attack the sovereign rights of the S. C. S. State. However, although determined on accepting in principle the projected Treaty, the S. C. S. Delegation is obliged to ask that certain modifications be made to its text.

These modifications are of two kinds. Some aim at certain modifications of wording which, in the opinion of the present Delegation, should be adopted in the general interest. The others are of a more essential nature, but the Delegation hopes that they will also be adopted, being based on strong reasons of principle.

As rectification of wording, the S. C. S. Delegation proposes the following modifications in the Introduction itself.

The first alinea: “Whereas great acquisitions of territories have been made by the Kingdom of Serbia since the year 1913,” should be omitted entirely, as these territories, in the opinion of the Delegation, cannot be made the object of this Treaty, as will be explained further on. For the same reasons should also be omitted in the 4th alinea the words: “of the said acquisitions of territories and”.

The second and third alineas should be worded thus: “Whereas the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, who had already freed themselves and made themselves independent of Austria-Hungary, have of their own free will resolved to be united to Serbia and Montenegro in a permanent way with the intention of forming an independent and unified State under the name of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and, whereas the Kingdom of Serbia has agreed to realize this union and in consequence has been formed the Kingdom of the S. C. S. which has assumed the sovereignty over the territories inhabited by these peoples.”

In the last alinea, instead of: “The Serb, Croat and Slovene States” should be substituted: “the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State.” This modification should also be made in the following articles, where this wording is used, the same as the expression “Serb, Croat and Slovene nationality” should be replaced by the expression “Serbo-Croat-Slovene nationality”, and the expression “Serbo, Croat and Slovene nationals” by the expression “Serbo-Croat-Slovene nationals”; the same modifications should be made to Articles 3 to 10.

Article 3 should be made to harmonize with Article 76 of the Treaty with Austria; therefore in the first line, after the word “recognizes,” should be added: “within the limits of Article 76 of the Treaty witfi Austria.” In the fifth line of the same article, instead of “of the Treaties with Austria and Hungary,” it should read: “of the Treaties with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria”, for in the preceding text it is a question of Bulgarian nationals who acquired the Serbo-Croat-Slovene nationality; or if no such persons can be found in the territories which shall be attributed to the S. C. S. State by the Treaty with Bulgaria, and not by those with Austria and Hungary. For the same reason in the 14th line instead of “Treaties of Peace with Austriai and Hungary,” it should be said: “of the Treaties of Peace with Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria.”

To Articles 3 and 4 the Delegation prefers the expression “having their citizenship” to that of “domiciled.” In Article 7 the last alinea should be worded thus: “Notwithstanding the establishment by the Royal Government of an official language, reasonable facilities will be given to Serbo-Croat-Slovene nationals of languages other than the official language for the use of their tongue, either orally or in writing before the Tribunals.”

In Article 9, line 3, instead of “The Serb, Croat or Slovene languages” put: “the official language.”

Besides these modifications of a formal nature, the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. proposes the following basic modifications:

In Article 9, a modification to which the Delegation attaches an importance of the first order should be introduced. The last alinea, the tenor of which is the following: “the provisions of the present Article shall be applicable only to the territories transferred to the kingdom of the S. C. [S.] since January 1, 1913” should be replaced by the following: “the provisions of the present treaty will be applicable only to the territories detached from the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or Bulgaria and transferred to the Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes since August 1, 1914.” If this modification were not adopted, the rights of sovereignty acquired from the Kingdom of Serbia, which it possessed on territories which belonged to it before the present war, would be jeopardized. As to these territories, united to Serbia “after January 1, 1913,” she acquired them by an International Treaty on the occasion of which not only her present Allies, but even her adversaries at that time, Austria and Germany, did not deem it necessary to demand a limitation of her sovereignty in an interest of protection of minorities. It is precisely for these territories that Serbia waged for six years three bloody wars, and that is why any limitation of the sovereignty of the S. C. S. State in this Serbian region would represent, for its Government an absolute moral impossibility.

To Article 11 the Delegation also requests important modifications. According to the terms of this Article, the S. C. S. State engages to accord to ethnic minorities a certain proposition which would be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. Therefore, such a protection is not provided for the advantage of its nationals which might be as ethnic minorities, in the territories of other States which, like the S. C. S. State, have been increased or formed by the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This same Treaty provides for certain economic concessions to the S. C. S. State to the profit of its Allies, but only as reciprocity. This principle should also be adopted in the question of protection of minorities so that only the States which accord to the nationals of the S. C. S. State the protection which they demand for the profit of their own, shall take advantage of it.

The same Article provides that the future modifications of the projected Treaty shall be decided by the Council of the League of Nations, by a majority vote. Therefore, this Treaty being a bilateral act between the S. C. S. State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, such a procedure, which excludes the consent of the S. C. S. State, should not be adopted. However, the present Delegation would be ready to adhere to such a provision if it received the assurance that the future settlements of the League of Nations concerning the protection of minorities will be of general order and will not adopt an exceptional regime for the S. C. S. State.

Finally the second alinea of this same Article seems to be worded from the opinion of the present Delegation in a defective manner owing to the fact that it confers to the Council of the League of Nations, not only in the case of violations of the provisions of this treaty, but even in case of danger of such violations, the right to take measures and to give instructions the nature of which is not exactly defined. In that way the Council of the League of Nations could attribute to itself a discretionary power of precautionary policy not at all in conformity with the spirit of this Treaty. In fact according to this Treaty, the League of Nations must see that the rights guaranteed to ethnic minorities be respected. In case of an infringement of these rights, a judicial action would incontestably be justified, but such an action should be sufficient in itself. Other “measures” and other “instructions” would be useless in cases of violations of the right. Outside of this case, they would constitute a superfluous and misplaced interference in the internal administration of the country.

Therefore the Delegation proposes the following wording for the alinea in question:

“The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes agrees that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to call to the attention of the Council any infraction of any of the obligations and that the Council after having heard the Royal Government shall be able to refer the examination of such a question to the permanent court of Justice.”

To Articles 13 and 15, the Delegation proposes to reduce the delay from five to three years, for it is a matter of temporary economic regime which limits the liberty of a decision of the S. C. S. State and the duration of which should consequently be reduced to the minimum.

In case the Supreme Council would consider itself unable to adopt the propositions above set forth, the present Delegation has the honor of begging it to be kind enough to hear it orally before coming to a definite decision for, owing to the formal instructions of its Government the Delegation of the Kingdom of the S. C. S. would be placed in a difficult and impossible situation if its principal demands were not adopted.

Please accept, etc., etc.

For the Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs Croats and Slovenes,

Nik. P. Pachitch

Appendix E to HD–49

kingdom of the serbs, croats and slovenes

Draft of a Treaty¹²

Between

The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan,

Described as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,

On the one hand,

And The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes,

On the other hand,

Whereas since the commencement of the year 1913 large accessions of territory have been made to the Kingdom of Serbia and

Whereas the Croat and Slovene peoples have, of their own free will, determined to unite with Serbia in a permanent union for the purpose of forming a single sovereign independent State under the title of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and

Whereas the Prince Regent of Serbia and the Serbian Government have agreed to this union, and the Kingdom of Serbia has, in consequence, been transformed into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and has assumed sovereignty over the territories inhabited by these peoples, and

Whereas it is necessary to regulate certain matters of international concern arising out of the said accessions of territory and of this union, and

Whereas it is desired to free Serbia from certain obligations which she undertook by the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 to certain Powers and to substitute for them obligations to the League of Nations, and

Whereas the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of its own free will desires to give to the populations of all territories included within the State, of whatever race, language or religion they may be, full guarantees that they shall continue to be governed in accordance with the principles of liberty and justice,

For this purpose the following Representatives of the High Contracting Parties:

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

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

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

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

H. M. the Emperor of Japan,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

After having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

The Allied and Associated Powers, signatories to the Treaty of Berlin of the 13th July, 1878, taking into consideration the obligations contracted under the present Treaty by the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, recognize that the Serb-Croat-Slovene State is definitely discharged from the obligations undertaken in Article 35 of the said Treaty of Berlin.

Chapter I

Article 1

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 2 to 8 of this chapter shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no laws, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

Article 2

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of the Kingdom without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals.

Article 3

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes admits and declares to be Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality Austrian, Hungarian or Bulgarian nationals habitually resident [or: having indigénat]^12a at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty in territory which is or may be recognised as forming part of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes under the Treaties with Austria, and Hungary respectively.

Nevertheless, the persons referred to above who are over eighteen years of age will be entitled under the conditions contained in the said Treaties to opt for any other nationality which may be open to them. Option by a husband will cover his wife and option by parents will cover their children under eighteen years of age.

Persons who have exercised the above right to opt must, except where it is otherwise provided in the Treaty of Peace with Austria and Hungary, transfer within the succeeding twelve months, their place of residence to the State for which they have opted. They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in the territory of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.

Article 4

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes admits and declares to be Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality persons of Austrian, Hungarian or Bulgarian nationality who were born in the said territory of parents habitually resident [or: having indigénat] there, even if at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty they are not themselves habitually resident [or: having indigénat] there.

Nevertheless, within two years after the coming into force of the present Treaty, these persons may make a declaration before the competent Serb-Croat-Slovene authorities in the country in which they are resident, stating that they abandon Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality, and they will then cease to be considered as Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals. In this connection a declaration by a husband will cover his wife, and a declaration by parents will cover their children under eighteen years of age.

Article 5

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes undertakes to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have, under the Treaties concluded or to be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with Austria or Hungary, to choose whether or not they will acquire Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality.

Article 6

All persons born in the territory of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes who are not born nationals of another State shall ipso facto become Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals.

Article 7

All Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion.

Difference of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Serb-Croat-Slovene national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for instance admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Serb-Croat-Slovene national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding any establishment by the Government of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes of an official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals of other than Serb, Croat or Slovene speech for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, before the courts.

Article 8

Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.

Article 9

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals of other than Serb, Croat and Slovene speech are resident adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Government of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from making the teaching of the (Serbo-Croat) language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Serb-Croat-Slovene nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.

The provisions of the present article apply only to territory transferred to Serbia or to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes since the 1st January 1913.

Article 10

The Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes agrees to grant to the Musulmans in the matter of family law and personal status provisions suitable for regulating these matters in accordance with Musulman usage.

The Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes shall take measures to assure the nomination of a Reiss Ul Ulema.

The Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes undertakes to insure protection to the mosques, cemeteries and other Musulman religious establishments. Full recognition and facilities shall be assured to Musulman pious foundations (Vakoufs) and religious and charitable establishments now existing, and the Kingdom of the Serbs-Croats-Slovenes shall not refuse for the creation of new religious and charitable establishments any of the necessary facilities guaranteed to other private establishments of this nature.

Article 11

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the consent of the League of Nations. The United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Government of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Government of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.

Chapter II

Article 12

Pending the conclusion of new treaties or conventions, all treaties, conventions, agreements and obligations between the Kingdom of Serbia, on the one hand, and any of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, on the other hand, which were in force on August 1st, 1914, or which have since been entered into, shall ipso facto be binding upon the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.

Article 13

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes undertakes to make no Treaty, Convention or arrangement and to take not other action which will prevent her from joining in any general Convention for the equitable treatment of the commerce of other States that may be concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations within five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes also undertakes to extend to all the Allied and Associated Powers any favours or privileges in Customs matters, which it may grant during the same period of five years to any State with which since August 1914 the Allied and Associated Powers have been at war or to any State which in virtue of Article 6 of Part X of the Treaty with Austria has special Customs arrangements with such States.

Article 14

Pending the conclusion of the general convention referred to above, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes undertakes to treat on the same footing as national vessels or vessels of the most favoured nation the vessels of all the Allied and Associated Powers which accord similar treatment to Serb, Croat and Slovene vessels. As an exception from this provision, the right of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes or of any other Allied or Associated Power to confine her maritime coasting trade to national vessels is expressly reserved. The Allied and Associated Powers further agree not to claim under this article the benefit of agreements which the states obtaining territory formerly belonging to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy may conclude as regards coasting traffic in the ports of the Adriatic sea.

Article 15

Pending the conclusion under the auspices of the League of Nations of a general convention to secure and maintain freedom of communications and of transit, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes undertakes to accord freedom of transit to persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails in transit to or from any Allied or Associated State over Serb, Croat and Slovene territory, including territorial waters, and to treat them at least as favourably as the persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails respectively of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes or of any other more favoured nationality, origin, importation or ownership, as regards facilities, charges, restrictions, and all other matters.

All charges imposed in the territory of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on such traffic in transit shall be reasonable having regard to the conditions of the traffic. Goods in transit shall be exempt from all customs or other duties.

Tariffs for transit across the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and tariffs between the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and any Allied or Associated Power involving through tickets or waybills shall be established at the request of the Allied or Associated Power concerned.

Freedom of transit will extend to postal, telegraphic and telephonic services.

Provided that no Allied or Associated Power can claim the benefit of these provisions on behalf of any part of this territory in which reciprocal treatment is not accorded in respect of the same subject matter.

If within a period of five years from the coming into force of this Treaty no general convention as aforesaid shall have been concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes shall be at liberty at any time thereafter to give twelve months notice to the Secretary General of the League of Nations to terminate the obligations of the present Article.

Article 16

All rights and privileges accorded by the foregoing articles to the Allied and Associated Powers shall be accorded equally to all States members of the League of Nations.

The present treaty, of which the French and English texts are both authentic, shall be ratified. It shall come into force at the same time as the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris.

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

A procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn up.

The French Government will transmit to all the signatory Powers a certified copy of the procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications.

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty.

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

Appendix F to HD–49

[Translation¹³]

roumanian delegation
to the peace conference

Paris, September 8, 1919.

[The Roumanian Delegation to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

Mr. President: The Roumanian Delegation has the honor to inform the Peace Conference that, wishing to manifest its complete solidarity with the Allies, it is prepared to sign the text of the treaty presented to the Austrian delegates, in spite of the fact that many of the just demands of Roumania have been removed from the text, but that it could not subscribe to article 60 of the treaty, the present terms of which infringe upon the sovereignty of the Roumanian state and upon its political and economic independence which are brought directly into question.

The Roumanian Delegation has the honor, therefore, to request the Peace Conference to be pleased to consent that the following declaration shall be considered as forming an integral part of the treaty:

“The Roumanian Delegation, in signing the treaty of peace with Austria, cannot give its adhesion to article 60 of the treaty, relating to minorities, to transit, and to commerce.”

Accept [etc.]

• N. Misu
• Alex Vaida-Voevod

1. General Act of Berlin, February 26, 1885, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvi, p. 4.
2. General Act of Brussels, July 2, 1890, William M. Malloy (ed.), Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776–1909 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910), vol. ii, p. 1964.
3. Ante, p. 97.
4. See HD–44, minute 1, p. 30.
4. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cvii, p. 658.
5. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.
6. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
7. FM–27, minute 3, vol. iv, p. 856.
8. Appendix A to HD–45, p. 62.
9. Vol. vi, pp. 795, 832.
10. Ibid., pp. 926, 945.
11. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
12. Dated September 2, 1919; draft in French and English.
13. Brackets here and in article 4 appear in the original.
13. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.