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
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretaries
- Mr. H. Norman.
- Mr. P. Kerr.
- France
- M. Clemenceau.
- M. Pichon.
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta.
- M. Berthelot.
- M. Massigli.
- Italy
- Secretaries
- M. Paterno.
- Barone Russo.
- Japan
- Secretary
| 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
- France
- M. Jules Cambon.
- General Desticker.
- General Le Rond.
- M. Laroche.
- M. Kammerer.
- M. Hermite.
- Italy
- Col. Castoldi.
- M. Ricci-Busatti.
- M. Brambilla.
[Page 129]
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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] 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
[Page 132] 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.
[Page 133]
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 [Page 134] 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.
[Page 135]
(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 [Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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
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 [Page 138] 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, [Page 139] 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 [Page 140]
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
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 [Page 141] 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.
[Page 142]
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.”
[Page 143]
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.
[Page 144]
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
[Page 145] 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,
[Page 146]
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.
[Page 147]
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
[Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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.
[Page 150]
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.
[Page 151]
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
[Page 152] 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
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 [Page 153] 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
