Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/96


Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, November 19, 1919, at 11:00 a.m.

  • Present
    • America, United States of
      • Hon. F. L. Polk
    • Secretary
      • Mr. L. Harrison
    • British Empire
      • Sir Eyre Crowe
    • Secretary
      • Mr. H. Norman
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau
      • M. Pichon
    • Secretaries
      • M. Dutasta
      • M. Berthelot
      • M. de Saint Quentin
    • Italy
      • M. de Martino
    • Secretary
      • M. Trombetti
    • Japan
      • M. Matsui
    • Secretary
      • M. Kawai
Joint Secretariat
America, United States of Capt. B. Winthrop
British Empire Capt. G. Lothian Small
France M. de Percin
Italy M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

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

  • America, United States of
    • Dr. I. Bowman
    • Mr. A. W. Dulles
    • Lt.-Commander Koehler, U. S. N.
  • British Empire
    • Mr. A. Leeper
    • Mr. Forbes-Adam
  • France
    • General Payot
    • General Le Rond
    • M. Laroche
    • M. Kammerer
    • M. de Montille
  • Italy
    • M. Vannutelli-Rey
    • M. Stranieri
  • Japan
    • M. Shigemitsu

1. (The Council had before it a report from the Committee on New States, and a draft treaty annexed thereto (See Appendix “A”).

[Page 222]

M. Kammerer read and commented upon the report. He added that the only point on which the members of the Committee did not agree was: who should sign the treaty. The majority was of the opinion that as the Principal Powers had imposed Article 56 upon Bulgaria, they should all sign this document, but the minority, that is to say the American Delegation, had made reservations on that point. Treaty Between Greece and Bulgaria

Mr. Polk said he would put it up to his Government but he doubted that the United States Government would sign this Treaty; his feeling was that it would say “no”, as it had done in the case of the Treaty with the New States (Clauses relative to transferred territories).

M. Kammerer asked whether the other Powers should sign in case America would not, and thought that had already happened in the Treaty with Austria.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that the precedent pointed the other way; when America refused to sign, it had been decided that the other Allied Powers should also refrain from signing, this occasioning a delay which had prevented the Treaty being presented for signature to the smaller Powers.

Mr. Polk said he saw the force of Sir Eyre Crowe’s argument and would refer this question to his Government.

M. de Martino thought that the Great Powers could not refuse to take their part of the responsibility for the settlement of Balkan affairs. The question of immigration was one of the most important, and one which might permit grave abuses. As they all knew, racial rivalries were very frequent between those countries. He thought they would be abstaining from a duty which befell them as a moral obligation if they did not take an effective part in the execution of these clauses with Bulgaria by affixing their signatures thereto.

M. Matsui said he had not yet received an answer from his Government on the subject. He believed it would be impossible for Japan to sign if one of the other Powers did not, but it was his opinion that all the Powers should sign.

M. Kammerer said there remained a second point, namely, should the Treaty be submitted to the Bulgarian Delegation? It had already been sent to the Greeks and approved by M. Venizelos. He added that the American Delegation felt they were morally obliged to submit the text of this Treaty to the Bulgarians; the majority did not feel it as a moral obligation, but thought it might be opportune to do so.

Mr. Dulles asked whether the Treaty could not become effective even if only Greece and Bulgaria were the signatories. It would be up to Greece and Bulgaria to carry their agreement into effect under the aegis of the League of Nations.

[Page 223]

Sir Eyre Crowe said he saw no objections to submitting it to the Bulgarians and if it were found that they and the Greeks were prepared to sign it, perhaps by that time the other Powers would be ready too.

M. Kammerer asked whether a delay of two days could be given Bulgaria for accepting this text?

(This was agreed to.)

It was decided:

to submit to the Bulgarian Delegation the Treaty between Greece and Bulgaria with regard to reciprocal immigration; (See Appendix “A”).
that two days’ time be given to the Bulgarian Delegation to consider this text;
that the question whether the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign this Treaty would be considered later.

It was further decided:

that Mr. Polk should refer to Washington the question of the signature of this Treaty by the United States.

2. (The Council had before it a note from the Committee on New States (See Appendix “B”). Signature of Minorities Treaty With Roumania

M. Kammerer read and commented upon the report. He added that on October 12th when the Supreme Council had notified the Roumanian Government that they must sign the Minorities Treaty it was added that the Supreme Council would examine any modifications of text presented by the Roumanians provided that the general principles were not altered.1 But the Roumanian Government had been notified that it must sign the Minorities Treaty before the Bulgarian Treaty. The period granted Roumania had almost expired. He asked whether a communication should be sent to the Roumanian Delegation asking them to submit observations without delay?

Sir Eyre Crowe pointed out that the situation was less complicated than it appeared unless the Roumanians should happen to create difficulties. The Council had presented its ultimatum. The period expired on the following Sunday. Roumania would have to accept the principle of the Minorities Treaty but might suggest modifications for the Council’s discussion, provided these modifications were confined to such articles as concerned Roumania, for example, articles 10, 11, and 12. They understood that the Roumanian objections referred more specially to general principles, and obviously the Roumanians would have to abandon these objections on account of the ultimatum sent [Page 224] them. He understood that no great value attached to articles 10, 11, and 12 either by the Roumanians or by the Council and the Council would therefore be ready to grant concessions if not to abandon the articles. It would be necessary to come to an agreement with Roumania within 24 hours.

Mr. Polk said he would not like to commit his Government to accept these modifications at this time but he thought they probably could agree to some compromise when he received an answer from Washington.

M. de Martino agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe and added that in order to facilitate the signature of the Treaty by the Roumanians, a declaration might be made to them such as the one which had been made to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. That declaration stated that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers did not have in mind to confer special privileges to any Minority, but only to prevent racial conflicts by giving the Minorities an equitable protection, and that they were ready to give the same assurance to any State which would sign the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities.

M. Kammerer said there was no objection to such a declaration being made to the Roumanians, but he asked whether this should be done at once or whether it would be advisable to await such a request from the Roumanians.

M. Clemenceau said he thought it would be wiser to await the reply of the Roumanians to the Council’s ultimatum.

It was decided:

that no answer was called for by the Roumanian note relating to the Minorities Treaty, and that no further action be taken until an answer had been received from the Roumanian Government to the note of November 15th;1a
that if that answer were in the affirmative the Roumanian Delegation should be required immediately to put their observations before the Committee on New States;
that the Committee on New States should within twenty-four hours present a report to the Supreme Council on those observations; is being understood that the Minorities Treaty could not be modified in its general principles, but only in respect of such articles, e. g., 10, 11 and 12, as purely concerned Roumania. (See Appendix “B”).

3. (The Council had before it a telegram from the Esthonian Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated November 12th (See Appendix “C”).) Request of the Esthonians for the Establishment of a Neutral Zone Between the Baltic States and Russia Under the Control of a Third State

M. Kammerer read and commented upon the telegram. He said that this request tended to replace the local troops in those territories by Allied troops. Third state thought this would not be an enviable position for the Allies to be in between the Bolshevists and the [Page 225] Baltic States, and that it would imply a sort of agreement between the Allies and the Bolshevists.

M. Clemenceau said that he felt perfectly sure that it was the unanimous opinion of the Council that such a request should not be granted.

It was decided:

not to grant the request of the Esthonian Minister of Foreign Affairs for the establishment of a neutral zone between the Baltic States and Russia under the control of a third State, to be appointed by the Conference. (See Appendix “C”).

4. (The Council had before it a letter from the Secretary General of the Polish Delegation (See Appendix “D”). Note From the Polish Delegation Requesting That the Arrangement Regarding Galicia Be Communicated to Them

M. Berthelot read and commented upon the letter. He added that the Council had already decided on November 11th2 to hear the Polish Delegates without communicating the report to them. He would ask the Polish Delegates to appear before the Council at the following meeting.

5. General Le Rond said that the question of transferring the sovereignty over the territories subject to a plebiscite had to be settled between the Commissions of the Allies and the German delegates, who had just arrived. The different plebiscite commissions had been organized since November 10th, but they had had great difficulty in getting their personnel; some of the members were still in Rome, others in London, trying to get it together. That was one reason why the discussion with the German delegates had not started. Organization of Plebiscite Zones in Germany

The questions to be discussed with the Germans arose from the application of the Treaty.

First, there was the question of administration of the plebiscite areas: there was no difficulty about that as it passed automatically to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Second, there was the economic organization which presented difficulties: as those economic services were administered mainly from Berlin, the relations between Berlin and those territories could not be suspended. It was necessary to provide for some liaison between the several Commissions and the Central Government at Berlin. The best solution would be to invite the Berlin Government to send an official belonging to the German Central Administration who would act as a sort of liaison officer between the Government and each of the Commissions. This official would have to be accepted by the [Page 226] Commission and must not belong to the province where he was to go, so that the local population should not be under the impression that the German Government was still keeping a hold over them. This official would be at the disposal of the Commission for all matters which concerned railways, postal, telegraph and mining questions, etc.

Third, there were also financial questions. Under the Treaty, all expenses were to be charged against local revenues; this should be interpreted to mean future as well as present revenues. The present local revenues would be insufficient to cover the charges set against them; in Upper Silesia for instance, the charge for military occupation alone would amount to fifteen million francs a month. In consequence, several solutions could be devised: a local loan guaranteed by resources of the territory, and which of course, would be borne ultimately by the Power to whom the territory would be attributed. Such a solution could be contemplated only in case of occupation for a long period, as in the case of Upper Silesia. The expenses to be incurred could be divided in three classes: First, expenses of administration by local officials. This was merely a continuation of the previous regime; therefore, it was natural that the Germans would have to find the funds. Secondly, the cost of maintaining forces of occupation: it would be difficult to ask the Germans to bear that expense; they would be justified in objecting and serious difficulties might be encountered. Another solution was to be found, and it would be necessary for the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to advance these funds, either by bearing the expense each of their own forces of occupation, or by establishing a common fund. Third, the cost of maintaining the Commissions. This cost would be a much lighter charge, and funds could be advanced in two ways either by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, or by Poland. This latter method would be an equitable one and might well be accepted by Poland, as she had asked for the plebiscites.

He wished to point out that those expenses would only be made as advances, and that the whole amount would be refunded by the Powers to whom attribution of the territories would be made after plebiscite.

Sir Eyre Crowe said it was difficult to solve that question without the advice of financial experts. The argument, however, did not take into account cases like Danzig and Memel. Neither Poland nor Germany were concerned there. The matter would have to be referred to his Government.

General Le Rond thought that the point relating to the liaison between the Central German Government and the Commissions could be settled at once.

[Page 227]

M. de Martino said he did not think this question was on the agenda, and he was not ready to discuss it; as it was a financial matter he should have to refer it to his Government.

Sir Eyre Crowe thought the point just referred to could be accepted at once.

M. Clemenceau asked General Le Rond to prepare a report suggesting a solution to the financial questions.

General Le Rond replied that financial representatives should be appointed by each of the Powers to discuss this question.

Mr. Polk said that as the United States Senate had not ratified the Treaty, the United States could not be represented.

After some further discussion,

It was decided:

(1) that in the course of negotiations with the German Delegates appointed to sign the protocol the German Government should be asked to appoint to each Government Commission an official who, having been accepted by the Commission, would act as an intermediary between the Central German Government and the Commissions;

(2) that financial representatives be appointed by each Power to prepare, together with General Le Rond, a report on the financial questions relative to the organization of plebiscite areas and to the occupation of Dantzig and Memel.

(Mr. Polk made the reservation that the United States Government could not be represented on this Commission as the Treaty with Germany had not yet been ratified by the Senate.)

6. General Payot said that Marshal Foch’s staff had examined the question of transportation of troops and supplies with the representatives of the Allied armies and had drafted a memorandum which could be transmitted to the German Delegates who would have 48 hours to examine the proposal. If the Germans accepted this, the question would be settled; otherwise the Allied Delegates might see the German Delegates and come to an agreement with them. He pointed out that in the memorandum to be submitted to the Germans, the question who would pay those expenses arose and as he had not known what the Council’s decision would be, a non-committal formula had been adopted. Cost of Transportation of Troops and Supplies in Plebiscite Areas

Sir Eyre Crowe said there could be no doubt whatsoever that the cost of transportation of troops and of supplies was included in the costs of occupation and therefore should be borne by the States to whom attribution of territories would be made.

General Payot remarked that the cost of the transportation of troops alone would amount to approximately 5,000,000 marks.

[Page 228]

Sir Eyre Crowe said that, in order not to give the Germans the impression that all costs were being imposed on them, it should be made clear in the memorandum to be submitted to the Germans that the costs of transportation were to be borne by the States to whom attribution of said territories would ultimately be made.

It was decided:

that a memorandum should be submitted to the German Delegates regarding the transportation of troops and supplies in the plebiscite areas;
that the cost of transportation of troops and supplies in the plebiscite areas should be a charge against the States to whom attribution of these territories would be made and that a phrase to that effect would be put in the memorandum to be submitted to the Germans;
that a delay of 48 hours be given them for examination.

(The meeting then adjourned).

Appendix A to HD–96

Report to the Supreme Council

In accordance with the decision taken by the Supreme Council on September 4th,3 the Committee on New States has continued its activities with a view to drafting a convention relative to reciprocal and voluntary emigration in the Balkan countries and has the honor to submit the attached draft for the approval of the Supreme Council.

In its report on this question addressed to the Supreme Council on July 30th,4 the Committee on New States indicated that it would be advantageous, with a view to the maintenance of peace, to bring the various Balkan States to participate in a convention regulating the modalities of voluntary emigration in these regions. But the Committee considered that although it seemed possible to provide in the Bulgarian Treaty, and later in the Turkish Treaty, clauses specifying an obligation on the part of Bulgaria and Turkey to accept the convention prepared, yet on the contrary, so far as concerned Greece and Serbia, such a convention could not be imposed with authority and should be merely proposed for the acceptance of these states.

The Supreme Council, having accepted this point of view decided upon the insertion in the Bulgarian Treaty of paragraph 2 of Article 56, obliging Bulgaria to recognize the provisions which the Principal [Page 229] Allied and Associated Powers may judge opportune relative to the reciprocal and voluntary emigration of ethnic minorities.5

In its observations on the Treaty clauses, presented on October 24th, the Bulgarian Delegation declared that it raised no objection so far as Article 56 was concerned.

On the other hand, in submitting a draft statement of principles to the Greek and Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegations, the Committee on New States asked them if they would agree to participate in an agreement of this nature.

The Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, while approving the ideas which inspired the draft convention, replied that the emigration and immigration contemplated in this agreement could, in its opinion, be more advantageously regulated by direct understanding between the states interested.

To the contrary, the Delegation of the Kingdom of Greece, desirous of a conclusion on this subject, submitted to the Committee, which has examined it in detail, a complete text based on the draft statement of principles proposed. Making some alterations in this text, the Committee has drawn up a definitive project which has just been officially accepted by that Delegation.

The question then arose whether, since Serbia refused to participate in this convention, there would nevertheless be cause to prepare an agreement which for the moment would be entered into only between Greece and Bulgaria.

The Committee on New States unanimously decided that it would be preferable to carry the matter through, the treaty prepared being later imposed on Turkey and left open to acceptance by the other Balkan States.

The Committee on New States then discussed the question as to whether or not the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should affix their signatures to this Treaty in which they would figure as High Contracting Parties, or on the contrary if this Treaty, prepared by them, should now be signed only by Greece and Bulgaria.

The Majority of the Committee considered that paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Bulgarian Treaty, although not giving precise details on this question, seemed to imply that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would participate in the convention whose acceptance by Bulgaria they had thus imposed in advance. Opinion of the Majority

The Majority of the Committee was therefore of the opinion that it would be proper to submit to the consideration of the Supreme Council the question as to whether the Principal Allied and Associated [Page 230] Powers would sign the treaty and whether it would not be expedient to consult the Drafting Committee in this regard.

The Majority of the Committee on New States, basing its opinion on paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, does not believe that it is obligatory to consult the Bulgarian Delegation concerning this draft convention, especially, as is recalled above, since the Bulgarian Delegation raised no objection to Article 56.

Nevertheless, although there is no obligation in this respect, the majority of the Committee considered it preferable, if the Supreme Council deems it wise that this draft treaty, in case it is approved, should be sent to the Bulgarian Delegation which would then have to declare within a very short time, say 48 hours, whether it has any observations to present.

The American Delegation, while in accord with the other Delegations that an agreement regarding reciprocal emigration in the Balkan States is very desirable, does not share the view of the majority that under Article 56 of the Treaty with Bulgaria the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have assumed an obligation to guarantee any such arrangement by becoming signatory parties, and reserves its judgment regarding the desirability of the United States signing the projected agreement between Greece and Bulgaria. Opinion of the American Delegation

The American Delegation is further of the opinion that the impracticability of extending this agreement to other Balkan States at the present time might well cause the Bulgarian Delegation to object that the provisions of an agreement between Greece and Bulgaria as regards minorities were not “reciprocal” in the spirit of Article 56 of the Bulgarian Treaty, as they only concerned Bulgarian minorities in Greece and Greek minorities in Bulgaria, while making no provision for the large Bulgarian minorities in Macedonia, Serbia and the Dobrudja. In view of this fact, and as the projected Treaty might appear to be an aggravation of the Treaty of Peace and to go beyond the terms of Article 56, which provide that “Bulgaria Undertakes to recognize such provisions as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers may consider opportune with respect to the reciprocal and voluntary emigration of persons belonging to racial minorities,” the American representative is of the opinion that there is a moral obligation to submit the draft Treaty to the Bulgarian Delegation before proceeding to the signature.


Draft Agreement on Balkan Emigration

In the execution of the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, dated . . . . . . . the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Greece on the one hand and the [Page 231] Kingdom of Bulgaria on the other hand, agree on the following dispositions:

Article 1

Greece and Bulgaria grant respectively to their nationals belonging to minorities of race, of religion, or of language the right to declare their wish to emigrate to the other country.

Article 2

Greece and Bulgaria undertake to facilitate in every way the exercise of the right provided by Article 1 and to interpose no obstacle, directly or indirectly, to freedom of emigration, notwithstanding all laws or regulations to the contrary, which should be considered as null and void in this regard.

In particular the exercise of the right of emigration shall not endanger the pecuniary rights of emigrants existing at the time of emigration.

Article 3

No obstacle shall be interposed to the departure of an emigrant for any cause whatever, except in case of a final sentence pronounced as penalty for an infraction of common law. In case of a sentence which is not yet final or of criminal process at common law against an emigrant, the latter shall be delivered by the authorities of the prosecuting country to the authorities of the country where the emigrant is proceeding, in order that he may be tried.

Article 4

The right of voluntary emigration to all persons more than 18 years of age. It may be exercised within a period of two years from the establishment of the Mixed Commission provided below by means of a declaration before the said Commission or before its representatives. The choice of emigration of the husband will carry with it that of the wife; the choice of emigration of the parents or of guardians will carry with it that of their children or wards less than 18 years of age.

Article 5

Emigrants shall lose the nationality of the country which they abandon at the moment when they leave it and shall acquire that of the country of destination upon their arrival of [in] the territory of the latter.

Article 6

Persons who, in execution of the provisions below, take advantage of the right of emigration shall be free to carry with them or to have [Page 232] transported their movable property of all kinds. There may not be imposed upon them any export or import duty on this account.

Likewise, in case where the right of emigration is exercised by the members of a community which after their departure must be dissolved, the mixed Commission provided for below shall determine whether and under what conditions the said members shall have the right to carry freely or to have transported the movable property belonging to the said community, churches, convents, schools, hospitals or establishments of any kind.

Article 7

So far as immovable property is concerned, rural or urban, belonging to voluntary emigrants or to communities of emigrants, churches, convents, schools, hospitals, and establishments of any kind, they shall be liquidated by the Mixed Commission provided for below in conformity with the following provisions.

Article 8

Persons who, having left their original residence, are already established in the state to which they belong from the ethnical point of view, shall have the right to the value in exchange of the property left by them in the abandon[ed] country, as this may be fixed by the process of liquidation. This liquidation will be carried out according to the provisions established below.

Article 9

Within a period of three months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, there shall be created a Mixed Commission of live members, of whom one shall be nominated by Greece, one by Bulgaria and the three others by the Council of the League of Nations, or, in its failure to do so, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 10

This Commission shall be charged with the supervision and facilitation of voluntary emigration between the two countries and with the liquidation of the immovable property of emigrants.

It shall fix the modalities of emigration and of the liquidation of immovable property.

Article 11

The Mixed Commission shall have the power to proceed to estimate the value of immovable property, the parties interested being duly heard.

[Page 233]

The increase in value of immovable property thus liquidated must be paid to the Commission by the Government of the country where the liquidation takes place, under conditions to be fixed by the Commission. The ownership of property whose value is thus paid to the Commission shall appertain to the state charged with the payment.

Article 12

The funds necessary to facilitate emigration shall be advanced to the Commission by the states interested under the conditions fixed by the former. The Commission shall advance to emigrants, within the limits of available funds, the value of their immovable goods.

Article 13

The cost of maintenance and operations of the Mixed Commission and its branches shall be borne by the Governments interested, in proportions to be determined by the Commission.

Article 14

The Mixed Commission shall have the power to take supplementary measures necessary for the application of the above provisions.

Article 15

Within a period of one year from the coming into force of the present treaty, the states having a common frontier with one of the states which are parties to this treaty shall have the right to declare their adherence to the said treaty.

Appendix B to HD–96

[Note From the Committee on New States to the Supreme Council]


peace conference
secretary general

Signature of the Minorities Treaty by Rumania

The telegram addressed to the Rumanian Government on October 11th7 contains the following statement:

“As soon as the Supreme Council learn that the Rumanian Government is prepared to sign the Treaty with Austria without reservation, they, for their part, will be happy to consider in common with Rumania such modifications of the clauses of the Minorities Treaty [Page 234] as particularly interest Rumania without affecting the general principle, with a view if possible to giving satisfaction to the Rumanian Government.”

By his letter of October 31st, the President of the Peace Conference notified the President of the Rumanian Delegation that Rumania would not be allowed to sign the Treaty with Bulgaria without previously having signed the Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaty.8

By its telegram of November 13th [15th],9 the Supreme Council invited Rumania to declare, within a period of eight days, that she was ready to sign the Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaties under the conditions set out in the previous note.

As a result, according to the very terms of the notification of the Supreme Council, Rumania has the right to discuss anew, if not the principle at least the drafting of the Minorities Treaty.

But, since the Rumanian reply will arrive only three or four days before the signature of the Treaty with Bulgaria it is not evident how it will be possible within such a short time to receive the Rumanian observations, to study them, to reply to them, and to prepare Rumania to accept the final result of these labors.

Appendix C to HD–96

[The Esthonian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Peace Conference]


peace conference, paris.
s. s. reval 2375
/12 126 12 18 43.

I am directed by the Conference of the Delegates of the Balkan [Baltic] States of the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Esthonia to inform you that the Conference has decided that in the event of an armistice being possible between the Baltic States and the de facto Government of Russia, a neutral zone should be established between the Russian front and the Baltic States under the administration of a third State. Consequently, I have the honor to request the Peace Conference to entrust a State with the organization and control of the Administration in the neutral zone in order that the execution of the clauses of the eventual Treaty may be guaranteed.

Esthonian Minister of Foreign Affairs
[Page 235]

Appendix D to HD–96

polish delegation
to the
peace conference

15 Avenue George V.

To the Secretary General of the Peace Conference:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 1210 and to inform you, at the same time, that the Polish Plenipotentiary Delegates, Messrs. Ladislas Grabski and Stanislas Patek have arrived in Paris and are ready to comply with the invitation of the Supreme Council.

The Polish Delegates would be pleased to become acquainted with the new draft of statute for Eastern Galicia, before they set forth their observations on the said statute.

  1. See telegram to British Chargé at Bucharest, October 11, appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.
  2. Appendix A to HD–93, p. 182.
  3. HD–89, minute 7, p. 99.
  4. HD–47, minute 4, vol. viii, p. 101.
  5. Appendix F to HD 25, vol. vii, p. 590.
  6. HD–55, minute 3 (b), and appendix E, vol. viii, pp. 236 and 244.
  7. See appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.
  8. See HD–78, minute 3, vol. viii, p. 805.
  9. Appendix A to HD–93, p. 182.
  10. See HD–93, minute 1, p. 175.