Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/89


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 Tuesday, November 11, 1919, at 10:30 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
    • Secretaries
      • M. Dutasta
      • M. Berthelot
      • M. de Saint Quentin
    • Italy
      • M. de Martino
    • Secretary
      • M. Barone Russo
    • Japan
      • M. Matsui
    • Secretary
      • M. Kawai
Joint Secretariat
America, United States of Capt. B. Winthrop
British Empire Capt. C. Lothian Small
France M. Massigli
Italy M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

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

  • America, United States of
    • Dr. I. Bowman
    • Mr. A. W. Dulles
  • British Empire
    • Lieut.-Colonel Kisch
    • Mr. E. H. Carr
    • Mr. H. W. Malkin
  • France
    • M. Cambon
    • M. Hermitte
    • M. Kammerer
    • M. Fromageot
    • M. Escoffier
    • M. de Percin
  • Italy
    • M. Vannutelli-Rey
    • M. Stranieri
    • M. Pilotti
  • Japan
    • M. Shigemitsu
    • M. Nagaoka

[Page 95]

1. M. Berthelot said that the members of the Council had received the draft reply to M. Venizelos which he had been asked to prepare. He called the attention of the Council to the fact that two questions on the subject of Smyrna had not been discussed the day before: M. Venizelos, on one hand, complained of the conditions which had governed the censorship, and expressed his intention of establishing a Greek censorship at Smyrna; on the other hand, the Inter-Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople had sent them on November 3rd a note1 in which they criticized the attitude of the Greek High Commissioner at Smyrna; the latter tended more and more to substitute his action as well to that of the High Commissioners as to that of the Turkish officials. In the draft reply which he had prepared he had taken those two points into consideration. Draft Reply to M. Venizelos

Sir Eyre Crowe was of opinion that the question should be examined at the next meeting, but he wished to state immediately that he did not entirely agree with M. Berthelot: was it possible for the Allies to supervise the Greek authorities at Smyrna from Constantinople? Besides, perhaps the draft letter pointed out too clearly to Venizelos that he was wrong.

M. Clemenceau agreed to adjourn the examination of the draft prepared by M. Berthelot.

(The examination of the draft reply to M. Venizelos was adjourned.)

2. Mr. Polk wished to read a telegram addressed to the Supreme Council by the Secretary of Labor of the United States in his capacity as President of the International Labor Conference (See Appendix “A”). He explained that the American Delegation would not assume the responsibility for the terms of this communication. On the other hand, from the information he had received from Baron von Lersner, most of the German delegates had reserved berths which were leaving between November 15th and 20th. He would know the next day whether all the delegates had been able to secure berths. Communication From the Labor Conference at Washington

M. Clemenceau did not see what they could do for the time being.

3. (The Council had before it a letter from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation (See Appendix “B”) and a report from the New States Commission, dated November 8th, 1919, (See Appendix “C”). Observations of the Serb-CroatSlovene Delegation Regarding the Minoroties Treaty

M. Kammerer read and commented upon the report of the Commission, and upon the draft letter to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation appended to said report. He wished to call the attention of the Council to the fact that the Commission had been unanimous in thinking that it was satisfactory [Page 96] to send to the Serb Delegation a reply which would interpret the Treaty. The only disagreement was on one point. The drafting of Article II in the Serbian Treaty was different from the corresponding article in the other Minorities Treaty. Following M. Tittoni’s suggestion, the Supreme Council had indeed decided on September 1st2 to replace in the article in question, for the Serbian Treaty, the words “proceder de telle manière” by the words “prendre telles mesures.” On the other hand, the corresponding English text was the same in all the Treaties, viz: “take such action.” The majority was of the opinion that this difference in the drafting of the French text did not alter the sense and that nothing opposed itself to their informing the Serbs thereof. On the contrary, the Italian Delegation was of the opinion that it would be wiser to abide, without further explanation, with the decision of the Supreme Council. On the whole, they believed that their reply was of such a nature as to satisfy the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, except with regard to the Macedonian question. However, one difficulty still remained: it was likely that the Serbian Delegation might feel it hard to accept the decision of the Council which asked that it should recognize the right of option under the conditions provided in Article 4, for persons of Turkish nationality. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation would perhaps put forward objections on this point.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether there were any reasons to believe that the Serbs would make difficulties on this point.

M. Kammerer said that in a private conversation, at a time when the question of a special clause on the subject had come up in the Minorities Treaty, M. Trumbic had expressed some doubt. He thought that the Belgrade government would find it easier to make a simple declaration.

Mr. Polk said he approved the report of the Commission; but asked whether it would not be easier to obtain the assent of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation if they were to give M. Trumbic the satisfaction of being heard by the Council? This would facilitate his task in his own country, for it could not then be said that the Conference had refused to hear the Serb Delegation.

M. Kammerer said that from the very beginning the New States Commission had decided to hear no one.

Mr. Polk remarked that one of the grievances of the Roumanians, which was unjustified, was that they had not been heard by the Council. He did not wish to insist, but they might give them such satisfaction if they were heard; this might be the best way of obtaining their signature.

[Page 97]

M. Clemenceau asked whether this might not be the source of further delays.

Mr. Polk asked whether the Commission felt sure that the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation would be content purely and simply with the letter which was going to be sent.

M. Kammerer answered that except with regard to Article 4, they had every reason to think the Serbs would sign. It might perhaps be wise to send them immediately the letter which the Commission had prepared: If they had any objections to make, the Council might hear them.

M. Clemenceau asked whether the Italian Delegation maintained its reservations regarding Article 11.

M. de Martino stated that they did not insist for the sake of conciliation, but it was understood that the two expressions were of the same value; one could not conceive an intervention of the League of Nations if the League could not take such measures as might be opportune.

It was decided:

to approve the report presented by the New States Commission with regard to the observations of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the Minorities Treaty;
that the President of the Conference should send to that Delegation the draft reply as prepared by the New States Commission.

4. M. Clemenceau said that the question should be adjourned as the [Reparations Commission was not ready to discuss it. Allotment of Merchant Tonnage the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State

Mr. Polk asked whether they could not inform the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation that the Separations Commission had instructions to hear its representatives. The Reparations Commission might be further informed that the Supreme Council desired that the request of the Jugo-Slavs be considered with the utmost care with a view of meeting the situation as far as compatible with the Treaty and the declarations of May last in the Council of Four.3

Sir Eyre Crowe had no objections to make.

M. Clemenceau did not have any either. He asked whether the Italian Delegation had any to offer.

M. de Martino answered that he had none, if it was understood that the hearing of the Jugo-Slav Delegates by the Reparations Commission did not affect in any way or prejudice the decisions of this Commission.

It was decided:

that the Reparations Commission should be requested to hear a representative of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the [Page 98] distribution of shipping which belonged to the erstwhile Austro-Hungarian Empire, between Italy and the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State;
that the Separations Commission be informed that it is the desire of the Supreme Council that the Jugo-Slav request be considered with the utmost care with a view to meeting the situation as far as compatible with the clauses of the Treaty and the declarations of May last in the Council of Four, it being understood that the Reparations Commission be given power of appreciation and decision;
that the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation be informed that the Reparations Commission had been instructed to hear its representatives.

5. (The Council had before it a note from the Drafting Committee dated November 7th, 1919 (See Appendix “D”).) Removal of German Materiel From Dantzig

M. Fromageot read and commented upon the note of the Drafting Committee.

M. Clemenceau wished to ask who would make the distinction between German Government property and private property.

M. Fromageot answered that this distinction should not be very difficult to make.

Mr. Polk inquired whether they could not await the arrival of the German Delegates to solve this question?

M. Clemenceau asked whether they would have the necessary powers.

Mr. Polk said it was a violation of the Treaty: he thought that it would be saving time to follow his suggestion rather than send a new note.

Sir Eyre Crowe said they were confronted by a difficulty of form. They had before them a question which had been brought up only by an American report which stated, besides, that the Germans had ceased to remove, at least partly, the materiel in question. They did not know whether the materiel which was being removed did or did not belong to the state. Perhaps it would be sufficient to warn the German Government that they would not permit the removal of government owned materiel.

M. Fromageot said that the first thing to do was to verify on the spot to whom belonged the materiel which had been removed.

Mr. Polk said that there were at Dantzig representatives of the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland.

M. Clemenceau said it was for them to give the necessary information.

It was decided:

that the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland be requested to advise immediately whether materiel removed by the Germans from Dantzig is State or private property;
that the Drafting Committee prepare a draft note warning the German Government that the Allied and Associated Powers will not allow removal or sale by German authorities of naval materiel at Dantzig, which belonged to the Reich, to the German States, or had been requisitioned by them.

6. (The Council had before it a note from the Secretary-General of the Conference dated November 8, 1919 (See Appendix “E”).) Commission Charged With Preparing the Organization of Mixed Tribunals Set Up Under Article 229 of the Peace Treaty With Germany

After a short discussion,

It was decided:

That the Allied and Associated Powers having drawn up a list of individuals charged with crimes to be delivered by the German Government, should have a representative on the Commission whose appointment had been decided on November 7th,4 and which was charged with the organization of mixed tribunals set up under Article 229 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (See Appendix “E”).

7. (The Council had before it a note from the Commission on Polish Affairs dated November 10th, 1919 (See Appendix “F”) and a letter from the Secretary General of the Polish Delegation status of Eastern dated November 9th, 1919 (See Appendix “G”).) Status of Eastern Galicia

M. Cambon said that before commenting upon the report of the Commission he wished to call the attention of the Council to the letter from the Secretary-General of the Polish Delegation. The American, Italian and Japanese Delegations were of the opinion that the request addressed to the Council should be granted. The British and French Delegations, on the other hand, thought that it was time to solve this irritating question.

M. Berthelot said that M. Paderewski had already explained to the Council the Polish point of view.5 They did not see the use of hearing another Polish representative.

M. de Martino said if it only meant a few days delay it might be courteous to grant it.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether Mr. Patek would be informed of the new conclusions arrived at by the Commission. In that case he would discuss them before the Council. Or would the conclusions be kept secret?

M. Cambon said that they were not to be transmitted, but as usual there would be some leakage.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that if at each step they were to hear the Poles, they would never finish. They had come with great difficulty to an agreement. It would be imprudent to reopen the compromise which had been arrived at. However, he himself did not wish to oppose the [Page 100] granting of a short delay of three days for instance. In that case it should be taken into account that Mr. Patek would make objections and that he would ask for time to receive instructions from Warsaw. (The American, Italian and Japanese Delegates stated that they did not insist.)

Mr. Polk thought they might discuss the report and take a decision, with the reservation that they would give Mr. Patek a further hearing.

M. Clemenceau agreed.

M. Cambon read and commented upon the report of the Commission. He said that no disagreement existed between the members of the Commission except in regard to Article 16 which concerned the representation of Eastern Galicia in the Polish Diet. While the text of the majority provided for a representation of Eastern Galicia in the Diet and defined the attributions of its representatives, the minority on the other hand, i. e. the British Delegation, wished to have the question of Eastern Galicia’s representation in the Polish Diet discussed between Galicians and Poles. The majority was afraid that such a procedure would result in endless and violent conflict between Poland and Galicia.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated with satisfaction that the majority had made an effort to meet the minority half way. On his side the minority felt obliged to make some concessions. Three points would have to be discussed: 1—with regard to the duration of the Mandate which the League of Nations would give to Poland in Eastern Galicia, he had received instructions from Mr. Lloyd George to see that the duration of this Mandate should be limited to 10 years. He himself (Sir Eyre Crowe) proposed 15 years, the Commission had proposed 30 years, and finally 25 years had been agreed upon. He would be prepared to take the responsibility to accept this figure. If they did not agree on this point the American Delegation would come back to its former proposition and the question would be reopened. With regard to the Military service, he had already had occasion to express the reluctance of his Government to accept the principle of conscription in the territories placed under the control of the League of Nations. He accepted, however, in a spirit of conciliation, the proposed arrangement. Lastly, with regard to article 16, he wished to say that the British Government was in no way opposed to a representation of Galicia at Warsaw. He only thought that the problem was of so complex a nature that it would be better to let the interested parties solve it themselves. He undoubtedly could accept the text proposed by the majority, but they should take into account the case where Poles and Galicians would agree upon another system; would they be bound by article 16, as proposed by the majority? The British Delegation could not accept the majority’s text except with [Page 101] the following addition, “this arrangement shall be subject to revision by common agreement between the Polish Government and the Ministry of Eastern Galicia.”

M. de Martino accepted the British Amendment.

M. Clemenceau stated that all the Delegations accepted the same.

M. Cambon said that the changes which the Council had approved might necessitate some alteration of the articles originally adopted. He asked that the Council give the Commission on Polish Affairs the mandate to effect in accord with the Drafting Committee such changes of texts which would appear necessary.

Mr. Polk said they were agreed not to publish anything concerning the decisions that had just been taken until the text of the Treaty had been definitely agreed upon.

It was decided:

to approve the report prepared by the Commission on Polish Affairs or its majority, with regard to the text of the preamble and Articles 2 and 38 (See Appendix “F”);
that Article 16, as proposed by the majority, be adopted with the following addition, “This arrangement shall be considered as subject to revision by common agreement between the Polish Government and the Ministry of Eastern Galicia.
that the Commission on Polish Affairs in agreement with the Drafting Committed, should modify the articles concerning the status of Eastern Galicia, which had already been adopted, so as to conform with the two preceding decisions;
that said decisions should not be final until a representative of the Polish Delegation had been heard by the Council;
that the decisions of the Council with regard to the status of Eastern Galicia should remain secret until further order.

8. (The Council had before it a list prepared by the French Delegation of the questions still to be decided by the Supreme Council. (See Appendix “H”).) Questions Still To Be Decided by the Council

M. Polk thought that the Russian and Baltic questions could not be settled by the Council. Would it not be better to agree now that they should be dealt with by the respective Foreign Offices?

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the question of Bessarabia should, however, come before the Council.

Mr. Polk said the American Delegation was of the opinion that the Bessarabian question could not be settled at that time.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated they were clearly of the opinion that Bessarabia should go to Roumania.

Mr. Polk said he was willing to discuss the question, but that this was not the time to make this cession.

M. Berthelot said that the question of the Aaland Islands had already been put before the Council and that it had been decided [Page 102] to adjourn the settlement of same until it knew what attitude Sweden would take in regard to the blockade of Russia.6 In the same way, the problem of repatriation of Allied contingents and of enemy prisoners from Siberia, belonged to the Council.

M. Clemenceau said that the Committee of Ambassadors might deal with the settlement of these three questions: they were questions of execution of the Treaty. It was understood that the Delegations would send in to the Secretariat-General the additional lists which they had been asked to prepare.

Mr. Polk asked whether the Dutch-Belgian Treaty would be ready in time for examination by the Council.

M. Berthelot thought so. An agreement seemed imminent.

Mr. Polk asked whether the distribution of merchant ships was to be settled by the Supreme Council or the Reparation Commission.

M. Clemenceau stated that the Council would discuss it and refer it back to the Reparation Commission if it were deemed necessary.

9. (The Council had before it a note from the British Delegation (See Appendix “I”).) Allowances to Members of Boundary Commissions

Sir Eyre Crowe said the question had been put by the British Treasury, who wished to know from what date the allowances of members of the Boundary Commissions would be drawn.

M. Berthelot thought that the proposals made by the British Delegation offered certain difficulties. It did not seem just to begin the payment of allowances on the day when the nomination was notified to the Secretary-General of the Conference, for these notifications did not all take place at the same date. On the other hand, the date when the Treaty would be put into force was perhaps too late. It would be better to say that the allowances would become due from the constitution of the Commissions, leaving it to the Subcommittee of the Commission on the Execution of the Treaty to determine the application of that decision.

It was decided:

that the allowances laid down in the “Instructions regarding Boundary Commissions,”7 should begin to be payable to members of such Commissions, and be recoverable from the interested States, from the date of constitution of each Boundary Commission;
that the Subcommittee of the Commission on the Execution of the Treaty settle all details with regard to the application of this decision.

(The meeting then adjourned)

Hotel de Crillon, Paris, November 11, 1919.

[Page 103]

Appendix A to HD–89

[The Secretary General of the Commission to Negotiate Peace (Grew) to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference (Dutasta)]

The Secretary General of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace presents his compliments to the Secretariat General of the Peace Conference, and begs to quote, at the request of the Secretary of Labor of the United States, President of the International Labor Congress, the following telegram, dated Washington, D. C, November 8, 1919, addressed by him to the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference:

“The officers of the International Labor Conference at Washington are authorized to state that the Conference considers that it is of the highest importance for the success and value of the work of the Conference, that the German and Austrian Delegations should participate in all deliberations and decisions in regard to the questions on the agenda. They would recall the fact that the decision in favor of the participations of these nations was approved by the whole conference with only one dissentient vote.

The Conference can hardly prolong its sittings beyond the end of November.

They would therefore request the Supreme Council to take such action as will (facilitate) the arrival of the German and Austrian Delegations at Washington at the earliest possible moment.

They also think that they should point out that engagements have been entered into at Paris in this matter. W. B. Wilson, President, H. B. Butler, Secretary-General”.

In this connection, the Secretary General of the American Commission is instructed to make clear the understanding that in transmitting the above-quoted message, the Government of the United States is not in a position to approve or disapprove of its contents, and that the Secretary of Labor is acting solely in his capacity as President of the Labor Conference.

To the Secretariat General of the Peace Conference,
Quai d’ Orsay, Paris.

Appendix B to HD–89


Note, dated November 5th, from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation on:

The Treaty of Peace with Austria;
The Minorities Convention.

delegation of the kingdom
of the

Monsieur le Président: The Delegation of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes has the honor to forward to the Supreme [Page 104] Council its observations on the Treaty of Peace with Austria and the Treaty on the minorities following the new instructions of the Royal Government.

Treaty of Peace With Austria

Although several of our very important requests have not been admitted in the Treaty with Austria, the Royal Government is ready to sacrifice them to the general interest, in order not to create difficulties for the Peace Conference. Yet, this Delegation considers it necessary to draw the careful attention of the Supreme Council to an economic question of vital interest to our country and which should be discussed now, it being in close connection with the Treaty of Peace with Austria.

Our people on the Adriatic coast are a sea-faring people whose qualities are well-known to the whole world. Our navigation has never ceased to exist; its origin dates back for several centuries and developed even under the Austro-Hungarian Government, although Vienna and Budapest systematically ousted the native element and tried by every means to introduce the German and Magyar element even in the mercantile marine. In spite of these efforts and even before this war, the Yougoslavs possessed part of the Austro-Hungarian commercial fleet and indeed, generally speaking, this fleet could not have existed without our crews (sailors and captains), whose number is nearly 30,000.

Our State is in indispensable need of ships for coastal navigation and for trade with foreign countries, a need all the more absolute as international traffic by land will be inadequate for many years to come i. e. till a considerable system of railway lines will be built in our country, the rolling stock repaired and augmented and a steady supply of coal assured.

Sailing craft are the principal means of communication for the traffic with our isles and the small localities on the coast; on the other hand, fishing is the principal source of livelihood for our people on the coast. Considering the shortage of tonnage all over the world it will be difficult for a long time to come to charter vessels. All this is closely bound up with our economic restoration and consolidation which will depend on our foreign trade.

Bearing in mind that a certain part of the tonnage of the former Austro-Hungarian Commercial fleet belonged already before the war to our co-Nationals, our economic existence could be assured if this portion of tonnage were given to us.

Let us pass to the Peace Treaty with Austria in connection with this subject.

[Page 105]

Annex III. (Part VIII. Reparations) stipulates the obligations which the present Austrian Government assumes towards the Allied and Associated Powers concerning ships and vessels under the Austro-Hungarian commercial flag, as well as those in construction.

By the first paragraph of this Annex, the Austrian Government in its own name, and in such a way as to be binding upon all parties concerned, cedes to the Allied and Associated Powers the ownership of all commercial and fishing vessels and ships belonging to subjects of the former Austrian Empire. The other paragraphs deal with the details of these stipulations. It is probable that analogous clauses will be introduced in the Peace Treaty to be concluded with Hungary.

The Treaty with Austria contemplates no exceptions, not even those existing in the Treaty with Germany regarding ships under 1000 tons and of 1000 to 16000 tons.

These stipulations by their rigour and inflexibility are more damaging to our State than to Austria, Hungary or the other States created by the dismemberment of the Danubian Monarchy, as none of these States possess a seaboard. Landlocked States can exist without ships. For our State such a situation would be disastrous, a navy being one of its vital organs. As the surrender of all the ships of the former Austro-Hungarian navy would injure our State alone, it would constitute a flagrant injustice which surely was not in the intentions of the Peace Conference.

For all the reasons pointed out above, we firmly believe that the Supreme Council will take the foregoing into consideration and give them a benevolent examination, inspired by a spirit of equity.

It is necessary that this investigation should be proceeded to at once as the question might otherwise be considered closed as soon as the Treaty with Austria comes into force.

If the Reparations Commission is not bound by some special decision it could proceed upon the basis of the Treaty alone.

In case the distribution of these ships is to be effected in proportion only to the losses incurred during the war by each Allied and Associated Power, the Kingdom of Serbia, which before the war possessed no access to the sea, nor any ships, could not obtain any part of the Austro-Hungarian fleet. Shipowners, at present subjects of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but former subjects of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, would find themselves in a more unfavourable position than that of subjects of Germany, Austria or Hungary, who will receive an indemnity for their ships from their respective States. Contrariwise our subjects will receive no indemnity, their ships being devoted to the payment of reparations due by the enemy States.

To make it easier to understand this special question and its development since the conclusion of the Armistice, we take the liberty of [Page 106] drawing the attention of the Supreme Council to several other circumstances.

On the declaration of war, the Yougoslav shipowners placed all their vessels, in Allied or neutral waters, at the disposal of the Allies. Consequently, many big modern cargo-boats anchored at that time in the then neutral ports of Venice, Ancona and Brindisi preferred to remain under Italian protection to returning to Austrian ports, a return which could then have been easily made. There were also Yougoslav vessels in the British waters; the British Government treated them in a friendly manner. It chartered them at reasonable rates and used these vessels, the property of Yougoslav shipowners, flying the Austrian flag and anchored in British ports.

The Interallied War Council inserted clauses in the Armistice with Austria-Hungary, implying that vessels owned by Italians and Yougo-slavs of Austria-Hungary would receive friendly treatment.

According to information received by us, this question was discussed in May 1919 (probably the 22nd) by the Supreme Council,8 and on that occasion the intention expressed was to apply special treatment, by which our shipowners would retain the ownership of their ships.

From the communications of Mr. Lansing, later on of Mr. Hipwood of the Board of Trade we came to the conviction that the United States and Great Britain were not going to apply the ton for ton principle to the Italians and Yougoslavs in the Adriatic, but that under the adopted scheme of distribution, the Reparations Commission would leave our shipowners the free disposal of their tonnage, formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian fleet. To enable the aforesaid Commission to proceed in this way, a side-agreement relating to Yougoslav shipowners is a necessary corollary.

When the Second Sub-Commission of Reparations met in London in March and April 1919 the President, Lord Cunliffe, informed our experts that the question of tonnage in the Adriatic would be reserved and submitted to special study.

Our Delegation is prepared to furnish more detailed information verbally through our experts, in so far as the Supreme Council shall judge it necessary to demand such information of it concerning the subject in question.

Proposition. The Delegation of the Kingdom of Serbs-Croats and Slovenes has the honor to beg the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers to submit this question to an immediate examination and to bring about a decision by which instructions be given to the Commission of Reparations to assign to our State such trading vessels as well as the fishing and sailing boats in the Adriatic as upon [Page 107] the date of November 4, 1918 were owned by our shipowners and capital in the Adriatic.

The Minorities Convention

The Royal Government has never contested the general principle of this convention. In the last Note9 addressed to the Royal Government of Rumania it was stated, according to press information, that the Peace Conference, while preserving intact the general principle which is the basis of the Minorities Convention, is prepared to consider modifications available for application to the internal clauses of the Convention with Rumania. On this point we agree with the Conference and while respecting the general principle of the Convention which is the same in all Conventions of this kind—we beg the Supreme Council kindly to examine the following points which apply to internal conditions and which in accordance with the instructions of our Government, it is our duty to submit to it.

1) We ask that in the Preamble to the Convention it shall be added that Serbia loyally carried out the engagements accepted by her under the Treaty of Berlin.10

This is a known fact. It is a matter of importance to us that it should be recognized in the Convention which creates the new clauses protecting Minorities at the moment in which it abolishes the engagements of the Treaty of Berlin. It would be a satisfaction equal to that most justly given to Greece by recognizing in the Preamble to her Convention that she intended equal rights irrespective of origin to all populations living within her territories.

2) The right reserved to the Principal Powers under Art. 51 of the Treaty with Austria originally embarrassed the Royal Government which feared lest the National Assembly would not ratify a blank cheque. But, in face of the Convention, it is obviously no longer a question of a blank cheque.

Nevertheless it must be pointed out that it does not transpire from the text of the Convention that the latter is connected with Art. 51 of the Treaty with Austria, nor that by the signature of the Convention the right reserved to the Principal Powers under Art. 51 becomes exhausted.

Consequently, we request that Art. 5 [51] of the Treaty with Austria shall be brought into relation with the Minorities Convention in such a way that it is made clear thereby that the right of the Principal [Powers], provided for in Art. 51 is exhausted by the Convention. We beg to observe that satisfaction in this direction has already been given to [Page 108] Poland in the introduction of the letter of June 24, 1919,11 addressed by M. Clemenceau, in the name of the Conference, to M. Paderewski.

3) We demand that all territories of the Kingdom of Serbia, as constituted at the outbreak of the war, shall be excluded from the operation of the Minorities Convention.

We are obliged to return to this demand with insistence. Serbia enjoyed full sovereignty without any restriction when she entered this war. No power raised any objection against the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913,12 by which she acquired new territories, not even Austria-Hungary, who had at first tried to do so. The Treaty of Bucharest has been considered as res inter alios acta. The obligation imposed by the minorities regime upon the territories of the Kingdom of Serbia could not be justified even by the fact that the Convention formally frees Serbia from the obligations which resulted for her from the Treaty of Berlin. These obligations, which were loyally observed by Serbia, have indeed already lost their raison d’être.

The objection that no distinction can be drawn between territories belonging to one and the same State is not justified, as this distinction entails no difficulty in the application of the Convention. Moreover, exceptions have been admitted under the actual Treaty, which recognizes that the provisions of Art. 9 should be applicable only to territories transferred to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes since January 1st, 1913. A second exception has been adopted in the Treaty with Poland.13 Indeed, Art. 9 of her convention stipulates that the rights accorded to minorities shall be applicable only to Polish subjects of German speech living in parts of Poland which prior to August 1st 1914 were German territory, to the exclusion of the rest of Poland’s territories.

4) We request that in the French text the words “pourra prendre telles mesures” shall be replaced by the words “pourra procéder de telle façon” and that in the Italian text the words “possa prendere quei provvedimenti” shall be replaced by the words “possa procedere in tal maniera”.

In none of the other Minorities Conventions nor yet in the original wording of the Convention with our State do the words “prendre Telles mesures” occur, but their place is taken by “procéder de telle façon”; which leads us to believe that this distinction is fortuitous, all the more as the English text is identical in all the Conventions. Special importance attaches to the French text in view of the fact that in case of divergence that is the one which will be appealed to.

[Page 109]

Fundamentally there can be no doubt but that the obligation implied by the words “pourra prendre telles mesures” is certainly stronger and more serious than that implied by the phrase “procéder de telle façon”.

5) We consider that it is necessary for the sake of greater clearness in Art. 11 of the Minorities Convention and therefore request that it shall not intervene in differences between our State and private individuals belonging to minorities and that these differences should bear a legal character. That is why a special court has been created to meet this exigency. (Permanent Court of Justice).

As to the modifications provided by Art. 11 we request that it shall be recognized that it is merely a case of modifications which will facilitate the putting into effect of these clauses in the case that difficulties should arise; this has already been admitted in the reply of the Peace Conference to the observations of the Austrian Delegation14 (page 7, and in M. Clemenceau’s letter already referred to) (Part III).

6) It appears that Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention is in contradiction with Article 76 of the Treaty with Austria in so much as according to the latter, the acquisition of our nationality is subject to the authorization of our State for all persons habitually resident in the territories transferred to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and having acquired the right of citizenship (indigénat) since January 1st 1910; whereas according to Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention, these persons acquire our nationality ipso facto and without requirement of any formality if at the date of the coming into force of the Minorities Treaty they are habitually resident or possess the right of citizenship in these territories. If it is considered that there is no contradiction here, the wording of Art. 3 is nevertheless lacking in clearness, and for this reason it ought to be drawn up in such a way as to be made to agree with Art. 76 of the Treaty with Austria, which has already been signed.

As regards Art. 3, it remains for us to point out that the question of habitual residence and right of citizenship must be defined in such a way, that the question of right of citizenship (Pertinenza, Heimatsrecht) applies only to such of our territories as belonged formerly to Austria-Hungary, where this institution existed, whereas that of domicile must be applied exclusively to Bulgaria where the right of citizenship does not exist.

Consequently we propose that the text of Paragraph I of Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention should be re-worded in the following manner:

“The Serb-Croat-Slovene State admits and declares to be its nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality Austrian and Hungarian nationals possessing rights of citizenship (Pertinenza, [Page 110] Heimatsrecht) and Bulgarian nationals domiciled on January 1st 1910 in territory which is or may be recognized as forming part of the Serb-Croat and Slovene State under the Treaties with Austria, Hungary or Bulgaria respectively, or under any treaties which may be concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement.”

7) It goes without saying that the clauses of this Convention must be applied in accordance with the spirit of it, which does not tend to create privileges for the benefit of minorities, but to protect their natural right to their language and the profession of their religion. In view of the fact that owing to their intellectually and political backward condition, a large proportion of the minorities in our State might be prompted to misinterpret these clauses, it is necessary for the Conference to declare that it is not at all a case of privilege but of the protection of their rights. It is furthermore necessary to point out that persons belonging to minorities are bound loyally and completely to fulfil all duties towards the State incumbent upon them no less than upon all citizens. A declaration of this kind emanating from the Conference would be authoritative, and would undoubtedly have a beneficial effect which would greatly facilitate the normal application of the Convention.

8) In the case that ameliorations should eventually be accorded to Rumania or to Greece, over the question of the Minorities Convention, we request that it should be recognized that they shall be applicable ipso facto also to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Such an assurance would permit us unhesitatingly to shorten the further discussion of the Convention.

Proposition. The Delegation insistently begs the Supreme Council kindly to examine the foregoing requests and to give it satisfaction by adopting them, taking into account the fact that as the Royal Government is animated by the desire to act always in perfect solidarity with the Conference, it hopes for a benevolent reception on the part of the latter.

His Excellency Monsieur G. Clemenceau,
President of the Peace Conference,

Appendix C to HD–89

Draft of Report to the Supreme Council

The Committee on New States has examined the observations presented by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation with regard to the minorities treaty.15

[Page 111]

The remarks made, at least those which have appeared acceptable to the Committee, do not seem of a nature necessitating modifications in the text of a treaty which is already signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Likewise, after having carefully studied the various objections of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, the Committee considers that the Supreme Council, if it considers it advisable, might address to the Delegation, in the form of a letter, a reply in which the clauses of the treaty regarding which observations have been presented should be explained in the degree which seems justifiable. This interpretation will give the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation certain of the satisfactions desired.

It is with this object that the Committee on New States has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council a draft letter to be addressed to the President of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation.

The Committee has believed it opportune to profit by the occasion of the reply to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation to ask the latter to confirm in writing, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Council of November 1st [October 29]16 last, that Ottoman subjects who fulfil the conditions set out in Article 4 of the Minorities Treaty for obtaining Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality may profit from the said article.

Draft Reply To Be Addressed by the Supreme Council to the President of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the Subject of the Minorities Treaty

Mr. President: The Supreme Council has examined with the greatest attention the observations contained in your letter of November 5th relative to certain provisions of the Minorities Treaty.

Having first taken note with pleasure of the assurance given by the Royal Government that it has never contested the general principle of this Treaty, the Council proceeded to study the remarks made with the desire of clearing up all the points capable of arousing in the mind of the Delegation and of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State an interpretation which would not be justified, and now makes the following replies, point by point:

1. It has never been the intention of the Supreme Council to raise any doubt concerning the manner in which the former Kingdom of Serbia executed its international engagements toward its population. The present reply may in this respect replace the insertion of a special phrase in the preamble of the Treaty, which is no longer possible because the said treaty has already been signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

[Page 112]

2. The signature by the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes of the Minorities Treaty fulfils and entirely cancels, in the eyes of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the intention for which Article 51 of the Austrian Treaty, relative to the protection of minorities, was inserted. In consequence, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers will ask nothing more of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State such as the signature of any new contractual provision concerning the said protection of ethnic minorities.

3. The distinction requested with a view to excluding from the Minorities Treaty the territory of the Kingdom of Serbia as it existed at the beginning of the war could not be granted by the Supreme Council, for the reasons already stated. Such restriction of the validity of the entire treaty, and not of only one clause, would bring into question the principles of the treaty itself, already contained in certain provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, now replaced so far as Serbia is concerned. It would not be in accordance with the other agreements already signed or prepared, whose principles must be identical according to the desires of the Royal Government itself.

4. The differences pointed out in Article 11 between the original draft of the treaty and the definitive draft, in the French and Italian Texts, does not represent in reality a modification of meaning. The fact that the English text has remained the same indicates clearly that it is only a question of a difference in drafting which does not necessitate an alteration of the treaty.

Note.—(This modification having been adopted by the Supreme Council on September 1st,17 the Italian Delegation does not believe this explanation should be given to the Government of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.)

5. It results from Article 11 that the Council of the League of Nations can take action only at the request of a state represented on the Council and not at the request of individuals belonging to minorities. As to the judicial and non-political character of these disputes, the Supreme Council is pleased to give evidence of this in writing. It is furthermore clearly indicated by the fact that disputes are referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which constitutes a tribunal and not a political body.

If any difficulties arise in the execution of these clauses, their modification would be facilitated by the stipulation providing that this can be done with the consent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations, and that the Allied and Associated Powers now agree not to refuse their consent to any modification whatever of this nature.

6. The provisions of Article 3 of the treaty are made “subject to [Page 113] the treaties mentioned below”, notably to the treaty with Austria, as indicated in the following text. So far as the acquisition of Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality by former nationals of Austria is concerned, therefore, the provisions contemplated in this respect in the treaty with Austria remain in force.

Respecting the observation relative to the question of domicile and indigénat the Supreme Council considers that the draft of Article 3 complies entirely with the meaning stated by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The term “as the case may be” satisfies the request presented.

So far as concerns Article 4, which treats of questions of nationality connected with those of Article 3, the attention of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had been drawn to the omission of Ottoman nationals from the benefits of the provisions contemplated. The Supreme Council, while considering it impossible to modify the text already signed, and furthermore not wishing to ask the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to sign a formal agreement on this point, has confidence that this Government has no intention of refusing, to persons of Ottoman nationality who may fulfil the conditions set out in the said Article 4, the rights expressly granted to persons of Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian nationality. It requests the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation to be good enough to confirm this in writing.

7. In preparing this treaty, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have never intended to confer special privileges on minorities, but only to prevent racial conflicts by granting to these minorities equitable protection, and, by the guarantee of all their rights, to permit them to become loyal citizens of the state. There has been no idea of exempting them from the fulfilment of all their duties which are incumbent upon them in the same way as upon all other citizens. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers willingly give assurance of this to the Delegation of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, as they are ready to give similar assurances to any other state signatory to a treaty relative to the protection of minorities.

8. So far as concerns the request of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation tending to grant to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes the benefit of any modifications which may be finally granted to Rumania and Greece, the Supreme Council considers that it has fixed the fundamental principles on which should rest all the treaties relative to the protection of minorities and that it is not its intention to modify these principles.

With the exception of the observations presented on point 3, all the explanations which have just been made are of a nature to give satisfaction to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. They constitute the [Page 114] justified interpretation of the articles of the treaty on which explanations were asked.

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Council has decided after careful examination that it is not necessary, in order to give satisfaction to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, to modify the text of the treaty already signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. The comments presented in the reply above will convey to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State the assurance of the sentiments of the Supreme Council, which is quite convinced of the desire of the Royal Government to act in perfect solidarity with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Appendix D to HD–89

Note for the Supreme Council Concerning Naval Material at Dantzig

The Drafting Committee is of the opinion that the removal, or the sale by the German authorities of the maritime material which is at Dantzig and belongs to the Empire or to the German States, or was requisitioned by them, is contrary to the stipulations of Article 107 of the Peace Treaty, and that by taking such measures, at this time, Germany is jeopardizing the loyal execution of the Treaty.

The same solution would be difficult to support, if the matter concerned private properties, and the individuals interested spontaneously disposed of them.

For the Drafting Committee:
Henry Fromageot

Appendix E to HD–89

secretariat general
of the peace conference

Commission on Co-ordination of the Lists of Accused, and Organization of Mixed Tribunals

The Supreme Council, in its resolution of the 7th of November,18 decided on the constitution of a commission charged with comparing the lists of accused, to be delivered by Germany, and organizing the mixed tribunals, provided for by Article 229 of the Treaty.

This Commission has been composed of the representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Certain other. Allied Powers, notably Belgium, were alarmed on account of their eviction from the composition of this Commission. [Page 115] Besides Belgium, other Powers, (Greece, Poland, Rumania and Serbia) may have to claim accused persons of German nationality and have an interest in taking part in the organization of the mixed tribunals.

It would be advisable, in order to comply with the requests of these powers, as well as to be in the position of providing for eventual objections of procedure in the organization of mixed tribunals, to complete the resolution of November 7, by the following text:

“It is decided that the Allied Powers, which have compiled a list of accused to be claimed from Germany, will have a representative in the Commission (charged with the organization of this tribunal)”.

Appendix F to HD–89

Note Presented to the Supreme Council by the Commission on Polish Affairs

Question of Eastern Galicia

In a resolution, under date of November 7,19 the Supreme Council decided to forward for consideration, to the Commission on Polish Affairs, the proposition made by the British Delegation, with a view to having the League of Nations give Poland a mandate of definite duration over eastern Galicia. Task Assigned to the Commission

The Commission on Polish Affairs, with an intention of conciliation, unanimously decided to accept the principle of a mandate. Although recommending to the Council the adoption of this solution, which, alone, under the present circumstances seems of a nature to realize the unanimity of the Delegations and to lead to a concrete result, the Commission deems it its duty to call attention to the fact that no mandate has been considered so far for the countries situated in Europe, and that Eastern Galicia profoundly differs from the territories to which the principle of the mandate has so far been applied. Adoption of the Principle of the Mandate

With respect to the duration of the mandate conferred on Poland, four Delegations* were of the opinion that it should be fixed at twenty-five [Page 116] years, thinking that it is necessary that the destinies of a sorely tried and profoundly troubled country, cannot be treated again before the legal age of a new generation which will have grown up protected from the agitations and the shocks caused by the world war. The British Delegate, nevertheless, has declared that his instructions did not permit him to accept an extension to twenty-five years of the ten-year period considered by the British Delegation. However, he agreed to call the attention of the British representative to the Supreme Council, to the arguments set forth by the majority of the Commission. Duration of the Mandate

At last the Commission unanimously concluded that it would be desirable that, at the expiration of a period during which the mandate would have been granted to Poland, the League of Nations receive full authority to maintain, revise, or modify the statute defined by the Treaty. This provision should be liberally interpreted and would imply for the League of Nations the power to entirely dissolve the system of mandate, and to pronounce, for instance, either the annexation of Eastern Galicia to Poland, or to another State, or to choose any other solution which it might deem proper. Competence of the League of Nations

Aside from the question of the mandate, the Commission attempted to compromise concerning the two points on which a disagreement existed between the majority and the minority of the Commission (See Report No. 5),20 that is to say, on the principle of the representation of Eastern Galicia in the Diet of Poland (Article 16 of the Draft of Treaty) and on the military organization (Article 38). Discussion of Article 16 and of the Draft of Treaty

On the first question the divergence could not be settled, the British Delegation having maintained the text proposed for Article 16 by the minority of the Commission. He deemed, in fact, that it was a matter of principle which ought to be decided by the Supreme Council itself. He declared himself willing, however, to set forth to the British plenipotentiary the arguments presented by the majority to support its point of view.

On the question of the military organization, on the other hand, the Commission unanimously agreed to propose a new draft of Article 38, which would give to the Polish Government the right to apply in Eastern Galicia the military legislation in effect in Poland, with the reserve that the contingent thus recruited would constitute special units which, in peace time, would be located in Eastern Galicia and be at the disposal of the Polish Government in time of war for the defense of the national territory. This last expression is designed to [Page 117] forbid Poland the use of forces recruited in Eastern Galicia in any war which had not been forced upon her, but it must not be interpreted as implying the interdiction to use the troops of Eastern Galicia in a defensive war outside of the Polish frontiers.

If the propositions presented above by the Commission are adopted by the Supreme Council, it would be advisable to modify the next of the draft of Treaty, such as it appears in Report No. 5 of the Commission, as follows:* Proposed New Text

a)—In the preamble, suppression of the clause thus conceived:

“Until the moment when they will be invited to express, by vote, at present postponed on account of the troubled state of Eastern Europe, their desires relative to the definite political statute in those territories.”

(The Supreme Council, on the other hand, in its meeting of September 19th, decided on the suppression of the paragraph mentioned in Report No. 5 of the Commission and thus conceived:21

“Considering that Eastern Galicia formed part of the former Kingdom of Poland until the dismemberment of the latter.”)

b)—Article 2 would be thus drawn up:

“Poland accepts, in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations, and under the conditions provided for in the present Treaty, the mandate of organizing and governing Eastern Galicia, which will constitute an autonomous territory, within the limits determined by Article I.

“This mandate, which is conferred for a period of twenty-five years at the expiration of which the Council of the League of Nations will have full authority to maintain, revise, or modify the statute defined by the present Treaty.”

c)—At last Article 38 would thus be drawn up:

“The legislation on military service in effect in Poland can be applied by Poland to Eastern Galicia, with the reserve that the contingent thus recruited will constitute special units, which, in peace time will be located in Eastern Galicia and will, in time of war, be at the disposal of the Polish Government for the defense of national territory.”

In case these suggestions be admitted, it would seem that the Commission should be directed to study in concert with the Drafting Committee, the modifications in form which it would be advisable to make in the other articles of the Treaty.

[Page 118]

Appendix G to HD–89

From: St. Kozicki, Polish Delegation,

To: President Clemenceau.

Having learned that the Supreme Council is about to admit the question the Eastern part of Galicia for examination on the basis of a new plan which differs essentially from the plan previously discussed, and concerning which the Polish Delegates have not been permitted to express themselves, the Polish Delegation entertains the hope that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers will not come to any decision without previously hearing the views of the Polish Delegates, as Poland is one of the Allied States.

In view of the fact that Mr. Dmowski is, unfortunately, seriously ill and that Mr. Paderewski is absent from Paris, the Polish Delegation has the honor to request the Supreme Council to kindly postpone its decision on the fate of the Eastern part of Galicia until the Polish Delegates return to Paris and are allowed to present their case to the Peace Conference.

Please accept, etc.

General Secretary,
St. Kozicki

Appendix H to HD–89

Questions for Regulation by the Supreme Council

I.—Special Questions

A.—Execution of the Treaty with Germany.

Conditions governing the resumption of diplomatic relations. (A report to be furnished by the Special Commission).

Reorganization of the Superior War Council at Versailles to centralize the measures of execution concerning the military clauses of the Peace Treaty, in Germany and in the different occupied territories.

Extradition and trial of the Kaiser.

Nomination of the members of the Commission entrusted with the comparison of the lists of culprits presented by the different Powers and to regulate a procedure for the mixed tribunals (article 229). Question of the representation of small Powers on the Commission.

Convention between Poland and the free city of Dantzig (a report to be furnished by the Commission on Polish Affairs).

Togo and Cameroun: employment of the contingents for the defense of the metropolitan and colonial territory.

[Page 119]

B.—Execution of the Treaty with Austria.

Signing of the Treaty with Austria and of the treaties for the protection of minorities by: a) The Serb-Croat-Slovene State; b) Rumania.

C.—Execution of the Treaty with Bulgaria.

Question of the attribution of Bulgarian Thrace.

D.—Treaty with Hungary.

Question of the total or partial payment of the Rumanian occupation expenses;

The furnishing of coal to Hungary by Poland and the Czechoslovak State; (Article 207);

Exploitation of the Pecs Mines (report to be furnished by the Commission on Rumanian and Jugoslav affairs).

II.—Questions in Common

A—Distribution of enemy ships.

German and Austro-Hungarian battleships.
Reparations demanded by France and Italy for the interruption in their naval constructions during the war and for the employment of their shipyards and mills in the manufacture of war materials for themselves and the Allies.
Commercial ships.
General distribution of the merchant tonnage between those concerned.
German ships; question of tankers.
Austro-Hungarian ships. Distribution of the tonnage between Italy and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

B—Cost of upkeep of the armies of occupation.

III.—General Political Questions

A—Question of the Adriatic.

Frontiers between Italy and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

  • Fiume.
  • Montenegro.
  • Albania.

B—Russian and Baltic Question.

Recognition of Admiral Koltchak.
Finland (Petchenga and Carelia).
Aland Islands.
Baltic States.
Eastern frontiers of Poland.
Caucasus State.
Repatriation of the Allied contingents in Siberia.
Repatriation of enemy prisoners in Russia.

C—Treaty with Turkey.

D—Treaty with Belgium and the Netherlands for the revision of the Treaties of 1839.

Appendix I to HD–89

Draft Resolution Regarding Allowances for Boundary Commissioners Submitted to the Supreme Council by the British Delegation

The allowances, laid down in the “Instructions regarding Boundary Commissions,” Part III. Administration, dated October 6, 1919,22 shall begin to be payable to each member, and to be recoverable from the interested States, as follows:—

(a) In the case of those Boundary Commissions which have to be constituted within 15 days from the coming into force of a Treaty,

From the date of coming into force of this Treaty, or as soon after as the nomination of the member has been received by the Secretariat of the Peace Conference.

(b) In other cases, e. g., final demarcation of plebiscite areas,

From the first day of the period within which the Boundary-Commission is ordered to be constituted, or as soon after as the nomination of the member has been received by the Secretariat General of the Peace Conference.

  1. Appendix B to HD–90, p. 133.
  2. HD–44, minute 1, vol. viii, p. 30.
  3. See “Decisions To Be Discussed With Small States”, CF–24/1, vol. v, p. 836.
  4. HD–86, minute 1, p. 20.
  5. HD–59, minute 5, vol. viii, p. 330.
  6. HD–64, minute 8, vol. viii, p. 464.
  7. Appendix B to HD–70, ibid., p. 655.
  8. CF–24/1, minute 5, vol. v, p. 834.
  9. Appendix B to HD–68, vol. viii, p. 583.
  10. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.
  11. Appendix I to CF–85, vol. vi, p. 629.
  12. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. cvii, p. 658.
  13. Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1910–1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), vol. iii, p. 3714.
  14. Appendix F to HD–38, vol. vii, p. 859.
  15. Appendix B to HD–89, supra.
  16. HD–78, minute 3, vol. viii, p. 805.
  17. HD–44, minute 1, vol. viii, p. 30.
  18. HD–86, minute 1, p. 20.
  19. HD–86, minute 3, p. 20.
  20. However, the American Delegation desires that it be specified that it accepted a limitation of the duration of the mandate only in the hope of coming to a unanimous agreement. Therefore, if the British Delegation should not accept, definitely, this period of twenty-five years, the American Delegation reserves the right to stand by its first proposition, which consisted in entrusting Poland, under the conditions determined by the Treaty, with the mandate of administering Eastern Galicia as long as this system should give satisfactory results, the Council of the League of Nations remaining free to bring about a change in status at any time such change might seem to it desirable. [Footnote in the original.]
  21. Appendix C to HD–57, vol. viii, p. 280.
  22. On account of the short time available for the preparation of the report of the Commission, which ought to be submitted to the Council at its meeting of November 10, the new text proposed by the Commission could not be submitted for the consideration of the Drafting Committee. [Footnote in the original.]
  23. See HD–57, minute 3, vol. viii, p. 270.
  24. The British Delegate makes, concerning these twenty-five years, a reservation which has been defined above. [Footnote in the original.]
  25. Appendix D to HD–70, vol. viii, p. 655.