Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/89
HD–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.
Paris, November 11, 1919, 10:30 a.m.
- Present
- America, United States of
- Secretary
- British Empire
- Secretary
- France
- Secretaries
- M. Dutasta
- M. Berthelot
- M. de Saint Quentin
- Italy
- Secretary
- Japan
- Secretary
| 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
[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:
- (1)
- 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;
- (2)
- 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:
- (1)
- 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;
- (2)
- 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;
- (3)
- 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:
- (1)
- 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;
- (2)
- 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:
- (1)
- 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”);
- (2)
- 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.
- (3)
- 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;
- (4)
- that said decisions should not be final until a representative
of the Polish Delegation had been heard by the Council;
- (5)
- 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:
- (1)
- 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;
- (2)
- 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
Paris, November 10,
1919.
[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
Contents
Note, dated November 5th, from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation on:
- 1:
- The Treaty of Peace with Austria;
- 2:
- The Minorities Convention.
delegation of the
kingdom
of the
serbs-croats-slovenes
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,
Paris.
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
November 7,
1919.
Appendix E to HD–89
secretariat
general
of the peace conference
November 8,
1919.
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.
- 1)
- Battleships.
- a)
- German and Austro-Hungarian battleships.
- b)
- 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.
- 2)
- Commercial ships.
- a)
- General distribution of the merchant tonnage between
those concerned.
- b)
- German ships; question of tankers.
- c)
- 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.
- a)
- Recognition of Admiral Koltchak.
- b)
- Finland (Petchenga and Carelia).
- c)
- Aland Islands.
- d)
- Baltic States.
- e)
- Eastern frontiers of Poland.
- f)
- Ukrainia.
- g)
- Bessarabia.
- h)
- Caucasus State.
- i)
- Repatriation of the Allied contingents in Siberia.
- j)
- 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.
