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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03701/2

CM–2

Notes of a Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Held at Quai d’Orsay, Paris, Tuesday, January 13, 1920, at 11 a.m.

Paris, January 13, 1920, 11 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. Hugh Wallace
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Harrison
  • Great Britain
    • Lord Curzon
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Sargent.
  • France
    • Mr. Cambon
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. Berthelot
    • Mr. de Saint-Quentin
  • Italy
    • Mr. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Trombetti
  • Japan
    • Mr. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • Mr. Kawai

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. B. Winthrop.
Great Britain	Capt. Lothian Small.
France	Mr. de Percin.
Italy	Mr. Zanchi.
Interpreter—Mr. Cammerlynck

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

• Great Britain
  • Capt. Fuller, R. N.
  • Comdr. MacNamara, R. N.
  • Mr. Malkin,
  • Mr. Campbell,
  • Mr. Herman,
  • Mr. Hutchinson.
• France
  • Adl. Le Vavasseur,
  • Mr. de Fleuriau,
  • Mr. de Serruys,
  • Mr. Laroche,
  • Mr. Seydoux,
  • Mr. Escoffier,
  • Mr. Fromageot,
  • Mr. Hermite.
• Italy
  • Rear-Adl. Grassi,
  • Mr. Ricci Busatti
  • Mr. Mancioli
  • Capt. Ruspoli, R. N.

The Council had before it a note, dated January 12, 1920, (Appendix “A”) from the Drafting Committee, in reply to certain questions raised in a note from the Financial Commission (Appendix “B”) concerning the relation of Croatia-Slovenia towards Hungary in common law. 1. Treaty of Peace With Hungary, Report of Drafting Committee on Nature of Compromise Between Hungary and Croatia-Slovenia

Mr. Fromageot explained the note from the Drafting Committee (Appendix “A”) the conclusion of which was that there was no need to grant the request formulated by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation in its letter of December 29, 1919, and that the text of the Treaty with Hungary could remain in its present form as far as that question was concerned.

After a short discussion,

It was decided:

to reject the alteration to the text of the Treaty with Hungary requested by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation in its letter dated December 29, 1919.

A note from the Financial Commission dated January 12, 1920, (Appendix “C”) was laid before the Council, in which the former pronounced against an alteration of the text of the Article of the Treaty with Hungary corresponding to Article 211 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which alteration was requested in a report of the Economic Commission dated December 27, 1919. (Appendix “D”). 2. Treaty of Peace With Hungary. Report of Financial Commission on Modification Requested by Economic Commission of Article Corresponding to Article 211 of Treaty With Austria

Mr. Cheysson explained the note from the Financial Commission (Appendix “C”).

Mr. Scialoja: I am entirely in favour of the conclusion adopted by the Financial Commission. In addition to the considerations urged by the latter, another argument may be invoked, i. e. that the question of entail has nothing in common with that of public undertakings. It is a question of interior regulation and concerns private international law. If Serbia considers the institution of entail as contrary to public order, she will be perfectly free in future not to recognize this mode of transferring property within her territory. In Italy we have taken certain measures against trusts, which we consider have draw-backs of an economic nature. There is nothing to prevent Serbia from taking similar measures if she so desires. But it is, I repeat, a domestic question which arises more naturally in legal terms than within the sphere of finance and politics.

Mr. Serruys: The question raised by the Italian Foreign Minister presents a certain gravity and much exceeds the Article in question. I do not think it at all obvious that the provisions of the Treaty with Hungary leave Serbia entirely free in her domestic legislation where these entails are concerned. I would point out, moreover, that a similar question has arisen in Roumania, where a law has just been promulgated concerning the settlement of foreigners. The provisions of the Treaties in force are apparently opposed to the application of this law to former Austro-Hungarian nationals.

Mr. Scialoja: Serbia will obviously not be able to confiscate these entails, but will be free to regulate the conditions of administration and succession of these properties as she likes.

Mr. Serruys: Entail represents quite a special form of property which does indeed seem to be guaranteed by the provisions of the Treaties. They constitute an economic appropriation of ceded territory and I think they can be compared to a certain extent with public concessions. I would, moreover, point out that, according to the solution we propose, the Reparations Commission could, after liquidating such property, attribute it as it thought best. This property might therefore return to the Hungarians themselves. Without in any way prejudging the financial clauses, we thought it fair to free Serbia from an economic appropriation which might become very formidable. Morever, the position of Serbia is particularly critical from the point of view of reparation, since the Serbs possess no Hungarian security in Serbia, since sequestrations which had been enforced were raised as a result of the enemy occupation of Serbia. Sums owed by Serbia to Austria-Hungary were paid as the result of violent measures taken by the occupying authorities, sale of furniture, etc. Serbia therefore possesses no material security for the sums owed her by Hungary. I do not think the alteration we propose is contrary to the general system forbidding the liquidation of property of persons belonging to ceded territories.

Mr. Cambon: I see good reasons in favor of each of the two solutions proposed to us, one by the Economic Commission and the other by the Financial Commission. My opinion is that, as Mr. Scialoja suggests, the question comes chiefly within the legal sphere. In those circumstances, I rather think it would be wise to refer the question to the Drafting Committee, which might be consulted immediately. In my opinion we should nevertheless explain to it the desire of the Council that, where domestic legislation is concerned, Serbia should be assured freedom in the liquidation of these entails.

Lord Curzon: I am in favor of the solution proposed by the Financial Commission. I know that the Economic Commission has given its judgment after thorough investigation, but I note that no British representative was present during its deliberations. Had the British representative been present, I do not think the Commission would have reached an unanimous decision. For my part, I am quite prepared to settle the question immediately by accepting the conclusions of the Financial Commission.

Mr. Scialoja: I am also in favor of this solution.

Mr. Cambon: We must nevertheless avoid appearing to cover and perpetuate the institution of entail which may present serious dangers for Serbia, and at least be certain that the Serbs will be entirely free to settle the method of succession of these domains as they think best, without the possibility of opposing the provisions of the Treaty to the legislative measures they may be called upon to take. A question of private international law arises which might be referred to the Drafting Committee.

Mr. Scialoja: I myself am a legal expert and I am unable to understand what legal objection could be formulated with the object of refusing Serbia complete freedom of action where her domestic legislation is concerned.

Mr. Cheysson: I must point out that the Financial Commission has not examined the question in principle; it has merely given its decision on the clearly defined proposal of the Economic Commission.

Mr. Laroche: To avoid all difference of interpretation, would it not be possible to introduce a short provision expressly reserving the right of the Serbs to regulate as they wish the conditions of transmission of the domains in question, while protecting them against any attempt at liquidation or seizure?

Mr. Scialoja: I do not see what article there is which could possibly be opposed to measures taken by the Serbs.

Mr. Serruys: It is the article protecting the property of enemy nationals inhabiting ceded territories. The institution of entail implies certain special forms of ownership and administration of property which might, like exemptions from taxation, be considered as forming part of the property itself and consequently as being protected by the same provisions of the Treaty. If we leave the text of the Treaty unaltered, it is to be feared that the Hungarians will maintain that the Serbs have no right to alter the transfer of property as provided for by the instrument constituting the entail.

Mr. Laroche: An article might be inserted making it possible for the Serbs to abolish the law of entail subject to an indemnity to the owners.

Mr. Scialoja: I do not think such a provision necessary. In my opinion the abolition of entail can in no way be considered equivalent to confiscation.

Mr. Cambon: Even if a provision of this kind is superfluous, I see no drawback to inserting it.

Mr. Scialoja: If we provide for an exception in the Treaty with Hungary, a similar provision would have to be inserted in all the other Treaties, which has not been done. General legal principles are obviously applied, without any necessity for expressly stating the fact.

Mr. Cambon: In view of the legislative confusion arising out of the creation of so many new States and the litigious nature of the Hungarians, we must avoid leaving any doubt which might later cause the Serbs serious difficulties. I think it would be better to provide a special provision for the case under discussion.

Mr. Scialoja: The aim of the Serbian request was nothing less than the confiscation of entail, which we cannot allow. I should like to know which article is feared for the domestic liberty of Serbian legislation.

Mr. Serruys: It is Article 276 [267?] of the Treaty of Saint-Germain.

Mr. Scialoja: That Article refers expressly to the case of seizure or liquidation. It does not, therefore, apply to the situation under consideration. By raising useless exceptions we risk causing doubt as to the general rule to be applied.

Mr. Laroche: Then we might draft a reply to the Serbian note¹ indicating the reasons for which their request was not allowed. They would thus know that they are free to alter the conditions of transfer and administration of entail if they think fit.

Mr. Cambon: This solution seems to me the best. Mr. Scialoja, whose opinion has prevailed might, if he will, undertake to draft this reply to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, explaining to them the reasons for which their freedom of domestic legislation on this question of entail remains intact.

It was decided:

(1) to adopt the conclusions of the note of the Financial Commission of January 12, 1920, and not to alter the Article of the Treaty with Hungary corresponding to Article 211 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain.

(2) to instruct Mr. Scialoja to draft a reply to the note of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation of December 12, 1919, explaining the reasons for which there is no need to grant its request and specifying that no provision of the Treaty is opposed to the right of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State to settle by provisions of domestic legislation the conditions of transfer and administration of entails situated within the districts ceded by Hungary to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

The Council had before it a joint note, dated January 13, 1920 (Appendix “E”) from the representatives to the Economic Commission and those of the European Coal Commission. This note was in favor of an alteration of Article 224 [207?] of the Treaty with Hungary, which makes it compulsory for the Czecho-Slovak State and for Poland to supply Hungary with a certain quantity of coal or lignite in exchange for food-stuffs and raw materials. 3. Treaty of Peace With Hungary. Report of Special Commission on Modifications to Article 207 Claimed by the Czecho-Slovak Delegation

Mr. Serruys commented upon this note from the Economic Commission. (Appendix “E”).

It was decided:

to adopt the conclusions formulated in the note from the Economic Commission dated January 13, 1920, (Appendix “E”) together with the alterations to Article 224 [207?] of the Treaty with Hungary, indicated in the annex to that note. (See also Appendix “E”).

Mr. Seydoux: The last time that the question of enemy trade in Turkey came before the Council, a note from the French Delegation was discussed, (See H. D. 122, Appendix “H”),² favoring the retention of the status quo; and the British Delegation had likewise drawn up a proposal of five points (see H. D. 122)³ reaching practically the same conclusions. As the Italian representative considered that the question concerned the Reparations Commission, he asked to refer the matter to his Government. The United States Ambassador also declared that he must refer the matter to Washington. 4. Prohibition of Enemy Trade in Turkey

Lord Curzon: The proposal of the French Delegation and that formulated by the High Commissioners in Constantinople differ very slightly. Nevertheless, the latter applies to Bulgaria in the same way as to Germany, which is not, I think, the case in the former. I should think it better to accept the proposal formulated by our agents on the spot.

Mr. Seydoux: The original proposal of the High Commissioners in Constantinople considered a very strong reinforcement of the measure at present in force. The French Delegation thought it was impossible to render the existing state of affairs more severe at a time when the Treaty was about to enter into force and that it was sufficient to retain the status quo. The desired object was not to paralyse German trade in Turkey, but only to prevent German direct action for propaganda purposes in a country with which we are not yet at peace. When the question came before the Council, the British Delegation submitted a draft of five points the conclusions of which almost equalled the retention of the status quo. I should like to know whether the proposal referred to by Lord Curzon is really that of the five points or the telegram from the High Commissioners in Constantinople asking for much more radical measures.

Lord Curzon: I am referring to the five points proposed by the British Delegation and I recommend their adoption.

Mr. Scialoja: Those five points amount in short to excluding direct trade by sea between Germany and Turkey. I should nevertheless like to make one remark; since we discussed this question, a fresh fact has arisen, i. e., the entry into force of the Treaty of Versailles. Since the day before yesterday, Germany has ceased to be an enemy Power and enjoys all rights not expressly taken from her by a definite provision of the Treaty. I do not think we could find in the Treaty of Versailles any provision limiting Germany’s right of trade abroad.

Lord Curzon: Germany’s rights are limited by the conditions of the Armistice with Turkey.

Mr. Seydoux: Article 23 of the Armistice Convention with Turkey⁴ forbids all commercial relations between Turkey and the Central Powers.

Mr. Scialoja: But Germany was then an enemy Power while today, from the legal point of view, she is a neutral Power between us and Turkey.

Mr. Cambon: We cannot impose restrictions on Germany, but we are free to impose them on Turkey, with whom we are not yet at peace.

Mr. Scialoja: I think there is nevertheless a serious difficulty in so doing.

Mr. Wallace: My Government is not in sympathy with this proposal. We are not at peace with Germany as you are, and we think that the Reparations Commission should deal with the question, so that the payment of sums owed by Germany to the Allies may not be made more difficult by imposing useless restrictions on her commerce.

Mr. Cambon: The French Government has received from Washington a telegram indicating that the United States has informed Germany⁵ that their relations with that Power are still regulated by the Armistice Convention of November 11, and by subsequent agreements.^5a

Mr. Wallace: My Government’s point of view on this question is perhaps broader, for the United States are not as especially interested in this question of reparation as other countries.

Mr. Seydoux: I would recall the fact that, the last time that the Council discussed this question, the Italian representative thought that the question concerned the Reparations Commission, but Mr. Clemenceau pointed out that the Reparations Commission was only competent to deal with the execution of treaties already in force and the majority of the Council appeared to agree with him. I would add that the system we recommend puts no obstacles in the way of German-Turkish commercial relations, but merely limits the possibilities of direct relations and consequently of German influences in Turkey. German trade with the Ottoman Empire is therefore not abolished. Moreover, this trade cannot, in my opinion have a great effect on the question of reparation.

Mr. Scialoja: It would be well to examine the five points separately.

Mr. Cammerlynck read the five points of the British proposal. (See H. D. 122).

Mr. Scialoja: I think these five points can be accepted. But the drafting of them must be altered in such a way that we do indeed seem to forbid Turkey, and not Germany, to trade.

Lord Curzon: I approve entirely Mr. Scialoja’s proposal.

It was decided:

(1) to approve in principle the five points of the British proposal concerning the prohibition of enemy trade in Turkey as they appear in the Minutes of the meeting of January 5, 1920 (H. D. 122);

(2) to instruct the British Delegation to modify the drafting of these five points so as to address the prohibition against trading formulated therein to Turkey and not to Germany.

Mr. Wallace would refer the present resolution to Washington for instructions from his Government.

The Council had before it a note, dated from Coblenz, January 5, 1920 (Appendix “F”) from the Interallied Rhineland High Commission. This note asked the Supreme Council to decide that the costs of the Commission should be refunded by Germany by priority, before Reparation, and on the same footing as the costs of the army of occupation. 5. Costs of Interallied Rhineland High Commission

Mr. Scialoja: I should consider that there are drawbacks to accepting purely and simply the proposal submitted to us. It seems to me dangerous to depart from the terms of the Treaty. Now the latter expressly states what are the privileged expenses to be refunded before reparation. The costs of the Interallied Rhineland Commission are not included in that category. To include them with a high hand would be to create a dangerous precedent, and, were that example followed, would risk lessening appreciably the common security of Reparation. In any case, I do not think the Supreme Council, whose existence is coming to a close, is competent to take a decision of this kind, the results of which might be serious. Only the Reparations Commission could deal with the question. The rather vague wording of Article 248 leads one to suppose that the Reparations Commission is competent to deal with the matter. I should see no drawback to the extension of the competence of the Reparations Commission in this way; but I should object to the Supreme Council entering on a course of action which would lead to a derogation of the Treaty.

Mr. Cambon: We might certainly refer the question to the Reparations Commission, although its Chairman is in favor of the proposal submitted to us.

It was decided:

to refer to the Reparations Commission the proposal formulated in the note dated January 5, 1920, from the Interallied Rhineland Commission.

Admiral Le Vavasseur commented upon the note which appears as Appendix “G”.

Mr. Wallace: Is the proportion of 2% which it was proposed to allocate to the United States in the distribution of enemy warships and docks maintained? 6. Distribution of Enemy Warships, Submarines and Port Material

Admiral Le Vavasseur: The Naval representatives have had no occasion to examine the question anew since they submitted their report in which they proposed the bases of distribution which the Council examined and which the American representative was to submit for the approval of his Government.

Mr. Wallace: Inasmuch as the arrangement is maintained, I am authorized to state that the Government of the United States will not demand, or expect to receive any portion of the surrendered German Navy, or of the materiel which is to be handed over as reparation for Scapa Flow.

Lord Curzon: Does the United States Government’s waiver of the proportion allocated to it apply also to the vessels that were to be employed for propaganda purposes?

Admiral Le Vavasseur: The question of the propaganda ships is entirely distinct from the question of distribution of tonnage.

Mr. Berthelot: The United States refuse the 2% allocated to them because they consider that proportion insufficient: that consideration does not apply to the propaganda ships, for the distribution of which they are upon the same footing as the other Allied Powers.

Mr. Cambon: The Council will record Mr. Wallace’s declaration. The distribution can be effected forthwith.

Lord Curzon: As a result of the United States’ waiver of their share, a surplus of 2% remains. I propose, if the Japanese Ambassador has no objection to that procedure, that it be divided equally between France and Italy.

Mr. Matsui: I accept Lord Curzon’s proposal.

Mr. Cambon: We thank Lord Curzon for his friendly proposal and accept it gratefully.

It was decided:

(1) to approve definitely the basis of distribution of enemy warships, submarines and port materiel, provided for in the resolutions of the Supreme Council bearing the respective dates of November 29, 1919 (See H. D. 102),⁶ December 2, 1919 (H. D. 104),⁷ and December 9, 1919 (H. D. 110);⁸

(2) to allocate to France and Italy in equal shares, the two percent attributed to the Government of the United States, to which the latter waived all claim;

(3) that the waiver of the United States Government to the percentage of two percent, refers expressly to the reservations made by Mr. Polk concerning the ratio attributed to the United States in the distribution of enemy warships (H. D. 102, Paragraph 4, Minute 1, also H. D. 110, paragraph 1, Minute 1), of enemy submarines (H. D. 104, Paragraph 3, Minute 9, also H. D. 110, Paragraph 1, Minute 1), and of port materiel (H. D. 110, Paragraph 1, Minute 1, and Appendix “A”, Paragraphs 2 and 4, to H. D. 110).

The Council had before it a note submitted by the Secretariat General concerning the general collection of the Conference records. (Appendix (H”). 7. Publication of the Records of the Conference

Mr. Escoffier: All practical arrangements are made in order that the publication of the records of the Conference may be made as soon as possible and approximately within a period of from six to nine months. But a certain number of questions of principle arise in connection with the publication on which we require instructions from the Council.

The first is that concerning the printing of the records of the Supreme Council. Should they be printed, and if so, how many copies, and in what conditions should they be distributed. From both the historical and the practical points of view, it seems better to have these documents printed, since they have been struck off on the duplicator on fragile paper and would disappear quickly were they to remain the only copies.

Mr. Cambon: The duplicator is certainly a poor means of preserving the traces of our deliberations for history. In my opinion it would be better to have a small number of copies of these documents printed, on condition that they are placed in the archives without being made public.

Mr. Wallace: I have a very strong impression that Mr. Wilson considered the conversations of four which took place sometimes at his rooms, sometimes at those of Mr. Lloyd George or Mr. Clemenceau, as absolutely confidential and never to be printed. Does Mr. Escoffier think that the deliberations of the Council of Four should also be printed?

Mr. Berthelot: When we speak of printing these texts, it must be clearly understood that it is not a question of publishing them. We simply mean that it would be better to have these texts printed, both for the examination of precedents and for the work of future historians.

Lord Curzon: The question is of much importance. A careful distinction should be made between documents which it is a question of publishing and those which are simply to be printed while retaining their secret character. Plenary meetings and those of the Commissions can eventually be published. But I am here referring specially to the minutes of the various Councils, Council of Ten, Council of Five, Council of Four. These are very confidential documents which only exist in type and which it is now proposed to replace by printed documents in order to ensure their preservation. In theory I accept this proposal, the advantages of which are obvious, but subject to the reservation that the figure proposed by the Secretariat-General of 100 copies for each of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers seems to me clearly too large. Such a large number of copies would lead to a divulgation of these documents which must remain wholly secret. I would propose fixing the total number of copies printed of the records of the Supreme Council at 50.

It should be understood that, once the printing was done, the forms would be destroyed.

Mr. Berthelot: That is understood: Moreover, they always are destroyed.

Mr. Scialoja: Was there not a period when there were no regular minutes, but only notes taken by the various secretaries, especially by Sir Maurice Hankey and Mr. Mantoux? Those notes cannot take the place of real minutes and in those circumstances it seems to me rather difficult to think of having them printed, even if they are to remain secret.

Mr. Berthelot: This is how it happened. With one single exception which I shall give later, the records of the Supreme Council first formed two sets of minutes. One was drawn up in English by Sir Maurice Hankey and is a model of the kind, the other was prepared by Mr. de Beam under my direction and its accuracy is also certain. It was not till later that a joint secretariat was established, responsible for drafting one single set of minutes. These minutes are attested and are the only ones prepared under absolutely regular conditions. But the two sets of minutes prepared by Sir Maurice Hankey and Mr. de Beam complete each other remarkably and could perfectly well serve as a basis for printing, especially in view of the fact that it is a question of documents not meant for presentation to the public.

The exception which I pointed out just now applies to the Council known as the Council of Four, or of Three, according to whether the Italian Representative was present or not. Strictly speaking, no regular minutes were taken down. As regards the first few meetings, notes exist which were taken down by Mr. Mantoux, who was acting as interpreter. It was not until half way through these meetings that Sir M. Hankey drew up minutes which were much more complete than Mr. Mantoux’s notes. As to the latter, it was decided that they should be destroyed, and only one copy thereof exists, which is in the possession of Mr. Clemenceau, who keeps them in a safe, and I think, intends to destroy them. Mr. Wilson and his Colleagues were very much concerned that these notes should not become known, so that they themselves should not be confronted with them later. As to the minutes drafted by Sir Maurice Hankey, it would be a pity to destroy them. One copy exists, in the possession of the English, and another, which we have. I should be in favor of these copies being kept, with the understanding that each Government undertakes, on its honor, to treat them as absolutely secret. I see, therefore, no objection to destroying the notes taken down by Mr. Mantoux, more especially seeing that these contained disjointed conversations, and that traces of the conclusions arrived at by means of these conversations are evident in the resolutions by the Council of Four, which are preserved in the archives of the Secretariat General, as in those of the Delegations of the Great Powers.

Mr. Scialoja: Since these resolutions are extant, would it not be advisable to distinguish between them and the deliberations of the Council of Four? In my opinion the resolutions should be arranged in groups and even distributed to all the Delegations, since they are of general interest. The publication thereof should include any reservations, made with regard to one or other of these resolutions, by any members of the Council. I do not think that any one of these resolutions is of a secret nature. Once these resolutions had been published it would be time to consider whether the deliberations should or should not be published in extenso.

Lord Curzon: This being the case, which are the documents of which there is a question of publishing 50 copies?

Mr. Escoffier: The position therefore is as follows: In the first place, it is now merely a question of the records of the Supreme Council. As regards the Council of Four no documents are to be printed. The deliberations of the Council of Five and those of the Council of Ten are to be printed, the total number of copies being 50.

Mr. Matsui: I should like to point out that we were not represented on the Council of Four, and do not know what took place at its meetings.

Mr. Berthelot: You were aware of the resolutions taken by the Council of Four.

Mr. Escoffier: As regards all the other records of the Conference, the Secretariat General agrees with the Drafting Committee in considering that the distribution of these documents should be effected in accordance with the rules laid down in the Note of September 23, 1919, section I (See Appendix “G” [“H”]^8a). It also considers that the meetings of Commissions of a general nature should be distributed to all the Powers with limited interests, and that the minutes of meetings of Commissions on which only a few of the Powers with limited interests were represented, should be distributed only to the Powers represented thereon. As regards publicity, the Secretariat General is of opinion that only the minutes of plenary meetings should be made public. Other documents of the Conference, which would be marked “confidential” would be reserved exclusively for the use of the Governments.

Mr. Wallace: When will the minutes of the League of Nations be published?

Mr. Escoffier: If it were necessary, we should, from a material point of view, be ready to publish them in a week’s time.

Mr. Wallace: It would be most embarrassing for the American Government if these documents were published before the ratification of the Treaty by the Senate.

Mr. Escoffier: We are merely considering a complete publication of these documents which will not take place before five or six months at the earliest.

The Delegations will be kind enough to inform the Secretariat General how many copies they require of each set. A double edition will be made of the records of the Conference, one part printed in English under the auspices of the British Delegation, and the other in French, drawn up by the Secretariat General.

It was decided:

(1) that the minutes of the meetings of the Council of the Heads of Governments should not be printed. The British and French Governments should preserve the notes taken at these meetings and kept by them, pledging themselves to treat the same as strictly secret;

(2) that the records of the Council of Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers, those of the Council of Foreign Ministers, and those of the Council of Heads of Delegations should be printed, the total number of copies being 50, and distributed to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, at the rate of ten per Government. The type used to print these documents should be destroyed as soon as the latter were worked off;

(3) that all the resolutions (with the reservations referring thereto) adopted by the various Councils mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, should be printed in a separate collection and distributed to each of the Allied and Associated Powers;

(4) that the conclusions of Part B of the Note from the Secretariat General be adopted: (Appendix “H”)

(5) that a double edition be made of the records thus printed, one part in English under the auspices of the British Delegation, and the other in French under the auspices of the Secretariat General;

(6) that each Delegation should inform the Secretariat General of the number of copies of each set which it would require.

The Council had before it a note from the British Delegation dated January 12, 1920, concerning this question (Appendix “I”).

Mr. Berthelot commented upon this Note. He added the following: It seems to me that the question raised by the British Delegation should be considered as settled by a previous resolution of the Council, whereby American representatives are free to take part, or not, in Commissions sitting in Germany, to be present at their meetings in an official or officious capacity, according to the instructions from their Government.⁹ Under these circumstances it seems to me that the Chairman of the Interallied Naval Commission of Control in Germany cannot refuse to receive American naval officers who apply to him with a view to taking part in the said Commission. It is not for us to change our view on a question which we have had much difficulty in preventing the Germans from raising. 8. American Representation on the Interallied Naval Commission of Control in Germany

The Drafting Committee decided that the Germans could not derive any argument from the absence of the American Representatives, with a view to evading the obligations imposed on them under the Treaty.

Lord Curzon: The British Note raises two questions. It is a question here of American naval representatives who have come from the United States in order to take part in the work of the Commissions at Berlin and Heligoland. On the other hand, however, the American Government is sending no representative to the military Commissions. I cannot understand the difference thus made by the Americans between the military Commissions and the Naval Commissions.

Mr. Wallace: I cannot understand it any more than you, and I will put the question to my Government immediately.

Lord Curzon: The second point is of practical importance; i. e. who is to pay the allowances of these officers, Mr. Berthelot tells us that there is no reason for refusing to recognize them. I admit this, strictly speaking; but the German Government will doubtless refuse to pay them, and naturally the British Government cannot think of doing so. What will the position be?

Mr. Wallace: In view of the fact that the Germans have not yet raised any difficulties on that point, it would be better to leave the question open until I shall have received the instructions which I am going to ask for immediately.

Lord Curzon: If we are to wait for instructions from Washington it would be preferable for these officers not to take part in the labors of the Commissions until we know what our position is.

Mr. Wallace: It is possible that these officers may be provided with credentials from the American Government without my knowledge.

Mr. Berthelot: There has probably been a lack of coordination between the American military and naval administration. It would be advisable for a joint decision to be taken, or for the American Government to point out the reasons for this difference which has been established between two situations, which appear to be similar. In any event it seems that we ought to leave the American officers entirely free to act as they think fit.

Mr. Wallace: I shall endeavor to obtain some light on the subject, and I hope to receive a reply with [within] a very short time.

Lord Curzon: Then we will do nothing before we hear the decision of the American Government?

Mr. Berthelot: We might however ask the American officers to refrain from taking part in the labors of the Commission until this slight mis-understanding has been cleared up.

Mr. Cambon: We might inform the Chairman of the Commission that the Supreme Council is asking for explanations from Washington through the intermediary of Mr. Wallace, and considers it preferable that the American officers refrain from taking part in the meetings of the Commission until the Government of the United States has made known its intentions.

It was decided:

to inform the Chairman of the Interallied Naval Commission of Control in Germany in reply to the latter’s request concerning the question of American representation on the said Commission, that the American representative on the Supreme Council was asking his Government whether the American officers were authorized to take part in the labors of the Commission; and that pending a reply from the Government at Washington it would be preferable for these officers to refrain provisionally from attending the meetings of the Commission.

Lord Curzon: I should like to raise an important question concerning the formation of our Council itself. This Conference has, during the last six months, included Mr. Clemenceau as Representative of France, Mr. Polk as Representative of the United States, Sir Eyre Crowe as Representative of the British Empire, Mr. Scialoja as Representative of Italy, and Mr. Matsui as Representative of Japan. 9. Organization of the Conference

It was decided two days ago to replace this Council by a Council of Foreign Ministers.^9a The present state of affairs can only last a few days, since Mr. Scialoja and myself have neither the time, nor the possibility, nor—as far as I myself am concerned—I will add—, the competence, to discuss each day questions of detail which take considerable time. The object of my journey to Paris was to examine the Adriatic question as also Turkish affairs. It would be impossible to prolong my stay beyond a few days. Mr. Scialoja, who has represented his country for several months on the Conference, is better informed than I am of the questions which are before it, but he also is pressed for time. It is therefore impossible for the present Council to be prolonged for more than a few days. It is to be replaced by the Ambassador’s Council. Would it not be preferable for the Ambassadors’ Council to take our place without delay? It would be better for it to examine forthwith the questions with which it will deal in future. I confess that I think the formation of our Council to have been a mistake, and that it would have been better to institute from the outset the Council of Ambassadors.

Mr. Cambon: The considerations put forward by Lord Curzon are most certainly worthy of attention, but I should like to point out that we were appointed through a decision of the Heads of Governments, and it is for them to decide whether we remain in function or disperse.

It seems to me that Lord Curzon’s proposal is beyond our competence.

Lord Curzon: I do not think so. It was not the Council of Heads of Governments which appointed us, but rather the Supreme Council, of which we are the legitimate successors. I consider, therefore, that we are perfectly free to dissolve if we think that the time has come.

Mr. Matsui: As far as I personally am concerned, the question affects me very little, since being at the same time Ambassador and Plenipotentiary, I would necessarily take part in either Council. I must point out, however, that the formation of a Council of Ambassadors was decided several months ago, in order to ensure the execution of the clauses of the Treaty with Germany.¹⁰ It is evident from its mandate that it is only competent to deal with these questions. It would not be competent to deal with other questions, notably with those concerning Hungary, unless indeed we extend its competence by a fresh decision; and I see difficulties in the way of such a course.

Lord Curzon: It would however be an actual practical impossibility for us to continue to sit indefinitely.

Mr. Cambon: In spite of Lord Curzon’s remark, I am not convinced that we are not obliged to consult in this matter the Heads of Governments. Doubtless one has always the right to commit suicide, but it seems to me that it would be difficult for us to take a decision to dissolve without notifying the Prime Ministers.

Mr. Scialoja read the resolution adopted on December 13, 1919 at the meeting in London (see Appendix “J”). He added:

In spite of the extreme importance of that meeting on account of the rank of the persons attending it, it cannot, strictly speaking, be considered as a meeting of the Supreme Council.

I think however that Lord Curzon’s proposal is capable of a practical solution without our being obliged to adopt it by means of a formal resolution. Each of us is free to delegate his powers, and to instruct either the Ambassador of his own Government in Paris or one of the delegates at the Conference, to represent him. We should thus arrive by practical means at the immediate formation of the Ambassadors’ Council which Lord Curzon desires. I agree, moreover, with my British Colleague in thinking that the meetings of the Council cannot continue indefinitely unless the formation thereof is changed.

Mr. Cambon: I should also like to state that since our agenda is finished, there will be no need to fix today the date of our next meeting.

Lord Curzon: This being the case, it is not necessary to form an immediate resolution; as regards my proposal, I shall interview the British Prime Minister on the subject, and would be glad if my French and Italian Colleagues would, on their part, kindly see Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Nitti, on the matter.

(The meeting then adjourned).

Appendix A to CM–2

drafting committee
for the conference

January 12, 1920.

[Note]

1. According to Article I of the Hungro-Croatian Compromise of 1868,¹¹ “Hungary, Croatia-Slavonia, and Dalmatia form a sole and same political community, in relation to other nations, subject to H. M., as well as in relation to all other countries.”

In practice, however, from a point of view of international relations, no Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatian individuality or character has ever been recognized by the Powers regardless of what may have been in fact or in law the position or the character of Croatia in relation to Hungary.

2. According to the Austrian Treaty, Article 203, and according to the present draft of the Hungarian Treaty, Article 186, it will be the duty of the Reparations Commission to estimate the contributory capacity of the ceded territories.

It is true that a financial compromise conventionally determined the contributive share of Croatia in regard to her own and Hungary’s mutual expenses. The last financial compromise, drawn up in 1906,¹² was to expire in 1913, and has not been renewed. The Drafting Committee is unaware as to whether or not this compromise has remained effective by tacit agreement.

If the application of the quotations stipulated in the compromise be admitted in determining the share each of the ceded territories must assume towards the Hungarian debt, the estimates which are to be determined ex-aequo and bono would, automatically, fall beyond the competence of the Reparations Commission. Now, for political or other reasons, it is possible that the provisions of the compromise were not based exclusively on the paying capacity of the two countries. A new system would, therefore, not be in conformity with the general principle adopted.

3. Finally, it is desirable to indicate that the Financial Arrangement (Article 2) signed by the Serbians, relative to the contributions towards the war expenses, has already settled the question for these territories, inclusive of Croatia, by sanctioning the solution adopted in the Austrian Treaty and the present draft of the Hungarian Treaty.

Appendix B to CM–2

[Note From the Financial Commission]

The Financial Commission, during its meeting of December 29, 1919, examined letter No. 4668, and annexes thereto, submitted by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, relative to the Peace Treaty with Hungary.

According to the S–C–S Delegation, Croatia-Slovenia constitutes a state apart from Hungary. These two states alone formed the country of the Saint-Etienne Crown, and their unity, comparable to the Austro-Hungarian unity, was regulated by compromises. The last of these compromises was established in 1904 [1906].

Now that these countries of the Saint-Etienne Crown dissolve their union, it is desirable to effect a liquidation. The method of conducting this liquidation has been set forth by the S-C-S Delegation. The Delegation considers that in the division of the Hungarian debt and in the payment of public properties it will be impossible to apply provisions similar to those inserted in the Austrian Treaty, which were provided for ceded territories and not for states united under a same crown the separation of which has been decided upon.

The financial commission, before examining the liquidation methods to be applied between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia, desires the opinion of the Legal Advisors on the question of International Law raised by the Serb Delegation.

Are there any grounds for assuming that Croatia-Slavonia enjoyed special statutes distinguishing her from the Banat, Prekomania, and other Hungarian comitats?

Were the successive compromises between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia similar to the compromises between Hungary and Austria?

Do they authorize us to conclude that Croatia-Slavonia was an independent State, possessing an independent debt, and having full possession of domanial properties the greater part of which would have been, in all probability governed by the common Hungarian administration?

Do these compromises authorize Croatia-Slavonia to claim a right of possession over common Hungro-Croatian property, whether situated in Croatia or in Hungary?

Do these compromises authorize a distinction between the Croat-Slovene expenses and the Hungarian expenses, as well as the common expenditures of Hungary and Croatia?

What was the quota of Croatia-Slavonia in the contribution towards the common expenses in 1914?

As soon as the Financial Commission receives the advice of the Legal Advisors, it will be in a position to examine the technical provisions proposed by the Serb Delegation relative to the division of the debts and the payment of public properties.

Appendix C to CM–2

peace conference
financial commission

January 12, 1920.

[Note From the Financial Commission]

The Financial Commission has examined the proposition made by the Economic Commission,¹³ relative to a modification to be introduced into the text of Article 194 of the Peace Conditions with Hungary (corresponding to the Article 260, of the Treaty with Germany) destined to give satisfaction to a claim made by the Delegation of the S-C-S.¹⁴

The Financial Commission considers that it is not in a position to appreciate whether the maintenance in the Hungarian territories which have been transferred to the Kingdom of the S-C-S, of majorats, ensuring certain Hungarian subjects, both an economic influence in vast estates and certain lordly rights, would not be likely to create political or administrative difficulties.

The Commission esteems that it is a political question which can only be settled by political measures and not by financial clauses.

The terms of Article 194 of the Peace Treaty with Hungary (corresponding to Article 211 of the Treaty with Austria) should, according to the opinion of the Financial Commission be taken in a restrictive sense, in order not to infringe the principle laid down by Article 250 (corresponding to Article 267 of the Treaty with Austria), and make it possible to the States which have ceded Hungarian territories to obtain through the intermediary of the Reparations Commission the disposition of Hungarian property, which they were forbidden to liquidate themselves.

Appendix D to CM–2

french republic
ministry of commerce,
industry, postal and
telegraph service
Cabinet of the Minister
No. 334

Paris, December 27, 1919.

From: The Secretary General of the Economic Commission.

To: The Ambassador of France, Secretary General of the Peace Conference.

The Economic Commission has examined, in detail, the Serbian note under date of December 12, regarding the interdiction to liquidate Hungarian property in the territories transferred to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.¹⁵

The Commission esteems that, by the application of the Articles of part X of the Peace Treaty, especially those having reference to the prejudices caused by decisions rendered in case of property, rights and interests, without the party concerned having an opportunity to offer any defense, the cases indicated by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, regarding the actions of the Hungarian authorities relative to the recovery of Hungarian credits during the occupation of Serbia, justify the Serbian Government in demanding an indemnity from the Hungarian Government.

The Economic Commission was uncertain as to whether, in order to permit the Serbian Government to reimburse its nationals for the damages caused by the above mentioned act it would be advisable to authorize a liquidation of Hungarian property in new Serbia. The Commission recognized, however, that even if this authorization were accorded to the Serbian Government, the Government might be unable to employ the proceeds of the liquidation as a reparation of the damages [in] question, since by the terms of Article 297 of the Treaty with Germany (249 of the Treaty with Austria) the proceeds of the liquidation can be levied upon only for indemnities relative to the properties or credits of Serbians in Hungary.

However, the Economic Commission esteemed that, by a slight revision of Article 260 of the Treaty with Germany (211 of the Treaty with Austria) it would be possible to meet the serious objection presented by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, without infringing on the general system which rules in the Treaties with Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria concerning enemy property in transferred territory.

The Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation specified, in demanding the liquidation of Hungarian property in the transferred Hungarian territories, that an interdiction to liquidate would maintain, within the territories which the former Empire recognized as under Hungarian influence, the economic superiority of Hungary as beneficiary, not only of most of the public concessions (means of transportation, canals, lighting etc.) but also of the majorats which afford certain Hungarian subjects with an important economic influence over vast domains and seigneurial rights, which might entail difficulties of an administrative or political nature.

The Economic Commission esteemed that it was impossible not to recognize the argument presented by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, and is of the opinion that satisfaction might be accorded Serbia by a sufficiently extensive application of Article 260 of the Treaty of Versailles (211 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain), which provides that in the transferred territories, the Reparations Commission may, within a period of one year after the entry into force of the Treaty, demand that the enemy State acquire full rights or interests for its nationals in all enterprises of public utility, or in all concessions. With special reference to the question of majorats the Economic Commission is of the opinion that mention of the majorats should be inserted in the Article above referred to in the Treaty with Hungary, under the form “demand that Hungary acquire full rights or interests for her nationals in all enterprises of public utility, or in all concessions, as well as in all majorats, etc. …”

In order that, on one hand, the regime adopted concerning enemy property situated in transferred territory may not be infringed on, and, on the other hand, equitable guarantees may be assured the Serb-Croat-Slovene State against a danger which cannot be disregarded, it will be advisable, after having introduced the revision proposed by the Economic Commission in Article 260 of the Treaty of Versailles (211 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain) that the Supreme Council indicate to the Reparations Commission that an extended application of this Article is to be anticipated regarding the Hungarian territories transferred to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

D. Serruys

Appendix E to CM–2

January 13, 1920.

Note for the Supreme Council

The representatives of the Economic Commission and the European Coal Commission assembled on January 12, 1920, to examine certain objections formulated by the Czecho-Slovak Delegation, relative to Article 224 of the Treaty with Austria which stipulates an obligation by virtue of which Poland and Czecho-Slovakia are to furnish a certain amount of coal or lignite to Hungary in exchange for food stuffs and raw materials.

It has been unanimously recognized that the text of Article 224 should receive the necessary modification to the following effect:

1 —To take into account, in determining the quantities to be delivered, the amount of lignite which Czecho-Slovakia received from Hungary.

2 —Not to burden Hungary with new obligations, such as would result from the furnishing of traction coal from the Pecs Mines to the S-C-S State.

3 —To subject the furnishing of lignite by Hungary to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia to the same conditions as those which are imposed on these States in connection with the furnishing of coal to Hungary.

The text attached hereto has been unanimously approved by the Mixed Commission.

[Annex]

Article 224

• Paragraph 1.—Special Arrangements shall be concluded between Poland and the Czecho-Slovak State and Hungary relative to the reciprocal furnishing of coal, inclusive of lignite, food stuffs, and raw materials.
• Paragraph 2.—Until the conclusion of these arrangements, but in no case for more than five years following the entry into force of the Treaty, the Czecho-Slovak State and Poland undertake to impose no exportation duties or restrictions whatsoever on the exportation of coal or lignite to Hungary to an amount which, in default of an agreement between the States concerned, shall be determined by the Reparations Commission. In determining this amount the Reparations Commission will take all the elements of the situation into consideration, inclusive of the quantities of coal and lignite exchanged before the war between on the one hand, the present territory of Hungary and, on the other hand, Silesia and the territories of the former Austrian Empire transferred to the Czecho-Slovak State and Poland, in conformity with the stipulations of the Peace Treaties, as well as the quantities actually available for exportation to these countries. Reciprocally, Hungary is to furnish the Czecho-Slovak State and Poland with lignite, food stuffs, and raw materials as referred to in Paragraph 1, in compliance with whatever decision may be adopted by the Reparations Commission.
• Paragraph 3.—The Czecho-Slovak State and Poland, moreover, agree to take all necessary measures during the period to guarantee that this coal and lignite may be acquired by the buyers inhabiting Hungary under conditions equally favorable to those which govern the sale of similar products to buyers inhabiting the Czecho-Slovak State or Poland in their respective countries or in any other country, in all cases where the situation is analogous.
• Paragraph 4.—The provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3, prohibiting duties or restrictions on exportations, and establishing the conditions to govern sales, shall apply also to the supply of lignite furnished to Czecho-Slovakia and Poland by Hungary.
• Paragraph 5.—In the case of any differences which may arise relative to the execution or interpretation of any of the above provisions the Reparations Commission will have the deciding voice.

Appendix F to CM–2

Note Dated January 5, 1920, From the Interallied Rhineland High Commission

[Here follows note printed as appendix H to HD–124, page 831.]

Appendix G to CM–2

[Paris, January 7, 1920.]

Note Concerning the Attribution of Enemy Battleships

1.—In a resolution H. D. 102 (1) of Nov. 29, 1919,¹⁶ the Supreme Council in order to permit Mr. Polk to refer to his Government, decided to postpone the settlement of the percentages to be observed in the distribution between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, of enemy battleships and port material claimed from Germany by the Protocol of November 1st.¹⁷

A similar decision was taken in the resolution H. D. 104 (VI [IX] of December 2nd, in regard to enemy submarines).¹⁸

2.—The Treaty of Peace with Germany will shortly come into force. This Treaty provides that the ships to be delivered shall be taken to Allied Ports; therefore, these ports should be indicated; but this cannot be done before the attribution of the ships shall have been agreed upon by the Powers concerned. Now, this distribution depends on the percentage.

3.—For the above reasons, it is requested that the Government of the United States be invited to make known, as soon as possible, whether it accepts the proposal presented by the other four Allied Powers, concerning the distribution of the enemy surface battleships and submarines, and of the port material.

Appendix H to CM–2

peace conference
secretariat general

Note Relative to a General Compilation of the Acts of the Conference

The Secretariat General of the Conference has, at the request of the Delegations, taken up the question of printing a General Compilation of the Acts of the Conference. The plan of classification hereto annexed (Annex A) is approved by the General Secretariat of the Principal Powers.^*

The Secretariat General has the honor to submit this plan for adoption by the Supreme Council, with a special request that the Council pronounce, in particular, on the following points:

(A) Printing of the Acts of the Supreme Council.

These Acts only exist in a state of mimeographed copies, and as they are liable to disappear rapidly, it is desirable to have them printed and kept in the Archives of the Governments having participated in the different phases of the Supreme Council.

It is certain that during the execution of the Treaties of 1919, the Allies will be obliged to repeatedly refer, for interpretation of texts, to the Resolutions of the Supreme Council and to the discussions which preceded their adoption.

The number of copies of the Acts of the Supreme Council might be limited to 100 to each of the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

(B) Distribution of the Minutes and Reports of the Commissions.

In the course of the Conference, copies of the minutes and reports were printed and distributed among the Delegations for their immediate needs. However, in the course of the execution of the Treaties, the various ministerial Departments of the Allied and Associated Powers and the organizations on execution will require an ensemble of these documents printed and bound, as is the custom at the conclusion of any international Conference.

However, in view of the character of certain Commissions whose deliberations are to remain secret, it is desirable to arrange distribution and publicity rules to cover these various documents.

The Drafting Committee has given its views in the annexed note (Annex B).

The Secretariat General agrees in regard to the part upon which the Drafting Committee was unanimous, but refers to the Supreme Council for a decision relative to No. 4 of Part I of the said Note, namely:

4.—Each of the other Allied and Associated Powers should receive the Minutes and Reports of the Commissions (including the Sub-Commissions, Committees or sub-Committees) in which they participated.

1.—Whether the Minutes of the Commissions should be distributed to Powers other than those having participated therein;

2.—Whether these documents should be not only delivered privately, but generally published.

1) As there were two different kinds of Commissions; those of a general order in which all the Powers with special interests were represented by Delegates nominated by them; or those in which only a few Powers with special interests were represented; the Secretariat General esteems:

that, relative to the Acts of the first named Commissions, it is desirable to distribute them to all the Powers having special interests;

and that, relative to the Acts of the second named Commissions, only the Powers represented—and not those merely consulted—should be entitled to these documents.

2). Concerning general publication, the Secretariat General esteems that, in conformity with the rules of the Conference, only the Protocols of the Plenary Sessions should be given publicity, and that the other documents of the Conference which bear the mention “Confidential” should be reserved for the exclusive use of the Governments.

Annex A

General Compilation of the Acts of the Peace Conference

classification plan

Part I.—Acts of the Supreme Council

(Not printed and reserved.)

A.—Council of the Heads of the Governments and of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs. (January 12–March 24, 1919).

B.—Council of the Heads of Governments (March 25–June 28, 1920 [1919]).

C.—Council of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (March 27–July 5, 1919).

D.—Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers. (July 5, 1919–January, 1919 [1920]).

Part II.—Minutes of the Supreme Economic Council

Part III.—Protocols of the Plenary Sessions, and of the Meetings of the Powers of Special Interests

A.—Plenary Sessions: Protocols 1 to 8.

B.—Meetings of the Powers of Special Interests (2 and 3).

Part IV.—Commissions of the Conference

(Minutes, Acts and Reports.)

A.—Committee on the Verification of Powers.

2. Drafting Committee.

B.—General Questions.

1. Commission of the League of Nations.

2. Commission of the Responsibility of the Authors of the War, and penalties.

3. Commission on the Reparations of Damages.

4. Commission on International Labor Legislation.

5. Commission of the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways.

6. Financial Commission.

7. Economic Commission.

8. Air Commission.

9. Prisoners of War Commission.

10. Geographical Commission.

C.—Territorial Questions.

1. Commission on Czecho-Slovak Affairs.

2. Commission on Polish Affairs.

a) Interallied Polish Commission.

b) Permanent Interallied Teschen Commission.

c) Commission on Polish Affairs. (Paris)

d) Commission for the Negotiation of an Armistice between Poland and Ukrainia.

3. Commission on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs.

4. Commission on Greek and Albanian Affairs.

5. Commission on Danish and Belgian Affairs.

6. Commission on Baltic Affairs.

7. Central Committee on Territorial Questions.

D.—Special Questions.

a) Preparation of the Treaties with enemy States.

1. Commission of the Drafting of the Military, Naval, and Aerial Clauses.

2. Commission on Sub-Marine Cables.

3. Moroccan Commission.

4. Commission on German Colonies.

5. Interallied Commission to the Left Bank of the Rhine.

6. Tien-Tsin Commission.

b) Treaties between Allies.

1. Commission on New States.

2. Revision of the Acts of Berlin and Brussels.

c) Divers Treaties.

1. Spitzberg Commission.

2. Commission on the Revision of the Treaties of 1839.

Part V.—Treaties,—Negotiation and Signing of.

A. Treaties and Conventions with enemy powers.

a) Germany.

1. From the convocation of the German Delegation until the delivery of the Observations of that delegation on the Peace Conditions (April 17–May 29, 1919).

2. Study of the Observations of the German Delegation and Reply of the Allies. (Minutes of the Reply and Coordination Committees) (May 10–June 16, 1919).

3. From the delivery of the Observations of the German Delegations until the signing of the Treaty (from May 30 to June 28, 1919).

Annex—Successive stages of the Treaty.

b) Austria.

1. From the Convocation of the Austrian Delegation until the delivery of the Observations of that Delegation on the Peace Conditions (May 2–August 6, 1919).

2. Study of the Observations of the Austrian Delegation and Reply of the Allies. (Minutes of the Reply and Coordination Committees.) (August 6–September 2, 1919).

3. From the delivery of the Observations of the Austrian Delegation until the signing of the Treaty (from August 6 to September 10, 1919).

Annex—Successive stages of the Treaty.

c) Bulgaria.

1. From the convocation of the Bulgarian Delegation until the delivery of the Observations of that Delegation on the Peace Conditions. (July 10–October 24, 1919.)

2. Study of the Observations of the Bulgarian Delegation and Reply of the Allies (Minutes of the Reply and Coordination Committees.) (October 25–November 3, 1919).

3. From the delivery of the Observations of the Bulgarian Delegation until the signing of the Treaty (from October 27 to November 27, 1919).

Annex—Successive stages of the Treaty.

d) Hungary.

1. From the convocation of the Hungarian Delegation until the delivery of the Observations of that Delegation on the Peace Conditions (December 1, 1919)

2.

3.

Annex—Successive stages of the Treaty.

e) Turkey.

1. From the convocation of the Ottoman Delegation to the departure of that Delegation. (June 4–July 4, 1919).

B. Treaties and Conventions with the Allies.

a) General Treaties between Allies.

1. Aeronautic.

2. Arms.

3. Spirits.

4. Revision of the Acts of Berlin and Brussels.

b) Special Treaties between Allies.

1. Poland.

2. Czecho-Slovakia.

3. Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

4. Roumania.

5. Greece.

6. Etc.

C. Treaties and Conventions with other States.

1. Spitzberg.

2. Revision of the Treaties of 1839.

Part VI.—Treaties—Entry Into Force.

A. Preparation of the Entry into Force.

1. Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the Treaty.

2. Rhineland Commission.

3. Commission on German Colonies and Mandates.

4. Scapa-Flow Commission.

5. Prisoners of War Commission.

6. Organization Committee of the Reparations Commission.

7. Commission of the League of Nations.

8. Commission on the Organization of the Labor Conference.

9. Organization Commission on Mixed Tribunals.

B. Exchange of Notes relative to the Entry into Force.

1. Germany.

2. Austria.

3. Bulgaria.

4. Etc.

C. Ratification, Accession, and Entry into Force.

Part VII.—Miscellaneous Documents.

1. Delegation Memoranda.

2. Fiume and Smyrna Inquiry Commissions.

3. Etc.

Annex B

September 23, 1919.

Note for the Secretariat General

The Secretariat General of the Conference has asked the Drafting Committee to present its opinion relative to the distribution of the documents concerning the preparatory labors of the Peace Treaties.

The Committee has the honor to reply as follows:

–I–

1. Each of the Allied and Associated Powers and each of the enemy Powers concerned should receive the minutes of the sessions of the Congress, that is: the Versailles Sessions, relating to Germany; the Saint-Germain Sessions, relating to Austria; and the Sessions at Paris and Neuilly, relating to Bulgaria.

2. Each of the Allied and Associated Powers should receive the Minutes of the Plenary Sessions of the Peace Conference, which is an Interallied Conference.

3. Each of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should receive all the Minutes and the Reports of the Commissions (including the Sub-Commissions, Committees or Sub-Committees) and in general all the official works of the Conference.

4. Each of the other Allied and Associated Powers should receive the Minutes and Reports of the Commissions (including the Sub-Commissions, Committees or Sub-Committees) in which they participated.

The opinion of the Committee is unanimous on these different questions.

–II–

Relative to the questions as to whether or not the distribution above referred to should be extended, and, in particular if the Minutes of the Commissions should be distributed, to Powers other than those having participated therein,—whether these documents should be given publication instead of being delivered privately,—the Drafting Committee, whose views on this point are not unanimous, esteems that this point is essentially a political matter and that any legislation pertaining thereto should be submitted to the Supreme Council.

For the Drafting Committee
[No signature on file copy]

Appendix I to CM–2

british delegation
paris

Memorandum

The question has been raised by the President of the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control for Germany as to American representation on that Commission.

He states that the United States officers designated by their Government as members of the Commission propose to present themselves to him, in his capacity as President.

His view is that he cannot recognize them as members of a Commission set up under a Treaty to which their Government is not a party; and he requests that the Supreme Council may decide as to whether the American representatives can form part of his Commission, either officially or unofficially. If they co-operate unofficially, it is thought that the Germans may have the right to refuse to pay any expenses on their behalf.

January 12, 1920.

Appendix J to CM–2

(Supreme Council, December 13, 1919, 3:30 p.m.)
(Session held at London, 10 Downing Street.)

Resolution B

Future of the Peace Conference

Those present:

American	representatives,
British	“
French	“
Italian	“
Japanese	“

It was decided:

(1) that the present Session of the Peace Conference should terminate by Christmas, or at the latest, within the fifteen days following the procès-verbal of the Deposit of the Ratifications of the Peace Treaty with Germany;

(2) that at the expiration of the present Session of the Peace Conference, all important political questions should be handled by means of direct communications between the Governments themselves, while all questions of detail should be taken up by the Conference of Ambassadors at Paris.

1. Appendix G to HD–119, p. 717.
2. Ante, p. 800.
3. Minute 6, p. 789.
4. See telegram No. 32 from the Special Representative in Paris, Foreign Relations, 1918, supp. 1, vol. i, p. 441.
5. See note to the Swiss Minister, January 13, 1920, Foreign Relations, 1920, vol. ii, p. 258.
6. Vol. ii, pp. 1–16.
6. Minute 1, p. 360.
7. Minute 9, p. 435.
8. Minute 1, p. 535.
9. Annex B, p. 996.
9. HD–72, minute 7, and appendix I, vol. viii, pp. 690 and 707.
10. See HD–125, minute 4, p. 838.
10. HD–17. minute 1, vol. vii, p. 356.
11. For text, see Great Britain, Foreign Office Handbook No. 8, Croatia-Slavonia and Fiume (London, 1920), p. 78.
12. See ibid., p. 92.
13. See appendix D, infra.
14. See appendix G to HD–119, p. 717.
15. Ibid.
16. Ante, p. 360.
17. Appendix C to HD–80, vol. viii, p. 865.
18. Ante, p. 435.
19. The British Delegation has agreed to publish the compilation in English; the Secretariat General will publish the French Compilation. [Footnote in the original.]