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

Paris Peace Conf. 184.00101/131

Minutes of Meeting of the Commissioners and Technical Advisers of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Hotel Crillon, Paris, August 6, 1919, 2 p.m.

Paris, August 6, 1919, 2 p.m.

• Present:
  • Mr. Polk
  • Mr. White
  • General Bliss
  • Admiral Knapp
  • Dr. Scott
  • Dr. Johnson
  • Dr. Lord
  • Mr. Nielsen
  • Col. Grant
  • Dr. Hudson
  • Mr. J. F. Dulles
  • Dr. Coolidge
  • Mr. Dresel
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles
  • Mr. Buckler
  • Mr. Osborne
  • Mr. Shaw
  • Mr. Harrison
  • Lt. Condon
  • Mr. Russell

Mr. Polk: Admiral Knapp, have you anything in particular to bring up?

Admiral Knapp: Nothing in particular, excepting that matter I sent down to you this morning.

Mr. Polk: I haven’t it with me.

Admiral Knapp: Very briefly: the bulletin which was on my desk this morning, of the resolutions adopted is entirely different, in the first place, from what we presented to the Supreme Council, and it entirely changes the meaning, as I understood the resolutions that were adopted on the first of August regarding the disposition of the war materials, and which were submitted to the Supreme Council. It makes it refer simply and solely to aeronautical material. The resolution was first drafted in the Air Commission, the air clauses to include all material, and it was expressly stated that possibly it would be so broad that the members of the Commission would not care to accede to it, but they did, and in that form it went to the Supreme Council, and as I recollect the proceedings, there was no limitation put to it, and I distinctly recall hearing Mr. Balfour say that he thought the Council could accept the second point which was made, which was to not have it go outside of the jurisdiction of the state to which it went, but that it first should go to the military representatives at Versailles, with no limitations whatsoever.²⁴

Mr. Polk: My recollection is the same as yours.

Admiral Knapp: It seems to me that it is a thing that should be corrected.

Mr. Polk: Do you know who our reporter was; who reported it?

Admiral Knapp: No, I have not seen that.

Mr. White: Our secretary is Mr. Harrison.

Mr. Polk: My recollection is clear on that.

Admiral Knapp: A vexed question is coming up: the distribution of ships. It is the worst question that I see ahead. My very purpose in drafting the resolution in the Air Commission was to get the whole thing settled, to get some principles laid down on which the Commission could work. As far as I now can see they are all going off on their own tacks, with no principles to govern at all. And the resolutions I introduced in the Air Commission not only mentioned all air material, but further specified whether it would be used on land, on sea or air.

Mr. Polk: I will take your memorandum over with me this afternoon, and speak to Mr. Balfour about it, and see that it is presented properly. Dr. Scott, have you anything?

Dr. Scott: A volume; very briefly stated, there are three outstanding items, as far as the Drafting Committee is concerned, in the Bulgarian Treaty. The first is, of course, the matter of the southern boundaries, which is under very serious discussion, I understand, and if there are to be Greek clauses, and if there are to be Turkish clauses—that is, special clauses in the treaty concerning the affairs of Greece such as there were concerning the Italians, in the Austrian Treaty, and if there are to be special Turkish clauses—those three things are tacking, and, with the exception of those three, the Bulgarian Treaty is drafted and would be ready to submit, as far as that Committee is concerned, if the Supreme Council is satisfied that all the terms are there.

Mr. Polk: What clauses do you have in mind that should be in there?

Dr. Scott: Well, there were some clauses sent in,—that is, privately sent to the chairman of the Drafting Committee—merely for his information, and they were clauses concerning nationality, concerning the treatment of co-religionists, and concerning distribution to be made of property, the treatment to be accorded the citizens of the two countries: Bulgaria and Greece. We saw at once that they were matters which would need to be passed upon by the Supreme Council, and of course, we took no action, even in drafting, because the principle had not been settled.

Mr. Polk: Isn’t there another committee working on it?

Dr. Scott: Oh, yes, but there are three things which have not as yet been definitely determined by the Supreme Council, and when those three things are determined, the Treaty will be ready.

Mr. Polk: Hasn’t your committee got that?

Dr. Hudson: Our committee has made a study concerning the inter-migration of Balkan peoples, and we have made a report concerning those proposals to the Supreme Council, and when I asked yesterday that the report be presented to the attention of the Supreme Council, it was stated that nothing can be done until the boundaries of Greece and Bulgaria are settled. It seems to me that that is not true, and that Mr. Venizelos’ proposals for inter-migration of Balkan peoples may be passed upon by the Supreme Council tentatively, and that our Committee be given the authority which it asks, to negotiate with Mr. Venizelos on the subject, and that those clauses can be agreed upon, even though the frontier, as far as Thrace is concerned, is not settled.

I wish the report could receive the attention of the Supreme Council and the Committee could be given the authority to negotiate—to deal with Mr. Venizelos. I think it does not infringe upon the jurisdiction of Mr. Nielsen’s committee, because this is a matter, Mr. Nielsen, of the interchange of peoples, where a village in Bulgaria wants to pick up and move into Greece.

Mr. Nielsen: I was under the impression that I saw a notice indicating that the Supreme Council had referred this to the Committee on Political Clauses. I am afraid that is what has happened.

Dr. Hudson: I cannot find that that is true. I heard, last week, that that was true, but I have not found any record.

Mr. Nielsen: I think that is probably true, but we have not considered it at all.

Mr. Polk: Is that one of your committees?

Mr. Nielsen: Yes.

Mr. Polk: But you have not heard it yet?

Mr. Nielsen: I saw a notice.

Mr. Polk: But you have not considered it?

Mr. Nielsen: No, we have not considered it at all.

Mr. Polk: It does not seem to me possible to complete your treaty until those matters receive attention, because it seems to me they are essential.

Dr. Scott: Exactly. And on this occasion I have called your attention to the fact that there are three outstanding matters on which an agreement would have to be reached before the treaty could be presented.

Then a word about the Hungarian Treaty. We have been requested to pick it up and to put it into shape, following, as far as possible, the procedure with the German Treaty and with the Austrian Treaty, and the resolutions already had in the matter by the previous Supreme Council during the time the President was here.

To make what might be a long report, a very brief one,—there are four or five matters outstanding. All the other matters can be considered, and have practically been drafted in accordance with reports of commissions and with the decisions of the Supreme Council,—except these four or five which I should like to lay before you.

They are: the military, naval and air clauses for Hungary; a preliminary report of these matters; that the draft was made on the 7th of June, and Col. Grant can state the extent to which that represents the views of the committee. The project concerning the Prisoners of War has not been received or presented to the Supreme Council. It will likely be based upon that of the German and Austrian treaties, which will have some changes because of the different terms in the armistice. Two clauses upon Reparation and Finance. Both of these are lacking. And of the report on Ports and Waterways, the technical clauses concerning Railways, etc., are left. But with the exception of these—1, 2, 3, 4 and a part of the 6th—the Treaty is so far advanced that it is already in print.

Mr. Polk: You might let us have a memorandum of that treaty. I was going to say that a great many of your labors have been taken from you by the Roumanians, because they are making peace on their own terms: a brand new armistice today.

Have you the Ports and Waterways clauses? (Addressing Dr. Hudson.)

Dr. Hudson: I thought they were all done. I am surprised to hear that they are lacking.

Mr. Polk: Have you anything more?

Dr. Scott: No.

Mr. Polk: Colonel Grant, have you anything?

Colonel Grant: No.

Mr. Polk: Mr. Nielsen?

Mr. Nielsen: There is on the agenda a rather important thing this afternoon relating to certain clauses that this Committee that you just mentioned has framed. I mention it, not because it is on the agenda, but because I think the Commissioners will probably want instructions from Washington. These clauses govern certain matters that grow out of the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian empire, such as joint railroad rates between the new states and Austria and Hungary, coast-wise trade, and the restoration of articles belonging in one or another of the states, and contemplating a number of new conveyances. It was the Italian plan to have these new articles framed without having the Slav states consulted, and without negotiating with them, and that I objected to, and others did also, and I thought that we were proceeding on the plan that these new states would, with our assistance, conclude this treaty. The idea was to have it signed when the Austrian treaty was signed. But the plan now proposed is that the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be signatories to this treaty, with the idea that although these questions are local, still they have some interest for all those who have been in the war.

Now I presume the Commissioners would want to have that treaty submitted to Washington, perhaps, and this is the first opportunity I have had to bring it up. I would suggest that these articles, which collectively are not very lengthy, might be telegraphed to Washington, with a brief explanation made of this thing, and inquiry made as to whether we will sign, as I think the others will, such a treaty as we finally agreed to.

Mr. Polk: Will you prepare such a telegram and send it immediately.

Mr. Nielsen: The only other minor point I would like to bring up is with regard to this Spitzbergen Treaty. The idea is to frame a treaty acknowledging sovereignty and not binding ourselves,—which we will have to do some time. The British have introduced an article with regard to the moral rights that have been acquired in these northern countries and the adjustment of these rights by arbitration, and then propose in there that an arbitrator be named by the United States of America as well as other countries which have a claim. In the absence of instructions I made no objections to that, because there are no obligations involved at all. The compensation will come from the other interested countries; it will merely be the designation of the lawyers. So I don’t see any great harm in that. But I probably could still have it stricken out. I favor leaving it in.

Mr. Polk: I gather that you are in favor of it. (Addressing Dr. Scott.)

Dr. Scott: Decidedly.

Mr. Nielsen: There is no political interest involved.

Mr. Polk: If they suggest that we appoint an arbitrator, I see no reason why we should not do it.

Dr. Johnson: I want the idea of the Commissioners with regard to the Bukovina question. I see on the record two resolutions passed by the Supreme Council, dated August 1st,²⁵ one of which states that the whole of the territory of Bukovina be given to Roumania; the other postponing the thing until the assurance by the Roumanians of their attitude toward the Entente powers. Just what is the status of that Bukovina problem?

Mr. Polk: I don’t know. Do you know, Mr. Harrison?

Mr. Harrison: As I remember it, sir, that question of the disposition of that little strip of territory, that no man’s land in Bukovina, came up, and after the recommendation was approved, Mr. Polk raised the question whether it be to include the whole valley or not, one way or the other.

Mr. Polk: It came up the other day. It is the British line that is the most northerly line, and I suggested that as that line ran down at the bottom of the valley, they take, instead, the crest on one side or the other—I didn’t care which way or which side it went,—but not to take the bottom of the valley, not to make a line of division at the bottom of the valley and have the two people on either side of the line in the valley staring across at each other constantly. That was adopted.

Mr. Harrison: And then they continued the discussion, and talked about Bessarabia, but at Mr. Balfour’s suggestion, they were not to take any decision at all until Roumania would take a more conservative attitude.

Mr. Polk: Further than that, this Commission is not prepared to discuss the disintegration of the Russian empire,—its dismemberment.

Dr. Johnson: The situation regarding Thrace—may I say a word with regard to that?

Mr. Polk: Please do.

Dr. Johnson: There was a meeting of the Central Territorial Committee called yesterday afternoon to consider further the Thracian question. In the course of the discussion, the object of which was to see if we could possibly find an intermediate point of view between those who wished to give most of the territory to Greece which is being claimed by Greece—but not quite all—and the American point of view, which was to not take any of this territory from Bulgaria which belonged to her at the beginning of the war. There was perhaps an hour or an hour and one-half’s discussion, in the course of which it developed that the suggestion for placing Thrace under International control, which has been made by the Americans—and it was not very favorably received when it was first suggested in the Council—was supported by the Italians, and the Japanese also said that they were rather inclined to that solution. So that the complexion of the situation had changed rather materially in favor of the American point of view. In the Commission’s meetings we came to no conclusion. The situation is that the Americans took the position that the best intermediate solution was the one which was suggested on the basis of the President’s telegram, of putting the territory under international control rather than giving it to Greece, or leaving it to Bulgaria. And there was some support of that from the Italians and from the Japanese.

Then in the discussion in the Council Mr. Balfour suggested as a compromise giving quite a considerable portion of that territory back to Bulgaria, but still cutting her off from the sea by a very narrow band, narrowing the strip to Greece, and in principle they accepted Mr. Tittoni’s suggestion to give it back to Bulgaria, with quite a slice of territory to Greece. But the approach to the American point of view was more marked.

Mr. Polk: As a matter of fact I went over the question this morning with a gentleman named Boucher. There was a very strong feeling in Great Britain against the British plan here.

Dr. Johnson: It is very intense; the feeling is very intense.

Mr. Polk: What I meant to say was that Mr. Venizelos made a great point of that port—Portolaga (?) [Portolagos], Now the line I suggested the other day would take that in and give it to Greece. Now that would strike off one of Veniselos’ great objections, according to this man. One of the great fears he expressed concerning this was that it might be a possible submarine base.

Mr. White: Was that in the Greek section?

Mr. Polk: Yes.

Dr. Johnson: The statement was made by Mr. Venizelos, before the Greek parliament, at the end of the second Balkan War, as to the Greeks wanting to claim that territory, that it would be a dangerous geographical frontier to have a long, narrow strip, without any background; that she was much better off without it.

Prof. Coolidge: I would like to ask a question. We received today the Austrian answer. I confess I am not clear how seriously we were expected to examine it—to take it. On the one hand we are to take anything that they say, that is reasonable, and consider it; and on the other hand, the minute you suggest any change in anything you are met with the argument that you are breaking a bargain; that the point has only been reached as the result of compromise and discussion, and we have no right to raise that whole question.

Mr. Polk: I don’t think that ought to stand for one minute. If they can point out anything in the treaty that should and can be changed, it seems to me that we should make a try to have it changed.

Prof. Coolidge: I think the whole question whether this new examination is a real one or merely a formal one, is not at all clear.

Mr. Polk: I think it should be real. Don’t you, General?

General Bliss: Yes, sir, I think so.

Mr. A. W. Dulles: Another question. When the German reply was presented, as I remember it the Supreme Council indicated to the technical commissions that they wished an examination of various phases of the various questions raised by the Germans. It came from the top down to the Committee. Now the question arises whether a similar procedure will be followed, or whether the various committees will make the examination without any decision from the Supreme Council.

Mr. Polk: I don’t know, but I imagine it will be transmitted, to save time.

Prof. Coolidge: If they are to have instructions, I hope they will come today, so we can waste no time.

Dr. Johnson: There is this one question that comes up in connection with the frontiers, in the territorial matters. When the Commission has drawn a line, after studying the question,—for geographic or various reasons it invariably happens that there are certain places where you must favor one side or the other, and then, as an offset, you favor the other side in another place, and anyone can make a point concerning the first place, but when such a point is made, the whole question should be considered.

Mr. Polk: But if they show something that is clearly an error.

Dr. Johnson: If it is a detail of that kind you have to open up the whole question.

Dr. Hudson: May I ask whether the Commissioners have taken any stand on the Austrian suggestion that the treaty ought to be constructed on the theory that the whole Austro-Hungarian empire is being liquidated, and that, as far as the states previously forming part of the Austro-Hungarian empire are concerned, there ought to be complete reciprocity at once, in the navigation of rivers, transit, etc. The Economic people have reduced their period of reciprocity from five to three years.

Mr. Nielsen: The idea was simply to make a slight concession there, that was all.

Mr. Harrison: When the Austrian Treaty came up, I think it may be generally said that the idea was to take the German Treaty as a basis and draw the Austrian Treaty on that basis. Various delegations thought the Treaty should be treated the other way.

Dr. Hudson: I think the Austrians’ objection is thoroughly right. The Austrians, I think, are going to live intolerable lives if we continue to make the kind of clauses that are in the treaty, without reciprocity, in the Ports, Waterways and Railways. I think the Austrians make a very strong claim. They say there should at least be territorial reciprocity between the states formed out of the former Austro-Hungarian empire.

Mr. Polk: I think that that has not been acted upon. Have they made a protest along that line?

Dr. Hudson: The Austrians have, yes.

Mr. Polk: What has been done with it?

Dr. Hudson: Nothing has been done. It has been voiced a number of times in their communications.

Mr. Polk: It will probably be repeated in their protest today.

Dr. Hudson: I don’t doubt it will be repeated. In the Ports, Waterways and Railways Commission it was impossible for us to get on with the consideration of the Austrian reply without some indication from above of the policy toward the Austrian Treaty.

Mr. Polk: That should be brought up as soon as we get the answer. It seems to me that would be a very important question to be considered.

Mr. Nielsen: That thing has come up very largely in connection with customs matters, but there has been no disposition among those who have worked on those clauses to decide that the new states and Austria should be on terms of equality. The argument, as Mr. Hudson suggests, is strong, but I don’t believe that anybody has shown a tendency to take that view. I think it would be very difficult to bring about an acceptance of any such view.

Mr. A. W. Dulles: As I remember it, the Austrian Treaty was drawn on the theory that Austria was an old state, and had to renounce possession; then the head of the British delegation presented a draft pointing out that it should be a liquidation of the old monarchy. The treaty was drawn up first on the old theory and then a preamble was inserted on the new theory. The Austrians claim that they do not own Bukovina, and they cannot renounce something they do not own.

Dr. Hudson: The Serbian delegation has sent a letter to the president of the conference protesting against that article in the Austrian Treaty which would require the Serb-Croat-Slovene state to accept a provision for the protection of minorities, etc., in a treaty with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. The Serb-Croat-Slovene letter indicates that they may attempt to sign the Austrian Treaty with a reservation as to that article. It seems to me that that might produce some embarrassment at the time of the signing of the Austrian Treaty.

Mr. White: Isn’t that a similar situation as the Chinese reservation?

Dr. Scott: That question, Mr. White, would be a little different. It would be a little stronger in favor of China, because at the time it was submitted at the Plenary Session China made distinct reservation as to this article and requested that this reservation be spread upon the minutes, and practically made its acceptance subject to that, so that when it proceeded to sign, it would sign in pursuance of the acceptance of the treaty as it had made it on that particular day. And that ruling being made in the case of China would be rather stronger than in the case of a nation that had made no exception at the time.

Mr. Polk: It would be stronger against Serbia?

Dr. Scott: It would be stronger against Serbia.

Dr. Hudson: The Serbo-Croats will say that they never saw the article before it was presented to the Austrians, and they never had a chance to accept the treaty before it was given to the Austrians, and that this is their first chance to protest. That is what they will say.

Dr. Lord: May I say, Mr. Polk, that I think the Teschen question is one that should receive the attention of the Supreme Council very soon, since the delay which the Council has granted to the Czecho-Slovak and Polish governments within which to try to reach an agreement between themselves expired last night, and I believe that Mr. Benes has presented a note for the Czechs asking that the Council settle the question before them. There is on that subject a joint report of the Polish and Czecho-Slovak Commissions of last April, and I have a little fear that a certain delegation may attempt to lay that report before the Supreme Council and attempt to get a decision on the basis of that. As a matter of fact, a great deal has happened since April, and much new information has been received, and at present I believe the majority of both those commissions would recommend another solution of those questions if the matter was referred back to them. So I think it is the opinion of the American representatives, at least, in those commissions, that it might be well if the Council would refer the question back to the Czecho-Slovak and Polish Commissions and ask for a definitive recommendation.

Mr. Harrison: When the question of giving an extension of time to the Czecho-Slavs and Poles, as they requested, came up, the Supreme Council instructed the chairman of the Commission to prepare a solution which would be ready and which the Supreme Council would act upon and consider in case the Czechs and Poles did not get together at the end of this period.

Dr. Lord: Yes, there was a phrase: “to study it”. I don’t know whether that in itself is enough to warrant the two Commissions in presenting the recommendation at once.

Mr. Harrison: It was to have something ready so the Supreme Council could act.

Mr. Polk: We might suggest that we have no objection to them proceeding to an investigation of the subject.

Dr. Lord: I suggested to the French yesterday that we do that, but they held that we were not authorized to do that without further word from the Council.

Mr. Harrison: When was the limit to be? Last night?

Dr. Lord: Last night.

Mr. Polk: Anyone else have anything?

Mr. Nielsen: I notice that the Yugo-Slav delegation have sent a note to the Supreme Council asking about the difference between the nationality clauses as affecting former Austro-Hungarians in Jugo-Slavia as against the former Austro-Hungarian subjects in Italy. That seems to me to be very serious. It will come before you in time. Speaking offhand, there seems to be a good deal of justice in that complaint. It would seem to me that people of that kind ought to have about the same opportunity to obtain nationality in their own countries.

Dr. Scott: Might I remark that it seems probable that all these treaties that are now on the docket could be prepared and ready for delivery on the 25th of the month.

Mr. Polk: They will be?

Dr. Scott: They could be if steps were taken to galvanize the various committees into action.

Mr. Polk: If you will give me a memorandum of this I will bring it up tomorrow.

Dr. Scott: Yes, it really can be done.

The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

24. For the discussion in the Supreme Council, see HD–21, minute 12, vol. vii, p. 461.
25. See HD–21, minutes 9 and 10, vol. vii, pp. 455 and 457.