Office of the Historian

Paris Peace Conf. 184.01502/74

The Secretary General of the Commission to Negotiate Peace (Grew) to the Chief of the Mission to the Baltic Provinces (Greene)

Paris, July 15, 1919.

Sir: Replying to your letter of July 949 in which you submit a proposed resolution for consideration by the Commissioners with a view to defining the duties and functions of the present mission to Finland, Esthonia, Latvia and Lithuania I have to inform you that the Commissioners have given careful consideration to your proposals and have come to the following decisions:

1.
The designation “Mission” is disapproved on the ground that it is competent neither for the State Department nor this Delegation to send a Mission, but only a “Commission.”
2.
The commission should be for the Baltic States, including Lithuania, and excluding Finland.
3.
The only duties which can be assigned to the Commission by this Delegation are “to investigate and report on political, economic, and military conditions;” this Delegation may assign such duties because information on these subjects may assist it in solving problems which may come before it in its official capacity as the American Peace Delegation; additional functions can be assigned to it only by the government in Washington.
4.
The American Delegation is empowered solely to take part in the negotiation of a Treaty of Peace with the Central Powers with which it has been at war; the Delegation can have no other policy than to accomplish this task as soon as it can properly be done; it cannot, therefore, authorize any policy to be carried out by anyone other than itself.

In paragraph 3 (c) of your letter there is noted a reference to the “British Military Mission.” It is believed that association with this British Military Mission has given the natural, but wrong, impression as to the character of the American Commission in the Baltic Provinces. The British Military Mission was sent out by the British Government, and not by the British Peace Delegation in Paris. It is a governmental agency and may exercise such powers and perform such [Page 217] functions as its Government may assign to it. The case is entirely different with the American Commission.

The natural misunderstanding as to the powers and duties of the members of the American Commission must be the explanation of the statement in the foot note at the bottom of page 1 of your letter of July 9 which is to the effect that Colonel Dawley, as you understand, is acting as Military Governor of Riga. If your understanding is correct the American Peace Delegation is now placed in the embarrassing position of having an officer who was sent at its request to collect certain information acting as Military Governor of a foreign city, belonging to a country with which we have never been at war and acting under the orders of a foreign general. In his capacity as Military Governor he may at any moment be obliged to resort to measures resulting in the loss of many lives.

Under these circumstances I am instructed by the Commissioners to direct you immediately to communicate with Colonel Dawley and should he actually be performing the functions of Military Governor of Riga to order him immediately to surrender this position and return to his proper functions.

Please inform me in due course, in order that I may report to the Commissioners, the result of any action taken by you in accordance with the foregoing instructions.

I may add that a subsequent communication will be sent you with regard to the views of the Commissioners as to the future size and personnel of your Commission.

I am [etc.]

J. C. Grew
  1. Considered by the Commissioners on July 11; see vol. xi, pp. 293, 294.↩