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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/16

FM–16

Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Friday, 16th May, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Paris, May 19, 1919, 3 p.m.

Present	Also Present
America, United States of	America, United States of
Hon. H. White	Dr. C. Day
Secretary	British Empire
Mr. L. Harrison	Sir Eyre Crowe, K. C. B., K. C. M. G
British Empire	Mr. A. Leeper
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.	Brig. Gen. H. O. Mance, C. B., C. M, G.
Secretary	Major H. W. V. Temperley
Sir P. Loraine, Bt.	France
France	M. J. Cambon
M. Pichon	M. A. Tardieu
Secretaries	M. Laroche
M. Berthelot	M. Hermitte
M. Arnavon	M. Aubert
Capt. de St. Quentin	Italy
M. de Bearn	Marquis C. Durazzo
Italy	Colonel Castoldi
H. E. Baron Sonnino	Comdt. G. Mazzolini.
Secretary-General
Count Aldrovandi
Secretary
M. Bertele
Japan
H. E. Baron Makino
Secretary
M. Kawai

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of	Col. U. S. Grant.
British Empire	Capt. E. Abraham.
France	Capt. A. Portier.
Italy	Lieut. Zanchi.
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.

1. M. Cambon proposed to begin the discussion of the Bulgarian Frontiers from the Greek side.

Frontier of Bulgaria: (a) With Greece M. Pichon said that, in that case, he must communicate to his colleagues a letter just received from M. Venizelos (Appendix I). This letter had been received at noon, and the observations contained in it had, of course, not been considered by any Committee. He was in doubt whether it would be advisable for the Council to consider them before they had been examined by the competent Committee.

M. Balfour agreed that it would be useless for the Council to examine the proposals before they had been before a Committee. He thought the method employed by M. Venizelos was a little unusual, as the Committee had heard Greek witnesses, and he had had opportunities of stating his case on many occasions.

M. Cambon said that it appeared to him, after a hasty glance at the letter, that the modifications proposed were small ones, affecting a few villages and small groups of population. He suggested that the Committee’s report¹ be considered in general, and that later on these questions of detail should be taken up by the Committee, and, if necessary, that an Annex to the report be made upon them.

Mr. Balfour proposed that if M. Venizelos’ observations only related to points of detail, the Committee be allowed to decide, without further reference to the Council, provided that any large questions that might arise should be at least brought to the notice of the Council.

M. Sonnino said that in the Central Territorial Committee, the American Delegate² had objected to any decision relating to the frontier of Eastern Thrace until the fate of Constantinople and its surrounding territory was known. In this he had been supported by the Italian Delegate. The question raised by M. Venizelos in relation to various villages could hardly be settled irrespective of the general line of frontiers. If this could not be fixed, neither could the fate of the villages.

Mr. Balfour agreed with Baron Sonnino, but said that he thought the American Delegation had withdrawn their objections, and were ready to recommend a line in Eastern Thrace.

M. Cambon said that the unsolved question of Constantinople had overshadowed the work of the Committee on Greek territorial claims throughout. He had himself repeatedly asked for information on the subject. As no information was vouchsafed, the Committee had proceeded on the proposal, he thought, of the American representative, to fix the northern frontiers of Thrace on the hypothesis that the territory to be attached to Constantinople would be bounded by the line Enos-Midia. If, however, nothing could be done until the fate of Constantinople had been decided, the whole question would have to be put off and the report of the Committee re-written.

M. Tardieu said that the Central Committee on territorial affairs had been inclined to share the view of the Italian and American Delegates, to the effect that the frontiers of Greece could not be fixed in the way suggested by the Committee on a mere hypothesis. Like Mr. Balfour, however, he had assumed when he saw the subject on the Agenda that some decisions had been taken.

M. Sonnino said that he thought it would be useless to proceed until the fate of Constantinople had been decided. He hoped that a decision on this subject would be taken soon, and he suggested that it should be awaited. Nor did he think that it would be useful to examine the frontier in Western Thrace. There, again, the problem would only be dealt with partially, and the points raised by M. Venizelos, among others, would be omitted. He would even propose that the whole question of Bulgarian frontiers be postponed, as there were other questions in suspense, namely, that of the Dobrudja and that of an area near Sofia, as well as that of Constantinople.

M. Tardieu said that, in his view, there was a good deal of difference between the question of the frontier between Serbia and Roumania respectively and Bulgaria, and the question of the Thracian frontier. For the latter a necessary element was lacking. In relation to the former, there were differences of view which might be reconciled by the Council.

Mr. White said that the American Delegate on the Central Territorial Committee had made a reservation which had not yet been withdrawn. He therefore agreed with Baron Sonnino that the Greco-Bulgarian frontier should not be discussed at present, but he also agreed with M. Tardieu that the remaining frontiers should be examined forthwith.

(It was then agreed to postpone the consideration of the Greco-Bulgarian frontier until the fate of Constantinople had been decided by the Supreme Council.

M. Pichon undertook, on behalf of the Foreign Ministers, to draw the attention of the Heads of the Governments, to the importance of deciding this question in relation to the frontiers of Bulgaria.

It was also agreed that the Committee on Greek territorial claims should examine the proposals made by M. Venizelos.)

(b) With Roumania M. Tardieu said that the question of the rectification of the frontier in the Dobrudja had been regarded by the Commission³ as a very delicate matter. It was difficult to ask an Allied country after a victorious war to yield to an enemy State territory which it had possessed before the war. The line shown in blue on the map attached to the report⁴ represented the proposal of the American Delegate.⁵ There had been qualified unanimity regarding this proposal. The French Delegate⁶ thought it inexpedient to alter the frontier at all, but all were of opinion that, if any alteration were to be made, the blue line represented the best alternative frontier.

M. Pichon suggested that the Roumanians and Bulgarians might be informed that, if any rectification of frontier in the Dobrudja was desired by them, the Allies would welcome negotiations between them.

Mr. Balfour said he understood the Commission was of opinion that the blue line represented a better ethnographical frontier than the green line, which was the 1914 frontier. Had the Conference been dealing with an enemy State, it would have applied its principles without reservation, but, as, in this instance, the case affected an Allied State, no modification, even according to the ethnological principle, could be made without the consent of the Allied State. He thought perhaps an appeal might be made to Roumania to offer a modification of frontier in the interest of peace with her neighbours and the general peace of Europe.

M. Pichon agreed that this was the question to be decided.

Mr. White pointed out that in the space between the blue and the green lines, there were 66,000 Bulgarians, and only 867 Roumanians. He agreed that the territory could not be taken from Roumania without her consent, but, in view of the figures quoted, he thought an offer to redress an inequitable frontier should be made.

M. Sonnino asked if there was any reason to suppose that Roumania and Bulgaria had any intention of negotiating.

M. Tardieu said he thought not. Three months ago Roumania might have been tempted to do so, with the object of inducing Bulgaria to yield Vidin to Serbia in exchange for a strip on the Dobrudja. The result of this might have been that Serbia would have abandoned her claims in the Banat and left Roumania a free hand there. This conclusion now appeared improbable, and Roumania would presumably be unwilling to negotiate with Bulgaria about the frontier in the Dobrudja merely on its merits.

M. Pichon [said?] that a hint might be given to Roumania to modify the frontier in the Dobrudja according to the recommendation made by the Committee. Meanwhile, the previous frontier might be provisionally accepted. It would be very difficult for the Allies to take from Roumania what had been given to her in 1914, especially since Roumania had fought on the Allied side against Bulgaria.

M. Sonnino said that a recognition of the 1914 frontier would make it still harder for Roumania to make a move. He thought that the report of the Committee should not be communicated officially to Roumania, but that it should be allowed to leak out unofficially. This might convey a less pointed hint to Roumania to undertake negotiations on her own initiative.

M. Tardieu said that, as far as he was concerned, he was a strong partisan of the original frontier. The new line would bring Bulgaria very close to the port of Constanza.

M. Sonnino suggested that the whole question be deferred, in the hope that the two countries would get together and settle the matter between them. Neither should be officially urged to do so, but an informal hint should be given to Roumania enabling her to make a beau geste. The Council might take the matter up again, should the two countries fail to reach an agreement.

M. Tardieu said that Roumania might answer to any hint of this kind that until she was aware of her frontiers in other regions, she could make no proposals. Her frontier in Bessarabia had been left undecided, by reason of Mr. Lansing’s remark that this frontier could not be decided in the absence of Russia. The frontier in Bukovina was also undecided and the frontier in the Banat was in a similar situation.

M. Laroche said that if Roumania yielded a little ground to Bulgaria in the Dobrudja, she would improve her relations with her neighbours and also confer a benefit on the Allies in general by making the rest of the peace terms more digestible to the Bulgarians.

M. Pichon said that in all probability M. Bratiano, before making any move, would ask for an assurance that Roumania would have the Banat. The Allies would then be forced to confess that the Roumanian frontiers could not be fixed on any side except the Hungarian.

Mr. Balfour observed that the objection to settling the frontier in Bessarabia, as involving a partial dealing with the Russian problem, was a sound one, but he thought the frontier in the Banat could be dealt with at once. He suggested that the Committee be asked to make a report on the subject.

M. Tardieu observed that the Committee’s report had been ready for 2½ months.

M. Laroche remarked that it had been hoped that the two countries concerned would reach an amicable settlement. This now appeared most unlikely and in all probability both sides would prefer that the decision of the Conference should be imposed on them.

(Further discussion of the frontier between Roumania and Bulgaria was postponed pending a decision on the Banat.)

(c) Effect on These Questions of Lack of a Russian Policy M. Sonnino observed that a decision on all these questions was continually hampered by the absence of an Allied policy regarding Russia. The Conference hoped to make peace with Germany, Austria and Hungary. The Russian question Policy station still remained without the beginning of a solution. As Mr. Balfour remarked, the problem could not be dealt with piecemeal; nevertheless all sorts of questions would necessarily remain undecided unless something was done to establish a policy in Russia. A month ago Mr. Lloyd George had said that a Russian policy was absolutely necessary. If it was necessary then, it was more necessary now. The present moment, moreover, was a favourable one, as Russia was now divided into two principal forces, (1) the Bolshevik, and (2) all the anti-Bolshevik Governments, under Admiral Koltchak. Unless some steps were taken promptly, the Allies would be too late. The Allies were doing nothing, and the various Russian parties appeared to be shy of making any move. He suggested that the attention of the Council of Heads of States be drawn to the advisability of framing a Russian policy without delay.

(M. Pichon agreed to draw the attention of the Council of the Heads of States to this question.)

(d) With Serbia M. Tardieu explained the report of the Committee regarding the frontier between Jugo-Slavia and Bulgaria. He explained the reasons why the committee rejected the claims of the Jugo-Slavs, and why, in three instances, it had adopted a modification of the previous frontier between Bulgaria and Serbia. In all these instances, save one, there had been unanimity. In the area between the Dragoman Pass and Pirot, the French and British Delegations proposed a line leaving the Dragoman Pass to Bulgaria, but giving Jugo-Slavia a more favourable position across the seven roads converging on Pirot. The former frontier had given the Bulgarians command of all these roads, and had put Pirot at their mercy. On the other hand, the frontier proposed by the Jugo-Slavs would have put Sofia at their mercy. The Italian and American Delegates preferred that no change should be made in the frontier at this point, as it was so near the capital of Bulgaria. They agreed, however, that the line proposed by the French and British Delegates was the best possible, should the alteration of the old frontier be considered desirable at all.

M. Sonnino asked what views had been expressed on the Central Committee.

M. Tardieu said that each Delegation had maintained its own view.

M. Sonnino expressed the opinion that ethnological reasons were in favour of the Bulgarians.

M. Tardieu said that the population was very small in the area concerned, and that ethnological reasons had no great weight.

Mr. Balfour said that he thought, on the whole, the balance of argument was in favour of a change of the frontier. There was no important question of population changing their sovereignty. The purpose was to make a more defensible frontier. Strong frontiers, as a whole, made for peace. The new frontier rendered Jugo-Slavia more defensible, and did not imperil Bulgaria. A change, therefore, would, he thought, be advantageous to the cause of peace between the neighbouring States.

M. Pichon agreed.

M. Sonnino asked how many inhabitants were concerned.

M. Tardieu said that there were no certain figures, but, roughly speaking, about 7,700 people might be affected.

Mr. White also expressed agreement to the new frontier proposed.

M. Sonnino said that he would not oppose it.

(The frontier proposed by the Committee for the study of territorial questions relating to Jugo-Slavia between Jugo-Slavia and Bulgaria was accepted.)

2. M. Pichon read a letter and draft Article sent him by M. Hymans (Appendix 2). He asked whether any objections were raised.

Article Proposed by M. Hymans for Insertion in the Treaties of Peace With Bulgaria and Turkey in Favour of Belgian Subjects Mr. Balfour said he raised no objection, but he would point out that the Belgians had not been at war with Bulgaria or Turkey. Nevertheless, they wished their countrymen to be placed in the same position as subjects of countries which had been at war. He asked whether the United States, who were in the same position, would like to claim the same advantages.

M. Sonnino expressed the view that this would set up a somewhat dangerous precedent.

Mr. Balfour asked whether Belgian subjects suffered any disabilities which could not be cured otherwise.

M. Pichon remarked that no such disabilities were alleged.

M. Sonnino said that it was possible that Belgium might have other remedies than the one suggested.

(It was decided that the question should be referred to the Reparations Commission, which would be asked to take note of the above discussion.)

3. Claim to Restoration of Polish Archives, Works of Art, etc. M. Pichon drew attention to the text of three articles submitted by the Polish Delegation for inclusion in the Treaty of Peace with Austria. (Appendix 3.) He suggested that this matter should also be referred to the Reparations Commission.

M. Sonnino pointed out that the claim made referred back to events which had taken place a century ago. If claims relating to events before the period of the Napoleonic wars were to be put forward, Italy might take advantage of the precedent to make certain similar claims.

(The question was referred to the Reparations Commission.)

4. M. Pichon drew attention to the letter from Dr. Benes. (Appendix IV).

Protest by Dr. Benes Against Inclusion in the Austrian Delegation of Germans of Bohemia M. Sonnino expressed the view that it was not open to the Conference to make a formal objection. The Austrian Delegation might be told that they had made an indiscreet choice of Delegates, but an official protest appeared to him to be out of the question. Had the Austrian Delegation chosen to give powers to persons born in Italian territory, such as Trent, he would have thought the choice a bad one, but he would not have made an official protest.

M. Pichon said that he had returned a similar answer to M. Kramarc.⁷ He thought, therefore, that no notice could be taken of Dr. Benes’ protest.

M. Sonnino further pointed out that in all territories transferred from one State to another provision had been made for the inhabitants to opt for the retention of their previous nationality.

Mr. Balfour and Mr. White agreed that no official notice could be taken of Dr. Benes’ request.

(It was, therefore, agreed that no action could be taken.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Paris, May 16th, 1919.

Appendix I to IC–187 [FM–16]⁸

Paris, May 16, 1919.

[The Greek Premier (Venizelos) to the President of the Peace Conference (Clemenceau)]

Monsieur le Président: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a memorandum containing certain observations on the line of the new Greco-Bulgar frontier, as proposed by the Commission entrusted with an examination of Greek claims in Thrace.

Your Excellency will be good enough to note that there is a question of some slight rectifications which, without being of the least importance to Bulgaria, on any ground whatever, offer nevertheless some essential advantages from the Greek point of view, and seem to conform with equity.

Accept [etc.]

Signed:

E. K. Venizelos

[Enclosure—Translation]⁹

Observations on the Greco-Bulgar Frontier in Thrace

(English Map 1/250 [1/250,000?])

1. On the east, the line proposed by the Hellenic Delegation, started from Cape Iniada, and following the water-shed between the basins of Katir Chaush Déré and Kezvaya Chai, it passed through the village of Velika to pass afterwards by way of Karaman Dagh, Lisovo Dagh, etc., the line which separates the waters of the Maritza and its affluents from those which fall into the Black Sea. This unbroken chain of elevations did not enclose any Turk or Bulgar village. The amendment proposed by the Commission would result in leaving outside of the Greek frontier a zone containing two Greek villages, Samakovo with 5,000 Greeks and 400 Bulgars, and Troulia with 1,000 Greeks and no Bulgars, and including no other population, either Turk or Bulgar; so that without profiting any one whatever, the amendment would be prejudicial solely to the Greek inhabitants of the villages named above. From, the strategic and topographic points of view, nothing hinders the line from following the natural course proposed by Greece, or at least from following the mountain chain of Karaman Dagh up to the Monastery of St. George, whence it would pass through Velika and Karaman Dagh, to join Lisoro again, this continuous chain of elevations being also a water-shed between the waters flowing northward toward Madiera Tchai and Velika, and those flowing southward toward Krivar and Boulanik.

It is well to state again, moreover, that the villages referred to, and especially Samakovo, are united by communications with both Kirk-Kilissé and Media, having in all times belonged administratively to this latter district; while according to the demarcation proposed by the Commission these villages will go back to a district which has formed part of Bulgaria since 1913, and to which they are not attached either ethnographically or administratively and geographically.

In these circumstances it would be entirely just to rectify the line slightly, so as to include in Greek territory the two villages in question.

2. Near Adrianople, the line proposed by the Commission is fairly satisfactory. It may be observed, however, that at a trifling distance from this line are to be found the purely Greek villages of Iskudar (1,800 inhabitants), Pacha Mahale (400 inhabitants), Mikelien (700 inhabitants), Haskeuy (100 inhabitants), and Fikeli (300 inhabitants). There is no Turk or Bulgar village, on the other hand, in the zone which includes these five Greek villages. It would suffice, therefore, to remove the line proposed by the Commission 2 or 3 kilometres northward in order to have within Greek territory these five villages, without incorporating in it any Bulgar population. And besides, since in this region the boundary can by no means follow any natural line, and must cut obliquely the water courses and mountain spurs whose general direction is from north to south, the rectifications suggested would have the advantage of establishing the frontier at points which are more elevated and which are 2 or 3 kilometres farther from the city of Adrianople.

3. In the sector to the east of Kirtzali the boundary proposed by the Commission prefers, rather than the Aeda, a parallel line on the south of the stream. From a purely Greek point of view, there could apparently be no objection against, this reduction, since the zone included between the two lines does not enclose either Greek or Bulgar populations and is inhabited exclusively by Turks. Nevertheless, it would be proper to consider whether it is in the interests of these Turkish populations of the Cazas of Egri Deré and Dari Deré to be partitioned between Greece and Bulgaria, and whether it is advisable for the defence of this particularly weak sector of our new frontier to accentuate further the salient of Bulgarian territory which is already sufficiently pronounced to the north of Kantai.

On these points it would be desirable if there were left to the Commission, which will be charged with laying down on the spot the line of the frontier, a certain liberty of action in making slight local rectifications which may be suggested to it either by the configuration of the ground, or by the interests and aspirations of the neighboring villages.

Appendix II to IC–187 [FM–16]

M–155

Belgian Delegation,
Paris, May 12th, 1919.

Draft Article Proposed by M. Hymans for Insertion in the Treaties With Bulgaria and Turkey

(Translation)

Sir: In view of the forthcoming discussion of the conditions of Peace between the Allied and Associated Governments on the one hand, and Turkey and Bulgaria respectively on the other, I think it my duty to bring to your notice and also to that of the Supreme Inter-Allied Council the fact that Belgian subjects have been treated as enemies in these two countries, although no state of war had been officially declared between them and Belgium.

In these circumstances it appears to me equitable that a provision should be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey and in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria placing Belgium and her subjects on the same footing in these two countries as the Allied States and their subjects.

I have the honour to suggest the following text for such a provision:—

“Belgium shall enjoy the rights and advantages stipulated in favour of the High Contracting Parties of the first part in the present Treaty with regard to reparation for damage caused during the war to Belgian subjects in Turkey (or in Bulgaria) as well as in regard to all economic matters, questions of transport and aerial navigation.”

You will notice that this text approximates to that of Article 41 inserted in the draft Treaty with Germany in favour of Luxembourg.

It seems hardly necessary for me to add that unless some such provision be inserted in the Treaties with Turkey and Bulgaria, the position of Belgium and of Belgian subjects would be entirely lacking in the indispensable guarantees.

I avail [etc.]

(Signed)

Hymans

To M. Clemenceau.

Appendix III to IC–187 [FM–16]

M–156

Text of Three Articles Submitted by the Polish Delegation for Inclusion in the Treaty of Peace With Austria

Restoration and Surrender to Poland by German Austria of Archives, Works of Art, and Scientific Objects

Article I.

The Government of German Austria undertakes to restore and hand over to the Polish Commissioners, with the least possible delay, all Archive Papers, Registers, Inventories, Maps, Plans and in general all Documents relating to territories which have passed under Polish rule, whether those territories formed part of the Austrian Monarchy, or whether they were occupied by the latter. To be included amongst others, all Documents, Papers and Registers containing Title-deeds, or concerning Justice, or the Civil or Military Administration of the countries forming part of Poland, Staff Maps and Plans, Plans and Projects for regulating Waterways, Mines, etc., Moulds and Casts of the said Plans, as well as all historical Documents which belonged to the Archives of Poland, or were taken away therefrom, exported and incorporated in the Central or other Archives of Austria from 1772 down to the present day.

Will also be restored to Poland and handed over without delay to the said Commissioners, all Libraries, Museum Collections, Works of Art, Scientific and Religious Objects, as well as historical Souvenirs which for any reason of a political, military or religious nature, were sequestrated, confiscated, removed or exported from the said territories, either by the Civil or Military Officials of Austria-Hungary, or by private persons, and that, even if these objects were incorporated in other Collections of the former Austrian Monarchy from 1772 down to the present day.

It is understood that the objects comprised in the preceding paragraphs will be restored and handed over whether they belonged to the former Republic of Poland, or to any of the successive forms of the Polish State, to the Polish Crown, to Public, Religious, Communal, Scientific and Artistic Institutions, or to private owners, but having a public character.

If the restoration or surrender should not be effected, owing to the destruction or loss of the objects mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the Government of German Austria undertakes to indemnify Poland in kind or in money for losses incurred under this head.

If only a part of the Administrative District of the Commune or of the “Mairie” is detached, the Archives concerning it will remain in the part in which the chief County Town is situated.

The Polish Government and the Government of German Austria undertake to communicate to each other, in original, bit by bit, at the request of the superior Administrative Authorities, to be restored, and for a fixed period, all Documents and information relating to affairs which concern both the detached territories and the territories remaining in the possession of German Austria. The same Governments undertake, at the request of the other State, to supply each other free of cost with authentic copies of documents which may be demanded.

Article II.

In order that the preliminary work may proceed without hindrance the Polish Commissioners and their assistants, duly authorised by their Government, will have access to all Public Institutions, Offices, Archives, Libraries, Museums, Palaces and Collections which may contain the above-mentioned Objects, as well as to the Inventories, Minutes, Official Documents, and to the Depositories of the said Institutions, Offices, Palaces and Collections, in order to draw up a precise list of the Objects to be claimed by the Polish State.

The procedure and method of restoration and of handing over will be settled according to the principles established by the principal Allied Powers in other analogous cases.

The present possessors of Objects to be claimed by Poland will not have the right to transfer them before restoration, or to injure them in any way. A reserve is made for cases of absolute necessity, but the Polish Government must be informed thereof immediately.

Article III.

Poland will, moreover, have the right to claim a part of those Austrian State and Crown Collections at Vienna which were acquired formerly, and paid for out of the Revenues of all the States which belonged to the Monarchy. Poland’s share will be determined by the general rules which will at a later date be laid down for all countries which formed part of the Monarchy, and especially for Italy.

Appendix IV to IC–187 [FM–16]

Paris, May 9th, 1919.

Letter From Dr. Benes to M. Dutasta

(Translation)

Sir: According to information which reaches us in the newspapers and in telegrams from Vienna the Austrian Government intend sending to Paris, either as plenipotentiaries or as experts, specialists on the regions in dispute between Austria and the neighboring States, and in particular the Czecho-Slovak Republic. We have no objection to the Austrian Delegation presenting their case with all the means at their disposal and by the competent persons. We are, however, obliged to call the attention of the Conference to the fact that the Austrian Government perhaps intends to make a kind of special demonstration by appointing as their Delegates and sending to the Conference persons belonging to the regions in dispute.

I think that this procedure is inadmissible. The decisions of the Conference in regard to the regions of the Germans of Bohemia have been arrived at and have been presented to the German Delegation in the Preliminaries of Peace. The question of the Germans of Bohemia is regarded as one which has been definitely established and the Germans of Bohemia are considered to be citizens of the Czecho-Slovak Republic.

At the same time the period allowed for opting and the juridical measures to be taken have been provided for when any particular case arises of a German of Bohemia not wishing to become a Czecho-Slovak citizen.

I therefore think, Sir, that each plenipotentiary and expert of an official character who may come to the Paris Conference should be really Austrian, that is to say that he should be domiciled in German Austria and not in any of the regions in dispute whose future has already been decided. It would be impossible from a legal point of view for a man to come to Paris to contest to the Czecho-Slovak Republic certain districts and subsequently to return to Bohemia where, according to the laws of the country, he would have to be punished for the crime of high treason.

It is impossible for the Czecho-Slovak Government to be placed in such a situation and I therefore beg the Secretariat-General to present to the President of the Conference the following request:—

The French representative at Vienna, M. Allizé, might draw the attention of the Austrian Government to the fact that the decisions already taken by the Conference demand that only persons domiciled in German Austria and not in the regions under dispute should be included amongst their Delegates.

Apart from the decisions of the Conference which have been already taken this solution is necessary from the mere point of view of tact.

I think, Sir, that it would be best to avoid in this manner any incidents which might arise between the Austrian Government and the Delegations of the other States which inherit Austrian territory. I think that those Delegations would be unanimous in disputing the validity of the powers of Austrian Delegates whose legal quality might be doubtful.

I have [etc.]

(Signed)

Edward Benes

1. Report of the Commission to Study Territorial Questions Concerning Greece (Commission on Greek and Albanian Affairs), March 30, 1919.
2. Dr. S. E. Mezes.
3. The Commission on Rumanian and Yugoslav Affairs.
4. Report No. 1 (April 6, 1919) of the Committee for the Study of Territorial Questions Relating to Rumania and Yugoslavia (Commission on Rumanian and Yugoslav Affairs).
5. The American delegates were Charles Seymour and Clive Day.
6. The French delegates were A. Tardieu and J. Laroche.
7. Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia.
8. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.
9. Translation from the French supplied by the editors.