Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/79

CF–79

Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, June 21, 1919, at 3:45 p.m.

  • Present
    • United States of America
      • President Wilson.
    • British Empire
      • The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
    • France
      • M. Clemenceau.
    • Italy
      • Baron Sonnino.
    • Japan
      • Baron Makino.
Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. } Secretaries.
M. di Martino
M. P. J. Mantoux—Interpreter.

The following members of the Committee on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs were also present:—

  • United States of America
    • Dr. C. Day.
    • Dr. C. Seymour.
    • Dr. D. W. Johnson.
    • Captain L. W. Perrin.
    • Dr. A. C. Coolidge.
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe.
    • Mr. A. W. A. Leeper.
    • Major-General W. Thwaites.
    • Major Temperley.
  • France
    • M. Klotz.
    • M. Tardieu.
    • M. Laroche.
    • General Le Rond.
    • M. de Saint-Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. di Martino.
    • Count Vannutelli-Rey.
    • Colonel Pariani.

1. The Council had before them a Note by the Committee on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs, giving its opinion on three letters from M. Vesnitch, two of which were dated June 7th and an Armistice one dated June 9th (Appendix I). Klagenfurt and an Armistice in Carinthia

President Wilson pointed out that three points were raised:—

(1)
The majority of the Commission were agreed that during a plebiscite the Jugo-Slavs should occupy Zone A, and the Austrians should occupy Zone B. The Italian Delegation, however, dissented from this view.
(2)
In regard to the spaces of time to elapse between the coming into force of the Treaty and the holding of the plebiscite, the majority of the Commission preferred three months, but the Italian Delegation preferred from six to eighteen months.
(3)
The date of the qualification of those who would have the right to vote. The majority of the Commission favoured the vote being given to residents in the Klagenfurt Basin since 1905, but the Italian Delegation wished to bring it to August, 1914.

His personal view corresponded with that of the majority of the Commission on all points.

M. Sonnino, in regard to the first point, said that he thought it might jeopardise the liberty of the plebiscite if the Klagenfurt basin were occupied by the troops of the interested parties. To secure an absolutely free vote it would be better to provide in some other way, for instance, by means of Allied troops under the direction of the Commission.

President Wilson pointed out that in any case the Commission would be there to secure fair play.

M. Sonnino said that the presence of troops would hamper the liberty of the vote. He would prefer a local police force.

Reverting then to the question of the armistice, he said he had understood that the intention of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers was to confirm the telegram of 31st May,1 demanding complete evacuation of the Klagenfurt Basin. The first telegram, he pointed out, had reached Belgrade on June 3rd, notwithstanding which the Jugo-Slavs had continued to advance. An Italian Officer who had come from Vienna had tried to get into touch with the representatives of the two armies. He was able to get into touch with the Slavs, but was prevented from getting into touch with the Austrians. Consequently, on the eve of June 6th, the Austrians had been compelled to sign a sort of an armistice. Then, an order had come from the Austrian Government refusing to ratify the armistice as concluded, and which provided for the occupation of Klagenfurt by the Slavs. He understood that the Council had wished to repeat to Belgrade and Vienna the orders to withdraw troops from the whole basin. The other Foreign Ministers, however, had not interpreted the decision of the Council in the same sense, and had thought it would be better for the troops of the two forces to occupy the two plebiscite zones. If his colleagues thought it would be easier and that a more sincere result would be obtained by the presence of the Austrian and Jugo-Slav troops, he would have nothing to say.

President Wilson pointed out that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would appoint the Commission, which would know whether there was interference by the troops. If they discovered that there was, they would have to make other arrangements.

M. Sonnino said it would be difficult for the Commission to know exactly whether pressure was being exerted by the troops or not.

[Page 583]

President Wilson asked if, in M. Sonnino’s judgment, an entire evacuation would now be safe.

M. Sonnino suggested that a local police force should be arranged for.

President Wilson asked, if this proved inadequate, what would happen.

M. Sonnino said he would consult the military advisers on the spot. He had suggested this at the Council, and had understood President Wilson to reply that the military men should inform them what was to be done.

President Wilson said that he had understood that the military advisers on the spot were only to report the cessation of hostilities.

M. Sonnino suggested that the military advisers might now be asked to report.

President Wilson said that news had reached the Council that Italian troops were moving towards Klagenfurt.

M. Sonnino said he had no news of this, but, if so, it was done by the orders of the Commission of Military Officers on the spot.

President Wilson said that the Commission of Military Officers had no authority, and no right to give such an order. If they had done so, it would be a dangerous extension of their functions.

M. Clemenceau said that his information was that an Italian officer had said that he came in the name of the Peace Conference to authorise their action.

M. Sonnino said that when the Italian representative in Vienna first heard of the telegram of the 31st May, he had referred the matter to the armies; then the four Allied Military Officers on the spot, having heard of what had been decided, insisted with the Heads of the armies on their retiring. If they had taken on themselves to order Italian troops into Klagenfurt, he knew nothing of it.

Colonel Pariani said there was no information to this effect.

M. Tardieu said that the Commission had been impressed by the consideration that it would be better now for the armies to adopt as the limits of military occupation their future military frontier. The Commission had accordingly reported in this sense in their remarks on M. Vesnitch’s letters. The most simple plan was to take the purple line on President Wilson’s map2 as the limit between the Austrians and the Yugo-Slavians. This accorded with the views of all the Foreign Ministers except Baron Sonnino.

President Wilson said that the matter was really simpler than what appeared from this discussion. The premise on which the Commission had proceeded was that it was not safe to clear all the troops out of the Klagenfurt area; they assumed that some [Page 584] steadying force was necessary. If this view was accepted, the Council had only to decide what the force should consist of. There was no mixed Allied force in the neighbourhood. The only possible Allied force was an Italian force, but, as the Italian claims conflicted with the Yugo-Slavs in this part of the world, it might cause trouble to introduce Italians. Consequently, there was no alternative but to choose Austrians in the “B” area and Yugo-Slavs in the “A” area.

M. Tardieu said that if the purple line did not exist, he could understand the plea for total evacuation of the area, but, if it was agreed to take the purple line as the boundary between the two plebiscite areas, he could not understand what objection there was to using it as the armistice line.

President Wilson said that he understood that Baron Sonnino was prepared to waive his objections if his colleagues were all agreed.

M. Sonnino said his point of view was that it was predetermining the plebiscite.

President Wilson said that the Commission could clearly object to any abuse of their position by the Military.

Mr. Balfour suggested that it should be laid down that the Commission was to be the controlling power of the forces.

M. Tardieu pointed out that this was already in the report on the Vesnitch letters.

President Wilson suggested the following formula:—

“Both bodies of troops to be reduced to the dimensions necessary for the observation of order, and to act to that end under Inter-Allied control. Both bodies of troops to be replaced as rapidly as possible by a police force locally recruited.”

(This was accepted, and it was agreed that the Commission should be instructed to insert words to this effect in their draft.)

The Council then discussed the third question mentioned by President Wilson, namely, as to the date of qualification of persons to vote.

M. Tardieu explained that the majority of the Commission had based their proposal for 1905 on the belief that at that time a systematic introduction of a German element into Klagenfurt Basin had commenced.

M. Sonnino said that possibly there had been a predominance of Austrian immigration at that time, but he could not see the argument for choosing the particular year 1905. According to the facts as stated to him, before that date there had been a systematic and arranged Slovene immigration. He could not see why, because M. Vesnitch said that after that date there had been an Austrian immigration, this date should be fixed. Surely the proper date to take was immediately before the war. The pre-war population was the one that [Page 585] ought to determine the sovereignty under which it should exist. He did not see how that principle could properly be departed from.

President Wilson said that Dr. Seymour informed him that a new railway had been opened in 1907, after which there had been a great influx of German workmen. Also, after 1907, there had been a change in the school administration.

M. Tardieu said that many special reasons had been given, but there was also a general reason, namely, that after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Austrian Government had directed itself to anti-Slovene organisation. If he himself had to give a date, he would choose 1909 rather than 1905.

M. Sonnino said that all these dates were artificial. The only proper persons to vote were those who had inhabited the district immediately before the war. That was the only date to take. Otherwise, it would be better to have no plebiscite at all.

President Wilson said that this was not a new precedent. In the narrow neck of Poland there had been a belt of German-inhabited territory, deliberately created by the Germans to separate the Poles.

M. Sonnino said that in that case there had been German laws and funds voted in the budget to Germanise Poland.

President Wilson said there had been a somewhat similar policy after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

M. Sonnino said it had only been a very general policy. If workmen had been introduced, they remained just as much citizens as anyone else.

President Wilson said that in all previous cases there had been a qualifying period of residence, and the date immediately before the war had never been chosen.

M. Sonnino said that this was no argument for adopting M. Vesnitch’s date.

President Wilson then suggested 1912 as the date.

M. Sonnino accepted, and the proposal was adopted.

The Council then discussed the period which should elapse after the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace before the plebiscite took place.

M. Sonnino said he would accept the views of the majority of the Commission that it should take place after three months.

(The following decisions were reached:—

1.
In regard to the armistice, that the forces of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and of the Austrian Republic should be withdrawn south and north of the purple line on President Wilson’s map.
M. Tardieu undertook to draft a telegram in this sense, to be sent by the President of the Conference to the Governments of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and of the Austrian Republic.
2.
That a copy of this telegram should be communicated to the Officers representing the Allied and Associated Powers in the Klagenfurt area.
3.
That the Committee on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs should proceed to draw up the articles for the Treaty of Peace with Austria relating to the plebiscite in the Klagenfurt area and connected questions on the following bases:—
(a)
With a view to the plebiscite, that Austrian troops in the “A” area, and troops of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in the “B” area, should be reduced to the dimensions necessary for the observation of order, and should act to that end under Inter-Allied control. Both bodies of troops should be replaced as rapidly as possible by a police force locally recruited.
(b)
That the plebiscite should be held within three months of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, in the zone “A”, and, in the event of this vote being given in favour of union with the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, a plebiscite should be held within three weeks from that date in the “B” zone.
(c)
That the International Commission should consist of four permanent members representing respectively the United States of America, the British Empire, France and Italy. When dealing with matters affecting the “B” area, there should be added an Austrian representative, and when dealing with matters in the “A” area, there should be added a Jugo-Slav representative.
(d)
That persons should be qualified to vote who had resided in the district since January 1st, 1912. In other respects, the proposals of the Commission in their letter of June 18th, 1919, were approved.
4.
That the Commission should be authorised to communicate their completed draft direct to the Drafting Committee, who should have authority to prepare the necessary clauses on this basis without further instructions from the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

(The Members of the Committee on Roumanian and Jugo-Slav Affairs withdrew at this point.)

2. The Council had before them a Report from the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways, dated June 18th, 1919 (Appendix II), recommending the insertion of an additional article in the Treaty of Peace with Austria concerning freedom of transit for telegraphic correspondence and telephonic communications. Freedom of Transit for Telegraphic & Telephonic Communications; Additional Article in the Treaty of Peace With Austria

(The Article was approved and initialled by the representatives of the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward it to the Secretary-General for the Drafting Committee.)

[Page 587]

3. The Council had under consideration a Note from the Superior Blockade Council containing a proposed agreement by Austria regarding Trade with Hungary and Germany, (Appendix III).

(The Note was approved and initialled by the representatives of the Governments of the United States of America, the British Empire, France and Italy, the representative of Japan not initialling it, as he said that Japan was not concerned. Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to forward this to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.) Proposed Agreement by Austria Regarding Trade With Hungary & Germany

4. The Council had under consideration a Note prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers, dated May 24th, 1919, in regard to the Roumanian frontiers in territories which were included in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. (Appendix IV.)

(The Note was approved and initialled by the representatives of the Five Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Roumanian Frontiers in Territories Formerly Part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to communicate the Note to the Secretary-General for the information of the Drafting Committee.)

5. The Council had under consideration a letter, dated June 16th, 1919, addressed to Sir Maurice Hankey by M. Berthelot on behalf of the Commission on New States. (Appendix V.)

(It was agreed:—

1.
That the document attached to the letter headed the Adriatic “Proposals concerning Traffic in the Adriatic” to-gether with Annex I, should be referred to the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways. Letter From the Commission on New States in Regard to Tariffs for Railway Traffic Towards the Adriatic Works of Art, and Financial Clauses
2.
That the proposal of the Italian Delegation to submit a clause relating to the restitution of works of art carried off during the war and removed to territory belonging to New States should be referred to the Reparations Commission.
3.
That the proposed Financial Clauses relating to Poland suggested by the French Delegation and attached as Annex II to M. Berthelot’s letter, should be referred to the Financial Commission.

Sir Maurice Hankey was instructed to communicate this decision to the Secretary-General for the necessary action.)

[Page 588]

6. M. Loucheur, who entered towards the end of this meeting, reported that good progress was being made with the completion of Reparation and Finance Clauses for the Austrian Treaty. He hoped that the report would be ready Treaty for consideration by Monday afternoon or Tuesday. Reparation & Finance in the Austrian Treaty

7. During the meeting, a message was received from the British Admiralty to the effect that a number of German ships had been sunk by the maintenance crews on board. Sinking of German Ships in the Orkneys

8. M. Clemenceau reported that, after personal consultation with President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George, he had taken the action recommended by the Military Representative[s] in their report on the Transfer of the 4th Polish Division from the Bukovina to Poland. (Appendix VI.) Transport of 4th Polish Division From the Bukovina to Poland

(At this point, the Drafting Committee were introduced for the consideration of the Note prepared by them in reply to the German Delegation. This discussion is recorded as a separate meeting.)3

Appendix I to CF–79

WCP–1028

Note Addressed to the Supreme Council of the Allies by the Committee on Roumanian and Yugoslav Affairs

The Commission has been asked by a letter from Sir Maurice Hankey to give its opinion on two letters from Mr. Vesnitch dated June 7th.

The Committee could not meet before June 18th, because several of its members were also on the Committee for the revision of the Reply to the German Delegation.

The opinion of the Committee is as follows:—

1) Mr. Vesnitch’s two letters of June 7th, (completed by a third dated June 9th), suggest methods of procedure for giving effect to a proposal for a solution set forth in principle in a letter of June 6th,4 which was to the following effect:—

“Assignment of Zone A to the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State; but the right of the inhabitants is acknowledged to express, by a plebiscite, within three, or at most six months, their desire that this territory should be placed under Austrian sovereignty.

Assignment of Zone B to Austria, but, vice versa, the same right [Page 589] is reserved to the inhabitants of the territory in favour of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.”

The Committee approves this suggestion in its broad lines, it being understood that the two zones shall be placed under the control of the International Commission.

2) As regards Paragraph 1 of the letter of June 7th, the Committee unanimously recommends that the space of time provided for in paragraph 1 should begin from “January 1st, 1919”, instead of “the coming into force of the present Treaty.”

The United States, British and French Delegations recommend that the proposals of Mr. Vesnitch, contained in Paragraphs B and C, should be approved.

The Italian Delegation accepts Paragraph B, but demands that, in Paragraph C, the words “from August 1st, 1914” should be substituted for the words “at a date previous to January 1st, 1905.”

3) As regards Paragraph 2 of Mr. Vesnitch’s letter, the Committee proposes an International Commission of seven Members, viz., five appointed by the principal Allied and Associated Powers, one by the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State, and one by the Republic of Austria.

4) As regards Paragraph 3 of Mr. Vesnitch’s letter, the United States, British and French Delegations propose that the plebiscite in Zone A should take place three months after the coming into force of the Treaty.

The Italian Delegation demands, as in the case of Upper Silesia, a period of from six months at the least, to eighteen months at the most.

As regards the date of the plebiscite in Zone B, Mr. Vesnitch’s proposals have been unanimously approved.

5) As regards Paragraph 4 of Mr. Vesnitch’s letter, the Committee unanimously recommends the maintenance, for Zone A, of the limits marked on the map known as “President Wilson’s”, that is to say, the exclusion of the district of Miesthal.

Appendix II to CF–79

Translation

commission of ports, waterways and railways

The Secretary-General of the Commission to the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference

I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the text of an Article concerning freedom of transit for telegraphic correspondence and [Page 590] telephonic communications. This Article was unanimously adopted by the Commission of Ports, Waterways and Railways after hearing technical experts.

If it seems too late for this Article to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, the Commission considers that it is of the highest importance that it should be inserted into the Treaty with Austria.

Charguéraud

Enclosure in Above

Article concerning freedom of transit for telegraphic correspondence and telephonic communications to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Austria

Notwithstanding any contrary stipulation in existing Treaties Austria undertakes to grant freedom of transit for telegraphic correspondence and telephonic communications coming from or going to any one of the Allied and Associated Powers whether neighbours or not over such lines as may be most suitable for international transit and in accordance with the tariffs in force. This correspondence and these communications shall be subjected to no unnecessary delay or restriction; they shall enjoy in Austria national treatment in regard to every kind of facility and especially in regard to rapidity of transmission. No payment, facility or restriction shall depend directly or indirectly on the nationality of the transmitter or the addressee.

Appendix III to CF–79

M–250

Note From Superior Blockade Council for Council of Heads of States

Proposed Agreement by Austria Regarding Trade With Hungary and Germany

In accordance with the decision of the Supreme Economic Council at its meeting of June 2, 1919, the Superior Blockade Council recommend to the Council of the Heads of States that when the Financial and Reparation Clauses are delivered to the Austrian Delegates, they be informed that they are required to agree to the following stipulations, which should be signed and delivered in the form of a separate note from the Austrian Delegates:—

“1. The Government of Austria will, unless otherwise requested by the Associated Governments of the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy, continue effectively to prohibit the importation, exportation and transit of all articles between Austria and Hungary and to maintain such prohibition up to the time of the formal acceptance [Page 591] by the Government of Hungary of such terms of peace as shall be proposed by the Associated Governments.

The Government of Austria will, unless otherwise requested by the Associated Governments of the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy, continue effectively to prohibit the importation, exportation and transit of all articles between Austria and Germany and to maintain such prohibition up to the time of the formal acceptance by the Government of Germany of the terms of peace proposed by the Associated Governments”.

Paris, June 7, 1919.

Appendix IV [to CF–79]

M–298

Note for the Supreme Council

The Council of Foreign Ministers has finished the examination of the Rumanian frontiers in territories which formed part of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire.

1. Rumanian Frontier in Former Austrian Province of Bukovina

The Council has the honour to recommend to the Supreme Council of the Allies the adoption of the proposals made by the Committee for the Study of Territorial Questions relating to Rumania and Jugoslavia in its Report No. I (Annex V).

The Rumanian frontier in Bukovina shall be delimited as follows:

A line leaving the “Talweg” of the Dnyester at a point situated about 2.5 kilometres down stream from its confluence with the River Sereth north of Czernowitz;

Running generally to the south west so as to leave the Zastawna Railway south of the Dnyester in Rumanian territory;

Reaching the narrow part of the lake west of Werenczanka.

A line (the exact trace of which is to be fixed by the Boundary Commission provided for in Article 2) across the Lake.

The “talweg” of the outflowing river of the Lake to about 1 kilometre up stream from the point where it crosses the Kotzman and Draczy-netz road.

A line reaching and following the crest line west of Draczynetz running from north to south turning to the west and passing through points 480 and 488.

Meeting the water-shed between the basins of the River Czeremosz on the west and of the River Siretu on the east;

Following this water-shed and meeting the old boundary between Hungary and Bukovina just east of the point where this boundary meets the present administrative boundary between Bukovina and Galicia.

[Page 592]

2. Frontier Between Rumania and Jugoslavia in Banat (Hungarian Territory)

The Council has the honour to recommend to the Allied Supreme Council the conclusions formulated by the Rumanian and Jugo-Slav Committee in its Reports Nos. 1 and 2.

The frontier between Rumania and Jugoslavia would therefore be delimited as follows:

Leaving the point of junction of the frontiers of Rumania, Hungary and Jugoslavia about 9 kilom. south-west of Mako, the frontier between Rumania and Jugoslavia follows:—

A line running in a general southerly direction crossing the river Aranka just west of Valkany.

A line running in a general south-easterly direction approximately parallel to the Szeged, Nagy-Kikinda, Zsombolya railway;

Turning south at a point about 6 kilom. east-north-east of Zsombolya and passing just west of Pardany and Modos,

A line running in a general south-easterly direction;

Crossing the river Temes at a point about 6 kilom. south of Modos and the Versecz-Temesvar railway about 14 kilom. north of Versecz (between the villages of Vattina and Moravicza;)

Turning south at a point about 3 kilom. north-east of Markovecz;

Crossing the river Karas about 3 kilom. south-west of Varadia and the Karasjeszeno-Oraviczabanya railway just west of Mirko-vacz station;

Turning south east parallel to the river Vicinic and at about 2 kilometres from that river skirting by the north and by the east Hill No. 234 which it leaves to Jugoslavia,

Following the valley of the tributary of the Nera,

Passing at Rebenberg then the Valley of the Nera,

Meeting the “talweg” of that river at a point situated about 1 kilometre to the east of the Russics and Zluticza road.

Descending the “talweg” of the Nera until its confluence with the Danube.

The old frontier between Hungary and Serbia then between Roumania and Serbia along the “talweg” of the Danube to the point at which it meets the frontier between Jugoslavia and Bulgaria.

As far as the river Temes, the frontier-line between Rumania and Jugoslavia will include in Rumanian territory the following places:—

Porgany, Bolgartelop, Valkany, Marienfeld, Banat-Komlos, Osztern, N–Jecsa, Gyertyamos, Horvat-Kecsa, O Telek, Janos-fold, Pardany, Modos;

and will leave in Jugoslav territory the following places:—

Psz Keresztur, Majdan, Mokrin, Nakofalva, Seultour, Hatzfeld (Zsombolya), Klari, Tamasfalva, Ittebe, Istvanfold, Torontal-Szecsany.

Between the river Temes and the river Nera, the frontier-line will include in Rumanian territory the following places:— [Page 593]

Surjan, Krivabara, Gaj, Moravicza, Nagy-Bsam, Laczunas, Komoristye, Varadia, Vrany, Mirkovacz, Nikolinez, Najdas;

and will leave in Jugoslav territory the following places:—

Horvat-Boka, Kanak, Szecsenyfalva, Zichyfalva, Vattina, Kis-Zsam, N. Szredistye, Temes-Kutas, Markovecz, Szolcsicza, Csorda, Jam, Krusicza, Rebenberg.

  • W. W.
  • G. C.
  • A. J. B.
  • S. S.
  • N. M.

Appendix V [to CF–79]5

WCP–1036

[M. Berthelot to Sir Maurice Hankey]

Dear Sir Maurice Hankey: The Italian Delegates have submitted to the Commission for the New States some draft clauses of a technical nature regarding the scale of tariffs for traffic towards the Adriatic intended for insertion in the treaties prepared for Czecho-Slovakia and Yugoslavia (Annex I).

A study of the clauses in question has led the various Delegations, with the exception of the Italian, to the conclusion that whilst these clauses are deserving of attention, it does not appear that they can be imposed on Czecho-Slovakia in virtue of Article 86 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, but might, on the contrary, come within the scope of the treaty to be freely discussed with Czecho-Slovakia (and possibly with Yugoslavia). As the Italian Delegation persisted in its opinion that the question of the tariff régime for traffic towards the Adriatic was within the competence of the Commission for the New States, I have been charged to beg you kindly to lay the question before the Council of Premiers, and to request them to settle this question of competence.

The Italian Delegation has also thought it necessary to submit a clause relating to the restitution of works of art carried off during the war and removed to territory belonging to new States.

[Page 594]

The Commission for the New States again considered that this clause could not be imposed on the new States in default of any text allowing of it, and that it did come within the competence of the Commission. I have been charged to beg you to ask the Council of Premiers to refer the question to any other Commission which may seem to be competent.

Finally, the French Delegation has distributed to the members of the Commission for the New States the draft of some financial clauses relating to Poland and settling the numerous financial problems for which solutions must be found (Annex II). After studying Article 93 of the Treaty, the Commission recognised without hesitation that these clauses did not come within its competence, but it charged me to ask you to point out to the Council the considerable importance and great urgency of these clauses, with the drafting of which no Commission appears to have been charged up to the present. It asks that the matter may be referred to the Financial, or to some other Commission, so that discussion may immediately be begun with the representatives of Poland.

Yours etc.

Berthelot

[Draft Clauses Regarding the Scale of Tariffs for Traffic Towards the Adriatic]

proposals concerning traffic in the adriatic

1.
Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 6 (Part XII) of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, the High Contracting Parties undertake to maintain, on their own railways, the régime of tariffs existing before the war as regards traffic to Adriatic and Black Sea ports from the point of view of competition with North German ports. This undertaking shall more especially apply to the agreement existing before the war concerning tariffs for railway traffic for the ports of Trieste and of Fiume.
2.
Passengers, goods, ships, means of transport and postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications to or from the port of Trieste or the port of Fiume shall, in all the ports and on all lines of Communication within the territory of the High Contracting Parties which belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, be treated on a footing of perfect equality, more especially as regards freedom of transit, sanitary, customs and police control, dues and charges of all kinds, and all conditions, facilities, and restrictions granted or imposed with regard to traffic and trade generally.
[Page 595]

Annex I

Remarks on the Clauses Concerning Tariffs To Be Included in the Conventions With the New States

The Proposed clause consists of two parts, the first dealing with the maintenance of the tariff regime for the Adriatic, and the second concerning equality of treatment with regard to Trieste and Fiume.

i. tariff regime for the adriatic

The clause appended hereto is identical, in this respect, with that adopted in the third paragraph of Article 26 (Part XII) of the Treaty with Austria.

The Commission for Ports adopted this clause unanimously, with a view to the maintenance of the system and proportion of former railway tariffs, by which Adriatic ports benefited and which met the requirements and interests of all the territories traversed by railways terminating at Trieste and Fiume, their object being to prevent the deflection of traffic to the German North Sea ports.

It is clear that this clause would be valueless should the application thereof be imposed merely on Austria or Hungary, seeing that in order to reach the Enemy States from the Adriatic the territory of the new States must be crossed. Their refusal to apply these tariffs would be sufficient to destroy the entire effect of the clause imposed on Enemy States.

Further, the maintenance of the former tariff régime is a matter of general interest to the Entente as a whole, for it constitutes the only means whereby the Adriatic ports will be able to prevent the absorption of their traffic by German ports, this traffic being seriously menaced by the new territorial adjustments.

This clause, as contemplated, is, a reciprocal agreement binding all the countries interested, including Italy, who, as far as she is concerned and with regard to her section of the railway system, consents to retain the tariffs which she requests the other countries to maintain.

The tariff system which it is proposed to maintain is the outcome of many years’ experience, and constitutes the only means of preventing tariff chaos (which followed on the dismemberment of Austria), the consequences of which would be regrettable for all States concerned.

ii. equal treatment for the ports of fiume and trieste

It is necessary (and more especially if the ports of Trieste and Fiume are not assigned to the same State) to prevent any treatment calculated to bring about an alteration in former proportions, which might result in strife between two ports which should rather co-operate.

[Page 596]

The former Adriatic tariffs made it possible to divide the traffic between the two ports in such a manner as to assure that each received the proportion accruing from its own Hinterland.

Trieste and Fiume enjoyed perfect equality of treatment in every respect.

It will be advisable to maintain the equilibrium which has proved so successful, more especially as equality of treatment is the principle which has guided the Conference-when dealing with international traffic.

[Draft Clause Relating to Restitution of Works of Art]

Property of any kind and more especially antiques, works of art, scientific equipment, archives and libraries, carried off by Austria-Hungary during the war from invaded regions or from territories ceded under the present Treaty and removed to other territories at present under the jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties, shall be returned by such High Contracting Parties within 6 months of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

[Annex II]

Financial Clauses Relating to Poland

I. Poland shall assume responsibility for a portion of the debts of the German Empire and of Prussia as they stood on 1st August, 1914, in accordance with the conditions laid down by Articles 254 and 255 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

II. She shall assume responsibility for a portion of the debts of the former Austrian Empire, as they stood on 1st August, 1914, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the articles of the Treaty with Austria, and by the annex thereto.

III. Poland shall undertake a portion of the unencumbered Russian public debt, represented by short or long dated bills, as it stood on 1st August, 1914, This portion shall be calculated on the basis of the three financial years, 1911–1912–1913, according to the ratio between this category of revenues in the parts of the former Russian Empire ceded to Poland, and such revenues of the whole of the late Russian Empire as in the judgment of the special Commission provided for below (Article 6) are best calculated to represent the relative contributive ability of the respective territories.

These calculations shall not include loans which have been recognised as railway debts. Poland shall therefore pay to Russia the value of the railways belonging to the Russian State, and situated on Polish territory under the conditions laid down in Article XI, given below.

[Page 597]

IV. Poland shall undertake, under conditions to be determined by a subsequent convention between Poland and the Powers concerned, to refund a portion of the advances made to the former Russian Government after August 1914, with a view to the prosecution of the War.

This portion shall be calculated by the same method as that employed for the determination of that portion of the unencumbered Public Debt attributed to Poland.

V. Poland shall assume a portion of the mortgage debt of the former Russian Empire corresponding to the charges situated on Polish territories.

VI. All questions relating to the determination of the amount of the public debts, whether mortgage or unencumbered, of the former Russian Empire, and of the advances made to the former Russian Government with a view to the prosecution of the war; to the calculation of those portions of the aforementioned debts and advances undertaken by Poland, and to the method of discharge by Poland of the obligations so assumed, shall form the subject of special conventions between Poland, the States whose nationals hold stock of the loans issued by the former Russian Government and Russia or the States constituted on the territory of the former Russian Empire, or to which territories formerly belonging to it have been ceded.

These conventions which shall be drafted and signed in Paris shall be prepared by a “special Russian Commission” composed of a representative of each of the Powers enumerated above. In the event of the Commission not arriving at a unanimous decision with regard to the questions thus submitted to it, the difficulty shall be submitted to arbitrators appointed, at the simple request of the Chairman of the Commission addressed to the Secretariat General of the League of Nations, by the Council (?) of the League. The decision of the arbitrators shall be final.

VII. Without awaiting the signature of these conventions, Poland shall, within a period of three months from the date of the signing of the Treaty, during which period she shall prohibit the import of all stock of the Russian debt, stamp with a special stamp all stock of the unencumbered Russian debt issued prior to 1st August 1914, which is within her territory. The numbers of the stock stamped in this manner shall be noted, and the list transmitted to the special Commission together with the other documents relating to this stamping operation.

In the event of this stamping establishing that the total amount of the stock of the Debt of the former Russian Empire still held on Polish territory is inferior to the portion of the debt attributed to her, Poland shall give the special Commission a written undertaking that she will pay the annual contributions corresponding to the difference in the amount. These contributions shall be divided by the intermediary of [Page 598] the special Commission between the foreign holders in agreement with the latter.

VIII. Within a period of three months, dating from the signature of the present Treaty, Poland shall stamp with a special stamp the various stock corresponding to that portion of the war debt of the former Russian Empire represented by the stock held in her territories and legally issued before 30th March, 1917.

The numbers of the stock thus stamped shall be noted, and the list transmitted to the Special Commission together with the other documents relating to this stamping operation.

Poland and her nationals shall have no claim against the Russian Government or against the Governments of territories which formerly belonged to the Russian Empire with respect to the shares in the war debt so stamped.

IX. All rights and obligations relative to private railways on her territories, and formerly devolving on the Russian State shall be transferred to Poland, especially with regard to guarantees of interest on the shares and debentures of those railways given by the Russian State.

X. Poland shall acquire all property and possessions belonging to the Empire or to the German States, and all property and possessions belonging to the Government of the former Austrian Empire and situated on her territory under the conditions laid down in Articles 256 and 92 of the Treaty with Germany and of the Treaty with Austria.

XI. Poland shall acquire all property and possessions belonging to the former Russian Empire and situated on her territory.

The value of such property and possessions shall be fixed by the special Commission and placed to the credit of the account referred to below. In the event however of a special Loan having been issued by the Russian State to meet expenditure in connection with the aforementioned property and possessions, Poland shall undertake the direct service of the loan, and the value of the property and possessions to be taken into account shall be correspondingly reduced.

The Account to be drawn up between the Russian Government or the Governments of the States the territories or certain territories of which belonged to the former Russian Empire, on the one hand, and the Polish Government on the other hand, shall form the subject of subsequent conventions.

[Page 599]

Appendix VI to CF–79

M–276

SWC–425

Joint Resolution Adopted at the 71st Meeting of Military Representatives Held on 14th June, 1919, at 10 hours 30*

Subject:—Transport of the 4th Polish Division from the Bukovina to Poland.

Asked by the French Government on 13th June whether it would be advisable as requested by the Polish High Command to authorise the transfer to the Polish Command of the 4th Polish division at present concentrated in the region of Czernovitz, withdrawn from the Dniester front,

The Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council

Considering:

1.
That the junction of the Polish and the Roumanian troops in the region of Stanislau, effected on May 30th, frees the railway Czerno-vitz-Kolomea-Stanislau-Lemberg.
2.
That the situation in Hungary and the destruction of the railways in the region of Czap and to the North of the Theiss does not allow of transport through Transylvania and Western Galicia, and, taking into consideration the military point of view only, irrespective of the political aspect of the case which lies outside their province,

Are of Opinion:

1.
That it is advisable to allow the 4th Polish Division to continue its movement by Czernovitz-Kolomea-Stanislau-Lemberg to the Polish front.
2.
That it is for the General Commanding-in-Chief the Allied Armies of the East to secure the execution of this movement after consultation with the Rumanian and Polish authorities.

  1. See paragraph 5 of appendix I to CF–43, p. 134.
  2. The map referred to does not accompany the file copy of the minutes.
  3. CF–80, p. 600.
  4. Appendix I to CF–51, p. 236.
  5. The document erroneously inserted in the file copy of the minutes as appendix V to CF–79 is the same as appendix I to CF–77 and has not been reprinted. Instead there is printed as appendix V the document described as such in the text of the minutes, p. 587, i. e., M. Berthelot’s letter of June 16, 1919, on behalf of the Commission on New States appearing in the minutes of that Commission (Paris Peace Conf. 181.23201/24).
  6. Note. The American Military Representative notified in a letter dated June 13th, 1919, that as he had received no instructions from his Government on the above subject he could not participate in any recommendations of the Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council. [Footnote in the original.]