Paris Peace Conf. 871.51/3: Telegram
The Commission to Negotiate Peace to the Acting Secretary of State
305. [From Lansing.] Your 103 January 4th, 8 p.m. Answering your questions whether Roumania is as a matter of fact to be regarded as belligerent within the Act of Congress following information furnished me from military sources:
“On November 9th Roumanian Government with the knowledge of the Allies summoned the German troops who were in Roumania to leave the country within 24 hours. As they had not left at the end of 24 hours Roumanian Army was mobilized on the night of November 9th and hostilities were immediately begun which continued until all the German forces had either been taken prisoners or driven into Hungary. The Roumanian Government, as stated above, mobilized on the 9th, hence the Roumanian Government was once more in a state of war with Germany prior to the signing of the Armistice on the 11th”.
It is my understanding that the King of Roumania never signed the Treaty of Bukarest81a and that the treaty was never promulgated. I am informed that according to Roumanian Law no treaty is binding until promulgated following the Royal signature. The Roumanian claim is that Roumania did not cease to be at war with the Central Powers and consequently no new declaration of war was necessary. It was not even necessary to resume fighting as they had never technically stopped.
In view of the fact that the Allied Governments have never recognized the Treaty of Bukarest and that its validity is doubtful, that by the terms of the armistice the Germans were compelled to denounce the treaty and that from the point of view of the associated governments, the status of Roumania is the same as if the treaty had never been made which is evidenced by the fact that we have decided to [Page 722] grant Roumania two delegates to the Peace Conference and put her on the basis of Serbia, Belgium and other small Belligerent Powers, I consider that Roumania is in a state of war with Germany and should be regarded as a belligerent within the meaning of the act of Congress.
In view of the foregoing see no reason why you should not give the advice desired by the Secretary of the Treasury as stated in paragraph 1 of your telegram number 6879 January 7th 3 P.M. from Rathbone for Davis through the Embassy here.
Please advise me immediately whether Roumanian Representative in Washington has received full authority to sign obligations for advances.
As to question whether loan is to be used for the purposes contemplated by the Act of Congress, telegram from Treasury Department referred to above does not appear to require any such statement from the Department of State.
For approval of the President see Mission’s Telegram number 215 of January 9th 5 P.M. transmitting message from the President to the Secretary of the Treasury through you. Lansing.