Paris Peace Conf. 180.03401/77
CF–77
Notes of a Meeting Held at President Wilson’s House in the Place des
Etats-Unis, Paris, on Saturday, June 21, 1919, at 12:30 p.m.
Paris, June 21, 1919, 12:30 p.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- France
- Italy
- Japan
| Sir Maurice Hankey, K. C. B. |
} |
Secretaries |
| M. di Martino |
| Prof. P. J. Mantoux.—Interpreter |
The following members of the Committee on New States were also present:—
- United States of America
- British Empire
- France
- Italy
1. With reference to C. F. 74, Minute 2,1 the Council had before them a letter from M.
Berthelot, dated June 19th. addressed to Sir Maurice Hankey containing
the remarks of the Commission on New States (Appendix I) on M.
Paderewski’s letter of June 15th, 1919.2
(After President Wilson had read a summary of the letter, it was
approved. M. Paderewski’s Memorandum: Report of the
Commission on New States; Draft Treaty With Poland
The Commission on New States was authorised, in consultation with the
Drafting Committee, to embody the changes proposed in their letter in a
final text of a Treaty with Poland. The Commission was also instructed
to prepare for the consideration of the Council, the draft of a letter
forwarding the text of the Treaty to the Polish Delegation.)
(At Mr. Headlam-Morley’s request, the Commission was also authorised to
consider the nature of alterations required in the draft Treaty
[Page 570]
with Poland in order to
provide that in all except the primary schools Jewish children should be
instructed in the Polish, and not in the Yiddish language, thereby
avoiding the risk of encouraging the use of Yiddish as one of the
national languages for a part of the population of Poland.)
2. With reference to C. F. 72 [74], Minute 74 [4],3 the
Council had before them a letter from M. Berthelot, the Chairman of the
Commission on New States suggesting that the points referred to the
Commission at the instance of M. Sonnino on June 17th. were outside the
competence of the Commission, and should be referred to the Council of
Ministers of Foreign Affairs with their legal and technical experts,
which had considered the political clauses relating to Italy in the
Austrian Treaty. (Appendix II.) Further Questions
Referred to the Commission on New States
(The proposal of the Commission on New States was agreed to and Sir
Maurice Hankey was instructed to acquaint the Secretary-General.)
3. Sir Maurice Hankey drew attention to a letter from M. Berthelot, dated
June 16th. 1919,4
dealing with the following Tariffs for questions:—
- (1)
- Clauses of a technical nature regarding the scale of tariffs
for traffic towards the Adriatic intended for insertion
Czecho-Slovakia and Yugo-Slavia. Tariffs for
Traffic Towards the Adriatic in the Treaties for
Czecho-Slovakia and Yugo-Slavia
- (2)
- Suggestions from the Italian Delegation with regard to the
restitution of works of art carried off during the war, and
removed to territory belonging to the New States.
(Appendix.)5
- (3)
- Concerning Financial Clauses relating to Poland proposed by
the French Delegation.
(The Council postponed the discussion of this letter.)
(The Meeting then adjourned.)
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 21 June,
1919.
Appendix I to CF–77
M–293
Quai d’Orsay, Paris, June 19,
1919.
[M. Berthelot to Sir Maurice
Hankey]
My Dear Friend and Colleague: You have been
good enough to transmit to the Commission on New States the copy of
a Memorandum from M. Paderewski6
containing his objections to the draft Treaty
[Page 571]
between the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers and Poland, which has been prepared by the
Committee. The Supreme Council has sent this Memorandum to the
Committee with instructions “to consider the objections raised by M.
Paderewski and to seek whether some of these objections could not be
met”.
In conformity with these instructions the Committee on the New States
has considered M. Paderewski’s Memorandum. They have at once noted
that except for some special points such as the provisions relating
to the Jews and the lack of reciprocity as to the guarantees
accorded to German Minorities in Poland, none of the articles in the
proposed Treaty is made the subject of an investigation which would
serve to suggest modifications which it might be desired to make in
the text.
In reality the entire memorandum of the Polish First Minister can be
summed up as an opposition in principle to the conclusion of a
special treaty containing the solemn undertaking of Poland to the
Allies to guarantee the rights of racial, linguistic, and religious
minorities.
M. Paderewski objects both to pledging his country in this matter to
the Powers and to accepting the jurisdiction of the League of
Nations on any eventual violation of the agreement. It would
therefore be in vain to attempt to satisfy him by modifying the
particular articles of the Treaty. The difference is
fundamental.
The Supreme Council alone has the authority to decide if it is
desirable to impose on the Polish Government what both the Diet and
its own opinion would desire to reject as an infringement of the
sovereignty of Poland.
The Commission on New States, so far as they are concerned, can only
comply with the decision of the Council or the Powers which has been
twice published, both by the insertion of Article 93 in the Treaty
with Germany and by the maintenance of the principle embodied in
this Article notwithstanding the observations made at the Plenary
Session by the representatives of the small Powers. It is moreover
too late to alter the Treaty with Germany.
An investigation of M. Paderewski’s Memorandum calls for the
following observations: It is in harmony with the practice of public
law in Europe to insert in Treaties concluded with New States on the
occasion of their recognition a certain number of guarantees (as has
already been done in former times for Greece, Rumania, Serbia);
Poland can the less refuse to conform in that she owes her
liberation entirely to the efforts and sacrifices of the Powers.
The establishment of the League of Nations of which Poland is a part,
moreover removes as a consequence all interference of a
[Page 572]
foreign Power in her
internal affairs, for it assumes to her the guarantee of an
impartial examination by the Court of Justice of the League of
Nations, i. e. by an Assembly which is judicial and not
political.
If to this is added that questions will be brought before the Court
by a State which is a member of the Council of the League and not by
the direct appeal of the Minorities, it will be recognised that
every precaution has been taken to conciliate both the sentiment and
meet the interests of the States.
The Polish Government declares itself in general ready of itself to
grant the most complete guarantees of liberty and equality to all
citizens without distinction of race, religion or language; there is
then complete harmony on the fundamental matter between the Powers
and Poland.
Three questions however are made the subject of special reserves:
- (1)
- The special guarantees accorded to the Jews in Articles 10
and 12.
- (2)
- The absence of reciprocity in the protection of German
Minorities in Poland and Polish Minorities in
Germany.
- (3)
- Finally the interference in the fundamental laws of the
Polish Constitution which results from the general
application of the provisions of Article 1.
(1) M. Paderewski is of opinion that by giving to the Jews special
privileges in regard to education and language, they will be placed
outside the national community and difficulties will be created
which it would be desirable to avoid. To this argument it can be
replied that the immense majority of the Jews in Poland demand
precise guarantees, and that the information as to the present
situation of the Jews in Poland and the attitude towards them seems
to justify special provisions; these provisions have besides been
most carefully arranged in order to leave the Jewish institutions
under public control and absolutely to avoid forming them into a
separate national community. The Committee is prepared, in order to
meet the suggestion, to modify the terms of Article 12 which,
according to M. Paderewski, might justify the Jews in refusing
public service in the army. It is for the Supreme Council to decide
whether it is possible to go further and suppress the two articles
referring to the Jews who, in that case, would only get the benefits
given by the more general guarantees to all Minorities.
(2) With regard to the absence of reciprocity of the guarantees given
to the Germans and the Poles, the Committee must point out that
there will remain very few groups of Poles in Germany (apart from
the miners in Westphalia who are foreign workers occupied in
[Page 573]
this district and not
minorities definitely established) while more than 800,000 Germans
will be incorporated in the Polish State As the Allied Powers have
assumed this responsibility, they are bound to assure to the latter
the indispensable guarantees.
If the Committee had known at an earlier date that a plebiscite would
be arranged in Upper Silesia, they would have asked for the
insertion in the Treaty with Germany of a clause protecting Polish
minorities; but even on the hypothesis that the plebiscite would
result in the retention of a Polish population under the sovereignty
of Germany, it would be the obvious interest of Germany to grant
them the indispensable guarantees and the Powers would certainly be
able to get an undertaking when the time came.
(3) Finally, the Committee, in order to meet in every possible manner
the objections of M. Paderewski, in conformity with the instructions
of the Supreme Council, suggest that the draft Treaty be modified in
the five following points: the Drafting Committee might be
instructed in concert with the Commission to draft the necessary
articles.
- (a)
- The three first lines of Article 1 should be made
applicable only to Articles 2–8 i. e. to the exclusion of
the special articles 9, 10 and 12.
- (b)
- In the two last lines of Article 1 the words “the majority
of the Council of the League of Nations” should be
substituted for “the League of Nations”.
- (c)
- The Allied and Associated Powers would undertake to accept
any modification determined upon by the majority of the
Council of the League of Nations.
- (d)
- Article 9 would be altered so as to limit the privileges
provided in this article to former nationals of the State to
which the territories transferred to Poland had previously
belonged.
- (e)
- Article 12 would be altered as indicated above in regard
to military service.
These are the conclusions to which the Committee of the New States
has come after a careful examination of M. Paderewski’s
memorandum.
I should be obliged if you would have the goodness to bring them
before the Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and
request them to give us their instructions in view of the urgency of
a final drafting of the Treaty with Poland, the signature to which
ought apparently to be coincident with that of the Treaty with
Germany.
[Page 574]
Appendix II to CF–77
French
Republic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Division of
Political and Commercial Affairs,
Paris, June 20,
1919.
[M. Berthelot to Sir Maurice
Hankey]
Dear M. Hankey: The Committee on New States
has taken note of the communication of Baron Sonnino,8 which you transmitted to me on June 17, on
the subject of the conditions to be inserted in the Peace Treaty
concerning the relations between former Austro-Hungarian nationals
who have become Polish subjects and those who have become subjects
of the other Allied States to which territory of the former monarchy
has been ceded.
The Committee, after having carefully examined the question, is of
the opinion that it does not lie within its competence to establish
the indispensable solutions which can be imposed on the various
States receiving Austrian territories neither by virtue of Articles
86 and 93 of the Treaty with Germany nor by virtue of the other
similar articles to be inserted in the Treaties either with Austria
or with Hungary.
It considers, however, that the conditions in question have a great
importance for the peace of the New States and the maintenance
between them of normal relations of public and private right. It
thinks, therefore, that it is necessary to find some means of
requesting from the various New States and from those receiving
territories of Austria-Hungary the adoption of the clauses covering
this problem. To this effect it recalls that the similar clauses
concerning the relations between former Austro-Hungarian nationals
who have become Italian and those who have remained Austrian or
Hungarian have been examined, according to the instructions of the
Council of Four, by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, who
have for this purpose called in juridical or technical
delegates.
It has seemed to the Committee on New States that this procedure,
which has made it possible to arrive at a text acceptable to
everyone, might be followed in this case, the same persons being
evidently the best qualified to treat an identical problem.
The Committee on New States, while waiting for the decision of the
Council of Four, will suspend all further examination of the
question.
