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.
Paris, June 21, 1919, 3:45 p.m.
- Present
- United States of America
- British Empire
- The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
- France
- Italy
- Japan
| 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
Villa Majestic,
Paris
, 21 June,
1919.
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
Peace
Conference,
Paris, June 18, 1919.
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.
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
French
Republic,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Department
for Political and Commercial
Affairs,
Paris, 16 June, 1919.
[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.
[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.
