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

763.72119/6227

HD–19

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, July 30, 1919, at 3:30 p.m.

Paris, July 30, 1919, 3:30 p.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. H. White.
    • Hon. F. L. Polk.
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison.
  • British Empire
    • The Rt. Hon.
    • A. J. Balfour.
  • Secretaries
    • Mr. H. Norman.
    • Sir Ian Malcolm.
  • France
    • M. Clemenceau.
    • M. Pichon.
  • Secretaries
    • M. Dutasta.
    • M. Berthelot.
    • M. de St. Quentin.
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja.
  • Secretary
    • M. Paterno.
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui.
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. Chapin.
British Empire	Comdr. Bell.
France	Capt. A. Portier.
Italy	Lt.-Col. A. Jones.
Interpreter—Professor P. J. Mantoux.

1. M. Clemenceau stated that he wished the question to be adjourned until the following day. The Greeks were engaged in discussions with the Italian Delegation and, in addition to this, M. Tardieu was required in the Chamber of Deputies. The question was therefore adjourned. Bulgarian Frontiers

2. Mr. Balfour asked whether this question could be discussed without a settlement of the frontier question.

Clauses for Insertion in the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria on Ports, Waterways and Railways M. Berthelot admitted that the clauses dealing with Ports, Waterways and Railways were dependent on the settlement of the Cavalla frontier line.

Mr. Balfour asked whether it would not be possible to accept all the Articles with the exception of Article 24 which was dependent on the frontier settlement.

(It was agreed that the draft clauses for insertion in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (Appendix A) dealing with the question of Ports, Waterways and Railways should be accepted with the exception of Article 24.)

3. M. Fromageot stated that the Commission on New States had submitted draft clauses on the subject of the rights of minorities for insertion in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (see Appendix B). The Articles had been drawn up on the basis of those which were to be inserted in the Austrian Treaty, with the exception of those dealing with the guarantees of the League of Nations. These latter were based upon similar provisions in the Polish and other treaties. In addition, the Committee had added Articles Nos. 3 and 4 which were not in the Austrian Treaty. These laid down obligations on Bulgaria to grant rights of Bulgarian citizenship to persons living continuously in Bulgaria, despite the fact that they came of foreign parents. The Drafting Committee thought that, though Articles 3 and 4 ought to be inserted in Peace Treaties with New States, whose legislation was as yet unknown, or in the Peace Treaties with old States, which did not give sufficient guarantees on the subject, they were none the less superfluous in the case of Bulgaria, since the legislation of that country on the point in question was in conformity with that of the most advanced European States. It had therefore been thought, that the two articles should be omitted from the text, which was otherwise analogous to that prepared by the Committee on New States. In addition to this, the latter Committee had left out a clause, by virtue of which the Bulgarians would be obliged to raise no obstacle against Bulgarian subjects, at present living in territories granted to other countries, opting as to their citizenship. The text prepared by the Drafting Committee differed from the one drawn up by the Committee on New States, in that Articles 3 and 4 had been omitted, and an article dealing with the right of option inserted. Political clauses in Peace Treaty With Bulagria

Mr. Balfour stated, that as Bulgaria was an old State, and as its legislation was satisfactory on the point in question, there was no use in compelling it to modify its statute book.

M. Scialoja stated that it had been reported to him, that the Committee had not taken up its work, owing to the fact that it was not sure that it was competent to deal with the question. It should also be noted, that the disposal of Thrace affected a portion of the work of this Committee.

Mr. Hudson stated that the Committee had been of opinion that articles 3 and 4 were necessary in Roumania’s case in order that the Jews might be protected. In the 1878 Treaty¹ the same rights had not [sic] been granted to the Jewish population as had been given to other citizens.²

The question was, whether the article should be enforced in Bulgaria’s case.

Mr. Balfour remarked, that since the clauses had been adopted for such countries as Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania, he saw no reason against their being put into the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

M. Fromageot said, that, in the Peace Treaty with Austria, although clauses had been inserted to protect minorities, no provision had been made for special nationalities, since the legislation of the country seemed a sufficient guarantee. The clauses were therefore only applicable to countries whose legislation was unsatisfactory and to others whose future legislation could not be foreseen. Bulgaria had dealt with the question of nationality in a satisfactory manner in the past. Was it necessary, therefore, to insert the clause? The Council had to decide whether, in spite of her previous legislation, Bulgaria was to be classified definitely in one of the two categories.

Mr. Balfour said that the discussion might be indefinitely prolonged. Roumania was an old State, and had the obligations contained in the disputed articles imposed on her. He did not mind whether they were put into the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria; but, if a vote were called for, he would prefer that Bulgaria should be treated like Roumania and not like Austria.

(It was therefore decided that the political clauses dealing with the protection of minorities, as drafted by the Committee on New States, should be accepted.

It was further decided, that a clause granting the right of option to Bulgarian citizens living in territories that had changed their sovereignties, should be inserted in the Peace Treaty.)

The Drafting Committee was directed to draw up the clause, and to insert it in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

4. M. Berthelot stated that Marshal Foch had submitted a letter dated 28th July to the President of the Peace Conference on the subject of the attitude of General Von der Goltz, in particular and of the Germans in general in the Baltic Provinces. (See Appendix “C”.) The Marshal had enclosed in his letter a copy of the correspondence exchanged on the subject with the German Government, together with a letter from the British Delegation covering a report from General Gough (See Appendix “C”). In submitting his report Marshal Foch was asking for precise instructions from the Council whether the proposals of the British General, which were supported by Marshal Foch, were acceptable. German Attitude in the Baltic Provinces

It was decided to inform Marshal Foch that General Gough’s conclusions as submitted in Marshal Foch’s letter of the 28th July were acceptable.

Marshal Foch was directed to take all measures necessary for putting the proposals in question into effect.

5. At this point the Naval experts entered the room.

Disposal of Enemy Warships M. Berthelot, at the request of the President and on behalf of Secretariat, read out extracts from the texts of I. C. “A” 176–E.³ and C. F. 90 [91].⁴ He drew attention to the fact that the texts of Sir Maurice Hankey and M. Mantoux were virtually in agreement.

Mr. Balfour said that from quotations made in previous Minutes it was evident that M. Clemenceau had accurately remembered the discussion of 25th June. It nevertheless seemed that, previous to the Scapa Flow incident, the Council of Four had been uncertain as to the ultimate action to be taken with German vessels. The French evidently had desired that they should be distributed. The Italians and Japanese did not appear to have been of the same opinion. The Scapa Flow incident had then occurred. He did not think that it was anybody’s fault, but the incident was none the less regrettable. Without attaching blame to the Admiralty it was none the less a fact that the German fleet had been sunk in British waters by its own crews. Mr. Lloyd George had evidently spoken with great feeling, and had renounced in favour of France the British share in any compensation obtainable, at the discussions that had followed the incident. On the extracts now before the Council M. Clemenceau based his views which were (1) that no destruction of enemy vessels should take place, (2) that England renounced all claims to vessels which would have fallen to her share but for the Scapa Flow incident. He was entirely in agreement with the second point and thought that England’s renunciation must be admitted. Two important points, however, remained undecided:—

(1) How are enemy ships to be disposed of?

(2) If division amongst the Allies be decided upon in what proportion shall it be made?

He did not think that Mr. Lloyd George’s remarks could be regarded as a statement of a considered policy for the reason that when he made it he defined only the French position and made no mention of Italy, Japan or America.

Even admitting Britain’s claim to be lost, the questions he had put forward remained for decision.

M. Scialoja stated that Italy had not been represented at the Conference on the 24th June. It was probable for that reason that Mr. Lloyd George’s remarks had not mentioned Italy. On the 28th [25th?] June,⁵ the matter had been discussed and referred to the Council of Admirals. Italy’s position to-day was the same as that of France.

M. Clemenceau asked in what sense the Admirals had reported.

M. Berthelot replied that all the Admirals had differed, since each one upheld the standpoint which he believed to be that of his own country. He added that the statements attributed to President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George were capable of being interpreted in the sense that the principle of distribution had then been admitted. In support of this, he quoted the phrase in which compensation to small Navies had been allowed for, and he also drew attention to the fact that President Wilson spoke in several places of the division of the enemy fleet.

M. Clemenceau stated that as the entire matter appeared not to be understood fully by his colleagues, he wished to make a statement as to the exact discussions which had taken place in the Council of Four, and in informal conversations preceding the meetings. Mr. Lloyd George had said to him, on one occasion, that if all countries could be of one opinion, the sinking of the German fleet in the open sea, in the presence of the Allied Navies, would be a magnificent spectacle. He had dissented from this, knowing that the French people would desire to have a certain portion of the enemy fleet.

A similar question had arisen as to the disposal of the enemy submarines, Mr. Lloyd George advocating that they should be sunk as their use had been illegal. President Wilson had in a way assented to this view. He, M. Clemenceau, had refused to agree and maintained that the submarines as well as the surface vessels should be divided, unless all existing submarines were destroyed. It was his conclusion from the discussions that a tacit understanding had been reached between Mr. Lloyd George, President Wilson and himself to the effect that the enemy vessels should be divided, and not destroyed. The Scapa Flow incident had then occurred and Mr. Lloyd George had been particularly upset over it owing to the fact that he had advocated the sinking of the fleet, and its destruction by the Germans had occurred in a British port. The incident would never have aroused such feeling had any form of destruction been previously decided upon. The very fact that this distribution had been admitted had made the act of voluntary destruction by the Germans more keenly felt. In conclusion, he could only repeat that it had been decided, that the enemy vessels should be divided, and that each ally should take what action it liked with the share allotted to it. He was surprised to hear the Italian claim put forward for the first time. He admitted it, however, but insisted that, if it were maintained, a pool of all enemy vessels should be made and a distribution effected amongst the Allies. He still required a report on the Scapa Flow incident.

Mr. Balfour stated that he had asked for a report from the Admiralty, which had replied, that it had not received any previous request to forward it.

Captain Fuller read a telegram confirming Mr. Balfour’s statement.

M. Clemenceau stated that the discussion could be proceeded with after the report had been placed before the Council. He pointed out, however, that the question of the disposal of the remainder of the enemy fleet must be settled.

Mr. Balfour asked what was the American point of view on this subject.

Mr. White answered that he had not been acquainted by President Wilson with the discussions which had been referred to, but he always believed the United States advocated the sinking or destruction of the warships. He added that it was impossible for him to agree to any decision until he had consulted President Wilson by telegram.

M. Berthelot then pointed out that the minutes of April 25th (I. C. “A” 76 [176]. E.) indicated that President Wilson’s views on the disposal of the submarines, and the surface vessels, differed.

M. Clemenceau stated that he would agree to submit to President Wilson any proposal which might be put forward, but that he would never agree to the sinking or destruction of the warships.

Mr. Balfour then stated that the quotations from previous minutes of the Council were not sufficient authority for him to act upon; and that he proposed to send a telegram to Mr. Lloyd George asking for further instructions.

Mr. White and Mr. Polk said that they would send a telegram in the same terms to President Wilson.

M. Matsui said that he would ask Baron Makino to give him a statement of his impressions of the conversations that had been quoted.

(It was agreed that the discussion should be adjourned until the British and American Representatives should have communicated with their Governments.)

6. M. Clemenceau stated that Mr. White had proposed the following Resolution:

“In view of the fact, that the Supreme Council has granted an additional delay of one week to the Austrians for submitting their answer to the Conditions of Peace handed to them on July 20th, it is suggested that the Secretary-General be requested to instruct the various committees dealing with Hungarian matters to take up and finish their reports for the Hungarian Treaty.” Conditions of Peace with Hungary

(The draft Resolution was agreed to.)

7. M. Berthelot stated that the Delegation of the Yugo-Slav State had sent a letter dated 28th July to the President of the Peace Conference asking to be heard on the subject of the Financial and Reparation clauses in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (see Appendix D). Request of Serbian Delegation To Be Heard by the Supreme Council on the Financial and Reparation Clauses of the Treaty With Bulgaria

M. Clemenceau said it seemed difficult to refuse the request.

M. Scialoja drew the attention of the Council to the fact that the situation had changed since the letter had been sent. The Serbians had been given audience by the Committee, and had submitted a memorandum. This latter had been examined, and two requests out of the three had been acceded. The requests had been (1) that they should be given cattle to compensate their losses in livestock; (2) that they should have the right to recover movable property carried into Bulgaria; (3) that they should take part in the deliberations of the Inter-Allied Reparation and Finance Committees in Bulgaria. The first two proposals had been granted but the third had been disallowed, since it would have created a precedent. Had it been granted, it would have been difficult to refuse similar requests made by other States, and endless disputes would have arisen.

It was decided that a report of the Economic Commission be awaited regarding the requests of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the subject of livestock, moveable property and representation on the Inter-Allied Committees on Reparation and Finance.

The decision to refuse the request for audience of the above mentioned Delegation was maintained, and the Secretary-General was instructed to notify them to that effect.⁶

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Villa Majestic, Paris, 30 July, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–19⁷

Paris, June 21, 1919.

commission on the international regime of ports, waterways and railways

Report

The Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways has been asked by the Secretariat-General of the Peace Conference to forward its Report on Articles to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

In this connection the Commission would point out that the text of the Articles forwarded on the 25th April⁸ was drawn up with reference to the enemy Powers as a whole. The Commission had acted on the assumption that the complete text would be inserted in each of the Treaties to be placed before the various enemy belligerent Powers for signature. There are, therefore, no essential changes to be made in these clauses in order to render them suitable for insertion in the Treaty with Bulgaria. The only alterations are the suppression of such of the stipulations as do not concern the signatory enemy Power, and the introduction of the changes corresponding with those which the Supreme Council of the Allies conceded in its reply to the Remarks of the German Delegation.

The Commission, however, has thought it right to insert a new Article (Article 6) laying down the principle of liberty of transit for telegraphic messages and telephonic communications.

Further, at the request of Roumania, a paragraph regarding prewar facilities in Bulgarian Danube Ports has been added at the end of Article 9.

Finally, the Commission, at the request of the British Empire and Greek Delegations, has drawn up Article 24, according to Bulgaria a commercial outlet on the Aegean Sea if, as the result of territorial alterations, Western Thrace is ceded to Greece.

The Annex to the present Report indicates all these modifications. The Articles on which they are based are those of Part XII (Ports, Waterways and Railways) of the Treaty of Peace presented to the Austrian Delegation on the 2nd June, 1919. For convenience of reference, the complete text of the Articles suggested for the Treaty with Bulgaria is also appended.

Crespi

Chairman

A. Charguéraud
Secretary-General

Annex to Report of June 21, 1919

Draft of Articles To Be Inserted in the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria

The Articles referred to in this Column are those of the Treaty of Peace presented to the Austrian Delegation on June 2, 1919 (Part XII—Ports, Waterways and Railways).
Article 1.	At the end of the first paragraph add the words:—“; for this purpose the crossing of territorial waters shall be allowed.”
Article 2.	No change.
Article 3.	In the last line of the first paragraph, after the words “or exported” add “by sea.”
Article 4.	No change.
Article 5.	Deleted.
Article 6.	Becomes Article 5—no change. A new Article (Article 6) is added regarding telegraphic and telephonic transit—for the text, see Appendix hereto.
Article 7.	No change.
Article 8.	Delete the last paragraph.
Article 9.	Add, at the end or this Article, the following paragraph:— “Bulgaria undertakes to maintain in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers and of their subjects all the facilities enjoyed by them in Bulgarian ports before the war.”
Articles 10–14.	No change.
Article 15.	In line 8 alter “Article 44” to “Article 36.”
Articles 16–19.	No change.
Article 20.	Delete the words:—”a Conference of “in the second line; insert the words “at a Conference” after the words “Allied and Associated Powers” in the second line; and after the words “the present Treaty” in the fourth line add “and at which Bulgarian representatives may be present.”
Articles 21–23.	No change.
Article 24.	Delete.
Article 25.	Becomes Article 24. For the text of the Article (Access to the Aegean Sea for Bulgaria) see the Appendix hereto.
Article 26.	Becomes Article 25. Delete the last paragraph.
Articles 27–31.	Become Articles 26–30—no change.
Article 32.	Becomes Article 31. Delete paragraph 2. In paragraph 3 (hew paragraph 2) delete the words:—“As regards lines without any special rolling-stock,” and “to which those lines belong;” and in the 6th line alter date to “29th September, 1918.” Paragraph 4 becomes paragraph 3.
	Delete the last sentence of the Article.
Articles 33–38.	Delete.
Article 39.	Becomes Article 32—no change.
Article 40.	Delete.
Articles 41 & 42.	Become Articles 33 and 34—no change.
Article 43.	Becomes Article 35—in line 1 alter “Articles 1–7, 9, 26, 28 to 30” to “Articles 1–7, 9, 25 and 27–29.”
Article 44.	Becomes Article 36—no change.

Appendix to Annex

Clauses To Be Inserted in the Part of the Treaty of Peace With Bulgaria Relating to Ports, Waterways and Railways

Section I.—General Provisions

Article 1

Bulgaria undertakes to grant freedom of transit through her territories on the routes most convenient for international transit, either by rail, navigable waterway, or canal, to persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails coming from or going to the territories of any of the Allied and Associated Powers (whether contiguous or not); for this purpose the crossing of territorial waters shall be allowed.

Such persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails shall not be subjected to any transit duty or to any undue delays or restrictions, and shall be entitled in Bulgaria to national treatment as regards charges, facilities, and all other matters.

Goods in transit shall be exempt from all customs or other similar duties.

All charges imposed on transport in transit shall be reasonable, having regard to the conditions of the traffic. No charge, facility or restriction shall depend directly or indirectly on the ownership or on the nationality of any ship or other means of transport on which any part of the through journey has been, or is to be, accomplished.

Article 2

Bulgaria undertakes neither to impose nor to maintain any control over transmigration traffic through her territories beyond measures necessary to ensure that passengers are bonâ fide in transit; nor to allow any shipping company or any other private body, corporation or person interested in the traffic to take any part whatever in, or to exercise any direct or indirect influence over, any administrative service that may be necessary for this purpose.

Article 3

Bulgaria undertakes to make no discrimination or preference, direct or indirect, in the duties, charges, and prohibitions relating to importations into or exportations from her territories, or, subject to the special engagements contained in the present Treaty, in the charges and conditions of transport of goods or persons entering or leaving her territories, based on the frontier crossed; or in the kind, ownership, or flag of the means of transport (including aircraft) employed; or on the original or immediate place of departure of the vessel, wagon, or aircraft or other means of transport employed, or its ultimate or intermediate destination; or on the route of or places of transshipment on the journey; or on whether any port through which the goods are imported or exported is a Bulgarian port or a port belonging to any foreign country; or on whether the goods are imported or exported by sea, by land, or by air.

Bulgaria particularly undertakes not to establish against the ports and vessels of any of the Allied and Associated Powers any surtax or any direct or indirect bounty for export or import by Bulgarian ports or vessels, or by those of another Power—for example, by means of combined tariffs. She further undertakes that persons or goods passing through a port or using a vessel of any of the Allied and Associated Powers shall not be subjected to any formality or delay whatever to which such persons or goods would not be subjected if they passed through a Bulgarian port or a port of any other Power, or used a Bulgarian vessel or a vessel of any other Power.

Article 4

All necessary administrative and technical measures shall be taken to shorten, as much as possible, the transmission of goods across the Bulgarian frontiers and to ensure their forwarding and transport from such frontiers, irrespective of whether such goods are coming from or going to the territories of the Allied and Associated Powers or are in transit from or to those territories, under the same material conditions in such matters as rapidity of carriage and care en route as are enjoyed by other goods of the same kind carried on Bulgarian territory under similar conditions of transport.

In particular, the transport of perishable goods shall be promptly and regularly carried out, and the customs formalities shall be effected in such a way as to allow the goods to be carried straight through by trains which make connection.

Article 5

The seaports of the Allied and Associated Powers are entitled to all favours and to all reduced tariffs granted on Bulgarian railways or navigable waterways for the benefit of Bulgarian ports or of any port of another Power.

Bulgaria may not refuse to participate in the tariffs or combinations of tariffs intended to secure for ports of any of the Allied and Associated Powers advantages similar to those granted by Bulgaria to her own ports or the ports of any other Power.

Article 6

Notwithstanding any contrary provision in existing Conventions, Bulgaria undertakes to grant, on the lines most convenient for international transit, and subject to the tariffs in force, liberty of transit to telegraphic messages and telephone communications to or from any of the Allied and Associated Powers, whether contiguous or not. These messages and communications shall not be submitted to any unnecessary delays or restrictions, and shall be entitled in Bulgaria to national treatment as regards facilities and rapidity of transmission. No charge, facility or restriction shall depend either directly or indirectly on the nationality of the sender or addressee.

Section II.—Navigation

Chapter 1.—Freedom of Navigation

Article 7

The nationals of any of the Allied and Associated Powers, as well as their vessels and property, shall enjoy in all Bulgarian ports and on the inland navigation routes of Bulgaria the same treatment in all respects as Bulgarian nationals, vessels and property.

In particular, the vessels of any one of the Allied or Associated Powers shall be entitled to transport goods of any description, and passengers, to or from any ports or places in Bulgarian territory to which Bulgarian vessels may have access, under conditions which shall not be more onerous than those applied in the case of national vessels; they shall be treated on a footing of equality with national vessels as regards port and harbour facilities and charges of every description, including facilities for stationing, loading and unloading, and duties and charges of tonnage, harbour, pilotage, lighthouse, quarantine, and all analogous duties and charges of whatsoever nature, levied in the name of or for the profit of the Government, public functionaries, private individuals, corporations, or establishments of any kind.

In the event of Bulgaria granting a preferential régime to any of the Allied or Associated Powers or to any other foreign Power, this régime shall be extended immediately and unconditionally to all the Allied and Associated Powers.

There shall be no impediment to the movement of persons or vessels other than those arising from prescriptions concerning customs, police, sanitation, emigration and immigration, and those relating to the import and export of prohibited goods. Such regulations must be reasonable and uniform and must not impede traffic unnecessarily.

Chapter 2.—Clauses Relating to the Danube

(1.)—General Glauses relating to River Systems declared International

Article 8

The following river is declared international: the Danube from Ulm; together with all navigable parts of this river system which naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea, with or without transshipment from one vessel to another; as well as lateral canals and channels constructed either to duplicate or to improve naturally navigable sections of the specified river system or to connect two naturally navigable sections of the same river.

Article 9

On the waterways declared to be international in the preceding Article, the nationals, property and flags of all Powers shall be treated on a footing of perfect equality, no distinction being made to the detriment of the nationals, property or flag of any Power between them and the nationals, property or flag of the riparian State itself or of the most-favoured nation. Nevertheless, Bulgarian vessels shall not be entitled to carry passengers or goods by regular services between the parts of any Allied or Associated Power without special authority from such power.

Bulgaria undertakes to maintain, in favour of the Allied and Associated Powers and of their subjects, all the facilities enjoyed by them in Bulgarian ports before the war.

Article 10

When such charges are not precluded by any existing Conventions, charges varying on different sections of a river may be levied on vessels using the navigable channels or their approaches, provided that they are intended solely to cover equitably the cost of maintaining in a navigable condition or of improving the river and its approaches, or to meet expenditure incurred in the interests of navigation. The schedule of such charges shall be calculated on the basis of such expenditure and shall be posted up in the ports. These charges shall be levied in such a manner as to render any detailed examination of cargoes unnecessary, except in cases of suspected fraud or contravention.

Article 11

The transit of vessels, passengers and goods on these waterways shall be effected in accordance with the general conditions prescribed for transit in Section I above.

When the two banks of an international river are within the same State, goods in transit may be placed under seal or in the custody of customs agents. When the river forms a frontier, goods and passengers in transit shall be exempt from all customs formalities; the loading and unloading of goods, and the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers, shall only take place in the ports specified by the riparian State.

Article 12

No dues of any kind other than those provided for in this Part shall be levied along the course or at the mouth of these rivers.

This provision shall not prevent the fixing by the riparian States of customs, local octroi or consumption duties, or the creation of reasonable and uniform charges levied in the ports, in accordance with public tariffs, for the use of cranes, elevators, quays, warehouses, &c.

Article 13

In default of any special organisation for carrying out the works connected with the upkeep and improvement of the international portion of a navigable system, each riparian State shall be bound to take suitable measures to remove any obstacle or danger to navigation and to ensure the maintenance of good conditions of navigation.

If a State neglects to comply with this obligation, any riparian State, or any State represented on the International Commission, may appeal to the tribunal instituted for this purpose by the League of Nations.

Article 14

The same procedure shall be followed in the case of a riparian State undertaking any works of a nature to impede navigation in the international section. The tribunal mentioned in the preceding Article shall be entitled to enforce the suspension or suppression of such works, making due allowance in its decisions for all rights in connection with irrigation, water-power, fisheries, and other national interests, which, with the consent of all the riparian States or of all the States represented on the International Commission, shall be given priority over the requirements of navigation.

Appeal to the tribunal of the League of Nations does not require the suspension of the works.

Article 15

The régime set out in Articles 9 to 14 above shall be superseded by one to be laid down in a General Convention drawn up by the Allied and Associated Powers, and approved by the League of Nations, relating to the waterways recognised in such Convention as having an international character. This latter Convention shall apply in particular to the whole or part of the above-mentioned river system of the Danube, and such other parts of that river system as may be covered by a general definition.

Bulgaria undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 36, to adhere to the said General Convention.

Article 16

Bulgaria shall cede to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned, within a maximum period of three months from the date on which notification shall be given her, a proportion of the tugs and vessels remaining registered in the ports of the river system referred to in Article 8 after the deduction of those surrendered by way of restitution or reparation. Bulgaria shall in the same way cede material of all kinds necessary to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned for the utilisation of that river system.

The number of the tugs and vessels and the amount of the material so ceded, and their distribution, shall be determined by an arbitrator or arbitrators nominated by the United States of America, due regard being had to the legitimate needs of the parties concerned, and particularly to the shipping traffic during the five years preceding the war.

All craft so ceded shall be provided with their fittings and gear, shall be in a good state of repair and in condition to carry goods, and shall be selected from among those most recently built.

The cessions provided for in the present Article shall entail a credit of which the total amount, settled in a lump sum by the arbitrator or arbitrators, shall not in any case exceed the value of the capital expended in the initial establishment of the material ceded, and shall be set off against the total sums due from Bulgaria; in consequence, the indemnification of proprietors shall be a matter for Bulgaria to deal with.

(2.)—Special Clauses relating to the Danube

Article 17

The European Commission of the Danube reassumes the powers it possessed before the war. Nevertheless, as a provisional measure, only representatives of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Roumania shall constitute this Commission.

Article 18

From the point where the competence of the European Commission ceases, the Danube system referred to in Article 8 shall be placed under the administration of an International Commission composed as follows:—

• 2 representatives of German riparian States;
• 1 representative of each other riparian State;
• 1 representative of each non-riparian State represented in the future on the European Commission of the Danube.

If certain of these representatives cannot be appointed at the time of the coming into force of the present Treaty, the decisions of the Commission shall nevertheless be valid.

Article 19

The International Commission provided for in the preceding Article shall meet as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present Treaty, and shall undertake provisionally the administration of the river in conformity with the provisions of Articles 9 to 14, until such time as a definitive statute regarding the Danube is concluded by the Powers nominated by the Allied and Associated Powers.

Article 20

Bulgaria agrees to accept the régime which shall be laid down for the Danube by the Powers nominated by the Allied and Associated Powers, at a Conference which shall meet within one year after the coming into force of the present Treaty and at which Bulgarian representatives may be present.

Article 21

The mandate given by Article 57 of the Treaty of Berlin of 13th July, 1878,⁹ to Austria-Hungary, and passed by her to Hungary, to carry out works at the Iron Gates, is abrogated. The Commission entrusted with the administration of this part of the river shall lay down provisions for the settlement of accounts subject to the financial provisions of the present Treaty. Charges which may be necessary shall in no case be levied by Hungary.

Article 22

Should the Tchecko-Slovak State, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, or Roumania, with the authorisation of or under mandate from the International Commission, undertake maintenance, improvement, weir, or other works on a part of the river system which forms a frontier, these States shall enjoy on the opposite bank, and also on the part of the bed which is outside their territory, all necessary facilities for the survey, execution and maintenance of such works.

Article 23

Bulgaria shall be obliged to make to the European Commission of the Danube all restitutions, reparations and indemnities for damages inflicted on the Commission during the war.

Section III.—Railways

Chapter 1.—Access to the Aegean Sea for Bulgaria

Article 24

Greece will accord to Bulgaria free access to the Aegean Sea under the following conditions:—

(i.) Greece will lease to Bulgaria for a period of fifty years an area in one of the two ports, Kavalla or Dedeagatch, the selection being made by Bulgaria within one year of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

This area shall form a free zone, and shall be set apart for the direct transit of goods coining from, going to, or in transit through, Bulgaria.

A special Convention between Greece and Bulgaria will determine the delimitation of this area, its equipment, its exploitation, and, in general, all conditions of its use, including the amount of the rental. In default of agreement a decision shall be made by a Commission consisting of one delegate of Greece, one delegate of Bulgaria, and one delegate of Great Britain.

These conditions shall be susceptible of revision every ten years in the same manner.

(ii.) Should the port selected be Kavalla, Greece will construct, maintain and work a railway giving reasonable facilities for traffic between Kavalla and a point on the Bulgarian frontier; in the execution of this stipulation Greece shall be entitled to use sections of existing railways. The above-mentioned point will be chosen by agreement between Greece and Bulgaria; in default of agreement it will be fixed by a Commission composed as the Commission mentioned in paragraph (i) above.

(iii.) Freedom of transit shall be granted to persons, goods, carriages, wagons and mails in transit across Greek territory, including territorial waters between Bulgaria and the port mentioned in paragraph (i) above. Such persons, goods, carriages, wagons and mails shall be treated as regards charges, facilities, restrictions and all other matters as favourably as the persons, goods, carriages, wagons and mails of Greek or of any other more-favoured nationality, origin, starting-point, importation or ownership.

All charges imposed in Greek territory on such traffic in transit between Bulgaria and the above-mentioned port shall be reasonable having regard to the conditions of the traffic.

Through tariffs, involving through tickets or way-bills, shall be established at the request of either Government between Bulgaria and the selected port.

Goods in transit shall be exempt from all customs or other duties.

Freedom of transit will extend to telegraphic and telephonic services, under which head no charges shall be imposed beyond those for services rendered.

Chapter 2.—Clauses Relating to International Transport

Article 25

Goods coming from the territories of the Allied and Associated Powers and going to Bulgaria, or in transit through Bulgaria from or to the territories of the Allied and Associated Powers, shall enjoy on the Bulgarian railways, as regards charges to be collected (rebates and drawbacks being taken into account), facilities, and all other matters, the most favourable treatment applied to goods of the same kind carried on any Bulgarian lines, either in internal traffic, or for export, import or in transit, under similar conditions of transport, for example as regards length of route. The same rule shall be applied, on the request of one or more of the Allied and Associated Powers, to goods specially designated by such Power or Powers coming from Bulgaria and going to their territories.

International tariffs established in accordance with the rates referred to in the preceding paragraph and involving through way bills shall be established when one of the Allied and Associated Powers shall require it from Bulgaria.

Article 26

From the coming into force of the present Treaty the High Contracting Parties shall renew in so far as concerns them and under the reserves indicated in the second paragraph of the present Article the Conventions and arrangements signed at Berne on the 14th October, 1890,¹⁰ the 20th September, 1893,¹¹ the 16th July, 1895,¹² the 16th June, 1898,¹³ and the 19th September, 1906,¹⁴ regarding the transportation of goods by rail.

If within five years from the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty a new Convention for the transportation of passengers, luggage and goods by rail shall have been concluded to replace the Berne Convention of the 14th October, 1890, and the subsequent additions referred to above, this new Convention and the supplementary provisions for international transport by rail which may be based on it shall bind Bulgaria even if she shall have refused to take part in the preparation of the Convention or to subscribe to it. Until a new Convention shall have been concluded, Bulgaria shall conform to the provisions of the Berne Convention and the subsequent additions referred to above and to the current supplementary provisions.

Article 27

Bulgaria shall be bound to co-operate in the establishment of through ticket services (for passengers and their luggage) which shall be required by any of the Allied and Associated Powers to ensure their communication by rail with each other and with all other countries by transit across the territories of Bulgaria; in particular Bulgaria shall, for this purpose, accept trains and carriages coming from the territories of the Allied and Associated Powers and shall forward them with a speed at least equal to that of her best long-distance trains on the same lines. The rates applicable to such through services shall not in any case be higher than the rates collected on Bulgarian internal services for the same distance, under the same conditions of speed and comfort.

The tariffs applicable under the same conditions of speed and comfort to the transportation of emigrants going to or coming from ports of the Allied and Associated Powers and using the Bulgarian railways shall not be at a higher kilometric rate than the most favourable tariffs (drawbacks and rebates being taken into account) enjoyed on the said railways by emigrants going to or coming from any other ports.

Article 28

Bulgaria shall not apply specially to such through services or to the transportation of emigrants going to or coming from ports of the Allied and Associated Powers any technical, fiscal or administrative measures, such as measures of customs examination, general police, sanitary police, and control, the result of which would be to impede or delay such services.

Article 29

In case of transport partly by rail and partly by internal navigation, with or without through way-bill, the preceding Articles shall apply to the part of the journey performed by rail.

Chapter 3.—Rolling-Stock

Article 30

Bulgaria undertakes that Bulgarian wagons shall be fitted with apparatus allowing—

(1) of their inclusion in goods trains on the lines of such of the Allied and Associated Powers as are parties to the Berne Convention of the 15th May, 1886,¹⁵ as modified on the 18th May, 1907,¹⁶ without hampering the action of the continuous brake which may be adopted in such countries within ten years of the coming into force of the present Treaty; and

(2) of the inclusion of wagons of such countries in all goods trains on Bulgarian lines.

The rolling-stock of the Allied and Associated Powers shall enjoy on the Bulgarian lines the same treatment as Bulgarian rolling-stock as regards movement, upkeep and repairs.

Chapter 4.—Cessions of Railway Lines

Article 31

Subject to any special provisions concerning the cession of ports, waterways and railways situated in the territory transferred under the present Treaty, and to the financial conditions relating to the concessionaires and the pensioning of the personnel, the cession of railways will take place under the following conditions:—

1. The works and installations of all the railroads shall be handed over complete and in good condition.

2. Commissions of experts designated by the Allied and Associated Powers, on which Bulgaria shall be represented, shall fix the proportion of the stock existing on the system to be handed over. These Commissions shall have regard to the amount of the material registered on these lines in the last inventory before the 29th September, 1918, to the length of track (sidings included), and the nature and amount of the traffic. These Commissions shall also specify the locomotives, carriages and wagons to be handed over in each case; they shall decide upon the conditions of their acceptance, and shall make the provisional arrangements necessary to ensure their repair in Bulgarian workshops.

3. Stocks of stores, fittings and plant shall be handed over under the same conditions as the rolling-stock.

Chapter 5.—Transitory Provisions

Article 32

Bulgaria shall carry out the instructions given her, in regard to transport, by an authorised body acting on behalf of the Allied and Associated Powers—

(1) for the carriage of troops under the provisions of the present Treaty, and of material, ammunition and supplies for army use;

(2) as a temporary measure, for the transportation of supplies for certain regions, as well as for the restoration, as rapidly as possible, of the normal conditions of transport and for the organisation of postal and telegraphic services.

Section IV.—Disputes and Revision

Article 33

Disputes which may arise between interested States with regard to the interpretation and application of this Part of the present Treaty shall be settled as provided by the League of Nations.

Article 34

At any time the League of Nations may recommend the revision of such of the above Articles as relate to a permanent administrative régime.

Article 35

The stipulations in Articles 1 to 7, 9, 25 and 27 to 29 shall be subject to revision by the Council of the League of Nations at any time after five years from the coming into force of this Treaty.

Failing such revision, no Allied or Associated Power can claim after the expiration of the above period of five years the benefit of any of the stipulations in the Articles enumerated above on behalf of any portion of its territories in which reciprocity is not accorded in respect of such stipulation. The period of five years during which reciprocity cannot be demanded may be prolonged by the Council of the League of Nations.

Section V.—Special Provision

Article 36

Without prejudice to the special obligations imposed on her by the present Treaty for the benefit of the Allied and Associated Powers, Bulgaria undertakes to adhere to any General Conventions regarding the international régime of transit, waterways, ports, or railways which may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers, with the approval of the League of Nations, within five years of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

The President of the Commission on the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways to the President of the Peace Conference

On June 21st the Commission of the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways submitted the text of the clauses to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, but since that date the following modifications have been adopted by the Commission:—

Article 16. Deleted and replaced by:

“Bulgaria shall cede to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned, within a maximum period of three months from the date on which notification shall be given her, a proportion of the tugs and vessels remaining registered in the ports of the river system referred to in Article 8 after the deduction of those surrendered by way of restitution or reparation. Bulgaria shall in the same way cede material of all kinds necessary to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned for the utilisation of that river system.

The number of the tugs and vessels and the amount of the material so ceded, and their distribution, shall be determined by an arbitrator or arbitrators nominated by the United States of America, due regard being had to the legitimate needs of the parties concerned, and particularly to the shipping traffic during the five years preceding the war.

All craft so ceded shall be provided with their fittings and gear, shall be in a good state of repair and in condition to carry goods and shall be selected from among those most recently built.

Wherever the cessions made under the present Article involve a change of ownership, the arbitrator or arbitrators shall determine the rights of the former owners as they stood on the 15th October, 1918, and the amount of the compensation to be paid to them, and shall also direct the manner in which such payment is to be effected in each case. If the arbitrator or arbitrators mid that the whole or part of this sum will revert directly or indirectly to States from whom reparation is due, they shall decide the sum to be placed under this head to the credit of the said States.

As regards the Danube the arbitrator or arbitrators referred to in this Article will also decide all questions as to the permanent allocation and the conditions thereof, of the vessels whose ownership or nationality is in dispute between States.

Pending final allocation the control of these vessels shall be vested in a Commission consisting of representatives of America, Great Britain, France and Italy, who will be empowered to make provisional arrangements for the working of these vessels in the general interest by any local organisation, or failing such arrangements, by themselves, without prejudice to the final allocation.

As far as possible these provisional arrangements will be on a commercial basis, the net receipts by the Commission for the hire of these vessels being disposed of as directed by the Reparation Commission”.

Article 19.

Add—”The decisions of this International Commission shall be taken by a majority vote. The salaries of the Commissioners shall be fixed and paid by their respective countries.

“As a provisional measure any deficit in the administrative expenses of this International Commission shall be borne equally by the States represented on the Commission.

“In particular this Commission shall regulate the licensing of pilots, charges for pilotage and the administration of the pilot service”.

Article 24.

The Commission of the International Régime of Ports, Waterways and Railways at its meeting on the 24th July reexamined the question of Freedom of Access for Bulgaria to the Aegean Sea, which question had been brought again to its notice by a letter from the Secretary-General of the Conference, dated 10th July.

The Commission did not consider that it ought to alter the composition of the Commission provided for in this Article; as a technical body, it wishes as in the past to avoid being influenced by purely political considerations. In order to indicate more clearly its point of view and the particular scope of its work, a slight addition to the accepted text has been proposed. This addition specifies that the delegates shall all be selected from technical transportation experts. If, however, this amendment does not fulfil the requirements expressed in the Notes which accompany the above mentioned communication, it is the opinion of the Commission that it must rest with the political heads of the Peace Conference to settle this question.

Moreover, the Commission did not consider it incumbent upon itself to include the port of Salonika among those by which Bulgaria is given, access to the sea under special conditions. As a matter of fact the Greek Delegation made it clear that Greece had always willingly granted and would still in future always grant Freedom of Transit through Salonika to Bulgaria as to all other States. On the other hand, Greece considered it impossible (and was supported in this view by the rest of the Commission) to give the same special facilities in present circumstances—when Bulgaria is not connected to this port by a main railway without passing through Serbia—at the already congested port of Salonika both to Serbia, who had had the benefit of such since 1913 and to Bulgaria.

Nevertheless, the Commission, with the full consent of the Greek Delegation, recognised the necessity of assuring to Bulgaria provisional Freedom of Transit for her traffic via the Port of Dedeagatch until such time as the special measures favourable to her which are provided for in Article 24 should be put into execution.

The Commission therefore adopted the following amendments to Article 24:—

4th paragraph: After the words: “One delegate of Greece, one delegate of Bulgaria and one delegate of Great Britain” add: “who shall all be selected from technical transportation experts”.

6th paragraph: After the words: “importation or ownership” add “in the traffic through the ports situated on the Northern coast of the Aegean Sea”.

At the end of the Article add the following new paragraph: “During the period which may precede the conclusion of the above mentioned Convention and—should the Port of Kavalla be the one selected—until the railway and other facilities provided for above are in working order, Freedom of Transit in the sense defined above shall be granted to all Bulgaria for her traffic through the Port of Dedeagatch”.

Article 31.

Add at the end of the Article a new paragraph as follows: “The arrangements of all the new frontier stations between Bulgaria and the contiguous Allied and Associated States, as well as the working of the lines between these stations shall be settled by agreements concluded between the railway companies concerned. If the railway companies are unable to come to an agreement the question shall be decided by Commissions of experts constituted as above”.

Appendix B to HD–19

CONDITIONS OF PEACE WITH BULGARIA

Political Clauses

protection of minorities

Article 1

Bulgaria undertakes that the stipulations contained in all Articles of this Chapter shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

Article 2

Bulgaria undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Bulgaria without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of Bulgaria shall be entitled to the free exercise, whether public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals.

Article 3

Bulgaria admits and declares to be Bulgarian nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality all persons who are not nationals of any other State, and who are habitually resident within Bulgarian territory at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Article 4

All persons born in Bulgarian territory who are not born nationals of another State shall ipso facto become Bulgarian nationals.

Article 5

All Bulgarian nationals shall be equal before the law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion.

Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Bulgarian national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as for instance admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restriction shall be imposed on the free use by any Bulgarian national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, in religion, in the press or in publications of any kind, or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding any establishment by the Bulgarian Government of an official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Bulgarian nationals of non-Bulgarian speech for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, before the courts.

Article 6

Bulgarian nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Bulgarian nationals. In particular they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense charitable, religious and social institutions, schools and other educational establishments, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein.

Article 7

Bulgaria will provide in the public educational system in towns and districts in which a considerable proportion of Bulgarian nationals of other than Bulgarian speech are residents adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Bulgarian nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision shall not prevent the Bulgarian Government from making the teaching of the Bulgarian language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Bulgarian nationals belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budget, for educational, religious or charitable purposes.

Article 8

Bulgaria agrees that the stipulations in the foregoing Articles, so far as they affect persons belonging to racial, religious or linguistic minorities, constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. They shall not be modified without the assent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations. The United States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent from any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Bulgaria agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction, or any danger of infraction, of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such direction as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

Bulgaria further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Bulgarian Government and any one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or any other Power, a Member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Bulgarian Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.

Appendix “C” to HD–19

No. 3581

General Headquarters, 28 July, 1919.

From Marshal Foch, Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies.

To The President of the Council and of the Peace Conference.

I have the honour to enclose copies, (1) of my correspondence with the German Government, through the Armistice Commission, on the subject of the withdrawal of the German troops from the Baltic Provinces, (2) of the letter from the British Delegation forwarding a report from General Gough.

The replies of the German Government, and the British report, referred, doubtless, to the interview which General Gough stated that he had had, on the 19th with General Von der Goltz. On the other hand, whilst the German representative considers that the result of the interview must be considered satisfactory to the Entente, General Gough remarks that the claims of General Von der Goltz cannot be admitted, and that the German General, obviously supported by his own Government, is pursuing a policy of subterfuge and intrigue in the Baltic Provinces. General Gough’s report therefore concludes:—

that Von der Goltz should be immediately recalled:

that the withdrawal of the German troops should begin without delay, and should be started by sea (the British Admiralty will furnish transport):

that the German authorities should be forced to submit their plan of withdrawal before the 5th August, and to carry it out before the 20th August:

that the Germans should be prevented from establishing depots of war material in Latvia or Lithuania, and that they should be called upon to give all information necessary on the positions of supply depots and munitions stocks hitherto moved by them:

that all fresh German troops should be refused entrance into Latvia.

I support these proposals, and think, especially, that a time limit should be given to German intrigues, by giving them a definite day within which they must withdraw from the Baltic Provinces. I should be much obliged if you will inform me of the decisions taken on this subject, in order that I may give all the necessary instructions to the Armistice Commission, as requested by the British Delegation.

Foch

[Enclosure 1]

General Headquarters, 13 July, 1919.

Copy of Telegram

No. 3341

From The Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies.

To General Nudant, President of the C. I. P. A. at Cologne.

Firstly, in conformity with instructions received from the Allied and Associated Governments, General Gough has entered into communication with the German Commander in the Baltic Provinces, in order that all questions arising out of the withdrawal of the German troops from these regions may be settled.

I am informed:—

(a) That the Germans refuse to evacuate Latvia, until such time as German interests shall have been guaranteed.

(b) That they refuse to recognise the Ulmannis Cabinet.

(c) That they refuse to withdraw by sea.

Secondly, this information shows that the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces is deliberately retarded, and that the situation in Latvia is thereby rendered most difficult.

Thirdly, under the above conditions, I beg that you will inform the German Government:—

(a) That the evacuation of the Baltic Provinces must not be delayed longer than may be necessary to obtain the necessary transport.

(b) That the constitution of the Government of Latvia has nothing to do with the question of German withdrawal.

(c) That this withdrawal must be effected as rapidly as possible by sea and by land, since the Naval Armistice Committee has given the necessary authorisation.

(d) That in their withdrawal the German troops must commit no action of destruction, more particularly with regard to telegraph wires.

Fourthly, you must insist that the German Commander shall enter into direct communication with General Gough, with a view to settling all questions arising out of the withdrawal of the German troops.

Weygand

[Enclosure 2]

G. H. Q., 20 July, 1919.

Copy of Telegram

No. 3454

From The Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies

To General Nudant, President of C. I. P. A., Cologne.

• Firstly: The Head of the British Delegation at the Peace Conference informs me, that General von der Goltz has no knowledge of the powers given to General Gough by the Entente.
• Secondly: Repeat the instructions contained in my former telegrams to the German Armistice Committee, and order them to give the necessary orders to the German Commander in the Baltic Regions without delay.

Foch

[Enclosure 3]

A. A. I. No. 4348

Dusseldorf, 24 July, 1919.

From the Representative of the German Government

To the President of the C. I. P. A.

In the name of the German Government I have the honour to reply to your letter of the 21st July, No. 1445/G, that the letter of Marshal Foch, dated 20th July,¹⁷ has been virtually replied to by the verbal negotiations entered into by the German chargé d’affaires and General von der Goltz and General Gough. My Government refers to the reply sent to your letter of the 14th July, No. 1414/G. (See my note under to-day’s date, AA. I. No. 4340). I have learnt from Berlin that my telegram of 10th July, transmitting your note No. 1389/G has not yet reached the Foreign Office. This explains the fact that no instructions have been given to Count von der Goltz.

Wachendorf

[Enclosure 4]

A. A. I. No. 4349

Dusseldorf, 24 July, 1919.

From The German Government Representative

To The President of the Inter-Allied Armistice Committee.

Subject: Evacuation of Latvia.

In the name of the German Government I have the honour to reply to your letter of the 14th July No. 1414/G (1), as follows:

The letter of the Marshal on the subject of the evacuation of Latvia, has virtually been answered by the result of the verbal negotiations entered into, at Mitau, between the German chargé d’affaires and Count Goltz on the one part, and General Gough and the other representatives of the Entente on the other part.

With regard to the details of Marshal Foch’s letter, I beg to refer to the aforesaid discussions. With regard to the general subject of the letter, I offer the following remarks:

With regard to Paragraph I. After the danger which at present threatens German subjects and German property in Latvia has been withdrawn as a result of General Gough’s promises, the evacuation of Latvia will be carried out without delay.

With regard to Paragraph 2. The nature of the Government of Latvia has always been considered by Germany as a matter of internal Latvian politics, in which the German Government cannot interfere. The formation of a new Cabinet in Latvia has therefore no connection with the question of German withdrawal from Latvia.

With regard to Paragraph 3. The evacuation of Latvia will be carried out as fast as possible. It will probably not be possible to use sea transport for troops in view of the situation at Libau.

With regard to Paragraph 4. Your [The] military authorities have been instructed that no damage to Latvian property must be effected during the evacuation.

Wachendorf

[Enclosure 5]

British Delegation, Paris, 25 July, 1919.

My Dear General, I enclose herewith, for Marshal Foch’s information, a copy of a cipher telegram dated 21st July from General Gough.

I refer it to Marshal Foch, asking him to be so good as to communicate on the subject with the German Armistice Committee; whilst I obtain an undertaking from the British Admiralty that transports for the withdrawal of German troops, as proposed by General Gough, shall be obtained.

Yours sincerely,

W. Thwaites

To General Weygand.

[Subenclosure]

Telegram From General Gough, Reval, to Mr. Balfour

D. 01.18 July 21st, 1919.
R. 16.00 July 21st, 1919.

Part I

H. G. 53 July 20th.

Von der Goltz made following statements and admissions at a meeting on July 19th:—

A. That he had not received instructions to deal with me and that any information given was unofficial.

B. That (?) even if all passenger traffic was stopped on railway lines the evacuation of Latvia would take 74 days.

C. That he had brought fresh troops from Germany recently to guard railway.

D. That Libau was evacuated for military reasons.

E. That he would not evacuate by sea except 600 men from Windau if we arranged tonnage.

F. That as his evacuation depended on how soon rolling stock could be brought from Germany no date would be given for commencement.

G. That as Mitau was an important railway junction and must be held until all of his troops had gone he could not evacuate it at once.

H. That practically all munitions and stores had been evacuated.

J. That his men had been promised to [sic] land in Latvia and they considered themselves citizens of Latvia and he could not answer for consequences if those who wished to remain in Latvia were not allowed to do so.

My observations on above are as follows:—

A. That Von der Goltz had been notified to deal direct with me and as further prevarication was useless Von der Goltz wished to satisfy himself as to my attitude on various questions especially with regard to allowing German troops to remain in Latvia.

B. That an evacuation which when it commences will take 74 days is preposterous and is solely intended to keep troops in Latvia until the harvest [is] gathered and in hopes that one of his numerous intrigues will afford him the required loophole to interfere.

C. That Von der Goltz has carried out coup d’états before and unless quickly removed is in a position to carry out another in Baltic States. That we are dealing with reckless men promised much in Latvia who as recently as June 18th attempted a coup d’état against the Esthonians after Von der Goltz had pledged his word that he had no intention of any further advance northwards. See (?) my telegram H.G. 49 of July 10th.

D. That military situation on no front justifies arrival of fresh German troops and therefore there is no valid excuse for such action.

Part II

E. That Libau was evacuated because there would have been no possible excuse for not evacuating by sea if Germans had remained. Von der Goltz quitted Libau when ships were promised. (See my telegram H. G. 49 July 10th.)

F. That after many evasions we forced Von der Goltz by reference to War Office cable 79069 June 19th to admit that Windau should have been evacuated already and rather than force a final issue now to promise to allow 600 to go.

G. That Von der Goltz has no intention of surrendering Mitau and giving up control of railways Mitau Windau, Mitau Libau, Mitau Riga, Mitau Jacobstadt. That he is in a position to take advantage of any political crisis which his continued presence in the country is certain to foment and overrun Latvia at any moment. That as long as he remains at Mitau he controls all railways thus paralysing peaceful circulation and restoration of order and if such a state of affairs continues for 3 months grave trouble is to be expected in present excited state of the lately liberated Letts by hatred of their late oppressors.

H. That stores and munitions ready to be used at any moment have been parked in rear. Hasty evacuation being necessary because under Article 109 these would have become forfeit.

J. That Von der Goltz is now in position supported by certain Russian troops equipped and paid by Germans to offer in return for rights of colonization Latvia and Esthonia to restored Russia. To deal with situation I request you to cable German Government in substance as follows:—

1. All German forces in Latvia are to evacuate Latvia by sea. Evacuation to be assisted and expedited in every possible way by Allied naval and military mission under General Gough.

2. Evacuation of German force will be by barge from Mitau to Dunamunde at mouth of river Dwina north of Riga.

3. Evacuation to be completed by August 20th.

4. Further entrance into Latvia is forbidden to German troops.

5. That unless permission is obtained from Allied Mission removal of any war material from its present position in Latvia or Lithuania is forbidden and that mission should be furnished at once with list of location of all stores and munitions already moved.

6. That in order that I may arrange transport German plan of evacuation as in paragraph 2 is to be submitted to me as Chief of Allied Missions before August 5th.

In conclusion I point out—

A. That to allow Von der Goltz to carry out his present proposals for evacuation will render any peaceful solution in Baltic States impossible for 3 months and before the winter commences to close the ports to our navy.

B. As proposed by me there is no reason why the evacuation should not be completed in 3 weeks and under the eye of the British Navy if necessary. The feared pillage and arson of the undisciplined Germans evacuated by land will be avoided and looting will be impossible.

Appendix D to HD–19

Pakis, July 28, 1919.

delegation of the kingdom of the serbs, croats, & slovenes to the peace conference

No. 589 Point 7b

From: Nik. Pachitch

To: President Clemenceau.

The Financial and Reparations Sections of our Delegation received yesterday at noon the respective drafts of the competent Commissions of the Conference for the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, together with the invitation to offer their remarks to-day at 6:00 P.M.

These drafts do not take into account our most justified claims, which has caused a painful surprise to our Delegation.

In consequence, I beg your Excellency to be so kind as to have our Delegation received at one of the Sessions of the Supreme Council with a view to submitting to it our remarks before the final drafting of these texts: this is all the more important because the drafts in question were made in the said Commissions without the collaboration of our technicians.

Please accept, etc.

Nik. Pachitch

1. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.

2. Article XLIV of the Treaty of 1878 reads as follows:

   “In Roumania the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall not he alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries in any locality whatsoever.

   The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all persons belonging to the Roumanian State, as well as to foreigners, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.

   The subjects and citizens of all the Powers, traders or others, shall be treated in Roumania, without distinction of creed, on a footing of perfect equality.”

3. Minute 2, vol. v, p. 238.
4. Minute 2, vol. vi, p. 656.
5. CF–92, minute 6, vol. vi, p. 671.
6. Corrections have been made in the last two paragraphs of this minute in accordance with an errata sheet filed under 763.72119/6232.
7. Printed from file No. 763.72119/6232.
8. Appendix to IC–176 G, vol. v, p. 266.
9. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.
10. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxxii, p. 771.
11. Ibid., vol. lxxxv, p. 750.
12. Ibid., vol. lxxxvii, p. 806.
13. Ibid., vol. xcii, p. 433.
14. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér., tome iii, p. 920.
15. Luigi Palma, Nuova Raccolta dei Trattati e delle Convenzioni (1881–1890), vol. 3, pt. 2, p. 783; see also Reichs-Gesetzblatt, 1887, p. 111.
16. Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 3 sér., tome ii, p. 888.
17. Supra.