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

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/82

HD–82

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Monday, November 3, 1919, at 10 a.m.

Paris, November 3, 1919, 10:00 a.m.

• Present
  • America, United States of
    • Hon. F. L. Polk
  • Secretary
    • Mr. L. Harrison
  • British Empire
    • Sir Eyre Crowe
  • Secretary
    • Mr. H. Norman
  • France
    • M. Pichon
  • Secretaries
    • M. Berthelot
    • M. de Saint-Quentin
  • Italy
    • M. Scialoja
  • Secretary
    • M. Barone Russo
  • Japan
    • M. Matsui
  • Secretary
    • M. Kawai.

Joint Secretariat
America, United States of	Capt. B. Winthrop
British Empire	Capt. G. Lothian Small
France	M. Massigli
Italy	M. Zanchi
Interpreter—M. Mantoux

The following were also present for items in which they were concerned:

• America, United States of
  • General Bliss
  • Dr. James Brown Scott
  • Mr. A. W. Dulles
• British Empire
  • General Sackville-West
  • Lieut-Col. Kisch
  • Commander Dunne
  • Captain Fuller, R. N.
  • Mr. H. W. Malkin
  • Mr. A. Leeper
• France
  • General Weygand
  • General Desticker
  • M. Kammerer
  • Commandant Lacomhe
  • M. Fromageot
• Italy
  • General Cavallero
  • M. Ricci-Busatti
  • M. Vannutelli-Rey
  • M. Stranieri
  • Prince Boncompagni

1. (The Council had before it a report from the Military Representatives at Versailles relative to the occupation of Memel prior to ratification of the Treaty (See Appendix “A”).) Report of the Military Representatives at Versailles Relative to the Occupation of Memel Prior to the Ratification of the Treaty

General Desticker read and commented upon the report.

(After a short discussion

It was decided:

to approve the report as prepared by the Military Representatives at Versailles, and that no troops should be sent to Memel before the entry into force of the Treaty.)

2. (The Council had before it the report of the Military Representatives at Versailles relative to the suppression of the Inter-Allied the Transport Commission (See Appendix “B”).)

General Desticker read and commented upon the report. Report of the Military Representatives at Versailles Suggesting the Suppression of the Interallied Transport Commission

(It was decided:

to suppress the Inter-Allied Transport Commission, as proposed by the Military Representatives at Versailles in their report.)

3. (The Council had before it a note from the French Delegation on the Hungarian situation (See Appendix “C”).)

M. Berthelot read and commented upon the note prepared by the French Delegation. He wished to bring to the attention of the Council that in paragraph 2, of Page 4,¹ the phrase relative to the Inter-Allied force under discussion should be understood in the sense that the force include only Serbian, Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak troops, under an Inter-Allied command. Roumanian and Hungarian Questions

Mr. Polk stated that he had not yet seen a final report from Sir George Clerk and he thought it might be advisable to await this information before discussing the question. He should, however, inquire how the Council intended to treat the Inter-Allied Commission of Generals; if this Inter-Allied Commission had not succeeded, it was because the Supreme Council had not backed it up sufficiently.

M. Berthelot thought that they had not carried out with sufficient authority the instructions given them by the Supreme Council, and on the other hand, they had not shown initiative, and did not seem to have had a consistent policy. As for Sir George Clerk, he did not seem to have succeeded in his mission with M. Friedrich. The affair seemed to be dragging along; M. Friedrich had not yet retired and the Democratic Government had not been formed as was expected by the Council. He added that the French proposition was not to belittle the mission of Sir George Clerk in any fashion, but it was important to clear up the situation and settle this vexatious question.

M. Pichon thought it was extremely important to solve this question as soon as possible.

Sir Eyre Crowe said that the Roumanian and Hungarian questions of course involved each other. Sir George Clerk had insisted on the importance of getting the Roumanians out of the country, and a stable government could not be formed until this had been settled. The information from Sir George Clerk said there might be disadvantages, but the balance of advantage was that the Roumanians should be gotten out. The Roumanians were defying the Council. M. Bratiano was dragging on negotiations with no intention of following the instructions of the Council. He certainly thought that they should insist on getting an answer from Roumania and he thought that the Council should publish the note² which has been sent to Roumania. M. Bratiano was spreading false versions of the note, sent in the course of the electioneering campaign which was going on in Roumania, and was pretending that there was no disagreement as between the Allies and Roumania.

M. Berthelot stated it was quite evident that the Roumanian troops should first get out but there was great danger if the Roumanian troops were to leave the country before other troops were sent to replace them. In that case, the Allies would find before them at Budapest only a Friedrich Government which had in its hands a force of police; outside of Budapest was Admiral Horthy with an army of 20,000 men or so; at any rate he was reactionary and was a symbol of the Haps-burgs. In conclusion, first: the Roumanians should get out; secondly, the Roumanian troops should be replaced in such a way that the Allies would be in a position to impose their policy at Budapest; but the departure of the Roumanians would be dangerous if the Allies did not have other means of controlling the situation. As far as the Roumanians were concerned, there was no doubt whatever they should be obliged to answer the note which had been sent them, and it might become advisable to publish this note, although this might not be of very great practical value, as elections were being held at this time. M. Bratiano was pretending that this note had never been delivered to the Roumanian Government by the Conference. According to his theory, only three out of the four Principal Allied and Associated Powers had presented the note, and the Italian representative had not associated himself with this step. General Coanda, who had just arrived in Paris, claimed that there was no need to reply to a note which had not been received.

Mr. Polk had noticed in the French note a reference to the American General which he did not approve. He thought the American General had been doing his best to follow his instructions. His only contention was that Roumania was not on trial, but that the Supreme Council should be obeyed. The impression was going abroad in Roumania that the orders which were being executed by the Commission did not correspond to the real orders of the Supreme Council and also that if the text of the note did not sound quite French, it was because it stood for an Anglo-American translation. On the whole the impression there was that America was against Roumania; that was not so, it was only a question, as he had said before, of the orders of the Supreme Council being followed. If there were so little coordination of action between the Allies in this case, it argued [augured?] badly for the future.

M. Pichon said they were all agreed that the Inter-Allied cohesion should be maintained.

Mr. Polk asked how it was possible after they had ordered the Roumanians to leave Hungary, to think of leaving them in the Inter-Allied forces referred to in the latter part of the French note.

Sir Eyre Crowe said M. Berthelot’s remark—that the Supreme Council’s note had not been received,—was a surprise. If that were so, then they could not insist upon its being carried out. That lack of cooperation in Bucharest was very serious.

M. Scialoja remarked that he had no information on the non-presentation of the note by the Italian representative; he would, however, get more information on the subject.

M. Pichon stated that according to a telegram from the French Chargé d’Affaires at Bucharest there had been delay in presentation of the note to the Roumanian Government for the reason that the Italian representative had not received his instructions. A second telegram had informed him that the note had been delivered by three out of four representatives of the Allies without awaiting any longer the instructions of the Italian representative. He did not know whether the Italian representative had now received these instructions, but he wished to point out that the Roumanians were still maintaining that they had not received the note.

Sir Eyre Crowe mentioned that M. Bratiano was spreading the report that this was an Anglo-American intrigue.

M. Pichon was of the opinion that the note should be published so as to put a stop to these rumors, and also a further note, should the Council so decide.

Mr. Polk wished to point out that the Council could only repeat the conclusions it had adopted at its meeting of August 5th or thereabouts.

M. Berthelot wished to point out that one could not reproach the French Government with having opposed itself to any of the orders sent to Bucharest. The French representative had always delivered the notes either in the name of the Allies or in the name of the French Government. Should M. Bratiano wish to try and cause disagreement between the Allies this should carefully be avoided. He repeated that two points were to be distinguished; on the Roumanian question there was no discussion possible as to the attitude to be taken, but the Hungarian question remained. The departure of the Roumanians from Budapest ran the risk of bringing about a state of anarchy or the reappearance of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Mr. Polk thought that early in September the Council had ordered the Roumanians to turn over 10,000 rifles to the Hungarian police which was to be organized, and he understood that only 1,000 rifles had been delivered up to this time without bayonets, without sufficient ammunition, and that the machine guns had been delivered without tripods. He thought there would be no use sending another Mission to Budapest if there was to be no compliance with the orders already sent out by the Council. If the present Mission had not done its work, it would then be advisable to recall it.

M. Pichon agreed that this might be exact, but there remained the danger of an armed force under the orders of Admiral Horthy, with the shadow of a Hapsburg reaction. The Roumanians might be lying, but they again affirmed that they had given up these arms; it would be easy to verify this through the Mission and the orders should then be carried out. He again pointed out how dangerous it would be to recall Roumanian troops without being able to oppose an Inter-Allied force to the Horthy force. It was important to organize a democratic Government at Budapest or it would be impossible to sign peace with Hungary.

Mr. Polk wished to remark that four of the Powers had sent representatives to report on conditions in Hungary—he personally had great confidence in General Bandholtz,—and if the Council did not have confidence in these representatives it was for it to recall them. Later the Council had sent Sir George Clerk, in whom also he had the greatest confidence. He thought the Council should have confidence in the men they sent on these Missions, and he considered it had been well represented so far.

M. Berthelot said that if the police force at Budapest was armed, that did not inspire great confidence, for it was in the hands of the Friedrich government. It was quite clear that the Council got its information from representatives wherever sent; it had also the advantage of a general view of all the problems. The important question was that there should not remain a dangerous and ridiculous center of disorganization in central Europe; a negative policy was not sufficient. They should have a positive policy.

M. Pichon asked what was to be done about Hungary. Were they going to deliver it to the Friedrich government or to the Archduke? As the Allies would not have forces available to send there, it seemed that the best solution would be to have the occupation force composed of Serbian, Roumanian and Czecho-Slovak troops under an Inter-Allied command. If the Council had in mind a better solution, this was the time to put it forward.

Mr. Polk asked whether the question should not also be examined by the Financial experts.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that Sir George Clerk should be informed by telegram of the discussion, and asked for an opinion on the possibility of employing Roumanian, Serbian and Czecho-Slovak troops.

Mr. Polk agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe, that the Council should not think of acting without Sir George Clerk’s opinion.

M. Pichon remarked that Sir George Clerk could also consult the Generals.

Sir Eyre Crowe inquired whether, in the existence of the disturbed state of the country, it would be expedient to use Roumanian troops, and whether a force containing Roumanian and Serbian troops would work well.

M. Berthelot thought that this was simply a question of command. He thought, however, that the Roumanians might be excluded, especially if this exclusion might be used to show them how little confidence was put in them by the Supreme Council. But it was most important that they should have the symbol of an Inter-Allied force, so as to disarm Horthy. Telegrams would not be sufficient to do this. This occupation would not be very long, and with an efficient high command it would be easy to await the formation of a democratic Government.

M. Pichon summed up, stating that the Council was agreed to send immediately a telegram to Bucharest, insisting that the Roumanian Government should answer the last note sent by the Council. M. Berthelot would now prepare the text of this telegram.

M. Berthelot submitted to the Council a draft telegram which was approved (See Appendix “D”). He thought it advisable to give the text of this telegram to the Roumanian Delegation that same afternoon, and to publish the new and the former note the next day.

Sir Eyre Crowe informed the Council he had at that moment received a telegram from Sir George Clerk, which he proceeded to read to the Council.

(The Council unanimously agreed to adjourn the examination of the draft telegram to be sent until the next meeting of the Council)

(It was decided:

(1) to send a note to the Roumanian Government insisting on a prompt answer to the note which had already been sent by the Council on October 12th;

(2) that this note should be immediately delivered to the Roumanian Government at Bucharest by the four representatives of the Powers without waiting for further instructions from their respective Governments;

(3) to give the Roumanian Delegation at Paris a copy of this note that same afternoon;

(4) that the present note, and also the original note, should be published the following day.)

4. The Council had before it a report from the New States Commission (See Appendix “E”), and a draft Treaty with Greece (See Appendix “F”).) Greek Minorities Treaty

M. Kammerer read and commented upon the report of the New States Commission and the draft Treaty with Greece. He added that the proposed Treaty concerned European territory only and should any Asiatic territory be attributed to Greece at a later time, a new treaty would be necessary. Greece should also be informed that the Treaty would be communicated to her at this time, but that the signature would only follow upon the final attribution to her of certain territories.

(After a short discussion

It was decided:

(1) to approve the draft Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Greece, prepared by the New States Commission;

(2) that in communicating the text of this treaty to the Greek Delegation the Secretary-General of the Peace Conference should inform the Delegation that it only applied to territories situated in Europe, and that Greece would not be asked to sign the Treaty before the territories to be attributed to her had been determined.)

5. M. Fromageot wished to inquire which Powers should figure in the preamble of the Treaty with Bulgaria, and also which Powers were to sign. America and Japan were not at war with Bulgaria, but it seemed anomalous that they should not sign, taking into account the different dispositions of the Treaty. Treaty With Bulgaria

Mr. Polk understood that the question had already been settled and that it was agreed that all the Principal Powers sign.

M. Fromageot said that, as for the other Allied and Associated Powers, a certain number had not declared war against Bulgaria, but their full powers had already been presented to the Bulgarian Delegation; under those circumstances they had a right to sign. He proposed that a circular letter should be sent them asking whether they intended to sign, and he thought this would not delay the delivery of the reply to the Bulgarian counter-proposals.

It was decided:

(1) that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the Treaty with Bulgaria;

(2) that a circular letter should be addressed to the other Allied Powers which had not declared war against Bulgaria, to inquire whether it was their intention to sign the Treaty.)

6. (The Council had before it the note from the Dutch Government (See Appendix “G”) and the draft reply prepared by the Drafting Committee to this note (See Appendix “H”).)

M. Fromageot read and commented upon both documents. He wished to add that the note sent by the Supreme Council on October 15th to Germany³ conformed to the declarations made in March at the Conference in Brussels concerning the question of ships in course of construction. He wished to point out that the decision was formerly that all ships in course of construction were to be delivered to the Allies. Draft Reply to the Dutch Government Regarding German Ships Sold to Dutch Navigation Companies

M. Scialoja remarked that, in the reply to the Dutch Government, paragraph 7, Annex 3, to Part VIII of the Treaty with Germany should be had in mind. A possible objection from the Dutch Government should be foreseen: the Treaty stated that Germany agreed to take any measures that might be necessary for obtaining the full title to the property in all ships which might have been transferred during the war to neutral flags. It therefore followed that Holland might very well tell the Allies that they should address their demands to Germany and not to her. He would like the Drafting Committee to take into consideration the possibility of that objection in the note to be sent to Holland.

Mr. Polk stated that apparently the said paragraph tied the hands of the Supreme Council; but as a matter of principle, this would not be in accord with the American view of International Law. Should not this note be sent back to the Drafting Committee to prepare a text which would satisfy all the members of the Council?

Sir Eyre Crowe wished to remark that if an argument were begun with the Dutch Government, it would be difficult to foresee how long this discussion might last.

(It was decided:

to refer back to the Drafting Committee the draft reply to the note from the Dutch Government for further examination.)

7. (The Council had before it a report from the Allied Railways Commission in Poland relative to the opening for commercial traffic of the three railroads crossing the German-Polish frontier north of Warsaw (See Appendix “I”).)

Colonel Kisch read and commented upon this report. He brought up the personal suggestion that the Armistice Commission was not the proper authority, but that the question should be referred to the Allied Representatives in Berlin. Proposal of the Allied Railways Commission in Poland To Open for Commercial Traffic the Three Railroads Crossing the German-Polish Frontier North of Warsaw

(After a short discussion

It was decided:

to approve the conclusions of the report as presented by the Allied Railways Commission in Poland, with this modification: that the Allied Military Representatives charged with the Polish-German Affairs acquaint the German Government with the agreements if any, concluded at Warsaw.)

8. (The Council had before it a request of the European Danube Request of the Commission on the International Conference to establish the regime of the Danube, as provided for in Article 349 of the German Treaty (See Appendix “J”).) Request of the European Danube Commission on the International Conference to Establish the Regime of the Danube, as Provided for in Article 349 of the German Treaty

(After a short discussion

It was decided:

to refer this request to the Drafting Committee for examination and report as to points of law.)

9. (The Council had before it the request of the European Danube Commission for the attribution of two tugs to that Commission (See Appendix “K”).) Request of the European Danube Commission for the Attribution of Two Tugs to That Commission

(It was decided:

to attribute two tugs belonging to the Enemy Powers to the European Danube Commission for an indemnity to be fixed by the arbitrators.)

10. (The Council had before it the note from the German Delegation to the Reparations Commission regarding the transport by sea of potatoes purchased by Germany in Denmark (See Appendix “L”).) Note From the German Delegation to the Reparations Commission Regarding the Transport by Sea of Potatoes Purchased by Germany in Denmark

(It was decided:

to refer back to the Allied Naval Armistice Commission this question for examination and report.)

(The meeting then adjourned.)

Hotel de Crillon, Paris, November 3, 1919.

Appendix A to HD–82

supreme war council
military representatives
S. W. C. 477
(89th M. R.)

Versailles, 30 October, 1919.

Report on the Occupation of Memel

By a resolution dated October 25th, 1919,⁴ the Supreme Council decided:

“to refer to the Military Representatives at Versailles for examination and report the question of whether the situation in the Baltic Provinces was such as to necessitate occupying Memel before the prescribed date”.

The Military Representatives

Taking into consideration:

(1) That Germany maintains her sovereignty over the Memel district until the moment when the Treaty shall have come into force.

(2) That the occupation of Memel before the Treaty shall have come into force would expose the troops of occupation to possible attack by German troops from East Prussia on the West, or from Lithuania on the East, or from both these directions, and that as long as the allied force intended for the occupation of the Plebiscite areas (Danzig, East Prussia, &c) are not in position (which will not be the case until after the coming into force of the Treaty) the allied forces in the Territory of Memel would be left without any reserves.

(3) That the combatant strength of the German forces in East Prussia and Lithuania appear to be approximately 20,000 and 40,000 respectively.

(4) That it would be impracticable to occupy Memel in sufficient force to make the troops of occupation safe against such an attack.

(5) That the Supreme Council has already decided (on October 14th [15th], 1919)⁵ to occupy Memel after that region shall have passed to the hands of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Are of the opinion

That the occupation of Memel before the prescribed date would offer certain advantages in providing the Inter-Allied Commission proceeding to the Baltic Provinces with an efficient means of action, but that in view of the considerations reviewed above, this occupation should not be effected before the coming into force of the Treaty.

Desticker

Military Representative, French Section, Supreme War Council

Sackville-West

Major-General, Military Representative, British Section, Supreme War Council

Cavallero

Military Representative, Italian Section, Supreme War Council

Embick

Military Representative, American Section, Supreme War Council

Appendix B to HD–82

Copy No. 26
supreme war council
military representatives
S. W. C. 476
(89th M. R.)

Joint Note No. 46

Joint Note to the Supreme War Council by its Military Representatives

subject—suppression of the inter-allied transportation committee

To the Supreme War Council.

By its decision dated February 1st, 1918, (3rd Session), the Supreme War Council approved Joint Note No. 8 of the Military Representatives in which they proposed “The Constitution of an Inter-Allied Transportation Committee … , to report to the Supreme War Council.”

This committee was charged “To draw up a statement of the existing position of affairs as regards Inter-Allied Transportation, the projects now under way, the present state of, and future possibilities in, construction … and to make definite recommendations as to their coordination on the most efficient lines … to advise as to execution, and to report as to progress.”

The Military Representatives of the Supreme War Council

Having taken into consideration

1. That the principal reasons for the formation of the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee have ceased with the State of War,

2. That all the questions which have been sent for examination and report to the said Committee, by the Supreme War Council, or, all preliminary technical examination having been completed, have at present been submitted to the decision of the interested Governments or of the Supreme Council,

3. That though, at the present moment, there may still exist numerous questions interesting any two Governments, there no longer exist from the point of view of transportation any questions common to all, beyond those dealt with by the Supreme Economic Council,

Are of opinion

That the maintenance of the Inter-Allied Transportation Committee is no longer necessary, and that it would be advisable in consequence to decide on its suppression.

Desticker

Military Representative, French Section, Supreme War Council

Sackville-West

Major-General, Military Representative, British Section, Supreme War Council

Cavallero

Military Representative, Italian Section, Supreme War Council

Embick

Military Representative, American Section, Supreme War Council

Given at Versailles, 30th October, 1919.

Appendix C to HD–82

Note From the French Delegation

The Situation in Hungary

The Supreme Council has, on many occasions, studied the situation in Hungary. Recently, it directed Sir George Clerk to proceed to Budapest, bearer of a decision made by the Allies in which the Friedrich Ministry was notified; that it was invited to modify its Government and include democratic elements without delay.⁶

Since the arrival of the emissary of the Conference, the Ministerial situation in Hungary has undergone no modification. If decisive measures are not adopted and put into execution by the Supreme Council, the situation in Hungary is very liable to become decisively more aggravated.

The position of the three powers now co-existing in Budapest may be presented in the following manner:

1st—Mr. Friedrich continues to elude the wishes of the Allies and to refuse to constitute a democratic Ministry, representative of all the elements of the country, the only Ministry which would be capable of conducting equitable elections and concluding a peace with the Allies in the name of the entire country.

On the other hand, Admiral Horthy, who is an energetic, ultra-reactionary personality, susceptible of intriguing for his own military dictatorship, has constituted a force comprising about 20,000 men who are fully armed and devoted to him.

These two elements (Mr. Friedrich and Admiral Horthy) represent, each on his side, a mask of the former absolutism and in particular the Archduke Joseph. If the Allies do not intervene, they will probably witness, immediately after the departure of the Rumanian troops, and even if a small police force has been constituted in the Capital, the re-appearance, under one form or another, of the Hapsburg dynasty. The democratic policy, which is the policy of our Allies in Rumania, Bohemia, Jugoslavia, France, England, the United States and Italy, will be justified in reproaching the Conference for allowing the establishment of a clerical and reactionary government which would finally reestablish fatal ties with Vienna and Berlin.

It must be added that Admiral Horthy, whose clique seems to favor a military dictatorship, in no wise dissimulates his intention to take advantage of the momentary difficulties existing in Slovakia to resume on the very first pretext, the struggle against the Czechs and to commence by taking possession of Presbourg: the vital danger of that situation was pointed out by Mr. Benes.

2nd—The Rumanian army, despite the reproaches made toward it concerning requisitions and the evident abuses of force committed by it, represents, however, the only material force which is capable of preventing the reconstruction of the Royalist Government at Budapest. The Allies esteem, however, that the Rumanian army must evacuate the Capital as soon as possible in order to permit a regular Government to be constituted and operate freely. The Rumanians declare that they are ready to withdraw their troops to the rear, in view of the present situation, but point out that if such decisions are taken, the situation will become still more embarrassing for the Allies. They, have, moreover, furnished the armies necessary for the organization of the city police force.

3rd—The Commission of Generals, it must be admitted, has not succeeded, despite all efforts, to satisfactorily accomplish its general mission, nor the special missions with which it was entrusted by the Supreme Council on several occasions. The French General has taken no action. His English colleague appears to be acting in accordance with the original views which, however, do not conform with the decisions and instructions of the Conference. The American General and his Italian colleague, despite their efforts of loyal documentation, do not appear to have been clearly conscious of the views of the Allies. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that the Commission of Generals is capable of resolving, in itself, no matter what instructions may be sent them, the difficulties of the Hungarian problem.

To find a practical solution of the difficulties of the Hungarian Situation, and to place the country in a position to sign peace with the Allies, a primary condition to the re-establishment of order and for the functioning of a regular government, the following provisions may be considered:

1st —Mr. Friedrich having shown that he could not or would not constitute a Government in which all the democratic elements of the population would be represented, should be obliged to retire and make place for a democratic government, the elements of which exist in Budapest.

2nd —An Inter-Allied force of two divisions, placed under the orders of an Allied Staff, in command of a General selected by the Conference, and comprising Rumanian, Czech and Serbian contingents, could replace the Rumanian troops which are to fall back to the Theiss.

This small occupation corps would supervise the organization of a local police, disarm Admiral Horthy’s army of adventurers, and would guarantee freedom in the elections and the operations of the new Hungarian Government. As soon as the situation would have been regulated, and the return of the fallen dynasty averted, the Allies would withdraw their troops. The signing of the peace would finally be made possible and the country would resume its normal situation.

If the Allies allow the situation at Budapest to continue, and if they do not adopt a complete and precise plan of action, the Hungarian situation is liable to compromise the entire condition in Central Europe.

Appendix D to HD–82

Telegram

Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the French Minister—Bucarest.

The Supreme Council has decided to request the Allied Ministers at Bucarest to notify, jointly, without delay, the Roumanian Government of the fact that it was unfavorably impressed upon learning that General Coanda, sent as special envoy to Paris by the Roumanian Ministry, arrived without the Roumanian reply to the last note from the Powers,⁷ under the pretext that the Italian Minister had not taken this step at the same time as France, England and United States. The Supreme Council expresses the formal desire to obtain, within the shortest time, a brief and clear reply from the Roumanian Government on all the points discussed. As the situation in Hungary demands an early decision in order to ensure the re-establishment of normal conditions which is absolutely essential for the security of Central Europe, the principal Allied and Associated Powers cannot allow to [sic] Roumania to prolong dilatory negotiations on the three questions stated October 12th last.

Please communicate this in the name of the Conference, collectively with your colleagues, who need not wait for special instructions from their Governments, owing to the urgency of the situation.

Pichon

Appendix E to HD–82

conference on
peace preliminaries

commission on new states

Report to the Supreme Council Relative to the New Treaty With Greece

The Commission on New States has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council the draft of Treaty which is to be presented for the signature of the Greek Delegation.

During the elaboration of this draft, the Commission duly noted the observations of Mr. Venizelos and the original text has been modified on many points in order to comply with several of his requests. In the preamble, for instance, he indicated, as is true, that the Greek Delegation had always evidenced broad views.

Concerning this point, to which Mr. Venizelos attached great importance, the Commission, however, did not deem it possible to accord satisfaction. Article 9 imposes on Greece, concerning the provinces which were ceded to her subsequent to January 1, 1913, which are peopled with an important proportion of non-Greek inhabitants, the obligation to insure instruction in the State Schools in a language other than Greek. Thus the Greek Government is expected, in certain regions, to insure to the Greek citizens of Bulgarian language, instruction in their own tongue. Mr. Venizelos indicated that the Greek Government would vigorously oppose this decision.

In this matter, the Commission feels obliged to point out that the general object of these Treaties is to guarantee that the foreign populations which are united to Greece, or to any other State, have full liberty to use their own language. This principle was established and maintained in corresponding Treaties. It might also be indicated that if Bulgarian schools are provided for by the Greek Government, there would be considerably less danger that they would be used for political propaganda and intrigue, for the Bulgarian children, than in the private schools which would not be under State control.

That question being considered as a matter of principle, the Commission did not consider it necessary to make any concession to Mr. Venizelos on this point.

The attention of the Supreme Council is called to another important point. The Treaties of 1832⁸ and 1863,⁹ establishing the independence of Greece, obligated that nation, in conformity with the views of France, Great Britain and Russia, protective powers, to remain a constitutional monarchy. The Committee has esteemed that a clause restricting the sovereignty of the Greek people, with respect to the basis of their own Constitution, should no longer be maintained, and that it is fitting to liberate Greece from a situation which places her in a state of inferiority in relation with the other States. For this reason, the Commission proposes that the English and French Governments release the Greek Government from the obligations imposed on it by the Treaties of 1832 and 1863, in the present Treaty. The Commission further proposes, that, in view of the obligations borne by Greece, in conformity with the present Treaty, on account of the engagements assumed by her, and assured under the protection of the League of Nations, France and Great Britain release Greece from the special obligations which she accepted toward these two Governments in 1830 and which had reference to the maintenance of religious liberty.¹⁰

The clauses of the present Treaty are, for the greater part, analogous with those of the other Treaties. There are, however, certain special articles concerning the protection of the Valaques of Pindus, the non-Greek monastic communities of Mount Athos, and of the Mussulmans. The stipulations in the article relative to the protection of the Jews are much less strict than those which were deemed necessary in the Treaty with Poland. The liberalism manifested by the Greek Government in its relations with the Jews has appeared of a nature to render more detailed restrictions as needless.

The Commission adds that this Treaty was drafted without taking into account any territories of Asia which might be ceded to Greece. If cessions of that nature are accorded, protection for the non-Greek populations of these territories should be the object of further stipulations.

Appendix F to HD–82¹¹

Draft of a Treaty

Between

The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan.

Described as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
On the one hand;

And Greece
On the other hand;

Whereas since the 1st January 1913 large accessions of territory have been made to the Kingdom of Greece, and

Whereas the Kingdom of Greece which has given to the populations included in its territories, without distinction of origin, language or religion, equality of rights, is desirous of confirming these rights and of extending them to the populations of the territories which might be added to the Kingdom so that they shall have full and complete guarantee that they shall be governed in conformity with the principles of liberty and justice, and

Whereas it is desired to free Greece from certain obligations which she has undertaken towards certain Powers and to substitute for them obligations to the League of Nations, and

Whereas it is desired also to free Greece from certain other obligations which she has undertaken to certain Powers and which constitute a restriction upon her full internal sovereignty.

For this purpose the following Representatives of the High Contracting Parties:

The President of the United States of America,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty The King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The President of the French Republic,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of Italy,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H. M. The Emperor of Japan,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

After having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

France and Great Britain hereby renounce for their part to the special rights of supervision and control devolving upon them under the Treaty of London of May 7, 1832,¹² under the Treaty of London of November 14, 1863,¹³ and, as regard the Ionian Island, by the Treaty of 29 March 1864.¹⁴

France and Great Britain, recognising that under the present Treaty Greece has undertaken obligations for the maintenance of religious liberty which are placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, hereby renounce for their part the rights conferred upon them by the Protocol No. 3 of the Conference held in London on the 3rd February 1830, to ensure the protection of the principle of religious equality.¹⁵

Chapter I

Article 1

Greece undertakes that the stipulations contained in Articles 2 to 8 of this chapter shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no laws, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

Article 2

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

All inhabitants of Greece 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

Greece admits and declares to be Greek nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality Bulgarian or Turkish (or Albanian) nationals habitually resident at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty in territories transferred to Greece since January 1st 1918 [1913?].

Nevertheless, the persons referred to above who are over eighteen years of age will be entitled under the conditions contained in the said Treaties to opt for any other nationality which may be open to them. Option by a husband will cover his wife and option by parents will cover their children under eighteen years of age.

Persons who have exercised the above right to opt must, except where it is otherwise provided in the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria and Turkey transfer within the succeeding twelve months, their place of residence to the State for which they have opted. They will be entitled to retain their immovable property in Greek territory. They may carry with them their movable property of every description. No export duties may be imposed upon them in connection with the removal of such property.

Article 4

Greece admits and declares to be Greek nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality persons of Bulgarian or Turkish nationality who were born in the said territories of parents habitually resident there, even if at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty they are not themselves habitually resident there.

Nevertheless, within two years after the coming into force of the present Treaty, these persons may make a declaration before the competent Greek authorities in the country in which they are resident, stating that they, abandon Greek nationality, and they will then cease to be considered as Greek nationals. In this connection a declaration by a husband will cover his wife, and a declaration by parents will cover their children under eighteen years of age.

Article 5

Greece undertakes to put no hindrance in the way of the exercise of the right which the persons concerned have, under the Treaties concluded or to be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with Bulgaria or Turkey, to choose whether or not they will acquire Greek nationality.

Article 6

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

Article 7

All Greek 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 and [any] Greek 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 Greek 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 Greek Government of an official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Greek nationals of non-Greek speech for the use of their language, either orally or in writing, before the courts.

Article 8

Greek nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Greek 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 9

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

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Greek 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.

The provisions of the present article apply only to territory transferred to Greece since the first of January 1913.

Article 10

In towns and districts where there is resident a considerable proportion of Greek subjects of the Jewish religious [religion], the Greek Government agrees that these Jews shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their Sabbath, and that they shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend courts of law or to perform any legal business on their Sabbath. This provision however shall not exempt Jews from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Greek citizens for the necessary purposes of military service national defence or the preservation of public order.

Article 11

Greece agrees to accord to the community of the Valachs of Pindus, local autonomy in regard to religious charitable or scholastic matters under the control of the Greek State.

Article 12

Greece undertakes to recognise and maintain the traditional rights and liberties enjoyed by the non Greek monastic communities of Mount-Athos under clause 62 of the Treaty of Berlin.^15a

Article 13

Greece agrees to grant to the Musulmans in the matter of family law and personal status provisions suitable for regulating these matters in accordance with Musulman usage.

The Greek government shall take measures to assure the nomination of a Reiss ul Ulema.

Greece undertakes to insure protection to the mosques cemeteries and other Musulman religious establishments. Full recognition and facilities shall be assured to pious foundations (vakoufs), Musulman religious and charitable establishments now existing and Greece shall not refuse to the creation of new religious and charitable establishments any of the necessary facilities guaranteed to other private establishments of this nature.

Article 14

Greece 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 guaranty 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.

Greece 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.

Greece further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or fact arising out of these Articles between the Greek 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 Greek 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.

Chapter II

Article 15

Greece undertakes to make no Treaty, Convention or arrangement and to take no other action which will prevent her from joining in any general Convention for the equitable treatment of the commerce of other States that may be concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations within five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

Greece also undertakes to extend to all the Allied and Associated Powers any favours or privileges in Customs matters, which it may grant during the same period of five years to any state with which since August 1914 the Allied and Associated Powers have been at war or to any State which in virtue of Article 6 of Part X of the Treaty with Austria has special Customs arrangements with such States.

Article 16

Pending the conclusion of the general convention referred to above, Greece undertakes to treat on the same footing as national vessels or vessels of the most favoured nation the vessels of all the Allied and Associated Powers [which?] accord similar treatment to Greek vessels. As an exception from this provision, the right of Greece or of any other Allied or Associated Power to confine her maritime coasting trade to national vessels is expressly reserved.

Article 17

Pending the conclusion under the auspices of the League of Nations of a general convention to secure and maintain freedom of communications and of transit, Greece undertakes to accord freedom of transit to persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails in transit to or from any Allied or Associated State over Greek territory, including territorial waters, and to treat them at least as favourably as the persons, goods, vessels, carriages, wagons and mails respectively of Greece or of any other more favoured nationality, origin, importation or ownership, as regards facilities, charges, restrictions, and all other matters.

All charges imposed in Greece on such traffic in transit shall be reasonable having regard to the conditions of the traffic. Goods in transit shall be exempt from all customs or other duties.

Tariffs for transit across Greece and tariffs between Greece and any Allied or Associated Power involving through tickets or waybills shall be established at the request of the Allied or Associated Power concerned.

Freedom of transit will extend to postal, telegraphic and telephonic services.

Provided that no Allied or Associated Power can claim the benefit of these provisions on behalf of any part of its territory in which reciprocal treatment is not accorded in respect of the same subject matter.

If within a period of five years from the coming into force of this Treaty no general convention as aforesaid shall have been concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, Greece shall be at liberty at any time thereafter to give twelve months notice to the Secretary General of the League of Nations to terminate the obligations of the present Article.

Article 18

All rights and privileges accorded by the foregoing articles to the Allied and Associated Powers shall be accorded equally to all States members of the League of Nations.

The Present Treaty, in French in English and in Italian of which in case of divergence the French text shall prevail, shall be ratified. It shall come into force at the same time as the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria.

The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris.

Powers of which the seat of the Government is outside Europe will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their ratification has been given; in that case they must transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible.

A procès-verbal of the deposit of ratifications will be drawn up.

The French Government will transmit to all the signatory Powers a certified copy of the proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications.

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty.

Done at Paris, the . . . . . . . . 1919, in a single copy which will remain deposited in the archives of the French Republic, and of which authenticated copies will be transmitted to each of the Signatory Powers.

Appendix G to HD–82

Paris, October 28, 1919.

From: Roosmale Nepveu

To: Pichon, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Dutch Government has noted the text, as published in the papers, of a note addressed to the German Government by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers.¹⁶ It is shown in this note that the Supreme Council has requested the delivery of the following five ships to the Allied Governments:

• Johan Heinrich Burchard,
• William Oswald,
• Braunschweig,
• Denderah,
• Nassau.

The “Koninklijke Hollansche Lloyd” Dutch Navigation Company purchased the William Oswald and the Johan Heinrich Burchard on the 15th of June 1916. The other three ships were purchased by the “Holland-Amerika Lijn” Dutch Navigation Company on July 29, 1915, and August 7, 1915.

These ships, the purchase price of which was paid by the two Companies in question, were in course of construction at the time of the transaction. With reference to these ships, they were never at any time, properly speaking, German property and were never carried on the register of German ships. They were provided for the first time with Dutch clearances.

As a consequence, the ships in question are incontestably Dutch property, the more so in that at the time of the transaction there existed no prescription prohibiting the sale of German ships, in course of construction, or the purchase of German ships, by neutrals.

The Dutch Government has indicated the rights of the Dutch Companies to the German Government.

The Government of the Queen thought it advisable to bring the preceding to the knowledge of the Supreme Council. The Government entertains the hope that the Supreme Council will recognize the rights of the Dutch Companies, and that measures will [not?] be taken which would thwart the delivery of the ships in question to their legitimate owners.

By order of my Government, I have the honor to apply to your Excellency to act as intermediary in presenting this communication to the Supreme Council.

Please accept, etc.

[No signature on file copy]

Appendix H to HD–82

October 31, 1919.

A. S.
German Ships Ceded to Holland

Note From the Drafting Committee

The Drafting Committee is of the opinion that the letter from the Dutch Minister, dated October 28th,¹⁷ calls for the following response:

A ship of enemy origin cannot, during the war, escape the practice of the rights of belligerents, that is to say the liability of capture during hostilities, by sale or cession, nor upon the reestablishment of Peace, escape the Peace Conditions covering enemy ships.

The letter from the Dutch Minister contends that upon the dates when the purchase of these ships took place, there existed no prescription prohibiting the purchase of German ships by neutrals.

The Minister of the Netherlands appears to forget that by international law, the purchase of enemy ships in the course of war cannot in principle, be opposed to the belligerents.

Henri Fromageot

Appendix I to HD–82

Warsaw, October 4, 1919.

Copy

From: The Minister of France to Poland.

To: The Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Resumption of Commercial Traffic on Railroads Crossing the Germano-Polish Frontiers

I have the honor of addressing herewith to Your Excellency a copy of a note from the Allied Mission on Railroads proposing to ask the Polish Government for the opening to commercial traffic of the three railroads crossing the present Germano-Polish frontiers north of Warsaw:

• Bialystok–Lyck
• Warsaw–Mlawa–Danzig
• Lowicz–Thorn.

I would be thankful to Your Excellency to be kind enough to inform me if this proposition is agreeable. The Minister of the United States has already informed the representative of his country at the Peace Congress in Paris of the question and is expecting instructions directly.

I am of the opinion, in accord with my English and American colleagues, that in case of affirmative we could open negotiations with Poland by identical verbal notes.

It would also be advisable, evidently, to ask Marshal Foch to start similar negotiations at Berlin.

The Allied missions on railroads and supplies deem that it is now time to take measures to open the railroad lines between Poland and Germany (northern frontier) to traffic of travellers and merchandise. The three lines considered are: the direct line between Lowicz and Thorn; the line Warsaw–Mlawa–IUowo–Danzig; and the line Bialvstok–Lyck. The most important would seem to be the second. The only traffic existing at the present time for merchandise is that which is exploited by the Allied Commissions on Supplies, and the movement of travellers consists only in a bi-weekly courier that only persons accredited to the various missions are authorized to make use of.

The Missions on Railroads and Supplies think that it is of prime importance to begin the exploitation of this line at as early a date as possible, under reserve of maintaining the passports and authorizations to the necessary extent.

They would like to remark that as the lines are now exploited to the frontiers of Posnania, there are no good reasons to keep the frontiers of the north closed.

Therefore, the Mission proposes to the Ministers of France, the United States and Great Britain to ask the Polish Government if it has any objections, and if it has, at what date shall it decide to open the frontiers.

Moreover, as soon as the date shall have been fixed, these missions would propose to their respective Ministers that they inform the German Government requesting it at the same time to send a representative to Warsaw to come to an understanding on the measures of detail.

The operation of Frontier Commissions of Allied Officers and more especially at Mlawa and Illowo would not appear necessary.

Delalain

French Delegate to the Allied Mission on Railroads

Hammond

Brigadier General, Chief of the Allied Mission on Railroads in Poland

Joyce

Lieutenant: for the American Commission of Supplies

Credwson

Captain in the “Irish Guards”, Chief of the British Mission of Supplies

Appendix J to HD–82

[The European Danube Commission to the Supreme Council]

The European Danube Commission:

Whereas Article 349 of the Peace Treaty with Germany provides for the early meeting of an International Conference to establish the regime which is to apply to the Danube throughout its entire internationalized course; whereas it is indispensable that the European Danube Commission be represented in this Conference to indicate the interests it represents and to furnish the benefits of its experience in Danubian affairs;

Decides;

to request the Supreme Council of the Allies to kindly assure the representation of the European Danube Commission in the said Conference.

Appendix K to HD–82

Paris, October 24, 1919.

Copy

From: Minister Plenipotentiary, President of the European Danube Commission.

To: President Clemenceau.

The Peace Treaty with Germany provides, in Article 339, that Germany shall cede, within a maximum period of three months after she shall have received notification, a portion of the tugs and ships which will remain registered in the ports of the fluvial systems declared as international, after the deductions which will be operated as restitutions or reparations, to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned. The establishment of the number and of the distribution of these tugs and ships shall be determined by one or several arbitrators designated by the United States of America, with full consideration for the legitimate needs of the parties concerned. This cession is to be operated for considerations as stipulated in Article 339. Similar provisions figure in Article 300 of the Peace Treaty with Article [Austria], and in Article 328 of the Peace Conditions presented to Bulgaria on September 19, 1919.

The European Danube Commission, entrusted by the Treaties with the execution of important operations in the Lower Danube, is urgently in need of several high-powered tugs which it is unable to obtain through commercial channels without great delay, even if orders were immediately placed with naval shipyards; the present encumbrance existing in the maritime construction yards of the entire world would render the filling of orders impossible within a period of several years.

The European Danube Commission esteems, that in view of the public interests represented by it, an organization which represents four of the Allied and Associated Powers is entitled to the benefits of Article 339 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, as well as to analogous provisions in the Treaties concluded, or to be concluded, with the former allies of that Power. For this reason, during its recent plenary session, held in Paris a few days ago, the European Danube Commission, during a meeting held October 17, 1919 (in the morning) took the following decision:

“The French Delegate shall present a request to the Supreme Council of the Allies, for the attribution of two high-powered tugs, which are necessary in the services of the European Danube Commission, in compliance with the Conditions fixed by Article 339 of the Peace Treaty with Germany, 300 of the Peace Treaty with Austria, 228 of the Peace Conditions presented to Bulgaria on September 19, 1919, and of the analogous Article which shall be inserted in the Peace Treaty with Hungary; these ships to be selected from among the tugs ceded by Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria to the Allied and Associated Powers concerned, and to be attributed by the arbitrators who are to be designated by the United States of America, by virtue of the aforementioned Articles”.

In bringing the preceding decision to your attention, I have the honor to indicate to the Supreme Council the advantage there would be, considering the operations necessitated on the Lower Danube to facilitate navigation, to attribute the tugs in question to the European Danube Commission, for an indemnity to be fixed by the arbitrators.

The price of these tugs would be, moreover, deducted from the indemnities which are due the European Danube Commission by Germany, in compliance with Article 352 of the Peace Treaty with that Power.

Appendix L to HD–82

Paris, October 27, 1919.

Note Handed to Mr. Loucheur, by the President of the German Peace Delegation

On account of the threatening nature of the food situation in Germany, a contract has been concluded with Denmark for the delivery of 50,000 tons of potatoes.

It is absolutely necessary that these potatoes be transported before the commencement of the frosts.

It is impossible, however, to make the shipments in time without having recourse to German tonnage and to cross the Baltic sea. The transportation should be made by steamers and German lighters of about 500 to 750 tons.

For this reason petitions have already been addressed to the Allied and Associated Governments by Denmark on this subject.

1. Post, p. 920.
2. Appendix B to HD–68, p. 583.
3. Appendix A to HD–70, p. 649.
4. HD–76, minute 3, p. 765.
5. HD–70, minute 3, and appendix B thereto, pp. 641 and 650.
6. HD–69, minute 3, p. 603.
7. Appendix B to HD–68, p. 583.
8. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xix, p. 33.
9. Ibid., vol. liii, p. 28.
10. Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London of February 3, 1830; British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xvii, p. 202.
11. Filed separately under Paris Peace Conf. 186.1/38.
12. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. xix, p. 33.
13. Ibid., vol. liii, p. 19.
14. Ibid., vol. liv, p. 11.
15. Ibid., vol. xvii, p. 202.
16. Foreign Relations, 1878, p. 895.
16. Appendix A to HD–70, p. 649.
17. Supra.