[Sailor Steve]

Wednesday, October 22, 1919

PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

M Pichon’s Room, Quai d’Orsay, Paris, 10:30

Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers.


1. Sir Eyre Crowe says that he wishes to bring to the attention of the Council a telegram which has just been received, according to which a German aeroplane had made a forced landing in the neighborhood of Kovno. This aeroplane carried German civilian pilots and three passengers, one of whom was Russian and the other two Turkish; this aeroplane was travelling from Berlin to Moscow and was being held until further orders.


2. Sir Eyre Crowe wishes to bring to the notice of the Council the fact that the British Government, called upon by a number of Delegates, is making every effort to secure berths for Delegates who wanted to proceed to Washington in connection with the Labor Congress, but is not absolutely sure of securing same. He would make every effort for this purpose; perhaps the Council can give direct orders to the Allied Maritime Transport Executive.

Mr Polk says that he feels the same way, and has already cabled to Washington asking whether it would be possible to take care of these Delegates on transports which are sailing from Brest within the next few days; he doubts, however, whether this can be done, considering that every available berth has been taken. An answer is expected the following day.

M Pichon says that it would be wise to settle the question at the meeting of the Council to be held on the following day, and meanwhile to instruct the Allied Maritime Transport Executive in the way suggested by Sir Eyre Crowe.

Mr Polk fears that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive will reply that all available tonnage which it controls had been allotted to commerce.


3. S Tittoni wished to announce that Italy has appointed Count Bonin-Langare, Italian Ambassador in Paris, as its Delegate on the permanent Committee charged with the execution of the Treaty, and Professor Pagliano as second Delegate.

M Pichon says that France will be represented on the Committee by himself, and by M Berthelot as second Delegate.


4. The Council had before it a note from the Finance Commission dated October 15th, 1919, relative to a telegram from the French High Commissioner at Constantinople dated September 23rd, 1919, and a draft telegram to be sent by the Government of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople.

M Cheysson reads and comments upon the note from the Finance Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe stated that he has consulted the Legal Advisers of the British Delegation on the subject, and that the latter felt that two points had to be distinguished, liquidation and control. With regard to liquidation, the Legal Advisers approve of the proposals of the Finance Commission. With regard to control, they have remarked that two questions were to be considered, not only the Treaty with Germany about also the Armistice conditions with Turkey; the Armistice conditions prohibited the Turks from allowing Germans to resume their position in Turkey. He thinks the question had better be referred back to the Drafting Committee which would be able to furnish a report in short time.

S Tittoni thinks that the question should certainly be submitted to the Legal Advisers. The question was important: were the Armistice conditions with Turkey, or rather, as he thought, the provisions in the Treaty of Peace with Germany to govern the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey.

(It is decided to refer to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the note of October 15th, 1919 from the Finance Commission, relative to the situation of German and Austrian banks in Turkey, as well as the draft telegram to the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople prepared by this Commission.


5. The Council has before it a note from the Greek Delegation to the Peace Conference dated October 15th, 1919.

S Tittoni says that the Economic Commission is competent to examine this note. The Draft Treaty with Hungary contains, in Section 4, Part 10, clauses which are pertinent to the above case in the protest of the Greek Delegation.

(It is decided to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the protest of the Greek Delegation relative to the sequestration of property belonging to the Greek Orthodox Community of Budapest.


6. The Council has before it a telegram from the High Commissioner of the French Republic in the Near East, transmitting a telegram from the Grand Vizier to the Chargé d’Affaires of Turkey, at Vienna.

(After a short discussion it is decided to authorize the repatriation of the Turkish Embassy Staff at Vienna in accordance with the request made by the Grand Vizier to the French High Commissioner, also to authorize the transmission to the Turkish Chargé d’Affaires at Vienna of the telegram prepared by the Turkish Government.)


7. The Council has before it a note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, dated Paris, October 7th, 1919, requesting that authority be given by the Supreme Council to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to exploit the coal mines situated in the basin of Pecs (Petchoui) for a period of five years beginning with the coming into force of the Treaty.

Commandant Aron said that M Loucheur wishes to have this question postponed.

S Tittoni does not think that a postponement is necessary: the Reparation Commission had examined this question and was unanimous in proposing that the Serbian request be rejected.

Commandant Aron then said that the Reparation Commission had decided that the question was not one which came within its province.

Mr Polk wishes to ask whether this application had been referred to the Coal Commission.

Sir Eyre Crowe replies that he does not know. He considered the question a local one because the competent local Commission had already refused to accede to the Serbian request that the mine district of Pecs should be included within the frontiers of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. On account of this refusal, the Serbs had formulated their new demand.

S Tittoni says that if the mines of Pecs are taken away from Hungary, that country will have no coal at all. The Coal Commission is not competent, and in his opinion, it was only the Economic Commission which was qualified to deal with this question.

M Pichon remarks that M Loucheur wishes to be heard by this Commission.

(It is decided to refer to the Economic Commission for examination and report the note from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation dated October 7th, 1919, requesting for the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government the exclusive right of exploitation of the coal mines situated in the Petchoui (Pecs) Basin for a period of five years after the entrance into force of the Treaty of Peace.)


8. The Council has before it a revised draft of a note addressed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government dated October 20th, 1919, which has been prepared by the American delegation.

Mr Polk says that he had asked for certain modifications of form in the draft which the Council had examined at last Monday’s meeting; the text which he has prepared had been distributed to the various Delegations.

M Berthelot says that the Serbian delegation has refused to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria on account of the Minorities Treaty: This had not been done without hesitation on its part. The only reason that the Serbs gave for not signing immediately was that they are without a cabinet at the time. Now, however, after a long crisis, a cabinet had been formed. Mr. Trumbić had left Belgrade and he and Mr. Patehitch had instructions to sign. Under these circumstances it was a question whether the proposed step was a necessary one. In a conversation which he had had with Mr. Vesnitch, the latter had insisted upon his demand that if the Minorities Treaty be modified to give satisfaction to the Greeks or Romanians, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government should also benefit by these modifications.

Mr Polk says he has received a telegram from the United States Minister at Belgrade announcing the departure of Mr Trumbić who had received instructions to sign the Treaty: under these conditions it was perhaps not necessary to send a note.

M Pichon is of the same opinion.

S Tittoni inquires whether the Serbs mean to sign the Treaty only after it had been modified.

M Berthelot states that no modifications had been made to the Treaty since the Council had last heard Mr Vesnitch, at which meeting S Tittoni was present.

Sir Eyre Crowe thinks that the situation is not the same for the Treaty with Serbia as regards Minorities as for Treaties with Greece and Romania. The Principal Allied Powers had already signed the Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government.

M Berthelot says that the question had already been brought up in connection with Poland: Poland has asked that if on any important point a more favorable situation was granted to the Romanians, concerning the Jewish question for instance, the same advantages should be granted to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe remarked that it was important that no promise should be given.

M Berthelot says there is no question of giving a promise, for should it be given, such a promise would not amount to very much. The modifications requested by the Romanians, as a matter of fact, either concerned the very essence of the Treaty, and therefore could not be accepted, or questions such as the Jewish question did not concern the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government. Under these conditions the Serbs would have difficulty in availing themselves of the Treaty with Romania in order to ask for a more favorable regime. Should it be necessary to introduce certain modifications in the Serbian Treaty, the fact that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have already signed will not be an obstacle thereto.

M Pichon said that for the moment it was only a question of finding out whether we could tell the Serbs that if the other Treaties concerning Minorities were modified, they should benefit by the same modifications. As far as he was concerned he thought it advisable to ask the Serbs to sign purely and simply. Mr Trumbic had left Belgrade with instructions to sign the Treaty of Peace with Austria, therefore, it would be better to await his arrival.

Sir Eyre Crowe is of the same opinion.

(It is decided to adjourn until a further meeting of the Council the sending of a note inviting the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to sign the Treaty with Austria and the Minorities Treaty.


9. The Council has before it a note from the German Delegation dated Paris, October 17th, 1919.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that a certain latitude has always been given to the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces in the Baltic, and the Council had always avoided giving a decision on the measures taken by him. We are bound to recognize the decisions by virtue of which the German shipping in the Baltic had been stopped. Perhaps these decisions have been executed too strictly; in fact, he is informed that their execution sometimes entails unnecessary inconvenience not only for the Germans but also for Neutrals, and for this reason sailings of German ships which are carrying food-stuffs from Denmark to the plebiscite zone of Schleswig had been held up. It was therefore necessary to direct the Naval Commanders to act with great discretion and to carry out their measures in such a way as not to affect without good cause navigation in the Baltic; we should instruct the Admirals to interfere as little as possible with traffic between neutral ports, and even, in certain cases, to authorize traffic between German ports.

S Tittoni remarks that it was the intention of the Council to prevent in an effective way commerce with ports of Bolshevik Russia: Its object is not to interfere with traffic in the Baltic.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that it is not only a question of the blockade of Russia; he also had in mind the situation brought about by the action of the Germans in Courland. The Naval experts should be requested to prepare the draft of an answer to the German note.

Mr Polk asks that the draft of this answer be submitted to the Council.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Allied Naval Armistice Commission should be asked to execute the measures prescribed by it with regard to the situation in the Baltic Provinces in such a way as to take into account the legitimate interests of neutral commerce and certain urgent needs with respect to supplies for German ports;

(2) That the Naval Experts should present to the Council as soon as possible a draft answer to the German note of October 17th, 1919.


10. The Council had before it a note from the Romanian Delegation dated October 18th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of material, which were functioning in Germany in the interests of France and Belgium in execution of the Armistice Clauses.

M Berthelot says that it is difficult to accept the Romanian demand. As a matter of fact the right which the Romanian Delegation is demanding had been recognized by the Armistice in favor of France and Belgium alone; on the other hand, the Romanians had not hesitated to go ahead and recover alone material in Hungary. It is therefore difficult to grant them this favor. He therefore proposes that this note should be referred back to the Reparation Commission with a request that it should examine and advise in what measure it is possible to grant it.

S Tittoni does not think that this was a question of application of the Treaty. The Armistice only stipulated a recovery of material taken away by German troops in favor of France and Belgium. Once the Treaty comes into force, the situation will be different, and recovery of this kind will be made in favor of all the Allies. He thinks, however, that the Reparation Commission is best qualified to examine the Romanian request.

(It was decided to refer to the Committee on the Organization of the Reparation Commission for examination and report the note of the Roumanian Delegation dated October 19th, 1919, requesting representation on the Commissions charged with the recovery of stolen material which are operating in Germany under the clauses of the Armistice.


11. M Pichon says that Mr. Henry Simon asked whether the Council would adjourn the examination of this question.

Mr Polk says that he has only received instructions to submit the document in question to the Council but that he had not been asked to press with any special force its conclusions: the opinion of the Council was only asked for.

(The examination of this question is therefore adjourned.)

(The meeting then adjourns.)