[Sailor Steve]

Friday, September 26, 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. M Tardieu reads the following memorandum of the Secretariat-General with regard to the action taken on the resolution of the Supreme Council of September 23rd:

“The resolution of the Supreme Council dated September 23rd in regard to the German oil steamers was transmitted on the 23rd to the Supreme Economic Council by the Secretariat-General.

The Supreme Economic Council forwarded the resolution on the morning of September 24th to its permanent Committee in London.

The latter body immediately brought the matter to the attention of the Allied Naval Armistice Commission which functions likewise in London. This body gave the necessary orders at once to suspend the departure of the ships in question.”

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he has received a telegram from Lord Curzon dated September 25th He points out that the important portion of this telegram was that the Allied Maritime Transport Executive believes that the question of the disposition of the ships was one for the Supreme Council. The A M T E had recommended that the tank steamers be allocated to Allied management along with other vessels to which claim had been put forward under the terms of the Armistice. The first voyage, however, would be for the transport of oil to Germany. He adds that in the event that the steamers had already left for the Firth of Forth they would be diverted and allowed to proceed to the United States for their cargo of oil.

Mr Polk says that he is happy to hear of the measures which have been taken.

M Tardieu says that he will at once communicate Lord Curzon’s telegram to the French members of the Supreme Economic Council.


2. The Council has before it the proposed Treaty with New States prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses, together with the report of that Commission accompanying the Treaty.

M Laroche in commenting upon the Treaty and the report, says that the Commission is unanimous in the text of the clauses of the Treaty. It has not been unanimous on the question of what Powers should be parties to, and signatories of, the Treaty. The majority of the Commission had thought that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the document, but the United States had formulated an objection to its participation in the signature. The United States Delegation feels that the matters embraced in the proposed Treaty are not broad questions resulting from the breaking up of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and therefore of direct concern to all the Allied and Associated Powers, but are rather questions of local interest concerning only the new States and the States possessing ceded territory. If the Treaty comes into force it would impose a specific legal obligation only on the directly interested Powers. The United States feels therefore that it is neither desirable nor advisable that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should be signatories to the Treaty, although representatives of these Powers, in participating in the framing of the proposed articles, might be able to assist in facilitating the negotiations among the Powers directly interested.

As opposed to this point of view, the majority of the Commission feels that it will be necessary for all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, for otherwise the Treaty would be deprived of its authority in the eyes of the New States. Although the Commission feels that the interests of the New States have been carefully safeguarded by the Treaty and that the clauses are for the common good of all, the latter might distrust a Treaty which does not carry the signatures of all the Allied and Associated Powers. Should the United States refuse to sign, the important point arises as to what steps the other Principal Allied and Associated Powers should take. It is possible for the Four Principal Allied and Associated Powers to sign, even though the United States does not do so. The second method of procedure would be to make a united presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the New States and jointly recommend that the same be signed by them.

Mr Polk says that this is a matter which Secretary Lansing had had before him prior to his departure for the United States. Mr Lansing had felt that the Treaty was one between friendly Powers and involved no enemy states. He had taken the position that it was not necessary for the American signature to appear, as he felt that it was difficult to justify the interests which United States might have in signing.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that, following out the reasons advanced by M Laroche, he believes that all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign the Treaty. The British Empire has no immediate interests in the matter but he believes that it should be a signatory power. He thinks that, even in the absence of a United States signature, all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. A joint action of this kind would give the smaller States the impression that all the large Powers were interested in the matter, because the Treaty forms a portion of the liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. He is willing, however, to be guided by the wishes of the majority of his colleagues.

S Scialoja says that he believes a refusal of the United States to sign the Treaty is a pure matter of internal interest. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers have taken part in Treaties in which they had no direct interest, as for example, in the case of Spitzbergen. He points out that the United States has been represented on the Commission on Political Clauses, has taken an active part in the framing of the Treaty, and presumably had therefore felt that matters of general interest were being settled. He is unable to urge Mr Polk to sign the Treaty against the wishes of his Government. He would like to ask Mr Polk, however, whether he would agree to a joint presentation of the Treaty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the small States urging the latter to sign the same. In this way the Treaty would be given moral force.

Mr Polk says that he has no objection to this method of procedure.

Mr Matsui says that the Japanese Empire has no particular interest involved, but as the Treaty concerned the general liquidation of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy all the Principal Allied and Associated Powers should sign. In view of the United States’ objection, and by taking advantage of the period of twenty days proposed between the presentation of the Treaty and the signature, he would obtain the instructions of his Government in the matter. He would recommend that the Japanese Empire be a signatory party. Should S Scialoja’s proposition be accepted, however, he would have no difficulty in joining on behalf of Japan in the common presentation by the five Principal Powers.

M Laroche says that he gathers from the discussion that the Council agrees to approve the text of the Treaty and that the Treaty itself should be presented to the new States by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly with a recommendation that it be signed by the former. Furthermore a period of twenty days is to be accorded the New States between the time of presentation and the signature of the Treaty. He adds that it is extremely necessary to decide upon a fixed period in order to prevent the matter being drawn out and any of the New States taking advantage of this to avoid signing.

M Tardieu says that as it is better for all the great Powers to take the same attitude on the question, he proposes that M Laroche’s solution of the matter be adopted.

(It is decided:

(1) That the text of the proposed Treaty with the New States (Clauses Relating to Reciprocal Relations in Transferred Territories) prepared by the Commission on Political Clauses should be accepted.

(2) That the proposed Treaty should be presented to the Delegations of the interested states by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers jointly. The latter should impress upon the Delegations of the New States the necessity for the signature of the Treaty in question, and should request them to obtain the consent of their Governments as soon as possible, but in any case within a period of twenty days, at the expiration of which the Treaty should be signed in Paris by the plenipotentiaries of the interested States.)


(At this point M Tardieu leaves the room and M Cambon takes the chair.)

3. Repatriation of Czecho-Slovak Troops in Siberia


4. Distribution of Allied Troops in the Plebiscite Areas.


5. Report of the Commission on Baltic Affairs on the Occupation of Memel

(The above questions are all adjourned.)


6. The Council had=s before it a note from Marshal Foch, dated August 21st, 1919.

Mr Polk says that there is no objection to the proposals contained in this note from the point of view of the United States.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the British representatives agrees with Marshal Foch’s proposals.

S Scialoja said he has no objections to formulate.

Mr Matsui says that he is not entirely familiar with the question.

General Weygand comments and explained briefly the note in question.

Mr Matsui says that he has no objections to present.

(It is agreed that:

The Conference of Military Experts of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers provided tor by Article 163 of the Peace Treaty to determine the reduction of effectives to be imposed on Germany for each period of 3 months following the coming into force of the Treaty, should be composed of the presidents and of the most important members of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control constituted in conformity with articles 203–210, and chosen in such a way that all the Allied and Associated Powers be represented in the said Conferences.

The President of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control should be charged with deciding the composition of this Conference and the dates of its sessions in agreement with the precedents of the Naval and Aerial Commissions.)


7. Communication to German Government Relative to the Evacuation of the Baltic Provinces:

(This question is adjourned.)


8. The Council has before it a note from the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses, asking that the German Government be requested to notify the Allied and Associated Powers of the Government property in German territory to be ceded to Poland.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he is prepared to accept the proposals contained in the note.

Mr Polk says that he is likewise prepared to accept the same, but wishes to reserve his final decision until he has consulted the United States expert in the matter. (Mr Polk later notified the Secretariat-General that he has no objections to formulate.)

(It is decided to accept the proposals in the note of the Commission on Execution of the Treaty Clauses.

It is further decided to request the German Government to furnish the Allied and Associated Powers all information relative to all Government property, which is required to be turned over to Poland within the territory to be ceded to the latter, under the terms of the Treaty with Germany.)


9. The Council had before it two notes of The German Delegation dated respectively August 1st and August 5th, together with a proposed reply thereto submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty.

Mr Polk says that he has a slight change to propose in the text of the reply. In the 3rd paragraph (English text) the expression, “with the sole reservation that the League of Nations might later order the return to Germany of the whole or part of these territories,” appears. He believes that the use of the word “might” in this connection is not strictly in accordance with Article 34 of the Peace Treaty and the covering letter sent to the German Delegation on June 16th, 1919. As the text now stands the proposed reply stated in substance that the League of Nations might disregard the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants of Eupen and Malmedy, whereas the covering letter referred to had said that, in the cases of the territories which it was proposed to transfer from Germany to Denmark and Belgium, this transfer would only take place as the result of a decision of the inhabitants themselves taken under conditions which would insure complete freedom of vote.

He proposes that the word “might” should be changed to read “will”.

M Laroche says that Article 34 of the Treaty with Germany does not impose a fixed obligation upon the League of Nations to return the territory in question to Germany, should the majority of the population express its wish in that direction. He thinks that a moral obligation is imposed upon the League of Nations but not an absolute one. The text of the reply as it stands seems to him to clearly express the obligation created by the article in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that he agreed with M Laroche’s interpretation of the matter.

M Laroche adds that the change proposed by Mr Polk might result in adding something to the Treaty which is not included therein.

(After some further discussion on the matter Mr Polk withdraws his proposal for the change in question, and it is decided that the reply to the German notes on Malmedy and Eupen, as submitted by the Committee on the Execution of the Clauses of the German Treaty, be accepted.)


10. The Council had before it a letter from the British Delegation dated August 26th.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the matter in question is of small importance but that he wishes to obtain the decision of the Council before taking any action thereon. It had been originally agreed that the final text Germany German Treaty should alone be made public, and that the preliminary conditions of peace as handed to the Germans should be kept secret. However, the different notes which had been exchanged between the German Delegation and the Allies had appeared in the newspapers of several countries. Some of the passages in these notes are rendered unintelligible by the fact that they refer to clauses which had been proposed for the Treaty and later modified or withdrawn. These clauses had not been made public coincidentally with the notes. The British Government wishes to publish the clauses referred to in the notes as Annexes to the latter, but before so doing is anxious to obtain the approval of the Supreme Council.

M Cambon asks whether it is desired to publish all the clauses which had been omitted from the final Treaty or only those to which reference had been made in the notes in question.

Sir Eyre Crowe says that only those referred to in the notes are contemplated.

Mr Polk asks whether the Treaty as originally presented to the German Delegation had not been published in the Allied countries, as it had been made public in Germany.

Sir Eyre Crowe answers that it has not been possible to publish it in the British Empire because by so doing the Houses of Parliament would have been entitled to have the Treaty before them and to discuss the same even before it was known whether or not Germany would accept it. The mere fact that the preliminary Treaty had appeared in Germany does render its presentation to the British Parliament necessary.

M Cambon asks that the decisions might be adjourned until he has had an opportunity to consult M Clemenceau.

S Scialoja points out that this is a mere question of form in view of the fact that publication had actually been made in many countries.

M Cambon says that there is a difference between official and unofficial publication.

(It is decided to adjourn the decision of this question until the following day.)

(The Meeting then adjourns.)