[Sailor Steve]

Tuesday, November 11, 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 Berthelot says that the members of the Council have received the draft reply to Mr Venizelos which he had been asked to prepare. He calls the attention of the Council to the fact that two questions on the subject of Smyrna had not been discussed the day before: Mr Venizelos, on one hand, complained of the conditions which had governed the censorship, and expressed his intention of establishing a Greek censorship at Smyrna; on the other hand, the Inter-Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople had sent them on November 3rd a note in which they criticized the attitude of the Greek High Commissioner at Smyrna; the latter tended more and more to substitute his action as well to that of the High Commissioners as to that of the Turkish officials. In the draft reply which he had prepared he had taken those two points into consideration.

Sir Eyre Crowe is of opinion that the question should be examined at the next meeting, but he wishes to state immediately that he does not entirely agree with M Berthelot: Is it possible for the Allies to supervise the Greek authorities at Smyrna from Constantinople? Besides, perhaps the draft letter points out too clearly to Venizelos that he is wrong.

M Clemenceau agrees to adjourn the examination of the draft prepared by M Berthelot.

(The examination of the draft reply to Mr Venizelos is adjourned.)


2. Mr Polk wishes to read a telegram addressed to the Supreme Council by the Secretary of Labor of the United States in his capacity as President of the International Labor Conference. He explains that the American Delegation will not assume the responsibility for the terms of this communication. On the other hand, from the information he had received from Baron von Lersner, most of the German delegates have reserved berths which were leaving between November 15th and 20th. He would know the next day whether all the delegates had been able to secure berths.

M Clemenceau does not see what they can do for the time being.


3. The Council has before it a letter from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation and a report from the New States Commission, dated November 8th, 1919.

M Kammerer reads and comments upon the report of the Commission, and upon the draft letter to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation appended to said report. He wishes to call the attention of the Council to the fact that the Commission had been unanimous in thinking that it was satisfactory to send to the Serb Delegation a reply which would interpret the Treaty. The only disagreement was on one point. The drafting of Article II in the Serbian Treaty was different from the corresponding article in the other Minorities Treaty. Following S Tittoni’s suggestion, the Supreme Council had indeed decided on September 1st to replace in the article in question, for the Serbian Treaty, the words “proceder de telle manière” by the words “prendre telles mesures.” On the other hand, the corresponding English text was the same in all the Treaties, viz: “take such action.” The majority was of the opinion that this difference in the drafting of the French text did not alter the sense and that nothing opposed itself to their informing the Serbs thereof. On the contrary, the Italian Delegation was of the opinion that it would be wiser to abide, without further explanation, with the decision of the Supreme Council. On the whole, they believed that their reply was of such a nature as to satisfy the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, except with regard to the Macedonian question. However, one difficulty still remained: it is likely that the Serbian Delegation might feel it hard to accept the decision of the Council which asks that it should recognize the right of option under the conditions provided in Article 4, for persons of Turkish nationality. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation will perhaps put forward objections on this point.

Sir Eyre Crowe asks whether there are any reasons to believe that the Serbs would make difficulties on this point.

M Kammerer says that in a private conversation, at a time when the question of a special clause on the subject had come up in the Minorities Treaty, Mr Trumbic had expressed some doubt. He thought that the Belgrade government would find it easier to make a simple declaration.

Mr Polk says he approves the report of the Commission; but asks whether it would not be easier to obtain the assent of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation if they were to give Mr Trumbic the satisfaction of being heard by the Council? This would facilitate his task in his own country, for it could not then be said that the Conference had refused to hear the Serb Delegation.

M Kammerer says that from the very beginning the New States Commission had decided to hear no one.

Mr Polk remarks that one of the grievances of the Romanians, which was unjustified, was that they had not been heard by the Council. He did not wish to insist, but they might give them such satisfaction if they were heard; this might be the best way of obtaining their signature.

M Clemenceau asks whether this might not be the source of further delays.

Mr Polk asks whether the Commission felt sure that the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation would be content purely and simply with the letter which was going to be sent.

M Kammerer answers that except with regard to Article 4, they have every reason to think the Serbs will sign. It might perhaps be wise to send them immediately the letter which the Commission had prepared: If they have any objections to make, the Council might hear them.

M Clemenceau asks whether the Italian Delegation maintains its reservations regarding Article 11.

S de Martino states that they did not insist for the sake of conciliation, but it was understood that the two expressions were of the same value; one could not conceive an intervention of the League of Nations if the League could not take such measures as might be opportune.

(It is decided:

(1) To approve the report presented by the New States Commission with regard to the observations of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the Minorities Treaty;

(2) That the President of the Conference should send to that Delegation the draft reply as prepared by the New States Commission.


4. M Clemenceau says that the question should be adjourned as the Reparations Commission is not ready to discuss it.

Mr Polk asks whether they could not inform the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation that the Separations Commission had instructions to hear its representatives. The Reparations Commission might be further informed that the Supreme Council desired that the request of the Yugoslavs be considered with the utmost care with a view of meeting the situation as far as compatible with the Treaty and the declarations of May last in the Council of Four.

Sir Eyre Crowe has no objections to make.

M Clemenceau does not have any either. He asks whether the Italian Delegation has any to offer.

S de Martino answers that he has none, if it is understood that the hearing of the Yugoslav Delegates by the Reparations Commission does not affect in any way or prejudice the decisions of this Commission.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Reparations Commission should be requested to hear a representative of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the distribution of shipping which belongs to the erstwhile Austro-Hungarian Empire, between Italy and the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State;

(2) That the Separations Commission be informed that it is the desire of the Supreme Council that the Yugoslav request be considered with the utmost care with a view to meeting the situation as far as compatible with the clauses of the Treaty and the declarations of May last in the Council of Four, it being understood that the Reparations Commission be given power of appreciation and decision;

(3) That the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation be informed that the Reparations Commission has been instructed to hear its representatives.


5. The Council has before it a note from the Drafting Committee dated November 7th, 1919.

M Fromageot reads and comments upon the note of the Drafting Committee.

M Clemenceau wishes to ask who would make the distinction between German Government property and private property.

M Fromageot answers that this distinction should not be very difficult to make.

Mr Polk inquires whether they could not await the arrival of the German Delegates to solve this question?

M Clemenceau asks whether they will have the necessary powers.

Mr Polk says it is a violation of the Treaty: He thinks that it would be saving time to follow his suggestion rather than send a new note.

Sir Eyre Crowe says they are confronted by a difficulty of form. They have before them a question which had been brought up only by an American report which stated, besides, that the Germans had ceased to remove, at least partly, the materiel in question. They did not know whether the materiel which was being removed did or did not belong to the state. Perhaps it would be sufficient to warn the German Government that they would not permit the removal of government-owned materiel.

M Fromageot says that the first thing to do is to verify on the spot to whom belonged the materiel which had been removed.

Mr Polk says that there were at Danzig representatives of the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland.

M Clemenceau said it is for them to give the necessary information.

(It is decided:

(1) That the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland be requested to advise immediately whether materiel removed by the Germans from Danzig is State or private property;

(2) That the Drafting Committee prepare a draft note warning the German Government that the Allied and Associated Powers will not allow removal or sale by German authorities of naval materiel at Danzig, which belonged to the Reich, to the German States, or had been requisitioned by them.


6. The Council has before it a note from the Secretary-General of the Conference dated November 8, 1919.

(After a short discussion,

It is decided that the Allied and Associated Powers, having drawn up a list of individuals charged with crimes to be delivered by the German Government, should have a representative on the Commission whose appointment had been decided on November 7th, and who is charged with the organization of mixed tribunals set up under Article 229 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.


7. The Council has before it a note from the Commission on Polish Affairs dated November 10th, 1919 and a letter from the Secretary General of the Polish Delegation status of Eastern dated November 9th, 1919.

M Cambon said that before commenting upon the report of the Commission he wishes to call the attention of the Council to the letter from the Secretary-General of the Polish Delegation. The American, Italian and Japanese Delegations are of the opinion that the request addressed to the Council should be granted. The British and French Delegations, on the other hand, think that it is time to solve this irritating question.

M Berthelot says that Mr Paderewski had already explained to the Council the Polish point of view. They do not see the use of hearing another Polish representative.

S de Martino says if it only means a few days delay it might be courteous to grant it.

Sir Eyre Crowe asked whether Mr Patek would be informed of the new conclusions arrived at by the Commission. In that case he will discuss them before the Council. Or will the conclusions be kept secret?

M Cambon said that they are not to be transmitted, but as usual there will be some leakage.

Sir Eyre Crowe states that if at each step they were to hear the Poles, they would never finish. They had come with great difficulty to an agreement. It would be imprudent to reopen the compromise which had been arrived at. However, he himself does not wish to oppose the granting of a short delay of three days for instance. In that case it should be taken into account that Mr Patek would make objections and that he would ask for time to receive instructions from Warsaw.

(The American, Italian and Japanese Delegates stated that they did not insist.)

Mr Polk thinks they might discuss the report and take a decision, with the reservation that they would give Mr Patek a further hearing.

M Clemenceau agreed.

M Cambon reads and commented upon the report of the Commission. He says that no disagreement exists between the members of the Commission except in regard to Article 16 which concerns the representation of Eastern Galicia in the Polish Diet. While the text of the majority provided for a representation of Eastern Galicia in the Diet and defined the attributions of its representatives, the minority on the other hand (the British Delegation), wishes to have the question of Eastern Galicia’s representation in the Polish Diet discussed between Galicians and Poles. The majority is afraid that such a procedure will result in endless and violent conflict between Poland and Galicia.

Sir Eyre Crowe states with satisfaction that the majority has made an effort to meet the minority half way. On his side the minority feels obliged to make some concessions. Three points would have to be discussed:

(1) With regard to the duration of the Mandate which the League of Nations would give to Poland in Eastern Galicia, he has received instructions from Mr Lloyd George to see that the duration of this Mandate should be limited to 10 years. He himself (Sir Eyre Crowe) proposed 15 years, the Commission had proposed 30 years, and finally 25 years had been agreed upon. He would be prepared to take the responsibility to accept this figure. If they did not agree on this point the American Delegation would come back to its former proposition and the question would be reopened.

(2) With regard to the Military service, he had already had occasion to express the reluctance of his Government to accept the principle of conscription in the territories placed under the control of the League of Nations. He accepts, however, in a spirit of conciliation, the proposed arrangement.

(3) Lastly, with regard to article 16, he wishes to say that the British Government is in no way opposed to a representation of Galicia at Warsaw. He only thinks that the problem is of so complex a nature that it would be better to let the interested parties solve it themselves. He undoubtedly could accept the text proposed by the majority, but they should take into account the case where Poles and Galicians would agree upon another system; would they be bound by article 16, as proposed by the majority? The British Delegation cannot accept the majority’s text except with the following addition, “this arrangement shall be subject to revision by common agreement between the Polish Government and the Ministry of Eastern Galicia.”

S de Martino accepts the British Amendment.

M Clemenceau states that all the Delegations accept the same.

M Cambon says that the changes which the Council has approved might necessitate some alteration of the articles originally adopted. He asks that the Council give the Commission on Polish Affairs the mandate to effect in accord with the Drafting Committee such changes of texts which would appear necessary.

Mr Polk says they are agreed not to publish anything concerning the decisions that had just been taken until the text of the Treaty had been definitely agreed upon.

(It is decided:

(1) To approve the report prepared by the Commission on Polish Affairs or its majority, with regard to the text of the preamble and Articles 2 and 38;

(2) That Article 16, as proposed by the majority, be adopted with the following addition, “This arrangement shall be considered as subject to revision by common agreement between the Polish Government and the Ministry of Eastern Galicia.

(3) That the Commission on Polish Affairs in agreement with the Drafting Committee should modify the articles concerning the status of Eastern Galicia, which had already been adopted, so as to conform with the two preceding decisions;

(4) That said decisions should not be final until a representative of the Polish Delegation had been heard by the Council;

(5) That the decisions of the Council with regard to the status of Eastern Galicia should remain secret until further order.)


8. The Council has before it a list prepared by the French Delegation of the questions still to be decided by the Supreme Council.

Mr Polk thinks that the Russian and Baltic questions cannot be settled by the Council. Would it not be better to agree now that they should be dealt with by the respective Foreign Offices?

Sir Eyre Crowe says that the question of Bessarabia should, however, come before the Council.

Mr Polk says the American Delegation is of the opinion that the Bessarabian question could not be settled at that time.

Sir Eyre Crowe states they are clearly of the opinion that Bessarabia should go to Romania.

Mr Polk says he is willing to discuss the question, but that this is not the time to make this cession.

M Berthelot says that the question of the Aaland Islands had already been put before the Council and that it had been decided to adjourn the settlement of same until it knew what attitude Sweden would take in regard to the blockade of Russia. In the same way, the problem of repatriation of Allied contingents and of enemy prisoners from Siberia, belonged to the Council.

M Clemenceau says that the Committee of Ambassadors might deal with the settlement of these three questions: They are questions of execution of the Treaty. It is understood that the Delegations will send in to the Secretariat-General the additional lists which they had been asked to prepare.

Mr Polk asks whether the Dutch-Belgian Treaty will be ready in time for examination by the Council.

M Berthelot thinks so. An agreement seems imminent.

Mr Polk asks whether the distribution of merchant ships is to be settled by the Supreme Council or the Reparation Commission.

M Clemenceau states that the Council will discuss it and refer it back to the Reparation Commission if it is deemed necessary.


9. The Council has before it a note from the British Delegation.

Sir Eyre Crowe says the question had been put by the British Treasury, who wished to know from what date the allowances of members of the Boundary Commissions would be drawn.

M Berthelot thinks that the proposals made by the British Delegation offered certain difficulties. It does not seem just to begin the payment of allowances on the day when the nomination was notified to the Secretary-General of the Conference, for these notifications do not all take place at the same date. On the other hand, the date when the Treaty would be put into force is perhaps too late. It would be better to say that the allowances will become due from the constitution of the Commissions, leaving it to the Subcommittee of the Commission on the Execution of the Treaty to determine the application of that decision.

(It is decided:

(1) That the allowances laid down in the “Instructions regarding Boundary Commissions,” should begin to be payable to members of such Commissions, and be recoverable from the interested States, from the date of constitution of each Boundary Commission;

(2) That the Subcommittee of the Commission on the Execution of the Treaty settle all details with regard to the application of this decision.)

(The meeting then adjourns)