distribution of shipping which belonged to the erstwhile Austro-Hungarian Empire, between Italy and the Serbo-Croat-Slovene State; (2) that the Reparations Commission be informed that it is the desire of the Supreme Council that the Jugo-Slav 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 had been instructed to hear its representatives. 5. (The Council had before it a note from the Drafting Committee dated November 7th, 1919 (See Appendix "D").) Removal of Ger man Materiel From Dantzig M. FROMAGEOT read and commented upon the note of the Drafting Committee. M. CLEMENCEAU wished to ask who would make the distinction between German Government property and private property. M. FROMAGEOT answered that this distinction should not be very difficult to make. MR. POLK inquired whether they could not await the arrival of the German Delegates to solve this question? M. CLEMENCEAU asked whether they would have the necessary powers. MR. POLK said it was a violation of the Treaty: he thought that it would be saving time to follow his suggestion rather than send a new note. SIR EYRE CROWE said they were confronted by a difficulty of form. They had 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 said that the first thing to do was to verify on the spot to whom belonged the materiel which had been removed. MR. POLK said that there were at Dantzig representatives of the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland. M. CLEMENCEAU said it was for them to give the necessary information. It was decided: (1) that the Inter-Allied Railway Mission in Poland be requested to advise immediately whether materiel removed by the Germans from Dantzig 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 Dantzig, which belonged to the Reich, to the German States, or had been requisitioned by them. 6. (The Council had before it a note from the Secretary-General of the Conference dated November 8, 1919 (See Appendix "E").) After a short discussion, Commission the Peace Treaty It was 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 which was charged with the organization of mixed tribunals set up under Article 229 of the Treaty of Peace with Germany. (See Appendix “E”). 7. (The Council had before it a note from the Commission on Polish Affairs dated November 10th, 1919 (See Appendix "F") and a letter from the Secretary General of the Polish Delegation dated November 9th, 1919 (See Appendix "G").) Status of Eastern M. CAMBON said that before commenting upon the report of the Commission he wished to call the attention of the Council to the letter from the Secretary-General of the Polish Delegation. The American, Italian and Japanese Delegations were of the opinion that the request addressed to the Council should be granted. The British and French Delegations, on the other hand, thought that it was time to solve this irritating question. M. BERTHELOT said that M. Paderewski had already explained to the Council the Polish point of view. They did not see the use of hearing another Polish representative. M. DE MARTINO said if it only meant 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 would discuss them before the Council. Or would the conclusions be kept secret? M. CAMBON said that they were not to be transmitted, but as usual there would be some leakage. SIR EYRE CROWE stated 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 did 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 thought 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 read and commented upon the report of the Commission. He said that no disagreement existed between the members of the Commission except in regard to Article 16 which concerned 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, i. e. the British Delegation, wished to have the question of Eastern Galicia's representation in the Polish Diet discussed between Galicians and Poles. The majority was afraid that such a procedure would result in endless and violent conflict between Poland and Galicia. SIR EYRE CROWE stated with satisfaction that the majority had made an effort to meet the minority half way. On his side the minority felt 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 had 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. 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 accepted, however, in a spirit of conciliation, the proposed arrangement. Lastly, with regard to article 16, he wished to say that the British Government was in no way opposed to a representation of Galicia at Warsaw. He only thought that the problem was 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 could not 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." M. DE MARTINO accepted the British Amendment. M. CLEMENCEAU stated that all the Delegations accepted the same. M. CAMBON said that the changes which the Council had approved might necessitate some alteration of the articles originally adopted. He asked 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 said they were 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 was 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 (See Appendix "F"); (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 had before it a list prepared by the French Delegation of the questions still to be decided by the Supreme Council. (See Appendix "H").) Questions Still To Be Decided by the Council MR. POLK thought that the Russian and Baltic questions could not 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 said that the question of Bessarabia should, however, come before the Council. MR. POLK said the American Delegation was of the opinion that the Bessarabian question could not be settled at that time. SIR EYRE CROWE stated they were clearly of the opinion that Bessarabia should go to Roumania. MR. POLK said he was willing to discuss the question, but that this was not the time to make this cession. M. BERTHELOT said 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 said that the Committee of Ambassadors might deal with the settlement of these three questions: they were questions of execution of the Treaty. It was understood that the Delegations would send in to the Secretariat-General the additional lists which they had been asked to prepare. MR. POLK asked whether the Dutch-Belgian Treaty would be ready in time for examination by the Council. M. BERTHELOT thought so. An agreement seemed imminent. MR. POLK asked whether the distribution of merchant ships was to be settled by the Supreme Council or the Reparation Commission. M. CLEMENCEAU stated that the Council would discuss it and refer it back to the Reparation Commission if it were deemed necessary. 9. (The Council had before it a note from the British Delegation (See Appendix “I”).) Allowances to SIR EYRE CROWE said 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 thought that the proposals made by the British Delegation offered certain difficulties. It did 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 did not all take place at the same date. On the other hand, the date when the Treaty would be put into force was perhaps too late. It would be better to say that the allowances would 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 was 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 adjourned) HOTEL DE CRILLON, PARIS, November 11, 1919. 6 HD-64, minute 8, vol. VI, p. 464. |