Poland in the introduction of the letter of June 24, 1919,11 addressed by M. Clemenceau, in the name of the Conference, to M. Paderewski.

3) We demand that all territories of the Kingdom of Serbia, as constituted at the outbreak of the war, shall be excluded from the operation of the Minorities Convention.

We are obliged to return to this demand with insistence. Serbia enjoyed full sovereignty without any restriction when she entered this war. No power raised any objection against the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913,12 by which she acquired new territories, not even AustriaHungary, who had at first tried to do so. The Treaty of Bucharest has been considered as res inter alios acta. The obligation imposed by the minorities regime upon the territories of the Kingdom of Serbia could not be justified even by the fact that the Convention formally frees Serbia from the obligations which resulted for her from the Treaty of Berlin. These obligations, which were loyally observed by Serbia, have indeed already lost their raison d'être.

The objection that no distinction can be drawn between territories belonging to one and the same State is not justified, as this distinction entails no difficulty in the application of the Convention. Moreover, exceptions have been admitted under the actual Treaty, which recognizes that the provisions of Art. 9 should be applicable only to territories transferred to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes since January 1st, 1913. A second exception has been adopted in the Treaty with Poland.13 Indeed, Art. 9 of her convention stipulates that the rights accorded to minorities shall be applicable only to Polish subjects of German speech living in parts of Poland which prior to August 1st 1914 were German territory, to the exclusion of the rest of Poland's territories.

4) We request that in the French text the words "pourra prendre telles mesures" shall be replaced by the words "pourra procéder de telle façon" and that in the Italian text the words "possa prendere quei provvedimenti" shall be replaced by the words "possa procedere in tal maniera".

In none of the other Minorities Conventions nor yet in the original wording of the Convention with our State do the words "prendre Telles mesures" occur, but their place is taken by "procéder de telle façon"; which leads us to believe that this distinction is fortuitous, all the more as the English text is identical in all the Conventions. Special importance attaches to the French text in view of the fact that in case of divergence that is the one which will be appealed to.

British and Foreign State Papers, vol. сví, p. 658.

13 Treaties, Conventions, etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1910-1923 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1923), vol. I, p. 3714.

Fundamentally there can be no doubt but that the obligation implied by the words "pourra prendre telles mesures" is certainly stronger and more serious than that implied by the phrase "procéder de telle façon". 5) We consider that it is necessary for the sake of greater clearness in Art. 11 of the Minorities Convention and therefore request that it shall not intervene in differences between our State and private individuals belonging to minorities and that these differences should bear a legal character. That is why a special court has been created to meet this exigency. (Permanent Court of Justice).

As to the modifications provided by Art. 11 we request that it shall be recognized that it is merely a case of modifications which will facilitate the putting into effect of these clauses in the case that difficulties should arise; this has already been admitted in the reply of the Peace Conference to the observations of the Austrian Delegation" (page 7, and in M. Clemenceau's letter already referred to) (Part III).

6) It appears that Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention is in contradiction with Article 76 of the Treaty with Austria in so much as according to the latter, the acquisition of our nationality is subject to the authorization of our State for all persons habitually resident in the territories transferred to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and having acquired the right of citizenship (indigénat) since January 1st 1910; whereas according to Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention, these persons acquire our nationality ipso facto and without requirement of any formality if at the date of the coming into force of the Minorities Treaty they are habitually resident or possess the right of citizenship in these territories. If it is considered that there is no contradiction here, the wording of Art. 3 is nevertheless lacking in clearness, and for this reason it ought to be drawn up in such a way as to be made to agree with Art. 76 of the Treaty with Austria, which has already been signed.

As regards Art. 3, it remains for us to point out that the question of habitual residence and right of citizenship must be defined in such a way, that the question of right of citizenship (Pertinenza, Heimatsrecht) applies only to such of our territories as belonged formerly to Austria-Hungary, where this institution existed, whereas that of domicile must be applied exclusively to Bulgaria where the right of citizenship does not exist.

Consequently we propose that the text of Paragraph I of Art. 3 of the Minorities Convention should be re-worded in the following

manner:

"The Serb-Croat-Slovene State admits and declares to be its nationals ipso facto and without the requirement of any formality Austrian and Hungarian nationals possessing rights of citizenship (Per

"Appendix F to HD-38, vol. VII, p. 859.

tinenza, Heimatsrecht) and Bulgarian nationals domiciled on January 1st 1910 in territory which is or may be recognized as forming part of the Serb-Croat and Slovene State under the Treaties with Austria, Hungary or Bulgaria respectively, or under any treaties which may be concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement."

7) It goes without saying that the clauses of this Convention must be applied in accordance with the spirit of it, which does not tend to create privileges for the benefit of minorities, but to protect their natural right to their language and the profession of their religion. In view of the fact that owing to their intellectually and political backward condition, a large proportion of the minorities in our State might be prompted to misinterpret these clauses, it is necessary for the Conference to declare that it is not at all a case of privilege but of the protection of their rights. It is furthermore necessary to point out that persons belonging to minorities are bound loyally and completely to fulfil all duties towards the State incumbent upon them no less than upon all citizens. A declaration of this kind emanating from the Conference would be authoritative, and would undoubtedly have a beneficial effect which would greatly facilitate the normal application of the Convention.

8) In the case that ameliorations should eventually be accorded to Rumania or to Greece, over the question of the Minorities Convention, we request that it should be recognized that they shall be applicable ipso facto also to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Such an assurance would permit us unhesitatingly to shorten the further discussion of the Convention.

Proposition. The Delegation insistently begs the Supreme Council kindly to examine the foregoing requests and to give it satisfaction by adopting them, taking into account the fact that as the Royal Government is animated by the desire to act always in perfect solidarity with the Conference, it hopes for a benevolent reception on the part of the latter.

His Excellency MONSIEUR G. CLEMENCEAU,

President of the Peace Conference,

Paris.

Appendix C to HD-89

NOVEMBER 8, 1919.

Draft of Report to the Supreme Council

The Committee on New States has examined the observations presented by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation with regard to the minorities treaty.15

The remarks made, at least those which have appeared acceptable to the Committee, do not seem of a nature necessitating modifications in the text of a treaty which is already signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Likewise, after having carefully studied the various objections of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, the Committee considers that the Supreme Council, if it considers it advisable, might address to the Delegation, in the form of a letter, a reply in which the clauses of the treaty regarding which observations have been presented should be explained in the degree which seems justifiable. This interpretation will give the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation certain of the satisfactions desired.

It is with this object that the Committee on New States has the honor to submit to the Supreme Council a draft letter to be addressed to the President of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation.

The Committee has believed it opportune to profit by the occasion of the reply to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation to ask the latter to confirm in writing, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Council of November 1st [October 29]16 last, that Ottoman subjects who fulfil the conditions set out in Article 4 of the Minorities Treaty for obtaining Serb-Croat-Slovene nationality may profit from the said article.

Draft Reply To Be Addressed by the Supreme Council to the President of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the Subject of the Minorities Treaty

MR. PRESIDENT: The Supreme Council has examined with the greatest attention the observations contained in your letter of November 5th relative to certain provisions of the Minorities Treaty.

Having first taken note with pleasure of the assurance given by the Royal Government that it has never contested the general principle of this Treaty, the Council proceeded to study the remarks made with the desire of clearing up all the points capable of arousing in the mind of the Delegation and of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State an interpretation which would not be justified, and now makes the following replies, point by point:

1. It has never been the intention of the Supreme Council to raise any doubt concerning the manner in which the former Kingdom of Serbia executed its international engagements toward its population. The present reply may in this respect replace the insertion of a special phrase in the preamble of the Treaty, which is no longer possible because the said treaty has already been signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

16 HD-78, minute 3, vol. vIII, p. 805.

2. The signature by the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes of the Minorities Treaty fulfils and entirely cancels, in the eyes of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the intention for which Article 51 of the Austrian Treaty, relative to the protection of minorities, was inserted. In consequence, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers will ask nothing more of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State such as the signature of any new contractual provision concerning the said protection of ethnic minorities.

3. The distinction requested with a view to excluding from the Minorities Treaty the territory of the Kingdom of Serbia as it existed at the beginning of the war could not be granted by the Supreme Council, for the reasons already stated. Such restriction of the validity of the entire treaty, and not of only one clause, would bring into question the principles of the treaty itself, already contained in certain provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, now replaced so far as Serbia is concerned. It would not be in accordance with the other agreements already signed or prepared, whose principles must be identical according to the desires of the Royal Government itself.

4. The differences pointed out in Article 11 between the original draft of the treaty and the definitive draft, in the French and Italian Texts, does not represent in reality a modification of meaning. The fact that the English text has remained the same indicates clearly that it is only a question of a difference in drafting which does not necessitate an alteration of the treaty.

NOTE. (This modification having been adopted by the Supreme Council on September 1st," the Italian Delegation does not believe this explanation should be given to the Government of the SerbCroat-Slovene State.)

5. It results from Article 11 that the Council of the League of Nations can take action only at the request of a state represented on the Council and not at the request of individuals belonging to minorities. As to the judicial and non-political character of these disputes, the Supreme Council is pleased to give evidence of this in writing. It is furthermore clearly indicated by the fact that disputes are referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which constitutes a tribunal and not a political body.

If any difficulties arise in the execution of these clauses, their modification would be facilitated by the stipulation providing that this can be done with the consent of a majority of the Council of the League of Nations, and that the Allied and Associated Powers now agree not to refuse their consent to any modification whatever of this nature. 6. The provisions of Article 3 of the treaty are made "subject to