the treaties mentioned below", notably to the treaty with Austria, as indicated in the following text. So far as the acquisition of SerbCroat-Slovene nationality by former nationals of Austria is concerned, therefore, the provisions contemplated in this respect in the treaty with Austria remain in force. Respecting the observation relative to the question of domicile and indigénat the Supreme Council considers that the draft of Article 3 complies entirely with the meaning stated by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. The term "as the case may be" satisfies the request presented. So far as concerns Article 4, which treats of questions of nationality connected with those of Article 3, the attention of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers had been drawn to the omission of Ottoman nationals from the benefits of the provisions contemplated. The Supreme Council, while considering it impossible to modify the text already signed, and furthermore not wishing to ask the Serb-CroatSlovene Government to sign a formal agreement on this point, has confidence that this Government has no intention of refusing, to persons of Ottoman nationality who may fulfil the conditions set out in the said Article 4, the rights expressly granted to persons of Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian nationality. It requests the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation to be good enough to confirm this in writing. 7. In preparing this treaty, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers have never intended to confer special privileges on minorities, but only to prevent racial conflicts by granting to these minorities equitable protection, and, by the guarantee of all their rights, to permit them to become loyal citizens of the state. There has been no idea of exempting them from the fulfilment of all their duties which are incumbent upon them in the same way as upon all other citizens. The Principal Allied and Associated Powers willingly give assurance of this to the Delegation of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, as they are ready to give similar assurances to any other state signatory to a treaty relative to the protection of minorities. 8. So far as concerns the request of the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation tending to grant to the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes the benefit of any modifications which may be finally granted to Rumania and Greece, the Supreme Council considers that it has fixed the fundamental principles on which should rest all the treaties relative to the protection of minorities and that it is not its intention to modify these principles. With the exception of the observations presented on point 3, all the explanations which have just been made are of a nature to give satisfaction to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation. They constitute the justified interpretation of the articles of the treaty on which explanations were asked. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Council has decided after careful examination that it is not necessary, in order to give satisfaction to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, to modify the text of the treaty already signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. The comments presented in the reply above will convey to the Serb-CroatSlovene State the assurance of the sentiments of the Supreme Council, which is quite convinced of the desire of the Royal Government to act in perfect solidarity with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Appendix D to HD-89 Note for the Supreme Council Concerning Naval Material at Dantzig The Drafting Committee is of the opinion that the removal, or the sale by the German authorities of the maritime material which is at Dantzig and belongs to the Empire or to the German States, or was requisitioned by them, is contrary to the stipulations of Article 107 of the Peace Treaty, and that by taking such measures, at this time, Germany is jeopardizing the loyal execution of the Treaty. The same solution would be difficult to support, if the matter concerned private properties, and the individuals interested spontaneously disposed of them. NOVEMBER 7, 1919. For the Drafting Committee: Appendix E to HD-89 SECRETARIAT GENERAL OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 8, 1919. COMMISSION ON CO-ORDINATION OF THE LISTS OF ACCUSED, AND ORGANIZATION OF MIXED TRIBUNALS The Supreme Council, in its resolution of the 7th of November,18 decided on the constitution of a commission charged with comparing the lists of accused, to be delivered by Germany, and organizing the mixed tribunals, provided for by Article 229 of the Treaty. This Commission has been composed of the representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Certain other Allied Powers, notably Belgium, were alarmed on account of their eviction from the composition of this Commission. Besides Belgium, other Powers, (Greece, Poland, Rumania and Serbia) may have to claim accused persons of German nationality and have an interest in taking part in the organization of the mixed tribunals. It would be advisable, in order to comply with the requests of these powers, as well as to be in the position of providing for eventual objections of procedure in the organization of mixed tribunals, to complete the resolution of November 7, by the following text: "It is decided that the Allied Powers, which have compiled a list of accused to be claimed from Germany, will have a representative in the Commission (charged with the organization of this tribunal)". Appendix F to HD-89 Note Presented to the Supreme Council by the Commission on Polish Affairs NOVEMBER 10, 1919. QUESTION OF EASTERN GALICIA 19 In a resolution, under date of November 7,10 the Supreme Council decided to forward for consideration, to the Commission on Polish Affairs, the proposition made by the British Delegation, with a view to having the League of Nations give Poland a mandate of definite duration over eastern Galicia. Task Assigned to the Commission The Commission on Polish Affairs, with an intention of conciliation, unanimously decided to accept the principle of a mandate. Although Adoption of the recommending to the Council the adoption of this solution, which, alone, under the present circumstances seems of a nature to realize the unanimity of the Delegations and to lead to a concrete result, the Commission deems it its duty to call attention to the fact that no mandate has been considered so far for the countries situated in Europe, and that Eastern Galicia profoundly differs from the territories to which the principle of the mandate has so far been applied. With respect to the duration of the mandate conferred on Poland, four Delegations* were of the opinion that it should be fixed at twenty 19 HD-86, minute 3, p. 20. *However, the American Delegation desires that it be specified that it accepted a limitation of the duration of the mandate only in the hope of coming to a unanimous agreement. Therefore, if the British Delegation should not accept, definitely, this period of twenty-five years, the American Delegation reserves the right to stand by its first proposition, which consisted in entrusting Poland, under the conditions determined by the Treaty, with the mandate of administering Eastern Galicia as long as this system should give satisfactory results, the Council of the League of Nations remaining free to bring about a change in status at any time such change might seem to it desirable. [Footnote in the original.] Duration of the five years, thinking that it is necessary that the destinies of a sorely tried and profoundly troubled country, cannot be treated again before the legal age of a new generation which will have grown up protected from the agitations and the shocks caused by the world war. The British Delegate, nevertheless, has declared that his instructions did not permit him to accept an extension to twenty-five years of the ten-year period considered by the British Delegation. However, he agreed to call the attention of the British representative to the Supreme Council, to the arguments set forth by the majority of the Commission. Competence of the League of Nations At last the Commission unanimously concluded that it would be desirable that, at the expiration of a period during which the mandate would have been granted to Poland, the League of Nations receive full authority to maintain, revise, or modify the statute defined by the Treaty. This provision should be liberally interpreted and would imply for the League of Nations the power to entirely dissolve the system of mandate, and to pronounce, for instance, either the annexation of Eastern Galicia to Poland, or to another State, or to choose any other solution which it might deem proper. Aside from the question of the mandate, the Commission attempted to compromise concerning the two points on which a disagreement existed between the majority and the minority of the Commission (See Report No. 5),20 that is to say, on the principle of the representation of Eastern Galicia in the Diet of Poland (Article 16 of the Draft of Treaty) Discussion of and on the military organization (Article 38). On the first question the divergence could not be settled, the British Delegation having maintained the text proposed for Article 16 by the minority of the Commission. He deemed, in fact, that it was a matter of principle which ought to be decided by the Supreme Council itself. He declared himself willing, however, to set forth to the British plenipotentiary the arguments presented by the majority to support its point of view. On the question of the military organization, on the other hand, the Commission unanimously agreed to propose a new draft of Article 38, which would give to the Polish Government the right to apply in Eastern Galicia the military legislation in effect in Poland, with the reserve that the contingent thus recruited would constitute special units which, in peace time, would be located in Eastern Galicia and be at the disposal of the Polish Government in time of war for the defense of the national territory. This last expression is designed to 20 Appendix C to HD-57, vol. vm, p. 280. forbid Poland the use of forces recruited in Eastern Galicia in any war which had not been forced upon her, but it must not be interpreted as implying the interdiction to use the troops of Eastern Galicia in a defensive war outside of the Polish frontiers. Proposed New If the propositions presented above by the Commission are adopted by the Supreme Council, it would be advisable to modify the text of the draft of Treaty, such as it appears in Report No. 5 of the Commission, as follows:* a)-In the preamble, suppression of the clause thus conceived: "Until the moment when they will be invited to express, by vote, at present postponed on account of the troubled state of Eastern Europe, their desires relative to the definite political statute in those territories." (The Supreme Council, on the other hand, in its meeting of September 19th, decided on the suppression of the paragraph mentioned in Report No. 5 of the Commission and thus conceived: 21 "Considering that Eastern Galicia formed part of the former Kingdom of Poland until the dismemberment of the latter.") b)-Article 2 would be thus drawn up: "Poland accepts, in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations, and under the conditions provided for in the present Treaty, the mandate of organizing and governing Eastern Galicia, which will constitute an autonomous territory, within the limits determined by Article I. "This mandate, which is conferred for a period of twenty-five years †, at the expiration of which the Council of the League of Nations will have full authority to maintain, revise, or modify the statute defined by the present Treaty." c)-At last Article 38 would thus be drawn up: "The legislation on military service in effect in Poland can be applied by Poland to Eastern Galicia, with the reserve that the contingent thus recruited will constitute special units, which, in peace time will be located in Eastern Galicia and will, in time of war, be at the disposal of the Polish Government for the defense of national territory." In case these suggestions be admitted, it would seem that the Commission should be directed to study in concert with the Drafting Committee, the modifications in form which it would be advisable to make in the other articles of the Treaty. *On account of the short time available for the preparation of the report of the Commission, which ought to be submitted to the Council at its meeting of November 10, the new text proposed by the Commission could not be submitted for the consideration of the Drafting Committee. [Footnote in the original.] " See HD-57, minute 3, vol. VII, p. 270. †The British Delegate makes, concerning these twenty-five years, a reservation which has been defined above. [Footnote in the original.] |