1. SIR EYRE CROWE stated he could not nominate the British Representatives as the experts of the British Delegation on that subject were in London. Execution of Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty With Germany M. DE MARTINO wished to remark that there already was a Commission of Responsibilities. M. ESCOFFIER said the Commission of Responsibilities has finished its work; this was a question for a special Commission charged with the preparation of the execution of Articles 228 and 229 of the Treaty with Germany. M. PICHON said that the Council agreed that the nomination of this Commission should be adjourned, but it was important that this should be settled in as short a time as possible. M. DE MARTINO thought an adjournment necessary as he would have to get in touch with his Government. It was decided: (1) that a Commission would be nominated, (a) to compare the lists of individuals charged with crimes to be delivered by the German Government; (b) to decide the composition, procedure and seat of the mixed tribunals to be set up under Article 229 of the Treaty with Germany; (2) that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers nominate as soon as possible their representatives on this Commission. 2. (The Council had before it a report of the Military Representatives at Versailles on the subject. (See Appendix “A”).) Request for Instructions From the Chairman of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany After a short discussion, It was decided: to approve the report of the Military Representatives at Versailles dated November 5th, in answer to the request for instructions received from the Chairman of the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control in Germany (See Appendix "A"). 3. SIR EYRE CROWE regretted that this declaration had been delayed by numerous communications with his Government. The present British Declaration on the Question of Eastern Galicia proposal resulted from the proposition which had already been made by the American Delegation and also by the Polish Commission;1 in a few words, this proposition tended to eliminate anything in the nature of a temporary arrangement. The British Government was opposed to anything leading to a final union of Eastern Galicia and Poland. It had also discussed the question with Mr. Paderewski and had pointed out to the latter that Poland would be acting in a sense diametrically opposed to the claims made by Poland for the district of Teschen. 1 See HD-57, minute 3, and appendix C, vol. vIII, pp. 270 and 280; HD-60, minute 9, and appendix K, ibid., pp. 349 and 368. A large majority of the population in Eastern Galicia was not Polish. The British Government thought that they ought not to shut the door to the real aims of Eastern Galicia which would allow its population to join other nationalities. It wished, therefore, to adopt the following suggestion, namely: Poland would get a Mandate for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined period, such as 15 years; the League of Nations could then consider whether Eastern Galicia should be joined to Poland or make some other political arrangement. The British point of view insisted that the settlement should be provisional. He personally had done his best to conciliate the views of the Council with those of the British Cabinet. MR. POLK regretted that they were unable to reach an agreement on this subject; but he added that he had not given up hope of finding a satisfactory solution. What impressed the American Delegation was that if a date were fixed for a Mandate, it would mean that Galicia would be in a state of ferment, and Poland remain in uncertainty over this grave question. This case was not the same as that of other countries where a Plebiscite was asked for; it would be difficult to see where Eastern Galicia would go, if not to Poland. The problem was all the more difficult for Eastern Galicia on account of fighting taking place between Ukrainia and the Bolshevists on one side and Denikin on the other side. He wished to ask Sir Eyre Crowe the difference he made between the position of the British Government at this time and the position that it had taken before. SIR EYRE CROWE answered that it was no longer a question of a plebiscite, but of giving a Mandate to Poland for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations. MR. POLK Suggested that the views of the British Delegation should be referred to the Polish Commission for examination and report for Monday, November 10th. M. PICHON agreed. It was decided: to refer to the Polish Commission for examination and report to the Supreme Council on November 10th, 1919, the proposal made by the British Delegation tending to give Poland a Mandate for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations for a determined period. 4. (The Council had before it a note from the German Delegation dated October 3rd, 1919, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy (See Appendix "B"), and the observations presented by the Belgian Delegation in its letter of October 14th, 1919 (See Appendix “C”). Consideration of Note From the German Delegation of October 3rd, on the Organization of Plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy MR. POLK said this matter had been brought to his attention and he understood the good faith of the Council was involved. He would suggest that this be referred to the Belgian Committee for examination. SIR EYRE CROWE thought that the Belgian Commission should prepare a draft answer to the German Note which the Council would have before it on Monday. It was decided: (1) to refer back to the Commission on Belgian Affairs for examination the Note from the German Delegation dated October 3rd, on the organization of the plebiscite in Eupen and Malmedy (See Appendix "B"), as well as the observations of the Belgian Delegation dated October 14th, 1919 (See Appendix "C"). (2) that the Commission on Belgian Affairs should present to the Supreme Council at its meeting on November 10th, 1919, a draft reply to the German note. 5. (The Council had before it a report from the American representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Mission relative to the removal by German authorities of the material belonging to the German Government at Dantzig (See Appendix "D").) Removal by German Authorities of Material Belonging to the German Government at Dantzig and report. MR. POLK Suggested that this question be referred back to the Drafting Committee for examination It was decided: to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the note of the American representative on the Inter-Allied Railway Commission in Poland, with regard to the removal of German Government property from Dantzig. 6. MR. POLK repeated what he had said at a preceding meeting:2 the President would be very glad to call the first meeting of the Council, but the question had been raised in Washington as to his Reply of President Wilson to the Communications Regarding the First Meeting of the Council of the League of Nations power under Article V of the Covenant to call the meeting before the Treaty had come into force: under Article V his power existed only from the date of the deposit of ratifications of the Treaty; his suggestion was that the meeting should take place on the following day, but he had no objection to the procedure adopted by the Drafting Committee and in turn adopted by the other members of the Council. The real trouble was that the letter would be issued at a time when the pact had not yet come into force. M. PICHON thought in that case that the convocation of the first meeting might be issued on the day when the ratifications were exchanged, and then that the meeting could take place the following day. MR. POLK made it clear that he did not wish to insist on this, if the other members of the Council preferred the other solution. 'See HD-84, minute 2, vol. vIII, p. 954. M. BERTHELOT pointed out that the difficulty lay in the period which would elapse between the deposit of ratifications and the first meeting of the Council. SIR EYRE CROWE suggested that the President of the United States could now advise the Powers represented on the Council of the League of Nations that as soon as the treaty had been put into force by the deposit of ratifications, the President, acting under Article V of the Covenant, would send a telegram calling the first meeting, and it would be advisable to take all the necessary measures in provision of this convocation. MR. POLK thought that Sir Eyre Crowe's suggestion was already covered by M. Clemenceau's letter. He also suggested that the State Department in Washington, on being advised of the exact hour of the deposit of ratifications, could notify to the representatives at Washington, of the Powers which were to be represented on the Council of the League of Nations, the first meeting of the Council; on the other hand, all the necessary measures would have been taken for the first meeting to take place. M. FROMAGEOT said he understood the American argument, but thought there was great analogy between this case and the convocation. of the Labor Conference at Washington. MR. POLK said that everyone in America was attacking the legality of this convocation. M. FROMAGEOT thought that if the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations considered only the question of nominating the Commission charged with the delimitation of the boundaries of the Sarre district, the Council of the League of Nations would then have fifteen days within which to nominate the Commission. SIR EYRE CROWE Suggested there was the possibility of a ratification by the United States, in which case the first meeting might have a longer agenda: it was therefore important that the convocation of the first meeting should be considered immediately. M. PICHON proposed that the question be referred to the Drafting Committee to examine whether it was possible to take into consideration the remarks made by Mr. Polk. It was decided: to refer back to the Drafting Committee for examination and report the question of procedure to be followed for the convocation of the first meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, taking into account remarks of a legal character made by the American Delegation. 7. M. BERTHELOT said that they had reasons to think that the Germans were going to answer their last Note by proposing that Probably a reference to the draft letter prepared by the Drafting Committee for the President of the Conference, appendix F to HD-73, ibid., p. 725. 'Appendix B to HD-80, ibid., p. 863. Execution of the the conferences which were made necessary by the execution of the Treaty, should take place in Berlin on account of the great number of experts the German Government wished to send; and only the final con ferences would take place in Paris. GENERAL LE ROND thought that all the questions which could not be considered in Paris should be taken up on the spot, and that it was not necessary to have conferences in Berlin. He also wished to add that, as the conferences between the Allies could not begin before November 10th, it would not be possible to meet the German representatives before November 15th. Agenda of the discussion. 8. M. PICHON stated that Mr. Venizelos would ask to be heard by the Council on the day that the report of the Inquiry Commission on Smyrna came under 9. MR. POLK asked whether the question of the temporary regime of Western Thrace should not be studied by a competent Commission. He suggested that it might be referred to the Central Territorial Committee. (This was agreed to.) It was decided: Temporary Regime of West ern Thrace to refer back to the Central Territorial Committee for examination and report the question of the temporary regime of Western Thrace. (The meeting then adjourned.) HOTEL DE CRILLON, PARIS, November 7, 1919. Appendix A to HD-86 Draft Reply of Military Representatives at Versailles to Three Requests for Information Received From the Chairman of the Aeronautical Commission of Control at Berlin MILITARY REPRESENTATIVES SWC-478 90-MR VERSAILLES, November 4, 1919. In its meeting of October 29th, the Supreme Council decided to refer to the Military Representatives at Versailles for their consideration and reply the following three requests for instructions received from the Chairman of the Aeronautical Committee of Control at Berlin: " 1. Whether the airship sheds in occupied Germany should be pooled and counted in for distribution with the aeronautical material in un 6 * See HD-78, minute 4, and appendix E, vol. vш, pp. 807 and 822. |