For the Swedish Legation: The Swedish Government having signed the final act of the Congress of Vienna of June 9, 1815, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic has the honor to beg the Swedish Minister to be kind enough to ask his government to give its adhesion to the appended stipulation.

M. Pichon is pleased, etc. . . .

Appendix E to HD-101

PEACE CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE

OF THE

REPARATIONS COMMISSION

French Secretariat

No. 1231

PARIS, November 21, 1919.

From: M. Loucheur, Minister of Industrial Reconstruction. To: President of the French Delegation with the Supreme Council. Mr. Eichhoff, Plenipotentiary of the Austrian Republic, has deemed it advisable to inform me and I think it proper to transmit to you a few observations relative to possibilities which he hopes to find in the peace negotiations with Hungary for the improvement of food conditions in Austria.

Before the dismemberment of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Vienna and the Alpine countries, which constitute the present territory of the Republic, received their supplies of flour, meat, fat and dairy products from Hungary as they procured coal from the regions which today form part of Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. As regards coal, Art. 224 of the Peace Treaty with Austria formally guaranteed exportation from Czecho-Slovak and Polish mines to Austria. M. Eichhoff asks that in the future Treaty with Hungary an article be inserted similar to the article mentioned treating with the exportation of Hungarian foodstuffs to Austria. Of course, in compensation, this article would also contain a provision guaranteeing the Hungarian State rights corresponding to the demands stipulated in favor of Austria; effectively, this provision would guarantee to Hungary such industrial products and especially agricultural implements which Austria usually furnishes her.

M. Eichhoff thinks that such an arrangement would contribute to bringing back to work the agricultural populations in Hungary and the industrial in Austria, and in case the Peace Conference should care to approve it, he would be at the disposition of the latter to determine the drafting of a text corresponding to his suggestion.

LOUCHEUR

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/102

HD-102

Notes of a Meeting of the Heads of Delegations of the Five Great Powers Held in M. Pichon's Room, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Saturday, November 29, 1919, at 10:30 a. m.

The following were also present for the items in which they were concerned:

AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF

Rear-Admiral McCully, U. S. N.

Colonel J. A. Logan

Lieut-Commander Koehler, U. S. N.

Mr. A. W. Dulles

Capt. H. Pierce

BRITISH EMPIRE

Captain Fuller, R. N.

Commander MacNamara, R. N.
Mr. Colles

Mr. E. H. Carr

Colonel Beadom

Lieut-Colonel Kisch

FRANCE

M. Georges Leygues

M. Cambon

General Weygand

M. Laroche

Commandant LeVavasseur

M. Kammerer

ITALY

Amiral Cagni

M. Mancioli

M. Stranieri

Cap. de corvette Ruspoli

JAPAN

M. Shigemitsu

1. MR. POLK stated that he had been unable to come to an agreement with the naval experts as to the questions raised by paragraph 2 of the British proposal (See H. D. 101, Appendix "A"); he would therefore have to refer the matter to Washington.

Distribution of
Enemy Surface
War Ships

whole question.

SIR EYRE CROWE asked if this meant referring the

M. CLEMENCEAU explained that the points raised in paragraph 2 of the British proposal were alone meant.

MR. POLK agreed.

SIR EYRE CROWE wished to know what the United States' proposal

was.

MR. POLK explained that they had been unable to come to an agreement as to figures. The amount of national effort, as a basis of distribution, which had been proposed in Committee by the American representatives, had now been abandoned. Captain Fuller had proposed certain figures which were arbitrary, inasmuch as they were not based on exact data, and which the American representatives could not accept without referring the question to Washington.

SIR EYRE CROWE wished to know what basis of distribution was desired. If the United States had abandoned the idea of having national effort the basis of distribution, what other basis could be adopted except the clear one of losses. He wished to know if the United States desired a still different basis. He did not see how the principle of distribution according to percentage of losses sustained in the war could be combined with another principle, for example, that of national effort.

MR. POLK pointed out that the basis proposed was a distribution of 70% to Great Britain, 10% to France, 10% to Italy, 8% to Japan and 2% to the United States. He felt that the effort of the United States had been larger than was reflected in such a distribution. The United States had had eight super-dreadnaughts with the Grand Fleet and, he thought, more destroyers than any other Power. The United States did not desire to keep the ships in question but considered it was a question of principle which affected the national feeling. The question was one of satisfying public opinion. The United States might have over-estimated the effort it had made, but did not feel that a 2% distribution correctly estimated or reflected its effort. He wished, further, to point out that the basis of loss suffered took into account ships which had been lost not necessarily in action; a great many had been lost in harbor and it was not sure whether or not they had been lost as a result of enemy action. For instance, some of the losses might have been the result of boiler explosions and similar accidents.

1 Ante, p. 355.

ADMIRAL CAGNI stated that the large Italian ships which had been lost in harbor had clearly been destroyed by enemy action, and that this was susceptible of proof by documents in his possession.

SIR EYRE CROWE said that his sole desire was to arrive at clearness. The discussion still left obscure the position as regards the principal issue. He would like to know if the United States wished to eliminate from the basis of losses suffered, ships not sunk at sea by enemy action. MR. POLK said that this was not what he had in mind. The figures then under discussion of losses suffered were arbitrary. No hard and fast rule had been adopted for determining these losses; for instance, it seemed to him that the 10% of losses as given for France and Italy did not correspond exactly with the losses suffered. He wished again to point out that some of the ships lost might or might not have been lost as a result of enemy action.

M. DE MARTINO said he wished to disagree formally with that last point of Mr. Polk's. Italian losses had not been arbitrarily calculated. The vessels lost in port had been lost as a result of enemy machinations. The result was just the same if a ship were lost in this way as if it had been sunk at sea. He therefore maintained his point of view that ships lost in that manner must enter into the calculations of losses suffered.

MR. POLK thought that M. de Martino was putting up a man of straw to be knocked down. He, himself, was not questioning the right to include such losses in the calculation of losses suffered, nor was he questioning the fact that some Italian ships might have been sunk in port by enemy action. If it could be proved that such was the case, then there could be no question as to its being proper to include such losses in the calculation of losses suffered. All he had said was that, as a general matter, some of the ships included in the calculations of losses might well not have been lost as a result of enemy action.

SIR EYRE CROWE said that he unfortunately had a passion for clearness but he still remained confused. He would like again to ask what the standard was. He appreciated Mr. Polk's difficulties relative to American public opinion but it seemed to him that the easiest way to satisfy fair public opinion in every country was to state a clear principle of distribution and nothing could be clearer than actual losses suffered. If it was decided to give a certain percentage of enemy ships to certain countries without such distribution being based on a clear and logical principle it would be necessary to explain to the satisfaction of public opinion in all countries why different nations were given an arbitrary percentage of ships. A distribution of 2% to the United States was not unfair for he thought that the United States losses had been so small as not to reach in fact the percentage of 2%.

MR. POLK agreed that the losses had indeed been small. He agreed with Sir Eyre Crowe's point of view but the difficulty he felt was that the proposed percentage of distribution was arbitrary. It was true of course that no United States ships had been lost in port but he still felt that it was arbitrary to include all ships lost in port irrespective of the cause.

SIR EYRE CROWE observed that the calculation was not arbitrary and was based on the principle of losses suffered.

MR. POLK reiterated that he thought the figures of 70-10-and 10 percent must be arbitrary. He thought it inconceivable that the French and Italian losses were exactly the same. In any event he had certain instructions and at the present stage of the discussion he would have to refer the matter to his Government.

CAPTAIN FULLER stated that by actual calculations the French and Italian losses were almost identical: 10.70% for the French and 11.45% for the Italians.

SIR EYRE CROWE proposed the following solution: to accept as the standard the percentage of warships sunk by definitely proved action of the enemy whether at sea or in port.

ADMIRAL CAGNI pointed out that in the event of such a solution being adopted it would be necessary to institute an inquiry for each ship lost. In many cases losses were due to collisions resulting from war navigating conditions. Such losses were as fully entitled to be included as losses resulting more directly from enemy action. Certainly the most long drawn out inquiries in each case would have to be expected.

M. CLEMENCEAU declared that he was ready to accept Sir Eyre Crowe's proposal.

MR. POLK again pointed out that he would have to get instructions from his Government.

M. DE MARTINO inquired whether Sir Eyre Crowe's proposal would eliminate such collisions as those mentioned by Admiral Cagni and also losses resulting from mines?

SIR EYRE CROWE replied that to meet M. de Martino's suggestion he would propose that the standard of distribution might be all ships sunk at open sea and all ships sunk elsewhere through definitely proved enemy action.

MR. POLK said that he would cable his Government.

M. CLEMENCEAU approved this new proposal in principle. ADMIRAL CAGNI thought it would be well to definitely approve the other points raised by the British proposal.

MR. POLK said that he had accepted those points in principle subject to changes of phraseology to be arrived at between Admiral McCully and Captain Fuller. He had no objection to France and Italy receiving the ships specified in paragraph 5 of the British proposal.