If furthermore, reference be made to the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers made to the observations of the German Delegation under date of June 16, 1919, the interpretation of Article 21 [34] leaves no room for doubt.

17

In the covering letter accompanying this reply, it is said that the plebiscite provided for in Article 34 will be organized "with such precautions that the freedom of vote shall be entire". Belgium, who is to assume full responsibility for all the necessary measures, will not fail to assume, in conformity with this obligation and under the conditions provided for by the Treaty, the free manifestation of the will of the inhabitants.

The last paragraph of Article 34 furthermore obliges Belgium to report the result of the popular expression to the League of Nations, and to accept its decision. The League of Nations, under whose auspices the plebiscite will thus take place, as confirmed by the reply of June 16 (Part II, Section I), will therefore be fully qualified to deal with the conditions under which the plebiscite will be effected, which is to be the base of its decision, and to take, in consequence, the neces sary measures.

Please accept, etc.,

"Vol. VI, pp. 926, 932, 941.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03501/89

HD-89

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 Tuesday, November 11, 1919, at 10: 30 a. m.

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

AMERICA, UNITED STATES OF

Dr. I. Bowman

Mr. A. W. Dulles

BRITISH EMPIRE

Lieut.-Colonel Kisch

Mr. E. H. Carr

Mr. H. W. Malkin

FRANCE

M. Cambon

M. Hermitte

M. Kammerer

M. Fromageot

M. Escoffier

M. de Percin

ITALY

M. Vannutelli-Rey

M. Stranieri

M. Pilotti

JAPAN

M. Shigemitsu
M. Nagaoka

Draft Reply to
M. Venizelos

1. M. BERTHELOT said that the members of the Council had received the draft reply to M. Venizelos which he had been asked to prepare. He called the attention of the Council to the fact that two questions on the subject of Smyrna had not been discussed the day before: M. Venizelos, on one hand, complained of the conditions which had governed the censorship, and expressed his intention of establishing a Greek censorship at Smyrna; on the other hand, the Inter-Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople had sent them on November 3rd a note 1 in which they criticized the attitude of the Greek High Commissioner at Smyrna; the latter tended more and more to substitute his action as well to that of the High Commissioners as to that of the Turkish officials. In the draft reply which he had prepared he had taken those two points into consideration.

SIR EYRE CROWE was of opinion that the question should be examined at the next meeting, but he wished to state immediately that he did not entirely agree with M. Berthelot: was it possible for the Allies to supervise the Greek authorities at Smyrna from Constantinople? Besides, perhaps the draft letter pointed out too clearly to Venizelos that he was wrong.

M. CLEMENCEAU agreed to adjourn the examination of the draft prepared by M. Berthelot.

Communication
From the Labor
Conference at
Washington

(The examination of the draft reply to M. Venizelos was adjourned.) 2. MR. POLK wished to read a telegram addressed to the Supreme Council by the Secretary of Labor of the United States in his capacity as President of the International Labor Conference (See Appendix "A"). He explained that the American Delegation would not assume the responsibility for the terms of this communication. On the other hand, from the information he had received from Baron von Lersner, most of the German delegates had reserved berths which were leaving between November 15th and 20th. He would know the next day whether all the delegates had been able to secure berths.

M. CLEMENCEAU did not see what they could do for the time being. 3. (The Council had before it a letter from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation (See Appendix "B") and a report from the New States Commission, dated November 8th, 1919, (See Appendix "C").

Observations of the Serb-CroatSlovene Delegation Regarding the Minorities Treaty

M. KAMMERER read and commented upon the report of the Commission, and upon the draft letter to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation appended to said report. He wished to call the attention of the Council to the fact that the Commission had been unanimous in thinking that it was satis

factory to send to the Serb Delegation a reply which would interpret the Treaty. The only disagreement was on one point. The drafting of Article II in the Serbian Treaty was different from the corresponding article in the other Minorities Treaty. Following M. Tittoni's suggestion, the Supreme Council had indeed decided on September 1st to replace in the article in question, for the Serbian Treaty, the words "proceder de telle manière" by the words "prendre telles mesures." On the other hand, the corresponding English text was the same in all the Treaties, viz: "take such action." The majority was of the opinion that this difference in the drafting of the French text did not alter the sense and that nothing opposed itself to their informing the Serbs thereof. On the contrary, the Italian Delegation was of the opinion that it would be wiser to abide, without further explanation, with the decision of the Supreme Council. On the whole, they believed that their reply was of such a nature as to satisfy the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, except with regard to the Macedonian question. However, one difficulty still remained: it was likely that the Serbian Delegation might feel it hard to accept the decision of the Council which asked that it should recognize the right of option under the conditions provided in Article 4, for persons of Turkish nationality. The Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation would perhaps put forward objections on this point.

SIR EYRE CROWE asked whether there were any reasons to believe that the Serbs would make difficulties on this point.

M. KAMMERER said that in a private conversation, at a time when the question of a special clause on the subject had come up in the Minorities Treaty, M. Trumbic had expressed some doubt. He thought that the Belgrade government would find it easier to make a simple declaration.

MR. POLK said he approved the report of the Commission; but asked whether it would not be easier to obtain the assent of the Serbo-CroatSlovene Delegation if they were to give M. Trumbic the satisfaction of being heard by the Council? This would facilitate his task in his own country, for it could not then be said that the Conference had refused to hear the Serb Delegation.

M. KAMMERER said that from the very beginning the New States Commission had decided to hear no one.

MR. POLK remarked that one of the grievances of the Roumanians, which was unjustified, was that they had not been heard by the Council. He did not wish to insist, but they might give them such satisfaction if they were heard; this might be the best way of obtaining their signature.

HD-44, minute 1, vol. vII, p. 30.

M. CLEMENCEAU asked whether this might not be the source of further delays.

MR. POLK asked whether the Commission felt sure that the SerboCroat-Slovene Delegation would be content purely and simply with the letter which was going to be sent.

M. KAMMERER answered that except with regard to Article 4, they had every reason to think the Serbs would sign. It might perhaps be wise to send them immediately the letter which the Commission had prepared: If they had any objections to make, the Council might hear them.

M. CLEMENCEAU asked whether the Italian Delegation maintained its reservations regarding Article 11.

M. DE MARTINO stated that they did not insist for the sake of conciliation, but it was understood that the two expressions were of the same value; one could not conceive an intervention of the League of Nations if the League could not take such measures as might be opportune. It was decided:

(1) to approve the report presented by the New States Commission with regard to the observations of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation on the Minorities Treaty;

(2) that the President of the Conference should send to that Delegation the draft reply as prepared by the New States Commission.

4. M. CLEMENCEAU said that the question should be adjourned as the Reparations Commission was not ready to discuss it.

MR. POLK asked whether they could not inform the Serbo-CroatSlovene Delegation that the Reparations Commission had instructions to hear its representatives. The Reparations Commission might be further informed that the Supreme Council desired that the request of the Jugo-Slavs be considered with the utmost care with a view of meeting the situation as far as compatible with the Treaty and the declara

Allotment of Merchant Tonnage to Italy and the Serbo-CroatSlovene State

tions of May last in the Council of Four.3

SIR EYRE CROWE had no objections to make.

M. CLEMENCEAU did not have any either. He asked whether the Italian Delegation had any to offer.

M. DE MARTINO answered that he had none, if it was understood that the hearing of the Jugo-Slav Delegates by the Reparations Commission did not affect in any way or prejudice the decisions of this Commission. It was decided:

(1) that the Reparations Commission should be requested to hear a representative of the Serbo-Croat-Slovene Delegation regarding the

3

See "Decisions To Be Discussed With Small States", CF-24/1, vol. v, p. 836.