The two Governments may reserve the right to appeal to the Peace Conference should they be unwilling to accept any decision of the Interallied Teschen Commission, but, in each instance, pending a final decision, the local authorities shall follow the mandate of the Interallied Teschen Commission. A resolution of the Conference requires your Commission to report its proceedings to the general secretariat of the Peace Conference for review by the Commission on Polish Affairs. (2) Identic note to the Governments of Poland and of CzechoSlovakia.

In order to ensure the administration of the Teschen agreement of February 3rd in a more effective manner, the Peace Conference requests your Government to consent to the following arrangement. It proposes that the principle should be established that the decisions of the Interallied Teschen Commission are in each case to become effective as soon as they are announced, without requiring the local authorities to await the agreement of the Governments of Poland or of CzechoSlovakia.

Should your Government desire to do so, it may reserve the liberty of presenting any objections to these decisions either to the Conference at Paris or to the Interallied Teschen Commission, but it is proposed that, pending a reply, the decisions of the Interallied Teschen Commission should be binding. An identic note to this effect is being sent to the Government of Poland (Czecho-Slovakia). Should your Government accept this principle it is requested that immediate notification be sent to all the local authorities and to the Conference at Paris.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/65

BC-58

Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay on Wednesday, 16th April, 1919, at 4 p. m.

Interpreter:-Prof. P. J. Mantoux.

Object of
Meeting

1. M. CLEMENCEAU said that the Meeting had been called in order to bring together the Council of Four and the Council of Five.1 It was proposed that the work done separately should be examined in common. His first request, therefore, was that the Council of Five should report what they had accomplished and what still remained to be done. He asked Baron Sonnino if he would make a statement on this subject.

BARON SONNINO said that on the previous day the Council of Foreign Ministers had before them an agenda of some eleven items. The bulk of these had been remitted to the Drafting Committee, which, he understood, was to meet that day at 5 p. m. The Council of Foreign Ministers was to meet again on Thursday, the 17th instant, to deliberate on the drafts submitted by the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee were charged with the task of coordinating proposals made by Great Britain and by the United States. In other words, to reconcile the two drafts suggested.

M. CLEMENCEAU enquired on what subjects the discussion had taken place.

BARON SONNINO said that the subjects dealt with were:

Opium,
Belgium,

The Suez Canal and Egypt, and

An Article requiring from Germany a general renunciation of rights outside Europe, which were to be surrendered to the trusteeship of the Five Powers.

Reference had been made to the Drafting Committee with the object of ensuring that the whole ground was being covered.

PRESIDENT WILSON asked whether the impression that a fuller Conference had been desired to decide these points was erroneous.

BARON SONNINO remarked that another question discussed had been the upkeep of the Army of Occupation in Germany. On this subject, General Weygand had made certain explanations revealing a difference of opinion in calculating the expenses involved in maintaining these forces. Two theses had been put forward and these had been referred to the Council of Four.

MR. LANSING said that his impression was that they had been referred to the Economic Council.

M. DUTASTA said that the reference had been to the Council of Four. MR. BALFOUR observed that, if this was so, the matter should be dealt with.

1 The minutes of the Council of Four are to be printed in later volumes. For minutes of the Council of Foreign Ministers (Council of Five), see pp. 515 ff.

Cost of Main-
taining Armies of
Occupation in
Germany

2. BARON SONNINO said that two methods of calculating the cost had been mentioned. One considered only the actual expenses of the moment, food, billetting, etc. The other considered more general expenses. He was not able to specify exactly what the definition was, as he had not taken an active part in the discussion. PRESIDENT WILSON said that presumably the latter category included expenses of army administration as separate from the cost of the actual maintenance in the occupied districts.

MR. LANSING remarked that on the 8th March, General Pershing had addressed a written enquiry to Marshal Foch. No answer had been returned. The United States of America were, therefore, somewhat embarrassed in giving an opinion on this subject.

M. CLEMENCEAU said that when the documents relating to the subject were before the Meeting, it would be possible to form an opinion or to remit them to some Committee.

BARON SONNINO said that General Weygand was in a position to state the case fully.

PRESIDENT WILSON observed that if General Weygand were called, he could only re-state the question and not offer a solution. He would suggest that the Military Advisers at Versailles be asked to define what was understood by "cost of military occupation."

BARON SONNINO remarked that there were differences of opinion among military authorities.

PRESIDENT WILSON said that it was desirable to have these differences of opinion laid before the Council.

MR. BALFOUR drew attention to the divergent views held by the various delegates at Spa.

PRESIDENT WILSON asked that a digest of these various views should be prepared and laid before the Council.

MR. BALFOUR agreed that what was required was a brief narrative fitted for civilian understanding. The Council of Four would then be able to reach a decision.

BARON SONNINO observed that the whole discussion had been raised by a question put by the German General von Hammerstein asking for a definition of what was the cost of maintaining a man and a horse in occupied territory.

PRESIDENT WILSON suggested that the correspondence that had taken place at Spa should be referred to the Military Advisers at Versailles in order that a digest should be prepared of the various opinions.

BARON SONNINO said that he did not disagree, but he thought it right to warn the Council that military opinion was divided as to what should be reckoned in the account.

(It was then decided to remit to the Military Advisers of the Supreme War Council at Versailles the drafting of the various points of view regarding the estimation of the cost of upkeep of the Forces of Occupation in Germany).

BARON SONNINO observed that the cost of upkeep of the Armies of Occupation previous to the signature of Peace was distinct from that of a continuance of occupation after Peace.

PRESIDENT WILSON said that should any occupation subsequent to the signature of Peace be provided for, the same definition and the same interpretation could be adhered to as in the case of occupation previous to Peace.

Amendments to

3. MR. BALFOUR drew attention to Item 6 on the Agenda for the Meeting of Foreign Ministers on the previous day. There were two amendments before the Meeting. One had been adopted, Military Terms: and the other had been referred to the Council of Four. He suggested that the matter be explained by someone who had been present at the Meeting on the previous day.

Secret Processes

for the Manufacture of Gas

MR. LANSING said that the difficulty had arisen with regard to exacting from the Germans the disclosure of their secret processes for the manufacture of ingredients for the inhuman conduct of war. As the Allies in another provision had prohibited the manufacture of such things, he regarded the suggested amendment as unnecessary. Further he believed that the disclosure of these secrets would add nothing to the military power of the Allies, who already possessed the secret of making even more deleterious gases than Germany. On the other hand, the revelation of these secrets would be of great economic advantage to Allied industries in that the dye making processes would be revealed at the same time. He believed that this motive very likely was not unconnected with the proposal.

MR. BALFOUR said that the Military Authorities attached great importance to this question. Their opinions were based on military considerations, and they were in no manner concerned with any ambition to obtain industrial secrets. In their memorandum on the subject they took care to state that the dye process was quite divorced from the purpose they had in view. What they required was a purely military piece of knowledge. He did not profess himself to understand or to estimate the value of this knowledge but he was convinced that the Military Experts attached great importance to it.

MR. LANSING said that the American Military Experts did not attach any value to it.

BARON SONNINO pointed out that the British proposal demanded the surrender of all chemical processes out of which gases had been or could be made, and for the production of all substances from which