tion to Italy even in cases where proper transport permits have been issued. They have received similar orders to prevent the transit of goods from enemy countries directed to Italy, through our territory, and the transit of goods directed from Italy to enemy countries. (Signed) DR. JOHN PALECK, Bano Annexure "C" ESTHONIA Resolution by the Supreme Economic Council At the Meeting of the Supreme Economic Council held on Monday, 24th March, 1919, the following resolution presented by the Blockade Section was approved for submission to the Supreme War Council:WHEREAS it is desirable that reasonable quantities of commodities should be permitted to reach Esthonia, RESOLVED that subject to guarantees being given that no imported commodities and no articles manufactured therefrom will be exported to Germany and Bolshevik Russia, 1. Applications for permission to ship commodities to Esthonia shall be made to and decided by, the Allied Blockade Council in London, except in so far as such shipments are made from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland. 2. The Inter-Allied Trading Committees in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland shall be authorised to endorse licences for the export of commodities from these countries respectively to Esthonia and shall notify the Allied Blockade Council of the exports affected under this arrangement in order that the rations of the exporting countries may be credited to the extent of the exports made. 3. The Allied Blockade Council shall be requested to prepare at once an estimate of the quarterly requirement of Esthonia in the matter of foodstuffs and most important raw materials, based in the case of foodstuffs on the instructions of the Food Section and in the case of other commodities upon the best material available. 4. The Inter-Allied Trading Committees in the Northern Neutral Countries shall be requested to authorise exports to their respective countries from Esthonia. 5. The Allied Blockade Council shall be empowered if they consider it necessary to set up an Inter-Allied Trading Committee at Revel. 6. The announcement of these arrangements to be made on the 1st April, 1919. NOTE: In the event of the above Resolution being approved it will be necessary for the Naval Authorities to issue appropriate instructions regarding the passage of trade to and from Revel. Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/3 FM-3 Secretary's Notes of a Meeting Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, April 1st, 1919, at 3 p. m. 1. Arrangements for Meeting the Germans 2. Proposed M. PICHON said that he had been asked to defer the first question on the Agenda as M. Clemenceau proposed to raise the question in the Council of Four. MR. LANSING said that it seemed to him to be more suitable that the heads of Governments should decide whether or not a Plenary Session should be held. It would be possible however for the Meeting to consider the question and make a recommendation, but it was a matter of high policy. MR. BALFOUR said that the alternatives were to decide on the holding of a Plenary Conference without consulting the heads of Governments; or on the merits of the report itself to recommend the holding of such a Conference. MR. BARNES said that on behalf of the Labour Commission he was not asking the Meeting to discuss the merits of the report. He was the bearer of a message from the Commission-a message already transmitted some time ago through the Secretary of the Conference before the departure of Mr. Gompers -to the effect that the report of the Commission be heard by the body which had set up the Commission, namely the Peace Conference. Since the framing of the report certain amendments had been suggested and without the authority of the Peace Conference the Commission could not reassemble to deal with them. MR. BALFOUR enquired whether Mr. Barnes proposed a debate in the Plenary Session on controversial questions. This appeared to him a very alarming prospect. MR. BARNES said that the procedure in the Plenary Conference would probably be very similar to what had taken place regarding the League of Nations. The main result would be that due publicity would be given to the subject. This would lead to the suggestion of useful amendments which the Commission might then be asked to study. M. PICHON thought that the method proposed by Mr. Barnes would be satisfactory as providing both for the ventilation of the subject desired by Mr. Barnes and also for the discussion of any changes that might be suggested, not in the Plenary Session as feared by Mr. Balfour, but in the Commission itself. BARON MAKINO said that he wished to make an observation on this point. The Japanese expert Delegates had from time to time as the Convention was discussed, expressed their opinion and made reservations. Among the points in reserve were some which were very important for Japan, and on the solution of these points Japan's final attitude to the Convention depended. If there was to be a serious dis 1 Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor and United States representative on the Commission on International Labor Legislation. cussion, the Japanese Delegates would ask for the earliest opportunity to express their views regarding these reservations. Labour conditions in Japan were very different from those prevailing in Europe and America. Japan had a large and growing population, and a narrow field for its energies. The result was a relative insufficiency of employment and comparatively low wages. The object of the Labour Conference was to establish throughout the world uniform standards. These standards in some respects were very remote from those at present prevailing in Japan. Should they be enforced in Japan the result might be a destruction of Japanese industries. Though there was a clause providing for the ratification of the Conference by the various Powers concerned, it was a foregone conclusion as matters now stood that many would not be able to adopt the standard proposed. Japan would be in a very difficult position unless some proviso were introduced permitting some elasticity in the application of the principles set out in the draft Convention. Failing this, Japan would not be able to accept the Convention. MR. BARNES said that Baron Makino's statement strengthened the request for a Plenary Meeting. The Japanese Delegation wished to put in proposals after the passing of the report. It might be suggested that the Commission should discuss these proposals. To this the Commission would reply that it had no authority to reassemble until its report had been submitted to the body which had entrusted the task to it. BARON SONNINO said that the procedure suggested by Mr. Barnes might be a little dangerous if used as a precedent. Mr. Barnes said that the Commission could not examine amendments made after its report had been concluded, until reauthorised to meet and do so by the Peace Conference. On the other hand, it was regarded as undesirable that the debate should take place in the Conference itself. But if all the amendments were to be brought up in the Conference, a debate could not be prevented. If discussion took place in the Conference, great delay would ensue. He therefore suggested that when any Delegation presented amendments, the Commission dealing with the subject should examine them, and present a supplementary report. Otherwise, a discussion in the Conference itself leading to further discussions in the Commission would conduce only to waste of time. MR. LANSING said that he agreed with Baron Sonnino. It was desirable to avoid setting a precedent in so cumbersome a method of procedure. Other Commissions would also make reports subject to reservations by one or other of the Delegates whose counter proposals could be appended to the report as memoranda and then referred to the Peace Conference. In respect to publicity he did not think there was much to seek, as "The Times" of the previous day had published the whole report. In this connection he wished to draw attention once more to the constant leakage that occurred from the various Commissions. From this he wished to exclude the Committee on Responsibilities over which he presided, and to every member of which he had explained that he would be held personally responsible for any news he might divulge to the Press. MR. BARNES explained that the Commission as such had no amendment or reservations to deal with, and for that reason no ground or authority for reassembling. MR. LANSING said that this might be so but his suggestion was that the framers of any amendments subsequent to the acceptance of the report should append them to the report. BARON SONNINO said that this would not prevent discussion at the Conference. MR. LANSING agreed that it was quite impossible to do so. BARON SONNINO remarked that to offer the Conference conflicting conclusions was to force the Conference to indulge in a debate. MR. BARNES said that what had been said regarding publicity was entirely in favour of the holding of a Plenary Meeting. The draft of the Commission's Report was coming out piecemeal in the Press. It would be far better that all newspapers should obtain the whole report at once. Indiscretions had occurred in "The Times" but "The Times" was not read by workmen. It was the desire of the Commission that workmen throughout the world should have a chance of knowing the whole of the Commission's proposals, and of discussing them. After general criticism and the suggestion of amendments by the Japanese and others, the Commission could meet again just as the Commission of the League of Nations had done. MR. LANSING proposed that the Commission should publish its report and thus save a Plenary Meeting. MR. BARNES said that this would not satisfy the Commission as the papers would not give the same prominence to the report of a Commission as to the report of a Plenary Conference. MR. LANSING said that he was strongly opposed to the holding of a Plenary Conference at this stage, unless the report were accompanied by all the amendments proposed. M. PICHON enquired whether Mr. Barnes had any objection to annexing to the report of the Commission any modification that might be suggested by the Japanese Delegates or others. MR. BARNES said that the labour question was one of the most important submitted to the Peace Conference. He thought, therefore that it should be given a prominent place in the Agenda. To speak quite plainly, the work of the Commission had been shelved. The Commission had sat for two months and had failed to secure the attention of the Peace Conference for the result of its work. The whole world was in a ferment and very largely on this very question. Late events in Hun 314579-43-VOL. IV- -35 |