desired the Commission to recommend. The Commission had received deputations from many localities requesting the constitution of numberless small republics on the pattern of San Marino and Andorra. He assumed that the Conference did not wish this tendency encouraged, especially in Central Europe, where national security was not well established.

M. Cambon, continuing, said that there was not much to say about the line traced to the West of the Glatz salient until it reached the neighbourhood of Reichenberg. At this point the Commission had ceded a salient of territory surrounding Friedland to Germany, though it had previously been Austrian territory. This was done as a compensation for the ground lost by Germany near Glatz. Germany, moreover, gained the advantage of holding the railway from Zittau to the North, and therefore gained more than she lost. Further West, near Romburg, the Bohemian frontier made a bulge into Germany. The majority of the Commission, namely, the British, French and Italian delegates, had been in favour of maintaining the old administrative line. The American delegate, however, had made a reservation on this point.

MR. BALFOUR asked M. Cambon to explain for what reasons the Commission had decided to leave the salient within Bohemia.

M. CAMBON said that there were historical reasons for doing so. MR. LANSING observed that in this salient there were 90,000 Germans and no Czechs.

M. CAMBON replied that the Commission had come to the conclusion that nature had so clearly marked the outlines of the country that it was undesirable to alter them without very cogent reasons. Further, it had thought it inadvisable to make a gratuitous offer to Germany of additional population, and thereby to create a precedent for the attribution of other Austro-Germans to the main federation.

MR. LANSING remarked that the Commission had, nevertheless, done this in respect of Friedland. He further pointed out that the line recommended by the American Delegation was a better geographical line than that proposed by the majority of the Commission.

M. CAMBON said that the majority had thought it reasonable to follow the old administrative border, which roughly followed the crests of the hills and had seen no sufficient reasons for disturbing the habits of the people formed by long connection with the administrative unit of Bohemia.

MR. LANSING asked whether the Commission would approve of a plebiscite in this area.

M. LAROCHE said that this question had been raised in the Commission, which, after consideration, had decided that a plebiscite could not be proposed in an isolated salient without extending it to

the remainder of the German Bohemians. If this were done, the Czecho-Slovak State would be reduced to very slender proportions.

MR. LANSING observed that this was not a good reason to justify an injustice.

More

M. LAROCHE denied that an injustice was being done. The inhabitants of these regions were accustomed to live in close connection with the rest of Bohemia, and did not desire separation. over, the German colonisation was of recent date. The result of the policy suggested by Mr. Lansing might be that the whole of Bohemia would elect to join Germany in order not to be separated from the German-Bohemians.

M. CAMBON said that there was little to remark about the boundaries further West up to Asch. This place the Czecho-Slovak Government had agreed to give up. The Commission took note of this, but the American Delegation desired to cut off a considerable salient in addition. The British, French and Italian delegates had not concurred, and had thought it better to leave the people in this area in their old entourage.

MR. LANSING observed that in the two salients discussed the line drawn by the American Delegation cut four railroads whereas that adopted by the other delegations cut ten. In the last salient mentioned there were 175,000 Germans and 3,000 Czechs. As far as he was able to judge, there was no valid reason against assigning this salient to Germany. Bohemia would lose nothing essential. There were in it some lignite mines, producing 7 per cent of the lignite in Bohemia, but as Bohemia exported lignite it was clear that it could get on without these mines.

M. CAMBON said that it was for the defence of Bohemia that the Commission had decided to keep the railway lines alluded to by Mr. Lansing within Czecho-Slovakia.

MR. LANSING said that he made reservations on this point.

M. PICHON said that on behalf of France, he also had reservations to make. He could not allow Germany to be fortified by populations taken from what had been Austrian Dominions, taken, moreover, from Bohemia, which, he trusted, would remain an Ally of France, and handed over to Germany, which, as far as he was concerned, still remained a country to be feared. If America refused to take into account considerations of national defence, France was not in a position to neglect them.

MR. LANSING asked whether M. Pichon had noted that in yielding Friedland to Germany the Commission had reinforced Germany by 60,000 inhabitants.

M. PICHON said that he was not prepared to generalise this practice. M. CAMBON observed that this was done in compensation for the readjustment of the frontier near Glatz. He further pointed out that

the railways at Eger were all directed towards Czecho-Slovakia. They were lines of penetration and any power commanding the junction would have control of the lines.

The boundary further South called for no special remark.

(Further Discussion on the Commission's Report was deferred until a solution of the differences between that Committee and the Committee on Polish Affairs had been adjusted.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

PARIS, 2nd April, 1919.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/4

FM-4

Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Tuesday, 15th April, 1919, at 3 p. m.

1. M. PICHON declared the Meeting open, and said that the Agenda of the Meeting had been circulated, together with a large number of draft articles relating thereto. With the approval Army of Occupa- of the Meeting he proposed to take up the various

Cost of Allied

tion in Rhenish

Districts

questions in regular sequence.

The first question dealt with the cost of the Allied Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish Districts. He would call upon General Weygand to make an explanatory statement.

GENERAL WEYGAND said that Marshal Foch had circulated to all the Missions a note concerning the expenses of the troops of the Armies of Occupation in the Rhenish districts. The paper gave full details in regard to the manner in which the estimates had been drawn up, and the manner in which payments should be made by the Germans. An Inter-Allied Sub-Commission had been convened at Spa and to it had been entrusted the duty of determining the extent of the obligations for which Germany was liable by virtue of the Second Paragraph of the Armistice Convention.1

The Sub-Committee had arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the reckoning of the expenses should be fixed at the rate of an average daily sum per officer, per man and per beast. In arriving at this figure it had been agreed that all possible charges should be included; that is to say, not only the actual maintenance charges, but also pays, transport charges and upkeep. As a result, it was found that the total expenses would amount to a comparatively high figure, more than 600 million francs a month, and they would therefore probably reach a sum of about three milliards of francs at the end of the fifth month of occupation. Marshal Foch had been struck by the high figures of these costs, and had come to the conclusion that they should properly be divided into two parts: a first part to include the actual cost of maintenance, and the items which the Allied and Associated Armies, when they entered the Rhineland, would have had the right to demand, by levies on local resources, and apart from lodging and billeting, the ordinary supplies and provisions necessary to satisfy their immediate wants. This first part should be immediately payable by the German Government. A second part would include all other expenses, such as general items of maintenance, transportation, salaries, and such other items as were properly a part of the cost of the war in general, and should be reckoned under war costs, subject to arrangement in a special order in proportion to their urgency. Accordingly, Marshal Foch had asked the Sub-Commission to enquire whether it would not be desirable to limit the cost of maintenance to be at once claimed from Germany to the amount representing the keep of the men and beasts and to that of billeting, charging the other expenses under the head of war costs, and in his report to the Governments, 1 For text of the Armistice, see vol. I, p. 1.