MR. LANSING said that he was struck by the fact that if Austria were brought so far south, she might feel she had a claim to reach salt water.

BARON SONNINO observed that she would only be brought some 20 kilometres nearer the sea.

M. PICHON enquired whether any practical solution could be found. BARON SONNINO said he was ready to accept the proposal made by the Committee at the end of the second section of the Report. He was ready to do this in a conciliatory spirit to avoid obstructing the signature of a Treaty with Austria. He would have, however, a small amendment to make. He would stipulate that the triangle, the ultimate fate of which was to be reserved, should not be made so wide as to include the western line from Trieste, and thereby to leave in suspense the whole of the railway communications between Trieste and the north. In other words, the triangle should not include the line from Trieste to Villach via Udine and Tarvis.

MR. LANSING proposed that the formula suggested by the Committee be accepted with a proviso that the limit of the territory be to the east of Tarvis.

M. TARDIEU observed that the Committee had constantly kept in view the desirability of preserving uninterrupted communication between Trieste and Austria.

MR. BALFOUR said that he was ready to accept the view that it was the business of the Conference to see that direct and free railway communication be assured between Trieste, German-Austria, Bohemia and the north generally.

BARON SONNINO said that on this understanding he would agree to the draft of the Committee.

MR. BALFOUR said that his remark should not be interpreted as a pre-judgment on the question of territorial sovereignty. By direct and free communication, he did not mean necessarily to imply that railway lines were not to pass through ground belonging to a third State.

BARON SONNINO said that he accepted the proposal of the Committee on the understanding that due consideration was given to the necessity of preserving the railway communications of Trieste towards the north. He would make no concession in advance regarding the question of territory just mentioned by Mr. Balfour.

MR. LANSING pointed out that the Report of the Committee proposed that the frontier line should pass north of the tunnel of Rosenbach. He thought that it would be better to have the frontier line along the ridge over the tunnel.

(After some discussion it was agreed to omit the last clause of the first paragraph of the Committee's recommendation in part II of the Report.)

M. PICHON Suggested that the Committee should formulate a proposal, after taking into consideration the above discussion, for reference to the Council of Heads of States, and that no further reference need be made to the Council of Foreign Ministers, should the Committee reach a unanimous decision.

(This was agreed to.)

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

PARIS, May 10th, 1919.

Annexure "A"

Report Submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers by the Committee on Jugo-Slav Affairs

I. EXPLANATORY

(1). The Italian Delegation claim that to the west of the road Klagenfurt-Laibach, the frontier between Jugo-Slavia and Austria should follow a south south-easterly direction reaching the frontier granted to Italy by the Treaty of London in such a manner as to leave to Austria the upper part of the valley of the Save as far as Radmannsdorf.

(2). The Italian Delegation supports this demand by economic and military reasons to which it attaches the highest importance.

(a) Economic reasons.

The line Udine-Pontebba is insufficient to carry traffic between Trieste and Austria and the north, firstly by reason of its limited capacity, secondly by reason of its greater length, which increases the cost of transport.

Absolutely free use of the line Gorizia-Assling-Rosenbach is therefore indispensable to the life of Trieste, as the proposed link between Tolmino and Tarvis through the Predel Pass, is, according to the Italian Delegation, not realisable for a long time, and the delay would cause serious harm to the commerce of Trieste.

Should even a small part, (twenty-five kilometres) of the line Gorizia-Assling-Rosenbach be in Jugo-Slav territory, the traffic of Trieste will be hampered, firstly by passing through two customs barriers in a short stretch, secondly, by the risks incidental to any difference arising between the two countries concerned.

(b) Military Reasons.

The railway line in question, according to the Italian Delegation, does not represent a military threat against Italy on behalf of an enemy attacking from the North, as any attack from that side would necessarily be limited to that single point. On the other hand, it does represent a very serious threat favourable to any attack coming from the East, if supported by a developed system of communica

tions over more open ground. This threat would on the left wing compromise the line of defence from the sources of the Isonzo to the Adriatic.

The experience of the war and the events of October 1917 are proof of this.

(3). From the ethnographical point of view the Italian Delegation points out that if the consequence of their claim is that a certain number of Slovenes will be included in Austria, on the other hand equally large groups of Germans (Marburg, Gottschee etc.,) have been included in Jugo-Slavia.

It is further argued that in many similar cases, Commissions and the Supreme Council have given precedence over ethnographic considerations to economic interests like those put forward by Italy regarding railway communications.

II. OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee after three meetings held on the 9th and 10th May, presents the following report:—

1. The Committee unanimously recognises that the number of Slovenes who, as a consequence of the Italian claim, would remain in Austrian territory, amounts to about 50,000.

2. The Committee unanimously considers that it is not competent to deal with the military argument and suggests that this aspect of the problem should be studied by other Experts.

3. As regards the economic argument, the importance of which is unanimously recognised;

(a) The American Delegation considers that the inconveniences pointed out by Italy could be remedied by special stipulations regarding the regulations of customs. These regulations might be placed under international supervision which would ensure to Italy full and free use of the railway line.

The British and French Delegations are of the same opinion.

(b) The same Delegations consider that this would permit of the construction of a line from Tolmino to Tarvis by the Predel pass, without jeopardising the traffic of Trieste.

4. The above mentioned Delegations consider that this local problem is intimately connected with the solution of the general problem of frontiers between Italy, Austria and Jugo-Slavia, a problem with which the Committee is not entrusted. The solution of this problem may eventually remove the whole basis of the observations made by the Italian Delegation.

For this reason in order to avoid any delay in the drafting of the clauses of the Treaty of Peace with Austria, the following formula is proposed:

"The southern frontier of Austria should be continued from the

point south of Klagenfurt at which the line proposed in the Committee's report ends, in such a way as to follow the crest line of the Karawanken towards the West as far as Hill 2,035, northwest of Tarvis, but in such a manner as to leave to the south of the frontier the northern entrance of the tunnel of Rosenbach.

The district of Tarvis and the zone south east of it, which the Italian Delegation wishes to attribute to Austria, will thus be ceded by Austria to the Allied and Associated Powers.

Italy's interest in preserving all adequate means of communication by rail, free of all obstacles, between Italy and Austria, would thus be safeguarded."

The Italian Delegation made full reservations concerning any solution which might raise questions not entrusted to the Committee.

NOTE ANNEXE

It has been recognised that the limits of the Basin of Klagenfurt as fixed in the report of April 6th, would have the effect, should the population choose connection with Jugo-Slavia, of changing the sovereignty of the territory over which railway lines connecting Trieste and Vienna pass.

This consideration justifies a revision of the limits of the Basin of Klagenfurt within which enquiry should take place with the object of ascertaining the wishes of the population regarding the attribution of the region to Jugo-Slavia.

The Commission therefore proposes to fix the limit of the Basin of Klagenfurt in the following manner :—

South, the crest of the Karavanken.

Wes, a line starting from the crest of Karavanken north-east of Assling, going northwards towards the Drave, reaching it in such a manner as to leave five kilometres to the west of it the entrance of the tunnel of the line Rosenbach-Assling; thence following the course of the Drave up to 5 kilometres east of San-Ruprecht.

North, a line following the crest between Worther-See and Ossiacher-See, continuing towards the North east in such a way as to pass equi-distant from San-Veit and Klagenfurt, thence by the Steinbruchkogel (1075 metres, map 1/200,000) passing by the extremity of the crest of Sau Alpe (Hill 1458), continuing towards the South east, passing north of Griffen, cutting the valley of the Lavant 5 kilometres north of its confluence with the Drave and meeting towards the east the crest between the Lavant and the River Feistritz.

East, following the crest between the Lavant and the Feistritz and cutting the Drave south of its confluence with the Lavant, continuing towards the south west in such a way as to pass east of Eisenkappel and to meet the crest of the Karavanken at Hill 2559.

This outline from the ethnological point of view results in the exclusion from the Basin, as previously defined by the Committee, of a population of about 60,000 Germans.

PARIS, May 10th, 1919.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/15

FM-15

Secretary's Notes of a Meeting of Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, 14th May, 1919, at 3 p. m.

Method of Procedure To Be

Interpreter:-M. Cammerlynck.

(1) M. PICHON said that the Belgian Minister in Paris had come to see him, and had enquired whether the whole Belgian Delegation was to be present at the first meeting on the 19th May, when the revision of the Treaty was to be considered, or whether M. Hymans should be present alone. The answer had been, subject to confirmation, that the only Belgian plenipotentiary whose presence was necessary was M. Hymans, who might be accompanied by any technical advisers he might consider requisite.

Followed by Commission on the Revision of the

Treaties of 1839