Ports, Waterways, and Railways

Title

Ports, Waterways, and Railways

Creator

Unknown

Date

No date

Source

Robert and Sally Huxley

Publisher

Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library & Museusm

Language

English

Text

PART XII.
PORTS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS

H.C. Nixon
September 5th, 1919.

PART XII. PORTS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS
Sections I. - V. REFERENCES:Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways (generally referred to as the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways):Rapport presente au conseil supreme des allies, le 18 mars. (This report consists of eight clauses affecting the Rhine, in form only slightly changed in the Treaty.)First Report to the Preliminary Peace Conference, April 7th.(This report gives a brief account of the work of the Commission from its organization in accordance with a decision by the Preliminary Peace Conference on the 25th of January. Articles offered include the Rhine river clauses of the previous report, with slight modifications.)Supplementary (Second) Report, April 25th.(This embraces the report of April 7th, with additions and modifications, as given in the notes below. The draft articles of this report were approved by the Council of Four on April 26th, with modifications as noted. In this report and in the report of April 7th, the Commission refrained from enumerating the powers; it referred to “A States”, meaning the Allied or Associated Powers, and to “B States”, meaning the remaining signatory powers. Of the draft articles offered, those numbered 32, 55, 56, 57, and 58 were not applicable to Germany and were not included in the Treaty with Germany.)Report regarding the remarks of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, June 9th.Memoranda on meetings of the Commission, and of the two sub-committees.Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, Second Part, VI. Inland Navigation.Minutes of meeting of the Council of Four (as cited)Note: For references and information on Part XII. Section VI. (Kiel Canal), see separate notes on that section.ARTICLE 321.Identical with Art. 321 of Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Art. 1, Report of April 7th and Art. 1, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Commission terms “A States” and “B States” changed respectively to “Allied and Associated Powers” and “Germany”.ARTICLE 322.Identical with Art. 322 of Conditions of Peace of May 7th. Art. 2, Report of April 7th and Art. 2, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. No changes except to substitute “Germany” for “B States”.ARTICLE 323.Identical with Art. 323 of Conditions of Peace of May 7th. First paragraph is based on the following first paragraph of Art. 3, Report of April 7th, and Art. 3, April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways:

“Subject to the special engagements contained in these articles, the B states undertake to make no discrimination in the charges and conditions of transport of goods and persons entering or leaving their territories based on the frontier crossed, or on the kind, ownership or flag of the means of transport employed, or on the route of or places of transhipment on the journey.”

The second paragraph is the second paragraph of Art. 3 of the reports cited, with slight verbal change.ARTICLE 324.Identical with Art. 324 of Conditions of Peace of May 7th. Art. 4, Report of April 7th and Art. 4 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, Term “B States” of the Reports changed in Art. 324 to read “Germany”.DELETED ARTICLE.Art. 325, Conditions of Peace of May 7th, does not appear in the Treaty of June 28th. The deleted article reads:

Germany undertakes not to take any measures the effect of which would be to divert traffic of any kind from its normal itinerary for the benefit of her own transport routes”.

This is Art. 5 of Report of April 7th and Art. 5 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, with term “Germany” substituted for “B States”. In annex to Report to the Peace Conference, June 9th, regarding the remarks of the German delegation on the conditions of peace, the Commission submitted the following with reference to the article quoted above:

“For 'traffic of any kind' substitute 'international traffic'”.
(This statement in the annex is folllowed by the note:
“The United States delegation wish to delete the whole article.)

Atta meeting of the Council of Four, June 13th, President Wilson read a letter from the American delegation urging that the whole article should be deleted. Mr. Lloyd George concurred in the view of the American delegation; he considered the article, in the old or new form, as unfair and unworkable. M. Sonnino pointed out that the object of the article was to prevent something akin to dumping, admitting that it would be difficult to enforce; he did not press strongly against its rejection. It was agreed to delete the article from the Treaty. (C.F. 65: Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, at 4 P.M. and attached Report of June 9th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.)
For mention of this article by the Germans in connection with criticism of naviigation provisions in the Conditions of Peace, see: Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, Second Part, VI.ARTICLE 325
and
ARTICLE 326Articles 325 and 326 of the Treaty of June 28th constitute, without change, the two paragraphs of Art. 326 of the Conditions of Peace of May 7th. They represent Art. 6, chapter 1, draft clauses of report of April 7th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, with change of words “B States” to read “Germany”. This Art. 5 was similarly reported by the Commission on April 25th.ARTICLE 327.Identical with Art. 327, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. First three paragraphs are an enlargement and modification of the following first paragraph of Art. 7, Report of April 7th, and Art. 7, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways Commission:

“Under reserve of restrictions concerning the exercise of maritime coasting trade, the subjects, property and flags of the A States shall, in respect of charges, facilities, and in all other respects, be treated on a footing of perfect equality in the ports and on the inland navigation routes of the B States, no distinction being made to the detriment of subjects, property and flags of the A States, between the latter and the subjects, property and flags of the B State itself or of the State whose subjects, property and flag enjoy the most favourable treatment”.

The first sentence of the last paragraph is taken from Art. 7, Reports of the Commission iof April 7th and 25th, with immaterial verbal change. The last sentence is based on the following last sentence of Art. 7 of the Reports:

“Such reasonable and uniform prescriptions shall not unnecessarily impede traffic”.

ARTICLE 328.Identical with Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 8, with only technical changes, of Report of April 7th, and Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 329.Identical with Art. 329, Conditions of Peace May 7th, Art. 9, Report of April 7th and Art. 9 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. No change in wording between Treaty article and that of Commission article.ARTICLE 330.Identical with Art. 330, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Art. 10, Report of April 7th and Artic10, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, with “Germany” substituted for “the B States”.ARTICLE 331.Identiacal with Art. 331, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Art. 11, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Treaty article varies from the Commission article only in addition of the word “constructed” in ninth line. Art. 11, Report of April 7th of the Commission used term “Oppa” instead of “its confluence with the Oppa”, fourth line, and did not contain the paragraph appying to the contingency of a Rhine-Danube navigable waterway. No other variations.ARTICLE 332.Identical with Art. 332, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 12, with slight technical changes, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Art. 12, Report of the Commission made April 7th, reads:

“Article 7 above (327 of Treaty) shall be applicavble to the waterways which are declared to be aintliernational in the preceding article (331 of Treaty). On the parts of these rivers where the navigation is exclusively fluvial vessels of the B States shall not be entitled to carry passengers or goods by regular services between ports of riparian A States (Allied and Assocciated Powers) without special authority from the latter”.

ARTICLE 333.Identical with Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Art. 13, with slight verbal change, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Art. 13 of the Report made by the Commission on April 7th had nothing for the first words, “Where such charges are not precluded by existing conventions”.ARTICLE 334.Identical with Art. 334, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 14, unchanged of Report of April 7th and Art. 14, unchanged, of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 335.Identical with Art. 335, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 15, unchanged, of Report of April 7th and Art. 15, unchanged, of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 336.Identical with Art. 336, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 16, unchanged, Report of April 7th and Art. 16, unchanged, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 337.Identical with Art. 337, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 17 of Report of April 7th and Art. 17, Report of April 25tyh, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. The only change in language is in last part of last sentence, for which the Commission article reads, “shall not be suspensive” ijnstead of “does not require the suspension of the works”.ARTICLE 338.Identical with Art. 338, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 18, Report of April 7th and Art. 18, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Treaty article shows slight verbal change from the Commission article, which did not contain the phrase “in accordance with the provisions of Article 379” (last sentence).articlARTICLE 339.Identical with Art. 339, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Based on Art. 19 of Report of April 7th and Art. 19 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. With reference to this article, the two Commission reports vary slightly in language. Both show slight verhbal variations from the Treaty article and also make application to “Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria”.ARTICLE 340.Identical with Art. 340, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 210, Report of April 7th and Art. 20, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. The tTreaty article shows slight change in phrasing from the aArticle reported by the Commission.ARTICLE 341.Art. 341 (International Commission for the Oder) of the Conditions of Peace, May 7th, provided for only one representative from Prussia. Amendment “For '1 representative of Prussia' read '3 representatives of Prussia'” was submitted in annex to Report regarding the remarks of the German delegation on the conditions of peace by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, June 9th. This amendment was approved by the Council of Four at a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th. (See: C.F. 65 and attached Report of Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.)
This article (341) as offered in Conditions of Peace, May 7th, was Art. 21, with slight verbal change, of Report of April 7th and of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 342.Identical with Art. 342 of Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical, excepting change of “demand” to “a request”, (first line) with Art. 22, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Art. 22 of the Commission Report of April 7th did not use the word “other” before “States” in last line.ARTICLE 343.Identical with Art. 343 of Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 23, Report of April 7th and Art. 23 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 344.Identical with Art. 344, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical with Art. 24, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
Art. 24, Report of April 7th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, differed only in use of “river”, not “river system” in paragraph (b).ARTICLE 345.Identical with Art. 345, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 25, with only verbal change, of Report of April 7th and of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 346.Identical with Art. 346, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical with Art. 26, Report of April 7th and Art. 26, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.Article 347.Identical with Art. 347, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical, except for verbal changes in first paragraph, with Art. 27, Report of April 7th and Art. 27, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 348.Identical with Art. 348, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 28 of Report of April 7th and Art. 28 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 349.Art. 349, Conditions of Peace of May 7th does not contain the stipulation “and at which German representatives may be present”. This amended form was submitted June 9th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Riailways in an annex to Report regarding remarks of the German Delegation on the conditions of peace. The change was approved by tjhe Council of Four, June 13th. (See: C. F. 65 - Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th and attached Report of Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.) This article is based on Art. 29, Report of April 7th and Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. The latter reads:
“The B States agree to accept the regime which shall be laid down for the Danube by a Conference of the Powers nominated by the A States, which shall meet within one year after the signature of the Preliminary Peace Treaty.”ARTICLE 350.Identical with Art. 350, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 31, with slight verbal alterations, of Report, April 7th and Report, April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 351.Itdential with 351, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. This is Art. 32 of Report, April 7th and of Report, April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, with the following exceptions in language: For “Czecho-Slovak State, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State”, the Commission used “Tcheco-Slovak Republic, Serbia”; and for “the river system”, the Commission used only “the river.”ARTICLE 352.Identical with Art. 352, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Based non Art. 33, Report of April 7th and Art. 33, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. The Commission article, identical in both reports, applied to “Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey.”ARTICLE 353.Substituted for Art. 353 of Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, Report (June 9th) regarding Remarks of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, submitted the substituted article in final form as approved by the Council of Four June 13th. (See: C. F. - 65, Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, at 4 p. m. and annex to app. III).
The deleted article was not submitted in the Report of April 7th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. It was submitted in the following form as Art. 33A of Report of that commission on April 25th:
“In the event of all the Allied and Associated Powers, either on the Central Commission for the Rhine or on the International Commission charged with the administration of the Upper Danube, deciding within 25 years from the coming into force of the present Treaty upon the creation of a deep-draught Rhine-Danube navigable waterway, the German Government, or the Government of the State which may have been substituted therefor, shall be bound to construct such waterway in accordance with plans to be communicated to it by the said Powers.
“For this purpose the Central Commission for the Rhine shall have the right to undertake all necessary surveys.
“Should the German Government or the Government of the State which may have been substituted therefor fail to carry out all or part of the works, the Central Commission for the Rhine shall be entitled to carry them out instead.
“For this purpose the Commission shall be qualified to decide upon and fix the limits of the necessary sites and to occupy the ground after a period of two months after notification, subject to the payment of indemnities to be fixed by the Commission and paid by Germany.
“This navigable waterway shall be placed under the same administrative regime as the Rhine itself, and the distribution of the initial cost of construction, including the above indemnities, among the States concerned, shall be made by the Central Commission for the Rhine, enlarged by the addition of a representative of each of the Allied and Associated Powers represented on the International Commission charged with the administration of the Upper Danube but not represented on the Central Commission for the Rhine.”
Tuhis draft article, 33A of the Report, April 25th, was amended as follows by the Council of Four, on proposal of Sir. H. Lewellyn Smith, at the meeting of April 26th (See: I.C. 176 G) :

(1) First sentence to read:
“In the event of all the Allied and Associated Powers represented on the Central Commission for the Rhine and on the International Commission charged with the administration of the Upper Danube respectively.”
(2) Last sentence: Delete all that follows the words “shall be made by” and substitute “a tribunal to be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.”

The article, as thus amended and adopted, was incorporated as Art. 353 in the Conditions of Peace of May 7th, slight change being made in terminology. In connection with the substitution of a different Article as Art. 353 in the Terms of June 28th, the following from Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace (Second Part, VI) is to be noted:
“Under articles 353 and 361 Germany shall be bound to construct canals on her own territory against her own will acting on the desires of foreign states.” It was complained thqat this and Art. 325 would amount to a transfer to the Allied and Associated Governments of a decisive influence on the internal regulation of Germany's economic life.ARTICLE 354.Identical with Art. 354, Terms of May 7th.
Art. 34, slight verbal changes, of report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Treaty Art. 354 and Commission Art. 34 of Report of Apr. 25th show a slight modification from Art. 34 of the Com. Report of April 7th. The last had nothing for the last paragraph of the Treaty Article 354 except the following at end of its first paragraph: “subject to the following reservations, to which the Government of the Netherlands shall be invited to adhere.” (Crf: “subject to the conditions hereinafter laid down” at end of first paragrapyh of Treaty Art. 354.)
This article and the following articles dealing with the Rhine were agreed on March 17th and reported March 18th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, later modifications being made as noted.
It is stated in remarks accompanying the French version, (Rapport presente par la commission due regime international des ports voies d'eau et voies ferrees, le 18 mars) that the Rhine clauses were prepared after taking French proposals as a basis.
The Report of April 7th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, states that on the question of the Rhine, the Commission had the views of the Swiss and the Netherlands Governments placed before it. The Swiss Delegation thought that the commission of riparian states, provided for by the Convention of Mannheim, should be replaced by a commission which was really international. The Netherlands Delegation, on the other hand, said the working of the central commission provided for by the Convention of Mannheim was quite satisfactory and should continue without change and without other than riparian states taking part therein. The Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railaysways maintained its decision for an international Rhine Commission. (See: Preface to Report of April 7th, Commission on Ports, waterways and Railways.)ARTICLE 355.Identical with Art. 355, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 35, Report of April 7th and Art. 35, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
As reported March 18th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, this article contained the following with reference to German representation on the Central Commission:

“4 representatives from German States which bordered on the river before 1870 or which may constitute themselves or be constituted at any time on the territory of these States whether they be independent or connected in any manner with oterher German States: should the number of such States not equal four the States shall agree upon the election of the four representatives”. (Translation from the French.)

AA memorandum on the meetings on March 15th of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways states that the French were very keen to have an American representative on the Commission provided for by this article. Mr. White, though unable to see President Wilson on the subject, felt obliged to assure the Commission that the President would not favor an American representation. The possible presence of an American Delegate on the Central Commission was discarded as a hypothesis; the British, French and Italians then held a conference, which resulted in a proposal for representation that was satisfactory and was adopted at the time by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 356.Idential with Art. 356, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 36, Report of April 7th, and Art. 36, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 357.Identical with AArt. 357, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical oin substance with AArt. 37, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
Identical in substance with AArt. 37, Report of April 7th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, except that the latter was not so pointed on the one year period of determination by the arbitrator or arbitrators, merely stating:

“it ebeing understood that these installations and shares shall be specified within a maximum period of one year from the date of the signature of the Preliminary Peace Treaty.”

The draft of this article as reported by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, March 18th, did not contain the phrase “by an arbitrator or arbitrators appointed by the United States of America” (next to last paragraph).ARTICLE 358.Identical with Art. 358, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 38, Report of April 7th and Art. 38, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, with the following exceptions:

In Art. 38 of the Reports (third main paragraph, second line) the word “Germany”, before “(1) binds herself”, is followed by “on her own behalf and on behalf of the Grand Duchy of Baden or any State which may be substituted therefor on the right bank of the Rhine”. In “(2)” of the same paragraph of the Reports, “Germany” is followed by “Aand the Grand Duchy of Baden or any State which may take the place of the latter”.
Art. 38 of the Commission Reports did not include the following provision in paragraph “(b)”, which was an amendment agreed on at the meeting of the Supreme Council on the morning of April 26th:
“Subject to the payment to Germany of the value of half the power actually produced, this payment, which will take into account the cost of the works necessary for producing the power, being made weither in money or in power, and in default of agreement being determined by arbitration”.

This amendment was provided for at a meeting of the Council of Four, President Wilson's house, April 26th (I.C. 176 G). It resulted from an observation by Sir Robert Borden, which was supported by President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George, while M. Claveille (France) explained the original Art. 38 of the Report as satisfactory.ARTICLE 359.Identical with Art. 359, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical with Art. 39, Report of April 7th and Art. 39, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, except that the Art. 39 of the Reports does not contain the limiting words “where it forms the boundary orf France and Germany”. These quoted words form an amendment agreed upon at the meeting of the Council of Four on the morning of April 26th, when Mr. Lloyd George drew attention to the original article and said it was a stiff claim to put forward. (See: I.C. 176 G).ARTICLE 360.Identical with Art. 360, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 40, Report of April 7th and Art. 40, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 361.Identical with Art. 361, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 341, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Instead of the word “Germany” this Report article contained the phrase “the German Government or the Government which may have been substituted therefor.” Art. 41 of the Commission Report of April 7th did not contain the expressions “and paid by Germany” (end of third paragraph) and “including the above indemnities” (last paragraph). Otherwise Art. 41 of the Report of April 7th is similar to Art. 41 of the Report of April 25th.
Though this article was not changed after May 7th, it was made a subject of complaint by the Germans. (See: Observations of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, Second Part, VI.) The German Delegation's comment is given above under Art. 353.ARTICLE 362.Identical with Art. 362, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 42, Report of April 7th and Art. 42, Reporot of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 363.Identical with Art. 363, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 43, Report of April 7th and Art. 43, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 364.Identical with Art. 364, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical, substituting “Czecho-Slovak State” for “Tchecho-Slovak Republic”, with Art. 44, Report of April 7th and Art. 44, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 365.Identical with Art. 365 of Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with the first two paragraphs of Art. 45 of Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Identical in substance with first two paragraphs of Art. 45 of Report that Commission, April 7th, except that latter did not include the words: “facilities and all other matters” (fourth line). Art. 45 of both reports, without specific names of States, made application to “A countries” (Allied and Associated Powers) and “B countries” and contained the following additional paragrapgh:

“However, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 6 (articles 325 and 326 of Treaty), the B States undertake to maintain on their own lines the regime of tariffs existing before the war as regards traffic to the Adriatic and Black sea ports, from the point of view of competition with North German ports.”

Art. 378 makes this article (365) subject to revision by the League of Nations after five years. On the occasion of the approval of these articles by the Council of Four, the Italians were not represented, but President Wilson said attention should be given to their reservations. It was stated by General Mance that the Italians warented the provision (in Art. 365) to be permanent. President Wilson said this could not be accepted, and the reference in Art. 378 to Art. 365 was allowed to stand.
(See: Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 26.th--I.C. 176 G.)ARTICLE 366.Identical with Art. 366, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 46, Reports of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
First paragraph is first paragraph, nearly the same words, of Art. F. of part II. of draft clauses submitted by the Economic Commission.
Second paragraph is an enlargement of Art. 46 onf fcraft clauses prepared and proposed in Report of April 7th by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, this paragraph being also incorporated in Art. F. of part II of draft submitted by the Economic Commission with omission of the last sentence. For the words “If within five years from the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty and a new convention”, the draft submitted by the Economic Commission and by the Report of April 7th of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways used the general statement “When a new convention”.
The Economic Commission noted that the second paragraph was prepared by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways but made no such note as to the first paragraph.
(See: Economic Commission, Draft of clauses - p. 14 of American edition - and side notes to Art. F of part II.)ARTICLE 367.Identical with Art. 367, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. Identical, in substance, with Art. 47, Report of April 7th and Art. 47, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Raiolways, except that “long distance” (last of first paragraph) does not occur in Art. 47 of the Reports. This word was added as an amendment agreed on at the meeting of the Council of Four on the morning of April 26th (I.C. 176 G.) The addition of the words “long distance” was a proposal made by Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith for purpose of preventing interference with fast special trains between centers within Germany, for example, a special train for service between two business centers.ARTICLE 368.Identical with Art. 368, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 48, Report of April 7th and Art. 48, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways, and Railways.ARTICLE 369.Identical with Art. 369, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical with Art. 49, Report of April 7th, and Art. 49, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 370.Identical with Art. 370, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 50, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways except that the latter used merely the words “Berne Convention” instead of the Treaty words “Berne Convention of May 15th, 1886, as modified on May 18, 1907”. Both articles are an enlargement of Art. 50 of the Commission Report of April 7th, which reads:

“The B States shall fit their wagons with apparatus allowing of their introduction into goods trains on the lines belonging to A countries, without hampering the action of the continuous brake which may be adopted by the A countries, and allowing also the acceptance of wagons of A countries in all goods trains on lines of the B countries”.

ARTICLE 371.Identical with Art. 371, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 51, Report of April 7th and Art. 51, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. The Report articles, making applications to “B States” instead of to the specific State of “Germany”, used the word “armistice” without the date of November 11, 1918.ARTICLE 372.Identical with Art. 372, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 52, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. Art. 52 of the Commission Report of April 7th did not contain the qualifying point “if not specifically provided for in the ypresent Treaty”, and without providing for “convention between the Railway administrations concerned”, stipulated that “the Commission of experts composed as the Commissions referred to in the preceding Article shall determine the conditions of the working of such lines”.ARTICLE 373Provisions Relating to Certain Railway Lines.References:

Report (April 7th), Commission on the international regime of ports, waterways and railways. See Art. 53 of clauses offered for insertion in treaty by this report.
Report (April 25th), Commission on the international regime of ports, waterways and railways. See Art. 53 of clauses offered for insertion in the treaty by this report.
Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 26th. (I.C. 176 G.)
Report (June 9th) regarding the remarks of the German delegation on the conditions of peace, Commission on ports, waterways and railways. See Art. 373 in annex to this report. Report is attached as App. III. to C.F. 65 (notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, at 4 P.M.)
German note of May 29th transmitting the observations of the German delegation on the Conditions of peace. (American Peace Com. bulletin no. 322, May 30, 1919.)
Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, at 4 P.M. (C.F. 65) and App. III and annex.
Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 14th, at 4 P.M. (C.F. 67)
Conditions of Peace, Art. 373.

Art. 373 of the Treaty was substituted for Art. 373 of the Conditions of Peace by decision at President Wilson's house, June 14th, at 4 P.M. The deleted article was based on Art. 53, Report of April 7th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, which reads:

“In the baabsence of special agreements the B States shall be bound to allow the construction or improvement of lines and connections situated on their territories which might be needed for the establishment of good through services or for the improvement of communication between the A countries and any other country, should the A country within a period of 25 years so require, undertaking at the same time to defray the initial cost of construction.
“Reservation is made as regards the new trans-alpine lines of the Cel de Reshen and the Pas de Predil, of the improvement of the Batislava (Pressburg)-Nagy-Kanisza line, and of other lines specified in the definitive Peace Treaty as having to be constructed or improved on the basis of the division of expenses in proportion to the advantages derived by the interested States. Such division in the absence of agreement, shall be made by an arbitrator appointed by the League of Nations.”

Art. 53 of the Report, April 25th, by the same Commission was identical with the article quoted above, except that for “Reservation is made as regards” it contained the words, “Reservation is made as regards” it contained the words, “Reservation is made as regards payment of the initial cost of construction in the case of”. At a meeting, President Wilson's house, April 26th, Stir H. Llewellyn Smith criticised this article, with the result that it was agreed the construction of lines under this clause should be subject to the authority of the Council of the League of Nations. (See: Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 26th.--I.C.176 G)Art. 373 of the Conditions of Peace was reconsidered by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, in the light of German objections. A German note of May 29th (Signed by Brockdorff-Rantzau) contained the statement that “Germany is compelled to build, on her own territories, the canals and railways requested by the adversaries” (See Amer. Com. to Negotiate Peace, bulletin no. 322, May 30, 1919.) The Report of June 9th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways submitted the following (in annex) on Art. 373 of Conditions of Peace:

“Delete and substitute the following:-
“'Within a period of five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Belgium and the Tchecko-Slovak State may require the construction of the lines specified below:-
“'(a) Belgium-
“'A branch going from Swalmen (Netherlands) towards Bruggen and from Bruggen to a point situated halfway between Kempen and Kaldenkirchen, and a branch from Bruggen to Melick-Herkenbosch (Netherlands).
“'(b) The Tchecko-Slovak State-
“'1. A connection between the station of Waidhaus and the Rensberg-Tachov line;
“'2. A connection between the station of Barnau and the station of Tachov;
“'3. A connection between the station of Schlanney and Nachod.
“'The Nuremberg-Schwandorf-Furth in Walde line to be made suitable for express traffic.
“'Special conventions between the interested States shall regulate for each line the division of the initial establishment expenses and the conditions of working. In the absence of agreement, matters shall be decided by an arbitrator nominated by the League of Nations'”

This statement in the annex to the Report is followed by the note that the United States and British Empire delegations (on ports, Waterways and Railways Commission) wished to delete the whole article. This article was deleted by agreement at the meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, at 4 P.M., when President Wilson pointed out that both the British and American delegations wished to delete it entirely.
Article 373 of the Conditions of Peace was reconsidered at a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 14, at 4 P.M., when the history of the article was brought out and the decision of the previous day modified. (See C.F. 67, Notes of a meeting)At this meeting President Wilson pointed out that Art. 373 of the Conditions of Peace would have compelled Germany to allow railways to be constructed in her territory by the Allied and Associated Powers; that the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways had proposed a fresh draft which would have enabled Belgium and the Czecho-Slovak State to construct certain specified lines; that the Council had come to the conclusion that this was not a just provision for among other things the proposed clause provided for the possibility of some of the expense falling on Germany; that this would have meant a burden heavier on Germany than was provided in the original clause and it had been a fixed principle not to impose any greater burden on Germany than had been contained in the original Treaty.M. Kramarcz was then heard. He said he had been a member of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways and was familiar with the question. It originated with a desire on Italy's part to obtain certain junctions with the Tauern Railway. Belgium had then expressed a desire for improving the communications between Antwerp and Mannheim. Germany was right in protesting against the original clause, for it would have given an undefined right of railway construction by foreign powers in Germany. Such a provision was indefensible. The object of the new text (proposed by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways for Art. 373, in Report of June 9th: quoted above) had been to meet the German criticism by defining and limiting what was required of Germany; to show that the Allied and Associated Powers had no desire to construct railways in Germany wherever they pleased; and to ask for certain definite improvements on specified lines. The proposals now made amounted to very little. The first was for improvements for connecting Antwerp with the Rhine provinces. The second proposal provided for certain railways of considerable importance to Czecho-Slovakia, but he thought the new article would satisfy the Germans. The United States delegates had taken a strong line against the proposal, but the British delegates had only made slight objections. (Note statement, following the new text quoted above from the Commission Report of June 9th, that the British and American delegations wished to delete the entire article.) If Belgium and Czecho-Slovakia were left alone to negotiate these railway constructions with Germany, they would be in an inferior situation. They wanted the support of their Allies in pressing for this construction and asked for the maintenance of the article.M. Hymans, who was present at this meeting tybut had not been on the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, thanked M. Kramarcz for his explanations. He expressed general agreement and agreed with M. Kramarcz in pressing for retention of the amendment.Mr. Lloyd George asked Dr. Benes and M. Hymans whether the proposed railways were of sufficient importance for it to be worth while for the Czecho-Slovak and Belgian Governments respectively to construct the railways in Germany at their own expense.Dr. Benes replied in the affirmative in regard to the connection between stations of Schlanney and Nachod, that this railway was important for conveying coal from Upper Silesia.M. Hymans was unable to answer, but undertook to send an expert, who did not arrive.The Belgian and Czecho-Slovak delegates withdrew after making further explanations on a map. After consultation with the British expert, Colonel Henniker, the Council decided that instead of deleting Art. 373 in accordance with the decision of the previous day, a new Art. 373 should be inserted in the Treaty with Germany, providing that within a period of five years from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the Czecho-Slovak State may require the construction at the expense of the Czecho-Slovak State of a connection between the stations of Schlanney and Nachod. An instruction to the drafting committee in this sense was initialled by the representatives of the five Principal Powers.ARTICLE 374.Identical with Art. 374, Conditions of Peace May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 54, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. This is an enlargement of Art. 54, Report of April 7th of the Commission, which reads:

Germany undertakes to accept, on request being made by the Swiss Government after agreement with the Italian Government, the denunciation of the Covention of the 13th October, 1909, relative to the application over the St. Gothard route of reductions of tariffs introduced on other routes”.

ARTICLE 375.Identical with Art. 375, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 59, Report of April 7th and Art. 59, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 376.Identical with Art. 376, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 60, Report of April 7th and Art. 60, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 377.Identical with Articl 3. 377, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical with Art. 61, Report of April 7th and Art. 61, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.ARTICLE 378.Identical with Art. 378, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 61A, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways; but not included in the Report made by the Commission on April 7th. As part of the Report of April 25th, this Aarticle came before the Supreme Council on April 26th, with discussion as to the reference to Art. 45 of Report (365 of Tretaty). It was decided the reference tshourld stand. (See: Notes of a meeting at Prsesident Wilson's house, April 26th. -- I.C. 176 G. See, for Italian reservations, the notes given above under Art. 365.)ARTICLE 379.Identical with Art. 379, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Identical in substance with Art. 61B, Report of April 25th, Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
Not included in Report of April 7th made by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.
This article, rpproviding for Germany's acceptance of general conventions which may be concluded, was read in connection with the discussion in a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 7th (See: CF-51.). The Council of Four considered a communication from Sir H. Lewwellyn Smith, who asked whether it was desired that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, after completing articles for the various treeaties, should endeavor to settle general conventtions concerning matters in the scope of the Commission. On April 26th the Council of Four had decided that the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways should prepare a report on the question of a general treaty, applicable to all countries.PART XII. PORTZS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS
SECTION VI. CLAUSES RELATING TO THE KIEL CANAL
ARTICLES 380 TO 386PART XII. PORTS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS
SECTION VI. CLAUSES RELATING TO THE KIEL CANAL
ARTICLES 380 TO 386References, listed chronologically:Supreme War Council:2nd meeting of 13th session, February 8th, BC-26.5th meeting of 13th session, February 12th, BC-30.Meeting of 17th session, March 6th, BC-45 and Annex B, II, 4.Memorandum on meetings on March 10th and 11th of Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.Supreme War Council:Meeting of March 17th, BC-52.Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways:Rapport oresente au conseil supreme des allies, le 18 mars. (See: the introductory remarks.)Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, Apruil 24th, I.C. 176 B.Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal:Report of April 25th.Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 25th, I.C. 176 E and Appendix.Observations of the German Delegatibon on the Conditions of Peace, Second Part VI.Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways:Report (June 9th) regarding the remarks of the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace. (See: last paragraph of Annex.)Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, CF-65 and Appendix III.Part XII. Section VI.
Clauses relating to the Kiel Canal.Proposals and discussions with reference to Koiel Canal clauses occupied the attention of naval experts and meetings of the Supreme War Council before the question was referred to a mixed xsub-commission, which reported, April 25th, a set of clauses that were incorporated in the Treaty, except for certain modifications.In reporting naval clauses, which came before the Supreme War Council on February 8th, the admirals of the five great powers submitted the following on the Kiel Canal:

“The Kiel Canal shall be open at all times to all war or commercial vessels of every nation. No nation shall benefit by specially favorable treatment, and no class of vessel shall be excluded from the canal.”

But as this meeting was primarily for discussion of the armistice, the question of naval clauses was adjourned, with remarks by President Wilson and Mr. Balfour that there should be no anticipation of the Peace Terms in the armistice. (See: 2nd meeting of the 13th session of the Supreme War Council, February 8th, and app. D.- BC26 and app. D.) The clause was resubmitted in the same form by the admirals and considered again by the Supreme War Council Oon March 6th (17th session of the Supreme War Council, March 6th, BC45 and annex B, part II., clause 4.) Following the statement of the clause in the annex of the minutes is the note : “Admiral Benson does not agree to this clause, and believes that it cannot be justified except as a punitive measure”. The clause was discussed at this meeting of the Supreme War Council.Mr. Balfour did not know what principles had guided Admiral Benson in making his reservation. Importance of the Kiel Canal was very great. If Germany were permitted to hold the Canal under present conditions, strength of German fleet would be doubled, the Baltic would be a German lake, freedom of Sweden and Denmark, Finland, Latvia, and Esthonia, and even of Russia would be jeopardized, if the last ever again became a maritime power. From the international point of view, the question was of extreme importance. Use of the Canal for purely strategic purposes must be restricted as had been in the case of the Panama and Suez Canals, where the provisions now suggested were already in operation.Mr. Lansing was not unmindful of the argument in favor of the provision. Strategic advantage to Germany of the Kiel Canal was great; it could double her power by allowing transfer of ships from the Baltic to the North Sea. He did not, however, see why purposes aimed at by the clauses could not be accomplished by destroying fortifications of the Kiel Canal and preventing their reconstruction. He failed to understand why all commercial ships of other countries passing through the Kiel Canal should be given special privileges. The same privileges might be asked in case of the Cape Cod Canal in the Untited States. He could see little justice in allowing the clause to remain, since the German fleet was to be reduced to very small fihgures, and the fortifications of the Kiel Canal were to be destroyed.Mr. Lloyd George and M. Tardiueu saw no injustice in the proposal, the former thinking it to be no more than was done in case of the Panama and Suez Canals (to allow passage of ships of all nations) and would be a benefit to German ports. M. Tardieu said the bestowal of equal rights on all nations could not be interpreted as an act of injustice.According to minutes of this meeting of the 17th session of the Supreme War Council, Mr. House proposed and it was agreed that the question of the Kiel Canal should be referred to the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. On March 11th a draft of clauses in regard to the Canal was considered by a special committee, consisting of representatives of the Great Powers and technical advisers. This draft was adopted at a subsequent meeting, on the same day, of the full Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways. (Information from a memorandum on meetings of March 10th and 11th of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.)At a meeting of the Supreme War Council, March 17th (S.W.C.18; BC-52), the Kiel Canal came up for discussion in connection with Art. 38 of the Naval clauses as submitted. M. Leygues said that the bsub-commission had unanimously agreed that the following clause should be inserted in the preliminary Treaty, on the assumption that the Canal should remain entirely within German territory and without prejudice to any guarantees of a military nature:

“Tjhe Kiel Canal shall remain under the sovereignty of Germany with the reservation that the rules, whuich shall ultimately be formulated in regard to the international regime of navigable waterways shall be applied to this Canal and its approaches, in particular those rules which concern freedom of navigation for the subjects, goods, and flags of all nations at peace with Germany in such a manner that no distinction shall be made between the subjects, goods, and flags of Germany, and aiof all other States at peace with her. This provision shall apply not only to Mmerchant ships, but also to ships of war”.

M. Leygues, speaking of this text as submitted by the sub-Ccommission, said the proposal had been made that the Canal should be placed under the sovereignty of Germany. In the past that arrangement had permitted the hegemony of Germany, enabling her to make the Baltic a German lake, economically and militarily. In his opini9on two things were necessary, namely: firstly, German sovereignty over the Kiel Canal must not be proclaimed and, secondly, the regime to be enforced should allow free access to the Baltic through the Kiel Canal to the ships of all countries, and especially to the ships of those Baltic countries whdose independence and autonomy it had been decided to recognize so that their means of existence might be ensured to them.President Wilson was prepared to discuss any proposal that would make the Kiel Canal a free international waterway; but the draft text under consideration was extremely vague, merely stating that the rules, which might ultimately be formulated in regard to the international regime of waterways should be applied to this Canal. This prescribed the application of an un-named and un-defined system. He enquired whether it would not be sufficient to say that the retgime to be applied to the Kiel Canal should be the same as that applied to the Suez Canal. Had it been proposed to give the Canal the same status as the Suez or the Pabnama, that would constitute a definite proposal.M. Leygue suggested that the Conference accept the text proposed by the admirals on February 8th (quoted above).Mr. Lloyd George enquired when the Report of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways xcould be expected. He did not think that Germany should be treated in any different way to other countries in connection with public waterways passing through her territory. He invited attention to the international regime applied, for instance, to the Danube.President Wilson thought a distinction should be drawn between the Kiel Canal and other international waterways, in that the Kiel Canal was an artificial waterway running altogether through Germany, and created by her; whereas great rivers, like the Danube, constituted the boundaries of nations or passed through one national territory and continued in another.Mr. Balfour said the Conference was discussing how to limit Germany's military and naval power. Use of the Kiel Canal in time of war gave Germany an enormous advantage, and it was in the public interest that the Canal not be used for purely military purposes. From a commercial point of view, he was told, the Canal was not of much importance. Consequently, unless the fortifications in connection with the Canal could be destroyed, it was of little use to take any other action. He proposed that the whole question should be referred to the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways.President Wilson agreed that the question should be left to the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, as it was in reality a purely commercial question, and, he thought, the same general policy should be applied to the Kiel Canal as to other international waterways.Mr. Lloyd George, expressing the view that the sub-commission had accepted that principle, said, aon the other hand, it would be fdifficult to avoid the Canal remaining under the sovereignty of Germany.Mr. Balfour thought that measures should nevertheless be taken to prevent its being fortified.Admiral deBon said the French had in fact drawn up the following text for inclusion in Art. 38 (of Naval Clauses, as numbered by the admirals, Art. 38 being under discussion) : Three paragraphs preventing erection or installation of fortifications, prescribing for existing fortifications to be demolished and guns removed within three months, and that the same will apply to torpedo-tube batteries, mine stores, and obstruction material sheds. This text (French proposal) had not yet been accepted by the Allied Naval experts.With some additional discussion whether or not the stipulation to prevent fortification should here be dealt with in view of the subject's being covered by other general provisions, and a remark by Mr. Lloyd George that further consideration should be postponed for the report of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, it was agreed to reserve this article for further consideration. (See: Notes of a meeting of the Supreme War Council, March 17th: SWC18; BC52).“At a meeting in the room of M. Pichon at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Quai d'Orsay, the 16th April, 1919, it was decided to submit the question of the Kiel Canal to a mixed Commission composed of naval expe5rts and of certain members of the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways.” (First paragraph of the Report of the Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal). This sub-Commission on the Kiel Canal met on the 18th and 19th of April to resume study of the regime to be applied to the Kiel Canal, M. Crespi (Italy) serving as president and Mr. White representing the United States. The sub-Commission rendered report under date of April 25th, though a copy of the eight articles submitted was before the meeting at President Wilson's house on April 24th. The articles were considered at a meeting oat President Wilson's house, April 25th. Six of the eight articles were left unchanged; the British, American, Japanese and Italian proposal for Art. 7 of the report (386 of Conditions of Peace) was adopted and the French proposal for this article rejected; and Art. 8 of the report, a French and Italian proposal, was omitted entirely. On complaint of the German Delegation, Art. 7 as adopted was again modified to become Art. 386 of the Treaty of June 28th. In the following paragraphs, discussions and proposals are summarised for each article of the Kiel Canal section.ARTICLE 380.Identical with Art. 380, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 1, without change, report of Sub-Commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th.ARTICLE 381.Identical with Art. 381, Conditions of Peace May 7th.
Art. 2, sligyht verbal change, report of the Sub-Commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th.ARTICLE 382.Identical with Art. 382, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Based on Art. 3, report of Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal April 25th. After the words, “interest of navigation”, the printed report of the Sub-Ccommission (British edition) has the additional words “together with interest on the capital cost of the Canal not exceeding that earned in the last complete year before the Wwar”. These deleted words do not appear in Art. III of the report as appended to the notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 25th. No objection was offered to this Article according to these mintues of the meeting.
By statement in report of the Sub-commission, the American Delegation wanted to suppress entirely this article; and the reasons given by the delegation were: Canal was an artificial waterway within German territory; gGermany should be free to exact charges which might include an equitable margin of profit to be devoted to defraying cost of construction or to be computed as rent for properties utilized; geographical situation makes it very improbablye that restriction on charges other than equality would be needed, and equality is provided for in previous article (381 of Treaty). The other delegates on the Sub-commission pointed out that the cost represented expenditurexs for naval and stragtegic purposes.ARTICLE 383.Identical with Art. 383, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 4, without change, report of Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th.ARTICLE 384.Identical with Art. 384, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 5, report of Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th, with change of word “regulation” in report to “Treaty” in the Treaty. The objection of the American delegation on the Sub-commission, as mentioned under summary of Art. 382, applied equally to this article.ARTICLE 385.Identical with Art. 385, Conditions of Peace, May 7th.
Art. 6, without change, report of Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th.ARTICLE 386.This article shows the deletion of the words, “and can demand the formation of an International Commission”, at the end of the first paragraph, as proposed in Art. 386, Conditions of Peace, May 7th. The German delegation made the statement in section VI (Inland Navigation) of Part II, of Comments on the Conditions of Peace, “The condition of article 386 by which the Kiel Canal is practicaally placed under an international commission would only be acceptable if all other straits linking up the seas would be treated likewise.” The deletion was submitted in Report regarding the remarks of the German delegation on the conditions of peace, made by the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways, June 9th; and this change in the article was approved at a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, (See: 65 Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, June 13th, -C.F. 65 and app. III.)
Article 386, with the words subsequently deleted, constituted the proposal of the British, American, Japanese, and Italian delegation for Art. 7 of the clauses reported April 25th by the Sub-commission on the Kiel Canal. The French proposal for this article reads:

“The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be under the control of an International Commission, which shall include -
“Two representatives of Germany;
“One representative of Great Britain;
“One representative of France;
“One representative of Poland;
“One representative of Denmark;
“This International Commission shall meet within three months from the signature of the Preliminary Peace Treaty ahdnd shall proceed immediately to prepare a project for the revision of the existing regulations. This project shall be drawn up in conformity with the General Convention on International Navigable Waterways, should such convention have been previously concluded; in the absence of such Convention, the promject for revision shall be in conformity with the provisions of the preceding articles”.

It was the sentiment of the French delegation on the Sub-commission that recourse to the League of Nations or a tribunal created by it would not be practicable in the case of an undertaking of this kind, that there was no reason why the Kiel Canal should enjoy a regime different from that which was provided for other international waterways, that only such an organization could effectively guarantee to States bordering on the Baltic a shorter and better access to the North Sea, natural passages being difficult of navigation according to opinion of French naval experts. Finally, the French asked that, if it were thought necessary to leave the administration of the Canal to Germany, at least a controlling body should be created on the spot analogous to that established in Art. 8 of the International Convention guaranteeing the free use of the Suez Canal, of October 29th, 1888.
The British and American delegations thought the Kiel Canal is to be distinguished from international rivers because it is an artificial waterway, to be distinguished from the Suez Canal because the latter is operated by a private company. At a meeting at President WilsOon's house, April 25th, this article was discussed.Mr. Lloyd George asked whether it was worth while setting up an International Commission to control a purely German Canal of no great value from a commercial point of view. Most ships would still prefer to use the Belts, and only a few ships trafficking between Dutch and Baltic ports were likely to use the Canal. There were no dues in the Belts, and must be dues in the Canal. He asked if it were worth while to hurt German pride and add to our own difficulties for a small matter.M. Clemenceau agreed that it was not, and withdrew the French draft of the article.
The British, American, Japanese and Italian proposal was adopted. (See: Notes of a meeting at Prewsident Wilson's house, April 25th, - I.C. 176 E, British index).PROPOSAL NOT ACCEPTED.Art. 8 of report of the sub-Commission on the Kiel Canal, April 25th, was submitted to the Supreme Council as a French and Italian proposal. It reads:The report states that the American, British and Japanese Delegations on the sub-Commission decsired to omit this proposed article; these delegates and their naval experts pointed out that the eastern approaches to the Canal and the greater part of the Canal itself are within the area covered by Art. 195 (already approved as Art. 36 of Naval Clauses by the Supreme War Council), which stipulated for all fortifications to be destroyed; that the remainder of the Canal and the western approaches are covered by Art. 196 (already approved as Art. 37 of Naval Clauses by the Supreme War Council). This proposal was discussed at a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 25th, and it was agreed to omit the article altogether. (See: Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 25th, and it was agreed to omit the article altogether. (See: Notes of a meeting at President Wilson's house, April 25th. - I.C. 176 E, British index) However, this decision took place only after some discussion and the hearing of expressions from naval experts. Admiral deBon strongly advocated the retention of the article, emphasizing that the Canal should be absolutely free and that there should be no defensive fortifications at the Elbe end. Admiral Benson felt it a mistake to touch the Kiel Canal at all. Mr. Lloyd George and President Wilson made remarks unfavorable to the retention of the article, the former expressing the hope that the French would not press for the inclusion of the article.

Original Format

Letter

Files

http://resources.presidentwilson.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D60041.pdf

Citation

Unknown, “Ports, Waterways, and Railways,” No date, R. Emmet Condon Collection, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library & Museum, Staunton, Virginia.