Documentary History of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany

DOCUMENTARY HISTORY
OF THE
TREATY OF PEACE
BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOOCIATED
POWERS AND GERMANY

PART
I
ARTICLES
1-26

Covenant of the League of
Nations.M. Florence Wilson.INTRODUCTION.Part one of the Treaty is the Covenant of the Legague of Nations, the basis of which was a draft presented by President Wilson and used as a basis for discussion at the suggestion of the British Delegation. This was not, as President Wilson said, wholly his own creation. “Its generation was as follows: He had received the Phillimore Report, which had been amended by Colonel House and re-wroitten by himself. He had again revised it after having received General Smuts' and Lord Robert Cecil's reports. It was therefore a compound of various suggestions. During the week he had seen M. Bourgeois, with whom he found himself to be in substantial accord on principles. A few days ago he had discussed his draft with Lord Robert Cecil and General Smuts, and they had found themselves very near together.” Supreme Council Minutes, January 21st, BC 6 and BC 6-A. At the Plenary Session of January twenty-fifth the “Draft Resolution to the League of Nations” was presented by President Wilson and unanimously accepted, an International Committee was then appointed to work out in detail the Consautitution and functions of the League. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 2. This Committee, called the Commission on the League of Nations was composed of two delegates from each of the Great Powers and nine delegates selected by the small nations. After ten meetings the first draft Covenant was ready. This was presented at the Plenary Session February 14th by President Wilson and was unanimously accepted. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 3. The draft was made public in order that discussion of its terms might be provoked. A great deal of constructive criticism followed and further suggestions resulted from hearing of representatives of thirteen neutral states on the twentieth and twenty-first of March. These various recommendations were taken under advisement by the Commission which held meetings on the twenty-second, thtwenty-fourth and twenty-sixth of March and on the tenth and eleventh of April. Report of the Commission on League of Nations, p.10. The final draft was presented at the Plenary Session of April twenty-eighth and was unanimously adopted. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5.BIBLOIOGRAPHYThe following sources have been consulted:Peace ConferenceSupreme Council MinutesPreliminary Peace Conference ProtocolsCommission on the League of Nations Minutes and ReportCommentary on the League of NationsPREAMBLEReferences in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, Pages 47, 74, 105-107.The Preamble as written, except for insignificant verbal changes, is the same Preamble as appeared in the Draft Covenant submitted to the Commission of the League of Nations at its first meeting. The following points, however, were raised:France suggested the following amendments:
1. That the League was founded at conclusion of the war against Germany by the victorious countries should be included in the Preamble.
Mr. Reis, (Portugal), opposed, Lord Cecil (England) opposed, Amendment was withdrawn.
2. That the League should be considered as a continuation of the Hague Conferences.
Amendment rejected by a vote of ten to five, Minutes p. 47Japan proposed the following amendment:
That after the words “relations between Nations” the following clause should be inserted: “By the endorsement of the principle of the equality of nations and the just treatment of their nationals.”Lord Cecil (England) opposed. He stated that the points either were vague and ineffective or else of practical insignificance. In the latter case they opened the door to serious controversy and to interference in the domestic affairs of States. Japan was permanently represented on the Executive Council and this fact would place her in a siutation of complete equality with the other Great Powers.
President Wilson - opposed. He said not only did the Covenant recognize the equality of States but it laid down provisions for defending this equality. That the amendment would lead to the greatest difficulties in controversies which would take place outside the Commission.
The Amendment was supported on the principle of the Equality of Nations by Italy, France, Czecho-Slovak Republic, Poland, China and Serbia but was rejected by a vote of seventeen to eleven.
Minutes, p. 105-107.ARTICLE 1 (7 of first draft)References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations - Pages 22, 33, 43, 49-51, 59, 60, 71, 73-75, 85-87.
Article 1 provides for the Membership in the League.First sentenceThis is the result of a scheme proposed by Lord Cecil rto require Germany to sign the Treaty and the Covenant and still not be permitted to be a member of the League
Enthusiastically accepted by entire Commission.
Minutes p. 71, 73.Second and third sentencesProduced no discussionFourth sentence, First halfFirst half was introduced by the British to provide that “full self-governing dominions and colonies should be on a par with autonomous states. No serious objection was raised to granting such priveileges to the British Dominions amd Colonies. Minutes p. 22, 23, 49, 50.Fourth Sentence, Second HalfThe second half was intended to lay down the condition which should govern the admission of Germany ito the League. It represents a compromise between xextreme French views and a more libebral view of the British and American delegations.
Minutes p. 22-23, 50, 51, 73-75. 43Fifth sentenceThe provision with regard to resignation from the League was adopted at the instance of President Wilson. It first provided for a period of ten years and that thereafter any state might withdraw upon giving one years notice. After discussion President Wilson agreed to abandon time limit and substitutea two years notice.
Minutes p. 85-87Proposals and discussions:Czecho-Slovak Delegates proposed the following:
“Nevertheless, any special conditions relating to military or naval forces imposed by the Treaty of Peace upon any State shall not be affected by the fact of the admission of that State into the League.”Minutes p. 59.
The Belgian Delegate objected as it was contrary to the spirit of the Covenant. The amendment was rejected.
Minutes p. 60.ARTICLE 2 (1 of first draft)Article provides that the action of the League shall be effected through an Assembly, Council, with a permanent Secretariat.
This article was not changed in any substantial sense from the moment when it was originally introduced.ARTICLE 3References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations - Pages 20, 21-22, 47-48.
Article 3 describes the Assembly.The only point under discussion in this article was the question regarding the number of representatives of each Membber of the League in the Assembly. It was originally provided that each member should have one representative. At the instance of the British Delegation, this number was raised to three, on the theory that a better statement of public opinion of each Member of the League could be arrived at after discussion between three representatives each of whom might be appointed upon the basis of representintg some particular domestic interest of its state. After the meetings with the representatives of neutral states, Lord Cecil was moved to urge that the number of representatives be increased to five, in order that the Assembly might have a more representative character. It was the opinion of the Commission, generally expressed, that this increase in numbers would result in an unwieldy body which could not be deliberative in any true sense. At an earlier meeting of the Commission, General Smuts had made an independent motion that the number of representatives should be incresaased to five and that they should be selected in each state by some preliminary body which wiitself was democratically chosen. Certain of the continental states, Belgium and Italy particularly, could not accept the idea of sending representatives who were not directly responsible to the political party in power. Objections to this proposal of General Smuts were so serious that his amendment was withdrawn.ARTICLE 4 (Article 3 in foirst draft)References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations - pages 20, 21, 22, 48 - 49, 72, 108, 90, 72, 73.
Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 4, 20, 21.The conception of the Council remained the same from the outs3et, that of a small Executive body representing the principal Members of the League. In the original dracft it was provided that the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan should have representatives upon the Executive Council together with representatives of two other Members of the League. All the smaller states represented on the Commission ,made serious objection and insisted that they should be represented on an equality with the Greater Powers. A compromise was finally struck on the basis of five representatives for the principal powers and four representatives of the small powers;Prosposals and discussions.General discussion and objections to first draft in reference to representation and selection of Smaller Powers on Executive Council.
p. 20, 21, 22, 48 - 49, 72.Lord Cecil opposed to increase of Executive Council - p. 20.
Belgium (Mr. Hymans proposed five delegates for smaller nations so that they would be represented on an equality with Great Powers.
Vesnitch (Serbia) proposed four delegates and was supported by Mr. Bourgeois (France) p. 21.
Mr. Pessoa (Brazil) accepted number but opposed selection by the Assembly, p. 22, 49.
Mr. Venizelos (Greece) urged the acceptance of four representatives, p. 48.
Lord Cecil (England) accepted four but insisted that the decision be unanimous.
Mr. Reis (Portugal) provisionally accepted four - p. 48.
Mr. Bourgeois (France) said that the chief thing was to mantain in due proportion between the Great and Small Powers as expressed in the relation of five to four i.e. a majority of one. p. 49.
Mr. Venizelos (Greece) accepted a majority of one, p. 49.
Lord Cecil (England) in order to meet thecriticism that the League was dominted by the Great Powers suggested an amendment but this was withdrawn in deference to opinion of Mr. Vesnitch (Serbia) and Mr. Hymans (Belgium) who believed that more suitable representatives of the Smaller Powers would be chosen if the Great Powers participated in the selection. p. 72.
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) proposed that the Executive VCouncil shall be composed of nine members to be selected by the Body of Delegates from among its number. These nine members shall be chosen from nine separate States but shall include a citizen of each of the Great Powers.
Lord Cecil (England) said that the decisions of the Council would lose a great deal of necesdsary authority if representatives of the Great Powers were not directly appointed by the Powers themselves. p. 72.
Amendment withdrawn p. 72.
Mr. Hymans (Belguium) proposed that a sdistinction be drawn between functions of the Executive Council and Body of Delegates.
President Wilson said such a distinction would probably be interpreted as a limitation of the Power of the Body of Delegates.
Mr. Hymans (Belgium) withdrew proposal. p. 72.Third SentenceInasmuch as the scheme of action called for si,multaneous meetings of the Council and Assembly at the first session of the League, and insasmuch as under normal circumstances it was necessary for the Assembly to nominate the four additional members on the Executive Council it was necessary to name in the Covenant at the outset certain specific states who should complete the Executive Council in addition to the principal Allied and Associated Powers. At the Plenary Session of April 28th, on President Wilson's motion, the Conference decided that representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Spain and Greece should be the first four additional members of the council.
Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, page 4.Proposals and discussions:Lord Cecil proposed that the Chairman should be entrusted with the duty of naming the four states to be represented on the Council in addition to the five Great Powers.
Minutes p. 108.Mr. Larnaude (France) thought that the choice might be left to the representatives of the Five Great Powers.
Minutes p. 108.Lord Cecil suhggested that three Allied and one Neutral State should be selected. Minutes, p. 108.M. Bourgeois (France) thought the selection a political act of the greatest interest and that it would be necessary to consult the Governments. Minutes p. 108.Mr. Orlando (Italy) said that the Commission had not the competence to make the selction. Minutes, p. 108.Dr. Costa (Protugal) opposed President Wilson's selection of a representative of a neutral country to a seat on the Executive Council on the grounds that the neutral country was not a member of the League. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 20-21.Second Paragraph:This paragraph was suggested by Lord Cecil in order to provide for the possible increase tof the Council at a time when certain states now outside the League should be admitted. It was phrased in general terms in order that Germany and Russia might not be specififcally named. The second half of the paragraph was introduced in deference to the views of the smaller states, who felt beathat their representation, in case of an increase of the number of the larger states, should be correspondingly, increased. Minutes p. 72.Third Paragraph:This provision existed from the outset with no change except that of phraseology.Fourth Paragraph:This paragraph also was not changed in the course of discussion.Fifth Paragraph:This provision which first appeared in the Covenant at an early session of the Commission, never aroused any discussion so far as the principle involved was concerned. More than once, however, the Commission was dissatisfied with the way in which the principle was expressed antd at one stage of the discussion struck it out of the Covenant. It was finaally inserted again as the best possible way of expressing the idea.Proposaled and discussions:Lord Cecil moved the following amendment that after the words “to attend” acs so as to run “and sit as a member at any meeting of the Council at which matters directly affecting its interest are to be discussed”. This amendment represented a return to an earlier wording of the Covenant and was brought forward again in order to avoid ambiguity.
Amendment was adopted. Minutes page 72-73.General Smuts (Enggland) asked if States summoned to meetings of the Council would have the right to vote. Minutes p. 90.Lord Cecil said that it would be no satisfaction to States to be summoned as non-effective members. The League wshould not be able to dispose of the rights of any State or to order about its soldiers without the consent of that State. The State should have the power of voting on the decision.Minutes p. 90.Last Paragraph.This provision existed from the outset.NOTES OF A MEETING HELD
AT PRESIDENT WISLSON'S HOUSE, MAY 6, 1919.The question having been raised as to the meaning of Article IV of the League of Nations Covenant, we have been requested by Sir Robert Borden to state whether we concur in his view, that upon the true construction of the first and second paragraphs of that Article, representatives of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire may be selected or named as members of the Council. We have no hesitation in expressing our entire concurrence in this view. If there were any doubt it would be entirely removed by the fact that the Articles of the Covenant are not subject to a narrow or technical construction.Dated at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, the sixth day of May, 1919.ARTICLE 5 (Paragraph 2 in Art. 3 of original drqaft)Reference in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, p. 22, 73. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, page 5.Article 5 was accepted with little discussion.First ParagraphThe first paragraph which provides for a unanimous vote in the Council and Assembly was suggested by Lord Cecil, Minutes p. 73. In order to make the Covenant conform with other portions of the Treaty the following words were added at the instance of President Wilson “or by the terms of this Treaty”. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 5.Second ParagraphThis paragraph on the procedure at meetinsgs was accepted without controversy.Third ParagraphThis paragraph on the first meeting was inserted out of compliment to President Wilson at the instance of the Britisgh Delegation.ARTICLE 6 (Article 4 of original draft and 6 of February draft)References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations pages 22, 90, 91, 73, 49, 51,. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, page 5.Article 6 on the Secretariat was accepted as originally proposed with little discussion and only a few verbal changes.Proposals and discussionsVerbal amendments p. 22, 90, 91, 49, 51.Second ParagraphIt was necessary to have sa Secretary-General appointed from the moment of the formation of the League, in order to provide a Secretariat which should be ready to function at the time of the first meeting of the Council and Assembly. The suggestion as to manner of his appointment (by an annex) was made by the British Delegation Minutes P. 73. There was never any objection to the principle though the form of words by which this appointment was to be accomplished was not easy to discover. Hon. Sir James Eric Drummond was elected the first Secretary General at the instance of President Wilson. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5 page 5.Fifth paragraph.This provision for the apportionment of the expenses of the League appeared in the first draft of the Covenant, and was accepted as the most convenient method for determining the equitable share of each state in the expenses.ARTICLE 7.References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, page 83, 87, 91-93, 107.Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, page 7.The controversy as to the Seat of the League aroused a great deal of animated discussion. The choice lay between Brussels and Geneva. The Commission selected Geneva only by a majority vote, the only decision of the Commission which was reached by a single majority. At the last meeting of the Commission, when this method of procedure was called into question, President Wilson justified his ruling with regard to the selection of Geneva by a majority vote.Proposals and discussions.On the motion of President Wilson a committee, consisting of Mr. Orlando, Lt. Gen. Smuts, Baron Makino and Col. House was appointed to enquire into the question of the locality of the Seat of the League. Minutes p. 83.Mr. Orlando (Italy) representing Committee proposed Geneva. Mr. Hymans (Belgium) urged that Brussels should be selected as Seat of League and is supported by Mr. Kramar (Czecho-Slovak), Mr. Bourgeois, Mr. Larnaude (France).
Geneva is selected by a majority vote. Minutes p. 91-93.
Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 7.President Wilson defends majority in determining Seat of League. Minutes p. 107.Paragraph Three.This provision provided for the equal eligibility of men and women for positions under the League, was introduced by the British Delegation and was accepted without discussion. Minutes p. 87.ARTICLE 8.References in Minutes of the Commission of the League of Nations pages 25, 43, 51, 59, 60, 75-76, 93.
Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, page 8-13.The most energetic discussion of the Commission centered around this Article on the limitation of armament, every word of which, at sometime or other was subjected to the closest scrutiny. In the original draft, the provisions were much stronger than they stand in the final draft so far as the armaments possessed by the members of the League were concerned.Discussions and Proposals.Mr. Bourgeois (France) said France could not agree to abolition of compulsory military service as it was a fundamental issue of Democracy. p. 25 Minutes.Paragraph OneAt the instance of the Japanese Delegation, the words “domestic safety” were changed to the words “National safety”. Minutes p. 25.Paragraph TwoUpon the motion of the French Delegation Minutes p. 43 which was largely supported by the other states represented on the Commission, the phrase “taking account of the geographical asituation and circumstances of each state” was introduced p. 43, 45, 51 Minutes.Paragraphs two, four.President Wilson proposed the following modification of the original proposal: “The Executive Council shall also determine for the consideration and action of the several governments who military equipment and armament is fair and reassonable in proporittion to the scale of forces laid down in the programme of disarmament; and these limits, when adopted shall not be exceeded without the permission of the Body of Delegates” Amendment adopted p. 25 Minutes.Paragraph three.This paragraph on the reconsideration of plans was introduced by the Japanese Delegation and was accepted as amended by the American Delegation.Minutes p. 75.Paragraph four.This paragrpaph on the agreement not to exceed the limitation of armament as accepted was asuggested by Lord Cecil. Minutes p. 75.Paragraph 5.This was considerably tempered down from the original draft, proposed by President Wilson, Minutes p. 25, 51. which provided that private manufacture of munitions shouold be abolished.The proviso with regard to the necessity of those Members of the League which could not manufacture arms necessary for their own safety was inserted at the special instance of the Portuguese and Roumanian Delegations.Paragraph six.This paragraph was proposed by Preisident Wilson Minutes p. 25, 51. Verbal changes made by Lord Cecil Minutes p. 60, 75. It represents a compromise between the British and American views on the one hand and the French views on the other. More than once during the meetings of the Commission, the French Delegation urged the constitution of a Committee of Control who should examine and report upon the way in which the Members of the League were living up to their obligations with regard to armaments Minutes p. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 75, 76. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 8-13.France proposed the following amendments which were rejected:
“It will establish an international control of trooops and armaments and the High Contracting Parties agree to submit themselves to it in all good faith. It will fix the conditions under which the permanent existence and organization of an international force may be assured”.
Minutes p. 42 Discussion p. 42-46.: 59, 60, 75, 76.“The High Contracting Parties, being determined to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of armaments, their military and naval programmes, and the conditions of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes, have appointed a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining as far as possible the above information”. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5 ,p. 8-13.ARTICLE 9.References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, pages 42-46, 60-61, 75-76, 81, 93. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, pages 8-13.This provision was inserted, at the instance of Lord Cecil Minutes p. 45, 51, 60, 78, as a concession to the French Delegation who desired that a military and naval commission should be created asea sort of international general staff acting upon its own information and upon its own initiative. Article 9, however, provides that the initiative of any action by such a commission shall come from the Executive Council and not from the Commission itself. The French Delegation was never satisfied with the strength of this provision and did not yield its contentions on this point until the final plenary session of the Conference when the lCovenant was adopted.The French Delegation proposed the following amendment at various times during the discussion of Article 9. It was finally rejected at the Plenary Session of April 28th.“A permanent organisation shall be constituted for the purpose of considering and providing for naval and military measures to enforce the obligations incumbent on the High Contracting Parties under this Covenant, and of making them immediately operative in all cases of emergency”. Minutes p. 60-61, 76-78, 81. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 8.ARTICLE 10. (Article 7 of original draft).References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, pages 24, 51 61, 93-97.The first paragraph of Article 10, aon the mutual guarantee of territory and independence, appeared in the original draft. The second sentence was added at the suggestion of President Wilson, Minutes p. 24, the phrase “and in case of any such aggression”, etc. was added allater Minutes p. 51. Special note should be made that the word “external” shows that the League cannot be used to suppress national or other movements within boundaries of the member States, but only to prevent forcible annexations from without.Proposals and discussionsLord Cecil proposed omission of words “and preserve as against external aggression” Minutes 24. Rejected.Mr. Larnaude (France*) proposed omission of words “existing political independence” Minutes p. 24. Rejected.President Wilson proposed the following amendment:“Nothing in this gCovenant shall be deemed to affect the vitalalidity of international engagements wsuch as Treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace”. Moffinutes p. 93.After a long discussion (see Proposals and discussions under Article 21) and at the instance of Lord Cecil, it was deecided that this amdendment should appear after Article 20 Minutes p. 93-97.ARTICLE 11 (Article 9 of original draft)References in Minutes of Commission on the League of Nations, pages 25, 61, 78.Article 11, which declares that any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not is a matter of concerniof the whole League, was accepted without discussion. The second sentence, beginning with the words: “In case any such emergency”, was added at the instance of the French Delegation Minutes p. 78. At the suggestion of the British Delegation the words “the League shall” awas substituted for words “The High Contracting Parties reserve the right to”. p. 78 Minutes.ARTICLE 12. (Article 10 of original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission of the League of Nations, pages 25, 36, 37, 61, 79, 82, 97, 99.Article 12 is an agreement to submit to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council all disputes likely to lead to a rupture. With a few changes it is the same as Article 10 of the original draft. The second paragraph, which provides for a tiime limit within which an award must be made, was added at the suggestion of the English Delegation. Minutes p. 25, 36, 37.Proposals and DiscussionsIt was proposed by Lord Cecil that Article 12 should be included in Artivcle 15 so as to cover point made by Mr. Koo (China) that the language of Article 12 would seem to imply that the requirement of three months delay before resorting to war, and the absolute prohibtion to resort to war in certain other cases, did not at all apply in respect of the recommendations of the Body of Delegates. Minutes page 61.The French Delegation proposed an amendment intended to indicate more clearly the obligation of the Members of the League to submit any differences in the first instance to inquiry or to arbitration. This was referred to the Drafting Committee together with an amendment proposed by the British Delegation to delete the words after “Executive Council” in sixth line as far as end of sentence and substitute therefeore “as hereafter provided” Minutes 0p. 79, 82. The original draft read after “Council” and that they will not even then resort to war as against a member of the League which complies with the award of the arbitrators or the recommendation of the Executive Council”. Minutes page 67.The following amendment was propposed by the Japanese Delegation:
“From the time a dispute is submitted to arbitration or to inquiry by the Executive Council and until the lapse of the aforesaid term of three months, the parties to the dispute shall refrain from making any military preparations”. Tihis amendment was intended to permit the League to examine the matter submitted to it wihthout being distracted by the fact of military preparations, and in order that it might have time to make its decisions with every sense of security Minutes p. 79.The amendment was supported only by the Italian Delegation and led to a vigorous discussion, the prevailing opinion being that it would give an important advantage to such States as maintained their military establishment in a highly developed state and would compel each State to maintain its forces at the maximum in order that it might be sure tof defending itself.Baron Makino (Japan) did not insist on the amdendment, but expressed the desire that the Council would strictly supervise the performance of the programme of reduction. Minutes page 97-99.ARTICLE 13 (Article 11 of original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission of the League of Nations, pages , 27, 36, 37, 52, 79, 82, 88.Article 13, which is an agreement to submit certain disputes to arbitration, appeared in part as Article 11 of the original draft and created little discussion.Proposals and discussionsParagraph 1.Mr. Hymans (Belgium) suggested the following change: substitute for words “which they recognize to be” the words “which is, according to any Convention existing between them or which they agree to be”.
Although there was no discussion this change was not made.Minutes p. 79, 82.Paragraph twoParagraph 2 which indicates the general character of cases capable of solution by arbitration was suggested by the British Delegation and was adopted with a change made at the suggestion of President Wilson, to make it clear that the cases enumerated were only mentioned as examples.Minutes p. 79, 82, 99.Proposals and discussionsMr. Reis (Portugal) objected to the word “generally” for to enumerate cases “generally” susceptible of arbitration implied that in certain particular cases recourse to arbitration was not possible. Minutes page 99.
Lord Cecil in his reply said it would be dangerous for the future of the principle of arbitration to impose it too strictly in a great number of cases. Minutes p. 99.
In answer to a question of Mr. Bourgeois (France) Lord Cecil stated that the Hague Conventions were included in the Treaties referred to. Minutes page 99.Paragraph threeParagraph 3 on the court of arbitration was added, without discussion, at the instance of Lord Cecil. Minutes p. 25, 27.Paragraph fourThe first sentence, on the agreement to carry out any award rendered, was in the original draft, the first part in Article 11, the second part in Article 10. The last sentence which provides that the Council shall propose steps to be taken in the event of failure to carry out an award was added when this provision was made in Article XV. Minutes p. 36, 37, 52.ARTICLE 14 (Article 12 of original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations, pages 25, 26, 61, 62, 79, 80, 82, 100.Article 14 on the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice is the same as Article 12 of original draft with two changes as follows:Firstly the new draft provides that the plans for such a court shall be submitted to members of the League and secondly that the Court shall be competent to determine only disputes of an international character but may give an advisory opinion upon any dispute referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.Proposals and DiscussionsAt the instance of President Wilson the word “shall” was substituted for the word “will” throughout the article. He also suggested another verbal change. Minutes p. 26.The French Delegation which had urged that it should be stated in the Preamble that the League of Nations should be considered as continuing and enlarging upon the work begun by the Hague Conferences, again urged that some reference should be made to these Conferences. The Portuguese Delegation supported this view but the British and American Delegations were strongly opposed. Minutes p. 26, 61, 62.The French Delegation suggested the following amendment which was to define the jurisdiction of the Court and entrust it particularly with questions relative to the interpretation of the Covenant: “That this court shall be competent to hear and determine:The Italian and British Delegations thought it preferable to leave to the Executive Council, who applied the Covenant, the duty of resolving questions of interpretation. After discussion it was decided to omit paragraph B, to change “any of the parties” to “both parties” in Paragraph C and accept the rest of the amendment in principle. It was proposed to the Drafting Committee for incorporation in the text together with the British amendment which proposed to add at the end of the article the words “and also any issue referred to it by the Executive Council or Body of Delegates”. Minutes p. 79, 82.The Belgium Delegation proposed the following amendment which was intended as a new article:
“In the event of the parties to a dispute not agreeing on the interpretation to be given to an arbitration Convention between them, the question shall be referred to a special tribunal composed as follows:- each part shall nominate one member of the Executive Council and one member of the Permanent Court of International Justice; two members shall be nominated by the above Court from among its own members; an additional member shall be selected by the executive council from among those of its members; this tribunal shall nominate its own president from among those of its members belonging to the Permanent Court of International Justice”. Minutes p. 79, 82.Opposed by Italian, French and English Delegations. Amendment withdrawn. Minutes p. 80.Mr. Larnaude (France) called attention to a letter addressed by the Swedish Delegation in which request was made that a court might be esztablished by the Assembly rather than by the Council, in order to give it a legal rather than a political character. Mr. Larnaude thought the Members should be selected by the Council but that certain qualifications of ability and fitness should be required so as to allay the anxiety of neutral powers, and that the choice would not fall on mere politicians. The Czecho-Slovak Delegate remarked that the Court would have to decide not only questions of law, but political questions as well.Lord Cecil did not approve of Covenant defining conditions under which the Members of the Court should be appointed. He said that as the plan for a Court of Justice would be submitted to the Members of the League in reality the Assembly would establish the Court. Minutes p. 100.ARTICLE 15 (Article 13 of the original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission on League of Nations, pages 27, 28, 37, 80, 81, 82, 83, 100, 101.Article 15 which provides for the settlement of disputes submitted to the Executive Council existed as Article 13 of original draft, some changes were made and new paragraphs were added. The principal discussion centered on the powers of the Executive Council as outlined in Paragraph 6. The Belgian, French, Serbian and Greek Delegates wished to increase its powers and were opposed by the English and American Delegates.Proposals and DiscussionsSecond paragraphThe phrase “as promptly as possible” was added at the instance of the Serbian Delegate. Minutes p. 27.The words “and the Council may forthwith direct the publication thereof” were suggested by the British Delegation Minutes p. 27. This was not to affect the right of the parties to publish whatever documents they themselves might think pertinant to the dispute.Sixth ParagraphTo Paragraph Six in which Members agree not to go to war with any country which complies with recommendations in a report unanimously agreed to by the Council, the Belgian Delegate proposed the following amendments: Minutes p. 28, 37.These proposals were discussed at length; the French, Serbian and Greek Delegates supporting them. The English and American Delegates did not think it desirable to give mandatory effect to the decisions of a majority of the Council. The Greek Delegate in agreement with the French Delegate urged that in regards to the Second Amendment that the Council should be able to secure satisfaction if the claims of the injured party to a dispute when the Council had unanimously supported the claims and suggested that some mandatory effect might safely be given to decisions of a large majority of the Council such as a majority of four out of five of the Great Powers and three out of four of the Small Powers. A sub-committee composed of Mr. Hymans (Belgium) Mr. Bourgeois (France) Lord Cecil (England) and Mr. Venizelos (Greece) was appointed to draft the amendments in the sense of the Commission's discussion.
Minutes p. 28.This committee added the following paragraph “And that, if any party shall refuse to comply, the Council shall consider what steps can best be taken to give effect to their recommendation”Minutes p. 37. This paragraph was withdrawn later at the suggestion of President Wilson. Lord Cecil did not wish to insist on it since the Council would always be in position to act as it thought fit.
Minutes p. 100.Paragraph Seven
Paragraph seven in which themembers reserve the right to take action if the Council fails to reach a unanimous agreement was added at the instance of the Drafting Committee. Minutes p. 100-101.
Mr. Bourgeois (France) said that the whole idea of obligation now disappeared, and it would be necessary to conclude separate alliances.
Minutes p. 101.Paragraph Eight
Paragraph eight on a dispute which is found to be within domestic jurisdiction was added at the suggestion of President Wilson.
Minutes p. 80Paragraph Nine
The last phrase of paragraph nine, which provides a time limit in which a party to a dispute has the right to refer the dispute from the Council to the Assembly, was added at the suggestion of Mr. Venizelos. Minutes p. 28, 37.Last Paragraph
The section of the last paragraph which provides that a recommendation of the Assembly shall have the same force as a recommendation of the Council under certain specified conditions was proposed by Lord Cecil (England) on behalf of the Greek Delegate. Minutes p. 80, 82.ARTICLE 15 (Continued)At the suggestion of President Wilson the following was omitted:
“If no such unanimous report can be made, it shall be the duty of the majority and the privilege of the minority to issue statements indicating what they believe to be the facts and containing the recommendations which they condsider just and proper”. Minutes p. 80.Mr. Hymans (Belgium) proposed the following amendment:
“It shall be lawful for States to conclude special Conventions intended to eliminate any possibility of war between them, whether by agreeing to accept the decisions of a simple majority of the Executive Council, or by agreeing to any other mode of settling disputes”. The English and Italian Delegations opposed. Mr. Hymans withdrew the amendment as he felt the object of his amendment was sufficiently safeguarded. Minutes p. 80, 81, 83.The English Delegation proposed the following as a new article:
“The Ecxecutive Council may formulate plans for the establishment of a system of commissions of conciliation and may make recommendations as to the method of employing such commissions in the settlement of such disputes as are not recognized by the parties as suitable for arbitration.” Minutes p. 81, 83.President Wilson said that the Executive Council was already competent to name such Commissions inasmuch as it had the right to suggest methods of conciliation.
The Amendment was withdrawn. Minutes p. 81, 83.ARTICLE 16 (Article 14 of original draft)Reference in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 28, 29, 41, 42, 62, 81, 101. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 4.The sanctions of Article 16 with the exception of the last paragraph apply to breaches of the Covenant involving a resort to war. With minor changes this is the same as Article 14 of the original draft. The last paragraph, which was added at one of the last meetings, is intended to meet the case of a State ewhich after violating its covenants attempts to retain its position on the Assembly and Council. The question of the passage of troops was the only point which created much discussion. Mr. Bourgeois (France) thought it a necessary provision. President Wilson thought it raised a very serious question. Lord Cecil said that as the Drafting Committee had been equally divided they had suggested that passage should be accorded “at the request of the Council”. This amendment, however, had been withdrawn.Proposals and Discussions
Paragraph one.Article 13 and 15 were brought under the sacnctions of Article 16 at the request of the French Delegation who wished also to include Article 8. This was opposed by the British Delegation.
Minutes p. 41, 42, 81.After the word “prevention” in the first paragraph the words “so far as possible” were omitted at the suggestion of the French Delegation. Minutes p. 62.Paragraph two.The words “to the several governments concerned” were inserted after the word “recommend” at the suggestion of the British Delegation. Minutes p. 81.Paragraph 3.Lord Cecil (England) on behalf of the Drafting Committee proposed to insert before the phrase referring to the passage of troops the words “upon the request of the Council.”
Amendment withdrawn. Minutes p. 101.The words “taken the necessary steps to” were added tat the suggestion of the British EDelegation Minutes p. 81.Last Paragraph.The last paragraph providing for an expulsion from the League in certain extraordinary circumstances was added at one of the last meetings.
Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5, p. 4.ARTICLE 17 (Article 15 of original draft)Reference in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 28. 37. 83.This article provides for the peaceful settlements of disputes of States not Members of the League. It asserts the claim of the League that no State, whether a Member of the League or not, has the right to disturb the peace of the world until peaceful methods of settlement have been tried. Article 17 is the same as Article 15 of the original draft with a few changes and was adopted with little discussion.Proposals and discussions.Paragraph IThe following words “Upohn such conditions as the Council may deem just” were added to the end of the first sentence at the suggestion of the British Delegation Minutes p. 28.37.At the instance of the Italian Delegation supported by the French Delegation the words “shall be invited to accept the obligations of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute” were substituted for the words “shall be invited to become ad hoc members of the League” Minutes p. 28.37The word “Council” the last word of paragraph I was substituted for the word “League” at the suggestion of the British Delegation. Minutes p. 83.The words “provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive” were substituted for “above provisions” at the suggestion of the British Delegation. Minutes p. 83ARTICLE 18. (Article 21 of original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 34. 52. 64. 4o.Article 18 provides for the registration and publication of treaties.This appeared in the original draft with the exception of the last sentence which was added at the instance of President Wilson Minutes p. 34. A few verbal changes were made and it was agreed that this article referred only to new treaties Minutes p. 34. A few verbal changes were made and it was agreed that this article referred only to new treaties Minutes p. 34. It appears in the original draft as Article 21, it was changed to Article 24 Minutes p. 57 to Article 23 Minutes p. 70 and appeared in final draft as Article 18.ARTICLE 19.References in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p.40.58.70.Article 19 provides for the reconsideration of treaties which have become inapplicable. It did not appear in the original draft but was proposed by the British Delegation and accepted as Article 23 with a change of wording proposed by President Wilson Minutes p. 40. It was later listed as Article 25 Minutes p. 58, then as Article 24. Minutes p. 70 and appeared in final draft as Article 19.ARTICLE 20 (Article 22 in the original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 35-26.64-65.103.Article 20 provides for existing treaties which are inconsistent with terms of the Covenant. This is the same as Article 22 in original draft, it was changed to Article 26 Minutes p. 58. then to Article 25 Minutes p. 70. The words “or understandings” were inserted after the word “obligations” at the instance of the Chinese Delegation Minutes p. 103.ARTICLE 21References in minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 93-97.102.103.108 Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5 p. 18-19.Article 21 states that the Covenant does not abrogate any agreements or regional understanding so long as they are not inconsistent with its own terms. The Monroe Doctrine is noted as example of a regional understanding of this kind. This Article was inserted at the instance of President Wilson. Minutes p. 93 who, in the course of the animated disucssion which followed, stated that the Covenant was the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine and the international acceptance of its principles, that while there was no fear in America that the Monroe Doctrine was contrary to the obligations of the Covenant there was a fear that the Covenant might to some extent invalidate the Monroe Doctrine. The French Delegation vigorously opposed this ammendment and made several counter proposals all of which were objected to by President Wilson and the British Delegation who supported President Wilson throughout the discussion. It was feared that the French proposal would create an impression that there was an incompatibility between the Monroe Doctrine and the Covenant. The French Delegation first objected to it as it was the only provision which concerned a particular country, later they wished to have the Monroe Doctrine explained. Their amendment was so worded to indicate that the Monroe Doctrine must not create obstacles to the fulfillment of the obligations of the Covenant. They feared that it would prevent America from helping Europe and Europe from taking a hand in America. The Honduras Delegation also urged that the Doctrine be defined Preliminary Peace Conference Protocal No 5 p. 18-19. Article 21 was first suggested as an amendment to Article 10, later as an amendment to Article 20.Proposals and discussionsThe French Delegation proposed the following two amendments: Minutes 102, 103, 108.“International understandings intended to assure the maintenance of peace, such as Treaties of arbirtration, are not considered as incompatible with the provisions of this Covenant. Likewise with regard to understandings or doctrines pertaining to certain reigons, such as the Monroe Doctrine, in so far as they do not in any way prevent the signatory States from executing their obligations under this Covenant”. Minutes p. 102.They proposed a new draft in which the second sentence was now to read:
“Similarly with regard to all other arrangements, particularly those pertaining to certain regions, such as arise out of the Monroe Doctrine, in so sfar as they conduce to the maintenance of the peace which is the object of this Covenant to assure”. Minutes p. 103.The Honduras Delegation proposed the following amendment:“This doctrine, which has been supported by the United States of America since 1823, when it was proclaimed by President Monroe, means that all the Republics of America have the right to an independent existence, and that no nation can there acquire by conquest any portion of their territory nor intervene in their internal government or administration, nor pefrform there any act which can diminish their autonomy or wound their national dignity. The Monroe Doctrine does not hinder the countries of Latin America from confederating or otherwise uniting themselves in the search for the best way of fulfilling their destiny”. Preliminary Peace Conference Protocol No. 5 p. 18-19Mr. Koo (China) proposed to add the following clause after the word “understanding” “Which are not incompatible with the terms of this Covenant and which are intended to assure the maintenance of peace, such as the Monroe Doctrine”. Rejected Minutes p. 103ARTICLE 22 (article 27 of original draft)References in Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations p. 30, 31, 32, 37, 38-39, 56-57, 62, 69, 84, 52, 103-104. Minutes of the Supreme Council January 24.B.C.10 January 27.B.C.12,
January 28, B.C.13, B.C. 14; January 30, B.C. 17, 18.Article 22 provides that the colonies and territories as yet incapable of standing alone, which as a consequence of the war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, are to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants by selected States under the gneeneral superivision of the League. The first paragraph except for the last clause “and that securities” etc., appeared in the original draft also the provisions referring to the military training of the natives and equal trade opportunities for Members of the League. The rest of the Article was proposed by General Smuts, Minutes p. 30, the text based upon the “Draft Resolutions in reference to Mandatories” presented to the Conference of the Five Powers by Mr. Lloyd George as a compromise after a meeting with the Dominion Premiers. Supreme Council Minutes January 30, B.C. 17, B.C. 18. The first sentence is a modification of the original draft presented to the Commission on League of Nations which stated certain definite territories to which the provisions of this article should apply and represents a compromise between the views of the Italian and French Delegations that the territories should not be too closely defined and those of the Portuguese, Belgian and Rumanian Delegations who feared too broad a wording. President Wilson wished to extend the scope of this article to certain territories which had been part of the Russian Empire. Part of this Article was Article 17 in the original draft. It appeared as Article 19 p. 56-57, as Article 18 p. 84.Proposals and Discussions in Commission on League of Nations.The French Delegation proposeed the following amendment:
“Substitute the following text
In conformity with the decisions of the Conference of the Allies, the League of Nations regards itself as invested with the moral tutelage of those populations referred to in the Treaty of Peace which have not yet reached the stage of complete development.
The character of this tutelage must differ according to the stage of the development of the peoples, the ggeographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances.The conditions and the limits of such tutelage shall be determined by international conventions. The Council of the League of Nations shall indicate the need of new conventions if it deems them necessary to ensure the well-being and development of the oppopulations concerned.” Minutes p. 30.32.President Wilson proposed the following new paragraph with the object of extending the scope of the article to certain territories which had been part of the Russian Empire;
“The provisions of this article can also be applied in respect of other peoples and territories, which are not otherwise disposed of in the Treaty of Peace, of which this Covenant forms a part, or are not definitely constituted as autonomous States.” Minutes p. 30.332In answer to the point mzade by the French Delegation that it would be preferable not to place in the same category backward countries like certain African Colonies and countries which have a very ancient and very complete civilization, but which have been oppressed by foreign domination, the Serbian Delegation proposed an amendment intended to facilitate the complete emancipation of these peoples and their admission into the League. The British Delegation asked Mr. Vesnitch (Serbia) not to insist on this proposal for reasons of expediency. Minutes p. 30.Verbal changes p. 52 Minutes.The Belgian Delegation proposeed that the equity of treatment for all States members of the League should be established as well in South West Africa and the islands of the Pacific as in the other German colonies of Central Africa. He did not see why some of these colonies should be placed under special rules. General Smuts (British) requested that the Commission should not discuss this matter, as the very point emphasized by the Belgian Delegation had been the object of long discussions at the Council of Ten before being so decided Minutes p. 62.For sdiscussion of the Mandatory system see Minutes of the Supreme Council Janaury 24 B. C. 10; January 27 B. C. 12; January 28 B.C. 13; B.C. 14; January B.C. 17, B.C. 18.In the second paragraph the clause “and who are willing to accept it” was inserted after the word “responsibility” at the suggestion of the British Delegation Minutes p. 84.Proposals and discussions in Supreme Council.B. C. 10January 24.Dominion Premiers on colonial questions.PROPOSALS & DISCUSSIONS in SUPREME COUNCILLloyd-George “All he would like to say on behalf of the British Empire as a whole was that he would be very much opposeed to the treturn to Germany of any of these colonies. His reasons for saying so had been put in writing, and he was prepared, if necessary, to circulate the document to the Council.”President Wilson said that he thought all were agreed to oppose the restoration of the German Colonies. M. Orlando and Baron Makino agreed.(There was no dissentient and this principle was adopted but it was agreed to make no public announcement at the time).Lloyd-George then discussed the future regime of the ex-German colonies. He outlined three methods:1) Direct control by the League of Nations. He considered this impracticable.2) The mandatory system. “There must be equal economic opportunity for all and a guarantee that the natives would not be exploited either commercially or militarily...there would be a right of appeal to the League of Nations if any of the conditions of the trust were brolken.” “As afar as Great Britain was concerned he saw no objection to the mandatory system.”3) Direct annexation. Owing to geographical contiguity it might not be wise to insert a tariff barrier bwtween the annexed portions of South Afriaca and of New Guinea and the Dominion possessions prior to the war. Samoa also should be administered directly by New Zealand.Mr. Hughes. presented the case for Australia. Australia feared that a foreign mandatory established in New Guinea might be a “potential enemy” whereas “the security of Australia would threaten no one.”General Smuts presented the case for South Africa. “He would point out that this territory was not in the same category as other German possessions in Africa...South-west Africa was a desert country only suitable for pastoralists. It could, therefore, only be developed from within the Union itself.”Mr. Massey presented the case for New Zealand. He argued that national safety for New Zelaland demanded control over Samoa and pointed out that joint administration had been a failure in Samoa, the New Hebrides and Egypt.Sir Robert Borden said that Canada had no claims to advance, but he wished to endorse the position of the other Dominion Premiers.B.C. 12. January 27; Baron Makino presents claim to Kiao-Chow and German claims in Shantung province; also to former German island possessions north of the equator. Japan desired “unconditional cession.”President Wilson urged that the mandatory system be applied to the German colonies generally, even where, as in South Africa, a British Dominion was mandatory. A mandate involved two things; the administration of the district “primarily with a view to the betterment of the conditions of the inhabitants”, secondly, no economic discrimination against “the members of the League of Nations”. “All countries would pay the same duties; all would have the same right of access”. He repudiated the military argument for absolute annexation on the ground that it showed a lack of faith in the League of Nations.General Botha on South-west Africa. “The League of Nations was a long way off and could not possibly know the true requirements of the country. Had there been a large population in German South-west Africa, he would have concurred in President Wilson's proposal.”Mr. Hughes “If it were asked what was the best form of government clearly the most direct form would be the best, and the most indirect form the worst”. Therefore, the mandatory system should only be applied where direct government was inapplicable.B.C. 13. January 28. Lloyd George had consulted Colonial experts on the previous evening. The mandatory system could be applied to the territories conquered by the United Kingdom, “the Dominions' case, however, was a special case. He did not think that a special exception in favor of the Dominions would spoil the whole case; possibly the reverse might be true.”Mr. Massey “The difference between the mandatory principle and that instituted by New Zealand was the difference between leasehold and freehold tenure. No individual would put the same energy into a leasehold of unimproved country as into a freehold”.Baron Makino and Mr. Koo speak on the Kiao-Chow and Shantung question: Makino “Japan was in actual possession of the territory under consideration; it had taken it by conquest from Germany; before disposing of it to a third party it was necessary that Japan should obtain the right of free disposal from Germany.” Koo “Even if the lease had not been terminated by China's declaration of war, Germany would be incompetent to transfer it to any other Power than China because of an express provision therein against transfer to another Power”.B.C.14. January 28. M. Simon (France) presents arguments for a French mandate in Kamerun and Togoland. He agrees with Lloyd-George in condemning direct international control and he hoped that the New Hebrides condominum would soon be terminated. He also feared that under the mandatory system nothing would be done to develop a country as “there would be little inducement for the investment of capital and for colonization in a country whose future was unknown”. He favored the third system, outright annexation, but France would concede the principle of the “open door” in the annexed colonies.President Wilson “the discussion so far had been a negation in detail of the whole principle of mandatories.”Mr. Balfour believed objections could be met by giving security of tenure to the mandatory power.M. Orlando believed that Italy favored the principle of mandates “provided they were equitably applied and also provided that she could participate in the work of civilization.” Different degrees of sovereignty could be applied to different cases.M. Clemencaeau “since Mr. Lloyd-George was prepared to accept the mandate of a League of Nations he would not dissent from the general agreement, merely for the sake of the Cameroons and Togoland. But, when President Wilson asked that every question should be referred to the League of Nations he felt a little nervous.”Lloyd-George announces the circulation of a Report to the Powers B.C. 17. January 30. (see Annex A) which “did not represent the real views of the colonies; but had been accepted by them as an attempt at a compromise.”President Wilson considered this document a “long stride towards the composition of their differences,” but he thought it impossible finally to determine at the time the colonial settlement and the exact status of a mandate.Lloyd-George urges immediate acceptance of the proposed compromise as “it was only with the greatest difficulty that the Dominions had been prevailed upon to accept the draft submitted.”Orlando again urges that “Italy obtain its share of mandates.”B.C. 18. January 30. Mr. Massey, Mr. Hughes, and General Botha give the position of the colonies, supporting the compromise draft.Sir. Robert Borden (p.4) moves an amendment to Clause 7 of the compromise draft, which is agreed on.M. Pichon said that France could not renounce the right to raise troops from “all Colonial countries under French control.”. M. Clemenceau supported this.Mr. Lloyd-George pointed out that while the clause in question (clause 7 of the compromise draft) prevented the raising of great native armies in mandatory territories, it did not prevent a native force for “police purposes and the defense of territory.” M. Clemenceau was satisfied.Mr. Lloyd-George moves the insertion of “Kurdistan” in the clause on Turkish territories.M. Orts presents the case of the Belgian Congo. They desired a small area in German East Africe.The appendix to this days minutes gives the Resolution on Mandatories as finally adopted and which forms a large part of Article 22 of the Covenant.ARTICLE 23.Reference in Minutes of the Commission ion the League of Nations pages 31.32.33.34.64.84.62.85. Supreme Council January 23 B.C.8. Article 23 which provides for the protection of labour, native inhabitants, the control of the white slave traffic, the traffic in drugs and opium, the equitable treatment of commerce and the control of disease. It is a combination of several articles which appear in the original draft with additional clauses. With the exception of paragraph (e) referring to the equitable treatment of commerce this article was accepted with little discussion. Paragraph (a) which existed in part as Article 18 in the original draft provides for the protection of labour. At the suggestion of the British Delegation the last part was added which provides for a permanent international labour organization Minutes p. 31.32. Supreme Council January 23 B.C. 8. At President Wilson's suggestion the words “for men, women, and children” were added after the words “fair and humane conditions of labour” Minuteds p. 31. This paragraph was changed to Article 20 Minutes p. 57.62. was combined with other articles to make up the present article and was listed as Article 19 Minutes p. 84. Paragraph (b) which refers to native inhabitants and Paragraph (c) which refers to the white slave traffic and traffic in opium and drugs were added at the instance of the British Delegation Minutes p. 84. Paragraph (d) which refers to the traffic in arms existed in the original as Article 16. The British and American Delegations requested that note should be made that this article applied to the countries which were mentioned in the Draft Arms Traffic Convention Minutes p. 62. This paragraph was listed as Article 18 Minutes p. 56 and was combined with other articles to make the present article Minutes p. 84. Paragraph (e) which provides for the equitable treatment for commerce for Members of the League existing in the original draft as Article 20 with the exception of the last sentence which makes special provision for the reigons devasted during the war. This was added at the suggestion of President Wilson to meet the request of France and Belgium for special protection during the period of reconstruction. Minutes p. 33.34.64.Proposals and discussions.The French Delegation proposed two amendments, the first looking towards the establishment of a Financial Commission; the other establishing an International Bureau of Labour. After some discussion the amendments were withdrawn. Minutes p. 85. The French Delegation proposed the addition of Article 21 bis as follows “Il y a lieu de creer une section economique de al Societe des Nations en vue d'etudier et de realiser dans l'interest de al civilization les grandes enterprises economiques d'orderre international”. President Wilson opposed and the amendment was withdrawn. Minutes p. 85.The Belgium Delegation proposed a new amendment that the League should endeavor to intensify agricultural production and should appoint a permanent Agricultural Commission. The amendment was withdrawn as the work was lalready done by the Institut de Rome: it had already been agreed that all existing international organizations might pass to the League. Minutes p. 85.ARTICLE 24.Reference in the Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations pages 52.58.70.84.85.Article 24 provides that all International Bureaux may be placed under the direction of the League. It was added with little discussion at one of the later meetings. The first paragraph was suggested by the Drafting Committee Minutes p. 52. the second and third paragraphs by the British Delegation Minutes p. 84.85.ARTICLE 25.References in the Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations page 104.
Article 25 mentions the Red Cross as one of the International organizations which is to connect its work with the League. This provision was made at one of the later meetings.Proposals and discussions.The French Delegation thought it a mistake to give an exclusive position to the Red Cross without reference to like associations. The British Delegation replied that Paragraph (f) of Article 23 would cover this point. Minutes p. 104.ARTICLE 26.References in the Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations pages 41. 52. 57. 85. 104.
Article 26 refers to Amendments to the Covenant and did not appear in the original draft. The discussion center3ed on the vote on new amendments in the Assembly. The smaller Powers and expecially Greece were opposed to the Majority vote suggested by the British Delegation on the grounds that they would lose still more of their authority and proposed a three-fourths vote Minutes p. 41.85 At the last meeting the provision was made granting a State the option of accepting an amendment or withdrawing. This was added to avoid constitutional difficulties suggested by the Brazillian and Portuguese Delegates. Minutes p. 104.ARTICLE DROPPED FROM THE ORIGINAL DRAFT.References in the Minutes of the Commission on the League of Nations, pages 31, 32, 39, 52, 57, 62-64.The following clause which does not appear in the final draft was Article 19 of the original draft.“The High cContracting Parties agree that they will make no law prohibting or interfering with the free exercizse of religion, and that they will in no way discriminate, either in law or in fact, against those who practice any particualr creed, religion, or belief whose practices are not inconsistent with public order or public morals” Minutes p. 7.It created an animated discussion, the American Delegation supported it as it provided a means for prevention of religious persecutions, it was opposed by the Belgian, Portuguese, Italian and French Delegations on the grounds that it would be difficult to word it so as to avoid conflict with the constitution of certain countries and that it might be used by political parties against governments. The French Delegation thought that Article 11 would provide for the cases forseen in this article. Finally the Japanese Delegation urged that the question of race should be included and proposed the following amendment:“The quality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord, as soon as possible, to all alien nationals of States members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect, making no distinction, either in law or fact, on account of their race or nationality”. Minutes p. 63 (They also had urged that an amendment providing for the equality of races should be added to the Preamble). The amendment was opposed by the British and Serbian Delegations. It was at last decided that as the Article raised such extremely serious problems it should be dropped from the Covenant.