DOCUMENT 33. Memorandum, April 4, of five American experts to President Wilson, regarding disposition of Fiume advising that "it is unwise to make Fiume a free city," with memorandum on the legal aspects of the situation by David Hunter Miller (autographed originals). AMERICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE. April 4, 1919. From: Chiefs of the Italian Division, the Balkan Division, the Austro-Hungarian Division, the Division of Boundary Geography, and the Division of Economics. To: President Wilson. Subject: Disposition of Fiume. The following statement of facts and opinions is respectfully submitted for the President's consideration: 1. The port of Fiume is vitally necessary to the economic life of Jugo-Slavia. 2. It has no economic significance for Italy, except as its development would prevent Italy from controlling trade which might otherwise be artificially deflected to Trieste. 3. The large business interests of Fiume, the banking houses, and the shipping are mainly in Hungarian and Jugo-Slav hands. Italian capital did not develop the port. The Italians constitute the small traders and shop keepers and to some extent the professional classes. 4. According to the last official census the Italians constituted only a plurality of the population of Fiume, even when its artificial separation from the Slavic Susak is maintained. 5. The Italian plurality in the restricted Fiume: (b) Includes an unknown but considerable num- 6. The Italian agitation in favor of annexing Fiume is only a few months old. Last summer it was generally admitted in high Italian circles that Fiume would and should go to Jugo-Slavia. In view of the foregoing consideration the American specialists are unanimously of the opinion: 1. That Fiume should be given to the Jugo-Slav State without restriction. This solution is the only one which in our opinion will prove attractive at the same time to JugoSlav capital and to outside capital (Hungarian, Czecho-Slovak, etc.); it will best serve the vital economic interests of both city and state; and in view of the facts regarding the nature and origin of the Italian population, it seems to us the most just morally. 2. That the interests of the Italian minority of greater Fiume should be assured by the establishment of adequate guarantees for protection. Similar guarantees should be extended, in a spirit of equality and justice, to the other Italian minorities in Jugo-Slavia, and to the much larger Slavic minorities in Trieste and other areas transferred to Italy by the recommended new frontier. 3. That it is unwise to make of Fiume a free city. Our unanimity of opinion on this point is due to the approximate equality of the two antagonistic elements of the population, the testimony of observers as to the inability of the Italians of Fiume properly to administer the port, the justified sensitiveness of the Slavs toward any infringement of sovereignty over their only good port and chief commercial city, and the serious economic and political disadvantages which such infringement would entail under the peculiar physical conditions which obtain at Fiume. (See attached letter by Mr. Miller.) 4. That if for reasons not connected with the best interests of the city and its hinterland it is deemed necessary that Fiume be made a free city, its right of local self-government should be accompanied by the following safe-guards of the interests of the Jugo-Slav State: a. The moles, docks, basins and other instrumentalities of the port must be under Jugo-Slav sovereignty as well as Jugo-Slav ownership, and it must be possible for the Jugo-Slavs to acquire the land and other property needed for their extension. b. The railways and other means of communication with the interior, (e. g., telephones, telegraphs, and postal service) must likewise be under Jugo-Slav control. c. There must be no discrimination with respect to political and economic rights of any kind, nor with respect to schools and churches. d. The city (except for a possible free port) must be included within the Slav customs frontier. e. The organization of the city must be such as to abolish the present artificial division of the port into two parts. These safe-guards are necessary:(1) To ensure conditions of sufficient stability to justify expenditures by the government and by Jugo-Slav and foreign private capitalists for the improvement and development of the port; (2) To prevent Italian interference with the development of the port and with its full use; (3) To give the Slavs a fair opportunity to achieve a position in the industrial and political life of the community strong enough to safeguard their vital interests. [Signed] W. E. LUNT Chief of the Italian Division. CLIVE DAY Chief of the Balkan Division. CHARLES SEYMOUR Chief of the Austro-Hungarian Division. Chief of the Division of Boundary Geography. Chief of the Division of Economics. AMERICAN COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE PEACE 6 April, 1919. DEAR MAJOR JOHNSON: In our conversation yesterday you asked my views as to the creation of an independent territory comprising, with certain exceptions, the districts of Fiume and Susak under the hypothesis that the territory surrounding these districts was entirely within the limits of Jugo-Slavia, and under the further hypothesis that the entire port facilities of Fiume as well as any land necessary for their extension would likewise be under the sovereignty of Jugo-Slavia, and that the railroads running into Fiume and other means of communication with the interior, such as telephones, telegraphs, and postal service, should be under the control of Jugo-Slavia. I do not doubt that such an arrangement is a legal possibility, but there are certain legal questions to which attention should be directed as they involve matters of practical importance. Under the hypothesis the territory in question would be independent but the character of the locus is such as to make it doubtful whether that independence could be more than theoretical. From the maps which you showed me it appears that what I will call the proposed "free area" while of very irregular shape, would run along the coast for ten or twelve miles, extending into the interior for a very short distance except in the center of the strip where it would be perhaps five or six miles wide, and even from this area would have to be deducted all of the docks, etc., which extend over most although not all of the waterfront. Furthermore, the control of the railroads by Jugo-Slavia would result in dividing the territory to be administered in the free area into three parts: the first what may be called the interior on the land side of the railroad, and the other two small strips of the coast between the railroad and the sea, lying on either side of the docks. It should be added that under your statement of the hypothesis the area would for customs purposes be part of Jugo-Slavia, and that the population of the area is perhaps 60,000 persons, of whom no doubt a certain number reside in the portion devoted to the docks. Under any form of agreement it seems to me that the difficulties of the administration of such a very small area as an independent unit would be enormous, and to be successful would require almost complete coöperation and harmony between the government of the free area and the government of Jugo-Slavia. Take for example the question of police. The jurisdiction of police over the docks, etc. would necessarily be Jugo-Slav, and also similar jurisdiction over the railroads and their appurtenances, and even if the latter were not technically under the sovereignty but only under the control of JugoSlavia. Thus the police of the free area would be over three distinct pieces of territory with the consequent necessity of free passage and repassage over the railroad. It may be assumed, although you did not so state, that there is one water supply for the territory which would be within the free area, and for the docks, etc. Such a water supply would be under two distinct sovereignties and yet would of necessity be under a single management; indeed, it would be quite important to determine in making such an agreement where the source of the water supply of Fiume was located, for if this source is in the |