II. TREATIES.

The general principles which underlie Section II of Part X of the conditions of peace explain the terms thereof.

The allied and associated powers are certainly of the opinion that multilateral and bilateral treaties between peoples must exist in times of peace, so that the principles of international law may be enforced and normal international relations maintained. They have therefore aimed at reapplying all multilateral treaties which seemed to them to be compatible with the new conditions arising out of the

war.

As regards bilateral treaties, they have reserved for each of the allied and associated powers the right to decide the matter in conformity with the principles of the treaty of peace.

But they could not permit the continuance of all the treaties which Germany imposed on her allies, on her temporarily defeated adversaries, and even in certain cases on neutral countries, with a view to securing particularly favorable conditions and special advantages of all kinds, the maintenance of which is incompatible with the reestablishment of the spirit of justice.

This principle necessarily involves the rejection of the theory put forward by Germany in Section VII (treaties) of the remarks on the conditions of peace, and obviates the necessity for any negotiations on the matter. A general indiscriminate reapplication after the conclusion of peace of all multilateral and bilateral treaties, even for a short time, can not be accepted, and it is only just that the allied and associated powers should have reserved and should reserve in the future the right to indicate which of these treaties with Germany they intend to revive or to allow to be revived.

The above applies to the whole of the German remarks on Section II of Part X of the conditions of peace, but these remarks call for the following further observations:

1. The German delegation seem to consider—

(a) That, as a result of errors or omissions, the list of multilateral treaties embodied in article 282 is incomplete.

(b) That the contents and meaning of Nos. 7, 17, 19, 20, and 21 of this article are doubtful.

(c) Further, that difficulties may arise, as the result of the individual reserves of States, which may limit the application of certain revived multilateral treaties.

In reply to this, the allied and associate powers would point out

that:

(a) The German Government may, after the resumption of diplomatic relations with the allied and associated powers, notify to them any subjects covered by nonrevived conventions with regard to which they desire new treaties to be concluded or former agreements to be adapted.

(b) The contents and meaning of the treaties Nos. 7, 17, 19, 20, and 21 in article 282 are not open to any doubt. As regards No. 19 the list of sanitary conventions may be completed as follows:

Sanitary conventions of the 3d December, 1903, and the preceding ones signed on the 30th January, 1892, the 15th April, 1893, the 3d April, 1894, and the 19th March, 1897.

(c) Subject to any provisions to the contrary inserted in the conditions of peace, reserves which may have been made by the powers signatory to the treaty of peace when they signed or adhered to the multilateral treaties revived by Section II of Part X of the conditions of peace, retain their value, such treaties reassuming their operation in the same conditions as before the war. If the conditions of their application are modified a revision will automatically follow. 2. The German delegation states that the acceptance by Germany of articles 283 and 284 is incompatible with the dignity of an inde pendent people.

This opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning and terms of articles 283 and 284. Germany merely undertakes by article 283 not to refuse her consent to the conclusion by the new States of the special arrangements referred to in the Postal and Telegraphic Unions. It is not stipulated that the text of these arrangements shall be dictated to her and that she must accept such text without discussion. This article merely prevents a systematic refusal to the conclusion of such arrangements or insistence on requirements which make their conclusion impossible.

Article 284 leaves to Germany the option of participating in the drawing-up of the proposed new radiotelegraphic convention. There is nothing to prevent her exercising this option if she so desires.

It is impossible to regard it as an extreme hardship that in matters of this description affecting the peaceful intercourse of European nations Germany should be required to abstain from adopting an attitude which would obstruct international communications. The allied and associated powers are, however, prepared to limit Germany's obligation to be bound by a new radiotelegraphic convention to the case where such a convention is concluded within five years.

3. The German objections to article 289 appear to arise out of a misunderstanding of its intention. While the allied and associated powers could not agree to the revival of bilateral treaties or of any clauses in bilateral treaties which are not in accordance with the terms of the peace treaty itself, they are quite prepared to give an assurance that this provision will not be arbitrarily used for the purpose of splitting up bilateral treaties in such a way that only the obligations should remain on one side and on the other side only the rights. The allied and associated powers will themselves, through the league of nations, exercise a surveillance to insure that the provisions of article 289 are loyally carried out. With this end in view, the article is modified to read as follows:

Each of the allied and associated powers, being guided by the general principles or special provisions of the present treaty, shall notify to Germany the bilateral treaties or conventions which such allied or associated power wishes to revive with Germany.

The notification referred to in the present article shall be made either directly or through the intermediary of another power. Receipt thereof shall be acknowledged in writing by Germany. The date of the revival shall be that of the notification.

The allied and associated powers undertake among themselves not to revive with Germany any conventions or treaties which are not in accordance with the terms of the present treaty.

The notification shall mention any provisions of the said conventions and treaties which, not being in accordance with the terms of the present treaty, shall not be considered as revived.

In case of any difference of opinion, the league of nations will be called on to decide. A period of six months

**

Bilateral treaties between Germany and States which broke off diplomatic relations with her but did not declare war are expressly included in article 289 on the same basis.as treaties with those States which did declare war. There is no universally recognized rule of international law on the subject, it is accordingly open to the allied and associated powers to deal with the matter in the most convenient manner in the peace treaty.

4. The treaties referred to in articles 290 and 292 are essentially among those which Germany concluded by taking undue advantage of the circumstances she herself created, the pressure she exercised, or her temporary military preponderance. Whatever the consequences to Germany of their abrogation, it is impossible to maintain them in force after the conclusion of a treaty of peace based upon the principles of justice.

The allied and associated powers can not admit that the abrogation by Germany of all treaties concluded with her former allies since August 1, 1914, and of all treaties concluded before or since that date with Russia and States or Governments whose territories formerly made part of Russia and with Roumania, which is required by articles 290 and 292, must of necessity grievously jeopardize her relations with these States. This abrogation is rendered necessary by the vast political changes which have been brought about by the war and by the fact that all treaties with Russia and States or Governments whose territories formerly made part of Russia and with Roumania, concluded since the outbreak of war, must necessarily be regarded as having been imposed by Germany on unwilling States. The abrogation does not affect Germany's freedom to enter into fresh negotiations with these States for the conclusion of new arrangements suitable to the altered conditions. By this means any serious jeopardy to the resumption of friendly economic relations can easily be avoided.

5. Any special negotiation regarding articles 291 and 294 is superfluous. The object of these articles is clear and plain: the allied and associated powers establish equality as between themselves and Germany by obtaining ipso facto the benefit of the treatment accorded by her before August 1, 1914, to her former allies and of the treatment which for interested motives or for ends inimical to the interests of the allied and associated powers, she may have granted during the war to powers which have remained neutral.

GERMAN APPENDIX ON SPECIAL LEGAL QUESTIONS.

III. RESUMPTION OF CONSULAR RELATIONS.

The German delegation requests reciprocity in respect of the right reserved to the allied and associated powers, under article. 279 of the peace treaty, to place consuls in German ports and towns. The unilateral character of this stipulation of article 279 results from the political activities of German consuls and from the acts committed by the Germans in the territories of certain allied and associated powers.

It should be added, however, that there is nothing in the article to prevent either the renewal under article 289 of prewar consular conventions between individual allied and asociated powers and Germany, or the conclusion of new arrangements between Germany and such powers for the admission of German consular officers into their territory.

IV. TREATMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The question of the treatment of private rights is dealt with in the German delegation's notes of the 22d and 29th May and in the Annex No. 1 to their remarks on the conditions of peace. In addition, the general objections set out in these documents are reproduced under different forms in various parts of the remarks.

I. QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE.

The objections of principle to the conditions of peace put forward by the German delegation on this subject may be summed up as follows:

(a) It is not legitimate to use the private property of German nationals to meet the obligations of Germany.

(b) The settlement of private rights is not made on the principle of reciprocity.

(c) German property should not be used as a guarantee for the liabilities of the States allied to Germany.

(d) The liquidations to be made by the allied and associated powers, in depriving the owner of the free disposition of his property, are of a confiscatory character.

The answers of the allied and associated powers to these objections are as follows:

(a) As regards the first objection, they would call attention to the clear acknowledgment by Germany of a pecuniary obligation to the allied and associated powers, and to the further circumstance that the immediate resources of Germany are not adequate to meet that obligation. It is the clear duty of Germany to meet the admitted obligation as fully and as promptly as possible, and to that end to make use of all available means. The foreign investments of German nationals constitute a class of assets which are readily available. To these investments the treaty simply requires Germany to make prompt resort.

It is true that as a general principle a country should endeavor to avoid making use of the property of a part of its nationals to meet State obligations; but conditions may arise when such a course becomes necessary. In the present war allied powers themselves have found it necessary to take over foreign investments of their nationals to meet foreign obligations and have given their own domestic obligations to the nationals who have been thus called upon to take a share, by this use of their private property, in meeting the obligations of the State.

The time has arrived when Germany must do what she has forced her opponents to do. The necessity for the adoption of this course by Germany is clearly understood by the German peace delegates and is accepted by them in the following passage, quoted textually from their note of the 22d May:

The German peace delegation is conscious of the fact that under the pressure of the burden arising from the peace treaty on the whole future of German economic life, German property in foreign countries can not be maintained to its previous extent. On the contrary, Germany, in order to meet her pecuniary obligations, will have to sacrifice this property abroad in wide measure. is prepared to do so.

She

The fundamental objection mentioned above is completely answered by the note itself.

(b) The German delegation maintains in its note of the 22d May that there is only the appearance of reciprocity in regard to the settlement of enemy property, and this objection is developed in the annex to the remarks. The objection, however, arises from a confusion between two entirely different matters. As regards exceptional war measures taken in the different countries in respect of enemy property there is a reciprocal provision, these exceptional war measures being confirmed on both sides. Quite a different matter is that of the mode in which enemy property shall be dealt with thereafter. German property, as is admitted in the German note, must serve toward meeting Germany's obligations to the Allies. The compensation to the German property owner must be made by Germany itself. In this respect there can be no question of reciprocity.

(c) On the question whether German property should serve as a guaranty for the liabilities of the States allied with Germany, it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the actions of Germany and her allies during the war have given rise to complete solidarity between these powers from the economic standpoint. For instance, negotiations undertaken without scruple between Germany and her allies have resulted in the division between these countries of the proceeds of the allied and associated property liquidated contrary to all right. in the territories occupied by the German troops. Further, the German authorities have in several ways treated the allied and associated powers as being jointly concerned. For instance, they have seized French credit balances in Belgian banks as a measure of reprisal against acts done in other allied States. They have similarly justified the liquidation of French property in Germany on the ground that similar measures have been taken against German property in other allied countries. Thus, the principle of joint liability to which Germany now objects has been initiated by herself, and she has created a situation which does not permit the allied and associated powers in practice to separate the obligations of her allies from her own. Nevertheless, the allied and associated powers are prepared to omit from the charge on the property of German nationals the liability to satisfy the unpaid debts of nationals of powers allied with Germany.

(d) The method of using this property laid down by the treaty can not be considered, either in principle or in the method of its application, as a measure of confiscation. Private German interests. will only be injured by the measures contemplated so far as Germany may decide that they shall be, since all the proceeds of German property will be carried to the credit of Germany, who is required to compensate her own nationals, and will go to reduce her debt to the allied and associated powers.