The line of the secondary ridge which closes on the south the basin of the Akcehisar (Dzuma) Suju.

Thence northward to the point where it meets the river Maritsa. The frontier of 1913.

Thence to a point to be selected at about 3 Km. downstream from the station of Kadikoj.

The principal course of the Maritsa downstream.

Thence northward to a point to be selected at the tip of the salient which the frontier of the Treaty of Sofia of 1915 " forms at about 10 Km. to the southeast of Mustafa Pascha.

A line to be determined on the spot.
Thence eastward to the Black Sea.

The frontier of the Treaty of Sofia of 1915, then the frontier of 1913.

PARIS, June 25, 1919.

The Commission on Ports, Waterways, and Railways has suggested a practical regime to guarantee to the Bulgarians, in case they find themselves excluded from Bulgarian Thrace, access to a port on the Aegean Sea (Cavalla or Dédéagatch) and the use of a direct railway line.

The regime must be guaranteed and carried out, in the absence of an agreement between the Greeks and Bulgarians, by an international commission. Having in mind only technical considerations, the Commission on Ports has proposed a commission of three members (a Greek, a Bulgarian, and an Englishman).

But the question is essentially political: It is necessary to prevent eventual recriminations, whether by Greeks or Bulgarians, if they are led to arbitrate under a single great power. Consideration should also be given to the fact that France, as well as England, is a guarantor of Greece, under the treaties of 1832 and 1863,12 and must be represented on the same footing. Finally, there would be evident advantages in giving such a guarantee of impartiality in the Commission as would be represented by the presence not only of the delegates of qualified powers, but also of a power wholly disinterested in the question, such as the United States.

The projected commission, in accordance with these considerations (and in order to make sure always of a majority), should include five

"British and Foreign State Papers, vol. CIX, p. 879.

"Treaty of London, May 7, 1832, ibid., vol. XIX, p. 33; treaties of London, July 13, 1863, and November 14, 1863, ibid., vol. LIII, pp. 28 and 19.

delegates: a Greek, a Bulgarian, an Englishman, a Frenchman, and an American.

ITALIAN DELEGATION

TO THE PEACE CONFERENCE,

HOTEL EDWARD VII

Annex III

PARIS, July 6, 1919.

The Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways decided, on the occasion of an inquiry into the question of free access to the Aegean Sea for Bulgaria, that a special convention between Greece and Bulgaria should define the settlement of this matter. In case of a failure to agree, a commission composed of one delegate each from Greece, Bulgaria, and Great Britain should be charged with laying down the conditions of an agreement (article 24). The French Delegation, by a note of June 25 13 addressed to the Secretariat General of the Conference, seemed to expect that this commission would receive certain powers in the matter of guaranteeing and carrying out the regime to be set up, and it suggested, therefore, that a representative for France and one for the United States be added to the commission.

The Italian Delegation is of opinion that the commission as contemplated in article 24 has no functions but those relating to the concluding of a special convention between Greece and Bulgaria to settle the conditions of free access to the sea.

This decision appears to be of the same sort as that which was adopted by the regime for the ports of Hamburg and Stettin, and the Italian Delegation has not, therefore, any remark to make. But in the event that changes are to be introduced into the composition of the commission in question, or that powers to insure and carry out the conditions laid down by the convention are to be entrusted to it, an Italian representative should be added to it upon the same footing as the other representatives.

In fact, all the powers stand upon a basis of perfect equality in this matter, for the regime which was provided flows from decisions which all the powers took in common agreement.

At the same time, the Italian Delegation invites attention to the fact that article 24 mentions only the ports of Cavalla and Dédéagatch, whereas in the formal engagement taken by Mr. Venizelos before the commission for the study of territorial questions affecting Greece (page 5), there is also a question of Salonika. The choice of this port by Bulgaria cannot be eliminated beforehand, especially

"Supra.

since the port of Cavalla, not being directly connected by railway with the Bulgarian system, is not immediately available, and since the port of Dédéagatch, according to the same commission on Greek questions, has no real commercial value for Bulgaria.

ACCESS BY BULGARIA TO CAVALLA OR DÉDÉAGATCH

In providing for the attribution of Bulgarian Thrace to Greece, an arrangement which would separate Bulgaria from the Aegean Sea, the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways, and Railways suggested the insertion, in the treaty with Bulgaria, of a clause of which the essential terms are the following:

(1) Greece will give in lease to Bulgaria for 50 years a free zone reserved either in the port of Cavalla or in that of Dédéagatch, as Bulgaria may choose.

(2) Bulgaria shall enjoy special facilities for transit.

(3) A convention, which may be revised every ten years, will fix the conditions of this cession and the manner of its use.

(4) If the port chosen is Cavalla, a railway shall be built and operated by Greece to connect the port with the Bulgarian frontier.

The questions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 would be, in case of disagreement between Greece and Bulgaria, submitted to the decision of a commission composed of one Bulgarian representative, one Greek, and one British.

The Commission on ports in making this suggestion, has taken a merely technical point of view, and has not taken into account certain political considerations of great importance to the proper functioning of the instrumentality thus created. This instrumentality has a role essentially impartial and judicial. In having only a single great power to participate in it, there is a risk of being open to accusations either by the Greeks or by the Bulgarians, who, after decisions are rendered, will attribute them to the attitude or the political interests of that great power.

The French Delegation considers that in order to give proper authority to the commission which is to function at Cavalla or Dédéagatch, it is advisable to have several great powers participate in it.

It considers that Great Britain and France, who are both guarantors of Greece, are naturally indicated for this task, and moreover that their intervention will be received by the Bulgarians themselves as a guarantee of impartiality.

Appendix C to HD-45

Decypher of Telegram From Admiral Troubridge, Buda-Pest, to

Unnumbered

Forward to War Office.

Astoria

Following for Admiralty, begins:

D. 30 AUGUST, 1919. R. 1 September 1919, 10:00.

Situation here is critical for Europe. Roumanians demand immediate acceptance by Hungarian Government of following conditions. Occupation of Hungary for one year giving opportunity for preparing country for personal (sic) (?commencement of) union with Roumania. Immediate customs union with Roumania. Cession of strategic points near Szegedin on mouth of Maros River and Bekes Csaba. No treaties to be made with Great Britain or Jugo-Slavs. They state to Hungarian Ministers they have already an alliance with Italy in which Hungary must join in order to assume policy of encirclement of Jugo-Slavs. I have urged Ministers to refuse any armistice or treaty with Roumania and to follow the counsels of the Supreme War Council at Paris. It is necessary to recognise at once any Government formed here and support them with energy.

Appendix D to HD-45

Paraphrase of Telegram From General Gorton, Budapest, Received Through U. S. Naval Communication Service, Paris, to Astoria, Paris

No. G 45

D. 30-31 AUGUST, 1919.

Admiral Troubridge has been told by Diamandy that the telegraphic despatches of the Supreme Council, dated 23rd and 25th August 15 had not been communicated to him.

The veracity of this is doubtful, but Rumania continues to make requisitions. There is no doubt that Rumania is striving to establish a separate Treaty with Hungary; telegrams of 23rd and 25th might therefore be transmitted privately to the Hungarian Government with advantage.

Appendix A to HD-37, vol. ví, p. 819, and appendix C to HD-38, ibid., p. 857.

Telegram of August 26 From the Interallied Military Mission, Budapest, to the Supreme Council, Peace Conference, Paris an

No. 191. Urgent. Situation of Government in Hungary without change. Two delegations, one representing the small tenants, and the other the factory workers, have asked to see the Mission in order to request that they be represented in the new government. Another delegation calling itself Christian Socialist has come to protest against the departure of the Archduke, declaring that the result will be to deliver their country to the Jews and that Budapest ought to be called Judapest. The reply was made to all the delegations that the Interallied Mission could not meddle in the internal affairs of Hungary. No change in the attitude of the Rumanians. One single improvement in the situation since the arrival of the Mission-a certain quantity of provisions has been allowed to enter Budapest. It is believed that the Rumanians have the intention of withdrawing suddenly as soon as they shall have satisfied all their instincts for plunder. Meanwhile, all their acts, intentional or not, tend to deliver Hungary to bolshevism and chaos. General Holban in Budapest promised last week to arm immediately, with revolvers and sabres, 4,000 men in the police; but, instead of doing so, and in disregard of the instructions of the Mission asking him to keep all Rumanian troops on the east of the Danube except the garrison of Budapest, it is believed that he intends to take possession of all Hungary, and to disarm and suppress the little Hungarian nucleus of Admiral Horthy which constitutes the sole defense of Hungary against bolshevism in the event that the Rumanians should abruptly evacuate the country. These measures being in contemplation at the same time that M. Diamandy made his recent declaration stating that a longer occupation of Hungary by the Rumanians could only injure their prestige, give the impression that if Rumania finds the conditions imposed by the Supreme Council too harsh for her to accept, she will seize all she can and then hastily abandon Hungary, which because of the laxity of the Rumanian commanders, will be left without any means for defense against bolshevism and disorder. The Mission devoted the meeting of August.25 to matters of relatively small importance, excepting the report by the British officer sent to inspect trains entering Rumania by the Szolnok bridge.