[Distributed to the Members of the Council.] Official No.: C. 5. 1932. I.

Geneva, January 2nd, 1932.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES

ANNUAL COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONS BY MINORITIES COMMITTEES

Note by the Secretary-General.

In accordance with the terms of paragraph 4(ii) of the Council resolution of June 13th 1929, the Secretary-General has the honour to circulate, for the information of the Members of the Council, copies of the letters addressed to him for communication to the Members of the Council during the year 1931 under paragraph 4(z") of this resolution. The following are the letters in question : Page 1. Letter from the Representatives of Poland, Peru and Spain concerning Petitions from Certain Organisations of Slovaks, Natives of Hungary, living in the United States of America...... 3 (Document C.170.1931.I.) 2. Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, the Irish Free State and Norway concerning a Petition from M. Anastassoff, M. Chaleff and M. Ilieff. . . . 4 (Document C.216.1931.I.) 3. Letter from the Representatives of Persia, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning a Petition from Six Members ofthe White-Ruthenian Parlia­ mentary Group in the Diet of the Polish Republic 4 (Document C.221.1931.1.) 4. Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, Japan and Poland concerning a Petition from Certain Inhabitants of Dragoumi (Epirus)...... 6 (Document C.258.1931.I.) 5. Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, France and Norway concerning a Petition and Supplementary Memorandum from M. J. Stoyanoff...... 6 (Document C.396.1931.1.) 6. Letter from the Representatives of Persia, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning Petitions from M. Ramm, M. von Gordon and M. Graebe. . . . 7 (Document C.405.1931.I.) 7. Letter from the Representatives of Poland, Spain and Venezuela concerning a Petition from M. Emeric Prokopy...... 10 (Document C.407.1931.I.) 8. Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, Poland and Spain concerning a Petition from M. Emeric Prokopy...... 10 (Document C.410.1931.1.) 9. Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Norway concerning a Petition and Supplementary Memorandum from M. Anguel Stoyanoff...... 18 (Document C.424.1931.I.)

S. d. N. 275 (F.) 175 (A.) 12/31. Imp. Granchamp. — 2 —

a g e Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning a Petition from M. Eugen Stenzel...... 19 (Document C.425.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning a Petition from M. Paul Schreiber...... 19 (Document C.426.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, the United Kingdom and Italy concerning Petitions from M. Karl Wach and M. Walter Schramm...... 20 (Document C.448.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Italy and Persia concerning a Petition from M. Adolf Albrecht...... 20 (Document C.466.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Italy and Persia concerning Petitions from M. Leo Bonus and M. Walter Müller...... 21 (Document C.467.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Italy and Persia concerning a Petition from M. Paul Forster...... 21 (Document C.468.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Italy and Persia concerning a Petition from M. Heinrich Hoeth...... 22 (Document C.469.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Yugoslavia, France and Italy concerning a Petition from M. Boukialy...... 22 (Document C.491.193Î.I.) Letter from the Representatives of Persia, France, Germany, Spain and Venezuela concerning a Petition from the Hungarian Party of Roumania 24 (Document C.649.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Venezuela, Norway and Spain concerning a Petition from the Bulgarian Monastery “ Zograf ”, on Mount Athos...... 25 (Document C.663.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Poland, Venezuela, Germany and Japan concerning Petitions from Certain Inhabitants of Paramythia (Epirus). . . 26 (Document C.664.1931.I.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Guatemala and Norway concerning a Petition from the Hungarian Party of Roumania...... 27 (Document C.680.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State and Guatemala concerning a Petition from the Bulgarian Monastery “ Zograf ”, on Mount Athos...... 28 (Document C.765.1931.I.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State and Guatemala concerning a Petition from the Russian Monastery of St. Panteleimon, on Mount Athos...... 29 (Document C.766.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of Germany, France and Peru concerning a Petition from M. Sigmund P a lfi...... 31 (Document C.806.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Irish Free State and Peru concerning a Petition from Dr. Szüllô Geza and Fourteen Other Deputies and Senators of the Czechoslovak P arliam ent...... 32 (Document C.917.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Peru concerning a Petition from M. Alex S zende...... 34 (Document C.903.1931.I.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, France and Peru concerning a Petition from Dr. Korlath and M. H o k k y ...... 34 (Document C.906.1931.1.) Letter from the Representatives of the United Kingdom, Guatemala and Italy concerning a Petition from Mme. Anna J o c h im ...... 35 (Document C.907.1931.1.) 3 —

1. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f P o l a n d , P e r u a n d S p a i n c o n c e r n in g P e t it io n s f r o m C e r t a in O rganisations o f S l o v a k s , N a t iv e s o f H u n g a r y , l iv in g in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petitions from certain organisations of Slovaks, natives of Hungary,1 concerning the situation of the Slovak minority in Hungary, together with the observations of the Hungarian Government on the petitions (see document C.134.1930.1). At a meeting held on May 13th, 1930, the Committee took note of the documents before it, and raised certain points on which it decided to inform the Hungarian Government that some additional information would be of value. The Hungarian Government furnished the Committee with further explanations in a memorandum forwarded on September 27th, 1930. The points raised by the Committee were the following : 1. The Committee, on the basis of the information previously provided by the Hungarian Government, had noted that, in 1923-24, 5,018 children out of a total 15,372 whose mother tongue was Slovak were receiving their primary instruction in that language. This proportion (32.6 per cent) had probably increased by about 10 per cent for the school year 1928-29. The Committee wished to be informed of the number of minority schools or classes where these children received elementary teaching, the number of children whose mother tongue was Hungarian who attended the Hungarian primary schools, and the number of the latter. From the particulars furnished by the Government, 5,712 children whose mother tongue is Slovak are taught in 50 schools comprising 348 classes, — i.e., an average of 115 children per school, while, in the same communes, 21,668 children whose mother tongue is Hungarian are taught in 172 Hungarian schools, an average of 126 children per school. The Government explains that the language in which instruction is given is fixed by the churches in the case of denominational schools, and by the local school or administrative authorities, or by the parents of the children, in the case of State schools. The fact that, in the district in question, the Slovak and Hungarian populations are very mixed has resulted in a marked preference for schools in which children are taught either in both Slovak and Hungarian, or in Hungarian with Slovak as one of the subjects taught. 2. The petition of the “ Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol of the United States of America refers to a society for the advance of Slovak culture, the institution of which was forbidden by the district authorities of Oroshaza in 1923 (document C.134.1930.1, page 7). The Hungarian Government, in its observations on this petition, explained that high treason proceedings against the signatory of the demand had been the cause of the refusal to authorise this society, and that these proceedings had been abandoned owing to a pardon by the Head of the State (see the same document, pages 18 to 19). The Committee had wished to be informed of the effect, if any, of this circumstance on the fate of the request to set up the society. In its memorandum of September 27th, 1930, the Government explains that the petitioner himself did not go further in the matter after 1923, and did not appeal against the decision of the authority competent, so that no Government authority had had occasion to give a ruling on the petitioner’s request. 3. The Committee noted, in the same petition, the fact that the publication of a weekly paper in Slovak, entitled Svet, had been prohibited in virtue of a decree relating to the consumption of news-press paper, and it had expressed a wish to know if this decree was still in force, or whether the Hungarian Government had thought it possible to repeal it in view of the change in the situation. In its last memorandum, the Government explains that the decree in question was repealed a long time ago, with the exception of two provisions intended to meet the difficulties of the transition period. According to one of these provisions, new periodicals using rotary press paper, or paper in sheets, can only be authorised in exceptional cases and wrhen reasons are given ; the other provision forbids the production of printed matter (intellectual and technical work) on Sundays and holidays. The Government affirms that these measures, which aimed at securing the equitable distribution of paper during a difficult period, were in no way directed against the minorities. Requests for authorisation for new publications are only refused in cases where it is shown that the intellectual needs for which they claimed to provide are already sufficiently satisfied. In this connection, complete equality — states the Government — is observed between all Hungarian nationals, without distinction. The Government adds that legislative measures to meet the present situation may be forthcoming shortly ; the text of such measures is at present being considered. In view of this declaration and the information summarised above, in particular the figures given for the minority schools, the Committee decided at its meeting on January 26th, 1931, to conclude the examination of this question without bringing it to the Council’s attention.

1 (a) Letter dated August 10th, 1929, signed by Mr. Stefan Stefanik on behalf of the “ Slovak Evangelical Union of America ” , Cleveland (Ohio). (6) Letter dated August 23rd, 1929, from the Pastor A. J. Moncol, of Cleveland (Ohio), forwarding a memorandum signed by Mr. Andrew Kopcok and Mr. Andrew Kertis on behalf of the “ Society of Slovaks from Hungary in Cleveland ” and the “ Slovak National Alliance (c) Letter dated August 30th, 1929, from the “ Supreme Office of the Tatran Slovak Union ”, Chicago. (d) Letter dated August 31st, 1929, from the “ Slovak Gymnastic Union Sokol of the United States of America ", Perth Amboy. 4 —

The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(t), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have therefore the honour to ask you to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) F. S o k a l , Dated Geneva, February 11th, 1931.

(Signed) J. Q u in o n e s d e L e ô n , Dated Paris, February 13th, 1931.

(Signed) J. M. B a r r e t o , Dated Geneva, February 12th, 1931.

2. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f V e n e z u e l a , t h e I r is h F r e e S t a t e a n d N o r w a y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M . A n a s t a s s o f f , M. Ch a l e f f , a n d M. I l i e f f .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, examined a petition from M. Anastassolï, M. Chaleff and M. Ilieff, relating to the refusal by the Yugoslav authorities to prolong the visas of their passports, together with the observations of the Yugoslav Government thereon. At a meeting held on January 26th, 1931, the Committee took note of the explanations and information supplied by the Yugoslav Government in its observations, according to which the action of which the petitioners complain— in fact only two of the petitioners applied to the Yugoslav Consulate in Geneva for the prolongation of their visas — is merely a consequence of the application of general provisions binding on all nationals of the Yugoslav Kingdom. It appears from the Yugoslav Government’s observations that the two persons in question misled the authorities by giving them false information in regard to their destination at the time the passports were issued. Thus — states the Government — although the passports were only valid for a journey to Greece and back and for a period of two months, the persons in question used them in order to proceed to Geneva. The Committee noted, in particular, the declaration of the Yugoslav Government to the effect that the circumstance that the persons in question had previously petitioned the League of Nations played no part in the decision of the Yugoslav authorities. On the basis of these declarations, the members of the Committee were of opinion that there was no occasion for any of them to draw the Council’s attention to the m atter referred to in the petition. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would accordingly ask you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a , Dated Paris, March 5th, 1931.

(Signed) P . M c G il l ig a n , Dated Dublin, March 27th, 1931.

(Signed) Joh. Lud. M o w i n c k e l , Dated Oslo, March 4th, 1931.

3. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f P e r s ia , t h e U n it e d K in g d o m a n d I t a l y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n fr o m S i x M e m b e r s o f t h e W h i t e -R u t h e n ia n P arliamentary G r o u p in t h e D ie t of t h e P o l ish R e p u b l i c .

[Translation.] The Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, and which was entrusted with the examination of the petition from six members of the White-Ruthenian Parliamentary Group in the Diet of the Polish Republic concerning the situation of the hite Ruthenians in Poland, and the observations of the Polish Government thereon (document C.9.1930.1), finished its discussions on January 20th, 1931. After a close examination of all the points raised in the petition and of the observations of the Polish Government, the Committee came to the conclusion that on only two of these points would it be useful to receive further information from the Polish Government. These two points, on which the Polish Government has twice supplied the Committee with further information, are the following : (1) the administration in the territories inhabited by the White-Ruthenian population is alleged to be in the hands of Polish officials coming mostly from other parts of Poland ; (2) at the time of the application of the agrarian reform, the land, instead of being divided among the population of the country, was — according to the petitioners — colonised by Poles, especially volunteers who had served in the Polish Army during the war between Poland and the Soviet Union in 1920, with the intention of Polonising the White-Ruthenian territory. 1. On the first of these points, the Polish Government supplied the following statistics concerning the number of officials of White-Ruthenian race employed by the Polish administration : Under the Ministry of : Agriculture ...... 392 F i n a n c e ...... 35 Posts and T e le g ra p h s ...... 120 Agrarian R e f o r m ...... 32 Public W o r k s ...... 45 E d u c a ti o n ...... 329 Government P o l i c e ...... 115 Justice ...... 87 Communications : P e rm a n e n tly ...... 818 P ro v isio n ally ...... 3,200

Information about the religious persuasions of these officials was also given as follows : Percentage Orthodox ...... 90.84 Roman C ath o lic...... 8.57 Other persuasions (Mohammedans, Greek Catholics, Baptists)...... 1.59 2. As for the second point (military colonisation), the Polish Government explained to the Committee that the allocation of land in the vast and very sparsely populated territories of Eastern Poland is carried out in virtue of two laws of December 17th, 1920, the text of which was communicated to the Committee and which deal respectively with the transfer of landed property to the State in certain districts of the Republic and the granting of land to the soldiers of the Polish army. The Government states that in the three Voivodeships of Vilna, Nowogrodek and Polesia, out of about 230,240 hectares, the ownership of which had been transferred to the State in conformity with the first of these laws, nearly 168,830 hectares belonged to private individuals. In these three Voivodeships, 91,715 hectares wrere utilised in conformity with the provisions of the second law and divided between 4,538 settlers, ex-service men, among whom there were a certain number of White-Ruthenians. During the same period, about 436,500 hectares (including 120,066 hectares belonging to the State), after deducting the area divided among military settlers, was allocated in the three voivode­ ships in conformity with the general legal provisions of the Agrarian Reform. Nearly all this land was divided among the local population. The Government adds that the Polish authorities have no statistics concerning the race of those thus acquiring and, since the question of race is of no interest to the Land Offices. The distribution according to religions was 34,831 Catholic and 42,400 Orthodox purchasers ; the Government explains that nearly all the Orthodox and about thirty per cent of the Catholic purchasers should be looked upon as of White-Ruthenian race. In the light of all this information, the Committee thinks it may say that no proof has been furnished that the members of the White-Ruthenian Minority have been excluded from the services of the Polish administration, nor deprived in the interests of Poles of the benefits of the colonisation. In these circumstances, the members of the Committee decided to conclude the examination of this question without bringing it to the attention of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of this examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to ask you to be so good as to communicate for information the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) Hussein A l a , Dated Paris, March 14th, 1931. (Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, March 20th, 1931. (Signed) G r a n d i , Dated Rome, March 24th, 1931. — 6 —

4. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f V e n e z u e l a , J a p a n a n d P o l a n d c o n c e r n in g

a P e t it io n f r o m C e r t a in I n h a b it a n t s o f D r a g o u m i ( E p i r u s ).

[Translation.] In virtue of the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Committee of Three, of which we had the honour to be members, examined at a meeting held at Paris on April 13th, 1931, a petition from a number of inhabitants of Dragoumi (Epirus) concerning certain measures of expropriation alleged to have been taken by the Greek Government in regard to their property, together with the observations of the Greek Government thereon (see document C.525.1930.I.). oA The Committee also had before it a memorandum communicated on August 30th, 1928, by the Greek Government to the Minorities Committee which exam ned the petition of M. Ali Dino of August 5th, 1927, concerning the situation of the inhabitants of Gardiki and Dragoumi (document C.663.1927.1). This memorandum sets forth the measures adopted by that Government for the equitable settlement of the situation of the Moslem minority of the said vil ages and is referred to in the above-mentioned observations. The Committee took note of a statement contained in this latter communication to the effect that the Greek Government, being sincerely desirous of promoting the welfare of that minority, had endeavoured, during the application of the measures mentioned in the said memorandum, to improve the situation of the minority in question as far as possible, by means of subsequent provisions. Special attention was paid by the Committee to the final passage of the Greek Government’s observations, which reads as follows : “ Out of a hundred families settled on the land by means of expropriation, only about ten were selected from among Greek refugees. Moreover, the latter are now transferring their homes to Macedonia, which proves that the accusation of partiality towards the Greek element levelled by the Moslems in question against the Greek Government is entirely unfounded, since it would be absurd to suppose that these few Greek families would have preferred to run the risk of settling in a new place if their position at Dragoumi, which the petitioners appear to envy, had been a privileged one. This voluntary departure of the Greek refugees is an eloquent proof of the lack of foundation of the petitioners’ protests In view of the foregoing statements, the Committee considered that it was unnecessary for any of its members to draw the Council’s attention to the question dealt with in the petition submitted to it for examination. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i"), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without referring it to the Council, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would accordingly request you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information. (Signed) C. Z u m e t a , Dated Paris, April 14th, 1931.

(Signed) K. Y o s h i z a w a , Dated Paris, April 15th, 1931.

(Signed) F. S o k a l , Dated Paris, April 14th, 1931.

5. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives of V e n e z u e l a , F r a n c e a n d N o r w a y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n a n d S upplementary M e m o r a n d u m f r o m M. J. S t o y a n o f f .

Geneva, May 19th, 1931.

[Translation.] In virtue of the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, examined at a meeting held at Paris on April 14th, ^ o ^ £ etinn°n and suPPlement-ary memorandum from M. J. Stoyanoff, dated September 15th and 24th, 19o0, respectively, relating to the situation of the Bulgarian minority in southern Uobroudja, and the Roumanian Government’s observations thereon (see document C.37.1931.1) At this meeting, the Committee noted the general considerations which the Roumanian Government sets forth in its letter of December 31st, 1930, on the situation in the district in question, while referring to the statements which it had communicated previously on the subject (documents C 39.1928.1 and C.64.1929.I), together with the particulars which it urmshed in the said letter both in regard to the events which occurred in the district of urostor on and after September 4th, 1930, and the punitive action taken as a result of these events by the Roumanian authorities. The Committee noted in particular the assurances contained in the latter part of the Roumanian Government’s letter concerning its desire to ensure harmony between the various populations in the Dobroudja and the efforts which, in a spirit of perfect equality and justice for all, it is making with this end in view. — 7 —

The Committee also noted the fact that the petitioner intimates in his communication of September 24th, 1930, that he is sending in the near future another petition concerning the present regime of immovable property in southern Dobroudja. The Committee has also been informed that a further petition from the same source regarding the situation of the Bulgarian minority in that district, particularly from the point of view of public education, is at present under consideration by another Minorities Committee. Having regard to these circumstances, the Committee decided to close the examination of this question without bringing it to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(£), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have therefore the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter for the information of the other members of the Council.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a . (Signed) G. D u l o n g . (Signed) Birger B r a a d l a n d .

6. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f P e r s ia , t h e U n it e d K in g d o m a n d I ta l y CONCERNING PETITIONS OF M. R a MM, M. VON GORDON AND M. G r AEBE.

Geneva, May 23rd, 1931. [Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petitions of M. Ramm, M. von Gordon and M. Graebe, concerning the situation of the German minority in Poland, particularly as regards the application of the agrarian reform, together with the observations of the Polish Government thereon (documents C.565.1929.1, C.4 . . • < -mil C.571.1930.I). The Committee has studied this question very carefully and held numerous meetings during the sessions of the Council in January, May and September 1930, and in January and May 1931. As several of the points raised in the petitions are of a technical nature, each member thought fit to consult, with regard to them, a separate agricultural expert selected by himself. At a meeting held on January 26th, 1931, the Committee decided to bring certain points to the notice of the Polish Government : (1) The proportion in which the majority and minority have contributed respectively to the agrarian reform in comparison with the proportion of land which they respectively possessed ; (2) The proportion in which the majority and minority have benefited from the distribution of land in comparison with the proportion existing between the majority and the minority from the point of view of the total population ; (3) The exercise by the authorities of the right of pre-emption and the right to refuse authorisation for the conveyance of land.

As regards the first of these points, the Committee came to the conclusion that there is a considerable disparity between the area of land made available for the purposes of agrarian reform by (a) owners who are members of the majority and (b) owners who are members of the minority, in proportion to the area owned by these two groups respectively. Even on the basis of the figures given by the Polish Government,1 the position was as follows for the years 1926-1929 : Percentage Percentage of of contribution of the total area total area Poznan : Owners belonging to the majority. ... 65 49.9 Owners belonging to the minority ... 35 50.1 Pomorze : Owners belonging to the majority. . . . 39.3 27.7 Owners belonging to the minority. . . . 60.7 72.83

With regard to the second point, the Committee considered that the figures furnished by the Polish Government show a disparity between the number of inhabitants belonging to the majority and the minority respectively who have benefited from the agrarian reform in proportion to the numerical ratio between the two groups of the population. The Committee noted the Polish Government’s explanation that this disparity is due to the fact that the German population “ possessed land on a considerable scale, while the Polish population,

1 That is to say, on the basis of (a) the total area of expropriated properties and (6) the land expropriated both by voluntary parcelling and by forced purchase (lists of names). which is predominant in these districts, mostly possessed small properties or were entirely deprived of land The Committee did not consider this statement a sufficient explanation of the existing disparity, which reveals a discrimination against the minority.1 With regard to the last of the above-mentioned points, the Committee noted that most of the documents submitted for its examination showed a tendency to confuse the question of the refusal of the right to convey land with that of the exercise of the right of pre-emption, the same operation being frequently quoted as an example of either case. The German legislation taken over by Poland (Article 3 of the Bundesral Decree of March 15th, 1918) gives the grounds on which authority for the conveyance of land may be refused, while it does not lay down the conditions under which the State may exercise the right of pre-emption (Prussian Decree of December 23rd, 1918, as confirmed on the particular point by Article 7 of the Decree of the Commissariat of the Supreme Council of the Polish people, of June 25th, 1919). The Committee nevertheless considered that the justification for the two forms of action in particular cases should, in principle, be identical. The Committee noted the Polish Government’s explanation that the measures in question are taken only when the purchaser is not considered capable of making proper use of the land which he wishes to acquire. The Committee agrees with the Polish Government that this criterion is the only one that can be applied, whether to the refusal of the right to convey or to the exercise of the right of pre-emption. The Committee is, however, not convinced that this principle has always been applied in practice. In this connection, the Committee expressed the opinion that the fact that a purchaser is stated to be engaged in some occupation other than agriculture is not in itself sufficient proof that he is incapable of making proper use of a parcel of land. It was also found that the Polish authorities, in exercising these rights, base their action in cer­ tain cases on the ground that the purchaser was lacking in loyalty. The Committee considered that, from the point of view of the Minorities Treaty, it would be very dangerous to apply such a criterion. It might have too far-reaching effects : if the fact of not speaking Polish were to be considered lack of loyalty (as happened in one case mentioned in one of the documents submitted to the Committee), this criterion would imply a violation of the Minorities Treaty. Being convinced of the Polish Government’s desire to solve these questions in an equitable manner, the Committee decided to bring the above observations to the Government’s notice and to ask whether it was prepared to give assurances as to whether : (1) The agrarian reform will be applied in future in such a way as to correct the existing disparity between the cpntribution of the majority and that of the minority ;

(2) The distribution of land under the agrarian reform programme will also take place in such a way as to correct the disparity between the advantages granted to the majority and the minority respectively ;

(3) The exercise of the right of pre-emption and the right to refuse authority to convey land will be determined exclusively by agricultural and economic considerations, and the fact that the purchaser is not a farmer by profession will not in itself be considered as a sufficient reason for a refusal. The criterion of loyalty will not be applied.

In a letter of May 6th, 1931, the Polish representative to the League of Nations kindly communicated to us his Government’s observations on the Committee’s letter. ( 1 ) In reply to the first point raised in that letter, the Polish Government remarks that the disparity in question is due, not to political reasons, but has an economic cause. In the territory of Poland formerly Prussian, the large estates belonged almost exclusively to Germans ; and it is in the very nature of the agrarian reform, when dividing up the land, to begin with the largest estates. When the large estates of the Voivodeships of Poznan and Pomorze have once been divided up, the respective contributions by German and Polish owners to the agrarian reform will be automatically changed in favour of the Germans. This change, which is in accordance with the economic aims of the law, will be merely a natural consequence of the distribution of the medium-sized estates between the Germans and the Poles, which is more to the advantage of the latter than the distribution of the large domains and estates. This tendency will make itself felt earlier in Poznan than in Pomorze.

(2) With regard to the distribution of the land, the Polish Government, while not denying a certain predominance in the share of the Polish element as compared with the Ger­ man element, points out that the Law on Agrarian Reform gives priority for the acquisition of plots of land to agricultural workers, small farmers in the neighbourhood of the estate that is being divided up, owners of very small farms and, lastly, as in other European countries, to ex-combatants who have specially distinguished themselves in the war and disabled

1 According to the figures given by the Polish Government, 81 per cent of the population of the Voivodeship of Pomorze belong to the majority and 19 per cent to the minority. The proportion in which the population has benefited from the agrarian reform is 5 3 per cent or the majority and 0.09 per cent for the m ino rity -th at is to say a proportion of 60: 1. n Poznan, where the proportion between the two elements of the population is about five Poles to one German these two elements have benefited from the agrarian reform in the proportion of 10:1. ’ — 9 —

soldiers. In the districts in question, these classes of persons are generally of Polish national­ ity. According to the Government, this explains why the Poles obtain a greater share in the benefits of the agrarian reform, without there being any differential treatment to the detriment of the minority. As regards the owners of small farms, the Germans are as a rule in a comparatively privileged position, since the farms they own are self-supporting properties, having been formed before the war, or added to, by the Colonisation Commission. The Government further observes that, in executing the Law on Agrarian Reform, the different Voivodeships of Poland cannot be treated as separate water-tight compartments and that the entire territory of the State must be taken as a basis. The inhabitants of the Voivodeships where the agricultural population is particularly dense must be enabled to settle in other Voivodeships where more land is available. In this respect, the two Voivodeships in question are better off than other parts of Poland, since the agricultural population is not so dense (in relation to the arable land) and there are great reserves of available land. It is therefore not a m atter for surprise that these two Voivodeships should be called upon to absorb the surplus agricultural population from other Voivodeships where there exists practically no German minority. The Government adds that the greater share obtained by the Poles in the benefits of the agrarian reform is only a necessary consequence of the special economic conditions in Poland and should not be interpreted as evidence of ill-will on the part of the Polish Government towards the German minority. The favouring of certain classes of applicants for land on social grounds (agricultural labourers) or for economic reasons (owners of very small farms) takes place in the same manner throughout Poland and is in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Agrarian Reform. This law does not admit of the application of fixed pro­ portions corresponding to the respective figures of the Polish and German population as a basis for dividing up the land ; this would manifestly conflict with the aims of the law, which are economic and not political.

(3) With regard to the right of pre-emption and the right to refuse authorisation to convey land, the Polish Government points out that a distinction should be made between the two, on the ground that the conditions under which the administrative authorities are entitled to refuse authorisation for the conveyance of land are fixed by law, whereas the exercise of the right of pre-emption is left to the discretion of the administration. The Polish Government adds that, in practice, the exercise of the right of pre-emption is restricted to cases where the right to refuse the authorisation of conveyance would be exercised — that is to say, the decisions of the authorities are based on economic considerations. According to the Government, the right of pre-emption is exercised in only one other case — namely, where an estate is very large and suitable for parcelling under the Law on Agrarian Reform. In this case, the exercise of the right of pre-emption is also governed by economic considerations and has nothing to do with the minority question. The practice of the Polish Government gives all necessary guarantees on this subject and, in fact, precludes the possibility of any measures which could not be justified by economic necessities. The authorisation to convey land may be refused in all cases where the administrative authorities can apply the provisions of paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned German decree, especially when the applicant has not sufficient knowledge of farming. In this respect, however, the Government states that it agrees with the Committee that “ the exercise of a profession other than farming is quite reconcilable with sufficient technical ability for agri­ cultural work As regards the criterion of loyalty the Government states that it will only be applied in cases where the person concerned has been the object of a sentence by a court proving his disloyalty to the State.1 In noting these explanations of the Polish Government, the Committee has thought itself entitled to draw the following conclusions as to that Government’s future line of action :

1. The normal application of the agrarian reform will gradually correct the existing disparity between the respective contributions to the agrarian reform of owners belonging to the German minority and owners belonging to the Polish majority. In the Committee’s opinion, it must be regarded as understood that, if it were necessary, the Polish Government would not fail to take the necessary steps to secure such correction.

2. Under the agrarian reform programme, the land will be distributed solely on the basis of social and economic considerations without any regard to the nationality of the persons benefiting therefrom.

3. The right of pre-emption and the right of refusing authority to convey land will be exercised exclusively on agricultural and economic grounds, and the fact that the purchaser is not a farmer by profession will not be regarded in itself as a sufficient reason for refusal. The criterion of loyalty will not be applied except in cases where a judicial sentence has been pronounced.1

1 The Committee presumes that the Polish Government refers to Article 52, Section 3, of the Law of December 28th, 1925, regarding the execution of the Agrarian Reform, which reads as follows : “ No land made available by parcelling may be ceded either to individuals condemned for an offence against the Polish State by a regular sentence of imprisonment of at least two years or to persons sentenced for desertion from the Polish Army . — 10 —

In these circumstances, the Committee decided at its meeting of May 18th, 1931, to conclude the examination of the questions raised in the above-mentioned petitions without bringing them to the notice of the Council. . The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have therefore the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) Hussein A l â . (Signed) William M a l k i n .

(Signed) Massimo P i l o t t i .

7. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f P o l a n d , S p a in a n d V e n e z u e l a c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. E m e r ic P r o k o p y . Geneva, May 19th, 1931. [Translation.] In virtue of the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which the representatives of Poland, Spain and Venezuela had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petition of M. Emeric Prokopy concerning the situation of the Hungarian minority in Yugoslavia, particularly in relation to certain points connected with schools and intellectual life, and the observations of the Yugoslav Government thereon (document C.403.1930.I). At its meeting held in Paris on April 14th, 1931, the Committee noted that the questions raised in this petition were dealt with in much greater detail in three other petitions, of which the same petitioner was the first signatory, submitted for examination to a Committee composed of the same members as the present Committee (see documents C.698.1930.I, C.698(a).1930.I and G.89.1931.I). In these circumstances, the Committee decided to close the examination of the present question without bringing it to the attention of the Council. The Council’s resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), states that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would therefore beg you to be so good as to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) F. S o k a l .

(Signed) A. L e r r o u x .

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

8. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f V e n e z u e l a , P o l a n d a n d S p a in c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. E m e r ic P r o k o p y . Geneva, May 19th, 1931. [Translation.] In virtue of the Council’s resolution of October 25th, 1930, a Minorities Committee, of which the representatives of Venezuela, Poland and Spain had the honour to be members, was constituted to examine the petition of M. Emeric Prokopy concerning the private associations of the Hungarian minority in \ ugoslavia, together with the Yugoslav Government’s observations thereon (document C.62.1931.I). The points raised in the petition and the Yugoslav Government’s observations thereon may be summarised as follows :

(1) Article 157 of the Yugoslav Law of December 5lh, 1929, on Primary Education. (a) According to the petitioner, this article would mean making the minority associations dependent upon the goodwill of the executive authority, which might dissolve them at will or force them to amalgamate with the majority private associations having identical or similar aims. • The Government, in its observations, states that since the regulations proposed in this article have not yet been worked out in detail, its provisions have not up to the present been applied. These provisions are intended to form the private associations into “ a powerful factor in the efiective support of educational work of the State and Banovine Institutions — Il —

From this point of view, the Government adds, these provisions apply to minority associations and organisations also, “ but solely within the sphere of their activity : education and the abolition of illiteracy among the minority peoples The Government contends that it is untrue to state that the aforesaid Article 157 contemplates the amalgamation of the Hungarian with the Yugoslav associations. Far from wishing to crush the private associations out of existence, it proposes to co-ordinate their efforts in order to obtain better results, and may even provide subsidies for this purpose.

(2) Closing of Casinos and breaking up of Hungarian Libraries. The Government furnishes explanations in each specific case mentioned by the petitioner, correcting his version of the facts : (a) Thus the casinos at Bele-Crkva, PanCevo and Vrsac are stated to have been closed down because, in spite of the authorities’ warnings, they failed to keep their activities within the limits laid down by their statutes. (b) As regards the Hungarian National Casino at Subotica, it is said to have offered its premises to the military authorities in 1918 as the barracks were occupied by the sick and interned persons ; the association in question took over its building again, together with its furniture and library, in 1919. (c) In the case of the Subotica Museum, its contents were preserved in the Town Hall, and a Section of the Municipal Council will exhibit them as soon as suitable premises are obtained. (d) Finally, contrary to the petitioner’s statement, the municipal library of Vrsac is stated to be intact and open to the public.

(3) Amalgamation of the Hungarian Women’s Charitable Society at Sombor with Other Women’s Societies. (a) According to the petitioner, the Chief of the Subotica Municipal Police issued an order (of which a copy was attached to his petition) to the Hungarian Women’s Charitable Society of the town to amalgamate with the other women’s societies in Sombor ; this organisation was thus incorporated by force in a Slav organisation, while its property was confiscated. (b) The Government counters this assertion with the statement that the activities of the society in question were not interrupted in April 1930, and that the authorities in no way objected to them. It further states that the Society’s normal work continues and that its property was never confiscated.

(4) Hungarian People’s Club at Subotica. The Government explains that, contrary to the petitioner’s assertion, the Club Statutes were approved in 1921 ; subsequent changes in these were also approved and, in a particular case in 1929, gave rise to a simple observation that the article stating that, should the Society be dissolved, its property should be given to the poor of Subotica, was not clearly worded. The authorities had never demanded that this property should be handed over to Slav associations. The said Club was moreover carrying on its activities, the only condition of enrolment for a new member being that he should be of Yugoslav nationality.

(5) Use of the Official Language in the Administration of the Associations. According to the petitioner, only the statutes of minority private associations which use the language of the State as their official language are approved by the authorities. The Government states that compulsion in this matter only applies to book-keeping and correspondence with the authorities ; in all other cases these associations are free to use the minority language. The Committee further noted a list of 189 private associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia communicated by the Government ; it attaches a copy of this list to its present letter. On the basis of the Yugoslav Government’s explanations summarised above, the Committee decided, at its meeting held in Paris on April 14th, 1931, to close the examination of this question without bringing it to the attention of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to be so good as to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

(Signed) A. L e r r o u x .

(Signed) F. S o k a l . — 12 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929.

Locality Title of Remarks Serial Number Members Number

Sombor 1 Gymnastic Society...... 240 2 People’s C lu b ...... 609 3 People’s Club Singing Society . . 50 4 Artisans’ Singing Society .... 48 5 Roman Catholic Sacred Song Society...... 60 6 Hungarian Women’s Charitable Society...... 300 7 Chess C l u b ...... 50 8 Sporting C lu b ...... 197 9 Railway Workers’ Athletic Club . 193 10 Hungarian Reading Room . . . 271 11 Sporting Society...... 340 12 Tradesmen’s and Industrialists’ U n i o n ...... 397 13 St. Peter’s Canal B a th s ...... 120 14 Amateur Musicians’ Society . . . 82 15 St. Mary’s G uild...... 26 16 Roman Catholic Young Men’s Association...... 2,269 17 Voluntary Firemen’s Association, 87

Novi Sad 18 Hungarian Singing Society . . . 200 19 Hungarian Sporting Society . . . 450 20 Hungarian Reading Room . . . 150

Subotica 21 “ Nepker ” Cultural Association . 200 Value of property : 100,000 dinars 22 Catholic Young Men’s Association 200 Value of property : 100,000 dinars 23 “ Palitch ” Youth Association . . 150 24 Amateur Artists’ Society .... 25 “ Szeretet ” Women’s Union. . . 230 Capital : 150,000 dinars 26 First Women’s Humanitarian Society...... 100

District of Apatin: Bogojevo 27 Voluntary Firemen’s Association. 25 28 Public Education Association . . 29 Hunters’ Association .... 14

Dobroslovo 30 Firemen’s Association 160 31 People’s Club . . . 151 32 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 385 33 Artisans’ Club . 151 34 Hunters’ Association . . 20 35 Burial Club . . . 1,150 13 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929 (continued).

Locality Title of Remarks Serial Number Number Members

Kupusina 36 Firemen’s A s s o c ia tio n ...... 32 Value of property : 60.000 dinars 37 Hunters’ Association...... 16 38 Farmers’ C lu b ...... Value of property : 50.000 dinars

Svilojevo 39 Stockbreeders’ Association . . . 274 Value of property : 70,000 dinars Capital: 50,000 dinars 40 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 41 Disabled ex-Service Men’s Associ­ ation ...... 48 42 Voluntary Firemen’s Association. 113 43 Youth Association......

District of Batina : Kotlina 44 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 110 45 Public Reading R o o m ...... 90

District of Backa Topola : Backa Topola 46 Tradesmen’s and Industrialists’ U n i o n ...... 100 47 Artisans’ Association...... 360 48 Hunters’ Association...... 20 49 Sporting C lub ...... 200 50 Artisans’ Choral Society .... 45

Stara Moravica 51 Artisans’ Choral Society . . . . 30 52 Reformed Singing Society . . . 33 53 People’s C lu b ...... 250

Patir 54 Reformed Singing Society . . . 55 Hungarian National Club .... 190

Mali Idjos 56 Firemen’s A s s o c ia tio n ...... 57 Agricultural S ociety ...... 58 Artisans’ Association...... 59 Tradesmen’s and Artisans’ Associ­ ation ......

Feketic 60 Artisans’ Association...... 160 61 Reformed Society ...... 50 62 Sporting C lub ...... 88 63 Hunters’ Association...... 23 64 Firemen’s Association ...... 27 65 Young Men’s Christian Union . . - 14 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929 (continued).

1

of R em ark s Locality H Serial N u m b e r M em bers N u m b e r

Canlavir 66 Sporting C lub ...... 100 Capital : 10,000 dinars 67 Singing S o c ie ty ...... 50

District of Kula : Kula 68 Hungarian Workers’ Reading R o o m ...... 270 69 Hungarian Youth Association . . 60

Petrovac 70 Hungarian National Club .... 103

District of Sombor : Bajmok 71 Tradesmen’s and Industrialists’ Club 133

Baêki Breg 72 Firemen’s Association ...... 20 73 Hunters’ Association...... 19

Bezdan 74 Hungarian Public Reading Room 230 75 Hungarian Catholic People’s Club 600 76 Catholic Young Men’s Club . . . 280 77 Young Landowners’ Association . 280 78 Sporting C lub ...... 36 79 Musical S o c ie ty ...... 17 80 Firemen’s A sso c ia tio n ...... 81 Hunters’ Association...... 82 Private C lu b ...... 400

Krusevlje 83 Farmers’ Association...... 56 84 Hunters’ Association...... 17 85 Burial C lu b ...... 477

Svetozar Miletic 86 “ Nepker” Reading Room. . . . 108

District of Novi- Sad : Tamerin 87 Artisans’ Corporation ...... 257 88 Hungarian Catholic Reading Room 123 89 Gymnastic C lu b ...... 70 90 Voluntary Firemen’s Association . 39 91 Local Branch of the Red Cross 57 92 Hunters’ Association...... 13

District of Donja Lendava : Donja Lendava 93 Reading R o o m ...... 15 94 Singing S o c ie ty ...... 20 95 Firemen’s A sso cia tio n ...... 230 Value of property : 62,000 dinars — 15 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929 (continued).

Locality Title of Remarks Serial Number Number Members

Dobrovnik 96 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 34 Petesovci 97 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 20 Dolgivasi 98 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 20 Dolina 99 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 20 Centiba 100 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 20 Motvarjevci 101 Voluntary Firemen’s Association 27

Veliki Beckerek 102 Workers’ Sporting Club .... 200 103 Veliki Beckerek Sporting Club . . 50 104 Rowing C l u b ...... 25 105 Fencing and Tennis Club .... 50 106 Hungarian Cultural Society . . . 210 107 Hungarian Charitable Society . . 210 108 Firemen’s A ssociation ...... 65 109 Railway Workers’ Musical Society 268

Senla 110 Young Men’s Catholic Association 250 111 Christian Youth Association . . 151 Value of property : 70,000 dinars 112 Landowners’ Association (Reading R o o m ) ...... 268 Value of property : 500,000 dinars 113 Sporting C lub ...... 115

Velika Kikinda 114 People’s C l u b ...... 85 115 Women’s Charitable Society . . . 150 116 Public Choral S o ciety ...... 50

Stara Kanjiza 117 Landowners’ U n io n ...... 141 Value of property : 200,000 dinars 118 Firemen’s A ssociation ...... 90 Property : 18 hect. 119 Tradesmen’s and Industrialists’ A ssociation...... 57 120 Artisans’ Association...... 300 121 1st Hunters’ Association .... 37 122 2nd Hunters’ Association .... 12 123 3rd Hunters’ Association .... 124 4th Hunters’ Association .... 30 125 Workers’ Cultural C lu b ...... 78 126 Musical A s s o c ia tio n ...... 31 127 Sporting C lu b ...... 93 128 Catholic Reading Room .... 144 129 Women’s Christian Union .... 246 Property : 17 hect. 130 Economic Youth Group .... 89 131 Dolina Firemen’s Reading Room . 73

District of Zabalj : Curug 132 Roman Catholic Young People’s Group ...... 30 133 Catholic Reading Room .... 90

Zabalj 134 Hungarian Reading Room . . . 157 — 16 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929 (continued).

of Remarks Locality Title Serial Number Members Number

District of Veliki Beckerek : Banalski Dvor 135 Hunters’ Association...... 18 Gornja Muzlja 136 Hunters’ Association...... 25 137 Firemen’s Association...... 24 Capital : 24,000 dinars

Novi Ilebej 138 Hunters’ Association...... 18 139 Public Reading R o o m ...... 56 140 Artisans’ Club ...... 40

District of Titel : Budisava 141 Roman Catholic Club ......

District of Novi Becej : Novi Becej 142 Catholic Women’s Society . . . 150 143 Public Reading R o o m ...... 160 144 Roman Catholic Church Society . 115

Vranjevo 145 Roman Catholic People’s Society 94

Torda 146 Hunters’ Association...... 20

District of Stari Becej : Stari Becej 147 Hungarian People’s Singing Society 72 148 Hungarian Women’s Charitable S ociety...... 165 149 Workers’ Football Club .... 40 150 Cyclists’ Sporting C lu b ...... 150 151 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 140 152 Artisans’ Hungarian Reading R o o m ...... 210 153 Hungarian People’s Association . 230

Srbobran 154 Public Reading R o o m ...... 70

Backo Gradiste 155 Athletic C lu b ...... 46 156 People’s C lu b ...... 29 157 Public Reading R o o m ...... 60 158 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 20 159 Roman Catholic Funeral Club . . 1,001

Backo Petrovo Selo 160 Artisans’ Association...... 111 161 Sporting Society...... 73 162 Farmers’ Association...... 95 163 Artisans’ Reading Room .... 138 164 Public Reading R o o m ...... 74 165 Small Landowners’ Reading Room 159 166 Backo Petrovo Selo Reading Room 99 167 Tradesmen’s Association .... 34 168 Hunters’ Association...... 34 169 People’s Reading Room .... 158 — 17 —

Table showing the Numerical Strength of the Cultural Associations of the Hungarian Minority in Yugoslavia, according to the Returns for April 1929 (continued). H 5f

Locality of Remarks Serial Number Number Members

District of Senta : Ada 170 Voluntary Firemen’s Society . . 145 171 Roman Catholic Women’s Union 172 Sporting Association...... 110 173 Artisans’ Reading Room .... 110

Mol 174 Catholic C l u b ...... 97 175 Catholic Singing Society .... 35 176 Hungarian Reading Room . . . 90

Mortonos 177 Roman Catholic C lu b ...... 156

Horgos 178 Football C l u b ...... 63 179 Roman Catholic C lu b ...... 60

District of Velika Kikinda : Nova Kanjiza 180 Public Reading R o o m ...... 80 181 2nd Public Reading Room . . . 110 182 Burial C lu b ......

Coka 183 Tradesmen’s and Artisans’ Reading R o o m ...... 36 184 Small Landowners’ Club .... 200

Majdan 185 Farmers’ Reading Room .... 45

Rabe 186 Farmers’ Reading Room .... 32

Banalsko Arandjelovo 187 Roman Catholic Reading Room . 180 Value of property : 100,000 dinars

Potiski Sveti Nikola 188 Catholic C l u b ...... 274 Value of property : 100,000 dinars

District of Vrsac : Jermonovci 189 Voluntary Firemen’s Organisation 189 — 18 —

9. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives of t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , F r a n c e a n d N o r w a y CONCERNING A PETITION AND SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM FROM M. A n GUEL

St o y a n o f f .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine a petition from M. Stoyanoff relating to the situation of the Bulgarian minority in southern Dobrudja, particularly with reference to primary education, together with the observations of the Roumanian Government thereon (see document C.187.1931.1). At a meeting held on May 22nd, 1931, the Committee noted the information communicated by the Roumanian Government on the particular facts referred to in the petition, from which it appears : (1) That it is not correct, as the petitioner states, that requests to open Bulgarian schools in the villages of southern Dobrudja were signed by inhabitants of the department of Caliacra as a result of steps taken to this effect by the newspaper Edinstvo, of Bazardgic ; (2) That a search made in the offices of the newspaper, which stated that it had received thousands of petitions of this kind, enabled the Roumanian authorities to ascertain that these petitions consisted of forms printed by the newspaper itself with signatures appended which, on subsequent enquiry, proved to be false ; (3) That the Government categorically denies the petitioner’s statements regarding mass arrests and ill-treatment by the authorities of the “ alleged signatories of the petitions ”, and states that it “ holds at the disposal of the members of the Council recent statements signed by prominent Bulgarians in all the villages mentioned in the petition to the effect that they have suffered no arbitrary act of violence or intimidation from any administrative authority whatever, and that they have never asked for Bulgarian schools since they are quite satisfied with the present educational arrangements With regard to the general complaints made by the petitioner in respect of the situation of the minority population in the villages of southern Dobrudja from an educational point of view, the Committee noted the Roumanian Government’s statements that this population has never in the past asked for Bulgarian schools, but that, on the contrary, as was proved by numerous requests which the Government states that it holds at the disposal of the members of the Council, it has urgently requested the opening of Roumanian schools on the ground that the children can speak Bulgar at home and that it is to their interest to learn Roumanian for use in everyday life. Moreover, the Committee also noted the following statements of the Roumanian Government : “ The case is different in the towns, where the school-children belonging to the Bulgarian minority are more numerous. In each of the four towns of southern Dobrudja — Silistria, Bazardgic, Balcic and Cavarna — there are primary schools which are exclusively Bulgarian. The primary school at Bazardgic, in particular, has about thirty classes with the same number of teachers and a total of some 1,200 scholars ; the other schools have from 200 to 300 scholars each. In each of these four towns there are also Bulgarian secondary schools —- for instance, there is a boys’ high school and a girls’ high school both at Silistria and Bazardgic, and mixed high schools respectively at Cavarna and Balcic. ” The Committee unanimously expressed the conviction that the Roumanian Government will not fail to devote all its attention to the satisfactory solution of any questions which may be raised by the situation of the Bulgarian minority in southern Dobrudja. In this connection, it recalled the recent statements made by the Roumanian Government in its observations on a previous petition from M. Stoyanoff submitted for examination to another Minorities Committee (see document C.37.1931.I), from which it appears that that Government is endeavouring to settle problems affecting the population of that district “ in a spirit of entire equality and justice for all ”. In this connection, the Committee also noted the fact that M. Stoyanoff, in his above- mentioned petition, states that he will send, in the near future, a further petition on the question of immovable property in southern Dobrudja. In view of the above considerations, the Committee was of opinion that none of its members was called upon to bring the petition submitted for its examination to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(z), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council. (Signed) William M a l k in , Dated Geneva, May 23rd, 1931. (Signed) R. M a s s ig l i, Dated Geneva, May 23rd, 1931. (Signed) Rolf A n d v o r d , Dated Oslo, June 15th, 1931. — 19 —

10. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f V e n e z u e l a , t h e U n it e d K in g d o m a n d

I t a l y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. E u g e n S t e n z e l .

Geneva, May 23rd, 1931. [Translation.]

Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, considered the petition of M. Eugen Stenzel concerning his personal situation, together with the Polish Government’s observations thereon (see document C.15.1931.1). The petitioner complains that the Polish State has asserted its right of pre-emption over land which he bought in 1926. After entering an objection at the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, he appealed to the Supreme Administrative Tribunal at Warsaw. The petitioner has exhausted every means at his disposal to secure a favourable decision. The reason for his expropriation, he alleges, is that he belongs to the German minority. He is also afraid that his property has not been fairly valued. Having considered the petition and the Polish Government’s observations thereon, in which the action of the authorities is explained, the Committee, at a meeting held during the Council session in January 1931, expressed the hope that the Polish Government would reconsider the petitioner’s position in the light of certain general principles it had laid down. In a letter of May 11th, 1931, from its permanent delegate to the League of Nations, the Polish Government states that the decision regarding M. Stenzel is justified on economic grounds which have nothing to do with the petitioner’s nationality. The decisive factor in the case of M. Stenzel, who has been a restaurant proprietor for 24 years, is that he does not possess, in the opinion of the authorities, the minimum technical ability necessary for working a landed property. In these circumstances, the Committee felt justified in concluding the examination of the petition without bringing it to the Council’s notice. Paragraph 4(i) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

(Signed) William M a l k i n .

(Signed) Massimo P il o t t i.

11. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f V e n e z u e l a , t h e U n it e d K in g d o m a n d I t a l y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. P a u l S c h r e i r e r .

Geneva, May 23rd, 1931. [Translation.]

Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine M. Paul Schreiber’s petition regarding the possibility of his acquiring land in the Voivodie of Pomorze, together with the observations of the Polish Government thereon (see document C.660.1930.I). The petitioner states that it was impossible for him to acquire land in the Voivodie of Pomorze owing to the exercise by the Polish Government of the right of pre-emption. At a meeting held during the Council session in January 1931, the Committee expressed the hope that the Polish Government would reconsider M. Schreiber’s position in the light of certain general principles it had laid down. The Polish Government replied in a letter of May 11th, 1931, from its permanent delegation to the League of Nations. It appeared from this reply that the petitioner had withdrawn his suit to the supreme administrative court regarding the exercise of the right of pre-emption by the Polish Government on the property which he had acquired, and stated that he was prepared to cede his rights to the land in question to the State if the expenses incurred by him were refunded, and that this was done. He also recovered in addition the expenses which he incurred while working the property as actual owner. The Government points out that, if M. Schreiber considers that these expenses have not been refunded to him in full, he can bring his claim before the courts, the State being under the obligation to refund not only the amount paid under the contract, but also such additional expenses as may have been incurred subject to certain conditions in connection with the purchase and working of the property. In these circumstances, the Committee considered it could close the examination of M. Schreiber’s petition without bringing it to the notice of the Council. — 20 —

The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(f), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

(Signed) William M a l k i n .

(Signed) Massimo P il o t t i.

12. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives of V e n e z u e l a , t h e U n it e d K in g d o m a n d It a l y c o n c e r n in g P e t it io n s fr o m M. K a r l W a ch a n d M. W a l t e r S c h r a m m .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, two Minorities Committees, of which we had the honour to be members, were called upon, at their meetings on May 19th, 1931, to examine the petitions of MM. Karl Wach and Walter Schramm (document C.38.1931.I) regarding the withdrawal of licences held by them for the sale of alcoholic liquors, a measure which, they allege, was taken by the Polish authorities solely because they belonged to the German minority. According to the Polish Government, these licences were withdrawn under the law of April 23rd, 1920, on the limitation of the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors. More­ over, it appears from the Government’s observations that the petitioners had been convicted of breaking the law in question. In these circumstances, the Committees decided to close the examination of these two petitions without bringing them to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(f), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee finish the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a , Dated Geneva, June 17th, 1931.

(Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, June 24th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i, Dated Rome, July 2nd, 1931.

13. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , I t a l y a n d P e r s ia c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. A d o l f A l b r e c h t .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petition of M. Adolf Albrecht, together with the Polish Government’s observations thereon (see document C.202.1931.I). The petitioner states that he purchased a property in Pomorze and that the contract of purchase was signed before a lawyer on April 11th, 1929. On September 3rd of the same year, M. Albrecht was informed by the competent district agricultural office that the Polish State could not grant him the authorisation for the transfer of the said land. He appealed against this decision and, receiving no reply, presented a petition to the League of Nations on December 22nd, 1930. It appears from the^ Polish Government’s observations on the petition, dated March 23rd, 1931, that M. Albrecht’s appeal had meanwhile been considered and that authorisation to effect the transfer was granted to him by a decision of February 25th, 1931. Since the object of the petition thus disappears, the Committee, at its meeting of May 18th last, decided to conclude its examination of the question without bringing it to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(f), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee finish the examination of a question without asking that 21 —

it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council. (Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, June 26th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i , Dated Rome, July 6th, 1931.

(Signed) Hussein A l â , Dated Paris, July 24th, 1931.

14. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , I t a l y a n d P e r s ia c o n c e r n in g P e t it io n s f r o m M . L e o B o n u s a n d M. W a l t e r M ü l l e r .

fTranslation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, two Minorities Committees, of which we had the honour to be members, were called upon, at their meetings on May 19th, 1931, to examine the petitions of M. Leo Bonus (document C.178.1931.1) and M. Walter Müller (document C.203.1931.1.) regarding the withdrawal of licences held by them for the sale of alcoholic liquors, a measure which, they allege, was taken by the Polish authorities solely because they belonged to the German minority. According to the Polish Government, these licences were withdrawn under the law of April 23rd, 1920, on the limitation of the sale and consumption of alcoholic liquors. Moreover, it appears from the Government’s observations that the petitioners had been convicted of breaking the law in question. In these circumstances, the Committee decided to close the examination of these two petitions without bringing them to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(£), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee finish the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council. (Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, June 26th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i, Dated Rome, June 30th, 1931.

(Signed) Hussein A l â , Dated Paris, July 24th, 1931.

15. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , I t a l y a n d P e r s ia c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. P a u l F o r s t e r .

[Translation.] Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to consider the petition of M. Paul Forster, together with the Polish Government’s observations thereon (document C.236.1931.1). The petitioner complains that the Polish State exercised the right of pre-emption over a property which had been purchased by his wife. He asserts that both he and his wife are in every way fit persons to work a landed property, that he has never been convicted, and there is nothing against him from the political point of view. The sole motive for this action is, he alleges, the fact that he belongs to the German minority in Poland. The Polish Government, in its observations on the petition, states that the Minister for Agrarian Reform, after examining the case in question, had decided not to exert his right of pre-emption over the property. Since the object of the petition thus disappears, the Committee, at its meeting of May 18th, 1931, decided to conclude its examination of the question without bringing it to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their — 22 —

examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council. (Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, June 26th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i , Dated Rome, July 6th, 1931. (Signed) Hussein A l â , Dated Paris, July 24th, 1931.

16. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , I t a l y a n d P e r s ia c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. H e in r ic h H o e t h .

[Translation.]

Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petition of M. Heinrich Hoeth, together with the Polish Government’s observations thereon (document C.314.1931.1). The subject of this petition was the exercise by the Polish Government of the right of pre-emption on the petitioner’s acquisition of the property of Glinno in 1922. The petitioner considers that the right in question was exercised solely because he belonged to the German minority. The Polish Government explains, on the other hand, that the right of pre-emption was exercised from purely economic motives — namely, “ in order to enlarge very small agricultural holdings of which a considerable number were situated in the Glinno commune ”, The Government further states that not only did M. Hoeth make no objection to the decision of the district land office when it applied the right of pre-emption, but that he formally declared, in evidence given on December 10th, 1928, that he did not oppose the transfer of the property to the State. In these circumstances, the Committee considered it could close the examination of this question without bringing it to the notice of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(t), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) William M a l k i n , Dated London, June 26th, 1931. (Signed) G r a n d i , Dated Rome, July 2nd, 1931. (Signed) Hussein A l â , Dated Paris, July 24th, 1931.

17. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f Y u g o s l a v ia , F r a n c e a n d I t a l y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n fr o m M. B o u k ia l y .

[Translation.]

Under the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine the petition of M. Boukialy concerning the situation in the territory of the Ruthenes, south of the Carpathians, together with the Czechoslovak Government’s observations thereon (document C.411.1930.1). The Committee considered the various points raised by the petition, with special reference to the information contained in a memorandum communicated by the Czechoslovak Government to the League of Nations on November 27th, 1930 (document C.21.M.12.1931.1), in conformity with the Council resolution of November 29th, 1920, relating to the periodical communication of information on the autonomous Ruthene territory, south of the Carpathians. The result of this examination may be summarised as follows : (1) The petitioner complains that, although ten years have passed since Articles 10 and 11 of the minorities treaty (which stipulated the organisation of the Ruthene territory as an autonomous unit) came into force, the provincial Diet has not yet been summoned for this purpose. The Czechoslovak Government refers to document C.608.M.231.1923.I, which contains an account of its policy in the matter of the obligations which it has incurred in this connection, and draws attention to the efforts it has made for the cultural and economic development of the population of Sub-Carpathian Russia to enable it to reach a standard at which the autonomy of the territory can be established and consolidated. The favourable evolution and the general consolidation of the country, says the Government memorandum, “ have now made it possible to outline definite plans for the progressive application of the provisions of the treaty of September 10th, 1919 (the realisation of which existing conditions have not hitherto permitted), and by gradual stages to endow the country with full self- government as laid down in the treaty ”.

(2) According to the petitioner, Article 7 of the treaty, which guarantees the Ruthenes the free use of their language, has not been respected, and the teaching staff in the Ruthene schools has been replaced by Czech, Ukrainian and Great Russian teachers who teach in their respective languages. The Czechoslovak Government, in the section of its memorandum dealing with schools and popular education, gives figures for the State elementary schools with Ruthenian and with other languages as the medium of instruction, together with details of the improvements introduced during the last two years. The Government asserts that there is a lack of suitable teachers amongst the Ruthenian population itself, but states that the administration endeavours as far as possible to choose teachers from the local population. In 1929-30, the non-Ruthenian teachers in the schools in which Ruthenian is the language of instruction consisted of twenty-one Great Russian émigrés and eight Czechs. The Government adds that, as the number of teachers leaving the two denominational training schools and the one State training school increases, non-Ruthenes will gradually be replaced by Ruthenes.

(3) In reply to the petitioner’s assertion that the high administrative and judicial posts are given to Czechs, Ukrainians or Great Russians, the Czechoslovak Government maintains that the preference is given to Ruthenian candidates if they are prepared to enter the Government service, and if they have the requisite qualifications. As regards the languages used in the administration, the Government refers to its memorandum in document C.654.M.217.1927.I, and adds that Ruthenian is the principal language in the territory and is on the same footing as the official State language.

(4) According to the petitioner, the Government has “ on several occasions suspended the self-government of the counties, municipalities and communes in the Ruthene territory ”, in contravention of the stipulations of Article 12 of the minorities treaty. The Czechoslovak Government, in the section of its memorandum headed “ Public Administration ”, refers to its previous memorandum (document C.517.M.158.1928.1) and emphasises the progress made in the matter of public administration in the territory since the coming into force of Law No. 125 of 1927, which it describes as “ a means for preparing and educating the people . . . with a view to future self-government ”, The Government adds that the territory constitutes an autonomous territory administered by a provincial office, an autonomous council and a provincial committee, the two latter bodies being composed of representatives of the population. Moreover, since the beginning of 1929, district councils and committees have been established which have for the first time enabled the elected representatives of the people to take part in the administration of the districts.

(5) As regards the petitioner’s complaint that the Agrarian Reform is being administered in a manner which bears hardly on the Ruthenian population, the land being expropriated at very low prices, the Czechoslovak Government’s memorandum contains the following passage : “ Since the beginning of 1929, 12,921 arpents of arable land have been made over to small farmers, or set aside for them out of the State domains ; 4,812 arpents of mountain pasture, fields and meadows from confiscated private estates have also been leased to small local farmers. ” The Government adds that a further 500 arpents of pasturage will be leased to them after certain improvements have been carried out.

(6) The petition stated that the Hungarian Law of 1886 with regard to nationality has not been applied, and that persons who have lived for a long time in the country have been refused nationality rights, while in other cases the question of nationality has been left indefinitely pending. The Czechoslovak Government merely makes the general statement that the number of stateless persons has gradually diminished, and that all possible steps are b^ing taken to satisfy the requests of persons applying for Czechoslovak nationality. In these circumstances, the members of the Committee have not thought it necessary to draw the Council’s attention to the subject of M. Boukialy’s petition. At the same time, they express the conviction that the Czechoslovak Government will continue to take all such action as is calculated to make possible the establishment, in the near future, of the autonomous regime which the Czechoslovak minorities treaty prescribes for the Ruthene territory south of the Carpathians. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their 24

examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would accordingly request you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) I. Choumenkovitch , Dated Geneva, July 29th, 1931.

(Signed) R. M a s s ig l i, Dated Paris, July 24th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i, Dated Rome, August 7th, 1931.

18. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f P e r s ia , F r a n c e , G e r m a n y , S p a in a n d

V e n e z u e l a c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n fr o m t h e H u n g a r ia n P a r t y o f R o u m a n ia .

Geneva, September 14th, 1931.

[Translation.] In virtue of the resolution of October 25th, 1920, supplemented by paragraph 2 of the resolution of June 13th, 1929, a Minorities Committee consisting of five members of the Council, and to which we had the honour to belong, held meetings during the last three sessions of the Council to consider the petition from the Hungarian Party of Roumania, relating principally to the scrutiny of the names of Hungarian children asking to be entered for Hungarian minority schools in Transylvania, together with the observations thereon submitted by the Roumanian Government (document C.451.1930.I). After studying the documents before it, the Committee decided that, for the sake of clarity, it should, in stating its views, deal separately with (1) the question of principle ; (2) the question of fact, and (3) the specific cases referred to by the petitioner. 1. The question of principle may, in the Committee’s opinion, be put as follows : Is the system of enquiring into the ethnical origin of pupils — e.g., by scrutinising their surnames — in order to set up a criterion for their admission into minority schools, compatible with the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the Roumanian minorities treaty ? From the outset, the members of the Committee were unanimously in favour of a negative reply. They considered that the introduction of such a system would be contrary to the provisions of the minorities treaty, which definitely specifies the linguistic and not the ethnical criterion for minority schools. 2. In the Committee's view, the question of fact is whether such a system is applied in Roumania. In this connection, it might, strictly speaking, have confined itself to noting the Roumanian Government’s statement in its note of August 25th, 1930, that, as a matter of fact, pupils whose native language is Magyar can choose, without any interference on the part of the school authorities, between attending the Magyar denominational school or the Magyar State school. The Committee feels bound, however, to make some reference to certain allegations brought forward by the petitioner regarding legal and administrative regulations (a number of decrees and circulars which are mentioned in the petition), the tenor of which would seem scarcely compatible with the Roumanian Government’s statement quoted above. With regard to legal regulations, it appeared that the main objection was to Article 8 of the Roumanian law on primary education of July 26th, 1924, which reads : “ Nationals of Roumanian origin who have forgotten the Roumanian language must send their children either to the Government schools or to private schools in which the language used is Roumanian.”

Such a stipulation could not be applied without infringing the provisions of the minorities treaty. It should be mentioned, however, that this stipulation is contradicted by the provision of Article 35 of the Law of December 22nd, 1925, on private instruction, which reads as follows: In private schools in which the pupils’ language is other than that of the State the persons who support the school shall decide in what language the teaching shall be given. These schools may only admit pupils whose language is that in which the teaching is given.”

The fact that this provision — which is in conformity with the principles regarded by the Committee as the right ones — forms part of a law subsequent to the law containing the provision to which objection is raised, seems to the Committee to lead to the conclusion that in practice the Roumanian school authorities adopt the criterion set up by Article 35 of the Law of December 1925, and not that of Article 8 of the Law of July 1924. Such a conclusion — 25 — seems to the Committee all the more justified because it would otherwise be difficult to understand the real significance of the statement made by the Roumanian Government in its note of August 25th, 1930, quoted above, the importance of which the Committee has pointed out. 3. The petitioner referred in his petition to a certain number of specific cases in which children were said to have been compelled to attend Roumanian schools after their names had been scrutinised. At its first meeting, the Committee decided to ask the petitioner for some further details of these cases. The information furnished by the petitioner in response to this request was communicated to the Roumanian Government for its observations. The Committee carefully examined the material thus collected, and would state that the Government’s explanations seemed to it to be satisfactory. According to these, most of the children referred to by the petitioner as having been compelled to leave the minority schools after their names had been scrutinised are continuing to attend these schools. In the other cases, the transfer to the majority schools had been voluntarily requested by the persons responsible for the education of the children. In this connection, the Committee noted the Roumanian Government’s observation that no political significance whatever could be attached to the refusal to admit a certain number of children to the minority schools (the petition quotes 124 cases ; a few others are added in the information supplied by the petitioner at the Committee’s request) when the total number of children attending the Hungarian minority schools amounted to 35,555. In view of the facts and conclusions set forth above, the Committee decided to declare the examination of this petition closed without bringing it to the notice of the Council. The Council’s resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter for the information of the other members of the Council. (Signed) Hussein A l â , (Signed) C. R o e d i g e r . (Signed)J. L ô pe z O l iv â n . (Signed) R. M a s s ig l i. (Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

19. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives of V e n e z u e l a , N o r w a y a n d S p a in c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m t h e B u l g a r ia n M o n a s t e r y “ Z o g r a f ” , o n M o u n t A t h o s .

[Translation.] In virtue of the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine a petition dated June 2nd, 1930, from the Bulgarian monastery “ Zograf ”, on Mount Athos, concerning the situation of this monastery, together with the Greek Government’s observations thereon (document C.616.1930.I). The question raised in this petition may be summarised as follows : Antecedents. — A Minorities Committee, composed of the representatives of Cuba, Canada and France, at its meeting on May 12th, 1930, finished the examination of a series of petitions submitted by three minority communities of Mount Athos, including one from the monastery “ Zograf ”, concerning the expropriation by the Greek Government of certain properties and dependencies (métoques) situated on Greek territory and belonging to the communities in question. The letter which the members of the Committee addressed to the Secretary-General to inform the other members of the Council of the result of their examination (document C.334.1930.I, Official Journal of the League of Nations, July 1930, page 829) contained a detailed summary of the information which the Committee had on various dates received from the Greek Government, and in view of which it had decided to close the examination of the matter. The main points were as follows : (1) that the Greek Government had deposited at the National Bank, in the name of all the communities of Mount Athos which had been subjected to expropriations, the sum of five million drachmae, by way of an advance in respect of the value of the various expropriated métoques ; (2) that pending the final valuation of the métoques, expropriation rent based on the provisional valuation would be paid to the communities concerned; (3) that a sum of 614,478 drachmae had in fact been allocated to the monastery “ Zograf ” by way of expropriation rent for the Kalamaria métoque for the period 1924 (the date of the expropriation) to 1928. Object of the Petition. — The principal object of the petition of June 2nd, 1930, from the monastery “ Zograf” was to inform the League of Nations that, in spite of the assurances given by the Greek Government, information obtained by the monastery itself showed that — 26 —

on the above-mentioned date, no sum had been deposited in the name of the community, either by way of an advance on the value of its métoques or on account of expropriation rents. At its meetings on January 26th and May 20th, 1931, the Committee had before it the Greek Government’s observations of October 8th, 1930, and a letter dated April 4th, 1931, in which that Government furnished supplementary information. In these communications, the Greek Government stated in particular : (1) that, as the five million drachmae had been deposited in the name of all the expropriated monasteries, the interest thereon could only be drawn by means of a joint application from these monasteries ; (2) that, in virtue of a general and fundamental provision of the Greek public accounts law, the sum of 614,478 drachmae allocated to the monastery “ Zograf ” by way of expropriation rent, and actually at its disposal, could only be withdrawn by the said monastery on the production of its title deeds for the Kalamaria métoque — a formality with which this community had not complied. At its meeting of May 20th, 1931, the Committee decided to ask the Director of the Minorities Section, who was going to Athens at the end of that month, to discuss this matter in person with the competent Greek authorities. While he was at Athens, the Director of the Minorities Section was officially informed by the Director of the Political Section of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Zograf monastery had just deposited with the Ministry of Agriculture its title deeds for the expropriated métoque. The Director of the Political Section stated that, now that the obstacle to the payment of the sum in question to the “ Zograf ” monastery had thus been removed, this payment would be effected under the same conditions as the payments made to the other monasteries. The members of the Committee, having received this information from the Director of the Minorities Section, considered that, as the question raised in the petition was already in process of regular solution, they might close their examination of the petition without bringing it to the attention of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have the honour, accordingly, to request you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other Members of the Council.

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a , Dated Geneva, September 14th, 1931.

(Signed) J. L ôpez O l iv â n , Dated Geneva, September 16th, 1931.

(Signed) R . A n d v o r d , Dated Geneva, September 16th, 1931.

20. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f P o l a n d , V e n e z u e l a , G e r m a n y a n d J a pa n

CONCERNING PETITIONS FROM CERTAIN INHABITANTS OF P a RAMYTHIA (E p IRUS).

Geneva, September 14th, 1931. [Translation. J

Two Minorities Committees, of which we had the honour to be members, were called upon to examine two petitions submitted by small landowners of the town of Paramythia (Epirus), Moslems of Albanian origin, one of which, dated February 28th, 1930, is signed by forty-six persons on behalf of seventy-five families, and the other, dated April 6th of that year, by fifty-one persons (documents C.359.1930.I and C.614.1930.I). The petitioners complain that they have been expropriated by the Greek Government of properties less than thirty hectares in area, and that this measure constitutes a violation of the Agrarian Law and of the Greek Constitution, which, according to their contention, exempts from expropriation properties less than thirty hectares in area. ■ ^n. it® °bser\ations of June 10th, 1930, the Greek Government stated that the question raised in the first of these petitions had already been settled by the Greek Council of State, which had rejected them as being unfounded. With regard to this point, the Greek Government subsequently furnished to the Committee, through the Director of the Minorities section, information to show that the measures of expropriation forming the subject of the petitions in question were based on the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the Agrarian Law of

* a° u ’ v t ’ w™ch expressly authorise the expropriation in Thessaly, the Department o A rta, ptrus, Macedonia and Thrace of properties of an area below the limit of thirty ectares, and also, in exceptional cases, of the owner’s dwelling or any other immovable property exempt m principle from expropriation. The Government explained that the special — 27 —

situation of these regions was exclusively due to the exigencies of the settlement of Greek refugees from Asia Minor, and that the above-mentioned provisions of the Agrarian Law were applied in these regions to all owners, without distinction of race or nationality. In its observations, the Government further stated that the matter had been brought to its notice a long time before the petition of February 28th, 1930, was addressed to the League of Nations, and that it had sent a high official of the Ministry of Agriculture to the spot for the purpose of reporting, not only on the particular cases in dispute, but also on the general situation arising for the Moslem minority as a result of the application of the Agrarian Law. On the suggestion of the Government commissioner — state the observations of the Greek Government of October 3rd, 1930, on the second of these petitions — the Parliament had passed, in June 1930, a law intended to provide for the needs of the inhabitants of the districts in question. The Minorities Section was able to obtain the text of this law through the intermediary of the Greek representative (Law No. 4816 on the fixing of Expropriation Compensation in respect of the Properties of Margharition and Paramythia). According to the information forwarded to the Committees by the Government through the Director of the Minorities Section, the owners have already begun to benefit from the effects of this law, which they consider, moreover, as providing a practical settlement of the question. In view of the information summarised above, the Committees considered that they could finish the examination of these questions without bringing them to the attention of the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have the honour, accordingly, to request you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) F. S o k a l .

(Signed) C. Z u m e t a .

(Signed) C. R o e d i g e r .

(Signed) K . Y o s h iz a w a .

21. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , G u a t e m a l a a n d

N o r w a y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m t h e H u n g a r ia n P a r t y of R o u m a n ia .

Geneva, September, 29th, 1931. [Translation.]

In accordance with the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was contituted to examine the petition from the Hungarian Party of Roumania concerning the situation of the educational institutions of the Hungarian minority and, in particular, the setting up of a “ cultural zone ” by the Roumanian Government, in Transylvania, together with the observations of that Government on the subject (document C.94.1931.I). At its meeting on May 20th, 1931, the Committee considered that it could finish the examination of this question, on the basis of the information supplied by the Roumanian Government, without drawing the Council’s attention to it. The Roumanian Government has consented to the publication of the petition and of its own observations in the Official Journal of the League. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) Alexander Cadogan.

(Signed) José M a t o s .

(Signed) Rolf A n d v o r d . — 28 —

22. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , t h e I r is h F r e e S t a t e a n d G u a t e m a l a c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n fr o m t h e B u l g a r ia n M o n a s t e r y “ Z o g r a f ” on M o u n t A t h o s .

Geneva, October 23rd, 1931.

Under the Council’s resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, to which we have had the honour to belong, was called upon to examine a petition dated January 20th, 1931, from the “ Zograf ” Monastery on Mount Athos concerning the renewal of its membership, and the Greek Government’s observations thereon (document C.327.1931.1). The question submitted for the consideration of the Committee may be summarised as follows : In its petition, the monastery claimed in the first place to have the right to admit new members to its brotherhood independently of all intervention by the civil authorities, whereas the Greek Government claimed to have the right to supervise the admission of foreigners into the territory of Mount Athos either as pilgrims or novices. The actual point which the Committee was called upon to decide was whether the exercise by the Greek authorities of the above-mentioned right of supervision was in fact contrary to the maintenance of the “ former advantages ” guaranteed to the monastic communities on Mount Athos by Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin,1 and confirmed so far as the non-Greek communities are concerned by Article 13 of the Greek Minorities Treaty.2 The petitioners declared that, for some years past, the Greek Government appears to have adopted an attitude obviously aiming at the abolition of the right of the monastery concerned to admit any person of Bulgarian origin. In support of their allegation, the petitioners cited the case of a young man of Bulgarian nationality who was in possession of a visa authorising entry into Greece and who, soon after arriving at Mount Athos for the purpose of gaining admission to the novitiate, had been expelled and escorted back to the frontier by order of the Governor of the Holy Mountain. The Greek Government maintains that the expulsion of the young man in question was due to the fact that he had failed to obtain a residence permit from the central monastic authority and had thus infringed the regulations expressly laid down in the statutes of the Holy Mountain. Furthermore, the civil authorities’ visa enabling him to proceed to Mount Athos had been issued for a period of twenty days only. According to the Greek Government, it was only after the Governor of the Holy Mountain had issued an order for hi^ expulsion that the “ Zograf ” Monastery had applied for authorisation to admit the Bulgarian in question to membership of the brotherhood. In view of the infringement of these regulations, the Governor, after granting the person concerned two successive time-limits, felt obliged to proceed to his expulsion. When, at its meeting on May 20th, 1931, the Committee began its examination of the question summarised above, it decided that the point more especially requiring elucidation was whether the right of supervision by the civil authorities claimed by the Greek Government and contested by the petitioners was in reality sanctioned and guaranteed by the legal statute of Mount Athos at the time of the signature of the Treaty of Berlin. On this point, the Committee requested the Secretariat to collect information likely to throw light on the nature and extent of the civil authorities’ right of intervention in matters concerning the admission of foreigners into the territory of Mount Athos under the system in force at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. At its second meeting on September 25th, 1931, the Committee took cognisance of the following extracts from the regulations governing the monasteries of Mount Athos of 1783 which were in force at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Berlin :3 “ Article 8. — Any person proceeding from abroad or from an Ottoman country to Mount Athos for the purpose of entering a monastery, shall previously present his passport to the Governor (kaimakam). Foreigners who are, by this fact, deserving of specially favourable treatment, shall previously be granted Ottoman nationality under Article 4 of the Ottoman Nationality Act. “ All persons whose passports are in order, and who are not regarded as suspicious persons for any reason, shall receive the authorisation of the kaimakam of the commune to circulate freely on the mountain and to enter the monastery chosen. Immediately after entering the monastery, provided the approval of the prior or administrative authority of the monastery has been obtained, the names of novices shall be entered in the registry of the monastery and notified to the kaimakam and to the commune for purposes of registration. After the completion of their novitiate, they shall be registered as monks. “ Suspected persons shall be sent back to their place of origin. “ Article 9. — Novices may only enter the monasteries, 1 skitai ‘ kellia ’ or hermitages on the conditions set out above. Any infringements of this provision by

1 A r tic le 62. - The monks of Mount Athos, of whatever country they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions and advantages, and shall enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives. 2 A r tic le 13. Greece undertakes to recognise and maintain the traditional rights and liberties enjoyed by the non-Greek monastic communities of Mount Athos under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of July 13th, 1878. 3 Abridged translation from the work by G. Y o u n g entitled : “ Corps de Droit ottoman ”, Oxford, 1905 (Volume II, page 48). 1 ’ — 29 —

priors or administrative authorities of monasteries shall be punished by loss of office, and the new arrivals shall be expelled, or compelled to comply with the requirements of the law. “ Article 10. — Foreigners and other persons who come to the mountain to live as monks shall observe the provisions of Article 8 relating to passports and Article 4 relating to change of nationality. After completion of the registration formalities in the monastery or other establishment chosen, they shall submit to the kaimakam and the commune a duly signed document renouncing their former nationality and undertaking to regard themselves as Ottoman subjects for the period of their sojourn on Mount Athos and to submit to the laws and regulations. They shall deposit their passports at the office of the kaimakam.” In addition, the Committee was informed by the Director of the Minorities Section of the results of conversations which he had had on this subject, during his stay in Athens at the beginning of June 1931, with Mgr. Chrysantos, the representative of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate in Greece, and also with M. Mêlas, Director of the Political Section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and M. Raphael, permanent delegate of Greece accredited to the League of Nations. In the course of these conversations Mgr. Chrysantos explained that the admission of new monks to a monastery required not only the authorisation of the monastery itself and of the holy community (in addition to the authorisation of the Patriarchate in the case of schismatics such as the Dulgarians), but also the authorisation of the Government authorities who, according to Mgr. Chrysantos’ explicit statements, have always had the right to refuse admission to new monks, even wrhen the community and the Patriarchate have given their consent. The Director of the Minorities Section having asked for information as to the position when the Treaty of Berlin came into force, Mgr. Chrysantos stated that the Ottoman authorities had always possessed, and frequently made use of, their right to refuse to admit new monks to the monasteries of Mount Athos, basing their refusal on political grounds, considerations of public security, etc. Mgr. Chrysantos added that if there was any difference between the past and the present, it would have to be admitted that the present system was much more liberal than that in force at the time of the Treaty of Berlin. After taking note of this information, the Committee considered that sufficient light had been thrown on the question of the civil authorities’ right of supervision in respect of the admission of foreigners to the territory of Mount Athos, as resulting from the rules in force at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Berlin. It was further of opinion that the Greek Government’s explanations regarding the case specially mentioned by the petitioners were satisfactory. The Committee therefore decided that there was no need for any of its members to bring the question raised in the petition to the notice of the Council. The resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4 (i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council.

(Signed) Alexander C a d o g a n .

(Signed) Sean L e s t e r .

(Signed) José M a t o s .

23. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n i t e d K in g d o m , t h e I r is h F r e e St a t e and Guatemala concerning a Petition from the Russian Monastery of “ St . Panteleimon ” on Mount Athos.

Geneva, October 23rd, 1931.

Under the Council’s resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee to which we have had the honour to belong was called upon the examine a petition dated January 24th, 1931, from the Monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mount Athos, concerning the renewal of its membership and that of the Russian Skite (hermitage) of St. Andrew and the Greek Government’s observations thereon (see document C.257.1931.I). The question subnr'tted for the consideration of the Committee may be summarised as follows : In its petition, the monastery claimed, in the first place, to have the right to admit new members into its brotherhood independently of all intervention by the civil authorities, whereas the Greek Government claimed to have the right to supervise the admission of foreigners into the territory of Mount Athos either as pilgrims or as novices. The actual point which the Committee was called upon to decide was whether the exercise by the Greek authorities of the above-mentioned right of supervision was in fact contrary to the maintenance — 30 —

of the “ former advantages ” guaranteed to the monastic communities of Mount Athos by Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin1 and confirmed, so far as the non-Greek communities are concerned, by Article 13 of the Greek Minorities Treaty.2 The petitioners declared that, for some years past, the Greek Government appears to have adopted an attitude obviously aiming at the abolition of the right to admit new monks and at the suppression of pilgrimages. In support of their allegations, they cited two cases of Russians who had obtained permission to enter Greece and who, after being admitted to the Monastery of St. Panteleimon and the Skite of St. Andrew respectively, had been expelled by the civil authorities. In regard to these two cases, the Greek Government maintained that, of the two Russians mentioned in the petition, the first had only been admitted under a provisional residence permit, while the other was an undesirable political agitator. When, at its meeting on May 20th, 1931, the Committee began its examination of the question summarised above, it decided that the point more especially requiring elucidation was whether the right of supervision by the civil authorities claimed by the Greek Government and contested by the petitioners was in reality sanctioned and guaranteed by the legal statute of Mount Athos at the time of the signature of the Treaty of Berlin. On this point, the Committee requested the Secretariat to collect information likely to throw light on the nature and extent of the civil authorities’ right of intervention in matters concerning the admission of foreigners into the territory of Mount Athos under the system in force at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty of Berlin. At its second meeting, held on September 25th, 1931, the Committee took cognisance of the following extracts from the regulations governing the monasteries of Mount Athos of 1783, which were in force at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Berlin :3

“ Article 8. — Any person proceeding from abroad or from an Ottoman country to Mount Athos for the purpose of entering a monastery, shall previously present his passport to the Governor (kaimakam). Foreigners who are, by this fact, deserving of specially favourable treatment, shall previously be granted Ottoman nationality under Article 4 of the Ottoman Nationality Act. “ All persons whose passports are in order, and who are not regarded as suspicious persons for any reason, shall receive the authorisation of the kaimakam of the commune to circulate freely on the mountain and to enter the monastery chosen. Immediately after entering the monastery, provided the approval of the prior or administrative authority of the monastery has been obtained, the names of the novices shall be entered in the registry of the monastery and notified to the kaimakam and to the commune for purposes of registration. After the completion of their novitiate, they shall be registered as monks. “ Suspected persons shall be sent back to their place of origin.

“ Article 9. — Novices may only enter the monasteries, 1 skitai ‘ kellie ’ or hermitages on the conditions set out above. Any infringements of this provision by priors or administrative authorities of monasteries shall be punished by loss of office, and the new arrivals shall be expelled, or compelled to comply with the requirements of the law. “ Article 10. — Foreigners and other persons who come to the mountain to live as monks shall observe the provisions of Article 8 relating to passports and Article 4 relating to change of nationality. After completion of the registration formalities in the monastery or other establishment chosen, they shall submit to the kaimakam and the commune a duly signed document renouncing their former nationality and undertaking to regard themselves as Ottoman subjects for the period of their sojourn on Mount Athos and to submit to the laws and regulations. They shall deposit their passports at the office of the kaimakam.”

The Committee was also informed by the Director of the Minorities Section of the results of conversations which he had had on this subject, during his stay in Athens at the beginning of June 1931, with Mgr. Chrysantos, the representative of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate in Greece, and also with M. Mêlas, Director of the Political Section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and M. Raphael, permanent delegate of Greece accredited to the League of Nations. In the course of these conversations, Mgr. Chrysantos had explained that the admission of new monks to a monastery required not only the authorisation of the monastery itself and of the holy community (in addition to the authorisation of the Patriarchate in the case of schismatics such as the Bulgarians), but also the authorisation of the Government authorities who, according to Mgr. Chrysantos’ explicit statements, have always had the right to refuse admission to new monks even when the community and the Patriarchate have given their consent. The Director of the Minorities Section, having asked for information as to the position when the Treaty of Berlin came into force, Mgr. Chrysantos stated that the Ottoman authorities had always possessed and frequently made use of their right to refuse to admit new monks to the monasteries of Mount Athos, basing their refusal on political grounds,

. * The m°nk8 of Mount Athos, of whatever country they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions andI advantages, and shall enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives. Article 13. Greece undertakes to recognise and maintain the traditional rights and liberties enjoyed by the non-Greek monastic communities of Mount Athos under Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of July 13th, 1878. Abridged translation from the work b y G. Y o u n g entitled : “ Corps de Droit ottoman”, Oxford, 1905 (Volume II, p a g e 4 0 j. — 31 — considerations of public security, etc. Mgr. Chrysantos added that if there was any difference between the past and the present, it would have to be admitted that the present system was much more liberal than that in force at the time of the Treaty of Berlin. After taking note of this information, the Committee considered that sufficient light had been thrown on the question of the civil authorities’ right of supervision in respect of the admission of foreigners to the territory of Mount Athos, as resulting from the rules in force at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Berlin. It was further of opinion that the Greek Government’s explanations regarding the two cases specially mentioned by the petitioners were satisfactory. The Committee therefore decided that there was no need for any of its members to bring the questions raised in the petition to the notice of the Council. The resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4 (i), provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We therefore have the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter, for information, to the other members of the Council. (Signed) Alexander C a d o g a n .

(Signed) Sean L e s t e r .

(Signed) José M a t o s .

24. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives of G e r m a n y , F r a n c e a n d P e r u c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M. S ig m u n d P a l f i. Translation. J In virtue of the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, examined a petition from M. Sigmund Palfi concerning his personal situation, together with the observations of the Yugoslav Government thereon (document C.485.1931.1). The petition refers to the dismissal of M. Palfi on December 30th, 1919, from his post in the Public Prosecutor’s Office at Veliki-Beckerek. According to the petitioner, the only reason for this action was that he had not taken the oath of allegiance to the new State. He asserts that he was perfectly prepared to take the oath, and that the only reason why he did not was that he was neither asked nor allowed to do so. Moreover, he was dismissed without a pension, although he had for over forty years occupied a position in the Hungarian administration which carried with it the right to a pension. Finally, he states that no disciplinary or penal action has ever been taken against him. According to the Yugoslav Government, M. Palfi was dismissed for the two following reasons : In the first place, he did not ask to be allowed to continue in the service of the Yugoslav State, and did not take the oath of allegiance, although he was invited to do so (like all the other officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Veliki-Beckerek) in a letter from the head of the office dated January 24th, 1919, at the foot of which M. Palfi placed his signature, thus showing that he had seen it. In the second place, at the beginning of November 1919, he opposed the execution of an order by the President of the Department Court of Veliki-Beckerek that the Hungarian notices in the court building should be replaced by new notices in the official language. Owing to this act of insubordination, M. Palfi, it is stated, was first provisionally suspended and then relieved of his duties by a decision of the Ministry of Justice dated December 30th, 1919, to which he refers in his petition. On account of these circumstances, the Ministry rejected, in its decision of May 29th, 1925, M. Palfi’s application of September 17th, 1921, to be granted either a pension or a post in the administration. The petitioner lodged an appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Justice with the Council of State, which disallowed it by a decision dated September 19th, 1927. In view of the explanations of the Yugoslav Government, the Committee concluded that the measure referred to in M. Palfi’s petition could not be regarded as contrary to the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the Yugoslav Minorities Treaty, and consequently decided to finish the examination of the petition without referring the question to the Council. The Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, paragraph 4(i) provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We have accordingly the honour to request you to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information. (Signed) C. R o e d i g e r , Berlin, October 28th, 1931. (Signed) R . M a s s ig l i, Geneva, October 20th, 1931. (Signed) J. M. B a r r e t o . Geneva, October 20th, 1931. — 32 —

25. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives of t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , t h e I r is h F r e e S t a t e

a n d P e r u c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m D r . S z ü l l ô G eza a n d F o u r t e e n O t h e r

D e p u t ie s a n d S e n a t o r s of t h e Czechoslovak P a r l i a m e n t .

[Translation.] Paris- November 21st. 1931.

In conformity with the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was appointed to examine a petition from Dr. Szüllô Geza and fourteen other deputies and senators of the Czechoslovak Parliament regarding the census taken in Czechoslovakia in 1930, together with the Czechoslovak Government’s observations on the petition (document C.217.1931.1).

The points raised in the petition may be summarised as follows : 1. According to the rules published by the Government, the census could be taken either by means of “ census forms ”, to be filled up by the parties concerned, or by means of written declarations (feuilles de conscription), to be filled up by the census commissioners. It was decided, so it is claimed, that the latter method — although the idea had been to make it the exception rather than the rule — should be applied in all the communes of Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Russia, although, in the petitioners’ view, such a measure is not justified by the degree of illiteracy in the districts in question.

2. The declaration of the party concerned regarding his nationality or mother tongue could be revised, in the first place by the commissioner himself, and, in case of dispute, in the last resort by the political authorities of the division or district. Further, according to the petitioners, the party concerned would have no means of checking whether the final entry regarding his nationality or mother tongue corresponded to his own declaration, since the census or declaration form would not bear his signature and was not made public, and there was no provision for an appeal against the commissioners’ action. Moreover, in order to ascertain the correctness of the information, the commissioners were authorised to interview the head of the family or the adult members, a proceeding which, in the petitioners’ view, might mean that declarations regarding nationality or language would be extorted by pressure of all kinds being brought to bear on the parties concerned.

3. No provision, it is alleged, was made for appointing census commissioners belonging to the minorities. The Czechoslovak Government submitted, in reply to this petition, important and detailed observations, the careful drafting of which we wish to emphasise. The following is a summary of these observations, grouped under the above three heads.

1. The use of the “ declaration form ” or “ census form ”, accordingto circumstances, is based on the Austrian law and dates back more than sixty years. The use of the “ declaration form ” did not constitute a special measure to be applied to the Magyar and German populations of Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Russia, since it was applied, irrespective of nationality, to the whole of the majority and minority populations of those provinces. “ Declaration forms ”, the Government points out, were also used in 25 per cent of the Czech and 16 per cent of the German communes in Bohemia, and in 44 per cent of the Czech and 35 per cent of the German communes in Moravia-Silesia. It would not be correct to say (especially as regards Slovakia) that the decision to use “ declaration forms ” in Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Russia was determined by the illiteracy of the population. Recent experience (May 1930), during the taking of a census of agricultural and other undertakings, showed, as regards the districts in question, that a knowledge of reading and writing was not sufficient to ensure adequate replies being given to the various questions contained in the forms ; accordingly, the provincial authorities felt unable to accept responsibility for taking a census by means of “ census forms ”, and decided on the general use in both provinces of “ declaration forms ”. The Committee felt it necessary to ask the Government for information as to whether popularly elected bodies in the provinces were able to express themselves as regards the choice of one or other form of census. The Government explained, in reply to the Committee’s question on the subject, that, under the law on civil organisation (No. 125/1927, Collection of Laws and Decrees, Article 31), both the provincial and district councils could submit proposals or suggestions as to the districts or communes in which the system of “ census forms ” or of “ declaration forms ” should be employed.

2. The Government explains that, according to the instructions given to census commissioners and inspectors, the commissioners were bound to enter the nationality declared by the persons concerned, even if they thought the declaration to be untrue ; in such a case, they could merely report the matter to the higher authority, whose duty it was to give a decision. The parties could always appeal against the district authorities’ decision to the provincial authorities, and then to the Ministry of the Interior ; and, if they were dissatisfied — 33 — with the political authorities’ decisions, they could apply to the Supreme Administrative Court of Justice. Any possibility of pressure being brought to bear on the parties concerned as regards the declaration of their nationality or mother tongue was out of the question, according to the Government, in view of the special provision embodied in paragraph '20 of the Organic Decree of June 26th, 1930, and reproduced in the instructions to commissioners and inspectors, non-execution being attended by severe penalties, which might involve a fine of 10,000 Czechoslovak crowns and a sentence of three months’ imprisonment. The real object of the provision whereby commissioners could interview the parties concerned was exactly the opposite of that alleged by the petitioners, being, in point of fact, to ensure that the declaration of nationality should be made under conditions guaranteeing absolute independence and freedom. The Government points out that this provision was the outcome of conferences of the Czechoslovak National Statistics Council. Those conferences were attended by two members of German nationality — Dr. Rauchberg, Professor of Statistics and Administrative Law at the German University of Prague, and Dr. Karl Berchtold, Director of the former Silesian Provincial Statistics Bureau, Opava — both of whom expressed themselves in agreement with and voted in favour of the aforesaid provision. Special measures, it is stated, were taken, and instructions were given to the census commissioners to the effect that, even if the census was by means of “ declaration forms ”, the party concerned should be able to ascertain for himself that the commissioner’s entry regarding his nationality corresponded with his own declaration. Such party, moreover, was always entitled to ask to see his form at the district office ; or, if the forms had already been forwarded to the National Statistics Office, to ask for an official certificate showing the nationality entered on his census form. As regards the petitioners’ comment on the fact that the “ declaration form ” was not signed by the party concerned, the Government points out that at no time during the sixty years that this system has been employed has such a practice ever obtained. The Government adds, further, that it would have no objection to introducing the system if it were held to serve any useful purpose, but that hitherto no one had made any such request, and that it was only through the petition addressed to the League of Nations that it had learned of the Hungarian minority’s wishes in this respect. As regards the practical significance of the points raised by the petitioners concerning the conduct of the census, we think it may be useful to quote the following figures supplied by the Government itself in the course of its observations. The number of cases in Slovakia in which the Commissioners thought that declarations of nationality were incorrect and which they therefore referred for decision to the higher authority was 935 concerning Magyar and 200 concerning German nationality. Of these disputed cases, 307 were decided in favour of Magyar and 122 in favour of German nationality. The Magyar population of Slovakia, according to the 1921 census, was 639,080 and the German population 140,022. In Sub- Carpathian Russia, where there are stated to be 102,144 Magyars, there were altogether 192 disputed cases, 36 of which had, by February 15th, 1931, already been decided in favour of Magyar nationality. No case concerning German nationality had given rise to dispute.

3. The Government, after explaining that there is nothing to prevent members of the minority from being appointed as census officials — so that the insertion of a special provision to this effect in the Organic Decree is unnecessary — refers to certain administrative provisions adopted with a view to ensuring the absolute impartiality of census commissioners, particularly as regards nationality. We think it may be well in this connection to quote the following passage from the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior, dated September 25th, 1930, reproduced in the Government’s observations :

“ More particularly in communes of mixed nationality, it will be necessary to see that the choice of the census commissioner and inspector is such as to constitute a guarantee that the census will be properly taken, without recriminations or complaints. In such communes, the district authorities shall take into consideration only those persons who, on account of their sense of equity towards national questions and their tolerant outlook, have won the confidence of the population irrespective of nationality.”

The Government also cites a Decree of November 7th, 1930, authorising provincial authorities, in the case of communes with mixed nationalities, to depart from the normal ratio of one inspector to six commissioners, should they consider this necessary in order to determine the real nationality of the population. It is also laid down that, in such cases, the nationality of the inspectors shall be different from that of the commissioners working with them. Again, the Government supplies statistics showing that there were 4,299 inspectors and commissioners of German nationality, 594 of Magyar nationality, 772 Ruthenes, 106 Poles, 87 Jews, 11 Roumanians and one Croat. In Slovakia, there were 109 commissioners and inspectors of German, 407 of Magyar and 66 of Ruthenian nationality. For Sub-Carpathian Russia, the respective figures were 29, 187 and 633. In this connection, the Committee, at a meeting on May 22nd, 1931, decided to ask the Czechoslovak Government to state the total number of officials (inspectors, commissioners, etc.) employed in taking the census in Slovakia and Sub-Carpathian Russia. In reply to this request, the Government stated that the total numbers of census officials were 8,311 in Slovakia and 1,930 in Sub-Carpathian Russia. At the same time, the Government drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that — 34 —

it was obliged to select for these duties persons with a knowledge of the Czechoslovak official language and well disposed towards the State, as the authorities, the Government added, had discovered the existence of a vast secret movement, extending even abroad, which aimed at securing as many persons as possible for Magyar nationality in defiance of all the principles laid down with a view to establishing the real facts...... ,. At its last meeting, on September 25th, 1931, the Committee, taking into consideration all the information submitted and summarised above, came to the conclusion that there was no need for any of its members to direct the Council s attention to the question forming the subject of the petition referred to it. Paragraph 4 (i) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 19~9, provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination to the other Members of the Council for their information. We would, therefore, ask you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other Members of the Council for their information. (Signed) Alexander Ca d o g a n . (Signed) Sean L e s t e r . (Signed) J. M. B a r r e t o .

26. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , F r a n c e a n d P e r u c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n fr o m M. A l e x Sz e n d e .

[Translation.] In conformity with the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, was appointed to examine a petition from M. Alex Szende concerning his personal situation, together with the Czechoslovak Government’s observations thereon (document C.492.1931.1). At a meeting held on September 16th, 1931, the Committee noted that the petitioner, a Hungarian by origin, alleged that, although he had resided in Bratislava since 1905 and had served eight months in the Czechoslovak army as a dental mechanic, and although the Supreme Administrative Court of Justice had, on December 19th, 1929, recognised his right to the free enjoyment of Czechoslovak citizenship, the police authorities still refused to acknowledge that right. The Czechoslovak Government, on the other hand, pointed out in its observations that, by a decision dated January 7th, 1928, the Ministry of the Interior had refused Szende’s application of August 24th, 1926, for Czechoslovak nationality on the following grounds : (1) the applicant had failed to show — and official investigation had been equally unable to prove — that he had resided at Bratislava continuously since 1905 ; (2) he had previously been deported from the territory of the Republic, a fact which, under the Constitutional Law of July 1st, 1926, concerning the acquisition of Czechoslovak nationality, debarred him from obtaining that nationality. The Czechoslovak Government added that this decision of the Ministry of the Interior had, on December 19th, 1929, been quashed on a technicality by the Supreme Administrative Court of Justice, and that a fresh enquiry was now being made into the applicant’s case. Inasmuch as the petition contains no evidence to show that the treatment to which M. Szende wTas subjected is contrary to the provisions of the Czechoslovak Minorities Treaty concerning the acquisition of nationality, and since, moreover, the information supplied by the Czechoslovak Government shows that M. Szende’s case is being conducted in accordance with the normal procedure, the Committee felt that it could close the case without bringing it to the Council’s attention. Paragraph 4 (£) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, provides that, when the members of a Minorities ! committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other Members of the Council for their information. We would, therefore, ask you kindly to communicate the contents of this letter to the other Members of the Council for their information. (Signed) W. E. B e c k e t t . Dated London, November 7th, 1931.

(Signed) R. M a s s ig l i. Dated Paris, November 27th, 1931.

(Signed) J. M. B a r r e t o . Dated Paris, November 6th, 1931.

27. L e t t e r fr o m t h e R epresentatives of t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , F r a n c e a n d P e r u c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m D r . ICo r l a t h a n d M. H o k k y .

[Translation.] Paris, December 2st. 1931. of w l î i p h ï l l ï r ï 11 th6 Î T Cil resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, 1 9 n p h iin n ^ ™e™bers- considered, at a meeting held on September 16th, 1931, a petition signed by Dr. Korlath and M. Hokky on behalf of the “ Federation of — 35 —

Hungarian Parties in Sub-Carpathian Russia ” concerning the case of M. Ladislas Szanto, together witfi the observations of the Czechoslovak Government thereon (document G.493.1931.1). The petition relates to the Czechoslovak Government’s refusal to admit M. Szanto’s Czechoslovak nationality and to th e latter’s e x p u ls io n from Czechoslovakia by th e authorities of the town of Mukacevo, in circumstances described in detail in the petition. The Committee from the outset noted that the question of M. Szanto’s nationality must be regarded as coming before that of his expulsion from Czechoslovakia, as the latter question could only be examined by the Committee if it were really proved t h a t M. Szanto was a Czechoslovak national, or that he had the right, under the terms of the Czechoslovak Minorities Treaty, to claim Czechoslovak nationality. As regards the question of nationality, the Committee found that the only provision in the Czechoslovak Minorities Treaty which might apply to M. Szanto’s case was that contained in Article 3. Article 4, referring to persons who did not possess rights of citizenship in Czechoslovakia when the treaty came into force, but were born of parents who, at the time of their birth, possessed rights of citizenship there,1 would not appear to be applicable to M. Szanto, seeing that he was born, according to the Government’s statement, on March 2nd, 1901, at Czorvas, Hungary, and that his father settled at Kosice, Czechoslovakia, only in 1906. Article 3, above-mentioned, provides that : “ Czechoslovakia admits and declares to be Czechoslovak nationals, ipso faclo and without the requirement of any formality, German, Austrian or Hungarian nationals habitually resident or possessing rights of citizenship (pertinenza, Heimalsrechl) as the case may be, at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty in territory which is or may be recognised as forming part of Czechoslovakia under the treaties with Germany, Austria or Hungary respectively, or under any treaties which may be concluded for the purpose of completing the present settlement.” But this article is expressly subject to the special provisions of the latter treaties, and one of these provisions is Article 62 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, according to which persons who acquired rights of citizenship after January 1st, 1910, in territory transferred to the Czechoslovak State will not acquire Czechoslovak nationality without a permit from Czechoslovakia. The article adds that, if the permit is not applied for or is refused, the parties will obtain, ipso facto, the nationality of the State exercising sovereignity over the territory, in which they previously possessed rights of citizenship. As the Committee could not find in the petition any information proving that M. Szanto possessed rights of citizenship in Czechoslovak territory prior to January 1st, 1910, it came to the conclusion that the only means whereby he could obtain Czechoslovak nationality was in virtue of a permit from the Czechoslovak Government which, according to the information before the Committee, does not seem to have been requested by M. Szanto or, at all events, to have been granted by the Czechoslovak Government. The Committee, having failed to prove that M. Szanto was a Czechoslovak national, or that, under the terms of the Czechoslovak Minorities Treaty, he possessed the right to claim Czechoslovak nationality, was unable to consider the question of his expulsion from Czecho­ slovak territory or the particular circumstances under which such expulsion might have taken place. In view of the above-mentioned facts and considerations, the Committee felt it should close its examination of the question without bringing it to the Council’s attention. Paragraph 4 (i) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would, accordingly, ask you to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) Alexander Ca d o g a n . (Signed) R. M a s s ig l i. (Signed) J. M. B a r r e t o .

28. L e t t e r f r o m t h e R epresentatives o f t h e U n it e d K in g d o m , G u a t e m a l a a n d It a l y c o n c e r n in g a P e t it io n f r o m M m e . A n n a J o c h im . Translation.] In conformity with the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which we had the honour to be members, examined, at a meeting on September 12th, 1931, a petition from Mme. Anna Jochim concerning her personal situation (document C.490.1931.I). The Committee noted the Polish Government’s declaration to the effect that the matter forming the subject of the petition had been raised through the diplomatic channel by the German Legation at Warsaw as concerning a national of the Reich. The Committee interpreted this as implying that the German and Polish Governments were agreed in regarding Mme. Jochim as a German national.

1 For an interpretation of this article, see Advisory Opinion No. 7 of the Permanent Court of International Justice. — 36 —

In view of this declaration, the Committee felt that the matter was iji no sense a minorities question, and decided to close its examination of the case without bringing it to the Council’s attention. Paragraph 4 (i) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, provides that, when the members of a Minorities Committee have finished the examination of a question without asking that it be placed on the Council’s agenda, they will communicate the result of their examination by letter to the other members of the Council for their information. We would ask you accordingly to be good enough to communicate the contents of this letter to the other , members of the Council for their information.

(Signed) W. E. B e c k e t t . Dated London, November 16th, 1931.

(Signed) José M a t o s . Dated Paris, November 10th, 1931.

(Signed) G r a n d i . Dated Rome, December 12th, 1931. \

\ f