[Communicated to the Council.] Official N o.: C. 174. 1931.1.

Geneva, April 10th, 1931.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES IN ROUMANIA

PETITIONS FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DESCENDANTS OF THE FORMER SZEKLER (HUNGARIAN) FRONTIER GUARD REGIMENT

y ole Ini the Secretary-General.

By document C.169.1931.1, the Secretary-General has informed the Members of the Council that, at the request of the Representatives on the Council of Persia, Great Britain and Norway, the question raised in the above-mentioned petitions has been placed on the agenda of the next session of the Council. The Secretary-General has now the honour to forward to the Council the documentation relating to this question. — 3 —

CONTENTS.

Page I I. V. Letter of transmission, dated July 22nd, 1929, addressed to the Director of the Minorities Section, signed by M. D. de i G yôrgypal...... 5 B. Petition dated June 25th, 1929...... 5 C. Memorandum attached to the P e titio n ...... 7 D. Documents annexed to the Petition and the Memorandum : 1. Article 2 of Decree-1.aw of September 10th, 1919, for Transylvania...... 9 2. Article 24, paragraph (c). and Article 32, paragraph (c), of the Law of July 30th, 1921, concerning the Agrarian Reform in Transylvania...... 9 3. 1 )ecision of the Agrarian Committee regarding the taking over of the Private Property ...... 9 4. Brief inventory of the Private Property...... 14 5. Declaration by the Minister, M. Constantinesco, made Document before the Chamber on December 7th, 1923, in C.502. ( reply to a question...... 15 1929.1. 6. Prohibition of the general meeting of the “ Private Property ” convened for September 12th, 1923 15 7. Article I. 3 of the Pact concluded on April 21st, 19%, with the Roumanian Populist P arty ...... 16 8. Resolution No. 1472, dated August 27th. 1783, of the Emperor Joseph I I ...... 16 9. Memorandum from the Royal Hungarian Government presented to the Emperor-King Francis Joseph I on January 23rd, 1869, and Royal Resolution in reply to the Memorandum...... 17 10. Extract from the Statutes of the “ Private Property ” 21 11. One of the documents showing that the “ Private Property ” did not belong to the State or C o m itat...... 23 II. Letter from the Chargéd ’Affaires ad ini. of the Roumanian Delegation | accredited to the League of Nations, dated October 2nd, 1929 24 Document \ III. Observations of the Roumanian Government, dated January 9th, C.33.I930.I.' 1930 ...... 25 IV. First Supplementary Petition, from the same source, dated Document \ December 15th, 1929, with Annexes...... 28 C.266. V. Second Supplementary Petition, dated December 23rd, 1929. . . 33 l 1 ' I- I VI. Observations of the Roumanian Government, dated May 8th, 1930, on the two Supplementary P e titio n s...... 34 VII. Letter from the Director of the Minorities Section to the Roumanian Representative to the League of Nations, dated June 19th, 1930 35 VIII. Letter from the Representative of Roumania to the League of Nations, dated September 3rd, 1930, to the Director of the Minorities Section, with three A n n e x e s ...... 36 Annex 1. —- Report of the Hungarian Government dated January 23rd, 1869, to the Emperor Francis Joseph 38 Annex 2. — Table of Property employed for the purposes of Agrarian R eform ...... 47 Annex 3. — Property not affected by the Agrarian Reform 48 IX. Aide-Mémoire, with Annex, forwarded by M. Pâl Gâbor, Senator of i the Comitat of Ciuc, in May 1930 ...... 50 , \ X. Memorandum forwarded by M. Pâl Gâbor on behalf of the former Q'j Ï'jTm Board of the Private Property of the Comitat of Ciuc, dated I July 27th, 1930, and tables which were annexed thereto. . . 65 I XL Observations of the Roumanian Government, dated December 20th, 1 1930, on the question raised in the above-mentioned petitions 81 XII. Note by the Representatives of Persia, Great Britain and Norway, dated January 26th, 1931. 82

^,(i- N. 375 (F.) 225 (A.) 4/31 Imp. Granchamp. I.

X, LETTER OF TRANSMISSION ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINORITIES SECTION.

\ Translation.] Geneva, July 22nd, 1929.

1 have the honour to enclose several copies of the petition from the representatives of the descendants of the former Szekler (Hungarian) Frontier Guard Regiment, addressed to the Council of the League of Nations.

( S i g n e d ) D. de Gyôrgypal.

B. PETITION TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, GENEVA.

I luring the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there sprang into existence in Slavonia, the Banat and Transylvania, along the frontiers of those provinces bordering on Turkey, a special institution of that period — the “ frontier guard regiments In return for the protection of the southern frontiers of Hungary against the incursions of the Turks, grants were made to the population responsible for forming these regiments and provision for their needs. When, later on. in the course of the nineteenth century, the “ military borders ” — the name by which they were most commonly known — were abolished, the former grants were converted by Royal decision into property belonging to the descendants of the former frontier guards and intended to provide for their economic and intellectual needs. From that time onwards this property was administered by the populations concerned. In some cases it was divided up among individuals, while in others the entire property continued to be administered, in common in a similar manner to foundations, by organisations established for this purpose. Such was also the origin of the four collective properties of this kind existing in Transylvanian territory when it was transferred to the sovereignty of Roumania as a result of the world war. Two of those properties belonged to the community of goods of the former Roumanian frontier guard regiments — namely, the regiment of the Comitat of Naszod (in Roumanian Nàsaud) and that of the District of Karânsebes (in Roumanian Caran^ebeÿ). The t liird and fourth belonged to the Szekler population in the Comitats of Csik and Hâromszék fin Roumanian Ciuc and Treiscaune), which had formed the old Szekler1 ( Hungarian) frontier guard regiment. It is common knowledge that one of the first acts of authority of the Roumanians in this recently acquired territory was to set on foot an agrarian reform scheme. Under Article 2, paragraph '2(b) of Dec re e-Law No. 391 of September Kith, 1919 (Annex No. 1), which contained the first rules for the execution of this agrarian reform in Transylvania and the rest uf the territory acquired from Hungary, all the property of all the old frontier guard regiments, without distinction, was expressly exempted from expropriation for the purposes of this reform. However, even before this Decree-Law came into force, the above stipulations were abrogated by the definitive Agrarian Law of July 30th. 1921, relating to Transylvania, and only the property of the old Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Nâsaud (Annex No. 2) was exempted, under Articles 24 and 32. The property of the second Roumanian frontier suard regiment, that of Caran$ebe$. benefited by the same exemption when the law was applied. < In the contrary, the property of the Hungarian frontier guard regiment of the Comitats of I si k and Hâromszék (Ciuc and Treiscaune) is not mentioned in the Agrarian Law of July 30th, 1921, and, consequently, exemption from expropriation was not granted to it under that law, a lth o u g h it is identical in origin and of a similar juridical character to the property of the Roumanian regiments of Nâsaud and Carançebeç. As a result of this differentiation established by the law, the authorities of the first and second instance responsible for carrying out the agrarian reform ordered a considerable portion of the Hungarian property in question to be expropriated, whereas, as stated above, the property of the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards was left intact. We. the representatives of the descendants of the former Hungarian frontier guards, lodged an appeal against the decisions of the authorities of the first and second instance with the Agrarian Committee, which is the Supreme Court in matters of agrarian reform.

1 he historical name of certain Transylvanian Hungarians who form a numerous and compact group in the south­ east ol [>;msylvania. Their Hungarian name is, in the singular. Sztkely, in the plural, Sztkelyek ; in German, Sekler, which of th name usec* in the Minorities Treaty. The name probably comes from the particular form of the original settlement lhest Hungarians in this district in the Middle Ages — i.e. their settlement and administration by Szik. — 6 —

In view of our appeal, the Agrarian Committee cancelled the decisions of the lower authorities, but, to our great astonishment, decided at the same time that this property had belonged to the Hungarian State and now formed part of the patrimony of the Roumanian State, as a result of the latter’s succession to the Hungarian State (Annex No. 3). jn virtue of this decision the Roumanian Government dispossessed us of our collective property which is of considerable value (see Annex No. 4), without paying us any compensation whatsoever. It was naturally impossible for us to submit to this injustice. We addressed several memoranda to the Roumanian Government, emphasising, as we also propose to do briefly in the Memorandum1 attached to the present petition, the differential treatment meted oui to us, notwithstanding the original intention manifested in the Decree-Law to grant us fair treatment. This differential treatment infringes the rights which we possess under the Treaty for the protection of minorities. We also pointed out that the pretext of taking over so-called national, that is to say State, property was alleged solely in order to conceal the fact that the Roumanian Government had as it were two different weights and measures according as the property belonging to Roumanians or Hungarians, and, moreover, the confiscation of our property by the Agrarian Committee was illegal even under municipal law, because in the case of disputes regarding the private or public nature of property and the right of ownership thereof, the decision rests, even under the Roumanian Constitution, with the ordinary courts and not with the Agrarian Committee, which is an administrative organ appointed for a special purpose — namely, to supervise the execution of the agrarian reform. Contrary to the most elementary rules of judicial procedure, the discussions of that organ do not even provide for both parties being heard. Its decisions are taken without the knowledge of the parties and there is no appeal against them ; it is admittedly a political organ in the hands of the Government. In point of fact, neither the Roumanian Constitution nor the Roumanian agrarian law recognises the competence of the Agrarian Commit! - e to deal with disputes in regard to the right of ownership. The Agrarian Committee made a purely arbitrary and, moreover, a thoughtless statement when it said that the property in question had belonged to the Hungarian State (see Memoran­ dum attached to the present petition). If it were true that the property of the frontier guard regiments belonged to the State, this would apply not only to the property of the Hungarian frontier guard regiment but to that of the two Roumanian frontier guard regiments as well. It is obvious that if this assertion were correct, the property of the Roumanian frontier guard regiments should also have been taken over by the Roumanian Government, but, as stated above, this was not the case. There is no doubt but that the confiscation of our property was dictated by motives of political oppression. This is corroborated by the statement (made on December 7th. 1923, before the Roumanian Parliament, in reply to a question) bv M. Gonstantinesco, Minister of Agriculture, who himself presided over the Agrarian Committee when the decision in question was given. It also proves our assertion that the Agrarian Committee is admittedly a political organ in the hands of the Government. In his reply to Parliament the Minister emphasised that the Agrarian Committee had acted under the influence of the Government when it declared that our property was national property and that the State could consequently take II over without compensation ; he even went so far as to extol the confiscation of our properly as a patriotic act (see Annex No. 5). As we did not receive satisfaction from the Roumanian Government, we desired, as long ago as August 1923, to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations. However, the meeting of our organisation (it is some fifty years old), which officially represents the families concerned and which was convened for the purpose of coming to a final decision in regard to the representations to be made to the League, was prohibited (Annex No. 6), and our petition to the League, which had been drawn up and printed, was confiscated by the Roumanian authorities. The justice of our claim was also recognised by Roumania when the Avaresco party, after coming into power in 1926, concluded a pact with the Hungarian party, promising that the injustice committed in regard to us should be repaired (Annex No. 7). We regret to state that the Avaresco Government did not redress the wrong. Later, wrhen the Maniu party came into power, we asked that Government for reparation and waited for t his — unfortunately in vain. Thus, all our efforts to obtain redress in Roumania by legal and political mean* were unsuccessful. Article 9 of the Treaty relating to the protection of minorities, concluded between the Principal Allied and Associated Powrers and Roumania at Paris on December 9th. 1919. provides that " Roumanian nationals who belong to radical, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the. same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other Roumanian nationals ”, In the present case the difference in treatment is flagrant. We were dispossessed of our property, which served to meet our economic and intellectual needs — the value of our immovable property was estimated in 1914 at 105,820,000 gold crowns — whereas the Roumanians continue to own their property, which originated in the same way as and i> a similar juridical character to ours, while its value is much greater.

1 We have inserted this Memorandum as a separate document to avoid encumbering the petition with facts and arguments relating to details. — 7 —

Our property consists of 62,604 cadastral arpents, while the community property of the Roumanian organisation in the district of Caran^ebes consists of 225,000 cadastral arpents, and that of the Roumanian organisation in the Comitat of Nâsaud of 130,000 cadastral arpents. The injustice from which we are suffering is all the greater, inasmuch as another article Article 11 — of the Paris Treaty expressly stipulates that the Szekler communities shall be granted autonomy in " religious and scholastic matters ”, The property confiscated would have enabled us to attain at all events some degree of intellectual autonomy, which joes not exist at present. We enjoyed the full and unrestricted use of this property for almost a century and a half, in the same way as the two Roumanian frontier guard regiments or their descendants enjoyed the use of their collective property under the Austrian and Hungarian regime as well. The Roumanians are still in possession of their property, while we have been despoiled of ours. We continue to profess complete allegiance to the State whose citizens we are, and the reason we are now' employing this last resource is because our racial minority has been treated m ost unfairly. We accordingly have the honour to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations, and to request it respectfully to use its influence so that the property of which we have been illegally dispossessed may be restored to us, or, if restitution in kind should in the meantime become impossible, that compensation representing the full value of the property seized may be paid us. As the Roumanian State is endeavouring to create a fait accompli by transferring the greater part of our land and forests to the Roumanian population, we would urge the Council to examine our petition without delay and to take urgent steps, including conservatory measures, to ensure the maintenance of the status quo before resort is had to any subsequent procedure. Finally, we venture to ask that, should the Roumanian Government submit to the Council or to the Committee of Three explanations of fact or of law at variance with those contained in the present petition, an opportunity will be given us, in the interests of justice and right procedure, to state our case, so that the information submitted to the Council or the Committee of Three may not be of an ex parte character. Miercurea Ciucului (Csikszereda), June 25th, 1929.

Dr. G a âl E n d r e , Dr. G y ô r g y pa l D o m o k o s , as Director of the Private Property. as President of the Board of Administration n . t of the Private Property. Puskas I s t v a n , n r r ■ as Representative of the Assembly of the Ur' ti0CSK°R B ela> persons entitled to the Private Property. as a member of the Board of Administration of the Private Property. ‘ A(A IMRE> Da RTALIS ÂGOSTON, As a member of the Board of Administration . „ D„ , - . , . . . .. nf thp Private Prnnertv As a member of the Board of Administration oi itie Private Property. of the Private Property. Dr. Pâl Gâ b o r , Dr. L âszlô D ezsô , As Senator for the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik). As Deputy for the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik).

C. MEMORANDUM.

1. O r ig in of th e C o n f is c a t e d P r o p e r t y . The origin of the “ Private Property in the Comitat of Csik ” or “ Property of the Szekler population of Csik ”, the names by which the property of the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment is commonly known to-day, goes back to 1762-1764, to the time of Maria Theresa, who was the first to endow the organisation of the border regiments in Tiansylvania. In the frontier guard regiments liability for military service passed from father to son and devolved primarily upon families as such. The grants, which served to lighten the burden of those families, were administered by the organisation of the regiments themselves. It was the Emperor Joseph I I who, in his Resolution No. 1472 dated August 27th, 1783, ordered that the whole of the mountain land restored to him by Turkey at the time of the rectification of the frontier should be placed at the disposal of that regiment (Annex No. 8). the same time, a considerable part of this free land was assigned to the Roumanian frontier guard regiments of the Comitat of Nâsaud and the district of Caransebes. In 1848, while the Hungarian people was contending with the House of Habsburg, the Welders were on the side of the revolutionaries, whereas the Roumanian frontier guard regiments adhered to the cause of the Habsburgs. For this reason the Emperor-King Francis oseph decreed in 1851 that as a punishment the property belonging to Szekler families who "ere formerly frontier guards should be confiscated for the benefit of the Treasury, and as a reward to the Roumanians for their friendly attitude during the 1848 revolt, he confirmed ,inte again the right of the Roumanian frontier guards to the ownership of their property. However, after the reconciliation of the Hungarians with the Habsburg Dynasty, and °n the proposal of the Hungarian Government dated January 23rd, 1869, the Emperor­ ing Francis Joseph in his Resolution of February 16th, 1869, restored the whole of the ®°vable and immovable property formerly belonging to the Szekler frontier guard regiment — S — in the Comitats of Csik and Hâromszék — the institution of military borders having been abolished in the meantime in 1851 along the whole of the Turkish frontier — not to the frontier guard regiment itself, which was no longer in existence, but to the descendants 0f the former Szekler frontier guards — the Szeklers in the Comitats mentioned — “ for ihe purpose of increasing the prosperity of the Szeklers, in those Comitats ”, Consequently, the Szeklers wrere only temporarily dispossessed of their property, and this dispossession disappeared in 1869 without leaving any trace. From that time onwards the frontier guard families who were the beneficiaries, administered the property in question according to rules approved by the Government and had the undis­ puted enjoyment of it until April 1923 — i.e., for fifty-four years — until the date on which, in pursuance of the relevant decision of the Agrarian Committee, the Roumanian Government decreed that the property, which it asserted had formerly belonged to the Hungarian State, should be confiscated.

2. T h e P r o p e r t y d id not b e l o n g to t h e H u n g a r ia n St a t e .

The foregoing statement shows that the Agrarian Committee was wrong in asserting that the property in question belonged to the Hungarian Treasury. Moreover, it knew that this was incorrect. In giving the reasons for its decision it therefore endeavoured to add to the argument of temporary dispossession other arguments designed to prove the Treasury’s right of ownership (Annex No. 3), but none of its arguments carry any weight, In the first place, it is not the case, whatever the Agrarian Committee may say, that Joseph II gave the Szekler frontier guard families only the usufruct of the property, and not the full ownership. Just as the Roumanian frontier guards regiments of Nâsaud and Caransebes were the owners of the property granted to them, the Szekler frontier guard families, as universitas personarum, had, from the time the gift was completed, full and absolute ownership of their property. Moreover, if the Szeklers had merely enjoyed the usufruct of the property in question, that wrould also have been the case with the Roumanian regiments, but this has never been alleged in regard to the property of the descendants ol the Roumanian frontier guards. It is equally untrue to say that w hen the property was restored in 1869 the bare ownership was reserved for the State. Nothing of the kind appears either in the documents relating to the restitution or from the juridical situation from 1869 to 1923. On the contrary, the Emperor-King Francis Joseph in his Resolution of February 16th, 1869, approved the Hungarian Government’s proposal, whereby the whole of this property was restored in perpetuity with the right of ownership, the property to be jointly administered. It is likewise incorrect to say that wdien the property was restored in 1869 the usufruct was granted not to the families of the Szekler frontier guards but to the Comitat of Czik a- such. In order to refute this argument it is sufficient to point out on the one hand that this is clearly at variance with the text of the royal letter of restitution, which does not mention the Comitat as such but refers to the Szekler population of the Comitat of Csik, and on the other that neither the Hungarian State nor the Comitat of Csik had ever, after the restoration, regarded or administered this property as the property of the Comitat as such. Everyom- regarded the restitution as the re-establishment of the former right of ownership in favour of those persons or their descendants who had been temporarily deprived of it. It was on this understanding and in accordance with this legal situation that the statutory rules ; Annex No. 10) of the universitas personarum of the Szekler population of the Comitat of Csik were I drawn up with the approval of the highest Government authorities and subsequently applied ! The property was administered on the basis of these rules for fifty-four years. During thaï I time no attempt was ever made to have the State or the Comitat recognised as the owner I of that property. Only a part of the organisation for the administration of this property I was attached to the organisation for the official administration of the Comitat, but it was I never one and the same organisation, nor was there a community of property. This property has never been included in the inventory of State property nor in the I budgets of the State or the Comitat. On the contrary, both the State and the C om itat I have concluded a large number of contracts with us, and the Comitat has even borrowed I money from us, proof of which is attached (Annex No. 11). If our property had belonged! to the State or the Comitat these legal ties could never have arisen. None of our immovable I property was entered — errors excepted — in the land registers as belonging to the Treasury! or to the Comitat as such. Moreover, if it had belonged to the latter the case would have I been quite different from ownership by the Treasury, since the patrimony of the Comitat I is an entirely different thing under Hungarian public law from the patrimony of the S t a t e ! In giving the reasons for its decision the Agrarian Committee endeavoured to bise i^l arguments even on feudal law-, but the Committee forgets that, in the first place, feudal lav I was not the same everywhere and, secondly that the free land of the Szeklers was known! to be expressly exempt from the feudal law. I Strictly speaking, the peaceful possession which we enjoyed for fifty-four years from 18651 to 1923 would in itself, be sufficient, under municipal law,to give us the right of ownership.! even if there wrere no other argument in support of that right. I — g —

D DOCUMENTS ANNEXED TO THE PETITION AND THE MEMORANDUM.

Annex No. 1. DECREE-LAW Decree-Law regulating the agrarian reform in Transylvania, the Ranat, etc., adopted by the National Council on August 12th, 1919, and approved by the King on September 10th, 1919. No. 3911-1919, published in the Monitorul Oficial of September 12th, 1919, under No. 117.

Article 2. — In order to achieve the objects proposed,

2. Full and complete expropriation may be effected

The following do not come within this category and are not subject to expropriation under the provisions of the present paragraph : the jointly owned forests, mountain pasture land and fields of fodder plants of the communes specified under B, C and D of Article 1 of Hungarian Law XIX of 1898 and those belonging lo the communities of property of the former frontier regiments.

Annex No. 2.

LAW FOR THE AGRARIAN REFORM IN TRANSYLVANIA, THE BANAT, CRIÇANA AND MARAMURES. (Published in the Monitorul Oficial No. 93 of July 30th, 1921.)

C h a p t e r II. — C o m m u n a l P a s t u r e L a n d . Article 24. — ...... (c)...... The pasture land of the former second Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Nâsaud, governed by Hungarian Law XVII of 1890, shall be maintained as communal pasture land without any other expropriation procedure. All the agricultural inhabitants of the former frontier guard communes, whether they are descended from frontier guard families or not, shall have the benefit of this pasture land.

C h a p t e r III. — Co m m u n a l F o r e s t s . Article 32. — ...... ( c ) ...... In accordance with Law XX III of the year 1890, the forests of the frontier guards of Hie communes of the former Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Nasaud shall be maintained, without any other expropriation procedure, as communal forests.

Annex No. 3.

AGRARIAN COMMITTEE. Meeting of February 26th, 1923.

DECISION No. 11, Sc. Tr.

President : M. Constantinesco , Minister for Agriculture and Landed Property. The following were present as members : M. Victor R a m n ic e a n o , Dr. E. M e n d ic e v s k y , G. B u z d u g a n , Oscar N ic u l e s c o , S. G a n e , ^ P o po vici, G. N e d ic i, D. B u s u io c e s c o , P. G ro za , G. C ip a ia n , Constantin N ic o l a e s c o , (j T rip o n and the Secretary-General, M. Dom. C onstantinesco . The Agrarian Committee has examined : (1) the requests for revision presented by the Agricultural Adviser and registered under Nos. 1748 of December 28th, 1922, and 2064 of January 23rd, 1923 ; — 10 —

(2) the question of revision No. 2345 Sc. Tr. Agrarian Committee of February 3rd 1923, presented by the Head of the Inspection Service who was to state the reasons for the appeal before the Departmental Committee of Ciuc ; (3) the request for revision made by the Public Prosecutor of the Comitat of Ciuc registered under No. 2430 of February 8th, 1923. It appears from the reasons given in these requests that, as a result of the wrong interpretation of the Law, under decision No. Ibbis of December 4th, 1922, of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc, the property of which the “ inhabitants of the Comitat of Ciuc ”, irrespective of religion and race, at present enjoy the use, wras declared by that Committee to be public property, of a private character bearing the name of “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” and in application of paragraph 1 of Article 6 and of paragraph (a) of Article 7 the property in question was only partially expropriated, although in fact and in law, as shown by these claims, the whole property should have been expropriated, in accordance with paragraph (a) of Article 6 ; (4) the State’s request for revision, registered under No. 2335 of February 3rd. 1923, and presented through the Central Fund for the delivery of Land (Casa Centrala a improprietârirei), on the ground that the property known as the “ property of the population of Ciuc ” belongs in fact and in lawr to the State, as shown by the documents in the files, and consequently there can be no question of partial or complete expropriation; on the contrary, it is necessary to recognise the right of ownership of the State, which is discharging, and will continue in future to discharge, its duties in the general interest, for which purpose this property has been handed over to the inhabitants of the Comitat of Ciuc. In view of these facts, Decision No. 756is of December 4th, 1922, of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc must be completely modified ; (5) The application for revision by the manager and solicitor of the private property of the Comitat of Ciuc (Transylvanian section of the Agrarian Committees, registered under No. 2306 of February 1st, 1923, in which the persons concerned request that Decision No. 75bis of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc, dated December 4th. 1922, should be revised, on the ground that, as the result of a wrong interpretation of the law', the communes of Corbu, Tulghes, Bilbor and Bicaz1 had obtained as communal forests and pasture land, land exceeding the limits fixed by the law. It is also stated that, contrary to the Agrarian Law', town property and land belonging to certain industrial establishments such as, for instance, lime-kilns and sawmills, the expropriation of which was illegal under the Agrarian Law, have been expropriated.

The Agrarian Committee : Whereas the requests of the agricultural adviser, the head of the inspection service and the Public Prosecutor are based on the argument, which is well founded, that the Departmental Committee of Ciuc had reached an erroneous decision by assimilating the Board of Administra­ tion of the “ property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” to a juristic person of private interest and partly expropriating that property ; Whereas, according to the relevant statements, the Committee should have regarded it as a juristic person of public interest and have consequently expropriated the whole of the property in accordance with paragraph (a) of Article 6 ; Whereas, according to the statements contained in the requests for revision made by the manager and solicitor of the “ property of the population of the Department of Ciuc ”, the Departmental Committee had acted in disregard of the provisions of the Agrarian Law when, in connection with expropriation, it exceeded the limit fixed for juristic persons of private interest ; Whereas, in order to maintain the status of a juristic person of private interest in regard to the property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc, the Board of Administration of that, property demands : (1) The recognition of the absolute right of ownership on the ground of first occupa­ tion and also the absolute ownership for the benefit of the descendants of the Szekler frontier guards of the (mountain) property, the usufruct of which is at present enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Comitat of Ciuc ; (2) The recognition of the private character of the obligations devolving upon the Board of Administration of the “ property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ■ from which it follows that the “ property of the population of Ciuc ” is a community of property of private interest ; , Whereas, in order to establish the absolute right of ownership based on the ground I of first occupation, the manager of the " property of the population of Ciuc ” alleges that in I 1769, when Austria took over this (mountain) property from Moldavia, as a result of the I delimitation of the frontier between Austria and Turkey, these mountains had not belonged I provisionally to anyone, and the possession thereof was free and unlimited until a later date. I when it was successively seized by certain nobles who made it their private and exclusive I property, the poor Szeklers being ejected, until such time as the Emperor Joseph II ordered I this property to be handed over for the benefit of the frontier guard families, with a view to I increasing their prosperity, and the manager concludes that these historical facts justify the I absolute right of ownership on the ground of first occupation ; II Whereas, according to the statements by the said manager, confiscation of the above- I mentioned property by the Emperor of Austria in 1851 on account of the attitude of the I

1 In Hungarian : Gyergvôhollô, Gyergyôtôlgÿes, Bélbor and Gyergyôbékâs. — 11 —

Szekler regiments, which refused their aid during the Revolution of 1848 against Hungary, c0Uld in no w ise be regarded as a reason for the modification of the right of ownership of the Szekler frontier guards or even the disappearance of that right, in view of the fact that confiscation was illegal and no legal right can arise out of an illegal action; consequently, this confiscation is to be regarded as non-existent, that is to say, null and void ; and, moreover, the manager maintains that, even if the confiscation of 1851 be regarded as legitimate, the slalus quo ante w as re-established by the restitution of the “ property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ”, in pursuance of the Resolution of 1869, and it was as if no change had taken place as regards either the right of ownership of the (mountain) property or the person of the owner — i.e., the families of the Szekler frontier guards ; Whereas, according to the statements of the said manager in regard to the private character of the obligations connected with the “ property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ”, those obligations devolved solely upon the descendants of the Szekler frontier guards as the sole and exclusive beneficiaries of the property and related to the arming and equipping of the frontier guard families for military service ; Whereas, in order to ascertain whether the statements of the manager and solicitor of the “ property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” are correct, they would have to be verified in the light of history and the documents to which they refer, and the juridical nature of the rights of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc over the mountains subsequently established ; Whereas, the legal nature of the usufruct enjoyed by the inhabitants of the Comitat of Ciuc is to be deduced from the Imperial Resolutions promulgated and also from the legal elements resulting from the entries in the land registers ; Whereas, from this point of view', in 1769, as a result of the rectification of the frontier between Austria and Turkey, the former acquired some 70,600 arpents of mountain land on (he borders of the Comitat of Ciuc, to which the present dispute refers, and became the sole owner of that land, it is therefore impossible to maintain that on or after that date the said property did not belong to anyone and that until the Decree of the Emperor Joseph II was promulgated it had no ow'ner and could be freely occupied by the first-comer, as the manager of the “ property of the population of Ciuc ” asserts ; consequently, it cannot be regarded as res nullius since the territory in question was recognised as belonging in the first place to Moldavia and to have been transferred later to Austria under a special convention ; Whereas, in virtue of Resolution No. 3680 of May 27th, 1783,1 of the Emperor Joseph II, this land was handed over in usufruct to the first Szekler infantry regiment of frontier guards — in other words, Austria transferred the usufruct alone, the right of ownership over the said mountains and land being left intact and those mountains and land remaining the property of Austria, and whereas this juridical position results from the actual Resolution No. 3680 of May 27th, 1783, of the Emperor Joseph II, which states that : “ Ul ejusmodi Alpes el lerrena a Moldavis el Valachis Transalpinis recuperata Mililae dumtaxat limitae meae usui ac emolumenlo relinquanlur, harum tarnen Alpium ac terrenorum pars ilia, quae ullra Cucureaza, et ad passum Borgo sita essel . . . ”, without mentioning the transfer of the right of ownership ; Whereas, in 1851, the Emperor of Austria withdrew the usufruct granted to the Szekler frontier guard regiment on account of the breach of its oath and the Austrian State took back all the attributes of ownership, including the usufruct, which had been separated from the bare-ownership, as is also shown by the report of September 4th / 16th, 1869, of the three Hungarian Ministers who, in order to induce the Emperor to grant the usufruct again to the population of Ciuc, retraced the history of the possession of those mountains and land and stated on page 10 (see the translation of M. Charles Ganea, Director of the Préfectoral property) : (a) as regards the mountains of Ciuc, which were being administered by the Treasury, the Minister of Finance of that time, without mentioning the facts which had led to seizure and confiscation, confirmed the right of the Treasury and declared the mountains to be State property ; (b) the “ clothing funds ” were also declared to be Treasury property onaccount of the confiscation and because they were formerly regarded as revenue from Treasury property.

It is therefore beyond dispute that, from 1851, when the usufruct given to the Szekler frontier guard was withdrawn, until 1869, when this property was returned to the population of Ciuc under the conditions set forth hereafter, these mountains were regarded by the Austro- Hungarian Treasury as the integral property of the Treasury, that is to say, of the State, and it was only in 1869 when, in order to justify their proposal for the restitution of the property, the three Hungarian Ministers asserted — contrary to the historical facts — that the population of Ciuc had enjoyed the usufruct since before 1789 — that is to say, before the said mountains and land belonging to Moldavia were taken over (see page 13 and following pages of the above-mentioned report and the proposal dated January 23rd, 1869 of these three Ministers translated and printed by Charles Ganea) ; Whereas, on the proposal of the Hungarian Ministers of the Interior and Justice, the Emperor Francis I issued the following Resolution on February 16th, 1869 : “ . . . I decree, as an act of grace and subject to the right of third parties, that the whole of the property formerly possessed and used by the first and second disbanded Szekler infantry regiments

. 1 This is obviously incorrect. The date and number in question were those of the Government proposal ; the mP«ial Resolution is dated August 27th, 1783, and bears the number 1472. (Petitioners' Note.) and which, since its confiscation, has been used by the State, shall be restored for the purposes of general interest mentioned in the proposal presented to me and under conditions calculated to increase the prosperity of the race — namely, of the population of Ciuc and Trei Scaune ” • Whereas, according to the legal terms used, the former frontier guards merely had the right of “ possession and usufruct ” and not the right of ownership, since the Résolut ion mentioned is quite clear on this point and refers to “ possession and use ”, and in his Resolution of 1783, the Emperor Joseph II used the term “ Usui ac emolumento ”, without any reference to the complete and absolute right of ownership ; Whereas, after the establishment of the legal nature of the right of the former Szekler frontier guards, the Imperial Resolution granted the usufruct of those mountains “ to the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” and extended the usufruct of the former Szekler frontier guards to the entire population of Ciuc ; Whereas, the same conclusion may be drawn from the formal reservation contained in this Resolution which states that the usufruct of the property is granted “ subject to the right of third parties ” — that is to say, subject to the bare-ownership which the State intended to retain ; Whereas this is also shown by the land registers in which the following mortgages are entered : (1) On sheets (B), the State is given as the owner ; the greater part of the property is entered exclusively in the name of the “ Comitat of Ciuc ” and the remainder in the name of the districts (primpretorate) of “ Scaunul Ciuc, Giurgeu and Cason ”, in Hungarian : “ Csik, Gyergyo and Kâszonszék ” ; (2) Whereas, the land register mentions as usufructuary the population of the Comitat of Ciuc (in Hungarian : “ Csik megye kozônsége ”), irrespective of race and religion and without requiring proof of descent from the former frontier guards ; (3) The town property (18 houses and a theatre at Miercurea Ciucului) entered in the land register as belonging to the Royal Hungarian Treasury (in Hungarian : “ Magyar kiralyi kincstâr ”). There is no doubt that under the Imperial Resolution of 1869 only the usufruct of the mountains in question and not the right of ownership was restored to the population of the Comitat of Ciuc, and this also applied to the buildings which, as shown by the entries in the land register, remained State property ; Whereas any other interpretation would overlook the fact that in 1869, according to the laws then in force, any transfer of the property of the Hungarian State, in order to be valid, required the consent of the legislator and not an Imperial Resolution ; consequently, the population of the Comitat of Ciuc could only acquire under this Imperial Decree the simple usufruct, subject to the restrictions and obligations of public utility, and not the complete right of ownership ; Whereas any other interpretation would ignore the development of the right of ownership under the post-feudal regime — the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of Ciuc ” asserts that the Szeklers had a right of allodial ownership, exempt from any feudal charge, the integral and absolute character of which is at variance with the historical evolution of ownership ; It may be concluded that under the post-feudal regime the bare-owrnership continued to belong to the grantor, while the beneficiary merely enjoyed the usufruct until the date of revocation. The eminent owrner reserved for itself the bare-ownership without the actual possession of the property which was enjoyed by the beneficiary “ the holder ”, who did not, however, possess the ownership. That is why : “ Feudum est jus fundo alieno utendi fruendi ”, whereas the conditions governing allodial property (allodium) were as follows : “ Translatio ut i lis dominii, proprietate retenta ” (Molinaeus de feudis, lib. 1. praeaemium et No. 114'. Even admitting that the allegations were in accordance with the historical truth concerning allodial property, they could only apply to the right of enjoyment, which in modern legal language is termed “ usufruct ”, and not to the absolute and exclusive ownership. As regards the alleged illegality of the confiscation in 1851, invoked by the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of Ciuc ”, it should be noted that, under the laws in force at the time, rebellion, breach of oath and reason were punished by the confiscation of the property of the guilty parties, and this was the penalty imposed on the Szekler frontier guards after the revolution of 1848-49. When the responsible Ministers of the Emperor Francis Joseph I submitted the Imperial Resolution of 1869, on which the right to use the property was based, this restitution did not re-establish the status quo prior to confiscation, since the usufruct w7as thenceforward granted to the whole population of the Comitat of Ciuc, and not to the descendants of the Szekler frontier guards alone, and the charges were not identical to those imposed prior to 1848. In particular, the bare-ownership of the State reserved, and it was specified that the property was to be used to further the agricultural, forest, commercial, industrial and mining interests of the whole population of the Comitat of Ciuc ; this means by implication that the legal character of the confiscation was fully recognised, and that a new usufruct was granted, with new charges, contrary to the assertion of the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ”. Whereas the contentions in the request for revision presented by the manager and solicitor of the " Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” are vague and not in accordance with the true historical facts ; — 13 —

Whereas, according to the foregoing statements, the right granted to the population of the Comitat of Ciuc was confined to the usufruct of the mountains in question for the purposes of General interest mentioned, and the origin of this right was an act of grace on the part of the Emperor, it is impossible to conclude that the population in question had the right of ownership, as this right was all along reserved for the Hungarian State, and, as a result of the change of sovereignty, has now reverted to the Roumanian State ; Whereas, from the point of viewr of the charges to be borne by the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ”, the Hungarian Ministers of the Interior, Finance and Justice proposed, in the Memorandum submitted to the Emperor Francis Joseph I on January 23rd, 1869, with regard to the assignment of the mountains in question in usufruct — and the Imperial Resolution of February of that same year confirms this — that these mountains should be handed over for the use of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc, the annual revenue to be employed for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, the mining industry and the education of young people, irrespective of race or religion, which is at variance with the statement contained in the appeal of the Roard of Administration of the “ Property of the population of Ciuc ” against the decision of the Departmental Committee, to the effect that the object of the charge was the military equipment and clothing of the frontier guards of the army, which is incorrect ; For these reasons the request for revision of the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” must be rejected. Whereas the Departmental Committee of Ciuc, basing its decision on the erroneous arguments put forward by the Board of Administration of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” (No. 756is, December 4th, 1922), was wrong in concluding that the " population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” was a juristic person of private interest, and as such was the absolute owner of the mountains in question, and the foregoing considerations show that the right of ownership over the mountains in question belongs to the Roumanian State, and that the population of the Comitat of Ciuc simply had a right of usufruct in the general interest ; Consequently, the decision of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc, based on the argument which has been refuted, and ordering the partial expropriation of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” must be modified ; And even if the argument put forward by the population of the Comitat of Ciuc were impeccable, the total expropriation of the property in question would be fully justified, since the property was granted for the purpose of raising the level of agriculture, forestry, commerce, industry and public education, and this obligation has not been fulfilled ; thus, even in that case. Article 6, Section (a) invalidates the above-mentioned decision of the Departmental Committee, which must be entirely reversed ; Whereas the Agricultural Adviser, the Head of the Agricultural Inspection Serv ice and the Public Prosecutor demand the modification of the decision of the Departmental Committee of Cine on the sole ground that it is impossible to recognise the population of Ciuc as a juristic person of private interest, taking into account all the points of fact and of law ; Whereas the State’s request for revision, presented through the “ Casa centrala a impropriétérii ”, rejects even total expropriation, and maintains that the property in question belongs to the State ; It was the duty of the Agrarian Committee to undertake a very thorough investigation of the question. The foregoing statements showr that the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” actually belongs to the Roumanian State, as the successor to the Hungarian State, the population of the Comitat of Ciuc having been merely the usufructuary of this property, with the obligation to discharge the duty mentioned above. Consequently, the property of the population of the Department of Ciuc could not be subject to expropriation, as it was owned by the State ; the Committee was therefore obliged to grant the request submitted by the State under No. 2335bis, 1922, through the “ Casa centrala a improprietârii Since the obligations devolving upon the population of the Comitat of Ciuc in respect of tht> annual proceeds from the property of the Comitat, in particular the satisfaction of the needs of agriculture, forestry, industry, commerce and public education, are at present being fulfilled by the Roumanian State, its administrative services and the local institutions respon­ sible for carrying out these tasks — that is to say, the State is discharging the duty of satisfying the requirements for w hich the proceeds from the property in question are intended — the right of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc to the usufruct of the property no longer exists, and the State has taken over the full and complete right to dispose of its property without the intervention of any external authority. Since, as shown by the foregoing explanations, the State is the absolute owner of this property, the possibility of its expropriation, as defined by the Departmental Committee, does not exist ; moreover, it is laid down that it is the duty of the State to satisfy the legitimate claims of the communes to arable and pasture land and forests, under the provisions of the Agrarian Law' of Transylvania, and to carry out the specified tasks of public utility by direct administrative means. For these reasons, the Agrarian Committee has unanimously adopted the following

R e s o l u t io n . 1. It rejects as unfounded the request for revision presented on February 1st, 1923, under No. 2306, by the administrator and solicitor of the “ Property of the population of the Comitat of Ciuc ” against decision No. Ibbis, dated December 4th, 1922, of the Departmental — 14 —

Committee ; it likewise rejects the requests for revision of the Agricultural Adviser, the Head of the Agricultural Inspection Service and the Public Prosecutor, submitted to the Transylvanian Section of the Agrarian Committee on December 28th, 1922, under No. 1748, on January 23rd, 1923, under No. 2064, and on February 3rd, 1923, under No. 4345, against decision No. 756i$ dated December 4th, 1922, of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc, 2. And grants in its entirety the request for revision submitted by the “ Casa centrala a improprietarii ” on behalf of the State, of February 3rd, 1923, under No. 2335, against decision No. 75bis, dated December 4th, 1922, of the Departmental Committee, and consequently : It completely cancels the decisions of the Cantonal Committee of Gheorgheni, No. 282 of September 18th, 1922, No. 281 of September 23rd, 1922, No. 280 of September 30th, 1922, and No. 554 of October 26th, 1922, and also Decision No. Ibbis dated December 4th, 1922* of the Departmental Committee of Ciuc and decrees, in regard to the substance of the question, that the property taken over in 1769 from Moldavia by an agreement between Austria and Turkey and granted by Francis Joseph I on February 16th, 1869, to the population of the Comitat of Ciuc in usufruct belongs absolutely and as of right to the Roumanian State and cannot be expropriated in any way, wrhile the Roumanian State by taking over the obligations relating to agriculture, forestry, commerce, industry, public education, etc., has acquired the right to use this property without the payment of any compensation to anyone whomsoever and the administration of this property, for the independent administration of which there is no longer any justification, will pass to the State as the sole owner. It is the duty of the Roumanian State, as the indisputable owner of the property in question in accordance with the Agrarian Reform Law valid for Transylvania, the Banat, Crisana and Maramures, to take from that property the land necessary to satisfy the legitimate claims of the population in respect of arable land, communal forests and pasture land, the remainder being its property and subject to its administration.

( Signed)

Victor R a m n ic ea n o Al. Constantinesco , Dr. F. M e n d ic e v s k i. President G. B u z d u g a n , Oscar N ic u l e s c o , N. G. P o p o v ic i, Dem. C onstantinesco , C. N e d ic i, Secretary-General. B u s u io c e s c o , Cip a ia n u , Const. N ic u l e s c o , G. T r ip o n , Members. (Translated from the French translation of the Roumanian. The French translation was submitted by the petition.)

Annex No. 4.

BRIEF INVENTORY OF THE PROPERTY.

The confiscated property consists of

( a ) Immovable Property : 1. 54,515 arpents of forest ; 2. 8,014 arpents of pasture land, fields, arable land and farms, making in all (including 75 barren arpents) 62,604 cadastral arpents on which the following buildings have been erected : (1) At Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciucului) a modern stone house on two floors, with farm buildings, used as a higher elementary school and boarding school for girl- : (2) At Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciucului) a theatre and dancing-room ; (3) At Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciucului) large barracks formerly rented by the Hungarian State for the use of the Honvéd army ; (4) At Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciucului) three houses, two with two floors and one with one floor only ; all used for letting purposes. (5) At Csikszereda (Miercurea Ciucului) a model training farm covering 150 cadastal arpents ; (6) At Csiksomlyô (Simleul Ciucului) an orphanage and hospice run by nuns and providing free education for 90 orphans ; (7) At Borszékfürdô (Baile Borszék) a villa with 22 rooms, completely furnished for indigent sick persons of the Szekler community ; (8) A t Tôlgyes (Tulghes) and in various parts of the property, dwellings for stewards and employees, forests guards, etc. ; — 15 —

(9) Hydraulic installations and sawmills in various parts of the property ; these are required for forest exploitation. The value of this immovable property was estimated in 1914 at 105,820,000 gold crowns.

( b) Movable Property : 1. The Savings Bank of Csik-Gyergyô-Kâszonszék (Scaunul Ciuc, Giurgiu ÿi Cason) and all the funds invested ; 2. Fittings, equipment, etc., required for administration, such as furniture, safes, archives, farm stock and implements, carts, motor-cars, etc.

Annex No. 5.

ANSWER GIVEN BY M. CONSTANTINESCO, MINISTEB FOR AGRICULTURE, ON DECEMBER 7t h , 1923, BEFORE THE ROUMANIAN PARLIAMENT IN REPLY TO A QUESTION.

See : Desbaterile Adunarii Depuâtilor : Minutes of the meeting of the Chamber on December 7th, 1923, Annex to the Monitorul Oficial for December 25th, 1923.) " After examining ail these claims I have reached the conclusion that this is not a matter of expropriation ; the State should take over the entire property since it has the right to dispose of it. (Applause.) “ By studying this matter the Agrarian Committee has rendered a decision of great importance from the point of view of legal doctrine and it may even be termed a supreme act of patriotism, because it has thus repaired Ihe injustice and hardships suffered in the past. (Applause.) This decision will go down for ever in the annals of justice as a glorious act, because it declares that the State is the sole owner of the property known as the ‘ private properly ’ of the Szeklers and al the same lime hands over the possession and administration of that property to the Slate. (Applause.) The properly lias not been expropriated and there can therefore be no question of compensa­ tion being payable by Ihe Slate, as would have been the case if the State had not taken over the properly. (Applause.) The peasants will pay for what they receive and the State will keep the rest, without paying anything to anyone. (Applause.) This, gentlemen, is what I have done in accordance with the law and taking into account the rights of the State. This was ihe protection which I granted to foreigners to prevent them from evading their obligations under the law.” (Prolonged applause.)

Annex No. 6. PROHIBITION OF THE GENERAL MEETING OF THE “PRIVATE PROPERTY ”. To the Prefect of Police. Sir, 1 have the honour to inform you that in accordance with the enclosed notice of convocation a general meeting of the “ Private Property ” of the Comitat of Csik is to be held. Kindly take note of this and issue the necessary permit if this is required by the existing regulations. Csikszereda, August 22nd, 1923. (Signed) Dr. André G a â l , Manager.

Prefect of Police of the town of Miercurea Ciuc. No. 1650. 1923-VIII-26. Nnce the existence of this institution is no longer recognised the general meeting is forbidden. Signature.

(Translated from the French translation of the Roumanian. The French text was submitted by the petitioners.) — 16 —

Annex No. 7.

EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER I, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE AVARESCO GOVERNMENT IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

3. Pending the equitable settlement of the matter of the private property of the Comitat of Csik which shall be effected with all possible speed, all property and securities not liable to expropriation under the Agrarian Lawr shall be restored to the community and administered according to the existing provisions of the Statute of the private property, with due regard for the objects mentioned therein. Kolozsvâr, November 11th, 1927. Certified true copy : (Signed) Dr. Julius Deâk Secretary-General of the Hungarian Party in Roumania.

(Translated from the French translation of the Roumanian. The French text was submitted by the petitioners.)

Annex No. 8.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE EMPEROR JOSEPH II.

O r ig in a l T e x ts

1. Ad. Num. 1472. A. 1783. Sacratissimae etc. Gubernio intimandum : Altefatam suam Majestatem informatione praelaudati Regii Gubernii quoad Alpes per promotionem Aquilarum Caesareo-Regiarum ante aliquat annos a Transalpinis Valachis revindicates et pastmodum per Familiam Kcndef- fianam aliosque finitimos possessores propria auctoritate occupâtes sub 27a Maji currentis anni Nroque 3680 subinissa, informatione item Thesaurariatus Regii sub 26a Novembris anni praeteriti eodem in merito hue promota, sibi demisse relatis, clementer resolvere dignatam esse : ut ejusmodi Alpes et Terrena, a Moldavis et Valachis Transalpinis recuperata, Militiae duntaxat Limitaneae usui ac emolumento relinquantur, harum tamen Alpium ac terrenorum pars ilia, quae ultra Cucureaza, et ad passum Borgo sita esset, inter vicinos Districtus Inico- vinae pagos praesertim inter Candreni et Vatra Dorni pro supplendo pascorum defectu sub- dividatur, hac tamen inter pagos Bucovinae subdivisione non obstante terrena ilia et Alpes semper quae ad Transilvaniam spectantes considerentur, ac pro talibus habeantur. Sum- mefata sua Majestas in religuo eidem Regio Gubernio gratia sua etc. etc. Viennae 27a Augusti 1783. — Comes Franciscus Esterhâz m.p.C.C. Bànffy m.p. exp., Zoller m.p., d. 3 Spt. 1783.

II. Ad Num. 1472. A. 1783.

Altissima resolutio ad relationem hujus Cancellariae de 6-0 currentis super alia benigna resolutione circa Alpes et terrena a Moldavis et Valachis revindicate usui militiae limit aneae religueuda, illam autem eorundem partem, quae ultra montem Cucureaza et ad passum Borgo sita esset, inter vicinos districtus Bucovinae pagos preaesertim Kandreni et Yatra- Dorni ad supplendum pascuorum defectum subdividendam, édita et per Consilium Vulae Bellicum hue communicata, suae Majestati sub 21a currentis N roque 906 ea cum opinione substratam : quod juxta fundamentals Principatus Transsilvaniae leges nulla provinciae vel minima particula abalienari queat, proinde etiam pars reoccupatorum a Moldavis terre­ norum inter pagos Bucovinae preo supplemento pascui subdividenda sub jurisdictione Trans- silvanica manere debeat ; caenterum nec religua ab iisdem Moldavis et Valachis reocmpata terrena prius militiae limitaneae cedi posse videantur, quam praetensiones nonnulloruni particularium et communitatum partatum partim in-patim extra eorundem terrenarum possessorium existentium coram Gubernio legitimarentur, cum eadem terrena non jure belli sed per pacificam insignium Caesareo-Begiorum promotionem revindicata fuerit : ’’4a ejusdem currentis reproductam édita in terminis : Es h a t bci meiner dem Hofkriegsratb zu erkennen gegebenen und von demselben der Kanzlei intimirten Resolution sein Verbleiben, dass diese von der Valachei und Moldau revindizirten und in Zukunft auch immer cinen Theil von Siebenbürgen ausmachenden Alpen und Gegenden von den Grànzern allein beniitzet werden sollen. In conformitate alsissimae huius resolutionis, ad Gubernium rescribendum et expeditionem una cum originali relatione ad concestum in Hungaricis fine pariformis intimationis regio in Transsilvania Thesauraritui faciendae, communicandam denique illiuH sensum etiam Consilio Aulico Bellico aperiendum. — Méhessy m.p. — 17 —

E n g lish T r a n sl a t io n I. id No. 1472. A. 1783. His Majesty to the Governor : In view of Report No. 3680 dated May 27th last from the Royal Governor concerning the mountains which were taken from the Transalpine Wallachians by the advance of the Imperial and Royal troops and which were later arbitrarily occupied by the Kendeffy family and other neighbouring proprietors, and also in view of the proposal made b y the Royal Treasury on November 26th last in regard to the same matter, His Majesty decrees that the mountains and land taken from the Moldavians and the Transalpine Wallachians shall be handed over for the sole use and remuneration of the frontier guard soldiers ; and that the part of the said mountains and land situated beyond Cucureaza near the Horgo Pass shall be divided among the neighbouring communes of the Bukovina : Candreni and Dorna-Vatra to make good their lack of pasture land ; notwithstanding this division the mountains and land in question shall continue to belong to Transylvania. His Majesty assures the Royal Governor of His favour, etc. Vienna, August 27th, 1783. (Signed) Count Francis E s z t e r h â z y , Count Gabriel B a n f f y . Zoller, September 3rd, 1783.

II.

Ad No. 1472. A. 1783. Supreme Resolution in answer to the petition of the Chancellory concerning the previous Be>< lution of the 6th instant : In accordance with this previous Resolution the mountains and land taken from the Moldavians and Wallachians are to be handed over for the use of the frontier guard soldiers, and the part of the territory in question beyond the Cucureaza mountain near the Borgo Pass is to be divided among the neighbouring communes of the Bukovina — namely, Candreni and Dorna-Vatra — to make good their lack of pasture land. Thi> Resolution was communicated by the Aulic Council of War. His Majesty has since received, on the 21st instant, under No. 906, a report stating that the laws of the Principality of Transylvania prohibit the transfer of any part of the territory, however small ; consequently, the part of the territory taken from the Moldavians which is to be divided among the communes of Bukovina to be used as pasture land must remain under Transylvanian jurisdiction ; moreover, neither can the remainder of the territory taken from the Moldavians and Walla- chiaii' be handed over to the frontier guard soldiers until the owners, whether private indix duals or communities and whether they are or are not in possession of the land, present their I ai ms to the Governor, since this land was recovered not by right of war but thanks to tlie peaceful advance of the Imperial flag. Upon the request repealed within the prescribed time-limit the following supreme Resolution was adopted on the 24th instant : “ I maintain my Resolution communicated to my Aulic Council of War and transmitted by the latter to the Chancellory, that is to say, that i he mountains and land taken from Wallachia and Moldavia and belonging in perpetuity to Transylvania shall be assigned to the frontier guards for their exclusive use ”.1 One copy of this Resolution must be addressed to the Governor ; another copy must be sent with the original report in Hungarian to the Royal Treasury of Transylvania for its information, and advice that this has been done must be communicated to the Aulic Council of War. (Signed) M é h e s s y .

Annex No. 9.

MEMORANDUM OF THE ROYAL HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT TO FRANCIS JOSEPH I. d a t e d J a n u a r y 2 3 r d , 1869.

a n d RESOLUTION BY HIS MAJESTY.

I. M e m o r a n d u m . Sire, In view of the attached report (No. 1) of the Royal Governor of Transylvania and petition :^o. 2) from the Comitat of Csikszék, we have examined the legal situation and history of the possession of the movable and immovable property seized for the benefit of the Treasury 1851 at the time of the abolition of the former Szekler infantry and hussar frontier guard

1 The part in quotation marks is in German in the original text and is written by the hand of the Emperor Joseph II. - 18 — regiments, and have the honour to submit to Your Majesty the result of the examination of Documents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The following are the historical facts on which the present Memorandum is based : The line of military defence organised on the south-east frontier of Hungary in the seventeenth century, partly by colonisation and partly in connection with privileges granted to the autochthonous population, was extended or completed in Transylvania by the establishment in 1762-1764 of frontier guard regiments. The zone to be defended by those regiments included the portion of the Szekler territory bordering on Moldavia-Wallachia over a length of some 20 or 25 miles and in particular Csikszck and Hâromszék. The Szekler population opposed the organisation of the military borders, and its resistance was only overcome at the beginning of January 1764 by measures involving bloodshed. This resistance wras not due to the fact that the frontier guards in the other districts wrere exempt from compulsory services (corvées) or received grants proportionate to the charge imposed on them, w^hereas such was not the case in regard to the Szeklers ; but it was the result of the constitutional situation of the Szekler nation. In this connection, although we do not propose to retrace the historical development of the constitution in order to explain the views of the Government of that time, we wrould point out : First, that the Szekler nation possessed its land by right of conquest and that, as the Royal Crown had no right of succession, it could not own property in Szekler territory ; Secondly, that as every member of the Szekler nation was of noble birth, he was personally liable for national defence. This obligation of national defence divided the Szekler nation into three categories. The first w?as the class of higher nobles, each member of whom was obliged to furnish several soldiers ; the second was the middle class of nobles, w'ho discharged their military obligations on horseback ; while the third class of lower nobles went to war on foot. After the peace of Szathmâr this organisation appeared to be out of date, and the Szekler district commands were accordingly abolished between 1713 and 1729 ; the Szekler nation was no longer required to take up arms en masse, although the division into classes still existed and served as a basis for the allocation of the fiscal charge. The two lower classes were required to pay the tax, while the military obligations instituted in 1762-1764 were likew ise limited to those classes, the Szeklers belonging to the third class being armed as infantry frontier guards and those of the second class as cavalry frontier guards. The middle and lower class nobles of Csikszék and Hâromszék considered that it was unconstitutional that they should have to bear both a fiscal and a military charge when the higher nobles with whom they w:ere equal before the law7 were exempted from any charge ; this w7as the reason for their opposition to the institution of the frontier guards in 1764, which had to be overcome by military force. We would add that the equipment of the frontier guards was supplied by their families, and every family belonging to the third class of nobles was obliged to furnish, equip and maintain an infantry frontier guard and every family belonging to the second class of nobles a cavalry frontier guard. In 1764 the Szekler frontier guards consisted of one regiment of hussars and two infantry regiments ; however, the families of Csikszék and Hâromszék, who were to furnish the hussars, were not sufficiently numerous to make up the strength of the regiment and accordingly, in the following year, the w'ell-to-do ecclesiastical nobles from certain parts of the Comitats of Aranyoszék, Udvarhelyszék, Felsô Fejér and Alsô Fejér, the region of Fogaras and the district of Dobra in the Comitat of Hunyad w’ere also armed and incorporated in the Szekler regiment of hussars, with the result that the troops of hussars greatly exceeded the strength of a regiment. The infantry and cavalry frontier guards, especially at first, regarded the obligation to find their own outfit as the heaviest military charge of all. The difficulties in obtaining uniform clothing for the soldiers were almost insurmountable owing to the small amount of money in circulation and the differences in the financial resources of the various families. In 1769 the frontier between the provinces of the Hungarian Crown and Turkey was defined and the new frontier wras marked out. On this occasion, on the frontier of Csikszék and Hâromszék several portions of land were recovered which, owing to the uncertainty as to the precise position of the frontier, had been the subject of frequent disputes between the Transylvanian owners on the one hand and the Moldavian and Wallachian owners on the other, or which had been illegally occupied by Moldavians and W'allachians during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries at the time when Transylvania was the scene of political strife. The re-occupied land had no owner at the time and could be used by anyone ; in not more than ten years it was seized by the neighbouring communes which were strong enough to do so or by powerful families, in defiance of the rights of the Szeklers, who were armed but poor. Complaints were accordingly made to the military authorities, and through them to the Cabinet of the Sovereign. Being desirous of doing justice to th e plaintiffs, Joseph II, Your Majesty’s predecessor, ordered b y Resolution No. 1472, dated August 27th, 1783, that the recovered land should be handed over “ for the use and remuneration of the frontier guard soldiers In pursuance of this Resolution the authorities of the military borders, in the spring of 1784, occupied the land in question without the intervention of the civil authorities — tiie — 19 — first Szekler infantry regiment occupying the mountains surrounding Csikszék and the second Szekler infantry regiment the mountains of Hàromszék, presumed to have been reconquered ; they began to exercise the right of ownership for the benefit of the frontier guards and leased out in their name the land which they had just occupied ; the rent collected was divided every year in equal shares among these frontier guard families.

Thus, the mountain land occupied in 1784 by the Szekler frontier guard remained in the possession of the regiments responsible for the defence of the frontier until 1851, when they were disbanded ; and the proceeds from the leasing of the land were paid into the clothing fund of the regiments. The families of the hussars of Csikszék and Hàromszék received a proportional part of the proceeds of the land and paid this into a clothing fund, which was their property. We would emphasize that this fund belonged solely to the three classes of hussars in Csik and Hàromszék, and not to the whole regiment of hussars. However, the regiment of hussars possessed another fund, which was the property of the regiment — namely, the fund for the purchase of horses. We have already mentioned the heavy charge which the families of hussars had to bear on account of the obligation to purchase and maintain a horse, and we have also mentioned that, owing to the recruiting of the hussar regiment in several other parts of Transylvania, the regiment included more families than were necessary to make up its normal strength. These two concurrent circumstances led to the formation of the fund for the purchase of horses. It was stipulated that families released from service and from the maintenance of a horse, either because they had no man to send to the army or because, their horse having died, they were temporarily unable to carry out their obligations, should :

(a) for the period during w'hich they failed to perform the service, pay an annual quota into the fund for the purchase of horses, this quota representing the sum which they would have had to pay for the maintenance of the horse ;

(b) take from their payments the price of a horse when the sum was sufficient and the family was in a position to furnish a soldier.

Thus, the origin of the fund for the purchase of horses was due solely to the sacrifices of the families of hussars. This, then, is the history of the property of the Szekler frontier guard regiments down to the end of the year 1848. During the events of 1848 the Szekler frontier guard regiments were called upon to defend the Constitution, and as during the past century the military borders had been converted into a veritable military colony, in which all men were trained soldiers, greater military forces were available in the Szekler district than in other districts. After 1849 Your Majesty’s military Government declared that the attitude of the Szekler frontier guard regiments — an attitude dictated by the tragic circumstances of the time — was one of military perjury ; for this reason, and in order to repair the damage caused — in the opinion of that Government — to the State, the Government in 1851 ordered the whole of the regiments’ movable and immovable property mentioned above (Sub No. 5-1) to be confiscated for the benefit of the Treasury, and at the same time abolished the institution of frontier guards in Transylvania. We would add with regard to this confiscation that the account books and vouchers relating to the funds in question were to a large extent destroyed or mislaid during the disturbances of 1848-49, so that the Treasury was only able to seize what was actually in the coffers ; Moreover, the funds were not paid into the Treasury, but were placed under special management and were lent to the sinking fund of the public debt at 3% interest (Sub No. 5-2). Your Majesty’s Resolution dated January "2'2nd, 1851, ordering the abolition of all the frontier guard regiments in Transylvania also ordered that the necessary steps should be taken for the settlement once and for all of the matter of the mountain land taken over. This order was executed on August "26th, 1861, by means of the institution of the " Direct Commission ”.

For the purposes of the examination of the right of ownership over the property in ques­ tion and of our contention, it is necessary for us to enumerate and classify this property according to its origin. The first question which arises in connection with the mountains and land at present administered by the Treasury is that of the Treasury’s right to that property — a right asserted by Your Majesty’s previous Government. This right was based on the taking over of the property in 1769 and its confiscation as a result of the events of 1849. In your wisdom Your Majesty cancelled all the convictions and confiscations to which the events of 1848-49 had given rise ; consequently, the Treasury’s right based on confiscation does not exist and must be ignored, both as regards the land and the other property. — 20

There remains to be considered the question whether when the frontier was defined in 1769 the recovery of the land established the Treasury’s right of ownership over that land or not. In this connection we would refer to : The legal character of the Szekler territory, which we have outlined in the introduc­ tion to this Memorandum, and which excludes the right of the Crown to own any part of that territory by domanial right ; The chapter and article A.C.II.R.8,1 in which the Crown domains in Transylvania are specifically enumerated ; The fact "that the mountains in question were acquired not by arms but by the procedure of delimitation, so that they do not represent fresh acquisitions, but the re­ establishment of the former frontier and possessions which the uncertainty and internal troubles of Transylvania had effaced ; The Resolution of His Majesty the Emperor Joseph II, who on August 27th, 1783 (Sub No. 3), ordered that the mountains recovered should be handed over for the use of the frontier guards.

Reing convinced that both the material and intellectual progress and development of the Szekler people are necessary in the general interest, so that it may fulfil its task, especially so far as the East is concerned, we respectfully propose : that all the movable and immovable property enumerated above which belonged to the former Szekler frontier guard regiments should be freely restored, and be administered under the following regulations : 1. The domains formerly possessed by the first Szekler infantry regiment (of Csik) and the revenue from which was placed to the credit of its clothing fund — these domains being at present controlled by the forest services of Gyergyôszentmiklôs and Kâszonujfalu, and including arable land, fields, pasture land and forests — shall be handed over with all buildings, equipment and installations thereon in perpetuity, indivisibly and with the right of ownership to the population of Csikszék, subject to the right of third parties. 2. The confiscated clothing fund which belonged to the former Szekler first infantry regiment, with the accrued interest, and also the proportional part of the confiscated clothing fund belonging to the Szekler hussar regiment, with the accrued interest, shall be handed over to the population of Csikszék ; the clothing fund of the disbanded second infantry regiment and regiment of Szekler hussars, with the accrued interest, shall be handed over to the Szekler population of Hàromszék, irrespective of religion, indivisibly and in perpetuity. 3. The fund for the purchase of horses with the accrued interest shall be handed over to the Szekler families who constituted the disbanded regiment of hussars, with common and equal rights. The restoration of the three classes of property shall be subject to compliance with the following rules : The immovable property and the clothing funds shall constitute joint property in perpetuity, and only the fund for the purchase of horses should be divided by classes (divisions), the annual revenue from the immovable property to be restored to the popula­ tion of Csikszek being, however, assigned to the encouragement of agriculture, small industries, the manufacturing industry, the mining industry and commerce, and also to the improvement of popular education, and the clothing funds being administered as savings banks which would grant loans at a cheap rate in the territory of Csikszék ; The purpose to which the fund for the purchase of horses shall be assigned shall be fixed, in accordance with the above principles, by a meeting, in platoons, of the families of hussars at Csikszék. under the chairmanship of a ministerial commissioner ; The clothing fund of the infantry and hussar regiments to be restored with the accrued interest to the population of Hàromszék and also the proceeds from the sale of the land and military buildings belonging to those regiments and situated in the territory of Hàromszék, Miklôsvâr and Rardôcszék, shall be paid in equal parts into the funds of the industrial schools to be opened at Kézdivâsârhely and Sepsiszentgycrgy. The families of hussars of that district shall, however, have the right to decide, at a meeting of delegates to be elected by platoons, under the chairmanship of a ministerial commissioner, to which of the two industrial schools they desire to give their share of the fund for the purchase of horses. 4. The two plots of land and houses possessed by the infantry and hussar regiments at Rorszék shall, after deduction of the amount required for their upkeep, be earmarked for the use of sick persons, without means, of Szekler nationality. 5. The schools used for military purposes in the territory of the Szekler regiments and the foundations of those schools, including interest, shall be converted into industrial schools at Csikszereda, Kézdivâsârhely and Sepsiszentgyôrgy. 6. All the land and buildings belonging to the hussar regiments and to the two Szekler infantry regiments shall, unless they need to be retained either in the interest of the Hungarian State or in the interest of the Szekler population concerned, be sold under the supervision of the Hungarian Minister of the Interior and the proceeds from the sale shall be placed to the capital fund of the industrial school nearest the land or building sold.

1 “ Approbatae constitutiones " is the name of one of the collections of ancient laws in force in Transylvania. — 21

7. The revenue collected during the time the property was administered by the Treasury 5hii 11 be kept by the Royal Hungarian Treasury. It shall rest with the Hungarian Minister of the Interior to approve the regulations to be drawn up by the communes concerned for the administration of the property, to nominate the personnel to be appointed by those communes, to see that the receipts and expenditure are properly administered and to audit the annual accounts. We apologise for the length of this Memorandum, which was unavoidable owing to the details that had to be given for the historical development of the question. We also desired to show not only the rights of the persons concerned, but also that the general interest is involved. We therefore request Your Majesty, with all due respect, to be good enough to restore to the Szekler frontier guard regiments, as you have already done in the case of the first and second Roumanian regiments of Transylvania, their above-mentioned property which is at present administered by the Treasury, and also the clothing funds and the fund for the purchase of horses, including the accrued interest, in order that they may be employed for the noble objects specified above and under the conditions mentioned.

Buda, January 23rd, 1869.

(Signed) Raron Béla W e n c k h e im , Melchior L ô n y a i, Balthasar H o r v a t h , Minister of the Interior. Minister of Finance. Minister of Justice.

II. R o y a l R e s o l u t io n .

I decree as an act of grace and subject to the right of third parties that the whole of the property mentioned in the foregoing Memorandum, both movable and immovable, including the rlothing funds and the fund for the purchase of horses, with their accrued interest, of which the first and second Szekler infantry regiments and the regiment of the Szekler frontier guard hussars had the ownership and use and which, by reason of its confiscation, is at present administered by the State, shall be restored, restitution being subject to the use of the property for purposes of public utility and to the conditions laid down in the Memorandum, with a view to increasing the prosperity of the Szekler nation and for the benefit of the population of Csikszék and Hàromszék. In so far as the Szekler families of hussars of Csikszék and Hàroms­ zék have an interest in the fund for the purchase of horses, they shall benefit by the restitution in accordance with the Memorandum. I entrust the execution of the present Resolution to my Hungarian Ministers of Finance and the Interior.

Done at Vienna, February 16th, 1864.

(S ig n e d ) Francis Joseph B aro n B é l a W e n c k h e im .

Translated from the French translation of the Hungarian. The French text was submitted by the petitioners.)

Annex No. 10.

STATUTE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE COMITAT OF CSIK.

Article 1. The private property of the population of the Comitat of Csik had its origin in the Royal Resolution of February 16th, 1869, adopted as a result of proposal No. 10598 of 1868 of the Hungarian Government. This Decree provides that the clothing fund and the fund for the purchase of horses of the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik shall be handed over jointly to tin population of the Comitat of Csik to be used in the territory of the former Csikszék, at present the Comitat of Csik, for the purposes of agriculture, small industries, large industries, mines, commerce and public education, and in particular to increase the prosperity of the Csik nation, the yield from the property which consists of cash, securities and immovable property bein" assigned to those purposes.

Article 3. T he Government’s right of supervision, as regards the property used for industrial purposes, shall be exercised by the Royal Hungarian Minister of Commerce, and, as regards the remainder of the property, by the Royal Hungarian Minister of Public Worship and Education. — *22 —

Article 4. Since, in accordance with Article 1, the property in question has been handed over by Royal Resolution to the population of the present territory of the Comitat of Csik—that is to say, to the population of the communes of Gyergyo-Alfalu, Gy. Csomafalva, Ditro Gy. Kilyénfalva, Gy. Remete, Szàrhegy, Gy. Szentmiklos, Gy. Tekerôpatak, Gy. Ujfalu,

Article 5.

The property belonging to the funds or the revenue from the property must not be assigned to purposes other than those mentioned above without the decision, approved by the Govi'rn- ment, of the General Council of the Comitat of Csik or, in the remote eventuality of the Comitat of Csik ceasing to form an independent comitat, of a commission of twenty members to be elected in the territory of the present Comitat of Csik ; the said property must not be transferred or mortgaged. Article 6.

2. Fund for the purchase of horses. Under decision No. 770 of 1875 of the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior, this fund belongs exclusively to the families of the Szekler hussars of Csik ; the accrued interest thereon may only be used for scholarships and assistance to the descendants in the paternal line of those families.

The General Council shall appoint, in every case with a term of of!ice of six years, two members of the families of hussars who shall have the right to give their opinion and to vote, to attend the meetings of the Governing Rody dealing with the distribution of scholarships and assistance.

The Governing Bodyr shall itself draw up a list of families entitled to the said scholarships and assistance within two years of the entry into force of the present Statute.

Article 7. The property of the funds shall be administered at Csikszereda, under the supervision of the General Council of the Comitat or of the commission of twenty members replacing it, by a Governing Body which shall carryr out its duties in accordance with the present Statute and shall be known as the “ Governing Body of the Private Property of the Comitat of Csik ” and shall use a seal bearing that inscription.

Article 14. Only children whose fathers are of Szekler origin — including Armenians — born in the present territory of the Comitat of Csik and having the status of a citizen in that territory, may apply for scholarships or assistance. The fathers of such children whose official duties oblige them to remain outside the Comitat must prove each year before the Governing Body that they have retained their rights of citizenship in the Comitat.

Article 21. The General Meeting shall be constituted by the General Council of the Comitat of Csik so long as the Comitat retains its present organisation and subsequently by the com m ission of twenty members replacing it. Article 2'2. It shall be the duty of the General Meeting : (a) to elect the Governing Body ; (b) to appoint the auditors of the final accounts ; (c) to examine the budget and accounts. — 23 —

Article 23. The Governing Body shall consist of : (a) the President, who under the present regime, is the sub-prefect of the Comitat and who, should this regime be changed, shall he appointed by the commission of twenty from among its own members ; (b) eight members to be elected by the General Meeting ; (c) the manager and accountant who shall give their opinion but shall not have power to vote. Article 24. The members of the Governing Body shall be recruited from persons living in the territory of Csik, having the status of a citizen and possessing immovable property therein, who are highly respectable, of Szekler origin, and have had a scientific or professional training.

Article 40. This Statute is made out in three original copies, one of which shall be transmitted to the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Public Worship and Education, the second being deposited in the archives of the Comitat of Csik and the third placed at the disposal of the Governing Body. Done at Csikszereda, at the meeting of the General Council of the Comitat of Csik, on August 30th, 1897.

(Signed) Valentin M ikô Francis M ih â l y Prefect. Secretary-General.

Annex No. 11.

The Royal Hungarian Minister of Public Worship and Education. To the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior.

No. 198238-1913, VIII-a.

Subject : Loan of 500,000 crowns to be contracted by the Comitat of Csik with the Private Property of the population of the Comitat of Csik.

Monsieur le Ministre,

With reference to your Excellency’s Notes Nos. 169308 of November 10th, 1913, and 205979 of December 10th, 1913, with regard to the loan of 500,000 crowns, for which the Comi­ tat of Csik proposes to apply to the fund of the Private Property. I have the honour to return the annexes and to inform Your Excellency that by Decree No. 162517-1913 of November 1st, 1913. I approved Resolution No. 7564-448 of the General Council of the Comitat of Csik adopted at the General Meeting on August 30th, 1913, to the effect that the amount of the loan of 154,117 crowns 98 fill, to be used for enlarging the palace of the Comitat be increased to 500,000 crowns. I have the honour, etc.

Budapest, June 13th, 1914. For the Minister :

(Signed) Olivér A râny i, Ministerial Councillor.

Translated from the French translation of the Hungarian. The French text was submitted by the petitioners.) — 24 —

II.

LETTER FROM THE ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Geneva, October 2nd, 1929.

In your letter No. 4 /13401 /3442 dated August 2nd last, you were good enough to transmit to the Roumanian Government for its observations a petition from the “ representatives of the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment regarding the confiscation of their movable and immovable property by the Roumanian Government”. In point of fact, the questions raised in the petition call for only one reply on the part of the Roumanian Government, and this would suffice to rule them all out. All these questions relate to the Roumanian agrarian reform. This is a general law and the Roumanian Government cannot countenance any interference with it, especially for the purpose of establishing privileges for the benefit of certain minorities. However, purely in deference to the high authority before whom the petition has been laid, the Roumanian Government also begs to point out that : (1) Neither the petitioners nor those whom they say they represent were the owners of the property claimed. That property belonged to the State and passed automatically by right of succession to the Roumanian State. (2) The usufruct of the said property did not belong to the Szekler regiments or their descendants but to all the inhabitants of the district, and this was taken into account w'hen the property was expropriated. (3) The property wras not confiscated, but was expropriated in accordance with the provisions of the Agrarian Law for the benefit of the inhabitants of the district in question. (4) The same procedure was employed in regard to all the property of the same category and, in particular, to the property of the former Roumanian regiment of Nasaud ; consequently the discrimination complained of does not exist.

However, since certain amplifiations are necessary in connection with such a reply as the Roumanian Government would like to submit , the latter proposes to send you as soon as possible a detailed memorandum dealing both with the above-mentioned points and with the question as a whole.

(Signed) Ed. Ci u n t u .

Chargé d’Affaires ad interim. — 25 —

III.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT.

Geneva, January 9th, 1930.

[n a letter No. 680 dated October 2nd last, I had the honour to communicate the preliminary observations of my Government on the petition “ from the representatives of the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment ”, and announced its intention of transmitting more detailed observations later. These are given below : In the above letter the Roumanian Government had already drawn attention to the fact that the whole question turns on the precise provisions of the Agrarian Law. Under this law a single principle was uniformly applied, naturally with due regard for the conditions of the previous distribution of the land, and also for the present needs of the rural population. The law provided for the distribution of the land belonging to the State and to certain communities as well as to private persons, and for the setting up of judicial courts for this purpose. It was therefore the duty of those judicial courts to ascertain the legal situation of the property in question and to order its expropriation in so far as this was provided for by the law. In carrying out the agrarian reform, the competent authorities and courts did not make any discrimination in principle against the property forming the subject of this dispute. They simply considered the legal claims of the plaintiffs and the size and circumstances of the population to be provided with land and, finding that the situations of fact and of law were not the same, they decreed that the principles of the law should be duly applied. 1. The Agrarian Committee, which is the supreme court set up by the law to hear and determine situations of fact and of law, received applications from the descendants of the frontier guard regiments of Ciuc, the agricultural adviser, the agricultural expert, the Attorney- General and the Central Fund (a Government organ). The object of the first-named applicants was to get the expropriated portion reduced. On the other hand, the other applicants asked for total expropriation, on the ground that the property belonged to a juridical person of public interest. Finally, the Central Fund maintained that this property belonged to the State, as successor in the transferred territory to the rights formerly belonging to the old Monarchy and that, in accordance with the Agrarian Law, the State was bound to grant the legitimate requests of the inhabitants entitled by law to receive the land. For the purpose of assisting it to reach a decision, the Agrarian Committee studied the historical evolution of this property from its origin, and found that : (1) This property had belonged to Moldavia until 1769, when, as the result of a rectification of the frontier, it was transferred to Austria. As it had formerly belonged to a State, this land belonged after that date to the Austrian State. (2) A few local families attempted, without any positive result, to seize the mountains and pasture land in question. (3) By an Imperial Decree of 1783, the use of this land was granted to the members of the Szekler regiment, the proceeds to be employed to meet the cost of upkeep of the regiment. The decree refers to usufruct and not to ownership. ( Usui ac emolumenlo relinquantur.) This usufruct was of a special nature, since it was subject to certain charges, and as the proceeds were to be used for military defence, it was revocable if the implicit condition of fidelity to the Crown was not fulfilled. (4) During the events of 1848 the Szekler regiment embraced the revolutionary eause. After reprisals involving bloodshed had been taken by the Government of that time, the regiment was disbanded, and since its members had broken their oath of fidelity, the privileges granted them were withdrawn by Imperial Decree of 1851 ; the property again passed into the ownership, possession and administration of the State. (5) In 1869, on the basis of a report by the three Hungarian Ministers, the Emperor decided once again to grant the use of this property to the population of Ciuc, on condi­ tion, however, that a portion of the revenue was employed for the development of agriculture, industry, etc. (6) This decree calls for certain observations : (a) Only the usufruct, and not the ownership, was granted ; ( b) The rights of third parties were expressly reserved in the decree, and the right of ownership was therefore not transferred ; (c) This limited right was granted to the whole population of Ciuc and Treiscaune, irrespective of nationality and religion and whether they were or were not descendants of the frontier guards ; ( d ) This limited right was to be exercised in accordance with regulations drawn up by the State and under the conditions mentioned above. — 26 —

All the deeds and documents, and in particular the land registers in which the State is specified as owner and the memorandum presented by the Hungarian Ministers, which mentions several claims made before the competent commissions, prove that the ownership was not transferred. (7) The right of ownership undoubtedly belonged to the Austro-Hungarian State and was transferred ipso facto to the Roumanian State. (8) Consequently, the courts of first and second instance, which decided that the property should be partially expropriated owing to the fact that it had belonged to a private community, applied the law incorrectly and decreed this partial expropriation in error on the basis of legal texts foreign to the case. The Agrarian Committee cancelled the previous decisions, found that the State was the rightful owner and decided that, in accordance with the Agrarian Law, the latter should proceed to allocate the land in question according to the requirements of the population. Here, as everywhere else, the arable land belonging to the State was distributed to the persons entitled to it, irrespective of nationality and to the extent provided for by the law, while the forests and pasture land were converted, in accordance with the law, into communal property for the use of all the inhabitants. What did the State ascertain through its competent organs ? Two facts : First, that in the course of time the non-Hungarian population of Ciuc had been deprived of the use of the property granted by the Imperial Decree to “ the public as a whole The Government decreed that there should be a general and equitable distribution of the land, in accordance with the principles of justice and equality by which the agrarian reform was inspired. Secondly, that the area and nature of the land in question exceeded what was contemplai ed by the law. It accordingly distributed the quantities required by the law, and kept the remainder at the disposal of the inhabitants of the neighbouring districts, likewise in accordance with the law. What was the result of these measures ? Instead of being merely the usufructuaries, the inhabitants of Ciuc became, in virtue of the Agrarian Law, the absolute owners (irrespective of their nationality and without any exceptions) both of the arable land distributed to individuals and of the communal forests and pasture land. II. What was the situation of the property belonging to the Roumanian regiments of Nâsaud and Caransebes ? Its origin was the same as that of the property of the community of Ciuc, but whereas the rights of the Szeklers were cancelled in 1851. at which date the mountains and pasture land reverted to the State, the Roumanians, who, during the events of 1848 remained faithful to their oath, never lost their rights. They continued to possess their land to the exclusion of any person not a descendant of the frontier guards. Their rights were not curtailed by the extension of the category of beneficiaries, nor were they subject to special conditions, because the Roumanians were not affected by the Decree of 1869. The Agrarian Law therefore provided that the Nâsaud property should be left intact but should be assigned in full ownership to the whole population, irrespective of nationality and religion. The Agrarian Law thus confirmed the right of ownership both of the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards and of the other inhabitants. It accordingly curtailed the right of the former beneficiaries by distributing it among a larger number. From a legal standpoint, the right established by the Agrarian Law is an entirely different thing from the right possessed by the descendants of the frontier guards. In the first place, it is legally established ; secondly, it has a different origin,and, thirdly, the holders are different. Finally, the agrarian commissions found that the population of Caransebes consisted entirely of the descendants of the frontier guards, but that if the land of which they had the use had been expropriated and distributed according to the Agrarian Law, the quantity would have been insufficient, and they accordingly decided, with the consent of the population, to confirm the ownership of those inhabitants. In any case, the present holders of the Caransebes property are both the persons to be expropriated and the persons to be provided with land, so that expropriation would have been useless. What then arc the complaints against the Roumanian Government set forth in the plaintiffs’ petition ? These are as follows : (1) That the Agrarian Committee is a political organ ; (2) That the Agrarian Committee exceeded its powers in rendering a decision in a dispute relating to the right of ownership and thus decided that this right belonged to the State ; (3) That the plaintiffs had suffered from unfavourable differential treatment. The Royal Government begs to summarise its observations as follows : 1. The Roumanian Government is certain that the first complaint is inadmissible. The Agrarian Committee, which was the supreme organ set up by the Agrarian Law, consists mainly of members of the Court of Cassation who are specially qualified to deal with agrarian questions. It is a judicial body, the principle and authority of which cannot be disputed. The Royal Government also desires to add that, whatever may be the nature and composition of an organ set up by the lawr to decide all cases of every description submitted to it by persons under its jurisdiction, this is a matter over which it has exclusive sovereignty. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to offer any criticisms on the matter. — 27 —

2. The Royal Government, also considers that, since the powers of the Agrarian Committee are determined by law and sanctioned by legal practice, they cover all agrarian questions without distinction. All means of redress are open to any party concerned. But it is obvious that the very principle of expropriation and the determination of the proport ion of any particular property to be expropriated depend on the right of ownership, its nature and extent, and that, to enable it to give a decision in the light of the facts, a court dealing with expropriation must also deal with the right of ownership in so far as this affects the issue. 3. As regards the alleged differential treatment, the Royal Government begs to state once again that in the three cases mentioned above the Agrarian Law was strictly applied — that was all. The expropriation commissions and the higher courts set up by the law have in every ras'1 been guided by the same principles, on which the agrarian reform is based. The aim was to distribute among all the peasants of a district, irrespective of nationality or religion, portions of land of which they would become the sole owners, or to establish communal ownership of pasture land and forests. This is what was done at Ciuc and also at Nâsaud and Caransebes. If any of these communities were entitled to complain of differential treatment it would be the descendants of the frontier guards of the Nâsaud regiment, because, at the time of the application of the Agrarian Law, the descendants of the frontier guards of the second regiment alone possessed the right to that property, all other inhabitants of the district being excluded. As ;i result of the Agrarian Law the rights of the descendants of the frontier guards have been curtailed, since this law grants the same rights in respect of the pasture land and forests In all the inhabitants of the district, whether descendants of the former frontier guards or nnt. The Royal Government is astonished that a complaint should have been made with regard to the agrarian reform by the members of a minority who have benefited by it in the same way as the population of Roumanian origin. It feels certain that the spirit of justice by which it was actuated will be appreciated and that the constitutional nature of the Agrarian Law, which constitutes the very foundation of the social organisation in Roumania, will be recognised.

(Signed) Antoxiade. — 28 —

IV.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY PETITION. To the Council of the League of Nations, Geneva.

On July 20th last, the representatives of the descendants of the families that constituted the former Szekler (Hungarian) frontier guard regiments sent to the League Council a petit ion dated June '25th. 1929, relating to the confiscation of their movable and immovable property by the Roumanian Government. Further evidence of a decisive character, furnished by Roumanian law itself, can now be added to that set out in the Petition, in order to prove that the property owned by the Roumanian frontier regiments of the old military borders belongs as of full right to the descendants of the families of which those regiments consisted. Consequently, the property of the former Szekler frontier guard regiments of the Comitat of Csik (in Roumanian Ciuc) known as the “ Private Property of the population of the Comitat of Csik ” belongs absolutely and entirely to the Szekler families whose members served in those regiments. In view of the evidence furnished by Roumanian law, to which we will refer later, and of our desire to supplement the above-mentioned Petition in certain respects, we have the honour to submit the following statement to the League Council : In the first place, we should like to emphasise once again that the property was not confiscated in accordance with the Roumanian Agrarian Law, but on the ground that, since the property in question had belonged to the State, it now belonged to the Roumanian State, which had succeeded to the Hungarian State. The Agrarian Committee itself declared in its resolution that “ the property taken in 1769 from Moldavia by agreement between Austria and Turkey and handed over by Francis Joseph 1 on February 16th, 1869, to the population of the Comitat of Csik in usufruct belongs as of right to the Roumanian State and cannot be expropriated for any reason ” (see page 13 of the Petition). Further proof that confiscation was not effected in accordance with the Agrarian Law is furnished by the fact that it included a large number of buildings, and even an orphanage and savings bank, whereas the Agrarian Law dealt solely with landed property and not with property of that kind ; moreover, no compensation was paid, so that this measure was clearly outside the scope of the agrarian reform. This is also shown by the statement made in the Roumanian Chamber on December 7th, 1923, by M. Constantinesco, who was then Minister of Agriculture and President of the Agrarian Committee : “ After examining all these claims, I have reached the conclusion that this is not a matter of expropriation ; the State should take over the entire property since it has the right to dispose of it . . . The property has not been expropriated and there can, therefore, be no question of compensation being payable by tho State, as would have been the case if the State had not taken over the property.” (See page 1~> of the Petition.) It is therefore clear that the right of a minority in regard to private property has been seriously violated without a judicial decision ; this is also shown by the municipal law, because the Agrarian Committee was competent to deal with agrarian questions but not with a matter relating to ownership. In our Petition, we showed that the Agrarian Committee was absolutely wroni: in maintaining in its resolution, which exceeded its powers, that the descendants of the frontier guard families were not the owners but merely the usufructuaries of the property, and that the latter belonged to the State and should be returned to the State. In support of our contention that the descendants of the frontier guard families had not merely the usufruct but the full and complete ownership of the property in question, we need only refer tu the resolution in which King Francis Joseph I decreed on February 16th, 1869, “ the restitution of all the property mentioned in the above memorandum, both movable and immovable . . owned by the first and second infantry regiments and the regiment of the Szekler frontier guard hussars . . . and which serves to increase the prosperity of the Szekler nation . . (see page 21 of the Petition). Another argument in favour of this same contention is to be found in the memorandum in which the Hungarian Government proposed that the property should be restored “ in perpetuity and with full right of ownership, the property to be indivisi­ ble ” (see page 21 of the Petition). In our Petition, we refuted the Agrarian Committee’s assertion that the entire population of the Comitat of Csik and not the Szekler frontier guard families alone received the property in usufruct, according to the Agrarian Committee (see page 8 of the Petition). The statement that the property confiscated had never belonged to the State is confirmed more than once by Roumanian law. In accordance with Article 2 of the Decree-Litw of August 12th, 1919 : “ . . . the following are not subject to expropriation : the forest?, mountain pasture land and fields of fodder plants belonging to the Communities of property of the former frontier regiments ” (see page 9 of the Petition). The agrarian expropriation- did not relate to State property but only to private property. Consequently, the law contain? a provision concerning the joint property of the former frontier guard regiments, because that property, and hence the private property of the population of the Comitat of Csik as well, I was regarded even by the Roumanian legislator as private and not as State property. j — 29

Since the presentation of our Petition further proof has been furnished by Roumanian law in support of our contention that the property of the frontier guard regiments established on the old military borders was not State property. As explained in our Petition, the property of the Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Naszôd and of the Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Karânsebes had the same origin as,. and was of a similar legal nature to, the private property of the population of the Comitat of Csik. In June last, the Roumanian Parliament passed a law on the administration of the first two categories of property. This law provides that these two Roumanian joint properties must be administered by their own agents and according to their own Statutes under State supervision. The law, the statement of reasons and the opinion of the Legislative Council alike make it quite clear, and state more than once, that the property in question is private property. We beg to attach to the present Petition as Annex No. 1, No. 129 dated June 15th, 1929, of the Roumanian Official Journal, reproducing the text of the above Law ; as Annex No. 2, report No. 61 of the parliamentary debates which appeared as a supplement to the Official Journal of August 1st, 1929, and which contains the statement of reasons for the law and the opinion of the Legislative Council. Annexes Nos. la, 2a and 26, give a French translation1 of an extract from the law, the statement of reasons and the opinion of the Legislative Council. In its opinion on the draft law, the Legislative Council (this is a special organ of Roumanian public law) states that “ the goods belonging to the joint property are undoubtedly of the nature of private property over which the State has reserved the right to exercise supervision and control ”, The Legislative Council does not conceal its fear that the right of control on the part of the State provided for in the draft may possibly exceed the limits permissible in respect of private property. In accordance with this law a Statute was drawn up for the Roumanian collective property of Karânsebes and approved by the Government on June 25th, 1925. We attach as Annex No. 3, No. 143 of the Roumanian Official Journal which appeared on July 3rd, 1925, containing the new Statute of the Roumanian collective property of Karânsebes. Annex No. 3a contains the French translation1 of an extract from this Statute. Article 1 of the Statute recognises that. in virtue of the previous Statute, approved by the Royal Resolution of June 8th, 1871, only the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guard families have the right to this property, and this provision is maintained in full. We may thus conclude that, if the law recognises that the Roumanian joint property is private property, the private property of the population of the Comitat of Csik, which is of the same origin and, of the same legal character, could not constitute State property. Whereas the Szekler (Hungarian) property forming the subject of the complaint was confiscated without compensation, the two Roumanian properties of the same origin and the same legal character were left intact. Articles 24 and 32 of the Agrarian Law of 1921 itself exempted the forests and pasture land of Naszôd from all expropriation (see page 9 of the Petition). A special “ scholarship and educational ” fund drawn from the property of the former Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Naszôd owes its existence to the appeal of the Imperial Chancellery of Transylvania (No. 829, dated May 4th, 1864). After the re­ establishment of the Hungarian Constitution a contract was concluded on March 12th, 1872, between the Hungarian State of the one part, and the forty-four Roumanian communes which belonged to the frontier guard regiment of Naszôd and which are mentioned by name, and the “ Scholarship and Educational Fund ”, of the other part This contract maintained and increased the property owned and possessed by the fund. The contract was approved by royal decision on April 16th, 1872, and ratified by Law XVII of 1890. This fund provided assistance only for the descendants of the frontier guard families concerned, and subsidised Roumanian schools alone. The collective property of Karânsebes was left untouched by the expropriation procedure, and under the Statute of 1925, analysed above, further guarantees were given to the former Roumanian frontier guards. The foregoing statement shows that the differential treatment which we have received constitutes a breach of the law. Once again we respectfully request the Council to be good enough to redress the wrong.

Miercurea Ciucului (Csik-Szereda), December 15th, 1929.

(Signed)

N.v;\ Im he, Dr. G yô rg ypâl D omokos, u Member of the Hoard of Administration as President of the Board of Administration "/ the Private Property. of the Private Properly.

Martalis A g o s t o n , Dr. B ocskor B é l a , h Member of the Board of Administration as a Member of the Board of Administration of the Private Properly. of the Private Properly. Dr. P al G a b o r , Dr. L âszlô D ezsô, :is Senator for the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik). as Deputy of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik).

1 Note by the Secretariat. — For the English text of this French translation see pages 30 and 31. A NNEXES.1

Annex No. la.

L a w m o d ify in g A rticle 14, P a ra g raphs (d) and fe) of L aw N o . 154, of 1924, CONCERNING THE SATISFACTION OF REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO FlREWOOD AND TlMBER for Building Purposes of the Population of the Former Kingdom, Bessarabia and B u k o v in a .

(d) The forests of the former 2nd Roumanian Frontier Guard Regiment of the Comitat of Naszôd shall be administered as hitherto, according to their own Statute, but under State supervision and control, which shall also be t he case with regard to the application of I he Forest Law. Administrative control and control over the forests shall be exercised by a commissioner appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. (e) The forests, which are the joint property of the former 13th Frontier Guard Regi­ ment of Karânsebes (Roumanian Banat), shall be administered by agents selected in accordance with the Statute of this joint property. The State shall supervise and control both the acts of administration and management of those agents and the strict application of the Forest Law. State control shall be exercised through a commissioner appointed by Royal Decree on the proposal of the Minister of Agriculture. Should abuses be discovered in the administration of the collective property, the commissioner shall bring these to the notice of the Minister.

Annex No. 2a.

Sta t e m e n t of R e a so n s. Under the Law of 1924, concerning the satisfaction of requirements in regard to firewood and timber for building purposes and governing the administration of I he forests which belong to the communes or which are joint property in Transylvania or the Banat, the joint property of the former frontier guard regiments of Naszôd and Karânsebes is placed under the administrative and forest control of the State.

The families of the former 13th Frontier Guard Regiment of Karânsebes have resolved . . . to establish with their family properties a separate collective property which shall be indivisible and independent. This is the origin of the collective property of Karânsebes, which was governed by its own Statute, approved under the former regime on August 24th, 1879. The collective property of Karânsebes was administered down to 1925 in accordance with the Statute of 1879.

The new Statute for the collective property of Karânsebes was approved by the Minister of Agriculture on June 25th, 1925.

1 Note by the Secretarial. —- Annexes Nos. la, 2a, 26 and 3a, reproduced in the present document, are a translaliou t lie French translation, furnished by the petitioners, of extracts of certain ollicial Roumanian documents. A n n e x e s N "~-■ 1 2 and 3, containing numbers of the Roumanian Official Journal in which these documents are published, are kept in tw archives of the Secretariat at the disposal of the Members of the Council. Annex No. 2b.

R o u m a n ia . Legislative Co u n c il , 1st S e c t io n . MINUTE No. 35.

Meeting of April 26lh, 1929.

The C o u n c il......

Whereas it appears from the statement of reasons that the aim of the proposed amendment Is to extend and supplement the right of supervision and control previously granted to the State over the forests which are the collective property of the former 13th Frontier Guard Regiment of Karânsebes. (Roumanian Banat), for the purpose of protecting the property df the community from maladministration by the agents resonsible for its management

Whereas the goods belonging to the joint properly are undoubtedly of the nature of private properly, over which the State has reserved the right of supervision and control...... Whereas the rights by which the draft law proposes to supplement the Statute greatly exceed, from the legal standpoint, the limits of the right of supervision and control, in particular by empowering the State to dismiss agents freely chosen to administer a private properly...... While recognising the expediency of extending the State’s right of control, the Council con-iders that this extension cannot go so far as to abolish the community’s absolute right to give effect to its own w ish e s......

Annex. No. 3a.

We, F er d in a n d I, By the Grace of God and the will of the nation. King of Roumania, On the report No. 27674/1925 of Our Minister of Agriculture and Landed Property . . Have decreed and do decree :

Article 1. — The Statute concerning the administration of the forests belonging to the roilnrelive property of the former frontier guard regiment of Karânsebes (Roumanian Banat) is hereby a p p ro v ed ......

D one at Sinaia on June 25th, 1925. F e r d in a n d . Al. Constantinesco , Minister of Agriculture and Landed Property.

* * *

STATUTE OF THE COLLECTIVE PROPERTY OF THE FORMER 13th FRONTIER GUARD REGIMENT OF KARÂNSEBES (ROUMANIAN BANAT).

C h a pt e r I. — G e n e r a l P r o v isio n s. Article I. — The collective property of the former 13th Frontier Guard Regiment of Roumanian Banat includes all forests and mountains, all immovable property and all rur 111s attaching thereto granted by Royal Decree of June 8th, 1871, on the abolition of the 13th Frontier Guard Regiment of the Roumanian Banat. in ownership and collective, exclusive lm,l inalienable possession to the frontier guard families who on June 8th, 1871, formed part "I the community owning the forest property of the members or descendants of that frontier ~uard regiment. Fur the purpose of the administration and upkeep of this collective property the families who are beneficiaries of the forests have constituted a community whose collective property shall be administered in common and independently in accordance with the present Statute. — 32 —

Article II. — This collective and indivisible property shall belong to all the families who are the beneficiaries of the forests and reside in the following communes : Armcnis, Bania Bogoltin, Bolvasnita, Borlova, Borlovenii Vechi, Borlovenii Noui, Bozovici, Bârza, Buchin, Bucosnita, Caransebes, Caransebesul Nou, Cornea, Corneareva, Cicleni, Ciresa, Ciuta, Canicea, Coramic, Cârpa, Crâjma, Crusovat, Cuptoarea, Dalboset, Dalci, Domasnia, Dubova, Eibenthal. Eselnita, Fenes, Gherbovat, Glimboca, Globurau, Globu-Craiova, Golet, Iablanita, Iaz, Ilova, Jupalnic, Lapusnic, Lapusnicel, Lindenfeld, Luncavita, Mai, Marga, Mehadia, Mehadica, Mârul, Moceris, Obreja, Ogradena-Noua, Ogradena-Vechc, Ohababistra, Orsova, Patns, Pecenesca, Pervova, Petnic, Petrosnita. Plavisevita, Plugova, Poiana, Prigor, Prilipet, Prisian, Putna, Ravensca, Rudaria, Fiuleni, Rusca, Sadova-Noua, Sadova-Veche, Sopot-Vechi, Sopot-Nou, Su mita, Slatina, Teregova, Tisovita, Toplet, Tufari. Turnul, Valea-Bolvasnita, Valea-Mare, Yalisoara, Var, Vercorova, Verendin, Voislova, Wolfsberg, Weidenthal, Zavoi, Zervosti, Zlagna. — 33

V.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY PETITION To the Council of the League of Nations, Geneva.

In our Petition dated June 25th and presented on July 20th last, and again in our supplementary explanations of the 15th instant, we had the honour to point out that, after tin; abolition of the Szekler (Hungarian) frontier guard regiment of the Comitat of Csik, a joint property known as the “ Private Property of the population of the Comitat of Csik ” was founded by a Royal Resolution ; the whole of this property was subsequently declared by I lie Agrarian Committee to belong to the State, and on the basis of this declaration it was seized by the Roumanian Government for the benefit of the State, no compensation being paid. We also stated in our Petition that the forests belonging to this joint property were being cleared as quickly as possible. For that reason, we ventured to suggest to the League Council that conservatory measures should be taken and that the Roumanian Government should be requested to leave the property to which the Petition relates in its present condition. We regret to note that the Council has not seen its way to act on our suggestions, because if it had done so it would surely have been impossible for the clearing of our land to be speeded up still further, after the presentation of our Petition, with the permission of the Roumanian forest authorities. In view of these facts, Dr. Gabriel Pal, Senator for Csik and Dr. Désiré Làszlô, Deputy for Csik, in a letter dated November 30th last and registered under No. 6608/ 1920 drew the Roumanian Prime Minister’s attention to the way in which our forests were being ravaged and requested that urgent measures should be taken to put a stop to this. Sinre the Roumanian Government has taken no action we can only conclude that it is endeavouring to turn to account the most valuable part of our property before our Petition has been granted. The forests under exploitation have been given by the Department of Forests (Casa padurilor) of the Ministry of Agriculture, in return for a small sum, almost exclusively to the co-operative associations of the communes having a Roumanian population and to the Roumanian Greco-Oriental or Greco-Catholic religious associations. Some thousands of persons, chiefly Roumanians, are also receiving a larger or smaller quantity of wood for which they pay only a small fraction of its value. The vouchers given to those persons are presented to the timber merchants, who proceed to fell the trees and, owing to the lack of supervision, cut down more than the number specified and cause an immense amount of damage. If this ^t ate of affairs continues for much longer the forest property will be completely destroyed. In drawing the attention of the League Council to the attitude displayed by the Rou­ manian Government and its serv ices since the presentation of our Petition, we would ask the Council to be good enough : 1. To request the Roumanian Government to leave our property as it stands pending the Council’s decision in regard to our Petition ; 2. To examine our complaint at the earliest possible date and to take suitable measures to redress the wrong done us by the Roumanian Government and its services through their manifest violation of the rights of minorities.

Miereurea Ciucului (Csik-Szereda), December 23rd, 1929.

(Signed)

N u .v I m r e , D r. Gy ô r g y p à l D om oko s, ;is ii Member of Ihe Board of Administration as President of the Board of Administration "j Ihe Private Property. of the Private Property. B.MITALIS Ar.OSTON, Dr. B ocskor B é l a , :i> a Member of Ilie Board of Administration as a Member of the Board of Administration ••I Ihe Private Property. of the Private Property.

r>r. P a l G a b o r , Dr. L àszlô D ezsô, :is Senator for the Comital of Ciuc (Csik). as Deputy for the Comital of Ciuc (Csik). — 3 i —

VI.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT. Geneva, May 8th, 1930.

In your letters No. 4/16708/3442 dated .January 6th and No. 4/16880/3442 dated •January 10th last you were good enough to send me for the observations of my Government two supplementary memoranda from the " representatives of the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment " relating to a matter which has already been laid before a Committee of the Council. in the first place, my Government has instructed me to assure you, and through your kind ollices the members of the Committee of the Council, that, contrary to the assertion in one of the supplementary memoranda mentioned above, it has never attempted nor will it in future attempt to speed up Ihe clearance of the land claimed in the petition with a view to modifying the present de judo situation. Moreover, it would be materially impossible for the Government to do so, since out of an area of rather more than 30,000 hectares of forest land expropriated, the Stale is at present in possession of only 8,700 hectares — i.e., less than 30 per cent, the remainder having already been distributed as communal forests to the various communes of the district which have the right not only to use but to dispose of them as they think fit. As regards the portion of the forests which still belong to the State, the latter is working them in the normal way, and during the last few years the sales haw related only to perishable timber and certain other essential matters. Moreover, no other action is possible, since these are State forests and are consequently subject to the general rules of administration. Far from jeopardising the future of these forests, the State is endeavouring to preserve them, and its only regret is that it is obliged to respect three long-term selling contracts concluded by the former “ Administration of the Private Property and for which the price was received in advance by that Administration, in respect of an area of 1,773 hectares of forests, which the State will be obliged to replant at its own expense. As regards the second supplementary memorandum accompanying your letter of January 10th last, my Government does not consider that this contains anything of importance to the discussion and therefore does not propose to go into the matter. The nature, scope and extent of the Roumanian agrarian reform are too well known, and my Government is reluctant to dwell on this point. A radical alteration in the structure of rural property in Roumania was necessary, and it has involved great sacrifices. These were general and I hey were unavoidable. The Crown and the State alike participated in them ; foundations, collective and individual property were all affected. Even the religious foundations most intimately connected with the traditions of the country were included. The land was expropriated in Transylvania in the same way as in the rest of the Kingdom and in application of the same general principle. In the observations1 which 1 had the honour to submit on January 9th last, my Government explained at length the manner in which the agrarian reform has operated in respect of the property formerly held by the Szekler? and the property of Nâsaud and Caransebes. In the first case, that of the Szeklers, the property belonged to the State ; the agrarian law was therefore applied, as in every case of State ownership ; the small quantity of arable land was expropriated and divided up and the pasture-land and forests were also expropriated and distributed among the communes in the form of communal pasture land and forests. As regards the other two categories of property, that of Nâsaud and Caransebes, this wa? joint property belonging to the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards in those two districts. What did the agrarian law provide ? In the case of the Nâsaud property, the law provided that it should be left undivided and assigned in full ownership not only to the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards, as in the past, but to the whole popula­ tion of the district, irrespective of nationality and religion. There again the pasture land became communal pasture land and the forests communal forests. As regards the Caransebes property, the agrarian commissions found that I he population consisted entirely of the descen­ dants of the frontier guards and that, if their land had been taken over and distributed according to the agrarian law, the quantity would have been insufficient and it was therefore decided not to proceed to the expropriation, since the persons to be expropriated and the persons to be provided with land \\ ere i he same. In the three cases all that was done was to apply the same principles on which the agrarian reform is based, and if any person? were, entitled to complain of differential treatment it would be, as stated in the Rouma­ nian Government’s observations of January 9th last, the descendants of the frontier guard? of Nasaud, whose rights were curtailed by reason of their extension to all the inhabitants of the district. As regards the Roumanian laws of 1925 and 19‘29 mentioned by the petitioners in their supplementary memorandum, those laws, which were promulgated after the agrarian reform had been carried out, refer exclusively to administration, and their object is to strengthen the State’s right of control and supervision but in no wise to grant property rights. Consequently, the Roumanian Government fails to see the connection between those law? and the question under discussion. 1 have the honour, etc. (Signed) Antoniadk.

1 jVûie ty the Secretariat. — See page 25. 35 —

VII

LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINORITIES SECTION TO HIS EXCELLENCY MONSIEUR C. ANTONIADE, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROUMANIA TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Geneva, June 19th, 1930.

I have the honour to inform you that the Minorities Committee, consisting of the represen­ tatives of Persia (President), Great Britain and Finland, which is examining the petitions from the representatives of the members of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment (docu­ ments C.502.1929.I, C.33 and G.266.1930.I) held a further meeting on May 12th, at which it took note of the supplementary petitions and the information which you communicated to me on May 8th on behalf of the Royal Roumanian Government for the use of the Committee. The Committee, after examining all the documents furnished, found that there were a certain number of points on which it would like to have more precise information before reaching a decision on the question submitted to it. The Committee has accordingly instructed me to ask you whether it would be possible for the Roumanian Government to send to it through me supplementary information on the following points : 1. The Committee is anxious to have at its disposal the authentic text of the Hungarian Government’s Memorandum addressed to the Emperor Francis Joseph I on January 23rd, 1869, and also of the Resolution adopted by the Emperor on the basis of this Memorandum, on February 16th of that year. This document is reproduced as Annex No. 9 to the Petition of June 25th, 1929, contained in document C. 502.1929.1, and certain passages of the Emperor’s Resolution are reproduced in the decision of the Agrarian Committee which forms Annex No. 3 to the said Petition. The Committee has discovered certain discrepancies between these two versions and would be very glad to have an authentic text of these documents. 2. The Committee has not found in the documents before it sufficient data to enable it to ascertain the exact purpose to which the property in question was assigned prior to the derision of the Agrarian Committee of February 26th, 1923, and the use to which this property is being put at the present time. In particular, it wishes to know what has been done with property which cannot be used for purposes of the agrarian reform and, as regards pasture land and forests, to which communes they have been allocated in the form of communal properties. 3. The Committee would like to have supplementary explanations as regards the form in which the property in question was entered in the land register, prior to the Agrarian Committee’s decision of 1923. The references to this special point in the Agrarian Committee’s decision are not, in the opinion of the Committee, sufficiently detailed to enable it to reach any conclusion, and it would be grateful to the Roumanian Government if the latter would furnish fuller particulars on this point. Finally, the Committee has asked me to remind you of the recommendation made at its last meeting in regard to the clearing and exploitation of the forests. It considered that it was right in interpreting the information communicated on this matter in your Note of May 8th, 1930, to mean that the protective measures apply not only to the 8,700 hectares in the possession of the State, but also to the forests, covering a total area of some 30,000 hec­ tares, which have been allocated as communal forests to the various communes of the district. The Committee would be glad if the Roumanian Government would be good enough to confirm that this interpretation is correct. 1 need not add that the Committee would be particularly grateful if the Roumanian Government could send it such information as that Government may be in a position to furnish on the above-mentioned points in t me for the Committee to take note of that information at the further meeting which it proposes to hold during the forthcoming session of the Council.

(Signed) P. d e A zc ar ate. LETTER, WITH THREE ANNEXES, FROM HIS EXCELLENCY M. C. ANTONIADE, REPRESENTATIVE OF ROUMANIA TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINORITIES SECTION.

Geneva, September 3rd, 1930.

In your letter 4/15660 /3442 of June 19th last you were good enough to indicate certain points in regard to which the Minorities Committee, which is examining the petitions of the representatives of the members of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment, is anxious to have further particulars. I am in a position to communicate to you all the desired explanations. As regards the texts requested I have the honour to send you a certified copy of the German text of the Memorandum of the three Hungarian ministers, addressed to the Emperor Francis Joseph I, of January 23rd, 1869, and also of the Imperial Resolution of February 16th of the same year. (See Annex 1, page 38). As regards the other particulars requested, my Government has made the most careful investigations with a view to meeting the wishes of the Committee of Three. The result of those investigations is given in the following explanations :

A. Purpose to which the properly was assigned prior to the Agrarian Committee's decision of February 26lh, 1923. In accordance with the Imperial decision of February 16th, 1869, this property was to be used for purposes of public utility and for the welfare of the population of the district. This purpose was confirmed by the entry in the land registers in which this property is stated to belong “ to the population of Ciuc ” (in Hungarian “ Czikmegye Kôsônsege ”). In Î909 a Statute governing the administration of this property was drawn up ; I his Statute, although it was not approved by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Worship and Education, replaced a previous Statute of 1897 (which had been approved by that Department). In accordance with this new Statute all the property which, under the previous Statutes had been divided into five “ funds ” : clothing, industrial, redemption, organisation and mountain property funds, was grouped together in a single fund known as the “ clothing fund ”. This was to be used for : (a) the establishment, upkeep or assistance of institutions for the promotion of agriculture, arts and crafts, industry, commerce, and general education and culture of the population ; (b) the assistance, by means of scholarships or grants, of persons wishing to improve their agricultural, industrial or commercial knowledge ; (c) the granting of loans at a low rate of interest. Hence, the Roumanian population of the district was completely and systematically deprived of the advantages resulting from the administration of the property in question of which the Magyar population had the sole benefit. As regards the administration and exploitation of this property, we would point out that the Szekler population of Ciuc never had the direct use of the property in question, but only the indirect use by means of leasing or the sale of material — on the one hand, because it was already provided, frequently in excess of its needs, with land and forests, which it owned either individually or collectively, and on the other because the Szekler communes were situated at a distance varying from 50 to 150 kilometres from the property in question. The pasture land, meadows and arable land were usually leased to the Roumanian population of the communes of Bilbor, Corbu, Tulghes and Bicaz, which adjoined the property in question and the inhabitants of which had no land whatever. The exploitation of the forests usually took the form of sales to large contractors for annual fellings covering periods of five to fifteen years. Thus, in March 1923, when the property in question was taken over by the State, the latter found that contracts had been concluded by the former Administration and were being carried out, covering 12,490 arpents of forests for annual fellings, and those contracts had to be respected. (The essential stipulations of the contracts can be placed at the disposal of the Committee of Three should it desire to have them.)

B. Use lo which the property is being put at Ihe present time. To enable us to give the Committee of Three the information which it requires we must distinguish between two classes of property : (a) Property employed for the purposes of the agrarian reform. —- In this connection 1 have the honour to transmit (see Annex 2) a detailed table showing the allocation of this property according to kind (cultivable land, pasture land, forests, etc.) and the various categories of beneficiaries. — 37 —

We would mention that among the communes which received communal pasture land and forests are Ditrau and Tulghes, whose population consists mainly of Szeklers — a fact which excludes any idea of partiality. (b) Property not affected by the agrarian reform. — Under this heading come buildings, installations and all movable property in general. A list of this property, indicating, as regards buildings, the purpose for which they were used before and after they were taken over by the State, is given in Annex 3.

G. Form in which the properly was entered in the land register prior to the Agrarian Committee’s decision of 1923. At the time the land registers were made out, between 1870 and 1876, this property was entered as belonging to the districts of Ciuc, Gheorgheni and Casin (in Hungarian, Czik, Gvergyo and Kaszonszek) ; subsequent modifications in the entries were made in the name of the “ public of the district of Ciuc ” (in Hungarian, Csikvarmegye Kôsônsege) and not as “ private property ” (in Hungarian, Magànjavâk). As regards the last point in your above-mentioned letter, I have the honour to inform you that the interpretation given by the Committee of Three to the information which I had the honour to communicate in my Note of May 8th last is the right one. In accordance with the Law relating to communal forests of July 1st, 1924, all these forests and consequently those of Ciuc also are administered — from the point of view of the forest regime — by the State. Felling may only take place in accordance with the regulations drawn up by the forest officials of the State. Consequently, there is no fear of the trees in those forests being cut down to an undue extent. I beg to quote certain figures which will give you full reassurance on this matter. From 1923 to 1930 200 arpents of forests belonging to churches, 42.22 arpents belonging to the commune of Corbu and 75.2 arpents belonging to the commune of Tulghes were exploited in all. representing, in proportion to the whole of the forests distributed, less than the normal exploitation for two years. Further, it was decided that 1,000 arpents of the Steja-Fagatel forest should be converted into pasture land, and of this area 637.45 arpents have already been cleared, the remaining 362.55 arpents having been kept as protective zones against the action of water.

(Signed) Antoniade. Annex 1.

[Translation from the German.]

HAUS-, HOF- UNO STAATSARCHIV, VIENNA.

Report of the Royal Hungarian Ministers of the Interior, Finance and Justice, of January 23 r d , 1869 (No. 10598/868), concerning the Restitution of and Settlement in Regard to the Movable and Immovable Property administered by the Treasury of the Disbanded Transylvanian Szekler Regiments of Infantry and Hussars.

Sire, In view of the attached report (No. ) of the Royal Government of Transylvania, and the petition (No. 2) from the Comitat of Csik, we have examined the legal situation and history of the ownership of the movable and immovable property of the Szekler infantry and hussar frontier guard regiments seized for the benefit of the Treasury at the time of the disbanding of these regiments in 1851, and we are now in a position to submit for Your Majesty’s decision the results of the examination of the attached documents 3, 4 and 5. The historical facts, which are closely interrelated and on which the present memorandum is based, arc the following : The line of military defence organised on the south-east frontier of Hungary in the seventeenth century, part ly by colonisation and partly in connection with privileges granted to the autochthonous population, was extended or completed in Transylvania by the establishment in 1762 to 1764 of frontier guard regiments in Transylvania. The zone to be defended by those regiments included the portion of the Szekler territory bordering on Moldavia-Wallachia over a length of some 20 or ‘25 miles and in particular Csikzék and Hàromszék. The Szekler population, however, strongly opposed the organisation of the military borders, and its resistance was only overcome at the beginning of January 176-1, by armed force, after conflicts involving bloodshed. This resistance was due not so much to the fact that, while in the other districts the frontier guards were accorded financial assistance proportionate to the charges imposed upon them, partly in the form of exemption from compulsory services and partly by allocation of State lands, in the Szekler country the Government did not have these means at its disposal and could not therefore assist the frontier guard regiments in this way ; it arose mainly from the constitutional position of the Szekler nation. For this reason, although we do not propose to retrace the historical development of the Constitution, in order to explain the attitude of the Government at that time, we venture to point out, first, that the Szekler nation possessed the land in question by right of conquest and that the Crown consequently had no right of succession to this land and could not therefore be the owner of it, and. secondlv, that as every member of the Szekler nation was of noble birth he was personally liable for national defence. As a result of this obligation of national defence, the Szekler nation was divided into three classes : The first was the class of the Primones (higher nobility), each member of which was obliged to furnish several soldiers ; the second was that- of the Primipili (the middle clas? of nobles), who discharged their military duties as mounted troops ; and the third that of the Pixidarii (lower nobility), who fought on foot.

As, after the Peace of Szathmar, this national defence organisation appeared to be out of date, the Szekler district commands were successively abolished between 1713 and 17"2V. and, after that time, the Szekler nation as such was no longer called up for military purposes, although th e division into classes still existed and served as a basis for the allocation of t lie fiscal charges. The two lower classes were required to pay taxes, while the military obligation? instituted in 1762-1764 were likewise limited to these classes, the Pixidarii being armed a? infantry frontier guards and the Primipili as cavalry frontier guards (hussars). The P r im ip ili and Pixidarii of Csiksék and Hàromszék considered that it was unconstitutional that they should have to bear the double burden of taxation and frontier defence when the Primones, with whom they were equal before the law, were exempted from taxation ; this was the reason for their opposition to the institution of the frontier guards in 1761, which had to be overcome by force of arms. We would add that the equipment of the frontier guards was supplied by their families, so that every family of Pixidarii was required to furnish, equip and maintain one infantry frontier guard and every family of Primipili one cavalry frontier guard. — 39 —

In 1764, the Szekler frontier guards consisted of two infantry regiments and one hussar regiment. As, however, the families of Csikszék and Hàromszék who were to furnish the hussars were not sufficiently numerous to make up the strength of the regiment, in later years the Comitat of Avanyo, part of the Comitats of Udvarhely and of Felsô-Fejer and Also- Fejer, part of the district of Fogaras, the Comitat of Hunyad and the wealthy ecclesiastical nobles of the district of Dobra were also armed and incorporated in the Szekler hussar regiment, of which they formed an integral part, with the result that the number of hussar families considerably exceeded the normal strength of a regiment. Both the infantry and the cavalry frontier guards, especially at first, regarded the obliga­ tion to find their own outfit as the most oppressive military charge of all. The difficulties in obtaining uniform clothing for the soldiers were almost insurmountable owing to the small amount of money in circulation and to the differences in financial resources. During the work of military organisation in August 1769, the frontier between the territories of the Hungarian Crown lands and Turkey was delimited and the new frontier was marked out. On this occasion, on the frontier of Csikszék and Hàromszék in Moldavia- Wallachia, several mountain districts were recovered, which, owing to the uncertainty as to the precise position of the frontier, had been the subject of frequent disputes between the Transylvanian owners on the one hand and the Moldavian-Wallachian owners on the other, or which the Moldavians or Wallachians had illegally occupied in the seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century, taking advantage of the unhappy internal dissensions in Transylvania at that time. The mountain districts re-occupied by Transylvania on this occasion were at first ownerless, and could be used by anyone. In the course of less than ten years, however, the more powerful communes and families acquired possession of these lands to the exclusion of the poorer arms-bearing class. Complaints were accordingly made to the military authorities and through them to His Imperial Majesty. In order to remove these grievances, Your Majesty’s predecessor, the late Emperor Joseph II, commanded, by Besolution No. 3680, of May 27th, 1783,1 that the recovered land should be handed over for the use and remuneration of the frontier guard soldiers. In pursuance of this resolution, the military frontier authorities, in the spring of 1784, occupied the land in question without the intervention of the civil authorities, the first Szekler infantry regiment occupying the mountains within the borders of Csikszék, and the second Szekler infantry regiment those situated on the boundary of Hàromszék which were regarded as having been recovered. They immediately began to exercise the right of ownership for the benefit of the frontier guards and leased it out on their behalf ; the rents thus collected were divided every year in equal shares among the frontier guard families. This attitude of the military authorities gave rise to innumerable complaints ; the plaintiffs included those who had been dispossessed by the actual occupation of their land ; those who owned the adjacent land and regarded the mountains recovered as belonging to their own domains, and those who hoped to establish their rights over the mountains in question on the basis of oral traditions or documents. With a view to the thorough examination and proper settlement of these complaints, the Royal Hungarian Chancellory ordered, by Rescript No. 14860, issued on December 5th, 17^5, and supplemented by further observations in Rescripts Nos. 149 and 6890 (3. 2.) of January 9th and July 3rd, 1786 respectively, “ that the property of all who furnished satisfactory evidence to the effect that they had the actual and legitimate possession prior to 1769 of a portion of the territory occupied by the frontier guards should be restored ”, For this purpose, the applicants were allowed one year to submit their claims and this was published through the civil authorities. In order to substantiate their claims through administrative channels, those concerned submitted the following applications through the Royal Government : I. As regards the mountains situated within the borders of Csikzsék : (a) the family of Count Lazar, in respect of Mounts Galret and Capra ; (b) the communes of Csik and Szt. Màrton and Csekefalva in respect of the mountain districts of Tôlgyesmezô, Tolgyessark, Magyaros, Soveto and Kissaj ; (c) the commune of Hatfalu (upper Csik) in respect of the Tynkos range ; (d) the so-called Vierthalb (Negyedfel) Comitat (Middle Csik) in respect of the Borda range, and finally (e) as the representatives of the Comitat of C.sik regarded the re-occupied mountains as the exclusive property of the Comitat, the latter transferred its claim, in virtue of a decision of the “ Markal-Congregation ” of December 12th, 1798, by deed, to the school of Csik-Somlyo ; under this deed the director of the school, Father Josef Andrâsi, sought to establish a claim to the exclusive usufruct of the mountains in question. II. As regards the mountains situated within the borders of Hàromszék, the following applications were submitted ; (a) by the town of Bereczk in respect of parts of Sôsmezô and Lipse ; (b) by the communes of Lemhény, Nyitod, Szâszfalu, Almas, and Csomortôn m respect of the Zsiros and Kis range ; (c) by the family of Baron Szt. Kereszti in respect °f the Hossu range, and finally (d) by the commune of Osdola is respect of the other part of Hie Lipse range and of the Musot range.

1 -'Voie by the Secretary-General. — The petitioners have pointed out that this is obv iously wrong. The Government proposal Lears this date and number. The Imperial Resolution is dated August 27th, 1783, and bears the number 14' (see Petitioners’ Note, page 11). — 40

These applications were examined by the Royal Government, the Court Chancellory, the military Government of Transylvania, the Treasury and the Royal Procurator’s Court, but no action wras taken until 1813, as may be seen sub 3/3. From the long-drawn-out negotiations between the authorities in question in regard to the claims submitted twro points clearly emerged : (1) a very large part of the land occupied by the military frontier authorities in 1784 could not be regarded as recovered, and (2) since ownership of land in the Szekler country was based on an original right of occupation and there w-as, therefore, no royal charter (donation) or deed of ownership, the parties concerned were not in a position clearly to establish their title to those mountain districts, which the Moldavians also had gradually occupied over a century, and for this reason many — and, in particular, the military communes — did not submit their claims. The decision reproduced sub 3/3 was given on October 29th, 1813. In accordance w'ith the terms of this decision, the mountains claimed by the so-called Comitat of Vierthalb (Negyedfélmegye), the family of Baron Szt. Kereszti, and the communes of Osdola, Bereczk, Lémhény, Nyujtod, Almas, Csomorton, Szâszfalu and Sârfalva were allotted to them, but the other applicants were instructed to submit their claims through the ordinary courts. This decision, however, was never carried into effect, because the frontier guards, owing to the obligation to provide their outfit at their own expense, had been obliged after the lapse of some years to suspend the division of the revenues from t he leasing of the land in question, and had established a common regimental fund for the purchase of clothing to which these revenues wrere assigned ; this fund rendered great service during the campaigns of 1808 to 1812 and effectively reduced the charges of the frontier guard families. For this reason, the maintenance of the fund wras virtually a condition for the maintenance of the Szekler military frontier, and, in view of the conditions obtaining in 1813, this circumstance was regarded as sufficiently important to justify — in deference to the protests of the military authorities — the non-execution of the decision. Thus, the mountain districts occupied in 1784 by the Szekler frontier guards remained in the possession of the regiments responsible for the defence of the frontier until 1851 when they were disbanded, and the proceeds from the leasing of the land were paid into the clothing fund of the regiment. The families of the hussars of Csikszék and Hàromszék received proportionate shares of the proceeds from the leasing of the land, and paid them into a special clothing fund which was their property. We would emphasise that the fund thus created by the families of Csikszék and Hàromszék hussars belonged solely to the three squadrons of hussars in Csikszék and Hàromszék, and not to the whole regiment of hussars. Besides the above-mentioned fund, the Szekler hussars possessed another fund belonging to the whole regiment — namely, the fund for the purchase of horses. W7e have already referred to the comparatively heavy charge which the families of hussars had to bear on account of the obligation to purchase and maintain a horse, and we have also mentioned that, owing to the subsequent recruiting of the hussar regiment in several other parts of Transylvania, the regiment included more families than were absolutely necessary for making up its normal strength. These two concurrent circumstances led to the formation of the fund for the purchase of horses even at the time of the French campaigns. It was stipulated that families released from service and from the maintenance of a horse, either because they had no able-bodied man to send to the army or because their horse having died, they were unable to carry out their obligations until such defects had been made good, should (a), for the period during which they failed to perform their service, pay an annual quota into the fund for the purchase of horses, this quota representing the sum which they would have had to pay for the maintenance of a horse, and (b) should take from their payments the price of a horse as soon as the sum paid in was adequate and the family was in a position to furnish a soldier. This fund for the purchase of horses was thus created out of the private fortune of the hussar families. This, then, is a short account of the origin and development of the property of the Szekln frontier guard regiments down to the end of the year 1848. During the events of 1848, the Szekler frontier guard regiments were called upon to defend the legal Constitution, and as during the past century the military borders hail tn-en converted into a veritable military colony in which all men were trained soldiers, greater military forces were available in the Szekler district than in other districts. Your Majesty’s Military Government set up after 1849, declared the attitude of the Szekler frontier guard regiments — dictated by the tragic circumstances of the time — to be a breach of their military oath of allegiance ; for this reason and in order to repair the damage caused, according to military opinion, to the State, as a result of the Szeklers having taken an active part in the war, the Government in 1851 ordered the whole of the regiments’ movable and immovable property mentioned above sub 5/1 to be confiscated and at the same time abolished the institution of the frontier guards in Transylvania. With regard to this confiscation, we would add that the account books and vouchers relating to the funds in question were to a large extent mislaid or destroyed during the disturbances in 1848-49, so that the Treasury was only able to seize the amount that was actually in the coffers, and that this fund was not paid into the Treasury, but was administered separately and lent to the State Sinking Fund at 3 per cent interest (sub 5/2). F — 41 —

In accordance with Your Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty’s Resolution of January 22nd, 1851, ordering the abolition of all the frontier guard regiments in Transylvania, instruc­ tions wrere also given that all necessary steps should be taken for the settlement once and for all of the matter of the recovered mountain districts. This order was not executed until August 26th, 1861, after the institution of the so-called “ Direct Commission This Commission was, strictly speaking, only set up to deal with those of the recovered mountain districts which had been occupied by the Transylvanian-Wallachian frontier guard regiments and were still actually in their possession after they were disbanded ; but in actual fact the Commission extended its activities to the mountains situated within the Szekler frontier region and. by its decision of December 31st, 1863, determined the claims of all those to whom possessions in the mountains had already been legally allotted in 1813. Furthermore, the Commission, by a special decree issued in 1864, finally settled the position with regard to the districts allocated to the communes of Csik, Szt. Mârton and Csekefalva and in 1864, on the strength of these decrees, the Treasury handed over the districts in question to the successful parties. Accordingly, the mountain districts in the possession of the second Szekler frontier guard regiment and those in the possession of the first Szekler frontier guard regiment — Borda, Tôlgyessark, Tôlgyesmzô, Magyaros and K issaj — w ere handed over to the parties (5 /3). The following claims were put forward in respect of the mountain districts still in the possession of the Treasury : by the authorities of the Comitat of Csik in respect of the whole, the communes of Csik, Szt. Gyôrgy and Bânkfalva in respect of the districts of Solyomtar and Keresztes and the commune of the Sub-Comitat of Kâszon in respect of the Baska district. In 1861 and 1862, however, the communal authorities of Csikszék and Hàromszék applied for the restoration of the funds, and the former frontier guard families applied on several occasions in particular for the return of the fund for the purchase of horses. In view of the various sources of the property involved in these fresh applications, Your Majesty’s Government at that time adopted a different legal point of view in regard to such property. With regard to the mountain districts still in the possession of the Treasury, the Govern­ ment, on the assumption that these were the joint property of the frontier guard regiments of Csikszék, endeavoured to justify the grounds on which the property had been seized and confiscated and further maintained that the Treasury had an absolute right to the property and declared these districts to be State domains (5/2). Taking its stand on this argument, it also endeavoured to represent the clothing fund as part of the revenue from the mountain districts and thus as State property, while, on the other hand, it recognised that the fund for the purchase of horses was the property of the hussar families and raised no objection to this fund being divided between the families which had contributed towards it and could bring satisfactory proof to this effect. In view of this interpretation of the position with regard to the restitution of the fund for ! he purchase of horses, it became necessary to ascertain (1) the amount of the claims to lie substantiated by the hussar families, and (2) the total sum administered by the Treasury und.T this head, and this preliminary work was begun with the Proclamation of the Royal llo\ eminent of 1865 (5/4), which laid down a period of one year, after the expiration of which no idaims could be preferred or proved. The preliminary work in connection with this plan of distribution soon disclosed the fact that a fair distribution as between individual families was impossible. It was impossible not only because the cash reserve at the lime of the confiscation in 1851 was in Hungarian bank-notes and had been destroyed, but also because the contribution vouchers of many of the families had been lost during the intervening eighteen years and these families were therefore unable to substantiate their claims, while other families claimed sums which had already been reimbursed. Owing to the loss of the books, it was impossible to control and verity all the facts and it was consequently proposed that the fund for the purchase of horses administered by the Treasury should be divided on the basis of the individual claims proved. This is the history of the movable and immovable property of the Szekler frontier guard regiments, and this was the position at the time when, by Your Majesty’s grace, we were called to the Government of the countries of the Hungarian Crown. At the present time, the property of the Szekler frontier guard regiments under the administration of Your Majesty’s Hungarian Finance Minister is the following : 1 ) The mountain lands situated within the boundary-line of the Comitat of Csik, tin revenue from which, during the years 1784 to 1849, was used by the first Szekler infantry regiment to constitute the clothing fund and which, with the exception of the land restored to the Comitat of Vierlhalb and the communes of Szt. Mârton and Csekefalva, are under the administration of the State Forest Officers of Gyergyô, Szt. Miklôs and Kàszon-Ujfalu and consists of 1,160 arpents, 508 co of arable land, 5,515 arpents, 64 □<> of meadow land, 11.117 arpents, 333 üo of pasture land and 52,094 arpents, 393 D° of forest land, the annual yield of which is generally absorbed by the costs of administration. '*) The clothing funds, which, according to an inventory drawn up in 1854 at the time °f the confiscation, consisted of the following sums : The clothing fund of the first Szekler Infantry Regiment : 52,569 florins 4 crowns, that of the second Szekler Infantry Regiment 9,681 tlorins 31 crowns and that of the Szekler Hussars 14,029 florins 40 crowns. 3) The fund for the purchase of horses of the hussar regiment amounted at the time the confiscation to 49,958 llorins 44 crowns. (4) Two houses in the watering-place of Borszék (Gyergyô). 5) The schools at Csikszereda, Szt. Màrton, Kezdi Vasârhely and Sepsi Szt. Gyôrgy. — 42 —

(6) The buildings required for the accommodation of the regiments at Csikszereda, Kezdi Vâsârhely and Sepsi Szt. Gyôrgy, also the land and buildings in the communes of Uzon. Bôlôn, N. Ajta, Zagon, N. Borosnyô, Polyân, Tôves, Dobra, Bâgyon, Ditro, Csflt; Kozmâs, Bânkfalva, Somlyô, Menesâg, Szt. Domokos, Gyergyô, Szt. Miklôs and KâszoR- Ujfalu needed for the battalions, companies and sections and not sold before 1866. In order to be able to examine the claims to ownership in respect of this property £n(j' to submit an opinion, it is necessary to enumerate and classify the property according to its origin. * - * (1) The first question which arises in connection with the mountains igtd land at present administered by the Treasury is that of the Treasury’s right to that'property — a right asserted by Your Majesty’s former Government. This right was based on the taking over of the property in Uf^Tand its subsequent confiscation as a result of the events of 1849. / v ' In your wisdom, Your Majesty wras good enough to cancel all the sentences and confisca­ tions to which the events of 1848 and 1849 had given rise ; therefore, the Treasury’s right based on confiscations does not stand, and we will consequently take the liberty of leaving the claims of the Treasury to this land and the other property concerned based on this argument out of consideration altogether. There remains to be considered the question whether, when the frontier was delimited in 1769, the recovery of the land established the Treasury’s right of ownership over that kind or not. In this connection, we would refer to the legal position of the Szekler territory, which we have outlined in the introduction to this report and which excludes the right of the Crown to any part of that territory by domainal right. We would refer to 1, Section 8, Chapter II (Part of the A.O.), in which the Transylvanian crown lands are specifically enumerated, and also to the fact that the mountains in question were acquired, not by force of arms, but by the procedure of delimitation of the frontier, and do not therefore represent fresh acquisitions but merely the natural consequence of the- re­ establishment of the former frontier and property rights which had become effaced as a consequence of the unstable situation and the way in which the internal dissensions had been exploited. We would refer to the resolution of His Majesty the Emperor Joseph II. of May 27th. 17831 (3/1), to the effect that the mountains recovered should be handed over unconditionally (without exception) for the use of the frontier guards, and would point out that the original division of the revenue from the mountain lands among the families, and. later, the formation of the clot hing fund and the resultant mitigat ion of the financial charge imposed upon I lie Szekler frontier troops by the obligation to provide their own outfit, cannot be based on the right of the Treasury, but only on the property rights of the Comitat of Csik which forms the military frontier. In view of the foregoing, we humbly conclude that the Treasury has no right to the mountains recovered on the outskiits of Csikszék, at present administered by the Treasury, on account of the taking over of those mountains. While we regard it as our highest duty to defend the true and legitimate interests of the Treasury everywhere and against everyone, at the same time we believe that we are obliged by considerations of a legal order, to express our opinion freely and to advise Your Majesty to act in accordance with justice, even if this should mean acting against the interests of the Treasury. In our humble opinion, the movable and immovable property of the Szekler frontier guard regiments is being administered by the Treasury solely on account of its confiscation, but as, in your wisdom, Your Majesty has cancelled the legal grounds of the confiscation, the Treasury’s rights to this land can only be derived from investments or contracts, if any. The second question which arises in connection with the ownership of the mountains and lands referred to is that of the claims submitted by the Communes of Nagy Kâszon. Csik Szt. Gyôrgy and Bânkfalva during the years 1856 to 1862 ; these claims, however, apart from the fact that they are not based on any properly substantiated public documents, have, in our opinion, lapsed, as the communes in question have preferred no claims, either through administrative channels or through the courts during the years from 1784 (when the mountain districts of Baska, Solyomtar and Ixeresztes claimed by them were occupied) until 1856 and 1862 respectively, and thus cannot, under the terms of Section 2, Chapter 78. Part 1 of the Tripartite Agreement and of Point 24 of the Constitution of 1555, be made the subject of an examination on their merits. Moreover, the statement of the Commune of Nagy Kâszon. to the effect that “ the mountain of Baska had been handed over to the joint clothing fund on the strength of a mutually binding agreement, on condition that such agreement should hold good as long as the military frontier was maintained” does not seem to be substantiated in any way, and the agitation for the defence of these property rights, which is attested by the numerous petitions received from the communes between the years 1768 and 1798. would seem to point to the improbability of this statement. We are. therefore, of opinion that the claims of the communes in question should be rejected without being examined on their merits.

1 See note on page 39. 43 —

In view of all these circumstances, we are bound to regard the mountains in question as the joint property of the Comitat of Csik. Since the legitimate owners before 1769 were tillable or unwilling to get their claims to these districts recognised at the proper time, the right of ownership now? reverts fully and completely to those who have possessed the land in .good faith for nearly a century, and since the de [ado owner was the commune of Csikszék which had furnished recruits to the first Szekler frontier guard regiment, we are of opinion that, th&recovered mountains situated within the territory of Csikszék and still administered * bv thé'Treasury should be restored to the Comitat of Csik, which constituted the first Szekler > infantry raim ent, irrespective of religion or nationality, as its joint and indivisible property.

(2) As regar

(3) With regard to the fund for the purchase of horses, we are unable to share the view of Your Majesty’s previous Government that “ this fund is the property of those hussar families who can prove that they contributed to it ”, since the hussar families who did not actually perform military service paid into this fund only as much as those who performed such service spent on the maintenance of their horses. Since both these categories of families spent the same amount of money for the common purposes of the regiment — with the sole difference that the contribution of the former was saved and capitalised, while that of the latter was spent on the maintenance of horses and thus used up — and since the obligation to perform military service was the same for all of them, those who did not serve and who would, in addition, have the sums thus saved restored to them, would be doubly favoured, and those who served would suffer a twofold injustice, inasmuch as they would be excluded from receiving a share of the money saved as a result of their service. Apart from the fact we mentioned above, that a fair division among the individual families is not possible, we are bound, in the light of the legal arguments advanced above, to regard the fund for the purchase of horses as the joint property of the whole regiment of hus.-ars, and would therefore propose that no attempt be made to divide this fund between the individual families, but that the amount still being administered by the Treasury should be restored to the Szekler families which constituted the hussar regiment, with common and equal rights.

4) With regard to the two houses in Borszék, we would propose that they be made available during the bathing season for indigent sick Szeklers and only part of the buildings be leased to provide for the upkeep of the latter.

5) The schools at Csikszereda, Kézdi, Yâsârhely and Sepsi Szt. Gyôrgy should, together with their foundation capital, be converted into industrial schools.

16 ) The barracks and all other property and buildings should, in so far as they are required, in the first place by the State and, in the second by the Comitats. be leased to them in that order. The remaining buildings, etc., should, however, be sold under the supervision °f the Hungarian Minister of the Interior and the proceeds of the sale should go to swell the foundation capital of the schools mentioned in (5).

i,7) The sum derived from the yield of the mountain lands from 1851 until January 1st, should remain the property of the Hungarian Treasury.

These are the views w e would submit to Your Majesty regarding the confiscated property 01 the Szekler frontier guard regiments. Nevertheless, although the methodical examination °f the legal claims put forward has led us to propose the restitution of the property and respoetfully to suggest to Your Majesty the desirability of taking into account the legitimate claims of the former Szekler frontier guard regiments, we cannot, if we regard the matter from a higher standpoint, feel that we had done our whole duty if we simply proposed the restitution of the property. We realise that the simple restitution of the movable and — 44 — %

immovable property in question, without explicit conditions, would scarcely be in the real interest of those who received it. The unrestricted restitution of the property would mean that the forests which have up to the present been scientifically exploited would soon be destroyed, and the funds restored would be wasted by being divided up among the various families. The resulting destruction of the national capital represented by the forests, as also the impossibility of maintaining the level of prosperity attained for a short time as the result of the distribution of the money, would have very regrettable consequences. In our opinion, the welfare and material and intellectual prosperity of the various districts is intimately bound up with that of the State as a whole, and it is the duty of the Government to devote its efforts to those territories which bear in them the promise of future progress. This is especially the duty of Your Majesty’s Hungarian Government in the present case, as the former Szekler military frontier is a territory where the population has grown steadily poorer since 1850, and the impoverishment of the inhabitants is compelling them to emigrate to Moldavia and Wallachia as daily labourers, to the detriment of the labour market of the country. The cause of this impoverishment is to be found in local conditions, and we would venture to make the following observations : Nine-tenths of the territory of the Gomitat of Csik, and seven-tenths of Hàromszék. consist of mountain ranges and forests, and the population of both Comitats is consequently, in the nature of things, dependent on the breeding of live-stock and upon the timber trade, and, secondly, on handicrafts and industrial occupations, and also upon mining. In order, however, that live-stock-breeding should continue to be a steady source of income, it must be so organised as to allow of sufficient fodder being produced over a relatively restricted area of arable and meadow land to last through the seven months of winter. The timber trade requires the rational organisation of the forests, and both that trade and the exercise of handicrafts and industrial occupations demand professional knowledge and cheap money ; all these are lacking in the territory in question. The economic conditions are the same as they were centuries ago when the population was only a tenth of the present figure and its requirements and standard of living were much simpler. The economic conditions obtaining in the mountain districts, which constitute such a rich source of income for the population of Switzerland and the Tyrol, are unknown in this country, and it is therefore not in the interests of the population that the land should be exploited by the same methods. The forests arc gradually being destroyed as a result of their unrestricted joint use bj the community. The heavy charges imposed upon the population in recent years have led to a reduction of live-stock as being that part of their capital which can be most easily realised, and the amount of live-stock available for export in this territory is smaller than it was before 1848. Industries are scarcely above the most primitive level and cannot meet local requirements. Owing to scarcity of money, the interest on the capital loaned is regularly paid in kind or in live-stock, which, reckoned on the basis of the normal market rates, is equivalent to payment of interest at 30 to 50 per cent. Lack of money, manufacturing improvements and technical knowledge render the development of industry impossible : the export trade done between Moldavia and Wallachia and the West — which in formertimes, passed through this territory -— has, since the Cronstadt- P-ucharest road was constructed, taken the latter safe route, and. in addition, the territory of the former Szekler frontier guards has been suffering practically uninterruptedly for the last ten years from cattle diseases. As a result of this material position, nearly a third of the population who do not po?ses> enough land to give them employment during the whole of the summer and are unable to secure suitable occupation in the country are forced to seek work in Moldavia and Wallachia. If the population of this territory is ever to return to a normal way of living and < ease to destroy the forests which constitute the most precious pari of its patrimony, and if it it to realise and take advantage of the favourable prospects of trade with the East, and derive full benefit from its own work at home, there are two things which are absolutely necessary : Technical knowledge in all fields and cheap capital. Therefore, being convinced that both the material and intellectual progress and develop­ ment of the Szekler nation are necessary in the general interest, so that it may be able adequately to fulfil its task, especially so far as the East is concerned, we respectfully propose that all the movable and immovable property enumerated above of whatever description, which belonged to the former Szekler frontier guard regiments should be freely restored to them, on the following conditions :

(1) The domains formerly possessed by the disbanded Szekler infantry frontier guard regiment (of Csik) and the revenue from which was placed to the credit of its clothing fund — these domains being at present administered by the forest services of Gyergyô, Szentmikl1' and lvaszonujfalu and including arable land, fields, pasture land and forests — s h a l l b e handed — 45 — over with all buildings, equipment, and installations thereon in perpetuity, indivisibly and with the right of ownership to the population of Csiksék, subject to the rights of third parties. (2) The confiscated clothing fund which belonged to the former Szekler first infantry regiment with the accrued interest, and also the proportional part of the confiscated clothing {and belonging to the Szekler hussar regiment, with the accrued interest, shall be handed over to the population of Csikszék ; the clothing fund of the disbanded second Szekler infantry regiment and the regiment of Szekler hussars, with the accrued interest, shall be handed over to (lie Szekler population of Hàromszék irrespective of religion, indivisibly and in perpetuity. (3) The fund for the purchase of horses, with the accrued interest, shall be handed over to the Szekler families who constituted the disbanded regiment of hussars with common and equal rights. The restoration of the three classes of property shall be subject to strict compliance with the following rules : The immovable property and the clothing funds shall constitute joint property in perpetuity, and only the fund for the purchase of horses shall be divided by classes (divisions) ; the annual revenue from the immovable property shall be restored to the population of Csikszék being, however, assigned to the promotion of agriculture, handicrafts, industry, mining and commerce and also to the improvement of popular education, the clothing funds being administered as savings banks which would grant loans at the lowest possible rates in I he territory of Csikszék. The purpose to which the fund for the purchase of horses shall be assigned shall be fixed, in accordance with the above principles, by a meeting in squadrons of the families of hussars of Csikszék under the chairmanship of a ministerial commissioner. The clothing fund of the infantry and hussar regiments shall be restored with the accrued interest to the population of Hàromszék, and the proceeds from the sale of the land and military buildings belonging to those regiments and situated in the territory of Hàromszék, Miklosvar and Bardocszék, shall be paid in equal parts into the funds of the industrial schools to be opened at Kézdi Yâsàrhely and Sepsi Szt. Gyôrgy. The families of hussars of these districts shall, however, have the right to decide, at a meeting of delegates to be elected by squadrons, under the chairmanship of a ministerial commissioner, to which of the two industrial schools they desire to give their share of the fund for the purchase of horses. (4) The two plots of land and houses situated in the watering-place of Borszék and formerly in the possession of the disbanded infantry and hussar regiments, shall, with the exception of the amount required for their upkeep, be earmarked for the free use of sick persons without means of Szekler nationality. (5) The schools used for military purposes in the territory of the Szekler frontier guard regiments and the foundations of those schools, including accrued interest, shall be converted into industrial schools at Csikszereda, Kézdi Yâsàrhely and Sepsi Szt. Gyôrgy. (6) All the land and buildings of whatever description belonging to the hussar regiment and to the two Szekler infant ry regiments shall, unless they need to be retained either in the interest of t he Hungarian State or in the interest of the Szekler population concerned, be sold tinder the supervision of the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, and the proceeds from the sale shall be placed to the capital fund of the industrial school nearest to the land or building sold. 7) The revenue collected during the time the immovable property was administered b y ! he Treasury shall remain in the possession of the Royal Hungarian Treasury. It shall rest with the Hungarian Minister of the Interior to approve the regulations relating to I lie administration of this property to be drawn up by the communes concerned, to confirm the nomination of the personnel to be appointed by those communes, to see that the receipts and expenditure are properly administered and to audit the annual accounts. We apologise for the length of this memorandum which was unavoidable owing to the necessity of giving a detailed account of the historical development of the question, and also to mir desire to lay before Your Majesty, not only the arguments in support of the rights of the persons concerned, but also the considerations showing that the general interest of the country is involved. We respectfully request Your Majesty graciously to restore to the Szekler frontier guard regiments the lands, the clothing funds and the fund for I he purchase of horses enumerated above which are their property and are at present being administered by the Treasury, together with the accrued interest, as Your Majesty has already done in the case of the first and second Transylvanian-Wallachian frontier guard regiments, in order that they may be employed for the noble objects specified above and subject to the conditions mentioned. In the hope that Your Majesty will approve these proposals, we have the honour to attach sub 10 a draft resolution in the following terms :

Buda, January 23rd, 1869. Drafl Resolution.

We hereby decree as an act of grace and subject to the rights of third parties that the "hole of the property mentioned in the foregoing report, both movable and immovable, includ­ ing the clothing funds and the fund for the purchase of horses, with their accrued interest, of which the disbanded first and second Szekler infantry regiments and the regiment of the Szekler frontier guard hussars had the ownership and use and which, by reason of its confisca­ tion, is at present being used by the State, shall be restored, restitution being subject to the — 46 — use of the property for purposes of public utility, and subject to the conditions laid down in the report with a view to increasing the prosperity of the Szekler nation and for the benefit of the population of Csikzsék and Hàromszék. In so far as the Szekler families of hussars of Csikszék and Hàromszék have an interest in the fund for the purchase of horses, they shall benefit by the restitution in accordance with the present report. We hereby entrust the execution of this our resolution to our Hungarian Ministers of Finance and the Interior.

* * *

Five stamps : Eight schillings, 60 groschen. Z2450/1930.

The Department of the “ Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv ” at Vienna hereby testifies that the text of the present copy from the word “ Allergnâdigster Herr ” to the words “ Minister der Finanzen und des Innern betrauend ” agrees with the German text of the original copy of the memorandum and of the draft resolution deposited in the Cabinet Archives (No. 541, of 1869), including the following corrections or additions, made when the copy was drawn up : i Page 1 — 4th line from the top of the page — der 5 j 3 — 11th bottom ,, — solcherart 4 — 18th top ,, — gelegenen n 4 — 24th top ,, — General , j 5 — 16th bottom ,, — Pferdeanschaffungsfond 6 — 1st top ,, — dieses 6 — 19th bottom ,, — vom and denen 6 — 6th ,, bottom ,, — specif icirten 7 — 19th top ,, — bald ,, 7 — 13th bottom ,, — gebracht 8 — 18th bottom ,, — hat ,, 12 — 1st top ,, — nach der Moldo-Wallachei

Vienna, July 18th, 1930.

(Signed) Dr. Ludwig B i t t n e r , General State Archivist and Director oj the “Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv. ” (L.S.)

Stamp : One schilling, 20 groschen. (L. S.)

The present signature and stamp of the “ Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv ” are certified authentic.

Vienna, July 22nd, 1930. Federal Chancellory, Foreign Affairs :

(L. S.) (Signature) F. von M a t s c h .

1 Nole by the Secretarial. — These corrections refer to the official copy transmitted by the Roumanian Government, which is kept in the Archives of the Secretariat. !'l(OPHRT> UMl’L i n i i l l 1-’ < > M I'HI^ I’lTHIM >SI-:S (.)!<’ ACK MÎIAN UliFORM.

Areas expropriated Areas allocated Communes Beneficiary in which Land communes Land the land under Pasture- Unpro­ and under Meadows Pasture- Unpro­ is culti­ Meadows land Forests Plots ductive Total churches culti­ land Forests Plots ductive Total situated vation land vation land

Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpenls Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Arpents Corbu 22.711 1183.1298 3114.648 9411.1489 5.1078 37.325 13775.749 Corbu 22.711 1183.1298 3114.648 2250 21.421 31.670 6623.548 5 churches district Mures — — — 50 — — 50. 9 churches district Ciuc 90 90

Tulghes 31.498 543.927 2928.916 5324.1267 56.1561 92.881 8977.1250 Tulghes 31.498 543.927 2928.916 3370.25 56.1561 92.881 7023.8 Ditrau 605.1334 605.1334 39 churches district Ciuc ——— 390. — — 390.

2 churches district Mures — — —- 20 — — 20

Bilbor 59.565 1046.20 5834.859 18473.30 4.888 133.379 25550.1141 Bilbor 59.565 1046.20 5766.687 1582 2.1451 73.739 8530.262 'J Voslabeni 884 884 Hodosa-Ciuc 2484 2484

47 churches district Ciuc — — — 475 — —• 475 37 churches district Mures —— — 430 — — 430

1 church district Tarnava Méca — — — 10 — — 10

1 church district Brasov — — 25 — — 25

Bicaz 63.1466 133.823 623.480 4665.1120 5.745 202.75 5693.1509 Bicaz 63.1466 133.82 623.480 3919 — - 4739.1169

Frumoasa —— - — 1 .488 1.488 Frumoasa — — —— 1 1

San Martin _ 119.548 752.95 7625.1283 38.1210 8535.1536 San Martin and neighbouring hamlets _ 115.768 658.920 865 7. 737 1646.825

Toplita-Ciuc 15.1554 260.315 ——— 2.537 278.806 Toplita-Ciuc 15.1554 260.315 — — — 2.537 278.806

Mercurea-Ciuc 30.289 —— — — 30.289 Mercurea-Ciuc 30.289 — — -- — — 30.289 Grand Total 223.283 3286.731 13252.1398 45501.389 73.1560 506.207 62843.1368 Grand Total 223.883 3282.951 13091.451 17449.1359 82.233 207.364 34336.1041 — 48 —

Annex 3.

PROPERTY NOT AFFECTED BY THE AGRARIAN REFORM.

A. Commune of Tulghes. (a) A stone and brick house with tiled roof, comprising 10 large rooms, stables, outhouses, courtyard and garden, formerly used partly as the residence of the Superintendent of Forests and partly as administrative offices. At the present time the building is occupied by the Regional Administration of Forests of Tulghes. (b) Another stone and brick building with a roof of wood tiles, comprising 9 rooms, stables, courtyard and garden and used partly as a residence for the assistant superintendent and partly as offices ; it is at present used as a residence for two officials of the Forest Administration. B. C o m m un e of Co r b u .

A house which was formerly and is still used as a residence for officials of the forest administration of Corbu and another house which was formerly and is still used as a residence for the forest guard of the Canton of Valea-Seacâ.

C. C om m un e of B il b o r .

A house destroyed during the war which was used as a residence for the forest guard of the canton of Bilbor; when it was taken over, it was uninhabitable, but it lias now been repaired and is used as a residence for the forest guard.

D. Commune of Bicaz. A house destroyed during the war, which was uninhabitable when it was taken over and was formerly used as a residence for the officials of the Forest Administration of Bicaz. It has been repaired and is now used as a residence for the officials mentioned above.

E. Commune of Borsec.

(a) A villa of 19 rooms which was inhabited during the bathing season by administrative officials and other Szeklers who were ill ; (b) A smaller house of 5 rooms occupied by the concierge of the above-mentioned villa. At the present time the villa is used for the same purpose as formerly, that is to say, rooms are placed at the disposal of Government officials — preferably the administrative staff of the forests and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Landed Property, but irrespective of nationality.

F. Villa at Mercurea Ciuc. (a) The former Court of Justice with 14 rooms on the ground floor and 16 above. - This is a brick building with a tiled roof in bad condition. The greater part was leased as a store to the Régie of Government Monopolies and the remainder to a private individual. Two rooms were occupied by the man on duty. At the present time the building is used for the same purpose and is leased to the Autonomous Régie of Government Monopolies. (b) The barracks, which consist of two buildings : the building used for administra­ tion, which consists of 24 rooms, and the barracks proper, which are two stories high and several centuries old, and to which are attached a stable and two coach-houses. In front of the building there is a large garden in the form of a park and cultivable land covering some 1.5 arpent. Before the union of Transylvania with Roumania, the barracks were leased by the Hungarian State to the Honvéd army. Since that time they have been occupied by a battalion of the No. 16 Regiment of Chasseurs. (c) The former School of Agriculture which had 5 rooms on the ground floor and 5 above, and also stables, courtyard and garden. This building no longer exists ; the Mayor was obliged to have it pulled down to prevent it from collapsing. The land has been granted to the Orthodox community of Mercurea Ciuc, which has begun to build a church on it. (d) A building used as a residence by the Director of the old School of Agriculture, with courtyard and garden. In the courtyard there is a smaller house consisting of one room and a kitchen. The house has been granted to the Orthodox church of Mercurea Ciuc and is used as a residence for the priest. (e) A building on two floors consisting of 20 large rooms and a number of classrooms used as a boarding-school for girls. It is still used for this purpose, the only difference being that it is now a State school. — 49

(f) The theatre, dancing-room and dressing-rooms. In 1923 one p a rt of the building was leased to the former manager of the Property of Ciuc, another part to the State General Security Department and a third part to the State Regional Administration of Forests. After it was taken over by the State, the building was used as a residence for the engineers of the State Regional Administration of Forests. (g) The former Board of Administration of the Property of Ciuc still occupied six rooms and a hall in the prefectural building. These rooms were subsequently used as offices by the State Regional Directorate of the Administration of Forests. They are to-day being used by the Prefecture. G. Commune of Sumuleu. A building on two floors with 14 rooms on the ground-floor and 14 above, a large courtyard, 2 stables, a coach-house and pig-stye. This building was formerly and is still used as an orphanage. In 1923 the Roumanian Government granted the orphanage in question a sum of 120,000 lei. At the present time the cost of upkeep of this orphanage is being borne exclusively by the State. H. According to the inventory of the Board of Administration of the Property of Ciuc there should also be four police barracks at Neagra. Bilbor, Corbu and Bicaz, as well as several other frontier Customs buildings, which were all destroyed during the war. There are two other houses, one in the commune of Sândominic, which is being used by that commune and the other in the commune of Frumoasa, which is being used by the Financial Administration.

I. Of the seven sawmills taken over by the State only two have been leased and are working ; the other five have not been used since the leases expired, as no one has applied for them.

J. As regards furniture and other small movable property of comparatively little value, in so far as these are still usable, they are being employed for the same purposes as in the past. — 50 —

IX.

AIDE-MEMOIRE

C o n c e r n i n g t h e P e t it io n s u b m it t e d to t h e C o u n c il o f t h e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s b y t h e R epresentatives o f t h e D e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e F o r m e r S z e k l e r ( H u n g a r ia n ) F r o n t i e r G u a r d R e g i m e n t .

In its petition addressed to the Council of the League on June 25th last and in its supplementary explanation dated December 15th last, the Board of Administration of the “ Private Property of the Population of the Comitat of Csik (Ciuc) ” stated that the Roumanian Agrarian Committee had declared the movable and immovable property belonging to the community and consisting of the property owned by the former Szekler frontier guard regiments of Csik to be State property ; it also pointed out that on these grounds the Rouma­ nian Government had confiscated the property in question without a judicial decision and without granting any compensation. Since the petition was submitted, several articles, and even declarations emanating from members of the Government, attempting to refute the facts mentioned in the Petition, which are supported by authentic documents, have appeared in the Roumanian Press — probably officially inspired. The Board of Administration of the Private Property does not propose to submit a further petition on the matter to the League Council because it fears that this might further delay the decision so anxiously awaited. However, in view of the fact that the assertions contained in the above-mentioned declarations are absolutely untrue and that it is possible that the Roumanian Government may also have submitted memoranda to the Council to the same effect, the representatives of the Board of Administration, who have been delegated to Geneva, feel bound to supplement their statements on several points and to make certain observations for the information of the Council, regarding the origin of the private property, the right of ownership, the historical facts and the illegality of the confiscation.

* * * I. Certain high Roumanian officials have stated on several occasions that, prior to the. rectification of the frontier in 1769, the “ Private Property of the Population of the Comitat of Csik ” belonged to Moldavia and was then State property ; consequently, it still remained State property after the rectification of the frontier. Annex 9 of the Petition proves beyond all doubt that prior to 1769 this property belonged not to the State, but to the neighbouring proprietors who owned land along the borders-that is lo sag, it did not belong to the Slate of Moldavia prior to the rectification of the frontier. (Detailed proofs of this are given in the first paragraph of the Annex to the present Aide-Mémoire.) II. The Roumanian assertion that the property taken over situated on the boundary line of the Comitat of Csik became State property after the rectification of the frontier in 1769 is entirely unfounded — inter alia, because the old Szekler Constitution (of 1555 codifying the law which goes back into the far distant past) does not admit the existence of Stale Treasurg properly ; consequently, the Government could not cede that property to the frontier guard regiments, as admitted in the memorandum which forms Annex 9 to the Petition and in certain passages of that memorandum not mentioned1 in the Annex, in which the rights of the Treasury are shown to have been non-existent. Fuller proof is given in Annex 9 to the Petition (page IS, paragraphs 5 to 8 and page 19, paragraphs 15 and following) and in paragraph I I of the Annex to the present Aide-Mémoire. III. The property situated on the boundary line of the Comitat of Csik, which was restored after the rectification of the frontier in 1769, could not be regarded as State Treasury property because, under the Resolution (see Annex 8 to the Petition, page 16, II, lines 10 to 15) ad No. 1472 of 1783 of the Emperor Joseph I I , this property was to be handed over in full ownership and possession to the persons and communities able to prove the former rights of ownership enjoyed by them prior to the frontier disputes. (See translation of the Resolution in the attached annex.) In pursuance of this Resolution a portion of the property taken over when the frontier was rectified in 1769 was restored to the former owners, which could not have been done if the properly in question had become State property. In the Szekler Comitat of Hàromszék (Treiscaune), the property which had been taken over as a result of the rectification of the frontier and which had belonged to the second Szekler frontier guard regiment was restored in its entirety to the applicants who proved their former right to it. They were even paid compensation for damages. (See I I I of the Annex on page 54.) IV According to the Roumanian assertion, the property was given, under the Resolu­ tion of 1783 of the Emperor Joseph II, to the frontier guard families of the Comitat of Csik in usufruct only (usui ac emolumenlo reliquantur) and not in full and complete ownership. In view of our explanations under II and I I I and of the fact that in 1869 Francis Joseph I, K in g of Hungary, undoubtedly restored the full ownership of the property claimed, the manner in which the Latin words mentioned above are interpreted is immaterial.

1 Note by Vie Secretarial. — For complete text of this document, see pages 38 and following. — 51 —

Moreover, the documents prove that from 1784 until the frontier guard regiment was finally disbanded in 1850, the revenue from the property was distributed exclusively among the Szekler frontier guard families and that the “ clothing fund ” (Montursfond) established later out of this revenue was assigned exclusively to this purpose. (See details in paragraph IV of the Annex.) Families which did not serve in those regiments were from the outset excluded from any participation in the revenue.

V. The Roumanian Government also asserts that in 1848-49 the Hungarian Szekler population supported the revolutionary cause and were guilty of treason towards the Habsburg dynasty ; for that reason, in 1851 the right of the Szeklers of the Comitat of C.sik t o the usufruct of the property in question was withdrawn by Imperial decree. It should be noted that the rising of the Hungarian people in 1848-49 was not a revolution, but a struggle for liberty and the defence of the old Constitution. In this struggle the Szeklers remained faithful to their country. After the re-establishment of the Constitution, the King, who had decreed that the property should be confiscated, himself recognised the injustice of that measure, and accordingly restored the whole of the property to the frontier guard families. (See, for further particulars, paragraph V of the Annex.) Moreover, the old rules of public law (Constitution of 1555) did not provide, in the territory of the Szeklers, for the confiscation of property, even in the case of treason.

VI. In 1869 the Hungarian Government proposed to King Francis Joseph I that Hie property confiscated and placed under the administration of the Treasury should be restored in perpetuity, with full and complete right of ownership, the property to be indivisible. The Government referred to previous gifts of property taken from the old military possessions, made by the Emperor to the former Roumanian frontier guards. (See paragraph VI of the Annex.) The K in g approved this proposal and decreed that the property in question should be restored, by the Royal Resolution reproduced in full in the Petition. The properly iras thus restored with full rights of ownership and not as a gift.

VII. The Treasury has never appeared as the owner of the confiscated property in the Land Registers (paragraph VII of the Annex contains further details). VIII. The Roumanian Government asserts, inter alia, that, by the Royal Resolution of 1869, the limited right of ownership over the property formerly assigned to military purposes was granted, not to the descendants of the former frontier guards of the Comitat of Csik, but to the whole population of that Comitat, and that consequently, prior to 1923, the non- Magyar inhabitants were unjustly excluded from participation in that property. That statement is contrary to the historical facts, which are beyond dispute, since there are documents proving that : (a) The Hungarian Government proposed to restore the property for the benefit of the Szekler families whose ancestors had served in the Szekler frontier guard regiment of Csik ; (b) The object of the restitution was to increase the material and intellectual prosperity of the Szekler people; (c) As the military services had been performed without any subsidy from the State, the proposal to restore the properly to the persons concerned was supported in the memorandum by the argument that this was a just reward to the former Szekler frontier guards for their services ; (d) King Francis Joseph I approved all these arguments and restored the property to the Szeklers of the Comitat of Csik, to be used for “ purposes of public utility under the conditions laid down in the memorandum, which were calculated to increase the prosperity of the Szekler nation ”, under the régime of an autonomous Statute and State control ; by this resolution Community of a national character was created. II is therefore incorrect to say that the property belongs to the population of the Comitat as a whole, and that it is owned by the Comitat as a body at public law. (See in I his connection the documents mentioned in paragraph VIII of the Annex.) IX. In the Comitats of Csik and Hàromszék, a regiment of Szekler hussars was also formed, which possessed certain funds constituted by the families of hussars. The Austrian Government itself recognised that these families were the sole owners of the funds. On the proposal of the Hungarian Government, King Francis Joseph I restored these funds in collective ownership to the families of the former hussars, so that the rest of the Szekler population of Csik «'os excluded. These funds were also confiscated by the Roumanian Government. In the Comitat of Hàromszék, which borders on the Comitat of Csik, the families of the former hussars divided the funds among themselves a few decades ago. with the King’s consent. I.Sec paragraph IX of the Annex to the present Aide-Memoire.) X. With regard to the property restored, the Szeklers of the Comitat of Csik drew up a statute, in accordance with the conditions of restitution, regulating the right to the property and its administration. The Board of Administration of the Property, as a juristic person, concluded a large number °f contracts ( leases, loans, transfers) with the State and the Comitat. The property and the venue therefrom have never appeared in the budgets of the Slate or the Comitat. — 52 —

Before confiscation look place, the Roumanian State also paid rent for the buildings teased from the community. The relevant documents were also seized. (See paragraph X of the Annex.) XI. With regard to the Roumanian assertion that the property was restored by the King in 1869 “ subject to the rights of third parties ”, our observations are given in paragraph XI of the Annex. XII. The Szeklers of the Comitat of Csik would have suffered a grave injustice, even if the Roumanian Government had not confiscated the property, but had expropriated it under the Agrarian Law, and had paid as compensation a small portion of the value of the property, as provided for by the Agrarian Law, because the Roumanian communities of Naszftd and Karânsebes were not expropriated, and have retained the possession of all their properly. If the Roumanian Government had expropriated the Szeklers for agrarian purposes, paying them a certain sum in compensation, even then it would have acted contrary to its promise in the Preamble to the Minorities Treaty of December 9th, 1919, and to its obligations regarding equality of treatment laid down in Article 9 of the same Treaty. Moreover, expropriation would have been entirety unjustified, since the property of the Szeklers was used for the same purposes as those stipulated in the Agrarian Law. (See the text of the Law mentioned in paragraph XII of I he Annex.) According to the Roumanian official statements, the whole population of the Comitat of Csik enjoys the benefit of the confiscated property. As a mailer of fact, four communes in all have received forests and pasture land; two of them do not belong to the Comitat of Csik, while the other two were attached to that Comitat this year. The inhabitants of those communes have never served in the frontier guard regiments. The inhabitants of three communes consist almost entirely of Roumanians, and in the fourth Roumanians form a strong minority. Apart from these four communes, individuals living in them — therefore Roumanians for the most part — have also obtained land on account of old leases, etc. In all, 62,529 cadastral arpents oj private property were confiscated, a part of which has subsequently been ceded to the four communes mentioned above, the rest being retained by the Roumanian State. The timber from these forests is sold to Roumanian individuals and institutions of any other Comitat or Province at a ridiculously low price, without having recourse to public auction, and for some years past these rich forests have been devastated. The fifiy-four Szekler Hungarian communes of the Comitat of Csil: enumerated in Annex 10 to the Petition (page 22, Article 4), and whose inhabi­ tants had the sole right to this property, received no share whatsoever in the forests and pasture lands in question. If it had been distributed among the Szekler Hungarian communes, Hie properly would even then have been diverted from its original purpose, since Ihe conversion of collective property into communal properly and its employment for national purposes, according to the law of Ihe country, would have prevented its being employed for purposes of Szekler culture, for which it was intended. The other property (schools, convalescent homes) belonging to the former frontier guards of Csik was also used for Roumanian purposes. (See paragraph XII of the Annex.) Contrary to Ihe fads, the Roumanian Government is repeating abroad that the confiscated property has been distributed according to the principle of equality in law and in fact, irrespective of nationality, and that the ownership of the forests and pasture land has been granted to the entire population of Csik. These assertions have caused us the greatest amazement, and we fait to understand how anyone can distort the truth in this way. XIII. Moreover, it is possible to prove, even without knowing the historical facts, that the complaint of the Szeklers is justified. The purpose of the present Aide-Mémoire is to help the Committee of Three and the League Council to get at the truth. Apart from historical events, however, a single argument is sufficient to show that ihe complaint of ihe Szeklers is fully justified — namely, that the Agrarian Committee was not competent to pronounce confiscation, which in every civilised country and also under the Roumanian Constitution it a mailer for the Courts alone. The Roumanian Constitution does not provide for confiscation oj properly as a penalty. Fuller particulars are given in paragraph XIII of the Annex to the present Aide-Mémoire. XIV. With regard to the competence of the Agrarian Committee, the Agrarian Law specifies all its powers, but the power to deal with questions relating to the ownership is not mentioned, because this comes within the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts. The Agrarian Committee is the advisory organ of the M inistry of Agriculture, and one-hatf of the Committee consists of agricultural experts and the other half of economic experts. (See Article 56 of the Agrarian Law for Transylvania.) There is no constitutional State under which a body presided over by a Minister and one-half of whose members are not judges is competent to deal with questions concerning the right of ownership. Consequently, ihe Agrarian Committee, which was set up to consider whether the decisions of lower bodies in regard to expropriation are or are not in accordance with the law, has itself acted in contempt of the law. Even if the Agrarian Committee were recognised as competent in matters concerning the right of ownership, it would be absurd for it to reach a decison without hearing the parties concerned- Apart from this, however, it is obvious that the Agrarian Committee exceeded its powers in decreeing the confiscation of the properly, because Article 87 of the Agrarian Law for Transylvania defines the cjuestions which are within the competence of the ordinary Courts, at Ihe head of which are petitory actions. According to Article 1 of the Law of 1913, which is still in force in Transylvania, petitions of this kind are to be decided by the ordinary Court for the place where the property is situated, in accordance with the rules of procedure. (See details given in paragraph XIV of the Annex.) — 53 —

XV. The Agrarian Committee has confiscated the properly and dispossessed the Szeklers, although Iheir expropriation, even subject to compensation, is forbidden by the Agrarian Law. It has also confiscated property which has nothing to do with expropriation for the purposes of agrarian reform (funds, securities, movable property, etc.). This is an act of spoliation not committed even by the armed forces of the belligerent Stales against the defeated enemy. As a result of the confiscation, the poverty and hardships suffered by the majority of the families belonging to the community in question have become so widespread that, in our opinion, even under the Soviet régime the people have never been Ireated so harshly as this commu­ nity has been by the Roumanian Government. XVI. With regard to the property of the former Roumanian frontier guards of Naszod which, as is well known, was not expropriated under the Roumanian Agrarian Law, the Roumanian Government is circulating misleading information abroad. It is trying to make people believe that the Roumanian frontier guards did not lose the property in 1849 and that the Roumanian Agrarian Law has extended the right of the former Roumanian frontier guards to other nationalities also. The truth is that prior to 1849 this land and the other property belonged to the Treasury and that the Hungarian Government transferred the ownership of this property of its own accord, as we shall explain. 1. According to the old rules of public law in force before 1848, since the forests and pasture land taken over along Ihe Naszod boundary when the frontier was rectified in 1769 were outside the territory oj the Szeklers, they could belong to the Treasury. This was recognised in the state­ ment of reasons of the Agrarian Law. (See our Supplementary Explanation dated December 15 t h , 1929, page 30 published in the official journal, Monitorul Oficial, No. 129 of June 15th, 19"29.) In pursuance of the Resolution of 1783 of the Emperor Joseph II this property was also handed over for the use of the Roumanian frontier guards. A portion of the forests and pasture land confiscated — namely, 58,770 cadastral arpents — were divided among 44 Roumanian communes of the former Comitat of Naszôd (several other communes of this Comitat did not form part of the military borders) and 204,335 cadastral arpents were handed over to those communes in perpetuity, in collective ownership, on the basis of a contract concluded on March 12th, 1872, between the Hungarian State of the one part and the 44 communes of the other part. This contract was ratified by Law XV11 of 1890, although the State ownership of the property had been officially recognised under the Austrian régime between 1864 and 1866. In accordance with this contract Law XVI11 of 1S90 also declared the forests in question to be communal property, any inhabitant of the commune having the right to use them (because in the time of the frontier guards those forests had been divided among the communes which administered them and used the proceeds to meet the expenses of the frontier guards and because the communes concerned themselves asked for the property belonging Io the frontier guards to be administered in this way). It is therefore incorrect to say that the Roumanian Agrarian Law extended the right to the use of this properly, and, moreover, this is shown by the text of the law. In any case, as we have pointed oui in the Annex to the present Aide-Mémoire, this extension is of no practical importance. 2. The Hungarian Government and Parliament also placed at the exclusive disposal of I he Roumanians and transferred to Roumanian ownership several buildings and plots of land to be used for schools, churches, religious communities, etc., although in 1848-49. during the struggle for Hungarian liberty, the Roumanian population in Transylvania and the former Roumanian frontier guards fought against the Hungarian people and adhered to the cause of the Habsburg dynasty. (See paragraph XVI, 2, of the Annex.) 3. “ Clothing funds ” were also created for the benefit of the former Roumanian frontier guards of Naszod. Employed as “ scholarship funds and funds for the schools of Naszod I hey yielded considerable revenue which was ear-marked exclusively for Roumanian cultural purposes. Further in accordance with the contract mentioned under 1 and Laws XVII and XVIII of 1890, the Hungarian Government and Parliament voted immense sums for this fund for the sole benefit of ihe Roumanian inhabitants in the 44 frontier guard communes, in Ihe form of scholarships and subsidies to schools. The Roumanian Government has never made any mention of the existence and purpose of this fund when comparing this property with that of Ihe former Szekler frontier guards. (See paragraph XVI, 3, of the Annex.) XVII. At the time of the establishment of the frontier guards the 251,000 arpents of forest and pasture land of the Roumanian community of Karânsebes also belonged to the Treasury. It was the King of Hungary who in his Resolution of June 8th. 1871, gave the property in perpetuity and with the sole right of ownership to the former frontier guards (living in 93 different communes) and to their descendants. (See our Supplementary Explana­ tion dated December 15th, 1929, Annex 3 (a) Article 1.) This property was exempted from expropriation during the execution of the agrarian reform. The Roumanian Government justifies this exemption on the ground that the persons to be expropriated and the persons entitled to the land in question were the same ; if the expropriation and distribution had been fair, other nationalities should have benefited also. That was why it was not exempted1 and also because the descendants of the former Roumanian frontier guards would have regarded it as a grave injustice if even the enjoyment of this property had been granted to Roumanian nationals whose ancestors were not frontier guards. In addition to the 93 frontier

1 Note by the Secretarial. — ... expropriated... ? — 54 — guard communes mentioned above there are several other Roumanian communes in this Comitat as well. Details of the manner in which this property has been disposed of are given in paragraph XVII of the Annex to the present Aide-Mémoire.

* * *

After the presentation of the Szekler petition the Roumanian authorities worked the forests belonging to the private property of the Szeklers with redoubledenergy and with such zeal that the most valuable portion of that property will soon be completely destroyed. In these circumstances, the Board of Administration of the Private Property was compelled on December 23rd last to apply once again to the League Council, requesting it to take conservatory measures. Since that request has not as yet been granted, the representatives of the Board of Administration wished to draw the attention of the League Council to this fact in the present Aide-Mémoire. * * *

The foregoing statements prove beyond all doubt that the Szeklers of Transylvania have suffered a grave injustice as a result of the inequality of treatment which they have received. The petitioners continue to hope that full reparation will be made. Neither the Szeklers of to-day nor their descendants will ever resign themselves to the confiscation of their property. The League Council will certainly not fail to take the measures necessary for the protection of the rights of minorities. Geneva, May 1930. (Signed) Dr. P a l G a b o r , Senator jor the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik).

ANNEX

To t h e A t d e -M f.m o ir e c o n c e r n in g t h e P e t it io n p r e s e n t e d to t h e C o u n c il of the L e a g u e o f N a t io n s b y t h e R epresentatives o f t h e D e s c e n d a n t s o f t h e

F o r m e r S z e k l e r F r o n t i e r G u a r d R e g i m e n t .

I. The document forming Annex 9 to the Petition dated June 25th, 1929, from the Board of Administration of the Private Property of the Population of the Comitat of Csik, with the text of which the Agrarian Committee was fully acquainted since it refers to the document several times in the course of its argument, contains a passage reading as follows : " On this occasion, on the frontier of Csikszék and Hàromszék, several portions of land were recovered which, owing to the uncertainty as to the precise position of the frontier, had been the subject of frequent disputes between the Transylvanian owners on the one hand and the Moldavian and Wallachian owners on the other, or which had been illegally occupied by Moldavians and Wallachians during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, at the time when Transylvania was the scene of political strife ”. (See Petition, page 18, paragraph 15.) This nullifies the assertion that the property in question belonged to the State prior to the rectification of the frontier in 1769. That assertion, which is contrary to historical truth, was the real though unavowed reason for the decision taken by the Agrarian Committee.

II. On January 23rd, 1869, the Hungarian Government addressed a Memorandum (see Annex 9 to the Petition) to the King, who had already become the constitutional sovereign of Hungary, in which (page 13. paragraph 6 ofthe Memorandum, not reproduced in the Annex r! if opposes the claims put forward by the Austrian Government on behalf of the Treasury : “ For all these reasons we humbly conclude that the Treasury has no right, to the mountains recovered on the outskirts of Csikszék and at present administered by the Treasury on account of the taking over of those mountains. “ We consider it our duty to defend the true and legitimate interests of the Treasury everywhere and against everyone, but at the same time we believe that we are obliged, by considerations of a legal order, to express our opinion freely and to advise your Majesty to act in accordance with justice, even if this should mean acting against the Treasury. “ In our humble opinion the movable and immovable property of the Szekler frontin' I guard regiments is being administered by-the Treasury solely on account of its confiscation, but , as in yrour wisdom Your Majesty has cancelled the confiscation, the Treasury’s rights can only be derived from investments or contracts, if any*. ”

1 Role by Ihe Secretariat. ■— See note on page 50. — uo --

The report of the Ministerial Commission charged with the settlement of the material affairs of the frontier guard regiments, drawn up at Budapest on September 4th to 16th, 1868 No. 3849 /869, to the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior), maintains the same juridical contention (page 11 of the Report, paragraphs 3 to 6) : “ We are in favour of all the mountain properties and their ordinary appurtenances which formerly belonged to the first Szekler frontier guard regiment, were confiscated in 1851 and have not so far been restored, being handed over to the population of Csikszék as being the Szeklers who constituted the regiment in question, with the right of ownership subject to the restrictions stipulated hereunder ; “ Because these properties did not constitute spoils of war taken from Moldavia by force of arms, but were returned as the result of a rectification of the frontier, proof having been furnished that they formerly belonged to Transylvania ; “ Because, since they formed part of Transylvania and a direct part of the Szekler territory, they could never be State Treasury property, as this is formally vetoed by our national laws ; “ Because if these mountains, which could only belong to Szekler proprietors of Csikszék, were not claimed by their true owners, whether the latter were prevented from or were not desirous of putting forward their rights, it does not follow that the right of ownership belongs to the Treasury — it actually belongs to the population of Csikszék which constituted the regiment, in view of its continued and peaceful possession for almost a century.” III. In his Resolution ad No. 1472.A.1783, the Emperor Joseph II stipulated that : “ Neither can the remainder of the territory taken from the Moldavians and Walla- chians be handed over to the frontier guard soldiers until the owners, whether private individuals or communities and whether they are or are not in possession of the land, present their claims to the Governor, since this land was recovered not by right of war but thanks to the peaceful advance of the Imperial Hag.” (See Petition, page 17.11.) However, the Austrian commanders of the frontier guard regiments, which had been organised in a brutal fashion, tyrannical measures involving bloodshed having been employed, took no notice of these claims for restitution : the chiefs of the first Szekler infantry regiment occupied the mountains on the frontier of the Comitat of Csik and the chiefs of the second Szekler infantry regiment the mountains on the frontier of the Comitat of Hàromszék (in Roumanian : Trei-scaune) in 1784 by force of arms without the intervention of the civil authorities. The Memorandum of January 23rd, 1869, of the Hungarian Government, which forms Annex 9 to the Petition, contains, in addition to the passages quoted, the following statements : “ This attitude of the military authorities gave rise to innumerable complaints ; the plaintiffs included those who had been dispossessed by the actual occupation of their land ; those who owned the adjacent land and regarded the mountains recovered as belonging to their own domains, and those who hoped to establish their rights over the mountains in question by invoking tradition or documents. “ With a view to the thorough examination and proper settlement of these complaints the Royal Hungarian Chancellery 1785 and No. 1496890 of January 9th, 1789, and of July 3rd, 1786, ordered that the property of all who furnished satisfactory evidence to the effect that they had the actual and legitimate possession prior to 1769 of a portion of the territory occupied by the army should be restored.” (Memorandum, page 7, paragraphs 3 and 4.) Thus encouraged, several owners, both private individuals and communities, submitted claims for this land. A decision was not reached until October 29th, 1813, under No. 2825 of the Court and No. 10395-1813 of the Chancellery. The titles of several claimants were recognised, but the decision was never applied, because during the wars of 1808-1812 the proceeds from the leasing of the mountains in question were of the greatest use in clothing the frontier guards, who were obliged to provide their own outfit — and this assignment of the revenue from the land signified the maintenance of the Szekler frontier guard — and because, under the conditions prevailing in 1813, this fact was sufficient for the military authorities to reach the same conclusion, so that the decision was not applied. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, page 8, paragraph 3 ; passage not quoted in the Annex1. See also the documents issued by the Government of Transylvania on April 3rd, 1868, kept in the archives of the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior under No. 10598.) Consequently, the mountains occupied in 1784 by the Szekler frontier guards remained in the possession of the frontier guard regiments until those regiments were disbanded in 1858, the revenue obtained from the leasing of the land being paid into the clothing fund of the regiments. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition ; passage not quoted in the Annex, page 8, paragraph 4 1.) The Austrian Imperial Decree which on January 22nd, 1858, ordered the frontier guard regiments to be disbanded also provided for the final settlement of the case of the mountains formerly belonging to the frontier guards. In its decision of December 31st, 1863, the Court appointed for this purpose recognised “ the right of all those whose claims to the land were

1 Note by the Secretarial. — See note on page 50. — 56 — established by j udgment in 1813 ”, and later, in a special decision rendered in 1864, it recognised the right of ownership of several other claimants. On the basis of this decision the " Borda ", “ Tôlgyessark ”, “ Tôlgyesmezo ”, “ Magyares ” and “ Kissaj ” domains taken from the land on the'borders of the Comitat of Csik in the possession of the first Szekler infantry regiment were finally handed over by the Treasury in 1864 to the claimants who still possess them to­ day by right of legitimate ownership. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 of the Petition, passage not quoted L, page 10, paragraph 3 ; see also document No. 10598 /1868, issued by the Governor of Transylvania and kept in the archives of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior.) Claims were also made in respect of other immovable property situated on the boundary line of the Comitat of Csik and in the possession of the Szekler frontier guards. The Governor of Transylvania proposed to recognise the justice of these claims (see document mentioned above). However, in its Memorandum addressed to the King in 1868 the Hungarian Govern­ ment rejected the claims because it found the proofs inadequate and considered the rights in question to have lapsed. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1.) In point of fact the claims had been thoroughly examined according to the rules in force at the time, and the presentation of evidence had been authorised ; since their rejection was proposed solely in accordance with the rules of private law, it is clear that the property in the possession of the former frontier guards of the Comitat of Csik was not regarded as State property. Thus, only the land, the claimants to which had not brought sufficient evidence or whose claims were already barred by the laws of prescription, continued to be administered by the military authorities for the benefit of the Szekler frontier guards. As regards the properly possessed prior to confiscation in 1851, the Hungarian Government maintained the juridical view that “ since the owners before 1769 were unable or unwilling to get their claims recognised at the proper time, the right of ownership now reverts fully and completely to those who have possessed the land in good faith for nearly a century ”, and it regarded as the owner the population which had furnished recruits to the first Szekler frontier guard regiment. (Memo­ randum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted 1 in the Annex, page 14, paragraph 5.) The decision mentioned above and dated December 31st, 1865, ordered that all the land silualed on the boundary of the Hungarian Szekler Comitat of '‘Hàromszék”, and which from 1784 to 1851 was in the possession of the second Szekler frontier guard infantry regiment should be handed over to the claimants ; this land was accordingly handed over to the claimants in 1864 and has since been used by them as their private and exclusive property. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1, page 10, paragraph 4; see also document No. 10598/1868, dated April 3rd, 1868, issued by the Governor of Transylvania and kept in the archives of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior.) IV. The declarations of the Roumanian Government and the decision of the Agrarian Committee lay special stress on the fact that, in his Resolution of August 27th, 1783, the Emperor Joseph II ordered that the “ recovered ” land should be handed over to the Szekler frontier guards, not in full and absolute ownership but in usufruct (usui ac emolument reliquantur), the right of ownership being reserved for the State. (See Petition, page 17, 1.) In this connection we would point out that in 1783 legal terms especially those in an Imperial Resolution, were not at all precise ; what weighs more heavily in the balance, however, is the fact that Szekler public law did not permit the State to be the owner, as we have already mentioned in paragraph II. After taking possession of the property, the commander of the Szekler frontier guards of Csik leased it in the name and for the benefit of the frontier guards, and the rent received was divided in equal parts among the frontier guard families. (See page 6, paragraph 2, passage not quoted 1, of the Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition.) Each soldier’s family received in the first years seven krajcav^ (see Report of the Ministerial Commission mentioned in No. II, page 55, paragraph 2). At that lime, therefore, the participation in the revenue was exclusive in character ; the Szekler families of Csik not liable for frontier guard service, such as, for instance, the highest nobles, received nothing. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1, page 4, paragraph 6.) The heaviest charge of the frontier guard service consisted in the fact that every Szekler family was bound to provide the soldier it furnished to the regiment with a complete equipment and, if the soldier was a hussar, it also had to supply his horse. The soldiers belonging to poor families could easily be recognised, and no measures, however severe, could prevent this, since the armed Szeklers also had to bear the burden of the ordinary tax until 1804. As the sum furnished by the division of the revenue was not sufficient to provide uniform clothing, the chiefs of the frontier guards, after some years’ experience, ceased to divide up the sums collected and established a clothing fund (Montursfond), to which was assigned the revenue from the teasing of the. land ; this fund rendered great service during the wars of 1808-1812 (see Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted 1, page 8, paragraphs 1. 2 and 4). The revenue from the leasing of the land was credited to the clothing fund until 1851, when the institution of frontier guards was abolished. Consequently, the revenue from the property under military administration continued, after the establishment of the clothing fund, to be used exclusively for reducing the charges of the frontier guard families. When in 1783 the Emperor Joseph II ordered that the land claimed should be handed over to the Szekler frontier guards, he did not stipulate that this decree should cease to have full effect if the institution of frontier guards were ever abolished. The document drawn 1 j\ote by the Secretarial. — See note on page 50. 57 —

up by the Governor of Transylvania under No. 10598/1868 shows, by the comparison of seven Royal Resolutions, that the contention maintained by the Austrian Government under the regime of absolutism (1849-1866) was unfounded. The Hungarian Government also insisted, in its Memorandum of 1868, on the fact that the grant made by the Emperor Joseph II was not subject to any condition. (See the Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted \ page 13, paragraph 5.)

V. After the st ruggle for independence, and as soon as the constitutional regime was restored in Hungary, the Hungarian Government also pointed out to Francis Joseph I that u the events of 1848 had made it necessary for the Szekler frontier guard regiments to defend the legal constitution ”. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted 1 in the Annex, page 9, paragraph 5.) During the struggle for independence of the Hungarian nation against the Habsburg dynasty, in which it was defeated owing to Russian intervention, the Roumanians in Transylvania supported the dynasty, although this campaign had brought about the abolition of serfdom, by which they had benefited. The Szeklers sacrificed their lives freely in the struggle for liberty, although the institution of serfdom, which was unknown under the old constitution of the Szekler territory, had never been introduced among them. After the defeat of the troops fighting for freedom, the Imperial Resolution of January 22nd, 1851, ordered, as a reprisal, the confiscation of the whole of the property of the Szekler regiments for the benefit of the Austrian Treasury, and, at the same time, that the frontier guard regiments of Transylvania should be disbanded. This confiscation was, however, an act of despotism in defiance of the law, the constitution and acquired rights. In 1869 Francis Joseph I approved the Memorandum of the Hungarian Government in which it is stated that : “ In your wisdom Your Majesty has been good enough to cancel the sentences following on the events of 1848-49 and the confiscations arising out of those sentences.” (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted 1 in the Annex, page 12, last paragraph.) VI. The agreement concluded in 1867 between the Hungarian nation and its sovereign re­ established the continuity of the law and constitution. It was accordingly impossible for the illegal measures taken under the absolutist regime to be maintained. The Hungarian Government therefore proposed to the constitutional King of Hungary that the property of the Szekler frontier guards should be restored (see Petition, Annex 9, page 20), as a reward for the bravery shown by the Szekler frontier guards in the military acts which they had carried out without the slightest assistance from the State, and also because the Roumanian frontier guard regiments of Transylvania has, as long ago as 1851, after the defeat of the troops fighting for freedom, recovered possession of the clothing fund which was of a similar legal character, thanks to the grant made by the Austrian Imperial Resolution. As there was no valid reason for refusing lo the Szekler frontier guards the rights granted to the Roumanian frontier guards, the Government proposed that the clothing fund, including interest, should be restored to the Szeklers from whom it had been confiscated. (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1, page 15, paragraphs 1, 3 and 5.) The Ministerial Commis­ sion charged with the settlement of the legal situation of the former frontier guard property stated in its report of 1868 that the clothing fund in question could not be regarded as a balance left over after satisfying requirements in the matter of clothing, but constituted the savings of the Szekler frontier guard families who were required to clothe their soldiers out of their own resources ; after certain expenditure of this kind had been met out of the fund, the remainder was capitalised. The same report also stated that the descendants of the soldiers who constituted the Szekler frontier guard regiments had a right over the mountains. The Hungarian Government accordingly proposed that all the domains on the boundary line of the Comitat of Csik, which were administered at the time by the services of the Treasury, should be returned, together with the buildings and installations, to the population of Csikszék in perpetuity, indivisibly and with the full and absolute right of ownership (Petition, page 20, paragraph 4). The Government also proposed that the old military buildings should be sold and the proceeds devoted to the upkeep of industrial schools (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1 in the Annex, page 16, paragraph 3), on the grounds that the frontier guard soldiers had furnished the building materials, labour and transport. In his Resolution of February 16th, 1869, Francis Joseph I, constitutional King of Hungary, ordered that the whole of the property of the former Szekler frontier guards, including the clothing fund with accrued interest, should be restored, “ the restitution being subject to its employment for purposes of public utility and lo the conditions laid down in the M em orandum ” (Petition, page 21). The Royal Resolution refers to restitution and not to a gift ; it also confirms the conditions laid down in the Memorandum in which it was proposed that the property should be restored “ in perpetuity, indivisibly and with the right of owner­ ship ” ; the Resolution orders the restitution of the whole of the property formerly belonging to the Szekler frontier guards, which “ as a result of confiscation is at present administered iy the State ”, The Roumanian Agrarian Committee refers in the statement of reasons for its decision ordering the confiscation of the property of the population of Csik to the Hungarian Government’s Memorandum of January 23rd, 1869 ; it was therefore acquainted with that 1 Note by the Secrétariat. — See note on page Ü0. — 58

Memorandum but shut its eyes to the provisions concerning the right of ownership ; otherwise it would not have decided to confiscate property belonging to a national minority. The foregoing particulars show that the assertion of the Agrarian Committee to the effect that the Royal restitution referred solely to the “ usufruct ” of the property in question is absolutely without foundation. VII. We also find among the reasons for the decision of the Agrarian Committee the fact that the cadastral registers mention as the owner of the property in question “ the Royal Hungarian Treasury ”. The right of ownership is not a matter for the Cadastral Survey Department, but is dealt with by the Land Registration Department and the Treasury does not appear as the owner in any land register. There is only one land register which refers to the " right of ownership of the Royal Hungarian Treasury over the buildings ”, in connection with a plot of land measuring 5 arpents, 1,017 square toises. The reason for this entry is that the property of the population of Csik adjoined old Roumania and, in accordance with an agreement concluded with the Directorate of Property, the State had a Customs building erected on the land in question and had its right to the building confirmed by the entry in the land register and paid rent for the land. The same land register shows (page C.) the right of lease and the “ annual rent of 16 llorins ”, VIII. In its Memorandum of January 23rd, 1869, the Hungarian Government stated clearly that “ possession which has lasted for nearly a century is fully equivalent to a title-deed of ownership, and since it was the population of Csikszék (Comitat of Csik) which constituted the first Szekler frontier guard regiment, and was actually in possession of the mountains taken over on the boundary line of Csikszék, and which are to-day being administered by the Treasury, we propose that they should be restored as the common and indivisible property of the population of Csikszék, which constituted the first Szekler frontier guard regiment, irres­ pective of religion and nationality ”, (See Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted1 in the Annex, page 14, paragraph 5.) It is impossible to give to the term “ population of Csikszék which constituted the first Szekler frontier guard regiment ” any other meaning than : Szekler families who constituted the Szekler frontier guard, since the Roumanians never served in the first Szekler frontier guard regiment. The Memorandum in question gives as a reason for restitution “ the conviction of the Government that the material and intellectual progress of the Szekler nation is imperative in the general interest, so that it may fulfil its task, especially so far as the East is concerned (Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the petition, passage not quoted1, page 18, paragraph 8.) For this reason the Hungarian Government “ respectfully proposes to Your Majesty that justice should be done to the former Szekler frontier guards ”, (Loc. cit. 1 page 16, paragraph 5.) The proposal to restore the funds and interest on the funds of the second Szekler frontier guard regiment, which was subsequently disbanded, “ to the Szekler population of the Comitat of Hàromszék, irrespective of religion, in perpetuity and as its joint property, ” was based on the same grounds. (Loc. cit.1 page 19, paragraph 2.) This also applies to the proposal Lo return the two plots of land and the house at Borszék " for the benefit of Szeklers who are ill and are without means ”, and to convert into industrial schools the schools and other buildings assigned to military purposes. (Loc. cit.1 page 20, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.) In these industrial schools instruction was obviously to be given in Hungarian, which was the language spoken by the former frontier guards, and it was by this means that the schools would contribute to the “ material and intellectual progress of the Szekler people ” and that “ justice was done to the former Szekler frontier guards". the property reverting to those w'ho had mounted guard on the frontier “ without the slightest remuneration from the State Moreover, this was the reason given in the Memorandum in order to obtain the restitution of the whole of the movable and immovable property enumerated, which had belonged to the Szekler frontier guard regiments and which was to be placed under the 'following regime ” (loc. cit.1 page 18, penultimate paragraph), the principles being defined in the Memorandum. The authors of the Memorandum wished to improve the lot of the Szeklers of Csik, and pointed out that since 1850 they had been growing poorer and poorer : the population had been forced to take employment as day labourers in Moldavia and Wallachia, where nine-tenths of the land consisted of mountains and forests and the winter lasted for seven months of the year ; barely one-half of the population possessed sufficient land to occupy its energy during the summer. (Loc. cit. 1 pages 17 and 18.) In the Memorandum the expression “ irrespective of nationality ” is employed ; this might be misunderstood if we did not explain the historical facts, a knowledge of which is essential for the comprehension of the real meaning of the term. Under the old Transylvanian constitution the Szeklers, as the “ Szekler nation ”, formed a body with independent institutions of public law. This “ nation ” was divided into several classes for the purposes of national defence and taxation. These were : (1) the highest nobles ; (2) the families of hussars ; (3) “ Darabont ” nobles, who were foot soldiers, and (4) serfs, who had fallen to that state on account of their poverty. The first and fourth classes consisted of a small number of individuals. The expression “ irrespective of nationality refers to the whole of these classes, which were separate only from a legal standpoint — that is to say, the “ Szekler nation ” — without any national or class distinction. This is also confirmed by the provision (quoted literally) contained in the document referred to in Chapter II, last paragraph (page 55): “ because if this property, which could only belong to the Szekler proprietors of Csikszék ”, etc. 1 Note by the Secretariat. — See note on page 50. 59 —

The Resolution of the Hungarian King Francis Joseph, in view of the rights set forth in the Memorandum, ordered the restitution of the whole of the property of the former frontier guards, including the clothing fund, and interest thereon, “ restitution being subject to the use of the property for purposes of public utility and to the conditions laid down in the Memorandum with a view to increasing the prosperity of the Szekler nation and for the benefit of the population of Csikszék and Hàromszék ” (see Petition, page ’21). This Royal Resolution defines what is meant by “ population of Csikszék and Hàromszék ” and confirms the conditions specified in the memorandum both for the enjoyment of the full right of ownership and for the use of the property for Szekler purposes. The “ restitution ” was ordered for the sole benefit of the Szeklers of Csik (all classes being included). The first regiment of the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik consisted only of the inhabitants of the Szekler communes mentioned by name in paragraph 4 of the Statute relating to the administration of the property of the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik (see page 22 of the Petition). It was for this purpose that the Statute was confirmed by the State administration, the communes in which the persons entitled to this property had their domicile being enumerated one by one. According to the Statute, the inhabitants of the Comitat of Csik domiciled in communes not included in the area of the former frontier guards of Csik were not entitled to that property. For instance, the inhabitants of the communes of Bicas (in Hungarian Békàz), Tulghes (Tolgyes), Lunca de Sus (Gyimesfelsôlok), Lunca de Jos (Gyimeskôzéplok) and Ghimesfaget (Gymesbükk), which are in the present territory of the Comitat of Csik, could not be regarded as entitled to this property, as they resided in communes which were colonised later, and not in the former Szekler communes. This situation was also influenced by the fact that the population of those communes has always consisted, and still consists, almost entirely of Hungarians or of a Hungarian majority, with the exception of Bicas, which is still inhabited entirely by Roumanians. For the same reasons the inhabitants of the communes of Bilbor (Bélbor), Corbu (Hollo) and Borsec (Borszék). belonging, prior to 1869, and even later, to the Comitat of Csik, but which have been annexed to another Comitat since the Roumanian regime was established, were unable to benefit by this Statute, although the population of the last-mentioned commune is to a large extent Hungarian. In view of these facts is it possible to maintain that the restored property belongs not to the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik, but to the Comitat of Csik as an administrative organ ? The Comitat is called upon to administer property in the best interests of the whole population and in accordance with the laws of the State. This duty determines the manner in which it must employ its property. Hence, if the Comitat had been the owner of the property in question, the latter would not have been used for the purpose laid down in the Royal Resolution and provided for in the Government’s Memorandum ; this Resolution stipulated that a Statute should be drawn up for the autonomous administration of the property, subject solely to State supervision. If the property had been handed over to the " Comitat ” the Royal Resolution would not have been able to approve the autonomous powers and the Statute in which they were to be fixed, because the use and administration of the property of the Comitat are in the hands of the Comitat and are governed by the national laws. We have thus shown that the Roumanian Government and the Roumanian Agrarian Committee are wrong in stating that the property formerly belonging to the Szekler frontier guards of Csik was owned by the Comitat or the State. The former frontier guards acquired the full and absolute right of ownership, which is not questioned in any way by the State to-day in respect of the former Roumanian frontier guards of Naszôd and Karànsebes, which community continues to enjoy its rights under the protection of the law ; the reason for this is that the property of that community serves Roumanian purposes.

IX. When the military borders were organised in 1764 a regiment of Szekler hussars recruited from the Szekler families of the Comitats of Csik and Hàromszék was also established. Since these families were not sufficiently numerous, the hussars were recruited from other Comitats as well, so that in the end their numbers exceeded the normal strength. The families were responsible for the purchase and maintenance of the horses ; a “ fund for the purchase of horses ” for the purpose of lightening the burden was accordingly created. Families which had no members fit for service, or whose members were released from service owing to the lack of horses, were required to pay into the fund an amount equivalent to the cost of maintenance of the horses ; these sums were used later, when the family had supplied the soldier, for the purchase of his horse. Consequently, the fund in question consisted solely of the payments made by the families of hussars. (See the Memorandum forming Annex 9 to the Petition, passage not quoted 1 in the Annex, pages 5, 8 and 9). Even the Governments of the absolutist regime of 1849 to 1866 recognised that the fund belonged to the families which had contributed to it by their payments, and did not oppose its division among families able to justify their claim. The Hungarian Government proposed, in the Memorandum addressed to Francis Joseph I, that the fund for the purchase of horses should be given back in equal parts to families which had served in the regiment of hussars. (See Memorandum, passage not quoted1 in Annex 9 to the Petition, pages 11, 15 and 19.) In the Resolution of February 16th, 1869, of Francis Jospeh /, the Government's suggestions were fully taken into account: “ In so far as the Szekler families of hussars of Csikszék and Hàromszék have an interest in the fund for the purchase of horses they shall benefit by the restitution in accordance with the Memorandum ” (Petition, page 21). 1 Note by the Secretarial. — See note on page 50. - 60 —

On the basis of the decision of ihe Agrarian Committee ihe Roumanian Government seized the fund for the purchase of horses, which even the Austrian Government had recognised as family property, and took it over with the other property. As regards this fund it has not even been able to assert that it belonged to the State or Comitat.

X.

As regards the property restored by Royal Resolution Decree, the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guards drew up the required Statute (Annex 10 to the Petition, pages 21/23), the first article of which provides that the property in question belongs, in accordance with the Royal Resolution, to the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik, while Article 6 stipulates (No. 2) that as the fund for the purchase of horses belonged exclusively to the Szekler families of hussars of Csik, the interest thereon must be used solely for the assistance of the descendants of those families. Article 4 gives a list of the Szekler communes whose inhabitants have a right to the property, the Szekler frontier guard soldiers having belonged to those communes. Article 14 adds that the assistance is reserved for the children of Szekler fathers born in the territory of the Comitat of Csik. This Statute, provided for in the Memorandum addressed by the Hungarian Government to King Francis Joseph I and ordered to be drawn up by the Royal Resolution adopted in pursuance of the Memorandum, was approved by the Hungarian Government. (See Petition, page 21, No. 7). From 1868 until 1923, in which year it was confiscated by Roumania, the property of the former Szekler frontier guards of Csik was administered at the will, not of the Comitat or of the whole population of the Comitat, but of the descendants of the frontier guards. The budget of the Comitat, which is an organ at public law, made no mention whatever of this property or of the employment of the revenue therefrom ; the allocation of the revenue was decided year by year by the special organisation and the special budget, within the framework of the organisation’s autonomous powers and in accordance with the approved Statute. Neither the State nor the Comitat ever disputed the exclusive right of ownership of the former frontier guards. Bilateral contracts were concluded with the State for the sale to the latter of certain immovable property of lesser importance or for the use of certain buildings against payment of a rent. As long ago as 1868 the Ministerial Commission appointed to settle financial matters proposed that the payment of a rent for the buildings which the Treasury wished to assign to military purposes should be made compulsory. (See Report to the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior, No. 3849/1869, page 14, paragraphs 3 and 5.) The Hungarian Minister for Education in 1871 also took the view that the State should pay rent for the buildings formerly used for military purposes which formed part of the property of the community of the former frontier guards of Csik, because that property belonged to the Szekler nation, the King having, on July 15th, 1870, confirmed the right of the Szekler nation to the immovable property in question (document No. 19705 /1871 of the Hungarian Ministry for Education). After the change of sovereignty the Roumanian State continued to pay, until the property was confiscated in J923, the same rent as the Hungarian State. It rented a building for ware­ housing tobacco and another for housing the State security police and forest services. Similarly, until 1923, the Roumanian State paid the annuities on the loan redeemable by amortisa­ tion which the Board of Administration of the private property had granted to the Comitat of Csik under the Hungarian regime. When the property was confiscated the State’s agents seized all the archives to prevent the documents which they contained from being used to prove the rights of the frontier guards. This is why it is impossible for us to produce those documents in support of our claims. An arbitrary administrative act of this kind has never been committed in any constitutional State in the world.

XI. The Agrarian Committee states among the reasons for its decision that when the property was restored by the Royal Resolution the “ right of third parties ” was reserved. But it is the rule in the private law of all States that this reservation merely serves to maintain the rights acquired by third parties (through a lease, investment, etc.) prior to the act of restitution. The reservation does not in any way affect the right of ownership, which was fully recognised. XII. The Agrarian Law of Transylvania allows of expropriation (Article 1) : (1) for the establishment of communal forests or pasture land ; (2) for the promotion of the national industry ; (3) in order to raise the standard of living in towns, industrial centres, etc. ; (4) for reasons of general culture, national economy, social development, and physical training. The purposes fixed by the Agrarian Law are identical with those laid down for the employ­ ment of this joint property of the former frontier guards (see Annexes 9 and 10 to the Petition) but which was to be used for the sole benefit of the Szeklers of Csik. Consequently, expropria­ tion would not have been necessary to enable this property to be used for the purposes enumerated, to which it had been assigned for many years. Expropriation on the basis of the Agrarian Law would have been dictated by the desire to divert this property from its original purpose in return for the payment of a small sum in compensation, the property being placed under State administration to be used for Roumanian purposes. However, the Agrarian Committee was anxious to avoid expropriation so that it would not have to pay this small sum in compensation to the Szeklers, and it therefore declared the property of the frontier guards to be State property, without any judicial decision and simply ordered it to be confiscated. 61

The largest possible quantity of land which could be claimed by the applicants in three communes having a Roumanian majority and one commune with a large Roumanian minority, situated close to each other, was taken from the confiscated forests and pasture land. The population of these four communes is made up as follows :

Total Roumanians Hungarians Germans .Jews population Bilbor (in Hungarian Bélbor) 1,189 1,067 105 1 16 Bicas ( » Békâz) 6,985 6,735 172 0 78 Corbu ( » Hollo) 1,201 783 358 17 43 Tulghes ( » Tôlgyes) 3,453 1,022 2,177 12 242

Thus, according to the Roumanian census of 1920, the total population of these communes consists of 74.89 per cent of Roumanians and 21.92 per cent of Szekler Hungarians. As the other elements of the population (Germans and Jews) do not cultivate the land and do not breed cattle they have no share in the communal pasture land. None of these communes belong lo the region from which the frontier guards of Csik were recruited and none arc included in the list given in the Statute. (See Petition, page 21). Moreover the communes of Bilbor and Corbu have for many years formed part of the Comitat of Mures (Maros) and do not even belong to the Comitat of Csik ; they were formerly attached to the Department of Neant, in Old Roumania, like the communes of Bicas and Tulghes wrhich were attached this year to the Comitat of Csik. The pasture land and forests not reserved by the Roumanian State for the four communes mentioned above have been kept and utilised by it for its own ends. The timber obtained from these forests is sold at an absurdly low price by the Roumanian forest services to thousands of Roumanians from all parts of the country who have applied for it, and in particular to Roumanian religious communities. Timber merchants purchase the felling right, and as there is no supervision they devastate the forests in a way that would be inadmissible even if these forests really belonged to the State. The co-operative societies established in the communes, which are almost entirely Roumanian, have also received an enormous quantity of timber for which they have paid a trifling sum. We are bound to mention the fate of the other properly of the former Szekler frontier guards. A school for girls of Hungarian language at Csikszereda (Mercurea Ciuc) and which formed part of the “ Private Property of the population of Csik ” was converted into a high school for boys and girls and instruction is now being given in the Roumanian language. In the same locality a school for training farmers, built by the Hungarian State and for which 150 arpents were given by the “ Private Property ” for the purpose of establishing a model farm at which children were to be given agricultural training in their own language — that is to say, in Hungarian — now gives instruction in Roumanian. At Csiksomlyô (Sumuleu) the “ Orphanage ” and “ Hospice ” established by the “ Private Property ” for Szekler orphan children have also introduced the Roumanian language for giving instruction to the children. In the house belonging to the “ Private Property ” at Borszék the patients who are being treated are not Szeklers but Roumanians. The former school for farmers leased by the “ Private Property ” has now been demolished and a church for the Roumanian community is being built on its site. The orchard nursery of the “ Private Property ” has been sold by auction, notwithstanding the protests of the owners. As regards tire funds which, in accordance with the deed of restitution of 1869. served for granting cheap credits to the Szekler population, these are being kept by the State for its own use. This, then, is the fate of the most important property restored in 1869 by King Francis Joseph I to the descendants of the frontier guards of Csik “ for the purpose of increasing the prosperity of the Szekler nation ”. XIII. In our previous applications and in the present Annex we have explained (giving the necessary proofs) the origin of the “ Private Property ” of the population of Csik, the important points of its history, the right of the descendants of the frontier guards to that property and their full and exclusive right of ownership. The purpose of this long explanation was to show that there is no foundation for the arguments by which the Roumanians are endeavouring to justify confiscation and to throw full light on the unequal treatment meted out to minorities. All this would have been unnecessary if the legal principles of a constitutional State were applied to minorities in Roumania. In no State in which the law prevails is it possible for anyone — and the State least of all — to have recourse to violence for the purpose of establishing an alleged right. Even a judicial decision is insufficient to warrant seizure until the means of redress provided for by the law have been exhausted. This is the fundamental rule in every constitutional State, even in the case of property claimed by the State. Hence, if the Roumanian Government considered that the properly of the population of Csik belonged to the Slate and wished the Roumanian State to take over that property by right of succession, it should have brought an action before the competent Court against the community owning the property in question. What it actually did was to confiscate the property without bringing the dispute before the regular and competent Court. Article 12 of the Roumanian Constitution states that : “ N o one may be withdrawn from the jurisdiction guaranteed by Ihe law ” and, according to Article 15, “ no law m ay impose as a penalty the confiscation of property ”. Article 17 safeguards “ all property and even claims on the State and prohibits expropriation except on the ground of public utility and after equitable compensation to be fixed by the Court has previously been paid — 62 —

Nevertheless, the Agrarian Committee presided over by the Minister of Agriculture withdrew the matter of the “ Private Property ” of the population of Csik from the ordinary independent Court ; on the decision of the Agrarian Committee the Government confiscated that property without the previous payment of any compensation. These facts are calculated lo enlighten the Council of the League of Nations as to the protection granted by the Roumanian Constitution to minorities. XIV. Article 55 of the Transylvanian Agrarian Law set up three kinds of expropriation service : (1) the District Commission ; (2) the Departmental Commission ; (3) the Agrarian Committee. The first two instances dealt with the admissibility of and the land subject to expropriation and the compensation payable. The Board of Administration of the “ Private Property ” of the population of Csik presented its case in regard to the admissibility of expropriation and compensation payable in the event thereof, in accordance with the rules of procedure. The Board of Administration appealed against the decisions of first and second instance ordering partial expropriation, to the highest instance — the Agrarian Committee — to which it presented a request for revision. The procedure of the Agrarian Committee does not provide for the parties being heard. The Board of Administration could not therefore foresee that the Agrarian Committee, disregarding legal considerations, would decide the question of the right of ownership. According to Article 57 of the Agrarian Law for Transylvania, the powers of the Agrarian Committee are laid down in Article 37 of the Agrarian Law which is valid in the Old Kingdom (Law published in the Monilorul Oficial No. 82 of July 17th, 1921). This latter article provides that all questions other than those relating to expropriation are outside the competence of the Agrarian Committee. The public administration regulations for the application of the Agrarian Law in Transylvania refer (Article 59), for the details of the powers of the Agrarian Committee, to Articles 92, 94 to 101 of the regulations concerning the application of the Agrarian Lawr of the Old Kingdom. (These regulations were published in the Monitorul Oficial, No. 176 of November 5th, 1921.) The last-mentioned articles give an exhaustive enumeration of the matters to be dealt with by the Agrarian Committee, but there is no trace of any provision authorising it to decide questions affecting the right of ownership by ignoring the ordinary Courts. The Agrarian Law makes a distinction between agrarian courts and the ordinary courts (Articles 65, 66, 68, 87, etc.) Articles 41. 46, 47, etc. also distinguish between matters which are to be dealt with by the ordinary courts and those in regard to which the agrarian courts are competent. XV. The Agrarian Committee confiscated immovable property, the expropriation of which, even subject to compensation, was prohibited by the Agrarian Law, such as orchards, nurseries, enclosures, courtyards, houses, dwellings, houses used for letting purposes, cultivated land for the upkeep of orphanages, hydraulic installations for the exploitation of forests, schools, etc. (Agrarian Law for Transylvania, Article 6, paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 8, 9). Among the 15,000 families or thereabouts which owned the collective property are thousands of individuals who had no land at all or who had from one to five arpents of cultivable land in a district in which the climate is the most rigorous of any in Roumania. These persons without means and these small, very poor proprietors have just been dispossessed of their collective property ; this has been done in order to deprive them of all resources capable of facilitating their intellectual and economic progress. It is an example of national post-war vengeance. XVI. 1. In order to throw light on the injustice suffered by the Szekler minority it may be well to describe the material situation of the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards of Naszod. The large number of disputes regarding the property of the frontier guards of Naszod were settled after the re-establishment of the Hungarian Constitution by a Convention concluded on March 12th, 1872, between the Hungarian State and 44 communes of the former military borders and ratified by King Francis Joseph on April 16th, 1872. Clause C of that Convention stipulates that all fields, pasture land, forests and mountains situated in the territory of the 44 communes and assigned in 1864-1866 by the “ Agrarian Settlement Commission ” to the Royal Treasury as the former owner shall be ceded in perpetuity by the Royal Treasury to the communes which formerly possessed and actually made use of that property. This Convention was confirmed by Hungarian Law XXVII of 1890, published, together, with the Royal promulgation dated June 3rd, 1890, on June 10th of that year in the Legal Gazette (Orszâgos Torvénytar). The administration of the forests in question was dealt with in a special law, Law X IX of 1890, Article 1 of which orders the marking out of an area near each commune from which the population may obtain supplies for its domestic purposes (heating and building). The portions thus handed over to the communes cover a total area of 58,740 cadastral arpents. The timber obtained each year, according to a scheme of regulation, is divided among the descendants of the frontier guards and no other inhabitant of the communes benefits by it, although Article 32 of the Agrarian Law for Transylvania contains the following provision : “ The forests of the former second Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Naszod shall, in accordance with Law XVIII of 1894, remain communal forests, no expropriation — 63 —

being allowed. Every grower who is an inhabitant of the communes of the former military borders, even if he is not descended from the frontier guard families, shall have the use of those forests.”

This provision of the Agrarian Law is not observed in practice, because the descendants of the frontier guards would not allow it. Moreover, as we shall show later, the communes in question have hardly any inhabitants who are not Roumanians and are not descendants of the frontier guards. In any case the above-mentioned provision shows indisputably that the property of the frontier guards has not become the property of the whole Comitat. The remainder of the forests of the former frontier guards of Naszod, covering an area of 204,335 cadastral arpents, forms a single block from the point of view of exploitation, in accordance with the stipulations of the Convention of 1872 and Hungarian Law XIX of 1890, under the control of a special service set up by the law ; the annual revenue is divided among the 44 communes in a proportion determined with the assistance of a commission of eight members elected by the communes. In the past this commission has allocated enormous sums to the promotion of Roumanian culture and continues to do so. The clearings and pasture land in the forests may be used, according to the same law, by the communes in question. As the population of these communes consists almost entirely of descendants of frontier guards, the right of pasturage is exercised solely by them. The statistics published in 1920 by the Roumanian State show that the population of these 44 communes is almost entirely Roumanian ; thus, the revenue from the property of the frontier guards would benefit the Roumanians, even if it were not largely assigned to works of Roumanian intellectual culture and were simply paid into the communal funds. The population of the communes in question is distributed as follows : Per cent Roumanians...... 64,702 92.17 Hungarians...... 830 1.18 G erm ans...... 1,466 2.06 J ews...... 3,197 4.55

Total population . . 70,195

The Hungarian element represents a very small fraction, while a comparatively large number of Jew's are innkeepers or traders ; they are not included in the right of pasturage, neither do they have any share in the timber, to which only growers are entitled. The revenue from the forests as a whole has not and never will be used for building a Hungarian, German or Jewish school or church ; thus, the whole of the yield from the property goes to the descendants of the Roumanian frontier guards. 2. After the re-establishment of the Constitution, the Hungarian Government promulgated a Decree (on June 27th. 1870, No. 9705 of the Ministry of the Interior), granting several buildings and plots of land situated at Naszod and in other communes of the military borders to Roumanian churches and schools. Nicolae Rota Pop, notary-general at Naszod, informed the Hungarian Minister of the Interior on September 16th, 1870, that he had applied the foregoing provisions, under which “ in recognition of the military service which we have rendered for almost a century to the country and to His Majesty’s throne ” this property was handed over “ for our ownership and possession in fulfilment of one of our most ardent desires ; we wish to express our deepest and sincerest gratitude to the Government of His Royal and Apostolic Majesty for this generous act inspired by the noble sentiment of justice towards the communes of the former military borders ”. Alexandru Bohatiel, Captain-General of Naszod, also of Roumanian race, sent under No. 498/1870 to the Hungarian Minister of the Interior a report stating that the property destined by Decree No. 16461 /1870 of the Minister of the Interior " for the central scholarship fund and for various communes, to be used for religious and scholastic purposes, which had been granted free of charge with the right of ownership ”, had been duly handed over and that “ the beneficiaries have expressed their grateful thanks in this report ”. These grants were confirmed by Hungarian Law XX III of 1890 which provides that “ the immovable property which, prior to March 12th, 1872. was in possession of the funds, foundations and schools shall be regarded as property assigned to those purposes”. 3. In his Resolution of January 22nd, 1851, Francis Joseph I ordered in principle that the clothing fund established by the second Roumanian frontier guard regiment should be assigned, after that regiment had been disbanded, to the use of Roumanian schools. Although the decrees of the Supreme Military Command of Transylvania had stipulated (No. 3598 of February 18th, 1851, No. 10000 of 1851) that all the inhabitants of the 44 former frontier guard communes should benefit by that fund, an institution known as the " Naszod Fund for Scholarships and Schools ” to serve the purposes of Roumanian culture was established, its benefits being reserved solely for the Roumanian frontier guards and their descendants. The Roumanian Agrarian Law did not extend the category of persons entitled to this Fund. Under the Hungarian regime and with the consent of the Hungarian State, the Convention of March 12th, 1872, assigned to this Fund the ownership of the most valuable forest recovered at the time of the rectification of the frontier in 1769, this forest measuring 9,020 cadastral arpents. The same Fund also acquired, with the approval of the Hungarian Government, enormous landed properties. 64 —

Thus, the property of the Roumanian frontier guards of Naszôd has remained intact ; it has been left just as it was under the Hungarian regime. On the other hand, the Szeklers of Czik have lost everything. This is the more unfair, inasmuch as, at the time the military borders were instituted, the Roumanians of Naszod were exempted from all taxation in recognition of their military service, whereas the Szeklers had to bear the double burden of taxation and military service. XVII. Annexes 1. la, 2, 2a, 26,3, 3a, accompanying the supplementary request of December 15th last, show that the whole of the property possessed by the Roumanian frontier guard regiment of Karànsebes was retained by it and continues to be administered on the basis of an autonomous statute for the sole benefit of the former frontier guards. As an illustration of the extent to which the Hungarian regime respected the right of ownership over the property, we would mention the report of January 29th, 1907, of the Incompatibility Commission of the Hungarian Chamber of Deputies, which states that this property “ belongs to the families of the former military borders ” which administer it themselves in accordance with their autonomy, the State merely having the right of supervision. The descendants of the frontier guards originating in the 93 communes enumerated in Annex 3a to the supplementary request of December 15th last drew up the “ Statute ” analysed in the above-mentioned Annex and regulating the administration of the property. Article 5 of the Statute expressly states that, in the 93 communes enumerated, only the families of the former frontier guards are entitled to the property which, in accordance with Article 8, constitutes their (special) property. This property is to be assigned to the following purposes : “ to enable the frontier guard families to procure timber at a cheap rate ” (Article 86) ; “ to grant scholarships to the children of poor frontier guard families ” (Article 8c) ; “ to maintain and subsidise the boarding-school for the children of frontier guards and to assist the frontier guards by all possible means ” (Article 8/). Under the Hungarian regime the families of the former frontier guards acquired the ownership of this property by a Royal Resolution (see Annex 3a to the supplementary request of December 15th, 1929) ; the Roumanians of Karânsebes still have the possession and enjoyment of that property, which covers an area of 251,000 cadastral arpents. — 65 —

X.

MEMORANDUM.

TRANSMITTED BY D r . PÂL GaBOR ON BEHALF OF THE FORMER BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION of the Private Property of the Comitat of Ciuc, dated July 2 7 t h , 1930, a n d ACCOMPANIED BY TABLES.1

To the Council of the League of Nations, Geneva. The petition which we presented on July 20th, 1929, sets forth the wrongs suffered by the Szekler population of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) as a result of the confiscation by the Roumanian Government, without a judicial decision and without any compensation, of the whole of the property known as the “ Private Property ”. Our supplementary application of May 13th last states in Chapter X 11 that the Roumanian authorities divided up the lands belonging to the Private Property among the communes with a Roumanian population, persons of Roumanian race and the Roumanian churches (Græco-Oriental and Græco-Catholic), the remainder being reserved for the State. When we drew up this supplementary appeal, we had no precise statistics at our disposal to refute the assertion so frequently repeated in the Roumanian Press and which has doubtless been used by the Roumanian Government in its reply to our petition — namely, that the entire population of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik), irrespective of race, benefited by the division of the land. We have since succeeded in collecting definite particulars and consider it our duty to submit these to the League Council for its judgment, since they throw a strong light upon the real object of the confiscation of the property and the principles governing the distribution of the plots of land. I. Sketch No. I attached shows the present boundaries and the boundaries prior to 1918 of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik), and also the position of two large domains forming part of our property. The two domains are situated at a considerable distance from each other ; one covers 54,233 arpents and 655 sq. toises (30, 174 hectares) in the northern and north-western part of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik), and the other 8,535 arpents and 1,536 sq. toises (4,827.2 hectares) on the eastern border of the Comitat. (In Transylvania the measure of area is the “ arpent ” which is equivalent to 0.575 hectare.) Each of the two domains borders on the Old Kingdom of Roumania. II. Table II contains a specification, according to the nature of the cultivation, of the whole of the confiscated land belonging to the “ Private Property ”, (The list does not include buildings : orphanage, girls’ school, former training farm, theatre, convalescent home, former barracks.) Items 1 to 5 correspond to the parts of the domain situated in the north and north-west ; Item 6 to be smaller domain situated in the east of the Comitat.

III. Table III relates to the distribution of the land and the racial composition of the communes concerned. The data regarding racial composition have been taken from the official work Dictiunarul Transylvaniei, Banatului si celortalte tinuturi alipite (Directory of places in Transylvania, the Banat and other annexed territories), published on the basis of the Roumanian statistics in 1920 by M. C. Martinovici, head of the Statistics Office of Clui (Kolozsvar) and M. N. Istrati, head of the Economic Section of that Office. The statistics consulted by us arc not based on the spontaneous declarations of individuals ; persons of Hungarian language but of Græco-Catholic religion are simply included among Roumanians ; Jews — whatever their language —- form a separate racial group ; moreover, there are a large number of arithmetical errors. However, we have taken them as they stand, rather than the figures furnished by the Hungarian census of 1910, so as to disarm those who might accuse us of partiality. The plots of land shown in the table have been assigned to the communes and hamlets enumerated therein, to the inhabitants of those communes and hamlets, to Roumanian teachers and forest agents and to Roumanian parishes. The inhabitants who, apart from the commune itself, participated in the distribution, are almost entirely of Roumanian nationality even in places where the Roumanian element is in a minority (commune of Tulghes, in Hungarian, Tolgyes). Of the 32,845 arpents distributed, 98 per cent — i.e., 32,209 arpents — have been assigned lo communes the majority or a great part of whose population are Roumanians. The communes of Corbu, Bilbor and Toplita Româna, which do not even belong to the Comitat of Csik but to that of Mures and contain 5,983 Roumanian inhabitants (70.7 per cent)

1 Role by the Secretariat. — The numbers on the tables correspond to those of the various paragraphs of the Memorandum. — 66 —

as compared with 1,845 Hungarian inhabitants (21.5 per cent), received 15,432 arpents — i.e., 47 per cent of the whole, which amounts to 32,845 arpents. The communes of Tulghes, Bicaz, Voslabeni, Hodosa and the towns of Cosnea and Ciuges, which belong to the commune of Frumoasa in the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik), have a total popula­ tion of 12,699, of whom 9,361 (73.9 per cent) are Roumanians and 2,978 (23.4 per cent) are Hungarians. 16,777 arpents — i.e., 51 per cent of the land distributed — were assigned to them. Of these communes Voslabeni is situated about 100 kilometres away from the land assigned to it. The purely Szekler communes, which are much nearer to the property divided up, such as Remetea (in Hungarian, Remete), Joseni (Alfalu), Suseni (Ujfalu), Lazarea (Szârhegy), Gheorgneni (Gyergyoszentmiklds), Chileni (Kilyénfalva), Ciumani (Csomafalva) and Valea Strâmba (Tekerôpatak), with a total population of 37,171 inhabitants, of whom 1,416 (3.8 per cent) are Roumanians and 34,780 (93.5 per cent) are Hungarians, had no share in the property intended to “ increase the prosperity of the Szekler nation ” (page 21 of the Petition). They even lost a very large part of their inherited lands, which were assigned to the Roumanian communes enumerated under Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 of Table III during the execution of the agrarian reform. Out of all the Szekler communes only one, known as Ditrau (Ditro) had 605 arpents (1.8 per cent of the total) assigned to it at the cost of enormous sacrifices of land in exchange. The Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) has a population of 132,196 inhabitants, of whom, according to the Roumanian official statistics, 22,418 (17 per cent) are Roumanians and 106,640 (81.2 per cent) are Szeklers or Hungarians. The Roumanian element includes 9,361 inhabitants (47.7 per cent) in the Roumanian communes and towns (Tulghes, Bicaz, Voslabeni, Hodosa, Cosnea, Ciuges), which were assigned 51 per cent of the area distributed ; the rest (namely, 13,057 inhabitants) of the Roumanian element is divided among 52 other communes of the Comitat. Consequently, the object of the confiscation of our property was to abolish the Private Property of the Szekler population and to assign 98 per cent to the Roumanian communes and their Roumanian inhabitants. IV.

Article 4 of the Statute relating to the administration of the property subsequently confiscated ( see Petition, page 22) enumerates the communes of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) in which the ancestors of the Szekler (Hungarian) population belonged to the military border regiments. This enumeration does not mention the communes of Corbu, Tulghes, Bilbor, Voslabeni, Bicaz, Toplita-Româna, nor the towns of Cosnea and Ciuges, because the inhabitants of those communes never served in the 1st Szekler frontier guard regiment of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik). Since the Private Property was to revert to the Szeklers of Csik, whose ancestors had served in that regiment (see Chapter VIII of our Supplementary Petition of May 13th, 1930), as is shown by document No. 19705 of 1871 of the Hungarian Ministry of Education (Annex IV), even the Hungarian inhabitants of those communes were excluded from the ownership and use of the property in question, and this also applied to the Hungarian inhabitants of other communes whose population was mainly Hungarian. All these communes and their racial composition are dealt with in Annex IVo. Annex lYb contains'racial statistics covering the whole of the population of the fifty-two Szekler communes enumerated in Article 4 of the Statute.

V.

The greater part of the land enumerated under Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 of Table III, which relates to the allocation of the property, was assigned in full ownership to the communes mentioned in the Table, to be used as pasture land or forests. A considerable part of the land mentioned under Nos. 1, 2 and 4 consists of forests which will have to be converted into communal pasture land, as the timber has been reserved for the State. The Department of Forests of the Ministry of Agriculture (Cassa Padurilor) disposed of those forests, which are of immense value, without a public sale and at a ridiculously low price, to several thousand applicants from Transylvania, Old Roumania and Bessarabia, who are all, without exception, of Rou­ manian nationality. In addition, forests of the same origin, worth several million lei, were sold at extremely low prices to the communal co-operative societies of Corbu and Bilbor and to other communal co-operative societies of Old Roumania. The clearance of these forests has been going on for years. The timber assigned to individuals and co-operative societies was subsequently bought by the timber merchants Weinrauch Berko, Schapira Alter, Weismann Paskel, Gheorge Balmos and the commercial company “ Ofa ”. Since the land was distributed, a considerable number of trees have been felled every year on the portion handed over as a communal forest to the communes mentioned under Nos.l to 7 of Table III. VI.

The Roumanian Græco-Oriental (Orthodox) and Græco-Catholic churches have been richly endowed by the Roumanian authorities at the expense of the forests taken from the Szekler population of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik). According to Table VI attached, 141 parishes and branch parishes of the Comitats of Mures, Târnava, Brasov, and Ciuc (Csik) have received in all 1,480 arpents of forest. We - 67 — only know the owners of 1,085 arpents, and in what follows we will confine ourselves to this area. The statistics relating to creeds have had to be taken from the Hungarian census of 1910, as no particulars are given in the Roumanian Diclionarul of 1920. Table V Ia shows that the parishes of the Comitats of Mures. Târnava and Brasov and their branches have received 325 arpents of forest. 305 arpents (i.e., 93.8 per cent) went to the Roumanian parishes, the whole amounting to 30 per cent of the area of 1,085 arpents. The Græco- Oriental parish of the town of Targulmures is 180 kilometres away from the forest assigned to it, and it has been given land for branches in places (commune of Sausa) where its members form 0.5 per cent only of the population or where it has no members at all (commune of Cornesti). According to Table VIb, two Hungarian Roman Catholic parishes of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) were allotted 40 arpents of forest (i.e., 5.5 per cent) out of 1,085 arpents. Table Vic shows that the Græco-Oriental parish of Mercurea Ciuc, the chief town of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) and its twelve branches received 170 arpents of forest. When the 1910 census was taken there were in the town in question 21 persons of Græco- Oriental religion, and in the 12 branches 38 persons in all out of a total of 19,854 inhabitants — i.e., 0.1 per cent. Some of the branches have not a single Græco-Oriental member : Toplita Ciuc (Csiktaplocza), Jigodin (Zsôgôd), Sân-Simion (Csikszentsimon), Rancu (Csik- bânkfalva). In the communes at present belonging to the Comitat of Csik, according to the administrative division which came into force in 1929, there are 159 persons of Græco- Oriental religion, whereas according to the Hungarian census of 1910 the whole population consisted of 132,221 inhabitants ; consequently only 0.1 per cent of the population professes this religion. The same table shows that the Roumanian Græco-Catholic parishes of Csik and their branches received 550 arpents. In several of these branches there is not a single Græco-Catholic (Cioboteni-Csobotfalva). In short, the Roumanian parishes of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) have become the owners of 720 arpents of forest, representing 66.3 per cent of the total of 1,085 arpents (see Table No. 1). If all the Roumanian parishes of the Comitats of Ciuc, Mures, Târnava and Brasov are included, they have to our knowledge been granted 1,025 arpents of forest, corresponding to 94.5 per cent of the total of 1,085 arpents. The real proportion must be still higher, since Table VI shows that 500 arpents belong to the parishes of the Comitat of Mures, although we only know the owners of 290 arpents. There is no doubt, however, that the remaining 210 arpents have also gone to enrich the Roumanian parishes. We have learnt that the Græco-Oriental parish of the town of Gheorgheni (Gyergyoszentmiklds) has received a plot of forest land. The Roumanian parishes of the towns of Mercurea Ciuc and Gheorgheni, in the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik), are now building churches out of the proceeds of the sale of the forests. The Roumanian parishes of the Comitat of Csik have obtained other advantages also. The Agrarian Law for Transylvania provides that a part of the cultivable land expropriated during the application of the agrarian reform shall be transferred to the parishes. All the Roumanian parishes have received this arable land in addition to forests, but none of the minority parishes has received any.

VII.

The whole of the area in excess of the land enumerated under Nos. Ill and VI has been kept by the State ; this area measures 28,507 arpents, 927 square toises, according to the specification given in Table VII : Total area seized by the S ta te ...... 62.843 arpents, or 36.134.7 hectares. Distributed according to Tables 111 and \ I. 34,336 arpents, or 19,743.2 hectares. Remainder kept by the S t a te ...... 28,507 arpents, or 16,391.5 hectares. Total...... 62.843 arpents, or 36,134.7 hectares, a part of which has subsequently been sold.

VIII.

The foregoing statistics show that the whole of the confiscated land has become the property of Roumanian communes, Roumanian nationals, Roumanian co-operative societies, Roumanian parishes and the State. The equal treatment stipulated in the Minorities Treaty signed at Paris on December 9th, 1919, has therefore not been observed. Even if the whole of the property confiscated had been assigned exclusively to the Szekler communes enumerated in Article 4 of the Statute, this would have been unfair, both because it would have been contrary to the stipulations of the Royal Resolution of 1869 and because the Roumanian laws require the communes to bear a large number of charges which are usually borne by the State. For instance, the construction and upkeep of schools of Roumanian language are charged to the budget of the communes ; consequently, as a result of the abolition of the Private Property ” and its conversion into communal property, communes with a purely Hungarian population would have been obliged to employ, for the construction of Roumanian schools, a part of the property given back by the King for the intellectual and moral progress of the Szeklers. The Roumanian Government confiscated the land almost entirely for Roumanian purposes, and is now endeavouring to make foreigners believe it has been employed for the benefit of the entire population of Csik, irrespective of nationality. — 68 —

We would respectfully request the Council to verify the truth of our assertions by appointing a commission to carry out investigations onthe spot, and if the legal questions raised by our petition are likely to create difficulties, to apply to the Permanent Court of International Justice for an advisory opinion.

Done at Mercurea Ciuc on July 27th, 1930.

On behalf of the former Board of Administration of the Private Property of the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) :

(Signed) Dr. P âl Gâ b o r, Senator for Ciuc (Csik). — 69 —

T ab le I.

N? I CROQUIS

Corrwtat de O uc.

Artc/enne frontière

A/ou*p/<<* f r o n tiè r e .

l£G £/V D E

Propr/p/es rt/r&/es en/erees/æ r /£/& /.

Commc/nes &j&n/ 6éne'f/c/eof? /& /p/évtw 6> s o /^ n / /e faô/e&o /V-'Z/Z Communes e/éibô//sse/r?er?£s où /'£

E x p l a n a t i o n : 1. Rural properties taken over by the State. 2. Communes benefiting by the Agrarian Reform according to Table No. III. 3. Communes and settlements in which the Græco-Catholic church was granted forests. 4. Communes and settlements in which the Græco-Oriental church was granted forests. 5. Communes in which both the Græco-Oriental and the Græco-Catholic churches were granted forests. 6. Communes in which both the political commune and the Roumanian church were grantedforests. 7. Religious communities of the Hungarian minority which received forests. 8. Other communes of the Comitats. IT. T ab le of D omains confiscated by th e R o u m a n ia n St a t e .

Arable land Meadows Pasture land Forest Farms Barren land Total Name of commune in which Observations No. the land is situated Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises 2 Arpents Toises 2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents | Toises 2 Arpents | Toises2 Arpents | Toises2

1. Corbu (in Hungarian Hollo) 22 711 1,183 1,298 3,114 648 9,411 1,489 5 1,078 37 325 13,775 749 The lands enume­ rated under 1 to 5 constitute a single domain i 11 the north 2. Tulghcs (Tôlgyes) 31 498 543 927 2,928 916 5,323 1,267 56 1,561 92 881 8,977 1,250 of the Comitat of Csik (Giuc) and have a total area of 54,223 arpents, 655 3. Bilbor (Bélbor) 59 565 1,046 20 ; 5,834 859 18,473 30 4 888 133 379 2,550 1,141 square toises — i.e. 1 30,173.8 hectares. Lands Nos. 1, 3 and 5 have been 4. Bicas (Békâz) 63 1,466 133 823 623 482 4,665 1,120 5 245 202 75 5,693 1,509 transferred from the Comitat of Giuc (Csik) to the Comi­ Toplit.a Rornâna tat of Mures. 5. (Maroshéviz) 15 1,554 260 315 — — — ——— 2 537 278 806

6. Ciussânmartin — — 119 548 752 95 7,625 1,283 — — 38 1,210 8,535 1,536 (Szentmârton) This total area is r 4,826.6 hectares ; it forms part of the eastern boundary 7. Mcrcurca Giuc of the Comitat of (Csikszereda) 30 289 — — — — ————— 30 289 Giuc (Csik).

... ..

8. Frumoasa (Szépviz) 1 '188 — — 1 488

| T o ta l...... 223 283 3,286 731 13,252 1,398 45,501 389 73 1,560 506 207 62,843 1,368 I I I . T a b l e s h o w in g t h e M a n n e r in w h ic h t h e E xpropriated D o m a in s w e r e D i s t r i b u t e d .

Pasture Arable land Meadows Forests Farm land Barren land Total Total Rou­ Hun­ land No. Commune benefiting Administrative district popu­ man­ gar­ of the Domain lation ians ians Arpents Toises2 Arpents ; Toise«2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises 2 Arpents Toises 2 Arpents Toises 2

1. Commune of Corbu (II Hu), Corbu ' 1,203 783 358 22 711 1,183 1,298 3,114 648 2,250 --- 21 421 31 670 6,623 548 various inhabitants of this Comitat of Mures 65% commune, Government officials, etc. *

2. Tulghes (Tôlgyes), as No. 1. Tulghes 3,464 1,022 2,177 31 498 543 927 2,928 916 3,370 25 56 1,561 92 881 7,023 8 29.5% 3. Commune of Ditrau (Ditrti), Tulghes 605 1,334 _ 605 1,334 in exchange for other land. Comitat of Giuc

4. Bilbor (Bélbor), as No. 1. Bilbor 59 565 1,046 20 5,766 687 1,582 2 1,451 73 739 8,530 262 Comitat of Mures 5. Commune of Voslabeni Comitat of Mures 849 798 51 884 884 (Vaslâb). 94% 6. Hodosa * (Ilodos), commune Comitat of Mures 843 315 515 2,484 — 2,484 separated from Ditrau in 1929

7. Bicas (Békaz), as No. 1. Bicaz 6,985 6,735 172 63 1,466 133 823 623 480 3,919 —— — —— 4,739 1,169 Comitat of Giuc 96.4%

Observation. — The figures relating to the communes or towns marked * have been taken from the statistics furnished by the 1910 Census, as the Roumanian statistics for 1920 do not furnish any particulars. III. Table showing the Manner in which the Expropriated Domains were Distributed (continued).

Pasture Arable land Meadows Forests Farm land Barren land Total Total Rou­ Hun­ land N° Commune benefiting Administrative district popu­ man­ gar­ of the Domain lation ians ians

Arpents T oises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises 2 Arpents T oises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2

8 . Inhabitants of Toplita Româna Toplita Româna 6 , 0 5 6 4 , 1 3 3 1,382 15 1,554 2 6 0 3 1 5 •— •--- — -— ------2 5 3 7 2 7 8 8 0 6 (Maroshéviz) Comitat of Mures 7 7 . 2 %

9 . Towns some distance away Ciucsânmartin 3 9 9 3 4 8 51 ) from the commune of Frumoasa, (Csikszentmârton) 8 7 . 2 % — — 1 1 5 7 6 8 6 5 8 9 2 0 8 6 5 ------—- 7 737 1,646 825 Cosnea** (Kostelek) and Ciuges Comitat of Ciuc 1 5 9 1 4 3 12) (Csügés)* * * 9 0 %

10. Public officials residing at Mercurea Giuc (Csikszereda), who have received building land, mili­ Mercurea Ciuc 2 , 6 7 5 2 6 8 1 ,9 5 7 3 0 2 8 9 — — -— --- — —— 3 0 2 8 9 tary administration, etc. Comitat of Ciuc

11. Unknown. Frumoasa (Szépviz) 1 1 — Comitat of Ciuc

Observation. — The figures relating to the communes or towns marked ** and *** have been taken from the statistics furnished by the 1910 Census, as the Roumanian statistics for l9‘20 do not furnish any particulars. — 73 —

ANNEX IV.

M i n i s t e r f o r W o r s h ip a n d E d u c a t i o n . No. 19705.

Monsieur le Ministre, In reply to Your Excellency’s note No. 9967 of May 19th last and the two further notes Nos. 19024 of August 22nd and 24428 of September 26th last, concerning the buildings forming part of the property to be restored, in accordance with the Royal Resolution of February 16th, 1869, to the former Szekler frontier guard regiments, that is to say to the population of Csik and Hâromszék, I have the honour to state my views, which are as follow : Whereas in Memorandum No. 10598 addressed in 1868 by the Royal Hungarian Ministers of the Interior, Finance and Justice to His Imperial and Royal Majesty it was proved : (a) that the movable and immovable property of which the above-mentioned frontier guard regiments had the enjoyment and which was confiscated later, is the property of the Szekler nation, that is to say of the population of Csik and Hâromszék and of certain other families ; (b) that the Szekler nation had the ownership of this land by right of conquest and that the Royal Crown, not having any right of succession, could not become the owner of that property ; (c) that since the State had no legitimate right to the said property, confiscation and the arguments put forward by the absolutist Government to justify confiscation are indefensible ; Whereas, for these reasons, the Royal Resolution of February 16th, 1869, ordered as an act of grace the restitution of the whole of the property, both movable and immovable, of which the first and second Szekler infantry regiments and the regiment of Szekler frontier guard hussars had the ownership and enjoyment and which, as the result of confiscation, is being administered by the State ; Whereas, in the Royal Resolution of July 15th. 1870, the right of ownership of the Szekler nation over this property was recognised and even emphasised ; Whereas, finally, the act of grace contained in the Royal Resolution of February 16th, 1869, refers to the restitution of the confiscated property to the rightful holders in full owner­ ship, but does not grant the right of ownership. For these reasons, I cannot agree that the State should be authorised to evade its obligation to pay compensation to the families of the former frontier guard regiments, that is to say to the population of Csik and Hâromszék for the buildings claimed by the State for purposes of public utility. Moreover, the same opinion was expressed (the reasons being given) in paragraph 7 of the report drawn up at the meetings on February 25th and 26th and March 5th and 12th last of the Joint Commission which was called upon to give its opinion as to the utilisation of the buildings in question. If the restored Szekler property was to be assigned, like the property restored to the descendants of the former Roumanian frontier guard regiments to the cause of primary education, the attainment of that excellent object would be impeded if the buildings in question were expropriated for national purposes without any compensation. I therefore beg to draw' Your Excellency’s attention to the necessity for compelling the State to pay the owners a rent to be fixed by contract, for the buildings claimed by it on grounds of public utility, but w'hich belong to the Szekler Comitats, that is to say to the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiments, as shown by the above-mentioned Royal Resolution. It would be stipulated that this rent should be assigned to purposes of primary education. I would ask Your Excellency to be good enough to inform me of what is done in the matter. I have the honour to return the annexes to notes Nos. 18342 of July 24th last, and 24428 of September 26th last, together with a copy of the question contained in note 11271 of May 18th last concerning the allowances to the schoolmasters and mistresses of Csikzereda and Csikszentmârton. and of the report of the school inspector for Csik, Udvarhely and Hâromszék.

I have the honour, etc.

Done at Buda on October 17th, 1871.

(Signed) Dr. Tivadar P a u l e r . His Excellency Monsieur William Tôth, Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior.

Copy certified correct : L. S. Francis SXg h y , Director of the Issuing Office. — 74

IVa. T a b l e o f C o m m u n e s a t p r e s e n t b e l o n g i n g to t h e C o m it a t o f C iu c (C s i k ), b u t WHICH DID NOT FURNISH ANY SOLDIERS TO THE FORMER FRONTIER GUARD AND IN WHICH NOT EVEN THE HUNGARIAN INHABITANTS HAD A RlGHT TO THE CONFISCATED PROPERTY.

T tal Rouman­ I No. Commune Hungarians! Germans Jews population ians i j 1. Tulghes 3,464 1,022 2,177 12 242 (Tôlgyes)

2. Bicas 6,985 6,735 172 •— GO (Békâz)

3. Voslâbeni 849 798 51 — — (Vaslab)

4. Lunca de sus 2,275 40 2,233 — 2 (Gyimesfelsôlok)

5 . Lunca de jos 3,620 108 3,426 — 86 (Gyimeskôzéplok)

6. Gvimesfaget 5,346 2,542 2,660 18 123 (Gyimesbükk)

T o ta l...... 22,139 11,245 10,719 30 531 50.8% 48%

IVa. Table of the Eleven Communes which belonged to the Comitat of Ciuc (Csik) under the Hungarian Regime but in which the Hungarian Inhabitants had no Right to the Confiscated Pboperty.

Comitat to which the Total Rouman­ No. Commune present population Hungarians Germans ians Jews commune in 1929 belongs

1. Corbu ; Mures 1,203 783 358 17 43 (Hollô)

2. Tulghes Ciuc 3,464 1,022 2,177 12 242 (Tôlgyes) (Csik)

3. Bicas Ciuc 6,985 6,735 172 —■ 78 (Békâz) (Csik) |

4. Borsec Mures 1,418 176 1.134 10 92 (Borszék)

5. Bilbor Mures 1,200 1,067 105 1 16 (Bélbor)

6. Voslâbeni Ciuc 849 798 51 (Vaslâb)

7. Subcetate Mures 3,599 2,559 707 45 202 (Vârhegy)

8. | Sarmas Mures 1,483 1,379 34 — 62 (Salamâs)

9. Lunca de sus Ciuc 1 2,275 40 2,233 2 1 - (Gyimesfelsôlok) ! 10. Lunca de jos Ciuc 3,620 108 3,426 — 86 (Gyimeskôzéplok)

11. Gyimesfaget Ciuc 5,346 2,542 2,660 — 123 (Gyimesbükk)

T o ta l...... 31,442 17,209 13,057 103 946 54.7% 41.5% ! — 75 —

IV6. Table showing the Racial Composition of the 52 Communes enumerated

in Article 4 o f the Statute o f 1 8 9 7 .

Total Population According According to the 1910 to the Roumanians Hungarians census Roumanian statistics 1910 1920 1910 1920 for 1920 In the 5 2 communes . . . 1 1 3 ,1 6 8 109,757 1,734 11,173 110,337 95,921 Percentage ...... 1 . 5 % 1 0 . 1 % 9 7 . 4 % 8 7 . 3 %

V I. T a b l e o f F o r e s t s g iv e n to t h e P a r is h e s s it u a t e d in V a r io u s C o m it a t s .

Communal Comitat Area of the forest administra­ to which No. Parish tion to which the Observations forest commune Arpents Toises* belongs belongs

1. 9 of the Comitat I Of the 1,480 ar­ of Ciuc, Corbu Mures 90 pent s of forest dis­ 5 of the Comitat ( Hollo) tributed we know of Mures 50 — t he owners of 1,085 arpents but not of the remainder.

2. 39 of the Comitat of Ciuc, Tulghes Ciuc 390 2 of the Comitat (Tôlgyes) of Mures. 20

3. 47 of the Comitat of Ciuc, Mures 475 37 of the Comitat of Mures, Bilbor 1 of the Comitat (Bélbor) 430 of Târnava, 10 1 of the Comitat of Brasov. 25

Total ...... 1,480 — 76 —

Via. Table of Forests given to the Parishes of Other Comitats.

ET Forest area > 1 Number

No. Commune J2 ■aeu Græ- of Comitat, Observations 2> co Græco- Roman decision 5 £ 73 Orien­ ® o S cattioilc Catholic ' 33 Z2, tal

1 . Corbu 2 20 200-928 Names of bran­ (Hollo) 1928 Mures ches : Valea-Cor- V I1/30 bului, S. Batei.

2. Bilbor 10 96-929 Mures (Bélbor) IV/20

3. Borsec 96-929 Mures In 1910 the total (Borszék) 10 IV/20 population of the commune was 1,862 inhabitants, of whom 1,559 were Roman Ca­ tholics.

4. Chesler 78-929 Târnava In 1910 the total (Készler) 10 IV/4 Mare population of the commune was 940 inhabitants of whom 550 were Græco-Catholics.

5. Bunei 25 159-929 Brasov This commune is Vestini VII/19 not mentioned in the Roumanian statistics.

6. Targulmures According to the (Marosvâ- 24 250 36-929 Mures 1910 census there sârhelyvâros) 11/26 were 25,527 inha­ bitants in the town of whom 761 were of Gra-co-Oriental religion.

Total. . . . 26 250 55 20

The Græco-Oriental parish of the town mentioned under No. 6 received forests for the following 24 branches : 1. Sovata (J. Murgest i 17. Bergia 2. Mosuni 10. Corn at el 18. Viforiasa 3. Veta 11. Banerai 19. Sànghorgi de padure 4. Sausa 12. Nerest i 20. Sardul Nirajului [). Pete a de làinpie 13. Cornesti 21. Ogari 6. Peris 14. Sàngerul île pâdure 22. Laureni 7. Masna M i ces I i 15. Cristesti 23. Maiad 5. Ac a tori 16. Gorghid 24. Senisor

VIb. T a b l e o f F o r e s t s g iv e n t o t h e H u n g a r ia n R o m a n C a t h o l ic P a r is h e s

Number Roman Area of Tolal pOptlldliGD No. of Catholics Commune Comitat Church the land o( tiie commune decision in 191 0 in 1910

1 . ( Ihileni Csik Roman 10 97-929 886 879 (Kilyénfalva) Catholic 1919. Roman IV/20 9 Ditrau Csik Catholic 30 93-929 6,987 6.235 (Ditrô) IV/20 Total ...... 1 40 — 77 —

Vic. T a b le o f R o u m a n ia n P a r is h e s a nd B r a n c h e s of t h e Com itat of Ciuc (Cs i k ) g r a n t e d F orest L and t a k e n from t h e E xpropriated D o m a in s.

1. Roumanian Græco-Oriental (Orthodox) Parishes.

Forest Number of Population Commune Area the deci­ No. and Parish sion relat­ Observations Graco Percent- ' Roman ing to the 1 H Total Oriental age Catiiolic forest land The number of Græco- 1 . Mercurea Ciuc Orientals has increased by some 200 under the (Csikszereda) 50 — 3,701 21 0.7 2,924 172-929 Roumanian regime.

The 120 arpents of fo­ 2. Mercurea Ciuc rest were given to 12 branches situated in 12 (Csikszereda) — 120 194-927 communes, with a total X/29 population of 19,854 in­ habitants, of whom 38 — i.e., 0.1 % — are of Græco- Oriental religion. For details see Observations Total 50 120 relating to Table VIr." j

2. Roumanian Græco-Catholic Parishes and Branches.

Forest Number of Population Area. the deci­ Commune • No. ______sion relat­ Observations and Parish Græco- Percent Roman ing to the H Total Ü Catholic age Catholic forest land

The 70 arpents of forest were given to seven bran­ 3. Mercurea Ciuc ches situated in seven (Csikszereda) 70 3.701 95 2.5 2,924 195-927 communes, with a total X/29 population of 8,070 inha­ bitants, of whom 205 - i.e., 2.5% — are of Græco- Catholic religion. See “ Observations relating to Table Vic.” No. 3.

Allotted to the “ Branch ” at Cioboteni, 4. Mercurea Ciuc 10 78-928 where all the inhabitants belong to the Roman Ca­ 1V/6 tholic religion and there is not a single Græco-Catho­ lic.

Each of the 25 branches received 10 arpents of forests. The ’25 commu­ . Mercurea Ciuc 125 95-929 nes have a population of Y 1/20 37,756 inhabitants, of whom 2,544 — i.e., 6 .6 % - are Graeco-Catholics. See for details " Observations relating to Table Vic."

6. Mercurea Ciuc » — 179-929 V I1/19

7. Gyimesfaget (Gyimesbükk) 50 — 6,298 2,266 36.6 3,509 80-928 I V/6 — 78 —

2. Boumanian Græco-Catholic Parishes and Branches (contd.).

Forest Popu lation Area ! Number of the deci­ Commune and No. Parish sion relat Observations 1 c ^ Total Græco Percent Roman ing to the « i 2 Catholic age catholic forestland j a, | cq J i 1 Four branches were 8. Gyimesfaget 10 40 80-928 granted 40 arpents of for I V/6 est. The total population is 5,708 inhabitants, of whom 479 are Graeco- Catholics and 5,022 Ro­ man Catholics. See for details No. 8 of the “ Ob­ servations relating to Table Vic.”

9. Frumoasa Each of the 3 branches (Szépviz) 10 30 3,078 640 20.7 2,386 81-928 lias received 30 arpents. The 3 communes have a I V /6 population of 809, of whom 506 - i.e., 62.5% - are Græco-Catholics and 76 Roman Catholics. See No. 9 of the “ Observa­ tions relating to Table Vlr.”

1 0 . Bicas 15 7,133 6.572 92,1 365 77-929 (Békâz) IV/4

1 1 . Bicas 2 0 200-928 The branches of Domuc V I1/30 and I va nos. 10 arpents each.

1 2 . Bicas 30 201-928 V I1/30 The branches of Histra, Pin tea, Telec, 10 ar­ pents each.

1 3 . Bicas 30 202-928 V I1/30 The branches of Poiana Marului, Ticos, Valea Jidanului, 10 arpents each.

1 4 . Ciucsânghe- Outside the parish, the orghe branch of Sânmartin, 10 (Csikszent- arpents. The commune gyôrgy) 10 10 2,127 178 8.3 1,925 77-928 of Sânmartin has a popu­ I V/6 lation of 1,034, of whom 10 are Græco-Catholics and 973 Roman Catholics.

15. Lazarest i 10 836 264 31.5 571 79-928 IV/8 i 1 l Total 185 365 i |

Græco-Oriental parishes and branches of the Comitat, of Ciuc .... 170 arpents of forest Græco-Catholic parishes and branches ...... 550 arpents of forest

Total 720 arpents of forest — 79 —

Observalions relating to Table Vic.

Total Population Parish ,o which the branch population Branch is attached of the Græco- Roman branch Oriental Catholic

Ad 2 Mercurea Ciuc Toplita-Ciuc 1,760 — 1,737 (Csikszereda) Frumoasa 3,078 4 2,386 Jigodin 1,213 1.136 Sânc.raeni 1,606 1 1,537 Sântimbru 1,788 1 1,762 Sâusimion 1,504 1,456 Tusnad 2,285 7 2.136 Sânmartin 1,031 13 973 Plâséi de jos 985 2 885 Jacobeni 1,239 5 921 C i u csâ ngheo rghi u 2,127 5 1,925 Banc u 1,495 1,434 ' 19,854 38 o.i%

Græco- Catholic Ad 3 Mercurea Ciuc Sàncralni 1,606 38 1.537 Jigodin 1,213 10 1,136 Sumuleu 949 6 915 Soimeni 706 69 637 Pauleni 651 79 569 Toplita Ciuc 1,760 1 1,737 Misentea 1,190 1 1,185

8,075 205 ■2.5%

Ad 5 Mercurea Ciuc Ciceu 2,226 50 2,167 Petru Rares 1,908 13 1,855 Mihaleni Nadajda 2,543 353 2,139 Sândominic et Balan 5,391 317 5,032 Tomesti 2,791 260 2,512 Ineu 2.237 29 2,202 Danesti 2,700 111 2,556 Madarus 17 2,227 Racul 1,604 24 1,562 Imper 1,143 250 870 Plasei de jos 985 86 885 Jacobeni 1,239 312 921 Plasei de sus 1,247 243 996 C a si n 1,758 206 1,535 Tusnad Dat Tusnadul Non 2,285 73 2,136 Tusnad Baile ^ Vrabia 380 14 361 Cormeni 1,391 15 1,352 Armaseni 2,178 101 2,072 Bancu 1,495 50 1,434 Bolovanis Unknown Valea Rece Unknown

37,756 2,524 6.6%

Ad 7 Ghimesfaget Rachitis 224 163 55 Fagetel 116 60 56 Lunca de jos 3,030 159 2,741 Lunca de sus 2,288 97 2,170

5,708 479

Ad 9 Frumoasa Cosnea 399 348 40 Ciuges 159 143 12 Livezi 351 315 14 VII. T a b l e o f P r o p e r t y r e t a i n e d b y t h e S t a t e .

Land retained by the State

No. Name of Commune in which Arable land the land is situated Meadows Pasture land Forest Farms Barren land Total ______Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2 I Arpents Toises2 Arpents [ Toises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2 Arpents Toises2

1. Corbu (Hollo) —— ____ — 7,006 546 — ____ 5 1,255 7,012 201

2. Tulghes (Tôlgyes) — — — 938 1,508 — — — — 938 1,508

3. Bilbor (Bélbor) — — — — 68 172 12,583 30 1 1,037 59 1,240 12,712 879

4. Bicaz (Békâs) 746 1,120 5 745 202 75 945 340

5. Ciucsànmartin (Szenl-Mârton) —- — 3 1,380 93 775 6,760 1,283 —— 31 473 6,889 711

6. Toplita Româna (Maroshéviz) — —• — — — — — ——— — — —

7. Mercurea Ciuc (Csikszereda) — — — — ~~ — — — — — — — —

8. Frumoasa (Szépviz) — —- — — —— — — 488 — — — 488

o. T o ta l...... — — 3 1,380 161 947 28,035 1,287 7 670 298 1,443 28,507 927 — 81 —

XI.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT.

Geneva, December 20th, 1930.

To the Secretary-General.

In your letters Nos. 4/19725/3442 dated June 11th, and 4/21981/3442 dated September 2nd last, you were good enough to communicate to me for my Government’s observations two new supplementary Memoranda regarding the property of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment. My Government desires to assure you that it has studied them with the greatest care and in all their details. In its opinion, a large number of points are open to discussion and more than one statement in regard to facts or details needs to be rectified. In particular, the petitioners show a manifest tendency to present the question in such an erroneous light, by assuming the existence of an anti-minority policy — by which no Roumanian Government has ever been actuated — that my Government at first proposed to reply point by point to the statements advanced by the petitioners in their new Memoranda. However, on studying them more closely, it found that they contained nothing new, and that the question is put so clearly and specifically in the previous observations of the Roumanian Government that it need only refer to them. What is the real point at issue ? It is simply a question of the application of the Agrarian Law to property belonging to the State. However, the petitioners dispute the Roumanian State’s right of ownership over the property in question and protest against the decision of the Agrarian Committee to this effect. They are quite entitled to do so, but if they had wished to recover this right of ownership, which they state belongs to them, it was open to them to apply to the courts of justice which the ordinary law places at the disposal of all in such cases. They still have this right and have only to exercise it if they think fit. The decision of the Agrarian Committee, which has been disputed, is not in this case a judgment with final effect and could not therefore be declared to be such against plaintiffs desiring to claim their property. The powers of the Agrarian Committee, which is the supreme court in the matter of expropriation and acts in accordance with the agrarian laws, are defined and limited by those laws in so far as expropriation is concerned. Naturally, in deciding a case relating to expropriation, the Agrarian Committee may have to examine and settle preliminary questions or questions connected with the case. This was what happened in the matter of the Ciuc property. Nevertheless, the Agrarian Committee’s solution, in so far as it affects the actual right of ownership, has not the irrevocable character conferred by a judgment with final effect. On this point, the judicial courts of ordinary law maintain all their rights, and these are reserved to them by the Agrarian Law. Moreover, the legal practice of the High Court of Cassation is invariable on this point (we would refer, for instance, to the decision of the High Court, first section, of July 4th, 1927 in the case of Marie Zabotchin and others against the Ministry of Agriculture and others). Since a complaint has been submitted to the League Council in regard to the Ciuc property, I lie Roumanian Government has endeavoured to furnish all the necessary explanations, but solely out of respect for the Council. This was its sole concern and the sole object of its previous and present observations. As regards the substance of the question, the Roumanian Government has all along been of opinion that the petitioners can only obtain satisfaction, in the matter of what they regard as their rights, under municipal law and within the limits of that law. They need only have recourse to it. (SignedJ A n t o n i a d e . - 82 —

XII.

NOTE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COUNCIL OF PERSIA, GREAT BRITAIN AND NORWAY.

The Representatives of Persia, Great Britain and Norway on the Council of the League of Nations, have examined, in accordance with the terms of the Council Resolution of October 25th, 1920, documents C.502.1929.I, C.33. and C.266.1930.1 and C.19.1931.1, concerning the petitions from the representatives of the descendants of the former Szekler frontier guard regiment together with the observations of the Roumanian Government thereon. At the last meeting, held on January 26th, 1931, these Representatives decided to bring to the attention of the Council, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Roumanian Minorities Treaty, the question dealt with in the above-mentioned documents. To this end they request the Secretary-General to take the necessary steps for the insertion of this question on the agenda of the next session of the Council, and to inform the Roumanian Government of their decision.

Geneva, January 26th, 1931. (Signed) Hussein K. A lâ

William M a l k in

Joh. Ludwig M o w i n c k e l