SEANCES PUBLIQUES ET PLAIDOIRIES Publlc SITTINGS and PLEADINGS

DEUXIEME PARTIE

SEANCES PUBLIQUES ET PLAIDOIRIES

PART *II. -- PUBLlC SITTINGS AND PLEADINGS. COU12 PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE INTERNRTIONAT-E

VINGT-TROISIEME SESS [ON (EXTRAOIIDINAIRE) PREMIÈRESEANCE PUBLIQUE tenue au Pnktis de lu Paix, La Huye, le lundi 9 novembre 1931, à IO h. 30, sous la présidence de M. Adntci, Président :.

Pre'seîzls : MM. ADATC~,Président ; GUEKKEKO, Vice-Prési- dent ; le baroii KOLIX-JAEQUE:~~YNS,le comte ROSTWOKOWSKI, IvTRI. I~KOMAGEOT,ALTAMIRA, ASZILOTTI, UKKUTIA,sir CECIr. Huusr, 8131. SCH~CKIXG,NEGULESCO, Jhr. VA;^ EYSIXGA, M. \YANG, juges; M. BRUXS,juge ad hoc; M. HA~IMARSKJOLU, Grefier de lu Cour. Le PK~SSIDENTdéclare I'aiidieiice ouverte et ;innonce qiie la vingt-troisihiiie session extraordinaire de la Coiir, convoquée conforméiiient à l'article 23 du Statut, dans les conditions indiqukcs lors de la derniere audience de la session précédente, a comrncncti: le j novembre. Lü Cour tient atijoiird'hui la pre- rnière aiidience de la sessioi; La Cour se trouve rictuclleiiierit saisie de cinq affaires, savoir: I) l'affaire des zones franches de la Haute-Savoie et dit Pays de Gex, affaire clont la Coiir ne sera pas cn rnesure de s'occuper avant le mois clfavriI 1932 ; 2) l'affaire relative au traitement des riatioiiaiis polonais et des autres personnes d'origine ou de langtie polonaise dans le territoire de Dantzig ; cette affaire est en ktat depuis le 29 octobre dernier ; 3) l'affaire du statut juridique de certaines parties du Groë~llancl oriental; cette affaire ne sera en état que le ~~r septembre 1932 ; 4) I'affaire reIative à I'üccès et au stntionneinent des navires de guerre polonais dans le port de Dantzig, eii Ctat depuis le j novembre, et enfin 5) l'affaire relative à l'interpretation de l'Accord Caphanda- ris-Slolloff du g décembre 1927 ; cette affaire sera en état le rer février 1932. De ces affaires, seules celles qui ont trait respectivement au --traiternent cles nationaux polonais à Dantzig et 5 l'accés et l QuatriErne dance de la Cour. PERMANENT COURT OF IN'TERNATIONAL JUSTICE

TM'ENTIr-TH IRD (EXTRAORDINARY) SESSION FIRST PUBLIC SITTING held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on llfonday, ~Vovembergth, 1931, ut 10.30 a.nz., the President, M. A dntci, firesiding l.

Present : MM. ADATCI,President ;GUICRREKO, Vice-President ; Baron ROLIN-JAEQUE~IYNS, Count I~OSTWOROWSKI, MM. FROMA- CEOT, ALTAMIRA, ANZTLOTTI,URRUTIA, Sir CECIL HURST, AIM. SCHISCKING,NEGULESCO, Jhr. VAN EYSIKGA,M. \VANG, Jzrdges; M. BRUNS,Jztdge ad hoc ; AI. HAMMARSKJOLD,Regis- lrar O/ the Court. The PRESIDENTdeclared the hearing open and announced that the Twenty-Third Extraordinary Session of the Court- an estraordinary session convened under Article 23 of the Statute, in the circumstances indicated at the Iast hearing of the previous session-opened on November 5th. The Court to-day held tlie first hearing of the seçsion. . The Court, at the moment, had five cases before it, namely : (1) the case of the Free Zoncs of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, which the Court would not be in a position to deal with before April xg3z ; (2) the case relating to the treatment of Poliçh nationals and other persons of Polish origin or speech in the Danzig territory ; this case had been ready for hearing since Octo- ber 29th last ; (3) the case concerning the legs1 status of certain parts of Eastern Greenland ; this case would not be ready for hearing tiIl September ~st,1932 ; (4) the case concerning access to or nnchorage in the port of Danzig of Polish war vessels, which had been ready for hearing siiice November 5th, nricl, lastly, (j) the case concerning the intcryretation of the Caphan- daris-hiolloff Agreement of Deceinber gth, 1927 ; this case ivoiild be ready for hearing on February ~st,1932. Of the above five cases only two wcre ready for hearing : that concerning the treatment of Polish nationals at Danzig.

Fourth meeting of the Court. au stationnement des navires de guerre polonaiç à Dantzig sont en état. Bien que la Cour ait été saisie de la première de ces affaires dès le 28 mai de cette année et de la seconde seulement depuis Ie 28 septembre, elle a décidé de traiter en premier lieu 1'aff:iire concernant l'accès et le stationnement des navires de guerre polonais dans le port de Dantzig. En effet, Ics termes inèmes de la résolution par laquelle le Conseil a soumis cette affaire à la Cour, prient cette dernière de bien vouloir rendre son avis en temps utile pour permettre au ConseiI de prendre une décision au cours de sa session qui s'ou- vrira le 2j janvier 193' ; une clause analogue fait défaut dans la résolution du Conseil relative au traitement des nationaux polonais. La question posée A la Cour dans l'affaire dont elle doit inaintenaiit s'occuper est ainsi conçue : [Voir +. 9.1 . Dans cette affaire, la Cour, considérant tes Gouvernements de la Ville libre de Dantzig et de Pologiie comme suscep- tibles de foiiriiir des renseignements conforrnCrnent & l'article 73, no 1, alinéa 2, du Règlement, les a informés qu'elle était disposée à entendre des ,exposés oraux présentés en leur noIn au cours d'une audience publique tenue à cet effet. Ces deus Gouvernenients ont dEciaré qu'ils désiraient se prévaloir de la Iacultc qiii leur avait été ainsi accordée. Le Gouvernement de la Ville libre ? désigné pour le représenter sir John Fischer \irillirirns, Oxford, assisté cornme conseil du Dr Ferber, Ober- regierz4ngsrat de la Ville libre de Dantzig.; le Gouvernement poIonais, de son côté, a désigné comine agent M. '\Ylodzimierz hIoderow, d81égué à Dantzig de 1'OCZice général du conten- tieux de I'ctat, assisté de M. Joseph 31arlewski, rapporteur au ministère des Affaires étrangères à Varsovie, et comme conseil M. Charles clr: Visscher, doyen de la Faculté de droit i l'Uni- versité dc Gaiid. Un des deux Gouvernements considérés ainsi par la Cour coinme priiiciynlement intéressés dans l'affaire, & savoir le Gouvernemciit dc la Ville libre, ne comptant pas sur le siège de juge de SEL nationalité, et se prévalant du droit que lui confère i'rirticle 71 du Règlement, a désigné pour siéger dans la présente affaire bf. Viktor Bruns, directeur de l'Institut de Droit international public à Berlin. Le Président prie 31. Bruns de vouloir bien prendre I'engagement solenrlel prévu par l'article 20 du Statut et par l'article j du Règlement. M. Brtu~sayant pronoricl la déclaration dont il s'agit, le PRESIDEXT,au noIn de la Cour, en prend acte et le déclare FIRST SITTING (NOVEMBER gth, 1931) Zog and that concerning access to or anchorage in the port 'of Danzig of Polish war vessels. Although the first of these cases had been before the Court since May 28th of this year, and the second only since Sep- ternber 28th, the Court had decicied to deal first with the case conceming access to or anchorage in the port of Danzig of Polish war vesçels. Indeed the text of the resolution in virtue of which the Council submitted this case to the Court contained a specific request that the Court would be so good as to give ifs opinion in time to enable the Council to take a decision on the matter at its session opening on January 25th, 1932 ; no similar clause was inserted in the Council's resolution concerning the treatment of Polish nationals at .d Danzig. The auestion vut to the Court in the case with which it had noG7 tto deal waç worded as follows :

In this case the Court, considering the Government of the Free City of Danzig and the Government of Poland as Likely to be able to furnish information in accordance with Article 73, No. 1, paragraph z, of the Rules of Court, informed those Governments that it would be prepared to hear oral statements to be submitted on their behalf at a public meeting . held for the purpose. 'Both those Governments declared that they wished to lnake use of the right which had been thus .accorded them. The Government of the Free City appointed as its representative Sir John Fischer Williams, Oxford, assisted by Dr. Ferber, Oberregierungsrat of the Free City of Danzig as Counsel ; and the Polish Government appointed as its Agent M. Wlodzhnierz Moderow, representative of the Gen- eral Litigation Office of. the State at Danzig, assisted by . M. Joseph Marlewski, rapporteur to the .Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Warsaw, and M. Charles de Visscher, Dean of the Faculty of Law at Ghent University, as Counsel. As one of the two Governments considered by the Court as chiefiy concerned in the case, viz., the Government of the Free City, had no judge of its own nationality on the Bench, it had availed itself of the right conferred on it by Article 71 .of the Rules of Court, and had appointed Dr. Viktor Bruns, Director of the Institute of Public International Law at Berlin, to sit in the present case. The President requested Dr. Bruns lo make the solemn declaration provided for by Article 20 of the Statute and by Article 5 of the Kules of Court. Dr. BRUNShaving made the solernn declaration in question, the PRESIDENT-on behalf of the Court-took note of this 17 du'ment installé comme juge ad hoc dans l'affaire relative à l'accès et au stationnement des navires de guerre polonais dans le port de Dantzig. La Cour devra cette fois siéger en l'absence de deux de ses membres, MM. Kellogg et de Bustamante, qui se trouvent pour le moment dans l'impossibilité de venir à La Haye, La Cour se trouvant ainsi composée, le Président constate que les deux Gouvernements intéressés n'ont pas communiqué officiellement d'accord intervenu entre eux, conformément à l'article 46 du Règlement, au sujet de l'ordre entre les exposés oraux. Dès lors, et comme il s'agit d'une question soumise à la Cour pour avis consultatif, il déclare qu'il donnera, suivant la pratique constante de la Cour, la parole aux représen- tants des Gouvernements intéressés dans l'ordre alphabétique des noms des États dont ils exposent le point de vue et, par conséquent, en premier lieu, à l'agent de la' Ville libre de Dantzig.

Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS prononce l'exposé reproduit en annexe l, L'audience, interrompue à 13 heures, est reprise à 16 heures. Le PRÉSIDENTdonne la parole à l'agent du Gouverne- ment de Dantzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS reprend et continue son exposé =, dont la suite, interrompue par la clôture de l'audience, est renvoyée au mardi IO novembre à IO h. 30.

L'audience est levée iL 18 h. 30.

Le Président de la Cour : (Sigaé) M. ADATCI. Le Greffier de la Cour : (Signé) A. HAMMARSKJOLD.

l Voir p. 217. D D 235- FIRST SITTING (NOVEMBER gth, 1931) 210 solemn declaration and declared him duly installed as judge ad hoc in the case concerning access to or anchorage in the port of Danzig of Polish war vessels. The Court would have to sit, on this occasion, without two of its members, hlr. Kellogg and M. de Bustamante, who were unavoidably prevented from coming to The Hague. The Court being thus constituted, the President noted that the two Governments concerned had not made any official communication as to the conclusion of an agreement between them, as provided in Article 46 of the Rules of Court, in regard to the order of the oral pleadings. Conse- quently, and as this was a question submitted 'to the Court for an advisory opinion, in accordance with the constant practice of the Court, he would caU on the representatives of the Govemments concerned in the alphabetical order of the names of the States whose points of view they were to expound, and consequently he would cd first on Sir John Fischer IViUiams, Agent of the Danzig Government, to address the Court. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS made the statement reproduced in the annex l. The hearing, suspended at I p.m., was resumed at 4 p.m. The PRESIDENTcalled on the Agent of the Danzig Govern- ment. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS resumed and continued his statement 2, which, being intenupted by the suspension of the hearing, wili be continued on Tuesday, November xoth, at 10.30 a.m. The hearing was suspended at 6.30 p.m. (Sîgned) hl. ADATCI, President . (Signed) A. HAM~RSKJOLD, Registrar.

l See p. 217, ,, .. 235. DEUXIÈMESÉANCE PUBLIQUE , fenzre nu Palais de In Paix, La Haye, le mardi IO novembre 1931, d IO h. 30, sous la prksidence de M. Adatci, Prbsident l. Prksents: les membres de la Cour mentionnés au procès- verbal de la première seance, p. 208. Le PRÉSIDENTdonne la parole à l'agent de la Ville libre de Dantzig.

Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS reprend et poursuit son exposé 2. L'audience, interrompue à 13 heures, est reprise à 16 heures. Le PASIDENTdonne la parole à l'agent de la Ville libre de Dantzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS continue et termine son exposé

Le PRÉSIDENTdonne la parole à l'agent du Gouvernement polonais. M. MODEROW procède à l'exposé reproduit en annexe et qu'il termine. Le P&SIDENTannonce que la Cour se réunira le mercredi II novembre à IO h. 30 et qu'il donnera la parole au conseil du Gouvernement polonais.

L'audience est levée à 18 heures. [Signatures.]

TROISIÊMESEANCE PUBLIQUE tenue au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, le mercredi II novembre 1931, d ro h. 30, sous la prksidence de M. Adatci, Prksident

Présents : les membres de la Cour mentionnés au procès- verbal de la première séance, p. 208. Le PR~SIDENTdonne la parole au conseil du Gouvernement polonais.

l Cinqui&me $dance de la Cour. Voir p. 256. a 278. 4 n a 286. Sixiéme séance de la Cour. SECOND PUBLIC SITTING ke2d ut the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Tztesday, November ~oth,1931, al 10.30 a.m., the President, M. Adatci, $residing '. Present: the members of Court mentioned in the minutes of the first sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDENTcalIed on the Agent for the Free City of Danzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIA~IS continued his speech a. The Court adjourned from I to 4 p.m. The PRESIDENTcded on the Agent for the Free City of Danzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS continued and concluded his speech S. The PRESIDENTcalled on the Agent for the ~olishGovern- ment. M. MODER~Wbegan and concluded the statement reproduced in the annex 4. The PRESIDENTannounced that the Court would meet on Wednesday, Novernber nth, at 10.30 a.m., and that he would then call on Counsel for the Polish Government to address the Court. The Court rose at 6 p.m. [Signatures.]

THIRO PUBLIC SITTING heEd al the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Wednesday, November rxth, 1931, ut 10.30 am., the President, M. Adalci, presiding 6. Prcsent: the members of Court mentioned in the minutes of the first sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDENTcaUed on Counsel for the Polish Govern- ment.

1 Fifth meeting of the Court. See p. 256. ,, ,, 278. ,. ,. 286. 6 Sixth meeting of the Court. 2 12 TROISIÈME SÉATVCE(II NOVEaI BRE 1931) RI. le professeur DE VISSCHERprockde ri. l'ckposé reproduit en annexe l. Aii cours de cet exposé, le PRÉSIDENT donne la parole ii M. ANZILOTTI, qui pose la question rcproduite en annexe 2. Le P~~SIDENTindique au conseil du Gouvernement polonais qu'il n'est paç tenu de répondre séance tenante A cette question. II donne, sur sa demande, la parole à l'agent du Gouver- nement de Dantzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIA~IS demande communication de deux pièces dont ont fait état respectivement, dans leurs exposés oraux, l'agent kt le conseil du Gouvernement polonais, savoir, une lettre du Haut-Commissaire de la Société des Nations A Dantzig au Secrétaire général de la Société, du 5 mai 1921, et une lettre du 5 mars 1921 de la délégation polonaise auprès de la Société des Nations au président clu Conseil de la Société. M. le professeur DE VISSCHERdéclare que sa réponse sera donnée aussitôt qne possible à. la question posée par BI. Anzilotti et que les pièces demandées seront incessamment déposées au Greffe de la Cour. L'audience, interrompue à x3 heures, est reprise à 16 heures. Le PRÉSIDENT donne la parole à l'agent du Gouvernement polonais. M. ~~ODER~Wdonne à. la question posée par fil. AnziIotti lors de l'audience du matin la réponse reproduite à l'annexe S.

Le PRESIDENTdonne la. parole au conseil du Gouvernement polonais. M. le professeur DE VISSCHER poursuit et termine son exposé =. Au cours de cet exposé, le PRÉSIDENTdemande au conseil du Gouvernement polonais de 'produire le mémoire du Sénat de Dantzig, en date du zo septembre 1921, dont iI a fait état. - M. le professeur DE VISSCHERannonce le dépôt de ce document, ainsi que de toutes pièces qui n'auraient pas encore été soumises à la Cour.

l Voir p. 293. r a 304. n s 311. THIRD SITTING (NOVEMBER 11th, 1931) 2 12

Proessor DE VISSCHERmade the speech given in the annex l.

During this speech, the PRESIDENTcaUed on M. ANZILOTTI to put the question given in the annes =. The PRESIDENTinformed Counsel for the Polish Governrnent' that he was not bound to reply immediately to this question. He then caUed on the Agent of the Danzig Government, at his request, to submit an observation. Sir JOHN FISCHER~VILLIAJIS asked that two documents mhich had been cited, respectively, by the Agent and Counsei for the Polish Government might be communicated: namely a letter from the High Commissioner for the League of Nations to the Secretary-General of May 5th, 1921, and a letter, dated hlarch jth, 1921, from the Polish delegate accre- dited to the League of Nations to the President of the Council of the League.

Professor DE: VISSCHER said that he would reply to hl. Anzilotti's question as soon as possible, and that the documents which had been asked. for would be filed with the Registry forthwith. The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 4 p.m. The PRESIDENTcailed on the Agent for the Polish Govern- ment. hf . ?~ODER~Wgave the information reproduced in the annex in response to the question açked by.M. Anzilotti at the morning sitting of the Court. The PRESIDENTcaUed on Counsel for the Polish Govenl- ment.

Professor DE VISSCHER continued and concluded his speech 3.

During this speech, the PRESIDENTrequested Counsel for the Polish Government to produce a memorandum of the Danzig Senate, dated September zoth, 1921, which he had cited. Professor DE VISSCHERreplied that thiç document, and any others which had not yet been submitted to the Court, would be duly filed.

1 See p. 293. ., 30.1- 3, 8. 3'1. Le PR~SIDENT,après s'être enquis des intentions de l'agent du Gouvernement de Dantzig au sujet: de sa réplique, fixe la prochaine audience de la Cour ail jeudi 12 novembre à 16 heures.

' L'audience est Ievée à 18 h. 45. [Signatzcres.]

QUATRIÈMES~ANCE PUBLIQUE tenue au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, le jezdi 12 novembre 1931, ci 16 Izeures, sof~~la présidence de Al. Adatci, Président l. Préselzts : les membres de la Cour mentionnés au procès- verbal de la première séance, p. 208. Le PR~S~DENTdonne Is parole à l'agent de la ViUe libre de Dantzig. Sir JOHN FISCHER~VILLIAMS procède à l'exposé reproduit en annexe 2, dont la suite, interrompue par la clôture de l'audience, est renvoyée au vendredi 13 novembre à io h. 30.

L'audience est levée à 18 h. 30. [Signatztres.]

CINQUIÈAIESÉANCE PUBLIQUE tenue au Palais de la Paix, Ln Haye, le vendredi 13 novetnbre 1931, d IO h. 30, sous In présidence de M. Adatci, Président 3.

Prksents : les membres de la Cour mentionnés au procès- verbal de la première séance, p. 208.

Le PRÉSIDENTdonne la parole à l'agent de la Ville libre de Dantzig.

Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS reprend sa réplique 4, qu'il termine.

- ' HuitiBme séance de la Cour. a Voir p. 332. a Neuviérne seance de la Cour. 4 Voir p. 353. FOURTH ASD FIFTR ' SITTING5 (NOV. 12th-13th, 1931) 2 r3 The PRESIDEST, after ascertaining the tvishes of the Danzig Governinent's Agent in regard to his reply, fixed the next hearing of the Court at 4 p.m. on Thursday, November 12th.

The Court rose at 6.45 p.m. [Signatures.]

FOUKTH PUBLIC SITTING held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Thzlrsday, Noveinber ~ztlz, 1931, at q $.nt., the President, M. Adatci, presidzngl.

Present : the members of Court inentioned in the minutes of the first sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDEKTcaUed on the ilgent for the Free City of Danzig. Sir JOHN FISCHER~VILLIAMS began the staternent reproduced in the annex 2. As he had not concluded when the Court rose, the remainder of his statement \vas postponed until Friday, November 13th, at 10.30 am. The Court rose at 6.30 p.m [Signatures.]

FIFTH PUBLIC SITTING held al the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Friday, November 13tlz, 1931, at 10.30 am., the President, LM. Adntcz, presiding 3.

Present : the members of Court mentioned in the minutes of the first sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDENTcalled on the Agent for the Free City of ' Danzig. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS continued and concluded his reply '. -- 1 Eighth meeting of the Court. 2 See p. 332. a Xinth meeting of the Court. 4 See p. 353. =LI SIXIEME SÉANCE (14 NOVEMBRE 1931) Le PRESIDEST, apres s'être enquis des intentions et du désir des agent et conseil du Gouvernement polonais au sujet de leur duplique, fixe la prochaine audience de la Cour au samedi 14 novembre à IO heures. L'audience est Ievée à midi 5. [Sig~zatures.]

SIXIE~TESCANCE PUBLIQUE ten.tde nzt Palais de In Paix, La Haye, le sanzedt' 14 .tto~lenzbre1931, à IO heures, sozrs la présidettce de M. Adalci, Présideitt l. Présents: les membres de la Cour mentionnés au procès- verbal de la première séance, p. 208. Le PRESIDENTdonne la parole au conseil du Gouvernement polonais. hl. le professeur DE VISSCHERprononcc la duplique reproduite en aiinexc 2, et qu'il termine. Le PRÉSIDENT donne la parole à M. VAK EYSINGA,juge à la Cour, qui demande au conseil du Gouvernement polonais une explication sur un point de la duplique3. 31. le professeur DE VISSGHEKrépond à la question ainsi posée 4. Le PRESIDEKTdonne, sur sa demande, Ia parole à l'agent de la Ville libre de Dantzig.

Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS fait les brèves remarques reproduites en annexe 4, sur deux questions de procédure. Le PRÉSIDENT prononce la clôture des audiences, SOUS réserve de la faculté pour Ia Cour de demander aux agents .des Parties, si elle le juge nécessaire, des informations complé- mentaires.

L'audience est levée à XI h. 40. [Signatures.]

l Dixième séance de la Cour Voir p. 365. a n 376. 377. SIXTH SITTING (NOVEMBER 14th, 1931) z14 . The PRESIDENT,after ascertaining the intention and wishes of the Agent and Counsel for the Polish Government with regard to their rejoinder, fixed the next hearing for Saturday, November xqth, at IO a.m. The Court rose at 12.5 p.m. [Signatzrres.]

SIXTH PUBLIC SITTING Aeld ut the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Satzrrday, Novewtber rqtlz, 1931, al IO a.m., É?ze President, M. Adutci, +uesidi?zg l. Present: the members of Court mentioned in the minutes of the first Sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDEKTcalled upon Counsel for the PoIish Govern- ment. Professor De VISSCHER made the rejoindcr reproduced in the annex 2, and which he concluded. The PRESIDEKTcalled upon $1. VAN EYSIKGA,Judge of the Court, who asked Counsel for the Polish Government to explain a point made in his rejoinder

Professor DE VISSCHER answered this question 4.

The PRESIDENT,at the request of Sir John Fischer Wil- liams, Agent of the Free City of Danzig, caiied upon the latter. Sir JOHN FISCHER~~ILL~A~IS made the few remarks annexed hereto on two questions of procedure 4. The PRESIDENTdeclared the hearing closed, subject to the nght of the Court if necessary to ask the Agents of the . Parties for supplemen tary information.

The Court rose at 11.40 a.m. [Signatures.]

-- 1 Tenth meeting of the Court. a See p. 365. a ,, ,, 376. * 4, ,, 377. ~0~~1~33~SÉLVCE PUBLIQUE teme RZC Palais de Ea Paix, La Haye, le vendredi II décembre 1931, d 16 heures, sous la présidence de M. Adatci, Président l.

Présents : les membres de la Cour mentionnéc, au procks- verbal de Ia première séance, p. 208. Le PRÉSIDENTdéclare l'audience ouverte et prie le Greffier de mentionner le point à l'ordre du jour. Le GREFFIERindique que l'ordre du jour appelle le prononcé de l'avis consultatif demandé à la Cour par le Conseil de la Societé des Nations sur la question suivante :

En vertu d'une application par analogie des dispositions de l'article 58 du Statut, les représentants des Gouvernements polonais et dantzikois devant la Cour dans I'affaire ont étk dûment prévenus. Copie certifiée conforme de l'avis vient d'etre remise entre leurs mains. Le PRÉSIDENT, constatant quc le texte qui fait foi de I'avis consultatif est Ie texte anglais, prie sir Cecil Wurst, juge, de vouloir bien se charger d'en donner lecture. Sir CECIL HURSTayant donné lecture du texte anglais de I'avis 2, et le GREFFIER en ayant lu le dispositif en français, le PRÉSIDENTsignale les dissidences de ?II&[. le comte Rost- worowski et Urrutia, et donne lecture de la déclaration jointe à l'avis par M. Fromageot. Le comte HOS~WOROWSKIayant donné lecture de son opinion dissidente 2, le PRÉÇIDENT déclare l'audience levée.

L'audience est levée à 17 h. 20. [Signatures.]

1 Trente-&-uniBine séance de la Cour. a Voir Pzrblications de la Couv, Série AJB, fasc. no 43. TWELFTH PUBLIC SITTING held ut the Peace Palace, The Hague, on Friday, December th, 1931, ut 4 p.%%., the President, M. Adatci, presiding l. Present: the members of Court mentioned in the minutes of the hrst sitting, p. 208. The PRESIDENTdedared the hearing open and asked the Registrar to indicate the business before the Court. The REGISTRARstated that the Court had met for the delivery of the advisoy opinion for which it had been asked by the Council of the League of Nations on the following question : [Sec P. 9-1 In accordance with Article 58 of the Statute, which had been applied by analogy, due notice had been given to the representatives of the Danzig and Polish Governments before the Court. A certified true copy of the opinion had just been handed to these representatives. The PRESIDENT,observing that the authoritative text of the advisory opinion was the English version, requested Sir Cecil Hurst to be good enough to read it. Sir CECIL HURSThaving read the English version of the opinion a, and the REGISTRARhaving read the French version of the operative portion, the PRESIDENTrecorded the fact that Count Rostworowski and M. Urrutia had dissented, and read the declaration appended to the opinion by M. Fromageot.

Count ~IOSTWOROWSKIhaving read bis dissenting opinion ?, the PRESIDENTdeclared the hearing closed.

The Court rose at 5.20 p.m. [Signatures.]

1 TWy-first meeting of the Court. 2 See Publicatioms of Ihc Court, Series A./B., Fasc. No. 43. ANNEXES AUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX

STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHEZ3 Ii'ILLIAMS (represenhg the Government of Danzig) AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF NOVEMBER 9th AXD 10th, 1931. Mr. President, Members of the Permanent Court of hiter- national Jiistice : 1 feel, perhaps for two reasons, a slight embarrassrnent in addressing you at this moment. For one thing, 1 cannot avoid a certain feeling of persona1 inequal- ity to the heavy responsibility which lies upon me, a responsibility which is particularly keenly felt when one has for the fitst time the honour of addressing the Permanent Court of International Justice ; and secondly, some allourance perhaps must be made for the natural desire of one ufho is in substance an advocate for the Bfence in this case, to kriow, before he speaks, the full case which is being set up again$t him. But this second difficulty, or this second cause of embarrasment, is perhaps not very serious, as I understand that, according to the practice of the Court, 1 shall have a second opportunity of addressing it after my frierids have set out their case. Now the case before the Court raises, as 1 conceive, and 1 think my friends wili agree with me, no general question of international law. The Court is asked to give an interpretation of documents, a seties, or at any rate a nurnber of documents, of comparatively recent date. Theçe documents form part. of and register a detailed and elaborate settlernent, or at any rate treatmcnt, of an international affair. The ' right that is claimed against the Free City of Danzig is a right of an unusual character, and it is a right of very great importance, especially to Danzig. Danzig, indeed, would, 1 thixik, hardly deserve the title which it is proud to own, the title of a Free City, if the rights which, as 1 understand it, are claimed in this particular case, were conceded against it. Now it is very remarkable that by the Statement of my friends themselves, wherl they corne to the Conclusions of the Mémoire which they have presented, they do not clearly refer to any single instrument, or to any instruments which are indicatecl by specific dates or titles, for the rights which 218 STATEWENT BP SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) they claim, and tvhen one rcads their Mémoire one finds that their reliance is on what they themselves call implications. They even rely in one passage (1 shall come to these matters in greater detail shortly) on supposed opinions of third Par- ties in order to justify this very serious, this ovenvheimingly important, international claim. The Free City of Danzig, on the other hand, says that the right ivhich is claimed is ivholiy irreconcilable with the treaties and the decisions of the Coun- cil of the League of Nations whicli are invoked. It is a remarkable fact that even now when the case is bcfore the Court, rny friends have not succeeded-1 think I am right in saying they have not even attempted-to give an exact definition of what is chimed. One finds iii the first yarsgraph of their Concluçioiis that they still are using a phrase on which 1 shall have something to say a little later, that phrase "port d'attache", which has played a considerable part in the controversy, and in the second paragraph of their Conclusions, they make it cleal-you have the most precise and forma1 admission-that the privileges xvhich they claim (they call them certains privilèges) are privileges the exact nature of tvhich-1 think one might alnlost omit the .adjective-dont En teneur firécise n'a $as étt! l'objet d'une régle- mentation défi~bifzve. One cannot help observing, even at this early stage of the case, that upon this showing, there haç been a most remarkable omission on the part of the Council of the League of Nations if it has dealt with this question-this question of such supreme importance to a member of the international community-without giving any precise definition of what it meant by the decisions it has given. Now mv friends and I have both received, I think, an official invitation- frorn the Court to deal with the exact meaning of this question "port d'attache". 1 propose to Say something about that in what 1 think will be a more appropriate part of what 1 have to Say, but I shorild just like to make it clear now that the Free City of Danzig is not particularly interested at the present time in the exact definition of this phrase ; it was not a phraçe rire ever introduced,. and we are . not particularly concerned at the moment-xve never have been concerned-ivith the exact definition of it. It is for my friends, who are claiming a right, to formulate exactly the terms of the right which they clairn. What we are interested in, the vital question for us, is: Aye or No, has the Republic of Poland in the harbour of Danzig certain privileges xvhich go beyond the ordinary privileges of foreign and friendly wc~rships which are visiting siich a harbour ? That is the point that is important ior ils. The exact definition of the privileges which they daim is n matter for them to make STATEMEXT BY SIR jOAN FISCHER MrILLIAMS (DANZIG) 219 clear, not for us, I think. But as I Say, 1 shall corne back again to this question, largely from the point of view that no adequate definition has yet been given, not because 1 conceive it is any part of my doty, indeed, it is impossible for me, to explain exactIy what iç the significa~ice of this particular term. 1 said just now that there were no general considerntions of international law which are in dispute or in ciisciissioii in this case ; but there is perhaps one general consideratioii which 1 know the Court wili hear in mind, and ihat is the generai presumption which obtains in the whole realrn of in ternational law against limitations of-ivhat for this purpose at any rate it does not matter whether you call it "sovereig~ity" or "iiidepend- ence". That, 1 think, is a general principle which obtains not merely in international law, but which is a geiieral pri~i- ciple of hurnan intercourse : if you want to check or hamper any State, Company or person in dealing with something whicli is its own, the onus is upon you to show that you possess something in the nature of an overriding right or privilege which. checks or' hampers the . normal right which everyone has over the use and disposition of his own property. This presumption is not less applicable in the case of a corniniinity which, according to the first Article of its Constitution, which the League itself has approved, and which the League itself guarantees, is a Free State. Its title is : "the Free City of DanzigJ'. 1 do not think it is necessary for me to refer at any great length to several cases in which this presurnption haç been affirrned by the Court. Passages will be found in the jiidg- ments of the Court in the Wi?îzbledon case, in the case of the Free Zones, and in the case of the Lotus. Indeed, this is only one way of affirming the original proposition that in this instance the onus of proof lies upon my friends. It is upon them to show clearly, and whithout any shadow of doubt, that the rights which they claim have been confirmed by an instrument of international validity. In the question hvhich is put to the Court, it is interesting to notice that quite a wide range of sources of the rights lvhich are claimed is suggested. One cannot help rernarking that it is a Iittle curious that so kany alternative sources have been suggested of a right the origin of which is so recent. The dispute in fact is not yet twelve years old. There are , four possible sources suggested in the question. There is first of ail the Treaty of Versailles. Secondly, there is the Danzig-Polish Treaty, concluded at Paris on the 9th November 1920-the anniversary, curiously enough, of to-day. (Perhaps it will be convenient to refer to that Treaty as the Conventioii of Paris.) Thirdly, there is what the question describes a: I8 the "relevant" decisions of the Coiincil, and fourthly there are the decisions of the High Commissioner. Until we got the Mémoire of niy friends, we were uncertain which of these sources-ivhether ail of them or some or which of them-were mainly relied upon ; and as the State- ment of the Free City and the Mémoire of the Polish Gov- ernment were dciivcred simiiltaneously, it was impossible for ils, not having the gift of propliecy, to reply by anticipation to a case xvhich had riot yct been developed. When we read the Mémoire of the Polish Government, we thought that my friends were relying in substance upon thc decisions of the Council alone, and the Second Stnte~nentof the Free City u7as draw~i iip to a large extent upon that basis. But now that we have my friends' Counter-Mémoire, we see thst we were mistaken in that hypothesis, and we see that direct reliance is placed by my friendç on the Treaty of Versailles and on the Convention of Paris as well as on certain decisions of the Council of the League. However, there is this smouiit of agreement between us : that 1 gather that rny friends do not rely upon any decision of the Hi@ Comrnissioner. Therefore, the decisions of the High Commissioner as a direct source of the rights which are claimed, may be left out of account. 1 shaîi have occasion to refer to one or tu70 decisions of the High Commissioner, but rather for another purpose. 1 propose, therefore, if T may so far trespass upon the patience of the Court, to go through whnt seems to be the relevant documents as nearly as possible ii-I historical order. It would be presiimptuous of mc perlinps to Say that 1 feel absolutcly conficle~~tthat 1 will show that these documents are clirectly contrary to the Polis11 claim. Thc first document which I have to examine is the Treaty of Versailles . itself. In the Treaty of Versailles, thcre is a section tvhich is devoted to the question of the Free City of Danzig. You have first ai1 article by which Germany renounces in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers ail rights and titles over n territory which is defined. That is Article IOO. Then in Article IOI you have the constitution of the Boundary Commission which has to define the bound- aries exactly. Then in Article 102-and here we get to the points \.hich are of more immediate importance to-day-you get a11 undertaking by the Principal AUied and Associated Powers, an undertaking certsinly with Germany and pre- sumably with every other signatory of the Treaty of Versailles, to establish the town of Danzig, together with the rest of the territory described in Article 100, as a Free City. This Frcc City is to be placed under the protection of the League of Nations. 170u have, thereforc, thc Constitution of the Free City, and you have it placed under the protection-and there can be no higher protection-of the League. Then comes Article 103 : "A Constitiztion for the Free City of Danzig shall be drawn up by the duly appointed representatives of the Free City in agreement with a High Commissioner to be appointed by the League of Nations." That is the first mention of the High Comrnissioner. "This Constitution shall be ,placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations." ! So notv we have two relationships of the Leagije to Danzig ; the League is the prolector of Danzig and the League is the guarantor of the Danzig Constitution. Then comes a paragraph about the High Commissioner : "The High Commissioner .will also be entrusted.. .." -that is to say, in addition to his functions in connection with drawing up the Constitution-"with the duty of dealing in the first instance with al1 differences arising between Poland and the Free.City of Danzig in regard to this Treaty, or any arrangements or agreements made thereunder. The High Commissioner shall reside a-t Danzig." . Before 1 pass on, 1 wouId Iike to call attention to the f~~nctionsof the High Conmissioner as they are here presented. The High Commissioner is not a person who is a sort of Viceroy of Danzig; he has no direct executive authority in Danzig ; he is not a person who can make rules or regulations for Danzig. He is there to help the League. He is there- at any rate for certain special purposes-as the watch-dog of the League to assist it in carrying out its duties, and he has a certain judicial function, subject to an appeal to the Council of the League, in regard to the settlement of differences which arise betw-een the Free City and Poland in regard to the carrying out of their mutuaf obligations. NOEVive corne to Article 104. This is the article with cvhich we are most directly concerned in this controversy. By Article 104, "The Principal Allied and Associatecl Yowers undertake to negotiate a treaty between the Polish Government and the Free Ci:.y of Danzig, which shall corne into force at the same iime as the establishment of the said Free City, with the following objects : (1) to effect the inclusion of the Free City of ~anzii within the PoIish Customs fronticrs, and to establish a free area in the port; (2) to ensure to Poland without any restriction the free use and service of al1 waterways, docks, basins, 252 STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS. (DANZIG) wharves atid other works within the territory of the Free City necessary for Polish i~nportsand exports ; (3) to ensure to Poland the control and administration of the Vistula and of the whole railway system within the Free City, except such street and other iailways as serve prirnarily the iieeds of the Free City, and of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication between PoIand and the port of Danzig; (4) to ensure to Poland the right to develop and improve the waterways, docks, basiiis, wharves, railways and other works and means of commuilication mentioried in this Article, as well as to lease or purchase through appropriate processes such land and otlier property as may be necessary for these piirposes ; (5) to provide against any discrimination within the Free City of Danzig to the detriment of citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech ; (6) to provide that the Polish Government shall undertake the conduct of the foreign relations of the Free City of Danzig as well as the dipiomatic, protectioii of citizens of that city when abroad," JNow, there is only one general point about this Article 104 on which I should like to insist ; and 1 do so with al1 the 'greater feeling of obligation, because 1 have to admit that this point is not brought out as clearly as it might have been in the two Statements which have been submitted on behalf of the Free City. The point, perhaps, is not there given its fuIl importance in this coniiection. This was owing to the fact that we did not wholly appreciate the position which my friends were taking. The point is tMs : that the undertaking, and the only undertaking, which is contained in this section, is the undertaking by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to negotiate û. treaty-a treaty betwcen

the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig. The ' objects of that treaty are then set out ; but the direct international obligatioil is the undertaking to negotiate a treaty. Therefore-and 1 Say this rather in ,the interests of the proper juridical appreciation of the position, if 1 may çay so-as soon as you have got the treaty negotiated and signed, the undertaking which is contained iri Article roq is fulfded. -4nd although it may be allowable and useful to refer back to Article 104 to see what the objects of the treaty may be if the treaty is obscure, or possibly even if someone is suggesting that there is an obvious omission in the treaty, yet, in so far as the treaty covers (and I think in general principle one must assume that the treaty within its limits \vas rightly negotiatcd and was rightly concluded) the matters kvhich are referred to in Article 104, it is the Conventicri STATEI\IEP*'T BY SIR JOHS FISCHER WiLLIAJlS (DANZIG) 223 of Paris which is the governing document, alid the Treaty of Versailles beconieç the docilment to which yoii can refer in case of doubt (1 said "the Treaty", but 1 mean Article 104 of the Treaty of Versnillesj, but not a document which confers direct international rights, whether upon Yoland or, if that is possible (becniise there, of course, we arc Iierc on the borders of a more difficult question), upon Darizig. 1 think to a certain extent my friends were at one time iilclined, in one phrase st any rate, to accept that point of view, because 1 find thst they speak, on page 169 of their Mémoire, of the articles of the Convention of Paris qui en constituent L'exécution, "which are the execution of Article 104 of Che Treaty of Versailles". That is a point of view with which 1 very respectfully concur. You find in the Co~iventioii of Paris the execution of Article ro4; and, Article 104 being executed, it becorne;, if 1 may say so, rather of historic interest as a guiding document to which you can refer back in case of doiibt, 6ut 110 longer as to matters witliin the scope of the Convention as embodying any direct persistent executory international obligation. But my friends have not, I think, in their Coiinter-Mémoire, accepted the same position. 1 am not complainirig of this. My friends are entirely within their rights. But 1 iiotice that on page 205 of their Contre-Memoire they speak of les droits pzre cmfère d In Pologne l'article 104 (2) dz4 Traité de Versailtes. There this particular passage of the Treaty of Versailles is treated as a direct origin oi an internatioiia1 right. That argument continues through the greater part- of that page. The next paragraph says : "Le Gouvernement polonais estime que cette stipulation," -which is the stipulation of No. z of Article 104~"coni- binée avec celles des deux alinéas suivants (article 104, 3' et 4")) l'autorise à faire usage, à des fins 6conomiqaes et techniques, pour ses navires de guerre, du port. et des voies d'eau, ainsi que dc leurs installations." There, consequcntly, yoii have a point of vicw of the functions in this inatter of clie Treaty of Versailles with wliich the Government of the Free City is unable to agree. 1 say this perhaps rather in the interests of juridical accuracy than because, in my submission, it ~vould make any difference to the substance of the case even if you did Say that the . . Treaty of Versaiiles is now at the present time a source of effective international rights. My submission is that if you were to treat the Treaty of Versailles, Article 104, as giving at the moment effective international rights, the Pree City of Danzig has nothing whatever to fear frorn such a utiliza- tion of the Treaty or Versnilles. The true intention of the Treaty of Versailies on this matter and its actual result as carried out by the Convention of Paris, which my friends Say constitutes its execution, is to give to Poland not anything in the nature of naval or militnry rights in Danzig, but to confer upon her certain economic riglits and, in this connection, economic rights only. 1 think I :im ~varranted in saying that by tvhat 1 may cal1 the most higkly authorized commentary which exists upon the triie meaning of the Treaty of Versailles, namely, the corresportdence which was evchanged between the Ger- man ~overndentand the -AUied and Associated Governrnents on the occ:$ion of the signature of that instrument. The relevant passages in that correspondence are cited in documents No. I and No. 2 of the Appendix to the Case of the Free City. 1 wili iiot weary the Court by reading the whole of them, but 1 shoilld like to read jiist one passage from document .No. 2-an extract from the covering letter which was signed by M. Clemenceau as President of the Peace Conference on June r6th, 1919. He says : "Al1 'territories inhabited by indubitably Yolish populations' have been accorded to Poland. Al1 territories inhabited by German majorities, save for a few isolated towns and for colonies established on land recentIy forcibly expropriated and situated in the midst of indubitably Polish territory, have been left to Germany. IVherever the will of the peopl~is in doubt, a plebiscite has been provided for." Now cornes the important passage. "The town of Danzig is to be constituted a free city, so that the inhabitants will be autonomous and not corne under Polish rule and will form no part of the Polish State. Poland will be given certain economic rights in Danzig and the city itself has been severed from Germany because in no other way was it possible to provide for that 'free and secure access to the sea' which Germany has promised to concede." These words "free and secure access to the sea" are in quotation marks in the correspondence, and 1 believe they are quotations which are taken from the fourteen points of President Itrilson. You have there the most highly authorized commentary upon Article 104, and my submission is that, even if you were to take that Article as something which is still at this moment the document to which you have to refer when you have to consider what the rights of Poland in Danzig are, you have there a convincing and authorized interpretation that they are economic, and nothing more. 1 do not think 1 need continue tvith any elaborale exa- f minations of the rest of the articles of that section of the Treaty, Articles rog to 108, but it is just worth noticing that -4rticle 105, which deals with questions of nationality, says : "On the coming into force of the present Treaty German nationds ordinarily resident in the territory described in Article IOO will ipso facto lose their German nationality, in order to become nationals of the Free City of Danzig." It is worth noticing how already there in the Treaty of Versailles you have the recognition of Danzig as a State and .

as something which possesses the most distinctive mark of , a State, namely, a distinct nationality of its own. Now I should like to say a word or two more on this point, before I leave the whole question of the Treaty of Versailles, and the way in which my friends have treated it in their two arguments. You have first the passage on page 169 of the Polish Mémoire, the passage to which 1 have dready referred. They Say there : "Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, and also the articles of the Convention of Paris which constitute its execution, have given to Poland rights of vital importance for Poland because it has been recognized . that they are the conditions of an economic independent life." Now, if one reads that passage without very careful attention, one might assume that those rights, of which the importance was vital to Poland, were the very rights which she has been seeking to enforce in this dispute; but if y011 examine the passage carefully, you will find that it is not so. The' passage continues : "These rights might possib1y"- 1 have translated the word éventuellement by the word "possibly". The word éventueElement plays a certain part in these disciissions, and it is a word which is a certain trap which is set, 1 do not say deliberately-it is a trap to which a translator from French into English is perhaps exposed. Éven- tz~ellement,of course, in French, has a totally different meaning from the word "eventually" in English ; "eventually" in English means, if I may use a familiar expression, "in the long last", i.e., it is something which is certain to happen after a long period of time. One might Say the earth is going to be "eventually" completely cold; it is an event which is certain to happen after a long period; but, as 1 understand the French language, éventzceEZement has a totally difierent meaning; it is something which may or may not happen, something which might happen occasionally. A . translator has to Say "if circumstances arise", "in certain events", not "in a certain event", which is the English rneaning of "eventually" ; it is "in an uncertain event"-just precisely the contrary. 1 only just mention that because it is a trap into which 1 have fallen rnyself, and it is important for any English-speaking person who is dealing with the French text to be on hiç guard. I apologize for this digression. '!Or, ces droitsH-those are the rights which are guaranteed . to PoIand by the Treaty of Versailles-"peuvent éventuelle- ment être mis en danger, et la nécessité d'assurer leur protection n'a certainement pas échappé au Conseil de la Société des Nations lorsque, approuvant le rapport précité du vicomte Ishii qui souligne ct l'intérêt tout particulier de la Pologne à ii sauvegarder Dantzig contre toute occupation étrangère », il s'est rononcé en faveur d'un mandat de défense à accorder éventueli' ement à la Pologne. Le Conseil a entendu que la protection du libre accès fût assurée Ià même où il pouvait se trouver le plus dangereusement menacé ; il a codé cette protection C1 l'gtat polonais comme étant le plus directement intéressé. C'est 9 ce titre qu'il a décidé la création du port d'attache." That is a passage, the meaning of kvhich 1 take to be this : Certain important economic rights, or generd rights if you like-1 wiU not prejudice my friends' case by suggesting that they made an admission as to economic rights only-certain rights of great and vital importance were given to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles, and, they say, the Council took certain decisions. As 1 read that, the vital point of the argument is the decisions of the Council. They do not say that the Treaty of Versailles gave them the rights ~vhich they are now claiming ; they Say it gave them very important rights, and then they Say those rights u-ere subsequently buttressed, if 1 may use that expression, by a decision of the Council. It is the decision, as I understand it, on which they rely when they say they have got rights for their warships in the harboiir of Danzig. But that is a conception of the Treaty of Versailles which, it is perfectly clear, makes the Treaty of Versailles confer certain general rights and makes the decision of the Council confer particular rights which are said to be necessary for securing general rights, conferring upon Poland those rights which are the rights now in question. That, of course, is a perfectly possible point of view, and of course it is emphasized ' very clearly in their Counter-Mémoire on page 201, Chapter II. They say : "On sait l'importance capitale que présente pour la solution de la question soumise à l'avis de la Cour la . résolution du Conseil de la Société des Nations du 22 juin 1921." Exactly. That is precisely in line with what they said in their Memoire, that is to Say, the thing of capital importance is the decision of the Council. That is the decision ~vhich gives them, as they Say, the rights which they are now claiming, They go on to cornplain (1 hope it is not a reproach that after this case they tviU continue to make) that we did not Say enoiigh about the decision of zznd June. That is a possible lapse which in the course of these proceeciings ive propose to correct. 1 ought to have dr:~wn attention to thiç, that the conclir- sions of the Polish Mémoire are on precisely those lines, that is to say, the line that the important thing is the decisioii of the Council, iiot thc dispositions of the Tre t of Ver- saines, because in their conch~sions they Say : "ft folloivs from the principles iinderlying the creation of the Free City of Danzig, which principles are laid down by the Treaty of Versailles, by the Convention of Paris, and by the clecisions of the Council of the League of Nations, that Polnnd lias acquired a right." Consequently in that statement there is not any distinct affirmation that the Treaty of Versailles taken by itself gives these rights ; it is only n statement that the rights are a çûrt of result frum the principles of the Treaty of Versailles as laid dolvn ; but Iclo not read it as saying that the Treaty of Versailles in itseIf contains nny passage which taken by itself alone-and the snme thing applies to the Conventioii of Paris-.vrould give them the rights that they are clairning. The relialice there, I submit, upon any fair rcading of the Memoire, is clearly a relia~ice upon the decisions of the Council. T1i:lt linc of reasoning has not been, I think, completely maintainecl in the second statement, the Counter-Mernoire tvhich my friends have delivered. On the last two pages of the Coiinter- Mémoire a different line iç taken. 1 will not say there was not a suggestion in their first Mémoire that it might be taken, but it was not made the substance of the Memoire. There is a hint, possihly, on page 180 of their Case of that possibi- Iity; but upon page zog of the Counter-Mémoire you have a ciifferent argument altogether. 1 am looking at the' paragrnph which begins : "C'est qu'en ....O- that is the first paragraph beginning on page 265 of the Counter-Mémoire. Yerhnpç 1 may attempt to translate it as 1 go : "In effect, tlie rights of access and anchorage .which Poland claims involve a whole series of activities which have no rnilitary object, which are purely of a technical or economic character, and tirhich, as siich, rentrent incotrteStablentent dans les droits que confire d la Pologne l'article 104, zO, dzt Tradé de Versailles." So there you have a different point of view, the point of view that the Treaty of \'ersailles by i tself confers t hese rights. "Cet te disposition assure à la Pologne ((sans aucune restriction ii le libre usage et le service des voies d'eau, des docks, bassins, quais el autres ouvrages sur le territoire de la Ville libre nécessaires ailx importations et exportations de la Pologne. Le Gouvernement polonais estime que cette stipulation, combinée avec celles des deux alineaa suivants (article roq, 3' et qo), 228 STATEMEKT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) l'autorise à faire usage, à des fins économiques et techniques, pour ses navires de guerre. du port et des voies d'eau, ainsi que de leurs installations." That argument is developed ; I do not think 1 need read the whole of the development, but on page 206, the. last page, Article 26 of the Conveiition of Paris is utilized for some parpose. "En liaison avec l'article 104, 2', du Traité de Versaiiles. l'article 26 de la Conventioii de Paris ctu g novembre 1920 impose au Conseil du Port l'obligation d'assurer A la Pologne le libre usage et le service du port et des moyens de communication sans aucune restriction et dans la mesure nécessaire pour assurer le trafic d'importation ou d'exportation à destination ou eri provenance de la Pologne. Les mots a dans la mesure n4cessaire pour ir assurer le trafic d'importation ou d'exportation à destina- a tion ou en provenance de la Pologne a déterminent le niveau technique auquel le port doit être maintenu, mais ne visent nullement des restrictions à introduire au principe de l'usage ilIimité." So there yoii have the clevelopment of a netv argument, with regard to the economic privileges which are con- ceivecl as given by the Treaty of Versailles, or at any rate as given by the Paris Convention, that those econornic privi- Ieges taken in themçelves suffice to $ive to Poland the right to use the port by ships of war for econornic and technicnl purposes. 1 confess when I read that argument 1 was greatly surprised. It is to be observed that it is not an argument which \vas used at the Council meeting of Novcmber ryth, 1920, and 1 think we must assume that if it was used beforc the Ambassadors' Con ference i t wns rejected, because i t is i~npossible to suppose the Paris Cuiivcrition woulcl have beeii clrawn 35 it is if the argument had been sound. The minutes of the later meetings of the Council are equally silent ns to aiiy such 'argument. It was not used by the Polish Govern- ment on March 5th 1921, and it is an argument, of course, rvhich if it \vas carriecl to its logical conclusion, would, 1 think, annihilate the whole purpose and effect of the limitation resultiiig from the description which M. Clcmericeau gave when he spoke of the Polish rights as economic rights. Of course there is a sense in which a fleet has an ecoriomic and technical side. Sailors have got to be clotlied and fed, ships of war have to be repaired, just as civilians have to be clothed and fed and rnerchant ships have to be repnired. 'IITliat would happen if you applied this argument on land ? .Sup- posing you had a right on land to enter for economic alid technical purposes, does anyone suggest you would be entitled to bring soldiers iii uniforrn, soldiers under cornmanci, into the coirntry concerned ? Of course the vice of that argrr- ment is that it ncglects the capital words which exist in the Treaty of Versailles riiicl which, I think, if I remcii~beraright, STATEIIENT RY SIR JOHX FISCHER WlLLIAMS (DANZIG) 229 are repeated with some emphasis in the Convention of Paris, that the free use and service of ,211 these things is to be n thing which is necessary for Polish imports and exports. I should just like to mention there in that connection that while tllere might be said to be possible ambiguity in the Treaty ol Versailles, Article 104 (z), an arnbiguity whether the words "necessary for Polish imports and exports" apply to the words "other works" only 'or whether they nlso include "watenvays, docks, basins, wharves", and so on (1 do iiot think there will be any real doubt in English! still it is possible there might be a doubt aiid there niight also bc n doiibt whether the words "necessary for Polish imports aricl exports" comrnand also the words "free use and service"): But if there could be any doubt about it, Article 26 of the Convention of Paris is perfectly plain ; and Article 2G of the Convention of Paris, unless 1 am totaily wrong, is the governing and effective international instrument in this matter. 'Tow Article 26 says-1 am reading from page 93 of the Danzig Mémoire-: "It shall be the duty of the BoardH- that is the Harbour Board-"to assure to Poland the free use and service without any restriction, and in so far as may be necessary for Poiish imports and exports, of the port and the means of communication referred to in Article 20." So there you have got the words "in so far as may be necessary for Polish irnports and exports" not brought in at the end of a sentence where possibly there might be some doiibt as to wliether they referred to works alone or mhether they were a description not of the whole activities intended to be referred to by the sentence but were merely techiiical descriptions of certain material objects. Al1 that doubt is swept entirely away by Article 26, because there you get the words "inso far as may be necessary for Polisli imports and exports" put at the beginning of a sentence anci governing of course everything that follows-"to assure to Poland the free use and service without any restriction, ancl in so far as may be necessary for Polish imports and exports, of the port and the means of comrr.unication referred to in Article 20". It is not the things which are described as necessary; it is the ilse ïvhich Polarid is .to make of those things, which is given her, so far as necessary, for imports and exports. There is oiie further point on this same argument, which I hope it is not disrespectful to cal1 rather the. eleventh-hour argument, becaiise it appears at the end of the Mémoire. It is to be observed that in both these cases, both the Treaty of Versailles and the Convention of 'Paris, the subject upon which the rights are conferred was Poland, but that does not mean each ancl every Polish iiational. 'The question as to whether the right is economic or iioii-economic is to be considered not 230 STATEMEXT 8Y S1K JOWK FISCHER \\'ILl.IAJIS (DASZIG) from the point of view of sri individual Pole who happe~isto be on the territory of the Frce City, but from the point of view of Poland : Poland as a whole, Polasd as a State, Pohnd as a commutiity. The distinction is, from the point of view of Poland, whether the activities ivhicli she is exer- cisirlg are . activities the clirect purpose of which is the enrichment or the economic advantage of PoIand on the one Iiand, or nctiviticswwhich are those that are usually called naval or military activities. Poland can esercise, ' Yolish iiationals iri virtuc uf her right cüii exercise, in this connection activities whicli arc directed at economic piirposes and enrichment, but they are riot entitled to exercise activities the aim and purpose of which iç military or naval yower or the esercise of the naval or ~nilitary power of Yolaiicl. Of course those activities may have an economic side; every inovement of Our lives has ifs economic side ; but that is not what is material. What, hy the way, is rnearlt hy the word "technical" rihich is annelied to the word "econoniic" ? 1 do not know ; 1 leave tliat to rny friends to develop. In what 1 have heen sayiiig 1 am afraid 1 have departed a little from the historical order- of events, because I have turned aside in ordei to comment on the arguments of my friends whicli seem tn bear ciirectly upon rights :ilicged to be deri\-ecl from tht: Trelity of VersailIes. If I might, 1 should like to retiirn to the liistorical order of events. There we find after the sigrinturc ol tlie Treaty of Versailles that tlie Allied and Associated Powers very naturally proceeded to clischarge the functions which tliey had uxidertakeii by the 'ïreaty to discharge. Yoii have two things at this stage : yoii Iiave the negotiation of the Convention of Paris, the negotiatiori, tliat is, of the instrunieiit which was coiitemplated bu Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, and here let me Say again that if that Treaty fails to give the rights which Poland nour claims prima facie, Polaird woulcl have no further remecly even if she said the Treaty of Versailies had not been fiilfillecl. Her right \vas clearly, 1 submit, to refuse to accept the Treaty in the shape of the Convention of Paris if that Treaty iailed to give her the rights which Article 104 of the Trcaty of Versailles stated were tlie objects of the Convention of Paris. At any rate, howevcr that may be, we get on 9th of November the Convention of Paris, and also at the same tirne, conteni- poraneously, ihere was another negotiation going on, and thnt was the negotiation for the establishment of the Constitutioii of the Free City. The Constitution of the Free City was, of coui-çe, a matter in which the League waç very directly interested because that Constittition \vas to be placed under its guarantee. The Constitution, I believe, was not finally adopted until 14th Jiine 1922-some time after-biit, as fnr STATEIIIENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 231 as 1 know, the only discussion material for the purpose of this case was the discussion lvhich took place at the Council of the League on the r7th November 1920. I propose now to call attention to certain points of the Convention of Paris before passing on fo questions which are connected with the Constitution of the Free City. The Convention of Paris (in English translation) is set out in full in the Appendix to the First Statement of the case of the Free City. There are things in it ~vhich1 should like to call attention to because I think they have a certain bearing upon the status of the Free City which it is impor- tarit to keep in mind. It wili be observed that the iristru- ment has in every respect the form of an international treaty. You have the appointment of plenipotentiaries ; you have the communication of full polvers ; you have in ArticIe I, Chapter 1, the establishment of a diplonlatic represen tative of the Polis11 Government, not of any person with any sort of interna1 authority. You have then the article which gives to Poland the right or duty to undertake the conduct of the foreign relations of the Free City of Danzig, iii Article z. Article 6 iç a very interesting provision ; it is designed to limit the right of Poland to do anything tvhich it pleases in reference to the foreign relationships of the Free City : "Poland shall conclude no treaty or international agreement affectiiig the Free City without previozis consultation with the Free City; the High Commissioner of the Leagile of Nations skall be informed of the result of this consultation." The High Corn- missioner. as 1 .said before, is qor special purpoçes the representative and acts as a watch-dog for the League of Nations ; he has very rernarkable and very interesting powers: "The High Comrnissioner shall in al1 cases have the right to veto any treaty or international agreement, in so far as it applies to the Free City of Danzig, which, in the opinion, of the Council of the League of Nations, is inconsistent with the provisions of the present Treaty or with the status of the Free City." SG you have a diplanatic representation which is strictly Iimited in its scope and which does not admit of the treatment of the Free City as if it were in any sense- 1 wiil not say a part, beca~isethat would be absurd-a depend- ency of the Republic of Poland. Then you have in Article S the flag of Danzig recognized. "The right to fly the Danzig merchant Aag shall be restricted to ships ~vhich are owned exclusively by nationals of the Free City, including companies or associations which are registered in the Free City and in which nationals of the Free City have a predominant interest. The Free City shaU notify to the Polish Government ail regis- trations of ships under the Danzig flag, stating the rights of ownership and other rights in rem to ~vhich the said ships 232 STATEJIEST BY SIR JOHh: FISCHER iVILLIA&IS (DANZIG) rnay be subject.'.' Theri the third paragraph of Article S : "The Polish Government shall be free to establish at Danzig the necessary Polish administrative organization ~vhicli shali be attüched to the establishment of the Polish representative referred to in Article I, for the registration and for the inspec- "Lori of the seaworthiness of Polish ships, and for the engagement of crews." Now I cal1 attention to that provision because it just shows tvith. what extraordiriary care this Con- vention of Paris is draxvn for the protection of the rights of the Free City against anything of the nature of interventian. Rere yori have a subject tvhich in international relationships is a matter of (shall 1 Say ?) greüt inriocence, at any rate,. not a matter of anything like great international importance. It is matter of registering and inspecting the seaworthiness of Polish ships, Polish ships of course being Polisli merchant shiys which are using Danzig, and in order to alIow Polafid to establish this very ~iiinute ancl innoceiit fraction of State authority in Danzig, something which 1 think niy friends ~voi~ldhave been justified in saying (thejr arc fond of implications) might be imp,?ied from the econoinir rights of Danzig, of Polish merchant ships using the harb01.w of Danzig-you have there ati express authcirizatiori to do this little. tliing, 1 may s:iy, iii view of comparatively great international interests, this Iittle, iiiiimportant thing, ancl yet the Conven- tion of Paris tzikes care that if it is goiiig to give this tiny, little encroachment upon ' the independence of Danzig you have got to have, and you do have, a special provision dea1ing mith it. Then Article IO meperhaps be mentioned : "The Free City agrees to accord to ships flyiiig the Polish flag the same treatrnent in the port of Danzig as to ships flying the flag of the Free City." "Ships" there, of course, rneans merchant ships, and "fiying the Polish flag" rnealis flying the Polish merchant Rag. My friends do not rely upon that Article as giving them rights 10 a $orl d'attache; that is common ground between us ; that is an economic clause. In Article 17 you have jiist one phrase ivllich is worth mention- ing, bearing out the general purpose and character of fhjs Treaty ; in Article (b) )OU have a reference to "the tu70

States", the State of Danzig and the State ' of Poland. In Article rg you have an almast similar phrase, with a slight variation of it. Article 19 is the article which constitutes the Danzig Port and Waterways Board, and there yoii have a provision that it iç to be constituted from representatives of the economic intereçts of the ttvo countries. In Article 24 yoii have a specific provision as to the free passage of emi- grants and immigrants from or to Poland, another instance of the way in which small derivative rights are recognized expressly when it is intended 10 impose any particular obli- ST.STE31EKT ET SIR JOHS FISCHER i\TII.I.TAJIS (DAXZIG) 233 @xtiori in relation thcreto. Then you have this Article 26 of wliich I have spoken already, and it is an article wliich plays a considerable part in the arguments of my friends. They rely on it, as 1 have alrencly noticed, on the last page of their Mémoire. "Article 2G. It sttall be the diity of the I3oard to assure to Poland the free use and service without any restriction, and in so iar as inay be necessary for Polisli in-iports and exports, of the port and the means of communication referrecl to in Article 20." (Article 20 contains n very long and very clabornte list of the things which the Board is to control, the ports aiid waterways, the lvhole railway system, al1 property and establishments employed in siich esploitation and so on.) Then Article 26 goes on: "It shall be the duty of the Board to ta ke aii measures necessary to assure the development aiid irnprovement of tlie port and means of commuiiication in order to meet all the reqiiirements of this traffic." Thcre is one little remark there, and that is that one sees how the Board is constituted aç tlie authority for assiiririg these economic rights. If those economic rights were not siiffrciently safeguardcd, the first step that is to be taken is a complaiilt to the Board. If Polancl thought those rights were riot beirig sufficiently safeguarded, the effect of this Convention is not tliat Poland should conie straight to the Governmerit of Danzig nor even to the Higli Commissioner, but in the first instance should make her complaint to the Board. Then wc have the emphatic Article 28: "At al1 tirnes and in al1 circumstances Poland shall have the right to import and export via Danzig goods of any kincl whatever not prohibitecl by Polish law." Of colIrse that is ciirectly and specifically an article of an economic nature. Article 29 has provisiorls as to the postal service. Article 33 is the minoritieç provision, with which fortunately we are not concerned to-day. Article 34 speaks of naturalization. Then you get Article 39, to which 1 ought to cdattention. Article 39 is the article which sets up the juridical machinery to scttle certain differences. "ilny differences arising hetween Poland and the Free City of Danzig in regard to the present Treaty or to any other subsequent agreements, arrangements or conventions, or to any matter affecting the relations between Poland and the Free City, shall be submitted by one or the other Party to the decision of the High Commissioner, who çhaIl, if he deem it necessary, refer the matter to the Council of the League of Nations. The two Parties retain the right of appeal to the Council of the League of Xations." .234 STATE31EST RT SIR JOHX FISCHER WILLIABIS (DANZIG) That is what I rnay cal1 the arbitration provision of the Treaty ; and, as 1 have already pointed out to the Court, that procedure has not been hitherto utilized for the purpose of settling this particular dispute. The consequence is that Ive have no decision of the High Commissioner, acting under Article 39, to which rny friends at the present time make appeal as having decided the question. Thc decisions of the High Commissioner are referred to in the question which is put to the Court, hut no decision of the High Commissioner is cited by rny friends as something upon which they rely for giving thcm the privileges which they claim at the present

time.---- There are two or three decisions of the High Commissioner to which 1 shdl refer, but I shd refer to them for the piirpose of showing that the High Commissioner, at any rate at various critical stages of this controverçy, when he gave them, niust, if there had been any decision of the CounciI of the League in for~ewhich gave rny friends the rights which they claim, have been aware of those decisions and must have mentioned them. He does not mention these alleged rights. For that reason 1 shall have to refer to the decisions of the High Cornmissioner-not because I have to meet any case to the effect that those decisions have confirmed the rights which are in dispute. But there are other documents which emanate from the High Commissioner, and two or three are contained in the Appendix to the Statement of the Free City. Those are reports of the High Commissioner, and the Court will readiiy be able to draîv a distinction bet~veen the decisions of the High Commissioner and the reports of the High Cornmissioner. The High Commissioner has a double function. The High Commissioner sometimes may be acting - as a judicial authority under Article 39 and give decisions ; but at other times he may be simply acting as the representative of the Council of the League and be nsked to examine a particular question, to give a report, to say what he thinks about certain things, to make suggestions, and so on. He is the natural person to whom the League turiis wlien it wants information about Danzig. I think 1 am right in saying that he furnishes at the end of each year a report on the affairs of Danzig. There are two or three of thcsc reports lvhich are reports on special questions-not the generai yearly reports but certain reports on questions connected with this case-which are cited in the Appendix, and about lvhich I shall have to Say something. But these must be carefully distinguished from the decisions of the High Cornmissioner. They are not decisions of the High Commissioner within the meaning of the question, and they are ~iotreferred to by my friends. My friends do not found upon them. STAIEBIEh'T BY SIR JOHN FISCHER U'ILLIAIIIS (DANZIG) 235

- [Public sitting of Monday, .November gth, 1931, afternopn.]

Mr. President and Members of the Court, when 1 finished this morning 1 had just corne to the end of reading what seemed to me the rnost important passages, for the purpose of this case, of the Convention of Paris. 1 have just a word or two to add before passing on from this document. It is very remarkable that the Convention of Paris, which develops and records, as 1 think at any rate on al1 subjects important for present purposes, once for all, the relationship between Danzig and Poland, has not one single word to say on any military or naval functions, rights, duties, attributions -cal1 them ivhat you will-of Poland on the territory of the Free City. This silence, as msy be supposed, was not an accidental silence. A subject of that importance could hardly be forgotten, and 1 have to cal1 the attention of the Court, and 1 think 1 am entitled to do so, my friends having made no objection to it, to the very remarkable and interesting fact that, during the negotiations for the Convention of Paris, . Poland sought on two separate occasions to have introduced into the Convention rights of a very extensive character in regard to military and naval control. In fact, Poland sought to introduce into the Convention .cvhat seem to me to be the very rights which she is cIaiming at the present time and which she finds it so difficult to discover a single text to justify. The Court wili find in document No. 4, in the en en dix to the Statement of the Free City, the English translation from the French of the material clauses of two drafts which were put fonvard by Poland during the long and very careful negotiations on the final text of the Treaty of Paris. In the first draft you have (and it was to be Article 30) : "Poland shall have the right to take on the territory of the Free City of Danzig ali rneasures of a military and naval character necessary for the defence of her territory and her access to the sea as well as for the defence of the territory of the Free City." Obviously that is a claim to take any measures of any kind, naval or military, for the defence of Poland and for the defence of her access to the sea-that access which it was one of the purposes of the Convention of Paris to give her and .which had been promised her in the Treaty of Ver- sailles-and also for the defence of the territory of the Free City. 19 "For this purpose Poland shall have the right to maintain military and naval forces on the said territory, to occupy fortifications and exercise rnilitary authority (le contrdle ruiili- taire)." Unfortunately, 1 have not got the exact date upon which that draft was put forward, but there was a second draft which was put forward on the 20th September, 1920, and that second draft slightly modified the firçt draft-slightly, but not materially for this purpose. The article had theri become Article 33, and it was put with a sort of Preamble : "Seing that the defence of the free access of Poland to the sea is inseparable from the defence of the territory of the Free City", so that rny friends are no lor~gerspeaking of the measures necessary for the defence of Polish territory, but for the defence of the territory of the Free City and of the access of Poland to the sea. ."Poland shall have the right and the duty to exercise military authority (le contrôle militaire) on the territory of the Free City of Danzig and to take thereon ali measures of a military, naval or air force character necessary for this purpose." So that the effective clairn stili remains the same, although a slightly different reason is given fcr its exercise. Then y011 had a further article, and this further article is, 1 think, a formulation of the very daim which is being discussed to-day. This was Article 33 of the first draft. "Poland shall have the right to use the port of Danzig and its equipment for the anchorage, repair and revictualling of her ships and vessels of war", a precise formulation of the very clairn which you have got to-day. This Article appears again unchanged (it becomeç Article 36) in the second Polish draft of September zoth, 1920. That, 1 think, justifies me in saying that it was not the result of any omission that the Convention of Paris said nothing about military and naval forces. The scheme had definitely been put forward and had definitely been refused in the course of the negotiations; and as my friends make their appeal to principles generally, and to implications, and are' not . relying solely upon the actual -text, saying it is clear in ifs rneaning, 1 submit that this is a rnatter xvhich the Court 'is entitled to take into consideration. It is a historical fact of enormous importance, which it would be voluntary and deli- berate blindness if the Court did not consider. 1 have now terminated my examination of the Treaty of Versailles and the Convention of Paris. 1 submit that it is, STATEMENT EY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 237 perfectly clear that neither of those instruments give anything in the nature of a special right to Polish warships in the harbour of Danzig. Now we corne to the next step, and that is a discussion by the League Council of the proposed Constitution of the Free City of Danzig and of the question of the defence of Danzig. 1 may perhaps remind the Court that the Constitu- tion was a special matter of concern to the League because it was under the guarantee of the Leape. Therefore the League tvas called upon to approve it. Sirnilayly, as to the question of the defence of the Free City, thet League was interested as being the protector of Danzig, and it had to decide what it was going to do in such a matter. It had no rnilitary force of its own. Would it delegate the right to any particular Power, and, if so, upon what conditions ? As to the Constitution of the Free City, we have not set out that Constitution in full in our Case because we have not conceived that the greater part of its provisions are of direct interest ; but we have set out one article of the Constitution, namely, Article No. 5 : it appears as document No. 8 in the Appendix to our first Staternent. That is the article which says :

"Without the previous consent of the League of Nations ' in each individual case the Free City sliall not (1) be used as a military and naval base, (2) erect fortifications, (3) authorize the manufacture of munitions or war material in its territory." As we shall see very shortly, those provisions were inserted in the Constitution at the express request of the League. The discussion which took place in the League was in.iro- duced by a report which summed up the subject for discussion and w-hich concluded by certain proposals. It was a report which was presented by Viscount Ishii, dated Novern- ber 17th, 1920. It deals with the two subjects which the . League had then before it-the subject of the Constitution and the subject of -the deferice of the Free City, which was a subject which was not mentioned in the Treaty of Ver- sailles and which was not mentioned in the Convention of Paris, but \.hich concerned the League because the League occupied the position of being the protector of the Free City. Before going imrnediately to that report, 1 would cal attention to the faci that this question of the defence of the ' Free City had already occupied the attention of the Confer- ence of Ambassadors. The Conference of Ambassadors had passed a resolution so long before as May 1920, and its President liad written a letter to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on this question of defence. This declaration of the Conference of Ambassadors, and its communication, are referred to by my friends in their Mémoire, and they are set out in full in the Appendix to the Second Statement of the Free City. The Conference of Ambassadorç on the 7th May, 1920, made this declaration. (It will be found on page 196 of the Second' Statement of the Free City.) First, "that the Convention referred to in Article 104 should be concluded as soon as possible". Secondly, "that Poland however could not be authorized to establish a military or naval base at Danzig". So that at that date, in May 1920, the Conference of Ambassadors was already occupying itself with the question of the defence of Danzig, and it \vas anxiou~ that there should be no authorization to Poland to establish. . a military or naval base there. '. I have not read the whole of the declaration, bbt 1 have . read the passage which 4s of rnost irnmediate interest. Then, five monthç later, you get a letter from the Presi- dent of the Ambassadors' Conference to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations dated October zoth, xgzo. That makes a more positive and a slightly different suggestion with regard to the !;defence of Danzig. The President ssys : "On September 20th the Secretary-General of the League of Nations requested, the Conferencé of Ambassadors. to com- municate to it all the information they felt able to supply with regard to the . Convention betxveen the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Government, as laid down by Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles." (This \vas, of course, necessary. The League of Nations had to consider this question, and it naturally wished to be informed what was the state of the negotiations.) "1 have the honour on behalf of the Conference to send you herewith the text of the draft which has just received the approval of, the Conference. "The Principal Allied Powers feel it- their duty to take this opportunity of putting before the Council of the League of Nations the following considerations. "As is shown by the reply dated June ~Gth,19'9, of the Ailied and Associated Powers to the observations of the Ger- man deiegation on the terms of peace, the intention of the Powers in constituting Danzig and the territory specified in Article IOO of the Treaty as a Free City was to establish between Poland and the Free City the very closest relations ; their object \vas indeed to provide 'Poland with free access to the sea. "With this object the Free City was placed within the 'Polish Cuçtoms frontier ; Poland was granted the control and STATEMENT BY SIR JOHK FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 239 administration of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications with the port, at which moreover she enjoys extensive privileges. Finally, the administration of the foreign afTairs of the Free City belongs to Poland. "Owing to the close relations thus established between the Free City and Poland, and also in view of the clearly expressed intention of the Powers who signed the Treaty of Versailles to give Poland free access to the sea, the Polish Government would thus seem to be entitled to receive from the League of Nations the mandate of eventually ensuring the defence of the Free City." There you get the suggestion (1 think rny friendi are . inclined to treat it as something more) that Poland is entitled to receive from the League of Nations in certain :events a mandate to ensure the defence of the Free City. The Court will notice that the translater into English of this particular letter has falIen into what 1 venture to think js the trap which 1 mentioned to the Court this morning : he has translated the French word t?velztuellenzent by the English word 1 I eventually". However that may be, the important point to notice at this stage is the suggestion by the Conference of Ambassadors, which of course is not anything in the nature of a decision. If you take the French text, 1 siibmit there is no doubt whatever that the suggestion which it embodies is that if certain events happen, the proper thing would be to turn to Poland for the defence of the Free City. It is not .a siiggestion of conferring a permanent and immediate mandate upon Poland to deal with the defence of the Free City. . The report of Viscount Ishii to the League Council, which is a document of very great importance, figures as No. 6 of the documents in the Appendix to the Statement on behalf of the Free City. 1 do not inean to weary the Court with the whole of it, but there are one or two points on it which ought to be noticed. It begins by inentioning the question of the Constitution of the Free City. A little further on the Rapporteur indicates that the questions which have to be dealt with are the protection of the Free City and the guarantee of its Constitution. He says : "It may be weU to define first the exact meaning of the terms 'Protection' of the League, and 'Guarantee' of the Constitution by the LeagueH- the terms which are iised in the Treaty of versaiiles-. "The 'Protection' of the Free City by the League of Nations would appear to mean that the League of Nations shall undertake to respect and maintain against al1 foreign aggression the territorial integrit y and the political independence 240 STATEJIEST BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) of the Free City of Danzig in the same way as it does for al Members of the League of Nations under Article IO of the Covenant." That is the clearest possible recognition that the qiiestion of the defence of Danzig is a question for the League. "This collective protection by the League of Nations implies the exclusion, Save for restrictions provided at the time of the establishment of the Free City, of al1 individual interference by other Powers in the affairs of Danzig. "With regard to these restrictions, the provisions of Article 104 Qf the Treaty of Versailies should be noted." Then he states the article, and at the end of his statement, he says : "The provisions that 1 have just quoted are designed to guarantee Poland free access to the seaJ'- not designed to give her rights in the harbour of Danzig, or rights of military control, but to secure that she has that free access to the sea for imports and exports which has ben the governing consideration in the establishment of the present regirne. "It was not the intention of the Treaty of Versailles to incorporate the Free City in PoIand. In the letter from the Peace Conf erence to the President of the German deIegation at Paris, dated June 16th, rgrg, these words occur : 'The City of Danzig shall receive the Constitution of s Free City;' its inhabitants shall be autonomous ; they shaii not pass under Polish rule, and shall not form part of the Polish State. Poland shall obtain certain economic rights in Danzig."' Again, an authoritative adoption by the spokesman of the League of the view that tlie rights of Poland in Danzig are in principle economic ones ; and in the same sense : "The City itself has been taken away from Gerrnany because there was no other possible way of providing that 'free and safe access to the sea' tvhich Germany had protnised to grant." Then he says he yill return Iater to the Convention .between Danzig and Poland. Then on page 98 : "It is obvious that the giiarantee of the Constitution and the protection given by the League are intimately connected. The fundamental ides is that the Free City should form in the international organization of Europe a community which must be protected against rrli undue interference on the part of any country, and tvhich must have its own regular exist- STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 241 ence. It is, of course, understood that it would accept in their entirety the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the rights which this Treaty confers on Poland." 1 do not think 1 need trouble to read anything more on that page, or on pages 98 and gg ; but 1 should like, before going on, to emphasize how clearly the view there is taken that Danzig has to be protected against all undue interference by any Power, foreign or external to Danzig itself. 1corne now to an important statement in the middle of page IOO. It is No. g of a series of paragraphs which sets out the points which the Rapporteur is going to submit to the Coun- cil of the League. "9. It is strange to note that no provision has been inserted in the Constitution with regard to the military forces of the Free City. It would be desirable from the point of vietv of the League of Nations to lay down in no uncertain terms that the City of Danzig shall not be used as a military or naval baseH-. there the Rapporteur is taking up the proposa1 which had already been made by the Conference of Ambassadors in the preceding month of May- "and that it shall not construct fortifications or authorize the manufacture of munitions or war material in its territory, without having previously and in each case obtained the consent of the League of Nations." Consequently, there you get the general conception that nothing rnilitary is to be done and nothing naval is to' be done by external authorjty upon the territory of the Free City without the express consent in each case of the League of Nations. "1 shall return later to the question whether the League of Nations should immediately corne to some decision with regard to the military defence of the Pree City of Danzig." Then he mentions the correspondence which he has had with the Conference of Ambassadors, and the fact that the draft of the Convention of Paris has been submitted to him, and he states what 1 think is indeed obvious-that the Conven-. tion of Paris is of such importance as affecting the status of the Free City that it would be difficult for the League of Nations to make a final decision without knowing exactly in what way the stipulations laid down in Article roq of the Treaty of Peacè tvill be carried out by the Great Powers. 1 quote that sentence because it is interesting as throwing light upo~i.the view which the Rapporteur at any rate then 242 STATEJIENT Bi' SIR JOHX FISCHER iVILLIhJIS (DASZIG) took of the true interpretation of Article 104 of the Treaty of Versaiiles. They tvere stipulations which had to be carried out by the Great Powers in the coiiventio~~to be negotiated. Then he draws attention to the Iimitation on tlie power of the Polish Government to conclude treaties with the Free City, and on page IOI he 'calls especial atteiition to Article 26 of the draft Convention. That passage, 1 think, is important because my friends rely upon Article 2G as giving them direct access to the sea-that iç, in the argument which T have termed the eleventh-hour argument which appears on the Iast page of their second Mémoire. What he saÿs about it is this :

"According to Article 26 of the draft Convention, the ' Council of the Port must ensure that Poland shall have free use of the port and means of cornrnunica.tion specified in the Convention without any restrictions, and as far as may be necessary to safeguard the irnport and export trade destined to and from Poland; the Council of the Port will further be obliged to take ail necessary Ineasures to ensure the development and improvement of the port and of the means of communication, in order to meet the needs of this traffic. Should these conditions not be observed, tlie Free City of Danzig and Poland çhall have the right to appeal to the League of Nations in conformity with Article 39 of the draft."

I think it is clear that in hiç view there iç no support for the argument that Article 26 can be used for the .purpose of authorizing the introduction of naval forces for economic and technical purposes into the Free City. Then he cornes at last to the question of the defence of the Free City : "Before formulating a draft resolution, 1 have still to deal with the question raised by the letter addressed to the Leape and dated the 20th October, from the Presiclent of the Confer- ence of Ambassadors. This letter mentioned the intention of the Po~versio constituting the Free City of Danzig and the territory included in Article IOO of the Treaty of Versailles, to establish the most intimate relations between the Free City and Polarid. The Powers were desirotis of giving Poland . free access to the ses. 'With this aim', says the letter from the President, 'the Free City had been placed within the limits of the ~olishCustorns frontier. Poland obtaining the control and the administration of the postal, telegraphic and telephoilic communications between herself and the port, in lvhich she also enjoys extensive rights. Finally, the conduct of the foreig~i affairs of the Free City is placed in her hands. Moreover, by reason of the close connection thus established between the Frec City and Poland, and considering the desire, clearly expressed by the signatory Powers of the Treaty of Versailles, to give Poland free access to the sea, it seems probable that the Polis11 Government will, if circumstances require it,' "- and herc the French text has been in the hands of a different translator who, instead of using the word "eventitall~~; as a traiislation of éventzrellement, uses the English phrase circunistances require it", "receive fro'm the Leagile of Nations the mandate to ensure the defence of the Free City." That is simply quoting the letter from the President of the Conference. Then he goes on : "The letter from the President of the Conference of Ambss- sadors deais with a problem which your Rapporteur would have been obliged to consider, even if this letter had not been addressed to the League ; the serious problem of .discovering by what mcans the League caii protcct the Free City in the case of an armed international conflict. There would appear to be three possibilities." Then he disciis;es those possibilities, the second being if Poland is attacked by any State whatsoever; but I do not think I neecl go into the exact nature of tbose possibilities. Tlien lie concludes-and this no doubt is a part of the document upon which my Eriends place reliance : "In coiicliision, 1 agree with the opinion expressed by the Conferencc of Ambassadors, viz., that the Polish Government appears particiilarly fitted to receive, if the circumstances require it, frorn the Leapie of Natioiis the mandate to ensure the defence of the Free City, biit it is important to make it clear that this mandate can never be made exclusive, and that it can orlly be given after due consideration by the Coun- cil of the Leaguc of the particular circumstances in each case, in order to avoid involving the League of Nations, as the protector of the Free City of Dnr~zig, in an i~lternational çtruggle, unless it be in conformity with the provisions of the Covenant." We shali see shortly how far and in what way thic suggestion was dealt with. But it is very important to observe exactly what it is. He takes up the opinion at the conférence of Ambas- sadors and he interprets it. He accepts it, but he points out exactly trrhat it is. It is not that the Polish Government is, or should be, given now and immédiately anything in the 244 STATEAIEST RY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIA?+lS (DANZIG) nature of a permanent mandate ; it is only that the Polish Government are psrticularly fitted to receive it if the circumstances require it. In certain events the Polish Govern- ment would, if 1 may express it colloquially, appear to be the strongest candidate to be given n mandate if 'circumstances require. Then he goes on ; he is very anxious to limit what might be otherwise the dangerous caiisequences of such a pro- possl, and he emphasizes that the mandate can never be made exclusive, and is only to be given after due consideration by the Council of the League of the particular circumstances of each case. Consequently, there is no question of anything in the nature of an irnrnediate, definite mandate ; there is no question of a permanent mandate ; there is no question of an exclusive mandate ; it ,is simply a statcment that, if circumstances happen to require it, Poland would seem to be, in particular events which may happen, the Yower to whom it would be most convenient or proper that the League shouid turn. That involves an invitation by the Leagiie of Poland ; in principle .Poland is in exactly the same position as any otlier Power with regard to military and naval measures to be takcn on the territory of Danzig.. 1 shouId observe, finaliy, that there has never been any question in al1 this report of what is now knoxvn or came to be kriown from time to time as the question of the "port d'attache", or any question of Polish warships in the harbour of Danzig. Now we corne to the meeting of the Council of the League which took place on Novernber qth, 1920. That is an important meeting ; my friends place great reliance upon it. I am reading from page x65 of their Mémoire : tliey Say that the Coiincil adopted and transformed into an express resolution the opinion of the Ambassadors' Conference : the idea of the Polish mandate for the defence of the Free City. This notion of defence is laid clown, they Say, in most general terms: it extends to defence by sea as well as to defence by land. When we look at the conclusions in which my friend suggests the answer lvhich the Court is to give, 1 thiilk this is one of the decisions which he has in mind ; consequently, it is of very great irnportance-.we are coming now rather close to the lieart of the case-to see what this particular decision did, and incidentatly what happened at the meeting of the Council at lvhich this decision \vas taken. The minutes of the meeting of the Council are document No. 7 in the Appendix of the Case of the Free City. It \vas a meeting which M. Paderewski, the Polish representative, and RI. Sahm, the .Burgomaster of Danzig, attended, and in which they took or at any rate M. Paderewski took what for our present purposes is a very important part. M. Paderewski had certain siiggestions to STATEIIENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 245 make as to the Constitution ; I do not know that for the moment it is very important for me to dwell upon them. 'fhere was slight talk. about the word "sovereignty" and so on ; 1 do not propose to trouble the Court with that. But M. Paderewski was very far from satisfied with the Convention as it stood with regard tc the military and naval rights of Poland in relation to Danzig. He had, of course, present to his mind the fact that the drastic Polish suggestions which I have already aliuded to this afternoon-drastic suggestions for the military and naval rights of Poland over th territory of Danzig-had been refused, and he very naturlly frorn. his point of yiew was seeking to get a recognition fromthe League of Nations of the very rights which he had been unable to obtain iri the Conference of Ambassadors. Of course, he t approached this matter from a slightly different angle at the Conference. The League \vas responsible for the protection and for defence; conscquentIy the Lerigue had to consider what the Conference had not directly to consider, how it was going to discharge its duties for the protection of the Free State. What M. Paderewski said was this : he puts the thing very clearly ; 1 am reading from pages 106 and 107 of the Appendix to the Free City's Case : "The draft Conven- tion drawn up under the auspices of the Conference of Ambas- sadorsJ'-that is the Convention of Paris as we~have got it now substantially-"failed to take count of the dangers which might be involved in carrying out that part of its provisions which concerned Polish interests. "The geographical and political situation .of Danzig, the special sympathies of a section of the population, the feelings which existed in the countries bordering, and finally the events wliich had taken place last surnmer at Danzig, when Poland had been figliting for her independence and when her very existence had been at stake-al1 theçe considerations tended to cause Poland justifiable anxiety with regard to her own safety." Then he goes on and explains how that had al1 happened ; lie explains the incident of the strike preventing transport of munitions across Danzig. He saict, in his view : "The peace which Poland had just concluded \vas merely a respite." M. Paderewski rerninded the Council of a verbal declar a t'ion xvhich had been made to him by the British Prime Minister, at the close of a session of the Suprerne Council, to the effect that Poland wauld be entitled to move strong bodies of troop; into Danzig, if, in her opinion, such a step should seem necessary. "13efore authorizing the Polish Delegation to sign the Convention, the Polish Government, in obedience to the unanimous wishes of the Diet . and of the entire nation, reqiiested the Council of the League of Nations to avert this 246 STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) danger by entrusting Poland with a permanent mandate for the defence of the Free City. Such a step would be in the general interestc of peace, as it would enable Poland not only to defend Danzig agaiiist any external aggression, but also to avoid all cause of disputes which, under present conditions, rnight disturb the relations between Poland and the Free City." Therefore you have got the clearest possible dernand there for a permanent ancl immediate mandate. Then you have the arguments of l3urgomitster Sahm, who, not unnatu- raily, takes quite a different point of view. Then you have a remark of -Mr. Fisher, who was then representing, 1 thirik, Great Britain, that he agreed ,with the last part of the report made by Viscount Ishii dealing with the possible conferment I of a mandate on Poland for the defence of Danzig. You at once get the opposition put diplomatically to the idea of a permanent and immediate mandate, when Mr. Fisher says that what he agrees with is the proposa1 of Viscount Ishii as to the possible conferment of a mandate. Then M. Léon Bourgeois makes a few remarks, ancl the Council refers the matter to its Iepl advisers to examine, in agreement with Visconnt Ishii, the documents to be submitted. IfTe.have not got the report of the legal advisers. It seems to have been made very rapidy. 1 suppose there was an adjournrnent, but tliis is what happens the same day. "The President"-that is to Say the President of the Coitncil-"read the report presented by the Committee of Jurists, which was instructed by the Council to examine the proposals submitted in the memoranda presented by the Polish delegate ürid by the delegate of the Free City of Danzig." So apparently there were writte~i memoranda, kvhich 1 am afraid urc have not got, but whicli, 1 think we may take it, c1e:irly must have been in the sense indicated by the speeches at the meeting of which we have the mi~iutes; those mcmorands had been considered by the meeting. Then we have the statement : "A report (Annex 130) and draft resolutioii were presented by Visconnt Ishii. The Council adopted, with a certain nurnber of amendments and additions, the draft resoliition dealing with (1) the protection of, and the guarantee of the Constitution of the Free City by the League ; (2) the modificatioiis to be made in the draft Constitution ; (3) the draft Agreement to be dra~vnup between PoIand and the Free City of Danzig ; (4) the termination of the duties of the temporary High Commissioner of the 1-eague at Danzig; (5) the appointment of the permanent High Comrnissioner of the Leagiie of Nations at Danzig, and 'the financial arrangements with regard to the High Commission of the League at Danzig .... The Council considered the means by which the League of Nations might ensure the protection of the Free City, in the case of an international armed conflict, and under what circumstances the task of defending Danzig rnight be, eventua1ly"--again that unfortunate word in its English use-"eventually entrusted to Poland." Then you have the rernark of the British representative that "if the defence of the Free City were entrusted to Poland, it would be well to consider carefully under what conditions and with vhat reservations this defence should be undertaken. In this case, there should be no questio~iof an exclusive mandate- the League of Nations should be free to ask any one of its Members to co-operate in the defence of Danzig-nor of a permanent mandate, nor of the military occupation of Danzig in time of peace." A naval occupation of a harboiir by armed ships js an operation which is not unlike a military occupation of a city. Then you have a. little later, on page iro, some remarks from the representative of Italy, M. Tittoni, who observes that "the task of the defence of Danzig shoulci be entrusted to Poland only in the case of a threat to Danzig", That is to Say, a clear indication on his part that what he wanted was a possibility of calling in Poland in certain events, riot giving her a permanent and perpetual mandate. Then cornes a statement of the result of the deliberation : "The Council decided that the Polish Government appeared to be specially indicated as the Government to ~vhich the task of defending the Free City should be given by the League of Nations, should circumstances require it ...." So you get the adoption there, not of the Polish proposa1 which h2d been put forward by M. Paderewski, but of the general principle that should circurnstances require it, it would be proper or rnight be proper to entrust Poland with the task. The actuaI Resolution riins as follows : "The Council of the League of Nations approves of the conclusions of the report by the Japanese Representative, and declares : That the Free City of Danzig, from the time of its establishment by the Principal Allied Powers in accordance with Article roa of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, will be placed under the protection of the League of Nations;"-a clear assertion that it will be placed under the protection of the League-"and that the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig, drawn .up by the duly appointed representatives of the Free City, will at the . same time be placed under the gnarantee of the League of Nations. The Council decides that : The Polish Government appears particularly fitted to be, if the circumstances require it, entrusted by the League of. Nations with the duty of ensuring the defence of the Free City. The Permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval and Air Questions is instructed to consider the measures which will ensure the mast effective defence of Danzig .in the cases mentioned in the Japanese Representative's report." So that on this question the final resolution is in agreement with the ~vhole tendency and tenor of the debates and the suggestions made, &xcepting the suggestion which was made by M. Paderewski tliat an irnmediate and permanent 'mandate should be given to Poland for the defence. You get a mere recognition that, should circumstances require it, Poland might be specially qualified to receive a manclate. You get nothing in the nature of giving a mandate, and you get a reference to the technicd advisers of the Lengiie to consider the measureç-thnt is the technical, military, naval and air measures-whicli would ensure the most effective dcfence of Danzig. Then 1 do iiot t1iiiik 1 need trouble the Court with the rest of that ResoIution, becnuse it is almost entirely a resolution as to the Constitution, excepting just to recall that it was in this Resolution that the League intimated to the aiithorities at Danzig tliat it was highly desirable that a clause should be inserted iri the Constitution to the effect that the Free City is not to be iised as a naval or rnilitary base. You have got thus a very carefully drswn resolution which gives nothing in the nature of s direct and immediate right to Poland, and 1 am bound to challenge in the most formal way the interpretation which my friends, particularly on pages 165 and 167 of thcir RZémoire,have given to this Resolution. I have already referrecl to the passage on page 165. The passage on page 167 is a passage in which, when dealing with a furtlier Resolutioii of June, they Say that the point of that Resoliitioii does not throw any doubt upon the principle whicll Ilad been formerly admitted of the sea deferice of Danzig. The reference there to "formerly" is undoubtedly to this particular Resolution of November 17th, 1920. 1 Say that Resolution in perfectly clear terms gives nothing whatever tangible to Poland ; it is a mere recognition that in certain events Yoland rnight be called upon to do certain things. Just before leaving that, 1 should like to recall the interesting fact that nobody during that discussion, not hI. Paderewski nor any one eIse, ever suggested the ingenioiis argument which has been brotight forward by niy friends to the efiect that either the Convention of Paris or Articles 26 and 104 of the Treaty of Versailles had given PoIand, under the guise of economic rights, these very rights of introducing warships and, 1 suppose, other forces. If this argument of my friends is well-founded, it is, I think, highly remarkable that at this stage, when M. Paderewski ivas present at the Council, tvith a claim to rights of this extensive nature, he seems to have been whoUy ignorant of the fact that-if my friends are right -they had got something very similar already under the Treaty of Versailles and utider the Convention of Paris. STATEhlEST BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DXXZIG) 249 To continue with the history of the matter, the Permanent hlilitary. Naval and Air Advisory Commission had been entrusted under that Resolution with the consideration of measures to ensure the most effective defence of Danzig, and they produced a report with commendable celerity on December IS~, 1920. 1 do .no1 know that 1 need read that report,-because effect was never given to it. It was a most clear and per- hnps it is not improper to call it a most formidable document, and it ended with a series of conclusions rnost of which are of an extremely drastic nature. It said : " (1) The defence of the territory of the Free City of Danzig cannot be considered separately frorn that of. the Polish Corridor of which it forms the complernent. (2) The defence shoiild be organized and eventually carried into effect by Po1and"-you see there the military and naval advisers go very much ahead of the effective part of the Resolution under \.hich they acted- "except in the case of the third contingency mentioned in the report of Viscount Ishii, when the League tvould relieve the Polish forces occupying the defences of Danzig by an international force." That was, 1 think, a considerable anticipation of the future. Then in No. 4 they said : "The Government ' .... shaU be authorized in peace time (A) To establish on the territory of Danzig defensive works suited to the requirements of the modern defence of the eastern and northern (sea) fronts of the above-mentioned territory. (B) To utilize the existirig aerial base situated at OIiva on the territory of Danzig inde- pendently of the bases which in the first ttvo cases only might be erected on Polish territory." Then : "(c) To maintain in these defensive systems (but not in the totun of Danzig itself) the forces necessary for their protection and upkeep." 1 will not trouble the Court by reacling the rest of these drastic resolutions, but I should call attention to Resolution . No. g. Resolution No. g said this : "\lTithout waiting for the result of the examination of the defensive organization of the Free City, the Polish Governrnent should be given suficien t harboarage in the port of Danzig to assure the sheltering aiid repairing of those small naval iinits which were given it by the Allies for the policing of its waters." So there you have got something in the nature of a definite recommendatiorl by a technical cornmittee of tlie recognition to Poland of a right in the harbour of Danzig, at any rate for the time being, a right of putting in naval units, "small", they are called, but stilI naval units. That was a report which had of course nothing in the nature of executive authority. The report was brought up at a meeting of the Coilncil of the League on December ~zth,and it is interesting to see what happened. 1 am reading from page 117 of the English version of the Case of the Free City, document No. IO : "The 250 STATEhIENT BI' SIR JOBK FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) Defence of Danzig. Captain Yenido read the report on the defence of Danzig submitted by the Permanent Advisory Com- mission on Afilitary, Naval and Air Questions (Annex 130 b)," . That is the document 1 have just been alluding to. "Mt, Bal- four said that the report was inconsistent with the spirit of 'the Treaty of Versailles and with all the decisions which had been come to by the competent authorities since that Treaty was signed." 1 certainly do not recoliect sny more sweeping condemiiation announced by a responsible statesman of a docu- nient submitted to the Council of the Leape. "The Treaty of Versailles inade Danzig a Free City and the body responsible for its safety was the League of Nations. If the report of the Commission was adopted, Danzig would be put under the military control of a neighbouring Power, instead of under the control of those who had been made responsible for its safety by the Treaty. The report was, moreover, directly contrary to the decision- of the Ambassadors' Conference of May 7th, 1920,'' -that was, of course, the report in which it was çaid that Danzig was not to be used as a military or naval base- "and to Viscount Ishii's report, which had been adopted by the Council." It was contrary to Viscount Ishii's report because that report said that in certain events Poland might be called upon to do certain things, whereas this report assumes that Polancl is to be given an immediate and permanent mandate for establishing defensive organization on the territory of the Free City. "The strength of small States such as Danzig would be the strength of the League itself and woi~ld not depend on their inherent strength or their military alliance with n neighbouring Power. He was con- vinced that the whole future of Danzig and the prosperity and commercial convenience of Poland absolutely depended on friendly relations between these two communities. It was vital to both Poles and Danzigers to be on good terrns with each other." Then you get M. Léon Boitrgeois. "hl. Léon Bourgeois cdled the attention of the Council to the fact that the report of the Commission 'as ilnanimous and that the League was in a very difficult position in the matter. It had no forces at its disposa1 for the defence of the Free City. He hoped that the Council would not come to any hurried decision in the rnatter. He also drew the attention of the Council to the reply of the Peace Conference to the Gerrnan observations on the terms of Peace, in which the future position of Danzig was outlined." What occurs to one is that this iç obviouçly a speech made rather by way of toning down the very drastic criticism which had just ken uttered by Mr. 13alfour. Now the speaker was surely well acquainted with what had been done by the Council, but he never suggested in those remarks' that you STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 251 had already got what rny friends rely on as a decision on November 17th by which Poland was given a mandate br the rnilitary and naval defence of Danzig, a mandate of a11 effective kind. Obviously, if M. Leon Bourgeois had thought for one moment or any one of the Council had thought that Mr. Balfour's remarks were so erroneous as they tvould have been if the Council had actually already conferred on Poland a permanent mandate for the generd defence of Danzig, it is iinintelligible that neither in these observations of M. Léon Bourgeois nor in any remarks by any other Member of the Council is that point taken, Then cornes the decision: "The Council decided to send the report of the Permanent Advisory Commission for Military, Naval and Air Questions, together with 'the report of Viscount Içhii on the same çubject, to the High Commissioncr of Danzig to be appointed by the Council, with a request that he should consider the question and report to the Council which would then be in possession of al1 information nece3sat-y for a final decision." In other words, very politely but quite definitely the Council put aside this report of the Permanent Military, Naval and Air Advisory Commission, and turned to its own High Cornrnissioner, and asked him to give, not a decision but. a report on the general question of the defence of Danzig. That is the position in the middle of December rgzo. The riext step in the story in dispute is the memorandum on the defence of the Free City which was subrnitted by the High Comrnissioner of the League (1 think he had just been appointed then) : Generai Haking, It is a memorandum urhich is dated January zgth, 1921, about six weeks later in date than the resolution of the Council ~vhichreferred the matter to him for report. That document is given in the Appendix to tlie Second Statement of the Government of the Free City. (LVe very much regret it was not possible througIi certain material difficuities to print it in the Appendix to the First Statement.) It is a very interesting report for rnany reasons. From our point of view at the present time, and from the point of view I venture to think of the Court, what is so particularly interesting about it is that the High Commiçsioner was obviously, as everybody indeed was, in December 1920, completely innocent of any idea that any decision of principle had been taken givirig to Poland something in the nature of definite rights for the defeiice of the Free City. If my friends' view of the decision of November 17th is in any way right, the report cannot be intelligible at all. I do iiot propose to read every tvord of it, but there are one or two passages which, from the point of view 1 have indicated, are perhaps of special interest. The report has the advantage of being paragraphed, therefore one caii refer to. 252 STATEAIENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAalS (DANZIG) the paragraphs. Perhaps it is unnecessary to recall agaiii that this is in 110 seiise a decision of the High Commissioner under Article 39 of the Convention of Paris ; it is a inere report in his administrative capacity as a representative of the League. He begins by çaying: "When considering this question it is necessary to study both the rnilitary and political aspect, and above al1 to ascertain wbat benefits would accrue both to Danzig and to the Poles by granting the latter a mandate for the defence of Danzig." At once you get tlie iact thüt the High Cornrnissio~~erc!oes not suppose tl-iat any definite inandate for the deferice of Danzig has been granted to Poland. Then in paragraph 2 : "It is not difficult to aypreciate the military situation, and the first question which nrises is ~vhether Danzig requires any defence at ail other than that already provided by the protection, chiefly moral, of the League of Nations." Nothing could be dearer than that he does . not suppose that any dehite decision has ever been taken. Then at. the end of paragraph 3, having considered the possibility of an attack by sea, he cornes to the conclusion that an attack 0x1 Danzig by sea appears unlikely : "It appears that an attack on Danzig by sea for several years is .so unlikely that it is unnecessary to consider it at present." Then in paragraph q he deals svith the question of attack by land, and there lic concludes in the last words of paragrapli 4 : "It appears therefore that there are i~isufficient arguments in favour of giviilg Poland a ma~idatefor the defence of Danzig in the eveiit of an attack by the Russians." That is really hardly a respectful remnrk if the Council of the Leaguc had already taken a decision giving a. mandate for defence. In the second part of paragraph j he observes : "if Danzig is given to the Poles to defend, it would only add a good reason for making it an objectiveJ'-that is to =y, an objective oi Germany in the event of a German attack. It gces on in paragraph 6 : " .... if Germany was to uiidertake such an attack no defence by Poland woiild be of 'any avail, because Germany mould be more intent upon defeating the Polish forces in the field than upon taking Danzig as a definitc objective ; thirdly that it woulcl be a far more serious ihing for Gerniany to attnck Danzig as a free city, guaranteed hy the League of Nations, thnn as a possession of Yclaild which it would be boilnd to become, sooner than later; if Poland is given a mandate for irs defence. We can assilme therefore that Danzig reqiiires at present no military defeiice, hecause any thar could be given to if at the moment by the Allied would be inadequate to protect if from the only real, but extremely iinlikely, danger, an attack by Germany." In paragraph 7 tou-ards the end, he refers to a conversation he had svith Prince Sapielin in Warsaw. He says he was tald there STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 2j3 by the Polish Minister "that the most important question at the present tirne was whether Poland is to lx given a mandate for the defence of Danzig. Although Poland is a Member of the Leagae of Nations 1 am bouiid to assert my conviction, which is substantiated by the above statcments, tliat Poland cioes not want Danzig to defend it from an outside enemy, she wants it in order to destroy its nationality nrid make it part, in fact if not in name, of the PoIish Reptiblic." .Then at the end of paragraph S : ".... it will be of little benefit eventii- aity either to Danzig .or to Poland to give the 'latter a mandate for the aefence of Danzig or in plain words tto enable her to estahlish in Danzig a military and naval base, which is what she rcally requires." "9. The Trealy of Versailies and the Convention signed betxveen Poland and Danzig appear to me to contain two very important principles. First, that Danzig is to retüin its nationality as a free and indepeiident city under the League of Nations, and secondly that Poland is to be given every possible facility for using- the harbour of Danzig." And then he goes on :- "If, however, the decision is given in favour of the Poles, the Danzigers will to a certainty lose their own nationaIity and again become German, every possible difficulty wilI be placed in the way of Poland in the use of the harbour, and she will be compeiled more and more .to use force and military domination amongst a populatioii of over 300,000 pure Germans." And he ends in paragraph II : "1 am confident that if the League of Nations will decide in favour of retaining its guarantee for the Free City of Danzig and will allow no one nation to be given a mandate for its defence, 1, as High Commissioner under the League, will be able to ensure the full use of the harbaur to Poland, and that mnny of the difficulties rit present anticipated both by tlie PoIes and the Danzigcrs wiIl be overcome." Well, 1 think it mny be remarked there tliat in substance that idea of not allowing any one nation to be given n mandate for the defence of Danzig \vas the uItimate result reached a few months later by the League. That report of the High Commissioner was dated Janu- ary zjth, 1921. It was not formally considered by the Council of the League until June zznd, ~gzr,and when it came up before the Council then, it \iras accompanied by two reports of Viscourit Ishii and also by a note of the French delegation xvhich gave the text of a Ietter to the League from the Polish representative sent on March 5th, 1921. The Polish Govern- ment were aware tliat at the forthcoming meeting of the Coun- cil this question of the defence of Danzig was expected to reach a final decision by the Council, and they were very anxious again to submit their request and to have tlieir point of view fulIy considered, and if possible acceded to. With 2j4 STATEMENT BY SIR JOHS FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) that view, on March 5th a letter \vas sent, the test of which witl be found on page 122 of the First Staternent of the Free City. "In a letter dated March jth, rgzr, M. Askenazy ~equested: "(I) That Poland should be allowed to maintain military guards for handling and escorting war material unlaaded at Danzig. "(2) That isolated magazines should be reserved for munitions and cxplosives consigned to Poland." . Those are two requests with which the Court is not concerned at the present ti~ne.We shall see what happened to them. "(3) That a mooring stationw-that is the English ; the French was poiftt d'attache-"in the port of Danzig should be placed at the disposa1 of the Polish Government for the naval police vessels which Poland is authorized by the Aliies to ~OSSCSS." That is taking up a little more defrnitely the last recom- mendation of al1 of the report of the Permanent Advisory Cornmittee which had been so surninarily rejected-or hvhich had beeri so carefiiliy put aside, shall 1 say?-by the Council at its meeting on December xzth. "(4) That the High Comrnissioner should be alloxved to apply directly to the Polish Govcrnment to provide him mith the means ivhich he considers necessary for the protection of Poland's right of free access to the sea." So that you see in (3) and (4) of those four requests you have got a much more detailed and much more restrained proposa1 for the defence of Danzig than those which !lave been previously put forward by the representatives of the Polish Gov- ernment. Perhaps it would be convsnient at this stage that 1 shouId try to do ivhnt 1 can, in anstver to a request which has been formaliy made both to my friends and to myself by the Court, to elucidate the lise of the phrases "fioint d'attache" and "port d'attache", and possibly sornething else. 1 am afraid 1 cannot be of any very great use to the Court, but there are one or two things 1 can Say. 1 cannot be of very much use in interpreting the expression "port d'ntiache" which is perhaps the more important of the two. It mas not an expression which the Free City ever invented or usecl of its own motion. 1 imagine my friends knoiv nrhat is meant by it, because they include it in the answer ivhich the Court is asked to give. Obviously they must know exactly what they inean, or they could not put the expression into the mouth of the Court. We do riot put any such expression into the moiith of the STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 253 Court. We take qiiite a different point of view. 1 am afraid we know nothiiig whatever as to the motives which catrse les raisons pour lesqzielles in ternzinologie a été sitccessive.inent modifiée. You find these t~vophrases iised in the same paragraph of a report which \vas made on Jiine ~2nd. The Rapporteur seems to slip from the use of the expression "Point d'attache" into the lise of the expression "Port d'attache" without it being present to hiç mind that there is any change at all. 1 have been told that efforts have been made to discover how the phrases came to be used in this kind of way, but 1 am in possession of no explanatiori whntever. Perhaps I ought to call attention to the reniarks which are macle by the High Commissioner in thc report which he made on September ~oth,xgzr. He says : "Ny first dificuIty has been to discover the meaning of the term 'port d'attache' ; there is evidently no eqiiivaleiit for it iri English because in the English text of thc resolution of the Couiicil the words are quoted in French. T have asked several Frencli authorities what it means, but without obtaining any satisfactory reply. Local press opinion apparently gives it a wide meaning because it iç stated lhat anyone who can form a port d'attache without alço forniing a naval base could square the circle. One cannot avoid the idea that one is really directcd to give Poland a naval base hiit to call it a 'port d'attache'." Then there is one other matter, :ind that is the incident tliat took place very much Ister, n:imely, in November 1927. These cvents xvhich happcned much Inter are not generally of aiiy interest in the question wliicli the Court has to decide, biit as the Court is ansious to pursue tllis question of the rneaning of "port d'ratlach", I think it my duty to cal1 attention to this particular incident. The passage to wvhich I am referring is on page 159 of our Appendix. It is the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the League on December %th, 1927. A report iç read by M. Villegas, in which he mentions at the outset "the question then knowii as that of a '$art rl'aftnche"', and there is a footnote saying : "The Council was informed in document .... dated Novem- ber 18th, 1927, that the Danzig and Polish Governments had ngreed for the future to cal1 the question of a '$mi d'attache for Polish warships at Danzig' : 'Access to and anchorage in dWe Port of Danzig for Polish wuv vesseJs."'

Tf that was aii agreement, it seems to have slipped the notice of my friends, because they are still using the expression in the concIusions to which they ask the Court to corne. 256 STATISMI'NT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) Then, as a result of the enquiry addressed to nie by the Court, 1 have had put into my possession a note of what happened at a meeting at Danzig on November 14th, '927, which is the meeting to which reference is made when it is said that the Polish and Danzig Governments had agreed for the future. 1 cal1 my friends' especial attention to it, because it was not known, at any rate to myself personally, when the Mémoires were prepared, and 1 do not want to appear to be taking them by siirpriçe in any way. It is an interesting ziccount of nrhnt happenecl at that meeting. 1 have here in tlie rooin the gentleman mho was present at the meeting and who took note of the discussion at the time, and if necessary he will be' prepared to repeat to the Court what 1 will read. It is n note of a meeting ~vhich took place at Danzig on Novcmber rqth, 1927. There were present Yresident Sahrn, Senator Dr. Strunk and Dr. Ferber. Those were al1 representatives of the Free City. President de Loes was preçent. He was the President of the Harbour Board, and he was a colonel of Swiss nationality. On the Polish side there was present Minister Strasbiirger, RI. Zalicki, RI. Moderbw and M. Jaczi- nicz. This very interesting remark was made by Colonel de Loes, the Swiss Chairman of the Harbour Board. "Coloiiel de Loes protested against the expression '$ml d'attache'. He esplainecl this as meaiiing 'Home Port', in which shiys are registerecl, iii which they iiorinally take in their supplies, and so on. Moreover, if you seek to apply. this conception to war ships, you wotild have clearly a 'naval base'. He proposecl that the expression 'fiwt d'attache' should not he usecl any longer." There appears to have been general assent to that proposition, and for n time, nt any rate, the temptation to use this rather unfortunate phrase nppears to have been resisted. But it has some sort of charm of its ourn, and it appears to have corne back into the present discussions; On behaIf of the Free City, that is all, 1 am afraid, that I am able to contribiite to the soliition of this problem. As to . ivhy the espression "$oint d'attache" is changecl into "port d'altcrche", ~vehave no conception whatever. Pritna facie, one ~ouldhav'e thought thnt "fioint d'affache" ~vould be a much more Iogical phrase in this connection.

When 1 finished the rernarks which I was making last evening, I brought down the story of this dispute to March jth, 1921. 'I'hnt was the date on which the Polish Government STATEJIEXT RY SIR JOHX FISCHER Wl1.LIA~f.S (DASZIC) 2j7 made the communication xvhich wil1 be found on page 122 of the Case of the Free City. I have just referred to the contents of that note. The next event of importance in the history of the dispute (and I think it js the event of the greatest importance of everything that happened in thc course of it) is the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on June zznd and the resolution or resolutions which were reached at that date. No~v the matter {vas brought up to the Council by twu reports ; they were hoth dated June zznd and they uferc both made by Viscount Ishii, who had had charge of the matter from the time ixrhen it was first broiight to Geneva. One of these two reports is short but very important : it is on pages 116 to 120 of the Mémoire of the Fret City; the other is longer: it begins on page 120. The report on page 118 is headed: "Defence of the Free City", and the report on page rzo is headcd : "The Protection of Poland's right of free access to the ses through Danzig." Betxveen them those two reports cover al1 the four matters which were ciealt with in the Polish Govenirnent's note of Narch 5th. Xow it is interesting to notice that one report, the short report on the protection of the Free City, with a long resolution, {vas adopted by the League, whereas the other report \vas not in fact adopted. It is not particularly important, but it is just worth recording the fact that the discussion at the League went off on rather different lines from those siiggested by the second report, and the second report was not in fsct adoptcd. There is an error in a Iater report of the Leagiie, xvhich treats the second report as if it had in fact been adopted. That was not so. It is not really very material for the purpose of this case whether it was or was not adopted, but for the sake of historical accuracy 1 do cd1 attention to the fact that the first report was adopted, and the first report is the one which is of practical importance in this case. On the second report the discussion took a different turn, and it was never finally adopted. The first report, that is the report which was adopted, reached canclusions xvhich are mentioned in the note presented by the French delegation-this is a third docii- ment also bearing the date of June ~2nd-and in that note the French delegation remarks (it is certainly of historical interest to observe) that the text which was reproduced in the draft resolution contained in Viscount Ishii's report on the defence of Danzig-I ain reading from lines 9 to rz on page 123 of the Annex to the memorandum of the Free City- was a text which had been already adopted by the British and French Govemments; so it was a text, as the French delegation tells us, which already represented an agreement xvhich had been reached outside the Council room. Now the 2j8 STATEMEKT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER I\'ILLIAMS (DANZIG) report on the defence, which is the important report, is very

brief, Le., the report proper is extremely brief ; the ' resolution is of some little length. The report apart frorn the resolution consists of three paragraphs only. The Reporter says: "In the report, which I had the honour to present to the Council on November 17th, 1920, concerning the position of the Free City of Danzig regarding the League of Nations, 1 drew the attention of my colleagues to the question of the defence of the Free City. 'I'he Council, by a resolution adopted on the same date, approved the conclusions of that report. The Council decided that the PoIish Government appeared particularly fitted to be, if circumstances required it, entrusted by the League of Nations with the duty of ensuring the defence of the Free City. "After having carefully examined al1 the documents that have been submitted to the Council on that important matter since that date, 1 consider that there is no reason for modi- 'fying the conclusions of my report of November qth, 1920. "On the bais of the facts stated in the docu~nentson this question and with the object of reconciling the views expressecl by the Danzig and the Polish Governments"-what follows is intended to reconcile the views expressed by the Polish and Danzig Governments-"and by the experts of the League of Nations, 1 beg my colleagues to consider the following draft resolution." This was the resolution which was proposed and adopted : "(1) The Polish Governrnent is specially fitted to ensure, if circumstances require it, and in the follo~vingconditions, the defence of Danzig by land, as well as the maintenance of order on the territory of the Free City, in the event of the local poIice forces proving insufficient." That point as to the maintenance of order on the territory of the Free City is a new point, but it is not material for the purposes of the present case. "With this object in view, the High Commissioner will, if occasion arises, request instructions from the Council .of the League of Nations and wiI1, if he thinks fit, submit proposals. (2) It will nevertheless be within the cornpetence of the High Commissioner to anticipate the authorization of the Council and to address a direct invitation to the Polish Governrnent to ensure the defence of Danzig,"- the words "by land" are not added there, but I think that on a fair reading of the resolution the reference is undoriht- edly to defence by land and by land alone- STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 259 "or 'the maintenance of orderJ in the following cases : (a) in the event of the territory of the Free City being the object of aggression, threat or danger of aggression frorn a neighbouring country other than Poland, after the High Commissioner has assured himself of the urgency of the danger ; (b) in the event of Poland being, for any reason whatever, suddenly and effectively prevented' from exercising the rights possessed by her under Article 28 of the Treaty of November gth, 1920." That was the article which spoke of the right of Poland to have complete freedom for imports and exports. "In these two cases the High Commissioner should report to the Council the reasons for the action which he has taken. (3) As soon as the object in view has been achieved to the satisfaction of the High Commissioner, the Polish troops will be withdrawn. (4) In al1 cases where' Poland has to ensure the defence of the Free City, the Council of the League of Nations may provide for the collaboration of one or more States Members of the League. (5) The High Commissioner, after consultation with the Polish Government, will present to the League of Nations a general report on the measures for which it may be necessary to provide in the above-mentioned cases." I pauSe there for a moment and ask the Court to consider what is the general çystem which is there set up, What strikes one at once iç that there is nothing in the nature of any immediate direct and permanent authority for action by Poland upon its own responçibility, or upon its own initiative. The matier is very carefully limited indeed. The initiative is the initiative of the High Commissioner. The High Commis- sioner's normal procedure is to turn to the League Council and ask for instructions. In certain pressing ernergencies he need not go to the Council; he may go directly and invite the intervention of Polish forces without previously having had the authority of the Council, If he does that, he has to make a special report. But the whole system is one which gives the keg of the situation into the hands of the High Commissioner -\vhich keeps, in other words, the defence of Danzig in the hands of the League and in the hands of the representatives of the League. The League never gaveit could not properly give-any carte blanche, any complete and permanent delegation of the authority which it held under the treaties under which the Leag~re itseif had becn constituted. That mould have been an act which the League would have found it very difficult to justify. It could not give a general immediate delegation of one of its most sacred duties for events al of which it was iinable to foresee. It could, of course (and this is what it did), sny that it recognized that if certain events arose, there ivoiild be onc Power who would probably be most conve- niently placed and most useful to be invited ; but it kept carefully the right of initiative to itseIf. It did not give any direct authority to Poland to act on its own initiative. Having done that in those first five paragraphs of the resolution-and let me again remind the Court that these first five paragraphs had to deal with the defence on land and not with the matter of sea defence-the Council ment on in paragraphs 6 and 7 to dea1 with the question of sea. "(6) 'The Council does not consider it necessary to decide at the present moment under what conditions the defence of Danzig hy sea should be secured. (7) The High Commissioner should, however, be asked to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establisfiing there a naval base, .for a 'port d'attache' for Polish u~arships." Now, "port d'abfache", in the English officia1 version of the minutes, is put in inverted commas-perhaps a useful precau- tion. My friends treat that paragraph 7 as if that was a definite decision to establiçh a "port d'atlaclze". 1 submit it is perfectly plain, on my fair reading of the resolution, that it was nothing of the kind. What it was, was a decision to examine how far it would be possible to do certain things. That was all. It was exactly the sort of polite decision which an ordinary individual gives ivhen he is pressed to do sornething which perhaps, at the bottom of his heart, he does not intend to do. He turns to the people who give him the advice and he says : "Well, 1 should like to see what it al1 cornes to. 1 should like to see what your proposals mean. You want me to undertake sorne big enterprise. Let rne see how it will u-ork out. Let me have a report on it. Let a technical expert tell me what it involves, how much it is going to cost", and so on. That is exactly the attitude which the Council takes there. It refuses to take a decision at the present moment for the defence of Danzig by çea, but in view, no doubt, of the irnportunity (1 hope that is a word which may pass mus- ter) with which this question of the presence of Polish warships in the harbour was pressed, the Council was ready to have sornething in the nature of a technical report and to see what could be done about it. l'he question as to whether it was a reasonable thing that Polish warships should be in the harbour of Danzig is not a question for the Court at all, but one cannot leave out of one's mind a point whjch was present in the minds of the Coun- cil's technical advisers, namely, that, in the then conditions, for a Polish warship of sny size it was very difficult to find any convenient anchorage, Gdynia not yet having bcen completed. There is just one point to which 1 would like to return. If I rightly understood the French translation of the remarks 1 have just made, 1 went a little further than my thonghts. 1 am not quite certain of the exact language which I used in English, but in the French translation 1 was made to Say that the League could not delegate itç duty of the actual defence of Danzig. I did not mean to put the rnatter quite as high as that. What 1 meant to say was that any general and total abandonment of the duty of protection by the League-ïrrhole- sale, as it were-to any one Power, would have been an action which to my mind would be difficult to reconcile with the provisions of the treaty. 1 do not mean that as and when particular emergencies arose the League was bound to undertake the duty of defence itself, and could not put the matter into the hands of a particiilar Power. That was not nt a11 my. intention. If, in what 1 said in English, 1 conveyed any further sense thm that ~vhich I have just expressed, 1 should Iike, with the permission of the Court, to make that correction. iVell, that was the first report of Viscount Ishii and that was the resolrrtion which %vas then adoptecl. The second report begins on page xzo, and it is apparently drxwn up upon the ba~isof dealing with the four Polish requcsts of Marcli 5th, 1921. One of those requests was the request for a mooriiig station (point d'attache). Wlien the Rap- porteur cleals with that matter in his conclusions, he says this : "The third point ot the Palisli note dealç with the question of estahlishing a mooring station (point d'attache) in the harbour of Danzig which should be at the disposal of the Polish Government, in order to ensure the harboiirage supply and repair of the ships of the Polis11 maritime police, to which, in accordance with the Allies' decision, certain naval units have already bceii nilotted. With regard to tfiis questiori 1 ivoitld refer to the decision which lias already been taken on the question of the defence of the Frce City of Danzig." That is to say, tliia report trcats the coriclusions of the other report as having becn already accepted. 1 suppose this report -or this part of it-\.vas only writtcn at the last moment, or . nt any rate it niust be treated as having been written at the last moment, when the conclusions of the other report had been already accepted. 262 STATEMEXT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) Then he snys what that decision stated. Consequently you will see that what he does in this report tvith regard to the "$oint d'uttache'' is to refer back to the other report and say: "that question has been already tleait with". This report also deals with the fourth question u~hichwas submitted by the Polish Government, and whnt hc says is this: "The fourth point of the Polish note raises the question whethcr the High Cornmissioner should be authorized to request the assistance of the Polish Government, in case of need, to ensure free nccess to the sea for Yoland. This point has .also been covered by the decision which the Council has already taken with regard to the defence of the Free City." Then he states what he considers the effect of that decision. This is the report which sets out to deal with all four Polish requests of March 5th, rgzr ; but in fact, it ends up by saying tlint requests (3) and (4) have been aIready dealt with by the conclusions of the other rcport. Therefore, the only practicnl proposais which this report malces are the proposals with regard to questions (1) and (2) of the Polish note, .which arc iiot questions with which ive are irnmediately concerned to-day. 1 have been snticipating the result of the debates at the CounciI, and 1 should like now very briefly to cal1 attentiori to them because ~veare now at the critical point of the case. . The minute mentions the attendance of the represeiltative of Poland yid the President of the Senate of Danzig and General Haking. A report on the defence of Danzig was presented tn the Council. That report is the first report, and the report which is headecl : "nefence of the Free Cityu-the report on page 118; what 1 may call the short report with the long resolution. "M. Haiiotaux üsked that a few sslight modifications in draft- ing should be introduced in order to bring the French and English texts iiito agreement. He further asked that the following observations shoiild be reproduced in the minutes : 'In. regard to Article 5,. it is understood that the High Com- missioner shall present a general report on the defence of Danzig, that this report shall be drafted after lie has con- sulted the Polish Government, and that the Coiincil, before discussing this report, shall consult the Permanent Advisory Commission for Military, Naval and Air Qiiestions."' That, in effect, iç asking that the High Commissiorier should be instructed to make a further report on the tvhole question ; and he did ttiat, in fact, at a later date. "M. Askenazy referred again to General Haking's report of January zsth, igzr, against which the Polish Government had - proteçted in a note of April 12th and to General Haking's reply to that note, dated May 5th, comrnunicated by a note of the Secretary-General of May arst. He asked that this protest, which he nom rcnewed, since General Haking had raised the ivhole contents of his report in his last reply, should be recorded in the miiiutes. He described the course of the Defence Mandate throiigh the three phases through which it had passed-and was passing-October-November, December- January, and at the present moment, referring particularly to - the report of the Pcrrnanent Advisory Commission of Decem- ber rst, and stüted tliat the present drafl would not ensure an effective defence of the City." So that you still gct this attitude of the Polish representative -that the measiires were not sufficient. "M. Sahm asked that the Resolu tion of the Council of Novem- ber 17th~1920, might serve as a basiç of discussion, and he proposed, among other amenclments to the report, that the High Comrnissioner (Article 5) should consult not only the Polish . Government but also representatives of the Free City." Article 5 is the reference to paragraph No. 5 of the resolution in Viscount Ishii's first report. "M. Askenazy observed that the report of the High Com- missioner regarding the defencc of Danzig could not be passed over in silence. He had protcsted by order of his Government, and had been careful not to go beyond his instnictions." That, again, is a reference to the old report of January 25th. "On the proposal of RI. Hanotaux, the Council decided to adh'ere to the report of Viscount Ishii, wliich was adopted, with the textual amencirncnts siiggested by JI. Hanotaux." These texts, as I underçtantl it, are incorporated in the text of the report which we have pririted on pages 119-120 of Our Case, and to which I have drawn, the attention of the Court. We have riow got this main resolution adopted, and now we corne to the debate on the other report. The Council then went on to consider the second report of Viscount Ishii, to which 1 have already called attention. The minutes Say: "A report was read by Viscount Ishii on the free access of Poland to the sea." Then : "M. Askenazy regret- ted to have to protest once more against the two ~tate~ents contained in the High Commissioner's reportH-I do not think we need go through this old coiitroversy. The minutes of the meeting are before the Court, and I have no point to make upon this remark ; I do not want to go into these ancient 264 STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILI.IAMS (DANZIG) ciifficulties. Then yoii have wlint M. Ha~iotaux says, and that is important : "31. Hanotaux remarked that the Polish Government had seized the Corincil with four requests : that of the 'port d'attache' and that of the land defencc of Danzig were settled hy the report which had just been adopted." That is what 1 have just ventured to put to the Court. "It remained to settle the question of the transit of munitions and that of their stor:igc." That is. points (1) and (2). "M. Hanotaux submitted ci note on this subject to the Couricil." That is the note of the Frcnch Governmeiit of June zzncI, to which I have already alludecl. Xow you get the decision of the Council : "The Council decided that a Comrnittee woiild study the details of the two Polish reqiiests which remained to be settled. The representatives of the two Parties and the High Cornmis- sioner would form part of this Cornmittee, which would work on the basis of the resolution of M. Hanotaux and of the report whicli the Permanent Commission was shortly to furnish." There is no neecl to follow that out any further as to what . happened in regard to the munitions and the military guards. The point I want to make is this, that there cvas no forma1 acceptance of the report as siich, hecause the debate took a different turn on that second report of Viscount Ishii ; my friends have fallen into an error when they Say on page 167 of their Case that that report was adopted on June zznd. 'Slie passage tq xvhich I am referriiig is rit the end of page 167 of the Polish Mémoire, where, clealing with the long resolution which I have nlready disciissed, they Say : "La liaison est encore soiilignée par le passage suivant dii deiixième rapport adopté le ' mème joiir (22 juin)." Iily first &ark on this point is that the second report was ~iot,in fact, adopted. It is an error which it would be unfair to impute to my friends as if they had fallen into it themselves, becaiisc as a rnatter of fact the same mistake is made in a later report which uras broiight before the Council of the League, and which is document No. 18 in Our Appendix. l'ou have there on page r5o n report which is made to the League, which is read by the Yresident, and i~iwhich it is stated categorically in paragraph 3 : ". . . . the Council adopted the f ollowing conclnsions of its Rapporteur", and then proceeds to read the second set of conc~usionswhich were at the end of the second report ; so it is very intelligible how my friends came to make that statement. But when one reads the actual report of what happened on June zznd, I think it is perfectly clear the second report was not in fact adopted, and the reason is perfectly clear : the two immediate points, the point of "port d'attache" and the point of the free access to the sea had, in fact, been alresdy settled, and the two comparatively minor questions of munitions and guards were to lx further enquired into. I should not have troubled about what may seem at first sight to the Court to be rather a small verbal point if it was not that my friends have placed in their second bfémoire very strong reliance, not I think upon the substance of the conclusions of the second report, but upon the language which iç used in the English version of those not-adopted conclusions. If the Court rvjll be kind enoiigh to look at page 202 of the Poliçh Counter-Mémoire-the interesting passage begins at the last paragraph of that page-they will find a statement dealing with this second report : "On June 22nd, 1921, the Council Ras seized with a second report of Viscount Ishii, thst concerning the right of free nccess of Poland to the sea by Danzig. One reads in the report of Viscount Ishii the following passage which should bc considered as an interpretation given by the Rapporteur himself of the decision taken on the same day concerning the defence of the Free City." Then, rather to my surprise, 1 found the English version given. 'They are quoting from the conclusions of the not-adopted report : "This decision states that it would be advisable to request the High Commissioner of the League of Nations at Danzig to consider what steps sholild be taken to establish a mooring station (ztn port d'atfache) for Polish warships in the harbour of Danzig without thereby creating a naval base ...." 'I'hen rny friendç put in bold, black, large type the expression : "what steps should be taken", and they infer from the use of that phrase that a dccision must already have been taken in the general sense for the creation of a "porl d'attache". Quite obviously, no decision of that kind had been taken. Now 1 give it to rny fricnds freely, that the expression "what steps should be taken" irrould be s slightly more natural espression if you had already takcn that decision of principle which was not in fact taken, than the expression ivhich \)las actualiy used in the resolution. The expression which was used in the resolution, 1 inean the resolution which was 266 STATEJIEKT BY SIR JOHX FISCHER iVILLIA>IS (DANZIG) adopted, was that the High Commissioner shoulcl be asked to examine the means, not "what steps should be taken" at all, but to examine the means, éiztdier le ?troyen, and that, of course, does not give quite such a favourable sense to my friends' thesis as the expression "ivhat steps should be taken". But the expression "what steps shoüld be taken" is not the official English version at dl of étudier le .woyen. The English text given on page 120 is "to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig". Consequently, this argument of my friends, to which they gave al1 the iinportarice of big print, black type, and so on, rests upon a non-authorized translation into English of a French expression for which there already existed the proper English version, and it is iiothing except, as far as I can make out, a mis-translation which has some- how or other got into the English version of the conclusions of a report, which was never in fact adopted by the League. 1 leave the point there, but to my mind it is perfectly' evident that my friends have bcen misled by a series of mis- prints, if you like, and that there is no substance whatever in this particular argument. Just by way of concluding that argu~ncnt, it should be noticed that in the French version of this not-adopted report thc words are perfectly correctly given, so that this is sirnply an unauthorized variant, a mis-translation, of something u-hich iç already correctly given in the French version of the same document. Now we have the whole story of what happened on June ~2nd. My friends have thrown, I think, a very great part of the weight of their case, if not the who1e weight of their case, on this Resolution of June ~2nd. One finds on page 167 of their Case they insist on that liesolution. They Say the meaning of the double decision-those are points (6) and (7)- is perfectly cIear. They Say that the two resoltitions closely connected imply the recognition to Poland of a véritable droit d'établir tm Fort d'attache à Dantzig. This is the heart, the centre of their Case. 1 do no.t want to repent ivl~at 1 have said already. 1 subrnit that when that liesolution of Jiine zznd is read through from beginning to end, there can hardly be a question as to what itç real intent and purpose was. There is no irnmediate mandate given. IVhat was done \vas limited to authorizing the High Commissioner tu take certain initia- tives on land ; the question of sea defence \vas deliberately left aside. Just at the end the decision was taken to look further into technical possibilities, the possibilities of establishing what was then, 1 think, for the first tinie officially cdled a "$art dJuttacAe". The rest of the history of this case is, I think, rather of less importance. There is one decision which I will corne to STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 267 directly, a decision taken in January, which set the whole thing to sleep, and of course there was also the temporary .arrangement of October 1921, the arrangement which no longer plays any part in the legal arrangements between the Parties because it has been terminated. 1 should like now very rapidly to cal1 attention to one or two events aImost contemporary in date, if onIy for the purpose of showing that at any rate in the minds of those most directly concerned with this question, there was no suspicion whatever that the resolutions which we have discussed had produced the effect which my friends contend for. Firstly, let me cal1 attention very rapidly to one short passage in a decision of the High Commissioner dated August 15th, 1921 ; it begins on page 125. It was concerned almost entirely with railway matters ; of course there was considerable difficulty with regard to railways, and there is just one passage in the decision which is interesting as showing the state of mind of the Commissioner two months after these very important rights as to warships are supposed to have been created. There is a good deal of introduction with which we need not trouble. The actual decision begins on page 127 of the English version,^ , paragraph g, where the Commissioner says : "1 decide therefore :" Then there follow a series of paragraphs. 'The onIy paragraph I wish to cal1 attention to-and 1 do not want to stress it tao much-is paragraph 8. Perhaps paragraph 7 should be read with it : "(VII) The Polish Government will engage to make full use of the port of Danzig, whatever other ports she may open in the future on the Baltic coast.

"(VIII) The Government of Danzig will engage to safeguard the interests of Poland as regards free access to the sea at al1 times, this free access being further par- anteed to Poland by the instructions issued to me by the Council of the League of Nations in their decision, dated June zznd, 1921." It is worth noticing, 1 think, that the conception which he has of the decision of June zznd is a conception of a decision which is an instruction to hirnself, not a decision that he has authority to do any particular thing, but an instruction which he has been given, and the initiative for the execution of which consequently rats with himself. Now we corne to a report of the High Commissioner svhich is dated September ~oth,1921. That is document No. 14; it is on page 129 of our Case. This is the report which he is 21 making in compliance with the famous paragraph 7 of the Resolution of June zznd. What he says is this: "In their Resolution .... dated zznd June, 1921, the Council of the League of Nations asked the High Commissioner 'to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establishing there a naval baçe, for a 'port d'attache' for Polish warships'." It will be obsemd, of course, that he is there king the correct English text of the. reçolution ; he does not Say "what steps should be taken to examine the means of providing in the port of DanzigJJ, "My first difficulty has been to discover the meaning of the term 'port d'attache' ; there is evidently no equivalent for it in English because in the English text of the resolution of the Council the words are quoted in French. 1 have asked several French authorities what it means, but without obtaining any satisfactory reply. Local press opinion apparently gives it a wide meaning because it is stated that . .anyone who can form a 'port d'attache' without also forming a navai base could square the circle. One cannot avoid the idea that one is really directed to give Poland a naval base but to call it a 'port d'attacheJ. In these conflicting circumstances it is necessary to consider which is the most important instruction of the two, and it appears that the .prohibition to form a naval base is more imperative than the selection of a 'port d'attache', because the former is clearly laid down by the Council of the League of Nations in their above quoted reçolution, as one of the conditions under which a 'port d'attache' is to be established. "2. It appearç therefore that a limited meaning rnust be attached to this term, and that Poland is not to be given any permanent establishment on shore, but merely an anchorage or wharf accommodation where Polish war vessels can be moored, and which is always availabIe for that purpose." My friends, 1 understand, rely upon this report as if it in some way or another. was a recognition by the High Corn- missioner that something definite had been decided. Of course that .is not so. The High Commissioner is in the position of a technical person who is called in to rnake a report as to how you can execute a certain operation if you were ordered to execute it. Of course, he puts himself in the position. of conceiving the operation as something which must be, for the purpose of his report only, considered as something which has got to be done. He is in no way treating it as a decision of the Council-it would be obviously erroneous on his part if he did-to establish a "port d'attache". M1hat he is saying is : If you are to have a "port d'attache", this is how you can do it ; and he goes on and he explains it. There are one or two passages in the report in addition to the first ttvo paragraphs 1 have read, which 1 think should not be overlooked. Towards the end of paragraph 2- he has been dealing with the position-he says : ". . . . The High Comrnissioner has been given clear instructions as to the course to be followed in the event of the territory of the Free City being the object of aggression", and so on. "In accordance tvith paragraph 3 of the same resolution, the Polish troops must. svifhdraw when the object in view has been achieved to the satisfaction, of the High Commissioner. If this restriction is forced on Poland for her land forces and at the same time she is prohi- bited from forming a naval base at Danzig, it seems necessary that the High Commissioner should be given power to request the withdrawal of Polish warships whenever he considers such a course of action is necessary, otherwise the presence of these warships in the port might bring on the very situation contemplated in paragraph 2 (b) of the Coun- cil's resolution which it is in the interests of al1 Parties to avoid." "3. If therefore it is correct to assume that Poland has only the limited right of anchorage or wharfare for her warships in the port of Danzig and must remove her warships from the port if the High Commissioner considers it is necessary owing to the local situation at the moment, she wjll have few more privileges for her warships than any other foreign . Power.!' He is working the thing out ; he is saying : If you are going to have a parallel system at sea to that which is adopted on land, Polish warships could be ordered out at any moment when the High Commissioner thought it proper. Then he goes 011 in paragraph 4, about half-way through, in the rniddle of page 130 : "Danzig to maintain her undoubted rights must have a voice in the question of foreign ships of war, especialIy considering that she has entered into an engagement with the League of irlations, under whose protection she lives, that she will not eçtablish a naval and military base on her territory. If Polish warships are given the right to enter the port of Danzig whenever they please and stay there as long as they like without any permission from the Government of the Free City, the latter can no longer guarantee that no naval base will be formed on her territory and her rights il be violated, unlesi the High Commissioner haç some power of. intervention." Then paragraph 7 : "As regards the first of these proposals 1 informed the Polish Government 270 STATEbIEKT By SIR J0H.i' FISCHER \VILLIAhIS (DAXZIG) that it was estremely unIike1y that 1 should ever be called upon to esercise this power, but that in my opinion some such regulation was necessary in order to avoid the imputa- tion that a navai base was being established at Danzig. The Polish Goverriment were unable to consent to either of these conditions,"-that .is to Say the Polish Government were not prepared to accept a position at sca which \vas equivalent to thcir position on land-"and the Chief of the GeneraI Staff of the Polish Army, at rny request, iorwarded to me a statement showing what the Polish Government considered to be a 'port qattache' as compared with a 'naval base'. I attach a copy of this document which explains very clearly the requirements of the Polish Government." Then he con- cliides : "My point of vie~iç that Poland must be given every facility for mooring her warships in the port of Danzig under such conditions that a naval base is not established there, and thnt consequently the engagements of the Leagiie of Nations and of the Government of Danzig are not violated." That is his final sentence, and obviously when he says : "My point of view is that Yoland inust be given", he is putting hiinself in the proper position, the only position he cm occupy, that is to Say: if your scheme is going to be carried out, such and such things must be done. He could not aiid did not take the position that a decision had been taken for doing a particular thing. He was reporting what would have to be done if the Council took a decision. Then there is the statement from the Polish Government, which is interesting because it shows the point of view from which tliey were at that moment inclined to look at the question. It is the annex to General Haking's report : "If the geographical formation of the Polish sea-coast is considered, it can be seen that thirteen Polish warships cannot in case of bad weather, and, particularly in winter, find shelter any~vhereon tfie whole coast, even incliiding the one Polish fishing port-Puck. This port not orily lias a very small draught of water but it is connected with the ses by so narrow a channel (6 metres wide) that no warsiiip can enter." Of course that is a practical question of where Polish warçhips are to go; it is not a legal point at ail. "Consequently the only shelter for PoIish warships is Danzig." Of coiirse that is not so at the present time. Again, this is a report which is on the basis of maritime contrenience ; it is not on the basis of the legal situation at di, "In maritime parlance the 'port d'attache' means a port where the warîhips of a giveli State can find shelter, stores to complete ttieir provisionirig, and the equipment necessary for making indispensable repairs. . The enjoyrnent of rights recognized by the League of Nations involves, in my opinion, liberty for PoIish warships to take STATEBIENT BY SIR JOFIN FISCHER WIttIr\MS (DSNZIG) 271 shelter at any tirne in the port of Danzig, to make indispensable repairs thcre, and to keep a stock of fuel, lubricating oil and naval armament, with suitable space frir sforing such materials. Small installations of this kind in the port of Danzig belonging to the Polish State do not in any wny imply the establishment of a Polish naval base at Danzig, for the latter term is defined as a port so organized and fortified that the fleet can at any time find rest and shelter there agsinst enemy action. In the Naval Base", and so on'. Then it cites, as an example of a "port d'attache", Shanghai. I do not want to trxvel so far East and enter into a discussion of that kind. Our position is perfectly cIear, that is to say, it is not a question at al1 of wkat the rights are ; ive have always maintained that no rights whatever are given in the port of Danzig by Iaw to Polish warships. 1 do not think 1 need detain the Court long with the events of the next few months. There was another report of Viscount Ishii on Septeniber 16th. 1921, the gist of which simply was that the report of the High Cornmissioner of September ~oth, which we have just been reading, shonld be referred to the Permanent Advisory Commission for observations. This suggestiori was adopted at a meeting of the Council on Sep- tember r6th, 1921. There bvaç some discussioi~as to procedure which 1 think is not at al1 important. Consequently, the last report of the High C.omrnissioner, the report of Septernber ~Gth, . was referred to the Permanent Advisory Commission. The Permanent Advisory Commission, by the mouth of the Naval Sub-Commission, which apparently was charged by the Perm- anent Advisory Commission to deal with it, made a report on September 24th, 1921; tl~afis at page 134 of our First State- ment. That is a technical report, 1 do not thjnk 1 need go ' into it in detail, but the important point about it is-various opinions are recorded in it-that there was a common agreement that if you were going to give rights in the harbour of Danzig to Polish warships, you should only give them until the port of Gdynia should be ready. So that was the riaval man's common sense suggestion for a settlement, and 1 should like to point out this about it, that of course it is wholly inconsistent . with the idea that anything in the shape of perinanent definile rights had been given to Poland. It was not on that basis at al1 ; it was discussing the thing from a technical naval point of view, and it makes what a landsman might suppose mould have been not an unreasonable conciliatory arrangement to run for a few months or even for a year or two-until the port of Gdynia was ready. This was not a document which affected legaI rights in any way; it did not deal with the matter, it ims not the business of sailors to deal with it, from a legal poiiit of view, but wbat is interesting from a legal point of view was their obvious assiimption that Poland had not got anything in the nature of permanent definite rights in the harbour of Danzig. That report was follotved by the provisional arrangement which was made on October Sth, 1921. 1 do not think it is difficult to see that the question, from the point of view of a practical person, was becoming rather urgent : winter was coming on, and it was highly desirable in everybody's interest to make çome sort of provisional arrangement. They then made this provisional arrangement on October 8th. No thing turns upon its terms now, and I do not propose to enter into any detail about it. The Court is in possession of the text. The Court also knows what happened to it from time to tirne. What perhaps çhould simply be recorded now is that this provisional arrangement is not in force at the present time ; the arrangement which is in force at the present time is an arrangement which rests upon a provisional regulation which \vas made by the High Commiçsioner, which is document No. 29 in our Appendix, the last document but one at the end of Our Sccond Statement. That regulation is a regulation dated September 19th this year ; it is headed : "Provisional Regu- lation for the accejs to and anchorage in the port of Danzig of Potish war vessels", Paragraph 1.-"Poland will continue to use the port of Danzig, as during these last years,"-that is to Say, as she did under the temporary arraiigemerit-"for her war vessels, irntil the question of the accesç to and anchorage . in the port of Danzig has been settled definitively by a decision of the Council of the League of Nations. 2:-The Polish naval authorities will not, during this period, send marine patrols ashore at Danzig. 3.-Any'difference of opinion which ' may arise between Danzig and Poland on the subject of the application of this provisional regulation shall be submitted to the arbitration of the High Commissioner." I think my friends and SI are in agreement that nothing for the present purposes turns either on the provisional arrangement whicli ran from October 8th, 1921, till the recent meeting of the Council, or upon the provisional regulations. Those are part of the history, no doubt, of the whole affair, but have no bearing on the legal rights of the Parties ; the lcgal rights were expresçly reserved, carefully reserved, al1 through the period. 1 am afraid 1 have rather got out of the order of the dates of events, because 1 turned aside to trace out the history of the provisional agreement and what happened to it. Now, if the Court will allow me, 1 will go back to the late autiimn of 1921 after the conclusion of the provisional agreement. Then we have a report from the High Commissioner, to the circumstances connected with which my friends appear to STATEJIEST BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIABIS (DANZIG) 273 attach some importance. It is the report of December 7th, 1921. It is given on page r37, beginning with paragaph 3. The first two paragraphs were .omitted as we did not think them material; my friends do attach importance to them, and 1 think the Court has been supplied with the two paragraphs which we omitted. This report, and the report of September 10th of the High Commissioner, are two reports in which my friends find support for their case. They Say : "The attitude of the High Commissioner after the Resolu- tion of June zznd, rgzr, and the steps he .took with the Governments concerned, definitely confirm this view point." Then they discuss the first report of September 10th. Then they corne to this report, and they Say this : "No less significant were the steps taken by the High Com- missioner with both Governments concerned to induce them to accept the conclusions to his final report of December 7th, 1921." This report of Decembei- 7th, r921, was the final report of the High Commissioner in .obedience to paragraph 7 of the Resolution of June ~2nd. It begins by a remark upon procedure. The High Commissioner rernarks : "1 have pointed out to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that the ordinary procedure in this case as indicated in Article 103, paragraph 2, of the Versailles Treaty aiid in Article 39 af the Polish-Danzig Convention of November gth, 1920, has not been folowed, and instead of giving a decision which can on appeal be upset or supported by the Council of the League, the High Commisioner has been directed to make a report to the Council who will themselver give a decision. "

That is perfectly true. ' The High Coinmissionèr never gives any judicial decision in this case. He acts simply as a sort of confidentiaf adviser to the Council in making this report. "In order to overcome this deviation from the usual procedure, the Secretary-General has suggested to me that my report shouid be treated in the same manner as one of my 'decisions are treated, that it should be foryarded to each 'Government with the object of arriving at an agreement on the subject, and that if one or 50th are unable to do so that the matter should be laid before the Council of the League of Nations." That passage is quoted in fuU in my friends' Contre-Mémoire, and they say that a very clear conclusion can be 'drawn from this .passage of the report of the High Comrnissioner : "The Secretary-Generd of the League of Nations obviously regarded the principle of the creation of a 'port d'attache' as having been legaUy settled by the resolotion of the Council." 1 confess that I read that statement with the greatest possible astonishment. 1 can find no warrant whatever for that suggestion in the language which is used here, The language .e whicli is used here is language in which the High Commis- sioner is reporting a discussion (oral, I suppose ; at any rate, no documents have been produced) with the Secretary-General of the League ; and a remark of the Secretary-General of the League on a question of procedure is turned irlto something in the nature of an approval by the Secretary-General of .the League of a conclusion in law as to the effect of a decision of the Council. That is an argument with which, until it is developed a little farther, 1 am not capabIe of dealing. I cannot conceive how any such deduction cari possibly be drawn, nor can 1 conceive, even if you could draxv. such a dediiction, how you are entitled to submit to this Court as conclusions of law what at the best are casual rernarks of an officia1 of the League discussing a matter of procedure. That the Court should be asked to yield to an argument of this kind seems to me to be a confession of the nakedness of the land and of the poverty of the arguments which are available for my friends-a confession of ~vhich 1 am glad to take note, but lvhich certainly I should not have anticipated when 1 first began to consider this case. To pas from the use which is made of the fiist introductory paragraph of the report of the Higli Comrnissioner, and looking very rapidly through this report, I notice that at the end of paragraph z the Commissioner says : "It is possible thcrefore". [Learned Counsel then read the paragraph down to the words "of the Council of the League".] Obviously in the mind of the High Commissioner the matter was at large. He treats it as a matter on which agreement can be reached without calling for a decision of the Council. This is a perfcctly clear indication of the way in which the High Commissioner understands the matter. "lt is possible to reach agreement without cailing for a decision of the Council." That is not the language of a man xvho supposes that a decision has already been taken, and that al1 that. has to be done is to execute it. Then he goes on and discusses the matter from the technical point of view. He says that the qiiestion is a political one as far as Danzig is concerned, and an administrative one so far as Poland is concerned. He adds that there is no administrative reason why Poland should not be given definite berthing accommodation. Then paragraph 4 says : ST.ITEMENT BY SIR JOHSFISCHER WILLIA3IS (DASZIG) 275 "From a political pdnt of view there is great.opposition on the part of the Government of Danzig to the-establishment of any 'part d'attache' or depot for war material in the harbour of tlie Free City; such an establishment being Iooked upon with some suspicion. If, as is to be hoped, and as I personally anticipate, the feeling of suspicion between the two Govem- ments will shortly disappear, there seerns to be no reason why Danzig should not Say to Yoland : 'Certainly, keep your warships here if you ,like, WC can trust you not to take anp action which can be interpreted as a threat against Our political integrity or our sovereign rights.' This of course woiild mean that Poland has asked Danzig to permit her to keep her warships at Danzig, wherens Poland has, so far, demanded it as a right." Then in paragaph 5 he sketches out the sort of arrangement xvhich he thinks might bc made. 1 do not think there is any reason why 1 should go into that, because the arrangement was not made .ancl consequently neither practicd nor- legal importance attaches to the conclitions which he then suggested. When this report reached the Council, Viscount Ishii again reported on the matter,' in a document dated January ~oth,. - 1922. There was a meeting of the Council the same day. Viscount Ishii first states the effect of' the decision of June 1921 : "On June 22nd, 1921, the Council adopted a resolution, by the terms of hic hi ch (paragraph 7) the High Commissioner was asked to examine the mcans of providing in the port of Dan- zig a 'port d'attache' for Yolish warships, without establishing there a naval base." Again (if it is necessrtry to refer to this matter of my friends' argument as to "what steps should be taken"), it is to be observed that the phrase used is the correct one-"to examine the mcans of providingH-not "what steps should be taken". Then he mentions the report of September roth, 1921, and then he deals with the report of December 7th, 1921. Then he refers to the question of war materials and explosives destined for Poland, and hc says : "There is no opportunity in the present report, which is concerned with the question of the 'port d'attache', to enter into the questions raised by the Polish note, but 1 believe that al1 my colleagues will be in agreement with me if 1 express niy sincere belief that the Government of the Free City of Danzig will do its utmost in order that obstacles shall not be placed in the wüy of the importation through the territory of Danzig of goods of any kind whatever, including material of \var and explosives destined for Poland in accordance with Article 28 of the Treaty of November gth, 1920. "1 beg to propose the following resolution to the Council." This is very important : "The Council decides to postpone consideration of the question of the 'port d'attache' for Polish ?var vessels in Danzig to a later session. Until the question has been considered by the Council, the preliminav Agreement already concluded between the Free City and Poland with the object of providing safety and necessary harbour facilities for Polish war vessels in the port of Danzig wiIl remain in force." That report was discuçsed ai the meeting of the Council that same day. The minutes are before the Court. The only point to which 1 want to cal1 attention is the attitude- and 1 venture to think the very natural attitude-which was taken up by the Polish representative. At the bottom of page 141 you get the report of his remarks: "M. Askenazy accepted the resolution before the Council, but said he wished to make certain reservations. The note of the High Commissioner referred to in the report dealt with . two questions which were entirely distinct ; namely, the 'port d'altache' and the site for the unloading of war materials. The . Council had asked the opinion of the High Cornmissioner on the first question only, but in his note he had referred also to the question of the site. The Polish representative was therefore bound to make a general reservation on this point of procedure." 1 do not think that the reservation is very important for Our present purposes. Then he mentions an unfortunate incident which appears to have occurred in connection with a particrilar vessel. He noted with pleasure that the Rapporteur had expressed his sincere belief that the Government of the Free City of Danzig would do its utrnost in order that obstacles might not be placed in the way of the importation through the territory of Danzig of goods of any kind whatever, including material of war and explosives, destined for Poland, and he asked that this dedaration should be inserted in the minutes. 1 venture to think that if the Polish representative had believed that Poland had been given the rights now claimed in the harbour of Danzig, he would have protested emphatic- ally against the action which the Council was proposing to take. Here you have, on the theory of my friends, the Council of the League of Nations, having taken firm and clear decisions, going back in their origin as far as thirteeen months before and confirmed, accotding to them, by a resolution .\vhich had the effect of giving Poiand definite permanent rights to war vesseIs in the harbour of Danzig-here you have the Council, with the assent of the Polish representative and without any remarks on his part, except on other matters, deciding to postpone the consideration of this question urhich is supposed to have been settled, and saying tbat untiI the question has been considered by the Council certain temporary arrangements are to be put in force. 1s it conceivable that any competent body of adrninistra- tors would have been guilty of the decisions which my friends' theory requires? On the contrary, they are quite clearly looking at the matter as something which has not been decided ; they are assuming that they are entitled to postpone its consideration. In fact thcy clearly think that they have 'hot already considered it, becnuse they definiteiy Say that until the question has been considcred by the Council certain things should be done. Really, the suggestion that you can combine that resolution with the theory tllat on two separate occasions the Council of the Leaguc, with 'the knowledge and approval of the High Commissioner, had already decided, in principle if you like but still decided for aU effective purposes, this question, seems to be utterly incornprehensible. What rt remarkable picture of the proceedings of the Council of the League if the argument of my friends was to hold good ! 1 venture to ask, is it really respectful to the highest interna- tiond institution in the world to suppose that it should behave in this fashion ? According to the argument of my friends, y011 have a decision-in principle no doubt but still an important decision-to commit al1 the defence of Danzig, kven by sea, to Poland. (1 am leaving oiit of account the Trtlaty of VersaiIles and the Convention of Paris; but according to theni these two instruments, or one of them, had given that right already.) Then you have on June aznd, 1921, a decision clearly implying the recognition to Poland of the right of establishing a "port d'atfache". Then on January xzth, 1922, seven months Inter, the Council seems to have forgotten ali about it. It postpones consideration of this question which is supposed to be settled, and it says that certain temporary . arrangements are to go on until the question has been con- siderea by the Council. 1 think it is fair to say 'that it is . impossible that the highest administrative authority that we know could consciously have passed both these resolutions-the Resolution of January 1922 and the Resolution of June 1921- in the sense which my friends put fonvard. If my friends are right, one iç driven to the alrnost ludicrous suggestion that the existence of the earlier resolu tion must have been forgotten. There must have been some sort of somnambulism on the part of the Council when the final resolution was taken. If it uTas a forgetfulness which affected the Council, it was a forgetfiil- 278 ,STATEJII:XT BY SIR JOHS FISCHER WILI.IAJ1S (DANZIG) ness which equally affected the individual who was most concerned-that is to say, the High Cnmrnissioner himself. The High Cornmissioner when he made his reports in Sep- tcniber and December 1921 certainly was afflicted with the same kind qf forgetfulness as to these dccisions which were supposed to have settled and deterrnined and imposed these - special, peculiar, extraordinary rights for Poiish warships in the harboiir of Danzig.

[Public siltiltg O/ Tuesday, Noaeînber ~ollz,1931, af ternoon.]

>Ir. President and Members of the Court, 1 fear there is still one document in this long series of documents which are in the Appendix to which I have to cal1 the attention of the Cottrt, but T will not detain them very long over it. It is a decision of the High Comrnissioner-a decision this time, and not a report-ivhich was given on December 6th, 1921 ; that is to Say, a decision ivhich was given contemporaneously with what 1 may call, for the purposes of this case, the final stages of the controversy as to the "port d'attache". 'l'he interest of the decision is not that it is dircctly in point iii this case. The point of the decision was not directcd in any way to the "point d'attuche" or to the "port d'atiuche" ; but it is interesting bccnuse 1 think it is a very highly convincing proof that' at that time, at any rate, when the Commissioner's mind mas directly occupied with this subject, he could not possibly have conceived that rny friends were entitled as a matter of right to the rights which they are now claiming. The decision iç on page 143 of the Case of the Free City, and - it is document No. 22. The Commissioncr says : "1 have been requested by the Goverilments of Poland and Danzig to give a decision under Article 39 of the Polish-Düiizig Convention regarding the following questions, upon wliich the two Governments have bcen unable to come to an agreement : 1. Tlie legal position of the property of the .PoIish 'Fisc' situated in the territory of the Free City of Danzig. II. The legal position of the Polish authorities, offices and employees. III. The legd position of the Polish ships." The Polish ships, of course, means Polish merchant çhips and not Polis11 ~varships. 1 do not propose to read the whole decision, but ' there are one or two of the more striking passages-striking from the point of view which 1 was just suggesting, namely, that the Commissioner clearly was ignorant of the existence of any such rights as are now clairned-to which 1 desire to refer. Just to take up the thread of the decision, in paragraph 2 the Commissioner says : "The main point in dispute is that Poland, under the Versailles Treaty and under the Convention of 9th Novem- ber, 1920, claims certain extraterritorial rights for Polish property, personnel and ships in the territory of the Free City." Parag-raph 3 says : "The Polish Government urges that the Convention of 9th November, 1920, is not an international treaty between two equal States, but merely the development of the rights given .to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles, which created the Free City of Danzig exclusively in the interests of Poland and nrith the object of assuring her free access to the sea." 1 need not read anything more there. Paragraph 4 says: "Acting on the above assumption, Poland claims :" 1 need not trouble with 1, II and III, but IV says: "That the legal position of the harbour of Danzig should be similar to that which it would hold if it were sitnated within the territory of the Polish Government." , Then towards the end of paragraph j, he opposes himself clearly to the conception ivhich he says the Polish Government had favoured as to the true nature of the Convention of Paris. "It appears to me, therefore, to be quite clear that the Convention was an international treaty between the two States and that it contained the objects described in Article 104, and was the only authoritative interpretation and application of these objects, and was not merely the development of the rights given to Poland by the Treaty of Versailles." I do not tliink 1 need read anything in paragraphs 6 or 7, but paragraph 8 is of especial importance. It says : "The guarantees now possessed by Poland to ensure the free passage of her exports and imports through the port of Danzig are as follows : 1. The Allied and Associated Powers created a Harbour Board consisting of an equal number of Polish and Danzig officials with a neutral Presi- dent .... II. By the decision of the Council of the League of Nations dated zznd June, 1921," and here is his description of thiç vital decision of June zznd : r, .... Poland was given a very powerful political and military guarantee." Not, you will observe, a naval guarantee. "The High Comrnissioner was authorized to address a direct invitation to the Polish Government to ensure the maintenance of order in the event of Poland being, for any reason whatever, suddenly and efiectively prevented from exercising the rights possessed by hcr under Article 28 of the Convention of 9th November, xgzo." 'l'here again, 1 make a corninent which 1 have already made in other matteis. It is perfectly incredible that if the High Commiçsioner-who had this question of the rights of Polish warships most vividly in his mind at this moment and was just going to make on the following day, Decernber 7th, hi5 final report on the question of the "$art d'attache"-thought that Poland had the right to keep her warships in the harbour of Danzig, he should not have mentioned it when he was drawing up this list and when he \\-asspeaking directly of that very decision of June 22nd upon which rny friends rely. Shen he goes oii : "III. Poland bas been given the administration of the broad gauge railways from her territory right up . to the wharves where her imports and exports are unloaded and loaded on to ships. Thus from an administrative point of view the chain of traffic is complete from Poland to the open sea either by rail or river. IV. Under Article 39 of the I'olish-Danzig Convention, Poland, like Danzig, can obtain a decision from the High Commissioner regarding any matter in dispute between the two Governrnents, with right to appeal to the Council of the League of Nations against that decision. V. The Free City itself is deeply interested in this Polish trafic being maintained because without it she cannot exist. g. It would appear from the above that Poland has good and sufficient guarantees to assure to her the free lise and service of the harbour for hcr imports and esports, and that she has sufficient control of the administrative .machinery to carry her imports betwecn her own country and the open sea." There iç one other passage in this document which perhaps is worth citing to the Court, and that is the first sentence of paragraph 16 : "It appearç to me that if the rightç now ciaimed by Poland are accepted in their totality, with the full results indicated in paragraph 4 above, Danzig can no longer be called a Free City." That is a remark to which 1 have called attention before, and which' 1 should very respectfully apply to the rights which are now clairned in this case before the Court. As I have already intimated, in Our view the subsequent history, except in so far as we corne to the decision of the provisional regulation of September 1931 the effect of which is to make it clear that the provisiona1 arrangement made in October 1921 no longer exists, is immaterid to the question before the Court. If the Court wishes to look into it,' they will find it summarized in the report which was presented to the League Council on September 8th, 1927. It is printed in the minutes of the Council meeting of that date. It is document No. 23. 1 have already called attention to one slighf slip in that document-the slip which treats the second report of June zznd as having been approved by the Council. That, I think, concludes the examination of a series of documents to which 1 have ta cal1 the attention of the Court. I slioulci just like now to Say very briefly something upon the case my friends have presented. 1 think it is very rcrnark- able that dthough they are in the position of plaintiffs, although they are claiming a right against the Free City, 1 at any rate have not been able to find in their pleadings anything tliat can be called a definite staternent that any particular act or document confers directly and in express tems the privileges that are sought. With them it iç a question of implication and interpretation. For example, on page 19 of the Mémoire we have a discussion on the very important ~dccision of June zznd ; we havc twice a repetition of eitlier the word or the verb of "implication". Obviously this state of things is not owing to the lack of effort on the part of rny friends. It is owing to the essential character of the case which they are presenting. 1 think it is very interesting. It is very important to examine, I will not Say very niicroscopicalIy, but carefully, the answer which they suggest for the Court and to compare it with the question put to 'the Court. The question is a perfectly precise question, admitting, one ïvould suppose, a very plain and direct answer : "Do the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, Part III, Section XI, the Danzig-Polish Treaty concluded at Paris on Novernber gth, 1920, and the relevant decisions of the Council of the League of Nations and 282 STATEMEKT BY SIR JOHK FISCHER WILLIAhlS (DAKZIG) of the High Coinmissioner, confer upon Poland rights or attri- biitions as regards the access to, or anchorage in, the port and watenvays of Danzig of Polish \var vessels ? If so, what are these rights or attributior~s?" Now let us see the answer which is suggested : "It follows from the principles underlying the creation of the Free City of Danzig, principles affirmed (consacrks) .by the Treaty of Ver- sailles, by the Convention of Paris and by the decisions of the Council of the Leagiie of Nations, that Yoland has acquired a riglit to the establishment of a 'port d'attache' "-a phrase which is not mentioned in the question at al1 and as to which we thouglit thüt from its obscurity it had been ban- ished from the discussion-"and, consequently, to access to and anchorage at Danzig for her warships." Now that aiiswer quite obviously diverges very considerably from the question. Ive are not referred in the answer to any particular section of the Treaty of Versailles ; we are taken back to a more vague and uncertain background : the principles which are said to be at the basis of the creation of the Free City. And the right which is said to have been acquired, either from the Treaty or from the Convention or from decisions-decisions which are not specified in the answer-is a right to a "port d'attache", a very uncertain thing about which jve know nothing, "and, consequently, to access to and anchorage at Danzig for her warships". Now 1 wonder what is exactly rneant by that. Does it mean that the access of ships of war to Danzig is the only consequence of the "port d'attache", or does it mean that it is one consequence and there may be other consequences of this uncertain phrase ? Mie are left in doubt, we are not told, because if al1 they rneant was that Poland had a right to access and anchorage for her ships of war in Danzig, why drag in the "port d'attache" ? \%y seek to put in the morrth of the Court a phrase which is nowhere defined, a phrase that is not in the question, and which, if included in the answer, might give rise to yet further disputes and uncertain-. ties in Danzig ? What indeed exactly is meant by this answer? 1s it meant thnt the Treaty of Versailles tnken by itself or taken with the Convention of Paris, or that the Convention of Paris tnkcn by itself or taken with the Trenty of Versailles, confcrs the right ? Or have you got to go to decisions also ? If you Iiave not to go to decisions, then my friends pass aw?y from the theory which they develop on page 169 of their Rlémoire. There, on that page, the decisions give them a right to make their daim by way of securing trcaty rights-treaty rights, not to a "port d'attache", but certain other vital rights. Or are they really pinning their faith on what 1 may caU the eleventh-hour argument mhich ST.4TEJIEKT 131. SIR JOHPI'FISCHER WILLIAhlS (DANZIG) 283 is nt the end of their Counter-Case ? If so, why sliould they talli about principles at the beginning of the answer ? i'hy do ~iottliey give us chapter and verse ? Do they rely on decisions ? If they rely on decisions, ~vhydo not they refer to tliem ? Are they relying on the decisions of November 17th or are they relying on the decision of June zznd ? They riever refer to any decision of the High Cornrniçsioiler, so that at any rate 1 suppose may be left out. So much for the first paragraph. Now then let us look at the seconcl paragraph of the suggestecl ansrver. They say : "The orgariization of theçe rights9'-you wiil observe it is "thesc rights", it is in the plural and what they hnd acquired was un droit, a single right. That is one' of the reasons which inakes me rather çuspicious of the way iil ivhich the last words of the first. paragraph of their answer are drawn : "The orgnnizntion of these rights involves necessarily the grnnt to Polish wnr vessels of certain privileges, the precise scope of wliich has not been finally settled." That answer involves a very remarkable admission ; it involves the aclmis- sion that the rights to these privileges have iiever been definitively settled. Surely, if you are relying on decisions of the Council of the League, that is a very serious admission to make, an admission which would involve a very serious criticism of its administrative capacity. Rights of such importance codd hardly have been left to depend for eleven years on a mere declaration of principleç of that kind. Surely the Coun- cil itself woiild know \+kat it decided. The matter could hardly have been left in this uncertainty for future organization, 1 suppose anyone who has had experience of international nffairs knows that, thcre is no word which nwskens a necessity for carcfiil scrutiny more vividly or more ccrtainly than the word "principle" or the phrase "in principle". When you get decIarntions of principle or in principle, the chief preoccupntioii of nny man who is versed in international affairs is to see exnctly what the application has got to bc. This answer, bvhich treats the whole rnatter as if it had been left as a matter of principle-and 1 do not for one moment admit it has-lcaving the practical application to be declared, in effect is saying that the whole thing is left as so~nething nebulous, vague, ancertain, and altogether unwortliy of the admiiiistratioii wliich is supposed to have iittered it. Now 1 pas5 away from my friends' Case. By bv3y of conclusion, there are one or tmo general considerations which 1 should like to briefly cal1 attention to. The permanent right which is claimed must be based either on the free access to the sea which haç to be secured to Poland or on the defence of Danzig. It canot of course be based on the needs or convenience of the Polish Government. Now 1 think it is redy fairly obvious that for either of these purposes çuch a permanent right would be of very little -and even 1 think 1 am not going too far in saying-of no, value. You have already had free access given you by means of the Harbour Board, by railways, by the post, by the whole elaborate organization which has been set up under the Con- vention of Paris and the decisions of the High Comrnissioner. If you want to protect those cornm~~nic,ztionsby force-1 hope you never will-you need specially measures on land, and you 'were given the possibility of those measures by the decision of June zznd. If, on the other hand, it is a question of the defence of Danzig against some external enemy, ~vell; Danzig is a commercial port, not a naval port ; you are not enabled to establish a naval base there. Commercial ports are not defended by simply allowing warships to stay in those ports in peace the. It must not be forgotten, according to the technical definition, or at any rate the Polish view of what is involved in "port d'attache", that this at any rate is clear, that it is in the nature of a peace-time right. That is the result of a passage which 1 did not cd special attention to in the report of the Naval Sub-Commission on Scptember 24th, 1921, page 134 of our Case, where the Naval Sub-Com- mission says that the Polish naval delegate "defined the difference between a 'naval base' and a 'port d'attache' as follows : A 'naval base' is used only for war purposes, tvhereas a 'port d'attache' supplies the normal needs of ships in peace tirne". Of course, it is a matter of common sense that the position was very different ten years ago from mhat it is now. In 1921 Polish ships had nowhere to go. N8w the conditions, as we know, have changed altogether. If the Conference of Ambassadors had thought the Treaty of VersailIes required this right for warships in Danzig harbour,' they could not have negotiated the Conventioii of Paris i~i its present for~n,they must have put into it the clause which the Polish Govemment pressed on thern and which they rejected. If the Council of the League had thought that the Treaty of Versailles or the Convention of Paris required the so-called "port d'attache", they could not have dealt with the question as they did in Noveinber 1920 and June 1921 and January 1922. It would have been a gross betrayal of their duty to Poland if they had acted in the way they did, if they thought that this was a justi£ied requirement. If the High Commissioner had thought that the decisions of the Council required or recognized this “#art d'allache", he could not have drawn up, as he did, his report of January zjth, STATEMENT BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 285 1921 (1 leave out the other reports) or his decision of December 6th, 1921. Summing up, I Say this. The whole clairn, with this ill- defined phrase "port d'attache", has at present no definite con- tent. My friends in substance admit that. It is impossible that the phrase should have been used by the Council for the purpose of definitely conferring rights which the Treaty of Versailles , does not expressIy give the right to claim. In my submission, Article 104 of that Treaty gives no direct right to Poland in this question except the right to have a treaty, with certain objects. The Convention of Paris does not give :the right ; it confines itself to the question of free and secure -access to the sea, giving full rights for the freedom of imports and exports and also other provisions which are to be found in that Con- vention. The decision of the Council of the League of November x7th, 1920, gives no right; it prohibits a naval base; it decides nothing as to defence, or as ta çecuring access, except that Poland is fitted, if circumstances should require it, to have a mandate ; the Permanent Advisory Commission is to examine and report. The decision of June 22nd, 1921, that farnous decision, of capital importance, definitely refuses to deal with naval defence ; it sirnply asks the High Commissioner on that point to examine the means of providing-what then for the first time is called-a "port d'attache". The decision of Janu- ary ~zth,1922, adjourns the whole question of "port d'atlache". These decisions approach the subject from the two, and the only two, possibIe points of view : (1) to secure to Poland access to the sea for economic purposes, and (2) the defence of the City of Danzig. The convenience of the Polish fleet is not a matter relevant to-day. It played, we al1 know, a considerable part in the provisional settlement of October 8th, rg21, and in the report of the Naval Sub-Committee in September 1921. No decision and no report of the High Cornmissioner or any other authority, no argument used in any debate in the Council, during these critical yearsthose are the critical years, 1920 and 1921-recognizes or is based upon the existence of a right for Poland to special privileges for war ships in Danzig harbour. These two decisions of August 15th and December 6th, Igzr, of the High Commissioner, and at least two of his reports, assume that no such right had ever been granted, Lastly, the right, were it established, would be inconsistent with the continued existence of Danzig as what she claims to be and what by solemn declaration she is: a Free City. EXPOSÉ DE M. MODEROW (représentant le Gouvernement polonais) A LA SEANCE PUBLIQUE DU IO NOVEIIBKE 1931 (APRÈS-MIDI).

Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, Le général Haking, ancien Haut-Commissaire de la Société des Nations à Dantzig, daris son rapport soumis le 7 décembre r92r au Conseil de la Société des Nations en matière de. port d'attache, s'est prononcé comme suit sur le problème qui fera l'objet des délibérations de la Cour :

ci L'établissement dans le port de Dantzig d'un port d'attache pûur les vaisseaux de guerre poloiiais est, du point de vue de Dantzig, presque entièrement une qiieçtion d'ordre politique, tandis que du point de vue de la Pologne il pourrait être une question d'ordre administratif. ii En examinant le problème du port d'attache, le généra1 Haking désirait, à juste titre, se rendre compte, en premier . lieu, de sa portée pratique pour les deux Parties intéressées. Bien que seul le côté jiiridique du problème ait été soumis A la Cour, il ne me semble pas moins utile d'élucider sa portée pratique, d'éclaircir l'intérêt pratique des deux Parties, et les besoins pratiques dont les postrilnts jiiridiques sont l'expression. Ces éclaircissements pourraient in6me être indispensables pour l'appréciation juridique du problème. C'est pourquoi je me permettrai de présenter à la Cour quelques remarques relatives à la marine de guerre polonaise et A ceux de ses besoins qui se rattachent à l'utilisation du port de Dantzig et qui constituent le côté pratique de la question qui nous occupe. Je fais remarquer que le côte juridique du problème sera présenté par M. le professeur de Visscher, qui a bien voulu, sur la prière du Gouvernement polonais, assumer cette t3che. Je constate, avant tout, que l'opinion précitée du général Haking répond entiérement à celie du Gouvernement polonais, ainsi qu'à la situation de fait qui existait pendant toute la , période au cours de laquelle la Pologne a fait usage du port de Dantzig pour ses navires de guerre, situation qui s'est pro- longee jusqu'à ce jour. Le probléme du port d'attache, voire la question de l'accès et du stationnement des navires de guerre polonais dans le port de Dantzig, n'est pour ln Pologne, en ce qui concerne sa portée pratique, ni une question politique ni une question de prestige, mais une question de nature administrative, ou les besoins économiqiies et techniques jouent un rôle important. Les données suivantes mettront en relief le côté pratique du problème. La Pologne possède les navires suivants appartenant la marine de guerre : un contre-torpilleur, quatre torpilleurs, deux bâtiments pose-mines, un navire d'artiiierie, un navire auxi- liaire d'artillerie, un sous-marin, quatre dragueurs de mines, quatre transporteurs militaires, un bateau hydrographique, plusieurs remorqueurs, bateaux à moteurs et barques de mer. Sous peu, doivent arriver un contre-torpilleur et deux sous- marins. A part cela, la Pologne possède une flottille fluviale qui comprend : deux bâtiments armés, un bâtiment pose-mines, un bâtiment d'état-major, deux navires auxiliaires et six monitors fluviaux, au total douze bâtiments, auxquels vient encore s'ajouter le groupe de canots armes. 11 importe de relever que, dans le nombre des six monitors susmentionnés, quatre furent construits dans les chantiers dantzikois. Des raisons d'ordre administratif rendent de temps en temps necessaire de transporter certaines unités des voies fluviales à la mer et inversement. De tels ddplacements eurent lieu plus d'une fois en 1925, 1926, 1929, et pendant l'année courante. Toutes les unités fluviaIes peuvent passer seulement par les voies d'eau conduisant par Ie port de Dantzig. En raison di1 manque d'abri au cours du long trajet par mer de lJembouchiire du fleuve à Gdynia, elles ne peuvent mérne pas passer 'par l'embouchure de la Vistule. Les navires de guerre polonais de haute mer se ravitaillent en combustibles dans le port de Dantzig. Les torpilleurs et les contre-torpilleurs s'y approvisionnent en pétrole (gazoil). Parfois, les navires polonais y achètent du charbon et s'y ravitaillent en eau ou en autre équipement technique. La marine de guerre polonaise effectue en outre, pendant ie séjoiir de ses navires dans le port de Dantzig, de nombreux achats dans diverses maisons dantzikoises, qui fournissent tous les objets d'équipement et d'outillage, y compris les voies, les taquelages, les pavillons et les instruments de navigation. Pour ce qui est de l'approvisionnement de la marine de guerre en combustibles A Dantzig, les chiffres suivants en seront la meilleure illustration : Par exemple, l'année 1927 démontre le trafic de 2.258.571kg. d'huile pour les navires de guerre polonais. L'année 1928 donne le chiffre de 1.859.361 kg., l'année 1929, 6.177.676 kg., l'année 1930-1931, environ 7 millions. En outre, le trafic d'huile légère pour la phiode du 9 juillet 1929 au 31 mars 1931 s'exprime par le chiffre de 1.184.288 kg. Toutes ces quantités de pétrole, d'huile lourde et d'huile légére ont passe par le port de Dantzig. L'approvisionnement des navires de guerre polonais en huiles et en pt! trole ne peut absolument pas s'effectuer actuellement sur la côte polonaise, à défaut d'installations appropriées. 11 convient de remarquer que l'aménagement d'installations qui permettraient, ainsi que cela se fait à Dantzig, de transborder le pétrole CL l'aide d'appareils mécaniques directement du quai, coiiterait de un A deux millions de francs suisses. Il convient en plus de remarquer que le port de Gdynia ne possède pas de terrain qui se préterait à ces fins. Si on voulait construire les instal1ations nécessaires, on devrait niveler les monticules assez élevés qui se trouvent à proximité des côtes, ce qui .entraînerait de nouveaux frais importants. Toutes les unités de la marine de-guerre polonaise ont passé par les chantiers dantzikois pour y être réparées et amenées aux docks. Ceci concerne non seulement The International Shi$- building and Engineering Company Ltd., à laquelle participent les Gouvernements polonais et dantzikois, mais également les chantiers privés. ~eçchan tiers dantzikois n'ont é té chargés uniquement de réparer les navires; ils ont construit diverses unités, ce qui peut se répéter dans le plus proche avenir, la construction de nouveaux dragueurs étant projetée .en remplacement de ceux qui seront retirés. Quant à la Société The International Sht$bui:lding awd Engineering Cornp. Ltd., les renseignements suivants seront d'utilité. L'ancien chantier irnperial, situé dans le port de Dantzig (Danziger Werft), ainsi que Ics ateliers du chemin de. fer de Troyl, qui avaient appartenu antérieurement au Fisc prussien, ont été attribués par Ies Puissances diEes, en exécution de l'article 107 du Traité de Versailles, à la Pologne et à la Ville libre de Dantzig conjointement et en parts égales. La condition de cette attribution, condition mentionnée expressément dans l'acte d'attribution, était la création d'une compagnie internationale chargée de l'exploitation et du déve- loppement de ces entreprises si importantes pour la vie écono- mique des deux pays intéressés et qui occupent des milliers d'ouvriers. . Cette compagnie a pris à bail tous les terrains, bâtiments et installations. Les deux Gouvernements sont intéressés dans le capital- actions en parts égales. Les capitaux français et anglais y sont également représentés. Pour illustrer l'importance économique des constnictions et réparations susdites, je me permets de citer les données suivantes : Il y a deux années, le chantier privé (( IVojan 1) a construit deux barques maritimes à citernes, chacune de 750 tonnes, aux frais d'environ 400.000 francs suisses, En 1920, le chantier de Dantzig a construit quatre unités, monitors de combat, aux frais de plus de 1.600.000 francs suisses, En 1927-1928, environ 6oo.000 francs suisses ont été versés aux chantiers dantzikois pour la réparation d'unités de guerre, En l'année 1928-1929 a &té noté le chiffre de 170.000 francs suisses ; en 1929-1930, environ 200.000 fr~cssuisses ; en 1930-1931, envlron 80.000 francs suisses ; en 1931-1932, égale- ment environ 80.000 francs suisses. La Pologne ne possède pas sur son littoral d'installations oir ses navires de guerre pourraient être construits ou rdparés. Les frais minima de construction de pareilles installations dépasseraient la somme de dix millions de francs suisses.

Je passe maintenant à la question du stationnement des navires de guerre dans le port de Dantzig. 11 s'agit ici surtout de la période d'hiver, au cours de laqueue les navires de guerre polonais mouillent fréquemment à Dantzig, fait qui s'explique par la nécessité de trouver un abri^ durant la mauvaise saison dans un port mieux couvert que Gdynia. Le port de Gdynia est un port ouvert. Les navires station- nant dans les bassins ne sont protégés contre les lames de haute mer que par les brise-lames. Cependant, ceux-ci ne pro- tègent pas suffisamment les bassins, où la houle reste assez forte. A part cela, l'action des vents, contre lesquels un port aussi ouvert que Gdynia n'est pas suffisamment abrite, pro- , duit une houle intérieure. - Les navires de guerre polonais sont en grande partie .de petit tonnage. Amarrés dans un bassin ouvert, tel que le bassin militaire du port de guerre de Gdynia, ils sont plus exposés aux endommagements que les navires marchands de tonnage sensiblement plus élevé. Aussi le port de Dantzig assure-t-il maintes fois aux navires de guerre un abri beaucoup plus sûr que le port de Gdynia, où, dans la saison orageuse d'hiver, se produisent des cas d'avaries des navires de guerre dont les bords viennent heurter le môle, ou qui sont arrachés de leurs ancres. J'insiste sur ce que le séjour des navires de guerre polonais dans le port de Dantzig n'a jamais fait obstacle au trafic commercial ; ce port est d'ailleurs si vaste que, même à I'avenir, la possibilité de dificultés quelconques résultant pour le trafic commercial du stationnement desdits navires est absolument exc;cIue. La consommation par les équipages des navires de guerre polonais de diverses marchandises achetees à Dantzig n'est pas sans importance au point de vue économique. En premier lieu, entrent ici en jeu les articles alimentaires ; mais les articles manufacturés, les vêtements, etc., sont eux aiissi très recher- chés par .ces équipages. L'état de fait décrit ci-dessus répond dc cette manière aux besoins réels administratifs, et surtout 6conomiques et techniques, de la marine de guerre polon,zisc, en même temps qu'aux intérêts économiques du port de Dantzig et de la population de la Ville libre. Cet état de fait avait trouve son corollaire juridique dans .l'Accord provisoire polono-dantzikois conclu le 8 octobre 1921, c'est-à-dire il y a dix ans, et qui est cité à la page 175 du premier Mémoire polonais soumis à la Cour en la matière qui nous occupe. Cet accord établissait d'une part, sans préjuger la question en litige entre les Gouvernements, que le Gouver- nement polonais ferait usage du port de Dantzig pour ses navires de guerre, et, de l'autre, que le Sénat n'élèverait pas d'objections contre le séjour de ces navires dans le port de Dantzig. La genèse dudit accord est présentée dans le Mémoire prérappelé. Je puis donc me borner à cette place à constater qu'il a provisoirement mis fin à la controverse entre la Pologne et Dantzig en creant un certain modus vivendi. C'est en raison de ce nzodus vivendi que le Gouvernement polonais n'a pas repris la controverse juridique. C'est le Sénat de Dantzig qui a rendu A la question juridique son actualité en dknonçant cet accord, qui avait été en vigueur environ pendant dix ans. Par décision du Haut-Commissaire de la Société des Nations, l'état de fait en vigueur fut maintenu jusqu'au règlement de l'affaire par le Conseil de la Société des Nations. Au cours des négociations qui furent engagées après la dénon- Fiation de l'accord, le Sénat transmit, le 14 aoùt 1931, au Gouvernement polonais lc projet des conditions de l'utilisation du port de Dantzig par les navires de guerre polonais, avec la remarque que c'est seulement à ces conditions qu'il pourrait consentir à l'utilisation de ce port par lesdits navires polonais. L'article 3 de ce projet, l'un des plus importants, est ainsi conqu :

i( Le Gouvernement dantzikois se réserve le droit d'interdire pour des raisons importantes l'accès des navires de guerre polonais au port pour une certaine période de temps ou de demander un raccourcissement de séjour ou l'éloignement des navires de guerre. 1) Le Gouvernement polonais base sa reveridication sur les considérations qui ont motivé l'érection de Dantzig en ville libre, c'est-à-dire avant tout sur le principe de libre accès à la mer et sur l'existence des liens intimes que, pour atteindre ce but, les.Puissances ont voulu établir entre la Pologne et Dantzig. C'est sur cette double base que le Conseil de la Société des Nations a vote la résolution du 22 juin 1921, qui reconnaît nettement le droit de la Pologne au port d'attache. L'acceptation des conditions du Sénat, lesquelles subor- donnent l'usage du port de Dantzig au consentement des autorités dnntzikoises, signifierait que la question juridique serait préjugée dans le sens de l'attitude adoptée par le Sénat. Déjà cette circonstance obligerait le Gouvernement polonais à rejeter les conditions susmentionnées. Abstraction faite même de ces raisons de fond, des raisons d'ordre administratif ne permettraient pas non plus au Gou- vernement polonais ,d'accepter les conditions di1 SCnat. Tl est de toute évidence que l'administration polonaise, consciente de sa responsabilité et de ses devoirs, rie pouvait se .contenter d'un régime où la satisfaction à donner aux besoins administratifs et, avant tout, techniques et kconomiques de ses navires de guerre, dépendrait de l'appréciation et de la bonne volonté du Senat de la Ville libre. L'application d'un tel régime obligerait le Gouvernement polonais à décider, comme un acte de prévoyance élémentaire, la construction sur la côte polonaise de toutes les installations indispensables à l'équipement dc la marine de guerre polonaise et à l'entretien de ces navires dans un état de capacité de navigation, malgré les grands frais qui en résulteirtient et leur inopportunité économique. II en , résulterait nécessairement que, le cas échéant, non seulement: les navires de guerre polonais cesseraicnt d'utiliser à ces fins le port de Dantzig, mais que les nouvelleç installations et ouvrages détourneraient de ce port une grande partie de sa clientèle actuelle. Ceci aurait pour conséquence non seulement de grandes dépenses pour des investissements sur la côte polonaise, investissements d'ailleurs économiquement super- flus, mais aussi des pertes importantes pour le port de Dant- -zig et les intérêts économiques de la Ville libre. Bien que le Gouver~iemelit polonais ait fait preuve du plus grand esprit de conciliation, il n'a pu déjà, pour des raisons d'opportunité administrative, accepter les propositions du Sénat, et il s'est vu obligé de chercher la solution juridique. L'avis consultatif que la Cour rendra dans ce litige créera des bases pour un règlement pratique du présent probIème. Dans cet ordre d'idées, je crois utile de dissiper un certain malentendu que pourrait provoquer l'exposé de mon éminent contradicteur. On pourrait être amené à croire que la Ville libre de Dantzig n'a jamais cessé d'opposer une résistance de principe A I'ntiljsation permanente du port et de ses installations à des fins économiques et techniques par les navires de guerre polonais. Tel n'était pas le cas. La Ville libre de Datitzig n'a pas déclaré qu'elle ne désire pas que le port soit utilisé par les navires de guerre polonais. Eile ri. même souligné qu'elle sera d'accord avec l'utilisation du port par ces navires pour des fins économiques et techniques. Tout récemment, à la même séance (lu Conseil de la Société des Nations où on a décidé de demander l'avis consultatif de la Cour dans la présente affaire, le président de la Ville libre, M. le Dr Ziehm, a déclaré qu'il n'est pas dans l'intention de la Ville libre de soulever des difficultés d'ordre économique pour les réparations et le ravitaillement des navires de guerre polonais (p. 27). Au mois d'août, elle a même offert à la Pologne, comme je l'ai indiqué plus haut, de mettre sur pied tout un régime qui réglait de façon détaillée l'utilisation permanente du port et de ses installations à Dantzig par les navires de guerre polonais. L'accord n'a pas abouti, pour les raisons que j'ai indi- quées ci-dessus. Toutefois. il résulte des faits que je viens d'alléguer que le Sénat de la Ville libre n'a jamais considéré l'utilisation permanente du port de Dantzig par les navires de guerre polonais comme 'contraire, soit au statut dc la ViUe libre en général, soit à la stipulation de la Constitution interdisant la création de la base navale. La Cour ü demandé tout récemment 1111 éclaircissement sur les raisons qui ont pli déterminer. les Parties à modifier, au cours de la procédure, la terminologie employée pour désigner l'objet du présent litige. Celui-ci a étk désigné d'abord sous la dénominatiori de question du « port d'attache des navires de guerre polonais a Dantzig ». C'est en 1927 que, sur accord des Parties, fut notifié au Secrétaire génbral de la Société des Nations le remplacement de cet te expression par l'appellation suivante : i( Accès et stationnement des navires de guerre polonais à Dantzig 11. Cette modification de terminologie ne comportait aucune modification quant à l'objet du litige. La substitutioil s'explique par le désir des Parties de préciser le sens exact de l'exprcssio~i i( port d'attache ». C'est uniquement pour en préci- ser le sens que les deux Gouvernements se sont mis d'accord pour mentionner de façon explicite les dlements constitutifs de la notion (( port d'attache 1). Ces dléments se ramènent, en effet, aux deux idées essentielles d'acck et de stationnement. Cette precision, qui pouvait dans une certaine mesure faci- liter Yentente, est la seule raison de la modification intervenue en 1927 dans la terminologie. Quant à l'expression a point d'attache », qui a eté employée par le Gouvernement polonais dans sa note du 5 mars 1921, elle s'explique très simpIement par le fait que cette note visait spécialement les navires affectés à la police maritime polonaise. Quand la question a été envisagée dans son ensemble par le Conseil de la 'Société des Nations au mois de juin suivant, on s'est servi de l'expression (( port d'attache » de façon à viser également les navires de guerre. Je crois avoir exposé que les fins politiques sont étr&ères au Gouvernement polonais dans la question de l'utilisation du . port .de Dantzig par les navires de guerre polonais. J'ai 6th étonné que mon éminent contradicteur ait cru opportun de citer un passage d'un rapport du général Haking. où, en liaison avec la question de la défense de la Ville libre, la ten- dance de détruire Ie caractère national et indépendant de la Ville libre avait été imputée au Gouvernement polonais. Bien que je ne croie pas que ce passage du rapport du généra1 Haking pourrait avoir une importance quelconque pour I'appréciation juridique de la question qui nous. occupe, je tiens à faire quelques observations au sujet du passage cité. Je suis autorisé à qualifier d'écart de langage le passage du rapport du général Haking en question, attendu que l'auteur lui-même s'e>t vu dans l'obligation de se rétracter. Dans une lettre adressée le 5 mai 1921 au Secrétaire général de la Sociéte des Nations (document du Conseil en date du 21 mai. 1921 - 4/12590/9031)l, le général Haking a déclaré ceci : a Je n'ai jamais laissé entendre que le Gouvernement polonais eût l'intention d'attaquer la Ville libre. » Et, à un autre endroit : (( Je regrette extremement de m'être trouvé, comme soldat, dans la nécessité de faire des déclarations que le premier diplomate venu aurait Cvité de formuler et qui ont caus4 au Gouver- nement polonais des embarras et des inquiétudes. )I D'ailleurs, au cours de la procédure relative à notre affaire; c'était le même général Haking qui avait qualifié - comme je l'ai allégué au d6ibut de mon discours - cette affaire comme d'ordre administratif du point de vue de la Pologne et comme purement politique du point de vue de Dantzig.

EXPOSÉ DE M. LE PROFESSEUR DE VISSCHER (représentant le Gouvernement polonais) AUX SÉANCES PUBLIQUES DU II NOVEMBRE 1931. Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, A diverses reprises, des relations entre la Pologne et la ViUe libre de Dantzig ont donné lieu à des contestations. Plusieurs d'entre elles ont été soi~mises à votre hautc juridiction ou le serbnt dans l'avenir.

1 Voir pp. 401-4oj. Il ne faut cependant pas se méprendre sur Ie caractère de ces contestations, ni surtout en aggraver inconsidérément la portée. Le recours rCgulier à votre juridiction atteste le désir des Parties d'climiner graduellement les malentendus qui peuvent surgir entre elles ; il atteste leur volonté de régler sur la base du -droit les controverses que devait presque inévitable- ment engendrer le statut très spécial de la Ville libre de Dantzig. En prenant la parole pour exposer le point de vue du Gou- vernement polonais dans cette affaire, je reprendrai très volontiers à mon compte l'appréciation suivante que je trouve dans le rapport sur l'activité du Conseil de la Société des Nations, présenté à la Quatrième .Assemblée ; voici ce qu'on Iit dans ce rapport :

(( D'un point de vue formel, beaucoup de questions dantzikoises ont le caractère de différends entre la Pologne et Ia Ville libre ; rnaiç il faut reconnaître que la grande majorite de ces discussions ne procède que du désir des Parties d'obtenir sur nombre de stipulations conventionnelIes qui les unissent des précisions complémentaires. En d'autres mots, le règlement des nombreuses controverses polono-dantzikoises a un caractère constructif et tend, en réalité, à établir les bases d'une situation stable dans l'avenir. )) C'est dans cet esprit que vous a été soumise la question qui vous est déférée pour avis consultatif; c'est dans ce même esprit que j'entends m'acquitter de la mission qui m'a ét6 confiée. L'exposé que je serai appelé à vous faire a un caractère très nettement limité, qui m'est imposé par la nature même de ce débat. Je suis entièrement d'accord avec mon confrère et contradicteur pour considérer que l'affaire dont vorïs êtes saisis n'est pas de celles qui comportent le recoiirs à des théories géné- rales, de celles qui puissent être résolues par un appel aux principes du droit international commun. Les relations polono- dantzikoises, telles qu'elles ont été organisées, du fait du Traité de Versailles et de l'action de la Société des Nations, sont placées dans un plan tout à fait spécial. Elles constituent un régime sui generis basé sur un droit positif tout à fait particulier. C'est ce droit positif qui seul, ici, entre en ligne de compte. Il faut en fixer la portée de façon directe, sans se laisser détourner par des généralisations, par des comparaisons, iiigé- nieuses peut-être, mais qui sont hors de propos dans cette cause. D'autre. part, Irt question a fait l'objet d'une négociation directe qui s'est poiirsiiivie, d'abord devant la Conférence des Ambassadeurs, eiisuite et surtout devant les organes de la Société des Nations. C'est dire que l'affaire doit être jugée, avant tout, sur le dossier qui consigne les diverses phases de cette négociation ct sur la décision qui la termine. Toute la th&se du Gouvernement polonais repose ainsi sur une double base: examen des principes qui ont présidé à l'érection de Dantzig en ville libre, examen des documents ofiîciels, très concordants, tr&s étroitement coordonnés entre eux, oh nous trouvons à la fois la confirmation et la mise en œuvre de ces principes. Le 22 juin xg21, le Conseil de la Société des Nations a adopté les deux résolutions suivantes :

(( IO Le Conseil n'estime pas nécessaire de déterminer dès à présent dans quelles conditions serait assurée la défense maritime de Dantzig. n « 2' Toutefois, il y a lieu de demander ail Haut-Corn- missaire d'étudier le moyen de créer, dans le port de Dantzig, sans établir une base navale, un port d'attache pour les navires de guerre polonais. n Cette double résolution ,a pour le règlement de la présente affaire une importance capitale. C'est sur sa signification, sur sa portée, que porte essentiellement Ia divergence de vues qui existe entre les Parties. Pour interpréter correctement ces résolutions, nous disposons - en dehors bien entendu du texte lui-même, qui est la base essentielle - de deux moyens. Il nous faut tout d'abord examiner soigneusement les négociations qui les ont amenées et dont elles forment, en quelque sorte, le point d'aboutissement. Il faut ensuite rechercher de quelle manière ces résolutioi~ç ont été comprises par ceux qui avaient qualité officielle pour les interpréter ou pour les appliquer. L'exLunen des négociations qui ont précédé la résolution du 22 juin 1921 démontre que trois idées ont domin6 co~istamment tout le traitement de cette question par la Conférence des Ambassadeurs d'abord, par la Societé des Nations ensuite. La première idée est l'idée fondamentale de l'accès libre et sûr de la Pologne à la mer ; c'est l'idée même qui a donné naissance à la Ville libre de Dantzig. Les Puissances alliées et associées, en effet, avaient reconnu que seul le détachement de Dantzig du Reich pouvait assurer à la Pologne un accès à la mer, accès qu'elles considéraient comme une condition indispensable d'une vie économique indépendante. La deuxième idée est celle-ci : pour réaliser l'objectif précé- dent, pour assurer ce libre et sûr accès à la mer, les Puis- sances ont entendu établir entre la Ville libre et la Pologne les liens les plus intimes. C'est pour cette raison que la Pologne 296 . EXPOSE DE ar. DE VISSCHEK (POI,OGPIE) s'est vu reconnaître les droits particuliers que iui assure l'article 104 du Traité de Versailles, droits qui sont particu- lièrement étendiis sur le port de Dantzig, droits qui constituent, ainsi que l'a reconnu la Cour dans son Avis consultatif . no 18, (< des limitations organiques à. la stnictiire politique de la VilIe libre a. Ces deux considérations essentielles, ces deus principes directeurs, libre accès A la mer, création de liens intimes entre Dantzig et la Pologne, sont tr&s clairement exposés dans le passage suivant de Ia lettre adressee le 20 octobre 1920, au nom de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs, par 31. Jules Cambon au Secrétaire général de Ia Société des Nations: .

rc Ainsi qu'en témoigne la réponse faite le 16 juin 1919 par les Puissances alliées et associées aux remarques de la délé- gation allemande sur les conditions de paix, l'intention des Puissances, en constituant en ville libre Dantzig et le territoire vise A l'article IOO du Traité, a ét6 dJStablir entre la Ville libre et la Pologne les reIations les plus intimes. Elles voulaient, en effet, rendre à la Pologne lin libre accès à la mer. A cette fin, la Ville libre a étd placée cn dedans des limites dc la frontière douanière polonaise. La Pologne s'est vu reconnaitre le contrôle et l'administration des communications postales, téIéphoniques et télégraphiques entre elle et le port où elle jouit, d'autre part, de droits étendus. Enfin, la conduite des affaires extérieures de la Ville libre lui appartient. )) Mais à ces deux idées : libre accès et créatioii de liens intimes, vient aussitôt se joindre une troisième idée qui, dans le langage de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs, apparaît comme la conséquence immédiate, le corollaire des deus idées précédentes. Voici en effet comment continue la même lettre de M. Cambon : Aussi bien en raison de l'étroite liaison ainsi établie entre la Ville libre et la Pologne qu'en considération de la volonté clairement exprimée des Puissances signataires du Traité de Versailles de donner à Ia PoIogne un libre accès à la mer, le Gouvernement polonais paraît donc désigné pour recevoir de la Société des Nations le mandat d'assurer éventuellement la défense de la Ville libre. n Comment cette idée de défense de la Ville libre de Dantzig et d'un concours à apporter à la défense par la Pologne a-t-elle surgi ? Quelle est son origine ? La lettre de M. Cambon que j'ai citée est du 20 octobre 1920, mais l'examen des documents démontre, et l'on vous en a parlé hier déjà, que la question de la défense de Dantzig avait fait l'objet antérieurement de debats devant la Confe- rence des Ambassadeurs. Quelques mois auparavant, le 7 mai EXPOSE DE M. DE VISSCBER (POLOGNE) 297 1920, la Conférence des Ambassadeurs avait pris en effet deux résolutions, dont voici le texte :

cr IO 11 y a lieu de conclure dans le plus bref délai la convention visée à l'article 104 du Traité de Versailles. 1)

(( z0 La Pologne ne saurait toutefois être autorisée à établir à Dantzig une base militaire ou navale. )) On voit immédiatement comment 1s question s'est posée devant la Conférence des Ambassadeurs. La Société des Nations qui, aux termes de l'article 102 du Traité de Versailles, assume 1s protection de la Ville libre, ne dispose pas des moyens de contrôle et des ressources militaires voulues pour assurer cette protection, cette défense d'une manière effective. D'autre part, le Traité de Versailles assure à Ia Pologne sur

le territoire de , Dantzig la jouissance de droits qui ont été reconnus indispensables à sa vie économique. Le traité a rattaché la Ville libre à la Pologne par des liens de droit et d'intérêt particulièrement intimes. B t ainsi Ia question s'est posée : ne conviendrait-il pas d'envisager la défense de Dantzig par l'J?tat directement intbresçé à sauvegarder son intégrité territoriale contre toute agression' ou menace d'agression erté- rieure ? Nous verrons quel sera le développement ultérieur donné à cette idée. Pour l'instant, bornons-nous à constater que, le 7 mai 1920, la Conférence des Ambaççadeurs prend deus décisions qui sont très étroitement unies entre elles : d'une part, elle presse les deux Parties de conclure sans plus de retard la convention prévue par l'article 104 du Traité de Versailles, convention . qui doit assiirer le libre accès de la Pologne à la mer ; mais elle ajoute aussitôt que ce but peut et doit être atteint sans constitution à Dantzig d'une base militaire ou navale polonaise, En prenant cette décision, la Conférence des Ambassadeurs ne s'est certainement pas prononcée contre l'idée de confier éventuellement à la Pologne la défense même maritime de

Dantzig, - ' la suite des événements prouvera le contraire, - mais, A la question précise de savoir si cette défense pouvait comporter l'établissement à Dantzig d'une base navale propre- ment dite, - j'entendç par lii d'un port fortifié permettant à une flotte 'de guerre dtop6rer contre l'ennemi et d'y rentrer en sécurité, - à cette question précise la Conférence des Ambassadeurs a rkpondu clairement. Elie a dit : (( Nous ne sommes pas allés aussi loin ; ce serait contraire à l'indépendance de la Ville libre ; ce serait contraire aux stipulations du Traité de Versailles. a II est incontestable qu'en précisant cette limite la Conférence des Ambassadeurs fixait en pleine connaissance de cause une ligne de conduite tout à fait arrêtde. La décision qu'elle prend est manifestement une décision basée sur le droit en vigueur. Il est tout à fait caractéristique de noter, sous ce rapport, la liaison établie par les résolutions entre ces deux idées. Premier point de la clécision : la Conférence dit aux Parties : « Ne tardez pas A conclure la convention, - la convention que I'on peut appeler convention d'accès de la Pologne à la mer. 1) Deuxième idée : a Ce libre accks doit être réalisé sans base navale. )) La Conférence a ainsi très nettement, très nettement marqué la limite des droits auxquels la Pologne peut prdtendre en vertu du principe dominant di1 libre et siir accès à la mer. Il est tout aussi certain que cette décision sur ce point particulier, sur Ia question de l'établissement d'une base navale, ne préjugeait d'aiicune manière, dans l'esprit de la Conférence, de la question beaucoup plus générale de la défense de la Ville libre de Dantzig, et du concours à apporter à cette défense par la Pologne. C'est ce que démontre, d'ailleurs, comme je l'ai indiqué il y a un instant, la suite des événetnents, - la lettre même de M. Canibon du 20 octobre 1920. A cette date, le président de la Confdrence des Ambassa- deurs, M. Cambon, transmet à la Société des Nations le projet de conventioii polono-dantzikoise qui est devenu la Convention de Paris. Après avoir rappelé les considérations générales qui ont dict6 le statut de Dantzig, M. Cambon conclut en disant :

Je poursuis l'examen des documents officiels. Par la lettre de M. Cambon, le projet de convention polono- dantzikoise a été transmis de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs à Ia Société des Nations. Ici vient se placer, dans l'ordre chronologique, un document qui a une importance absolument capitale : c'est le rapport du vicomte Ishii du 17 novembre 1920. Nulle part mieux que dans ce document on ne saisit les principes directeurs qui gou- vernent les relations entre la Ville libre de Dantzig et la Société des Nations d'une part, entre Dantzig et la Pologne d'autre part. Le rapporteur y traite notanunent, de façon très claire et très complète, le problème de la défense de Dantzig et du concours à apporter A cette défense par la Pologne. 11 envisage dans cet ordre d'idees différents cas dans ies- quels cette question peut se présenter. hlon honorabIe contradicteur n'a pas cru devoir entrer .dans l'examen de ces cas, considérant qu'il s'agissait ici d'éventualités d'intérêt plutôt militaire. Je crois que l'examen de ces cas présente, au point de vue juridique, un intérêt pour la solution de notre affaire. Le rapport vise tout d'abord un premier cas : celui d'une agression qui serait dirigee contre Dantzig, sans que cette agression s'étende à la Pologne. A ce sujet, il exprime l'opinion suivante. Je cite textuellement le rapport du vicomte Ishii :

(( Autant qu'il est possible de le prévoir actuellement, le Conseil de la Soci6t6, ayant en vue I'intéret tout particulier de la Pologne de sauvegarder la Ville libre de Dantzig contre toute occupation &rangère, s'adressera certainement à la Pologne pour lui demander de prêter main-forte pour la défense du territoire de la Ville libre. Il dépendra des circonstances si le Conseil doit demander en même temps la collaboration d'autres Membres de la Societé des Nations dans le même but. )i On remarquera dans ce passage la liaison très nette qui s'y trouve dtablie entre le mandat éventuel de défense à conférer Ct la Pologne et les intéréts économiques que repré- sente pour la Pologne le principe de l'accès à la mer. 23 C'est parce que la Pologne a un intérét tout particulier à sauvegarder Dantzig contre toute occupation étrangère, qu'il paraît à la fois juste et logique de faire appel à elle pour lui conférer le mandat de défense. Cette liaison est tout à fait caractéristique et offre une importance capitale. Le rapporteur a très bien vu et très nettement indiqué que la protection du libre accès de la Pologne à la mer est étroitement liée dans certains cas à la défense même de Dantzig. En d'autres termes, si une agression menace Dantzig, c'est du même coup l'accès de la Pologne à la mer qui se trouve compromis. Il est dès lors logique et iI parait nécessaire de s'adresser, nqn pas sans doute à titre exclusif, mais par priorité, à 1'Etat qui est ainsi directement intéressé à prévenir ou à repousser toute agression possible. C'est encore l'idée de l'accès à la mer qui guide le rapporteur quand il passe à l'examen d'un deuxième cas. Ce cas est le suivant: CC La Pologne », suppose le rapporteur, (( est attaquée par un État quelconque, contrairement au Pacte de la Société des Nations. )) i( Dans ce cas i), observe le vicomte Ishii, (( la Ville libre sera exposée à ne pas pouvoir remplir ' sa fonction de donner libre accès à la mer à la Pologne. 1) Pour parer à ce danger de voir la, Pologne privée par une telle agression de I'accès à la mer, Ie rapporteur indique deux moyens. Tout d'abord, il indique une garantie d'ordre juridique. Dans la Convention polono-dantzikoise ou Convention de Paris figure un article 28 qui stipuIe (C qu'en tout temps et en toute circonstance, la Pologne aura le droit d'importer et d'exporter par Dantzig des marchandises de quelque nature qu'elles soient non prohibées par les lois polonaises. 1) Ainsi, dit le rapporteur, - et c'est l'interprétation donnée au Conseil, - la Pologne verra garantie en temps de guerre l'importation par la mer des munitions et autre matériel de guerre. C'est en effet l'interprétation qu'a reçue l'article 28 de la Convention de Paris. Je reviendrai sur ce point plus tard. Voilà une garantie d'ordre juridique que le rapporteur indique comme sauvegarde pour les droits de la Pologne, droits d'accès à la mer. Mais le rapporteur, qui est homme d'Etat et qui voit les choses dans leur réalité, se rend compte que cette garantie purement juridique peut ne pas suffire dans certaines circonstances. Et ici encore il indique le devoir de la Société des Nations d'assurer la Ville libre contre toute agression qui pourrait empêcher les opérations du port. Il ajoute : (( il semble très probable que le Conseil de la Société demanderait à la Pologne de se charger de l'exécution de ce cevoir de protection sans ou avec la collaboration d'autres ktats Membres de la Société des Nations i). C'est donc, encore une fois, l'intérêt économique que repré- sente pour la Pologne l'utilisation du port de Dantzig qui dicte au rapporteur la proposition qu'il fait de faire éven- tiiellement appel 'à la Pologne pour défendre Dantzig. De tout ceci, il est .permis de déduire que l'idée de conférer éventuellement A la Pologne le mandat de défendre la Ville libre a été acceptée par la Conférence des Ambassadeurs d'abord, par le rapporteur au Conseil ensuite, et enfin, comme nous ailons le voir immédiatement, par le Conseil lui-même, avant tout pour sauvegarder le principe fondarnep tal di] libre et siir accès de la Pologne A la mer. C'est certabement dans cet esprit que le Conseil, suivant les propositions de son rapporteur, a adopté le 17 novembre Ia résolution suivante:

i( Le Conseil ddcide que : Le Gouvernement polonais parait particulièrement désigné pour recevoir éventuellement de la Société des Nations la tâche d'assurer la défense de la Ville libre. Ida Commission permanente consultative militaire, navale et aérienne, est chargée d'examiner les mesures qui permettront d'assurer le plus efficacement possible la défense de Dantzig dans Ieç cas mentionnés dans le rapport du représentant du Japon. i) Deux conclusions généraics se dégagent maintenant de tout ceci. C'est dans des termes généraux que le Conseil a déclaré que Ia Pologne était particulièrement d6signi.e pour recevoir éventuellement le mandat d. défense. La résolution vise la défense dans son ensemble, défense maritime aussi bien que défense terrestre. Cette décision, je le répète, n'a jamais été rapportée. Deiixième conclusion : la notion du mandat éventuel de défense est étroitement unie à la sauvegarde du libre accès de la Pologne à la mer. Cette idée, je le répète, est tout à fait fondamentale pour la bonne compréhension de tout ce qui va suivre. Par la résolution du x7 novembre 1920 que je viens de lire, la question de l'organisation de la défense de la Ville libre a été renvoyée à l'examen de la Commission permanente consultative. Cefte Commission a déposé son rapport - on d6ià - ~er 1020. vous en a Iaarlé - -.l hier le decembre Ce rapport, comme il est naturel. est l'œivre d'experts, d'experts qui se sont essentiellement placés au point de vue militaire. Il semble d'ailleurs que le rapport en question a été voté par eux à l'unaninîité. II n'y a pas lieu de s'arrêter très longuement à ce document, non plus qu'à la délibération du Conseil dont il a été l'objet Ie 12 décembre 1920. Le rapport des experts avait pour objet tout un vaste programme de défense de la Ville libre. On vous a parlé hier des mesures qui étaient envisagées dans ce projet. Le projet corn- portait notamment la construction sur le territoire de la Ville libre de Dantzig d'ouvrages fortifiés, l'établissement même en temps de paix de troupes polonaises, et c'est ce programme défensif ainsi conçu qui a fait l'objet des objections de principe très graves qui ont été formuléeç par M. Balfour dans la réunion du Conseil du rz décembre 1920. L'extrait du procès-verbal est reproduit dans le Memoire de la Ville libre, à la page 117. M. Balfour a déclaré, ainsi qu'on vous l'a dit, que la mise à exécution du programme des experts aurait abouti à placer Dantzig sous le contrôle militaire d'un État voisin. Il n'a pas hésité à ajouter que l'exécution d'un tel programme serait contraire à l'indépendance de la ViUe libre et en opposition avec le Traité de Versailles. C'est un point de vue qu'on peut parfaitement concevoir, Mais il est absolument clair qu'en s'exprimant ainsi, en formulant des objections de cette gravité, M. Balfour n'avait aucunement en vue la proposition trhs restreinte et très modeste qui figure sous le point 9 du rapport des experts, point qui seul nous intéresse ici. Je rappelle la teneur du point g du rapport des experts. Les experts disaient sur ce point : c La Commission estime que .... (( Saps attendre le résultat des études d'organisation défen- sive de la Ville libre, il convient d'attribuer au Gouvernement polonais, dans le port de Dantzig, un emplacement suffisant pour assurer l'abri et l'entretien des petites unités navales qui lui ont été concédées par les Alii6s pour la police des eaux. 1) Je dis que ce n'est certainement pas une proposition d'un caractère aussi limité, et je puis ajouter aussi raisonnable, qui a pu provoquer les objections de principe formulées devant le Conseil par M. Balfour. Contre quoi ces objections étaient- elles dirigées ? Contre le programme d'organisation défensive de la Ville libre. Or, le projet de résolution qui figure sous le point 9 du rapport des experts était nettement détaché par les experts eux-mémes de l'ensemble de leurs conclusions principales. C'est ce que prouve le texte meme de cette proposition. Les experts disent que : (( sans attendre le résultat des études d'organisation défensive de la Ville libre, il y a lieu d'attribuer au Gouvernement polonais un emplacement suffisant n, etc. De quoi s'agissait-il ? Il s'agissait essentiellement de recon- naître un besoin dont l'urgence s'imposait à ce moment, il s'agissait d'une question qui n'avait avec l'ensemble des autres propositions contenues dans le rapport qu'un lien tout à fait éloigné. D'autre part, on vous l'a dit et mon honorable contradicteur a insisté sur ce point, les propositions des experts avaient un caractère radical. On les a m@me qualifiées de (i formi- dables 1). On pourrait dire que les observations de M. Balfour &aient du même caractère ; c'étaient des objections d'un . très grand poids à ses yeux. 11 invoquait directement le Traité de Versailles, le statut de la ViIle libre. Vraiment, Messieurs, il m'est impossible de concevoir qu'un homme d'gtat d'un esprit que j'ai connu aussi nuancé, aussi mesuré, ait pu adresser une objection ou des objections de cet ordre à une proposition d'un caractère aussi limité. 11 y aurait eu disproportion flagrante entre les objections formulées et la concIusion qui figure sous le point g. Au surplus, j'invoquerai ici l'opinion même de la Ville libre de Dantzig. Dans un mémoire du 2 août 1927, dont il a déjà été question hier, la Ville libre de Dantzig a reconnu que c'est la réalité de ce besoin de donner un abri aux navires polonais, l'urgence de ce besoin, qui ont déterminé. la Ville libre à conclure l'arrangement provisoire du 8 octobre 1920. La ViUe libre elle-meme, en 1927, n'hésitait pas à reconnaître la réalité, l'urgence de ce besoin. C'est d'ailleurs ce qui explique encore la conclusion de l'arrangement provisoire du 8 octobre 1921. Quoi qu'il en soit, le Conseil, après ce debat, a ajourné la question ; le rapport de la Commission permanente consultative et celui du vicomte Ishii ont été soumis à l'examen du Haut-Commissaire de la Société des Nations à Dantzig. Le Conseil se réservait - ce point est important -, après cet examen par le Haut-Commissaire, de prendre une déci- sion que le procès-verbal de la séance du 12 décembre qualifie expressément de « décision finale )I. Quelques mois plus tard, le 5 mars 1921, le Gouvernement polonais adressait au président du Conseil de la Société des Nations une note où il invoquait l'article 28 de la Convention de Paris, qui autorise 1s Pologne à importer et exporter par Dantzig, en tout temps, des marchandises de toute nature, ce qui comprend les munitions et le matériel de guerre. Le Gouvernement polonais faisait observer, dans cette note du 5 mars 1921, que le transport de munitions et de matériel de guerre présentait un danger et pouvait donner lieu à des accidents et que, pour les prgvenir, il était nécessaire qu'un point d'attache dans le port de Dantzig fût mis à la disposition du Gouvernement polonais pour assurer le stationnement, le ravitaillement et l'entretien des bâtiments de la police maritime polonaise, à laquelle, suivant la décision des Alliés, certaines unités navales ont déjà été affectées. Cette démarche, qui posait A nouveau la question du port d'attache, était expressément appuyée sur le principe du libre accès de la Pologne à la mer, mais - et cette remarque est importante pour la compréhension de la suite - la question était présentée dans la note polonaise du 5 mars 1921, non pas dans son ensemble, mais en vue d'lin besoin tout particulier. C'est pour une catégorie toute spéciale de transports - munitions et matériel de guerre - que le Gouvernement polonais demande un point d'attache A Dantzig. .C'est ce qui explique Bgalement - cette remarque a déjà été faite hier par M. I'agdnt du Gouvernement polonais - que dans cette note le GouPernement polonais demande un i( point d'attache I), non pas un port d'attache ; - c'est ce qui explique enfin qu'il est question dans cette note, non pas d'une façon géné- rale de navires de guerre, mais de navires affect6s à 'la police maritime polonaise. Je fais surtout cette remarque pour la bonne compréhension de ce qui va suivre. On s'explique ainsi que le 22 juin 1921, quelques mois plus tard, le Conseil va . se trouver en présence de deux rapports dans lesquels il sera question de la création d'un port d'attache pour les navires de guerre polonais à Dantzig ; mais l'un de ces rapports envi- sagera la question dans son ensemble, tandis que l'autre l'envi- sagera sous l'aspect spécial, particulier, qui lui avait été donné par la note du Gouvernement polonais du 5 mars 1921. Le PRÉSIDENT.- Avant que M. le conseil du Gouvernement polonais reprenne la parole, je la donnerai à l'un des juges, qui désire poser une question, question à laquelle M. le conseil du Gouvernement polonais n'est nullement obligé de répondre immédiatement ; il a toute latitude à cet égard. M. ANZILOTTI. - Il m'a semblé, Monsieur le Conseil du Gouvernement polonais, que vous attachiez une particulière importance au numéro 9 du rapport de la Commission militaire du ~erdécembre 1920. 11 y est question d'unités navales qui auraient été données par les Alliés à la Pologne. Je n'ai pas trouvé, dans le dossier qui nous est soumis, d'indication sur ces unités navales, ni sur les circonstances dans lesquelles les Alliés les auraient remises à Ia Pologne. Est-ce que vous, Conseil du Gouvernement polonais, ou l'agent de ce Gouvernement, vous seriez à méme de nous donner quelques renseignements à propos de ces unités navales, ainsi que sur les conditions dans lesquelles les Alliés les ont données à la Pologne ? Je désire en effet avoir connaissance des circonstances de fait auxquelles se réfère ce no 9 du rapport. Le PRÉSIDENT.- La parole est maintenant à M. de Visscher. M. DE VISSCHER.- Monsieur le Président, je remercie M. le juge Anzilotti de la question qu'il a bien voulu me poser. Une réponse très précise lui sera faite. Je vous demande seulement de faire usage de la faculté que vous avez bien voulu me , laisser d'ajourner cette réponse1. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS.-M~~ 1 be allowed to açk a question on a srnall point of procedure ? Le PRÉSIDENT.- Vous avez la paroIe sur un point de procédure. Sir JOHN FISCHERWILLIAMS.-It is a very small point. It is only this. My friend has been referring to the Polish Ietter of March 5th 19zr. I do not find the text of that letter either in Our Mernorial or in his. The reference we have made in Our Mernorial is to the summary which the French delegation gave of that letter. If he relies on it, and 1 think he does (he quoted more than that summary), might 1 suggest that it ought to be put at our diçposa12. The same remark applies to the Danzig Memorandum of 1927 which he has alço quoted 3. Le PRÉSIDENT. - Je crois que le représentant de Is Pologne ne fera aucune difficulté pour donner satisfaction à sir John Fischer Williams, et je le prie maintenant de reprendre la suite de son exposé devant la Cour. M. DE VISSCHER.- NOUS arrivons maintenant à une phase capitale et décisive pour la solution de la question qui nous occupe : c'est. la session de juin 1921 du Conseil de la Société des Nations. Nous avons vu que, le 12 décembre 1920, le Conseil avait renvoyé l'affaire à l'examen du Haut-Commissaire. Il avait même déclaré qu'après cet examen il prendrait une dEcision défidive. Les deux rapports dont il est saisi au mois de juin 1921 répondent bien à cette intention d'aboutir à une solution définitive. Ils sont présentés, l'un et l'autre, par le vicomte Ishii, l'auteur du rapport fondamental du 17 novembre 1920, l'homme d'État qui avait suivi dans tous les détails l'évo- lution des relations entre la Pologne et Dantzig. Le premier rapport du vicomte Ishii est intitulé : (< Défense de la Ville libre n. L'éminent représentant du Japon y rappelle tout d'abord son rapport primitif du 17 novembre 1920, ainsi que l'appro- bation que lui a donnée le Conseil. Il mentionne d'me façon spéciale l'adhésion donnée par le Conseil à cette proposition, qu'en raison des intéréts tout particuliers de la Pologne à Dantzig, la Pologne « parait tout particulièrement désignée pour recevoir éventuellement de la Société la tache d'assurer la défense de la ViIle libre ». Il déclare enfin qu'après avoir

1 Voir p. 311. n D 407. a pp. 393-398. minutieusement revu tous les documents qui ont été intro- ' duits depuis lors, il n'aperçoit aucune raison pour modifier ses condusions antérieures. Tout ce passage, qui est trks suggestif, indique une disposition très nette chez le rapporteur à voir régler une fois pour toutes, et sur la base des principes admis le 17 novembre de l'année précédente, les questions soulevées par la défense de Dantzig. Nous savons qu'il répondait d'ailleurs ainsi au désir -du Conseil, qui avait manifesté sa volonte d'aboutir à une déci- sion dkfinitive. Quant aux conclusions proposées par le vicomte Ishii et adoptées par le Conseil, elles donnent lieu aux observations suivantes : le Conseil n'a modifié en rien la résolution du 17 novembre 1920, dans laquelle il déclarait la Pologne parti- culièrement qualifiée pour recevoir le mandat de défense de la Ville libre. Deuxième remarque: les résolutions adoptées le 22 juin par le Conseil, sur le rapport du vicomte Ishii, visent: à organiser, au moins dans les grandes lignes, les modalités de la défense de la Ville libre de Dantzig et les modalités du concours à apporter à cette défense par la PoIogne. Je ne relirai pas Ies différents points que comporte le rapport du vicomte Ishii. Ils vous ont été lus hier. Les points I A 5, comme on vous l'a dit, concernent la défense terrestre ; les points 6 et 7, la défense navale. Sous ces deux derniers points, qui seuls nous intéressent, le Conseil a adopté les résolutions que je vais analyser. La première résolution, qui se trouve au point 6, est ainsi conçue :

(i Le Conseil n'estime pas necessaire de déterminer dès à présent dans quelles conditions serait assurée la défense maritime de Dantzig. )) Ce texte ne prête à aucune équivoque. 11 comporte, et ne comporte qu'une simple décision d'ajournement. 11 ne remet pas le moins du monde en question la résolution antérieure du Conseil concernant la défense de Dantzig par la Pologne, rbolution qui, nous le savons, était conçue en termes tout à fait géneraux sur la défense de la Ville libre. Le principe reste acquis, mais le Conseil décide de surseoir à son organisation. C'est tout ce que l'on peut déduire, tout ce que l'on peut inférer de la différence qui a kt6 faite ici entre la défense terrestre et la défense maritime, Il n'y a pas lieu de rechercher ici les raisons de ces diffé- rences de traitement. On peut assurer seulement qu'elles sont tout 'à fait étrangéres A l'aspect juridique du litige. II suffit de constater que nous sommes en présence d'une simple décision d'ajournement. Mais, sur un autre point, le Conseil n'entend pas surçeoi~ davantage, et il juge nécessaire de prendre une décision imrné- diate. Depuis plus d'un an la Pologne réclame pour ses navires de guerre à Dantzig certains droits spéciaux. Le Conseil sait qu'il y a à cet egard une décision de la Conférence des

Ambassadeurs interdisant l'établissement d'une base ' navale. 11 sait aussi que le Gouvernement de la Pologne, renonçant à l'établissement d'une base navale, se borne actuellement A demander la création d'un port d'attache, Cette requéte vient d'ailleurs de lui &tre rappelée récemment, et sous une forme particulièrement pressante, dans la lettre du 5 mars 1921 l dont le texte sera produit ultérieurement. Dans cette proposition de création d'un port d'attache à Dantzig, Ie Conseil aperçoit une proposition acceptable et de nature à rallier un accord. Il décide donc, et c'est l'objet du point 7, que le Haut-Commissaire sera chargé d'examiner les moyens propres à assurer aux navires de ,guerre polonais à Dantzig un port d'attache. Le Conseil prend soin cependant encore de préciser que les mesures à prendre à cet effet ne peuvent pas aboutir à créer une base navale. C'est le sens de la résolution dont je lis maintenant le texte intégral:

(( Toutefois, il y a lieu de demander au Haut-Commis- saire d'étudier le moyen de créer dans le port de Dant- zig, sans établir une base navale, un port d'attache pour les navires de guerre polonais. II Cette résolution, dont l'importance - on l'a déjA souligné hier - est fondamentale dans la thèse polonaise, appelle diverses observations. Tout d'abord, il est incontestable qu'en prenant cette déci- sion, le Conseil a dû considérer Ia création d'un port d'attache comme entiérernent c.ompatible avec le droit en vigueur. En effet, le Conseil, à ce moment, a nettement présents à l'esprit tous les éléments juridiques de la question. Le texte même du point 7 l'indique, puisque le Conseil fixe la limite qu'il entend ne pas franchir dans la satisfaction des demandes de la Pologne : il entend ne pas laisser établir une base navale il Dantzig. Mais inversement, s'il accueille l'idée de la création d'un part d'attache, c'est évidemment parce que cette idée lui parait en parfaite concordance avec les prescriptions de droit en vigueur, Il est impossible d'admettre que le Conseil, qui se place si nettement, si clairement sur le terrain du droit pour rappeler l'interdiction de la base navale, n'ait pas envisagé également la situa.tion de droit pour admettre l'idée de la création d'un port d'attache. En un mot, préoccupé de n'enfreindre en rien

l VOL p. 407. 308 EXPOSÉ DE M. DE VISSCHER (POI~OGNE) le droit existant, le droit en vigueur, le Conseil indique jusqu'où il peut der, il fixe une Iimite juridique à la satisfaction des demandes polonaises ; mais, et c'est ici le point capital, c'est un même souci de droit qui le guide, qui l'inspire, quand il autorise et quand il interdit. Une seconde observation s'impose. il résulte encore du texte de la résolution, - et ceci ne peut preter, je pense, à aucune discussion, - qu'aux yeux du Conseil l'installation du port d'attache est une chose bien distincte de la création d'une base navale. Je dis que cela ne peut pas preter à discussion, car c'est cette distinction même qui est le fondement de l'opposition établie entre les deux notions dans la résolution du Conseil. Enfin, il est Egalement clair que le droit à un port d'attache implique pour les navires de guerre un traitement de faveur par rapport aux bâtiments de guerre des autres Gtats. La décision du Conseil n'aurait aucun sens si la création d'lin port d'attache ne comportait pas certains privilèges. Et maintenant, on nous dira - j'ai rencontré l'objection, c'est la thèse qui a été développée à partir de 1927 par la Ville libre de Dantzig - que la résoliition du 22 jiiin 1921 ne comportait qu'une simple instruction donnée au Haut-Commis- saire d'examiner s'il était possible de créer lin port d'attache pour les navires de pierre polonais à Dantzig, et que cette résolution ne préjugeait donc pas la décision finale à prendre à cet égard par le Conseil. On dira que le Conseil se réservait de prendre cette décision ultérieurement, et qu'en fait iI ne l'a jamais prise. Cette façon de présenter les choses nous paraît profondément inexacte. Si vraiment le Conseil avait eu l'intention qu'on lui prête, il se serait certainement exprimé en des termes qui auraient rendu cette intention, qui auraient correspondu à cette pensée. Rappelons donc encore une fois comment la question se ~ioçaità ce moment. La revendication de la Pologne faisait l'objet de demandes précises, bien connues depuis longtemps des membres du Conseil. Elle était délicate en ce sens qu'il fallait éviter, tout en doii- nant peut-être certaines satisfactions à la Pologne, de créer une base navale. Dans de telles circonstances, le Conseil avait incontestablement Ic devoir de s'exprimer en des termes parfaitement clairs. 11 devait éviter soigneusement toute formule susceptible de préter à équivoque. En fait, nous savons que Iorsque Ie Conseil se trouve dans des situations de ce genre, les formules qu'il emploie Sont mûre- ment pesées, de faqon à éviter que les résolutions adoptées par lui ne donnent naissance à des controverses nouveIles. Si le Conseil avait entendu dire ce qu'on lui préte, il n'aurait pas manqué dé s'exprimer en ces termes: « Le Haut-Corn- missaire est chargé d'examiner s'il est possible de créer un port d'attache à Dantzig sans établir une base navale. a Voilà la formule qui aurait répondu de façon adéquate à l'intention que l'on préte maintenant au Conseil. Et cette . formule était si simple, elle arrivait si directement à l'esprit, parce que si adéquate à la pensée, qu'elle se serait imposée, on peut l'affirmer, dans la rédaction elle-même, si vraiment le Conseil avait voulu cela. A ce point de ,vue, je dois faire une remarque au sujet de la façon dont le sens de cette résolution a été présenté dans certains documents de la ViiIe libre de Dantzig. Dans une note du Sénat de Dantzig du IO novembre 1927, on a avancé que le Conseil de la Société avait invité le Haut- Commissaire à examiner si l'on pouvait établir dans le port de Dantzig un port d'attache sans créer une base navale. Cette rédaction répond à la thèse de la Ville libre de Dantzig. Ce n'est pas du tout ce que le Conseil a dit. Restons dans les termes de la résolution. Le Conseil dit : il y a lieu d'étudier le moyen de créer un port d'attache. Le Conseil a donc très bien distingué deux choses : tout d'abord le principe de la création du port, ensuite les modalités pratiques de l'organisation.

Sur le premier point, question de principe, le Conseil prend , une décision immédiate. Ce qu'il demande au Haut-Commis- saire, c'est uniquement d'étudier le moyen de créer un port d'attache, la façon pratique de l'installer. On demande au Haut-Commissaire d'étudier et de présenter un ensemble de propositions concrètes permettant de réaliser l'idée du port d'attache acceptée par le Conseil. Il nous paraît évident qu'une demande ainsi rédigée implique une décision prise quant au principe niême de la création du port. 11 n'est peut-être pas inutile d'insister un peu sur le raisonnement que produit ici le Gouvernement polonais. Je le fais surtout en raison des observations qui ont été forrnuI6es hier par mon cher confrère et contradicteur à l'occasion de l'emploi du mot anglais implication. La thèse du Gouvernement polonais est que, lorsqu'une instruction de ce genre a été donnée, elle implique décision de principe quant à la création du port. Le procédé de raisonnement qui est employé ici est fort simple. Le voici. Quand une proposition, qui exprime d'une façon directe une idée déterminée, n'a un sens acceptable, eu égard aux circonstances dans lesquelles on se trouve, qu'à la condition d'admettre qu'eue renferme une autre idée, celle-ci doit être considérée comme logiquement comprise dans Ia première. Les deux idées sont alors en quelque sorte coexis- tantes et logiquement inséparables. Ce procédé de raisonnement très simple s'impose à l'esprit en toute matière. Il est complètement distinct, il faut le remarquer, du procédé de la déduction ordinaire. La déduc- tion est tout autre chose. La déduction comporte, pour me servir d'une expression d'origine . aIIemande, deux moments de pensée successifs, ce qui n'est nullement le cas ici. Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a lieu de remarquer que la réso- lution prise par le Conseil, avec l'acception que lui donne le Gouvernement polonais, correspondait- entièrement aux circonstances dans lesquelles on se trouvait et aux attributions respectives dti .Conseil et du Haut-Commissaire. Ide Conseil est placé en présence du rapport du vicomte Içhii, qui contient sur une question agitée depuis des mois des solutions qui sont présentées comme finales. Le Conseil lui-même avait manifesté l'intention de se prononcer d'une manière défi- nitive. 11 se doit de prendre position, non pas sans doute siir les détails d'organisation, non pas sur les modalités pratiques, chose qu'il n'est pas en mesure de faire, mais sur le principe de la création du port. Quant au Haut-Commissaire de la Société à Dantzig, il est le représentant de la Sociét6 sur place. Il est seul à pouvoir apprécier toutes les conditions locales et techniques qui seules permettent la création du port d'attache. En un mot, il est seul en mesure de mettre au point, de traduire dans la réalité concrkte le principe accepté par le Conseil et, pour reprendre les termes memes de la rksolution, il est seul en mesure « d'étudier le moyelz de créer un port d'attache il. J'ai été très frappé de constater combien mon honorable contradicteur a été bref, concis, discret au sujet de ce point 7 de la résolution du Conseil, qui cependant présente dans l'argumentation polonaise une importance essentielIe. Tout ce qui nous a été dit à ce sujet se ramène à ceci: la revendication polonaise du port d'attache était devenue si importune que le Conseil, pour en finir, pour s'en débarrasser, a voté une formule qui au fond ne signifie rien. On s'est borné à faire entrevoir à Ia Pologne la perspective de la réalisation d'un port d'attache' sans prendre position sur la question.

C'est tout ce que l'on trouve à opposer- - à la thèse polonaise sur ce point eisentiel. Je n'ai pas besoin de souligner la faiblesse d'un tel argument, si vraiment on peut qualifier d'argument une telle façon de présenter les choses. Mais je voudrais aussi attirer très amicalement l'attention de mon honorable contradicteur sur le point suivant. Il nous a dit hier fort justement que, dans nos interpré- tations des résolutions du Conseil, il nous faut tenir compte du respect dû à ces hautes autorités. 11 me parait difficile d'imaginer une suggestion moins respectueuse de l'autorité du Conseil que celle qui consiste à lui prêter, dans de telles circonstances, une attitude pareille. Rien ne pourrait discré- diter davantage les organes de la Société que cette idée qu'ils peuvent se préter à des rédactions ambiguës, équivoques, qui donnent à une Partie l'impression qu'elle a reçu satisfaction alors qu'il n'en est rien. Cette suggestion, je le crois, est à rejeter, et, quelle que soit l'issue donnée au règlement de la présente affaire, j'ai le ferme espoir qu'aucune suite, aucune sanction ne lui sera donnée.

[Séance publzqzte du mercredi II novembre 1931, après-midi.]

I,e PRÉSIDENT.- L'audience est reprise. M. l'agent du Gouvernement polonais a demandé la parole ; je la lui donne. M. MODEROW.- Monsieur le Président, c'est uniquement pour répondre à la question qui m'a été posée l, et si la Cour le permet, je puis donner cette réponse tout de suite. D'après les renseignements que je possède dans mon dossier, les Alliés ont concédé pour la police de ses eaux, à la Pologne, six torpilleurs qui avaient appartenu auparavant à la marine allemande. M. DE VISSCHER.- Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, je vous ai exposé ce matin l'interprétation que le Gouvernement polonais donne à la résolution du 22 juin 1921 ;je vous ai montré que cette interprdtation est conforme aG texte de la résolution et aux négociations qui l'ont prbcédée. Nous allons voir maintenant que cette interprétation a été complètement partagée - ce sera l'objet de mon exposé - par tous ceux- qui avaient qualité officielle pour interpréter la résolution ou lui donner application. La résolution qui nous a retenus jusqu'à présent est celle qui a été adoptée le 22 juin 1921 sur le rapport du vicomte Ishii intitulé : « Défense de la Ville libre de Dantzig ». Le même jour, comme nous le savons, le vicomte Ishii a présenté un second rapport qui a pour objet la cr sauvegarde du droit , pour la Pologne d'accéder librement par la mer à Dantzig n. Ce rapport faisait suite à la note polonaise du 5 mars 1921, dont j'ai déjà parlé, dans IaqiieIie le Gouvernement polonais, insistant sur le danger que présentait 1.e transport de munitions et de matériel de guerre, demandait, pour parer à des accidents possibles, la création d'un point d'attache. Dans le passage de son rapport qui concerne cette question, le vicomte Ishii expose que, pour répondre à cette demande de la Pologne, il lui suffit de se référer à la décision du 312 EXPOSE DE BI. DE VISSCHEK (POLOGNE) Conseil que celui-ci a déjà prise sur son précédent rapport, celui intitulé Défense de la Ville libre 1). C'est ici que nous devons citer le textc anglais du rapport du vicomte Ishii qui a provoqué dc la part de mon cher contradicteur certaines observatioiis. Je vous lis tout d'abord ce texte lui-même : "This decision states that it would be advisable to request the High Commissioner of the League of Nations at Danzig to consider v:hat steps should be taken to establish a mooring station (un port d'attache) for Polish warships in the harbour of Danzig, without therehy creating a naval base ...."

Cette version, qui est évidemment favorable à la thèse que je vous ai exposée au noni du Gouvernement polonais, est génante au pint de vue dantzikois. Mon honorable contradicteur a essayé de mettre de côté cette version. II nous a dit que ce n'était pas une version autorisée, et il a ajouté que la traduction anglaise était inexacte. Je dois dire que je n'aperçois aucune raison cle considérer comme non autorisé un teste qui figure en annexe du Memoire de la Ville libre de Dantzig, un texte que la Ville libre a soumis à l'appréciation de la Cour pour son Mification dans. cette affaire, un texte qui fait partie de sa documentation officielle. En réalité, les deux versions, anglaise et: fran- çaise, ont toutes, deux autorité. Les deux textes ont été rédiges au mème titre sous Ia responsabilité du rapporteur, le vicomte Ishii. Le point de vue polonais consiste dire que les deus versions concordent' parfaitement, car, quand le franqais emploie les mats K étudier Ie moyen de créer », ce n'est pas autre chose que ce que disent les termes anglais to consider zuhat steps slzoz~ld be taken. Nous éntendons, nous estimons quant à nous qu'il y a concordance parfaite entre les deux textes. On nous répond, du côtd de Dantzig, qu'il n'y a pas coiicor- dance et que la version anglaise est inexacte. Alors, j'estime que dans cet état de la question - et je pense que mon honorable contradicteur admettra cela comme règle de procédiire - il lui appartiendrait d'établir l'inexactitude de la version anglaise. Je ne puis donc la considérer comme inesacte pour ma part, et voici ce que j'en déduis : Aux termes du texte, français ou anglais, car ils sont équivalents à nos yeus, le Haut-Commis- saire est chargé d'examiner quelles sont les mesures ii prendre pour créer un port d'attache à Dantzig sans tomber dans la notion d'une base navale. Ainsi donc, sa mission se trouve définie avec une complète précision. Le principe de la création d'un port d'attache est hors de cause. Le Haut-Coinmissaire est chargé seulement d'examiner les conditions locales techniques d'établissement d'un port d'attache, les modalités de réalisation de ce port d'attache ; il n'est pas chargé de se prononcer sur le principe de sa réalisation, Ce commentaire du vicomte Ishii a, à nos yeux, une autorité irrécusable, et cela pour un triple motif. Remarquons bien ceci : le commentaire est présenté à un moment où le Conseil a voté la résolution concernant le port d'attache. Commentaire et résolution sont du zz juin ; la version anglaise aussi bien que la version fran~aise ont été élaborées simultanément. Le rapporteur, vicomte Ishii, se réfère de fqon expresse et directe à Ia résolution votée relativement au port d'attache. Aucun doute quant à sa portée. Enfin, résolution et commentaire sont l'œuvre d'un même homme ; par conséquent, pas d'erreur possible qiiant à la portée du commentaire présente. Je crois vraiment, Messieurs, qu'il serait difficile de réunir plus de conditions pour fournir une interprétation qui soit i l'abri de toute discussion. Veut-on un autre témoignage 7 Une note de la délégation francaise du même jour, 22 juin, reproduite dans le Mémoire de la Ville libre de Dantzig, page 122, s'exprime également dans ce sens. La note rappelle la demande du Gouvernement polonais du 5 mars x921 concernant la création d'un port d'attache et dit à ce sujet : « En principe, les points 3 et 4 sont résolus par le 'texte déjà adopté par les Gouvernements britannique et frariqais et reproduit dans le projet de résolution présenté par le vicomte Ishii dans son rapport sur la défense de Dantzig. 1) Or, le point 3 concerne la création du port d'attache. On ne pourrait donc même pas invoquer à ce sujet une différence de tendances entre les divers gouvernements qui ont pu collaborer i l'établissement de cette résolution. Le texte prouve nettement que les Goiivernements français et britannique étaient en plein accord sur le texte voté finalement, sur le rapport du vicomte Ishii. Ainsi, - et ce sera nia conclusion sur ce point, - de quelque côté que l'on se tourne, la concordance est absolument complète. Tous les témoignages qui datent du 22 juin - et ce sont les plus sûrs - sont absolument concordants entre eux et s'accordent à admettre que la résolution adoptée ce même jour implique une décision de principe quant à Ia créa- tion du port d'attache. L'interprétation donnée par le rapporteur du Conseil, vicomte Ishii, que défend aujoirrd'hui le Gou- vernement polonais, trouve une confirmation ultérieure très nette dans l'attitude du Haut-Commissaire, le général Haking. Le premier document à considérer à ce point de vue est le rapport du général Haking du IO septembre 1921. Comment se présente ce rapport ? Nous constatons que, nulle part, le Haut-Commissaire ne s'y préoccupe du point de savoir s'il y a lieu ou non d'installer un port d'attache à Dantzig. Cette question, il ne se la pose pas, et pourtant si l'on admet l'inter- prétation que défend le Sénat de la Ville libre, si l'on admet que Ie principe même de la création d'un port d'attache &ait .toujours en suspens à ce moment, c'est évidemment la première question que le général Haking aurait eu A envisager. Elle aurait pr6senté pour lui un caractère préjudiciel dont ses résolutions se seraient évidemment ressenties. Si le Haut- Commissaire avait ét6 chargé, comme on l'a insinué, d'examiner s'il était possible de créer à Dantzig un port d'attache sans établir une base navale, c'est sur cette possibilité qu'auraient porté avant tout ses observations. C'est cette question qui aurait dû se présenter avant tout à son esprit. Le Haut- Commissaire ne pouvait logiquement faire de propositions concernant les modalités d'organisation qu'aprés avoir pris position au préalable à i'égard du principe méme de la creation du port, si ce principe était resté en suspens et avait été soumis à son appréciation. Je Ie répète, le Haut-Commissaire n'envisageait pas un instant cette question, il la considérait certainement comme tranchée. C'est bien d'ailleurs ce que confirme la lecture du rapport. Celui-ci débute par un passage très significatif. Le Haut-Commissaire se demande quelle est l'exacte diffé- rence entre une t( base navale 1) et un (( port d'attache D. Il ne la saisit pas très bien, et il se découvre un doute à cet égard. II va, aprés avoir rappelé explicitement le point 7 de la résolution du Conseil, jusqu'd émettre cette réflexion : (( On ne peut slempOcher de penser que l'on a voulu donner réeue- ment à la Pologne une base navale, mais en qualifiant cette dernière de port d'attache. i) C'est là évidemment une exagé- ration ; elle est léghement irrévérencieuse à l'égard dii Haut- Commissaire, peut-&tre,mais l'attitude du Conseil est extrêmement caractéristique. II est certain qu'en parIant ainsi il se sent devant une décision prise. Il dit : (( On ne peut s'empêcher de penser que l'on a voulu donner réellement à la Pologne une base navale. )) Ce doute, cette perplexité qu'il éprouve portaient sur la mission qui lui a été confike, sur l'exécution du programme dont il est chargé. 11 se demande comment il va pouvoir donner suite à la résolution du Conseil, alors qu'il n'aperçoit pas très bien la distinction entre « base navale n et u port d'attache ». Cependant, le Haut-Commissaire ne pouvait pas en rester lA, et après le passage que je viens de vous lire, il entre dans la voie de l'interprétation de la résolution du 22 juin. II dit à ce sujet : i( Étant donné ces contradictions, i> - nous savons ce qu'il veut dire, cela se réfère au passage dont je viens de donner lecture - « il est nécessaire d'examiner quelle est, des deux directives données - interdiction de hase navale, création d'un port d'attache - la plus importante. » Le Haut-Cornmisslire part dans cette interprétation du principe que l'interdiction de la création d'une base navale coiisti- tue la directive la plus importante. (< Il semble i) - dit-il - (i que l'interdiction d'établir une base navale soit plus impé- rative que le choix d'un port d'attache. » Faites bien attention à ces mots <( choix d'un port d'attache ». Voici les conclusions qu'il tire aussitôt de ce point de départ : . . « Il faut i) - dit-il, première conclusion - « attacher un sens limité aux mots (( port d'attache 1) et par conséquent il ne faut pas donner à la Pologne une installation permanente à terre, mais lui donner seulement Lin mouillage ou une installation de quais où pourront s'amarrer les vaisseaux de guerre polonais, qui serait toujours disponible pour cet usage, sauf le droit pour le Haut-Commissaire d'exiger leur retrait. 1) Deuxième conclusion du général Haking :

t( La Pologne doit posséder pour ses navires de guerre certains privilèges de plus que d'autres Puissances étrangères. En fait, son principal avantage sera d'avoir toujours à sa disposition un ancrage ou l'usage d'un quai pour ses navires de guerre et le droit d'y laisser ses navires de guerre aussi longtemps qu'il lui plaira,, à condition que le Haut-Commissaire n'exige pas leur retrait. Enfin, un troisième point attire l'attention du Haut-Commis- saire. Il se préoccupe de concilier l'existence de ce régime pri- vilégié avec les droits de la Ville libre, et il fait également des propositions d'organisation en ce sens. Il rappelle qu'en suivant les principes généraux du droit, en suivant la pratique internationale, l'entrée des navires de guerre devrait tout d'abord recevoir l'autorisation du Sénat de la Ville libre, .et que le Sgnat pourrait exiger le départ de ces navires quand il lui plairait ; mais, dit-il, et nous le voyons alors entrer dans l'esprit même de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs et du Conseil de la Société des Nations : <( Etant donné toutefois les relations particulières de la Pologne et de Dantzig, il est possible d'accorder à la Pologne le moyen de mettre ses bateaux à l'ancre ou à quai pour son usage permanent et d'&dicter ensuite des règlements qui garantissent les droits, à la fois de la Société des Nations et du Gouvernement de la Ville libre. n Ces propositions du Haut-Commissaire peuvent être évidem- .ment discutées. Il semble être parti d'un point de vue assez restrictif, jugé inacceptable par le Gouvernement polonais ; peu importe. Ce qui importe, c'est l'attitude du Haut-Commis- saire, c'est le langage qu'il tient dans ce rapport, attitude et langage qui ne sont compréhensibles que si l'on admet qu'il s'est placé, - pour envisager cette qucstion ail mème point de vue que celui que défend aujourd'liui le Gouvernement polonais, - si l'on admet qu'A ses yeux la question de principe se trouve être tranchée p;ar la rfsoliition du Conseil. En effet, toutes les propositioris du Haut-Commissaire tendent, et tendent uniquenient à l'organisation pratique, à la mise sur pied du régime prCvu dans la résolution du 22 juin. Nulle part le Haut-Commissaire n'exprime un doute quelconque quant à l'opportunité oii la possibilité d'établir un tel port d'attache. 'Toute son attitude, en un niot, prouve qu'il se rend compte que le Conseil I'a chargé. non pas d'examiner s'il est possible de créer un port d'attache, mais conzzmenl il faut le créer. Je pose la question : Qu'est-ce qui aurait pu autoriser, par exemple, le Haut-Commissaire à reconnaître ainsi d'emblée aux navires de guerre polonais des privildges, des droits supé- rieurs aux navires de guerre des autres Gtats, s'il n'avait pas &té absolument clair à ses yeux que le Conseil avait déjà pris une décision dans cet ordre d'idées ? Lui qui vient d'affirmer : ct Il faut sauvegarder à tout prix le principe de l'interdiction de la base navale )>, il n'hésite pas pourtant un seul instant à reconnaître que des droits spéciaux, et notamment un amarrage permanent, doivent être reconnus aux navires de guerre. Surtout - et sur ce point jc me perniets d'attirer respectueusement l'attention de la Cour - il faut remarquer que, nulle part, le Haut-Commissaire Iie s'exprime, dans ses propositions, d'une manière hypothetique. Il semblerait que la thèse contraire ait ét6 suggéree hier. Je n'en trouve aucune trace dans le rapport. Nulle part le Haut-Commissaire ne formule ses conclusions polsr le cas oit le Conseil jugerait utile d'établir un port d'attache. Non, les propositions sont faites piiremcnt et simplement. Elles sont présentées comme la conséqiience naturelIe. d'un principe admis. Un autre passage du rapport doit encore retenir l'attention. C'est celui qui figure sous le poiiit no 7. Le général Haking y rapporte la conversation qu'il a eue à Varsovie avec le Gouvernement polonais à propos du droit qu'il proposait de confier au Haut-Commissaire d'ordoriner 6ventiieilement le retrait des navires dc guerre polonais. C'était iine des propositions du gciiéral Rakirig : conferer au Haut- Commissaire le droit d'ordonner éventuellement ce retrait. Voici ce que dit le général Haking à ce sujet :

(< J'ai informé le Gouvernenicnt polonais, à propos de cette proposition, qu'il sera improbable que je sois jamais appelé à exercer ce pouvoir, mais qu'à mon avis une règle de ce genre était indispensable, afin d'éviter l'accusation d'avoir établi une base 1iav3le à Dantzig. ;! Ceci encore confirme l'interprétation que je vieris de donner. De quoi s'agit-il ? de trouver un arrangement, d'établir un ajustement des compétences respectives, de présenter des moda- lités qui permettront de créer un port d'attache sans établir une base navale. Le Haut-Commissaire conclut son rapport en disant : i( Mon point de vue est que la Pologne doit recevoir toutes facilités pour pouvoir amarrer ses navires de guerre dans le port de Dantzig, à condition de ne point établir de base navale, et qu'en conséquence les engagements de la Société et du Gou- vernement de Dantzig ne soient pas violés. ii Pour le surplus, il proposait de soumettre aux experts navals de la Société des Nations la distinction technique - qui l'avait préoccupé - à établir entre la base navale et le port d'attache. C'est dans ces conditions que l'affaire est revenue (levant le Conseil. Une fois de plus, c'est le vicomte Ishii qui présente le rapport. Ce rapport, qui est du 16 septembre 1921, est très court et se borne, dans ses conclusions, à donner suite à la proposition dii Haut-Commissaire, c'est-à-dire à proposer le renvoi de .l'examen de cette question technique à la Commission pour les affaires navales. Cependant, si bref que soit le rapport, il mérite à un certain point de vue de retenir l'attention. Nous savons ce que contenait le rapport du Haut-Commis- saire : uniquement, nous l'avons vu, des propositions d'organisation pratique, propositions énoncées non pas d'une manière hypothétique, mais de façon ferme. Si le Haut-Commissaire, en se plaqant à ce point de vue, en considérant la question de principe comme tranchée, avait mal compris sa tâche, s'il avait dévié de la voie qui lui avait été assignée, il semble certain que le rapporteur devant le Conseil n'aurait pas manqué de faire une réserve à cet égard. Il aurait ramené, en d'autres termes, le débat à la question préjudicielle. 11 aurait fait observer qu'il y avait bien lieu à un examen sur la distinction technique en question, mais que la question de la création du port d'attache restait entière. Or, ce n'est pas du tout ce que le vicomte Ishii a fait.' II s'est trouvé .en pIein accord avec le général Haking sur la façon d'envisager la tâche du Haut-Commissaire, Voici comment il caractérise sa mission : analysant le rapport du Haut-Commissaire, il dit que ceIui-ci (< discute la question de savoir sous quelles conditions les navires de guerre polonais peuvent rester indéfiniment dans le port de Dantzig, sans que celui-ci devienne une base navale 11. 318 ~xrosÉnE JI. DE I~ISSCHER (POLOGNE) C'est en effet l'objet exact du rapport du général Haking, et je répète que le rapporteur au Conseil, le vicomte Ishii, ne formule su sujet de cette fa~ond'envisager les choses aucune espèce de reserve. Mais il y a plus. Au moment où nous sommes, c'est-à-dire lc 16 septembre 1921, ni le rapporteur du Conseil, ni le Conseil lui-méme ne pouvaient ignorer quel était, au regard de cette question, le point de vue de la Ville libre elle-même. Ce point de vue est clairement exposé dans un mémoire du prési- dent du Sénat date du 20 septembre 1921. Ce mémoire, qui est très significatif parce qu'il traduit l'état d'esprit du Sénat à une époque encore très voisine de 1s résolution di1 22 juin ~gzr,cornmence par insister sur deux principes : Ie principe de la souveraineté de la Ville libre, et le principe de l'interdiction de I'établisscment d'une base navale à Dantzig. Le Sénat expose ensuite, abordant ainsi la résolution du 22 juin, que la signification du terme cr port d'attache 1) lui parait douteuse. Il fait observer, et sur ce point il a raison :

tr Il résiilte de la décision du 22 juin que l'attribution du port d'attache nc peut comporter aucun des droits que pourrait impliquer l'objet d'une base navale. 1) C'est exact. Et plus loiii, dans son exposé, le Sénat fait une tentative pour déterminer ce qui, d'après lui, constitue les droits inhé- rents A fa base navale. Sur ce point il y aurait beaucoup de réserves à faire, mais je n'insiste pas, cela n'importe pas pour le moment. Ce qui est tout à fait important, au contraire, c'est que nulle part dans ce document le Sénat n'essaie à ce moment de contester ouvertement le fait essentiel, à savoir que la résolutioii du 22 juin comportait tout au moins une décision de principe quant A la création d'un port d'attache. . Tout au plus relève-t-on un passage qui, d'une façon timide, tend à jeter un certain doute sur ce poi~it. Ce passage, le voici textiiellement : « Si, dit le Sénat, la résolution du Conseil de la Société doit etre interprktee dans ce sens que la Pologne doit obtenir le droit d'établir iin port d'attache .... 1) voilà le Eger point d'interrogation, « .... on devra en tirer la conclusion que les vaisseaux de guerre polonais auront dans le port de Dantzig des droits supérieurs aux navires des autres nations, nonobstant les deux principes énonct$s au paragraphe premier (souveraineté de la Ville libre, interdiction d'une base navale). )) Et le texte continue : « D'une faqon générale, les navires de guerre de toutes les nations ont le droit de faire usage du port de Dantzig, mais seulement conformément aux règlements géndraux de police et avec lès restrictions auxquelles ils doivent se plier quant A leur situation et à la durée de Ieur séjour sous les ordres des autorités dantzikoises. En envisageant le droit à. un port d'attache .... )) ceci ramène le Sénat à la résolution du 22 juin, « .... on pourrait apporter une exception au principe ci- dessus eii faveur des navires polonais en les dkchargeant de l'obligation d'annoncer leur arrivée et en leur assurant un moiiillage pernianent. II Ainsi donc, on voit exactement quelle était, à cette époque voisine de la résolution du 22 juin - car nous sommes au 16 septe~nbre- l'attitude du Sénat de la Viile libre de Dant- zig. Sans doute, et c'est naturel, le Sénat cherche à réduire au minimum les conséquences de cette décision en invoquant le principe de la souveraineté de la Ville et celui de l'interdiction de la base navale ; mais il se garde bien de contester le principe de la création du port d'attache. Et cependarit - j'attire encore une fois l'attention sur ce point - on était à un moment tout à fait décisif, à un moment où il fallait parler net et. franc, sous peine de voir compromettre ses droits. En effet, le Haut-Commissaire avait déjà fait iine série de propositions d'organisation pratique du port d'attache. Il demandait au Conseil de I'kcIairer sur une distinction technique, distinction entre la base navale et le port d'attache, et cela pour compléter sa documentation et ses propositio~is. On entrait manifestement dans la voie des réalisations. Si vraiment, aux yeux clil Sénat, la question de principe &ait restée en suspens malgré la résolution du 22 juin, si elle était restée entiére, on peut assurer que son attitude aurait été complètement différente : il n'aurait pas hésité un instaiit à ouvertement position en deciarant que la décision du 22 juin n'avait pas préjugé la question de principe. En d'autres termes, il aurait fait au mois de septembre rgzr ce qu'il n'a fait qu'en 1927. Or, non seulement il s'abstient d'élever cette contestation de principe, mais il entre, comme nous l'avons vu, dans une série de suggestions d'organisation, de façon à concilier la notion du port d'attache avec l'interdiction de la base navale. A la suite de la résolution du Conseil, la question de l'organisation d'un port d'attache a fait l'objet des délibérations d'une Sous-Commission navale. Cette Sous-Commission aurait dû en principe examiner, sur la proposition du Haut-Commis- saire, la distinction entre rt base navale 11 et t( port d'attache i). Les conclusions des études de cette Sous-Commission sont consignées dans un rapport daté du 24 septembre 192r. Le caractère de ce document a déjà &té précisé dans le Mémoire du Gouvernement polonais, et jc pense d'ailleurs qu'aucune contestation n'existe A cet égard. Ce rapport ne peut être considéré que comme l'expression cle l'opinion d'experts. En outre, il faut constater que le rapport en question n'a jamais été soiimis même au Conseil de la Société, ni accepté par les Parties. C'est dire que, du point de vile juridique, il est dénué de toute autorité, de tout caractkre obligatoire. Cette observation s'applique notamment à un point dont il :L été question hier : la liaison que les experts navals voulaient obtenir entre l'établissement d'un port d'attache à Dantzig et l'achèvement du port de Gdynia sur le littoral polonais. On vous a lu le passage du rapport des experts qui porte sur ce point : « si l'on accorde à la Pologiie le privilège d'utiliser Dantzig comme port d'attache, il conviendrait de ne le lui donner que jusqu'au moment où ce nouveau port polonais sera achevé a. En introduisant dans le débat cette idée d'une liaison entre le port d'attache à Dantzig et le port de Gdynia, les experts ont peut-être parlé en hommes de métier, mais ils ont intro- duit dans le débat, au point de vue juridique, un élément absoIument étranger à la question. La Commission n'avait aucune mission, aucune autorité quelconque pour faire une proposition de cet ordre. Du reste, je n'ai pas à insister beaucoup là-dessus. Cette suggestion, faite par les experts à un moment donné, est immédiatement tombée ; elle n'a pIus été rete~iiie par la suite. C'est peu après, au début d'octobre Igzr, que l'approche de l'hiver a amené les Parties à conclure un m.odus vivendi, ou arrangement provisoire, dont il a cl$jà été question. Cet arrangement, nous Ie savons, est du 8 octobre 1921. Il it pour objet de permettre à la PoIogne de continuer à faire usage du port de Daiitzig pour ses navires de guerre, le point de vae juridique de chacune des Parties quant au fond de la question étant entièrement réservé de part et d'autre. Il n'y ;L donc pas lieu de tirer argument de cette convention ni en faveiir d'une thèse ni en faveur de l'autre, puisque des réserves expresses ont été formulées à ce sujet. Tout au plus admettra- t-on, je crois, que la concliision d'un tel arrangement prouve la réalité, et même l'urgence du besoin de mettre à l'abri les navires polonais à cette époque. On observerait également, dans cet arrangement, qu'aucune mention quelconque n'est faite qiiant à l'achèvement du port (le Gdynia. La suggestion présentée par les experts ne trouve aucun écho dans cet arrangement. Le PXÉSIDENT. - je prie Monsieur le Conseil du Gouverne- ment polonais de bien vouloir soumettre A la Cour le document du zo septembre 1921 auquel il a fait allusion. M. DE VISSCHER.- Monsieur Ie Président, le document en question est à la dactylographie en ce moment même l. Il y a Ià évidemment une Iacune que je constate également. Dans notre exposé historique, nous voici arrivés à un document qui, celui-là, a une importance capitale : le 7 décembre 1921, le Haut-Commissaire de Dantzig, général Haking, dépose son rapport définitif sur la question. C'est après un examen qui s'est prolongé pendant des mois que le Haut-Commissaire, qui est enfin en possession de toutes les données du problème, va déposer ses conclusions finales. Le rapport débute par une appréciation générale de la position respective des deux Par- ties dans cette question de l'établissement d'un port d'attache. Voici ce que nous lisons :

(( L'établissement dans le port de Dantzig d'un « port d'attache 1) pour les vaisseaux de guerre polonais est, du point de vue de Dantzig, presque entièrement une question d'ordre politique, tandis que du point de vue de la Pologne elle. paraît être une question d'ordre administratif. )i Je me garderai de vouIoir insister sur cette déclaration et de lui donner une' allure de polémique, quoique, cependant, je crois qu'elle mérite de retenir l'attention. C'est un jugement d'ensembIe émis sur l'attitude des deux Parties, sur leur position respective dans le débat, par une autorité impartiale qui est arrivée au terme de l'examen de la question. A ces divers titres, j'estime que cette appréciation mérite de retenir un instant votre attention. Le rapport du gEnéral Haking continue ainsi:

(( II n'y a aucune raison d'ordre administratif pour que la Pologne ne reçoive pas certains postes d'amarrage fixes pour ses bateaux, oh ils pourront subir les réparations nécessaires, trouver leurs combustibles en pétrole ou charbon et embarquer les approvisionnements de toute nature. )) Les conclusions du rapport définitif sont conçues exactement dans le même esprit, dans la même ligne que Ie rapport préliminaire, le premier rapport du IO septembre 1921, c'est- A-dire qu'ici encore le Haut-Commissaire ne songe pas un instant à mettre en doute qu'il y ait une décision de principe quant à la création du port d'attache. II n'examine pas un instant la question de l'opportunité ou de la possibilit6 de , l'installation de ce port d'attache, il recherche seulement comment dans la pratique on peut donner suite à la résolution présentée. Dans cet ordre d'idées, il propose de faire allouer

Voir pp. 389-392. par le Conseil du Port, aux navires de guerre polonais, un poste d'amarrage suffisant, où ils pourront sejourner librement. et aussi longtemps qu'il leur plaira, sous certaines conditions qu'il indique et que je vais indiquer moi-même. Entrant dés lors da11s le dktail des coilditions qu'il propose pour le régime qu'il veut mettre sur pied, voici ce que dit le Haut-Commissaire :

{i Première proposition : Le président de la Ville Iibre de Dantzig, le président du Conseil du Yort et le Haut-Commis- saire de la Société des Nations recevront notification non pas de chaque arrivée des navires, mais seiilement du nombre total des navires de guerre qui pourraient clevoir séjoiirner dans le port, du total de leurs équipages, sinsi que de toutes augmentations ultérieures qui pourraient se prodiiire, soit dans le nombre des bâtiments, soit dans les effectifs de leurs équipages. a

ii Deuxième proposition : Le conseil (lu Port, d'accord avec les autorites polonaises, devra affecter à la Pologne des terrains polir y installer des dépôts destinés au ravitaillement des navires. i) Ici le Haut-Commissaire va plus foin que dans le premier rapport de 1921, où il s'était proiionc6 contre les installations à terre. « En troisième lieu : Autant que possible, le Conseil du Port donnera Ia priorité aux navires de guerre polonaiç qui entrent dans le port ou qui le quittent, sur tout autre mouvement de navires. »

(< .4O te Sénat aiira la faculté de mettre fin au séjour des navires de guerre dans le port, mais serilement moyennant une notification faite au moins trois mois à l'avance, au Gou- vernement ploriüis et au Haut-Commiçsaice. (( Tout differend qui pourrait s'élcver à ce sujet serait réglé par la procédrire indiquée à l'article 39 de la Convention de Paris, faculte étant laissée à chacune des Parties de le soumettre à la décision du Haut-Commissaire ail Conseil et d'en appeler à celui-ci. ii Ces propositions consignées dans le rapport .final di1 Haut- Commissaire ont été soumises aux deus Parties. On espérait leur accord ; il n'a pas pu se réaliser. A partir de ce moment, il n'y a pllis, au point de vue juridique, de changement appré- ciable dans Ia situation. On peut dire que l'affaire reste en suspens. Les Parties se gardent de remettre en question le point de droit, par la raison toute simple qu'elles vivent sur un nzodnts vivetzdi, stir la base de 1'Arrnngemcnt provisoire du S octobre 1921. On peut relever .seulement une décision du Conseil qui a été citée hier, celle du 12 janvier 1922, qu'il y a lieu d'ajourner l'examen de la question, décision que le Conseil prend pré- cisément en considération de l'arrangement intervenu entre les Parties. Il ajoute que jusqu'à ce que la question soit reprise devant le Conseil, l'Accord du 8 octobre restera en vigueur. Nous allons ainsi jusqu'en 1927. Par une note du 2 août 1927, le Sénat de Dantzig informe le Conseil de la Société des Nations qu'il a dénoncé, le 20 mai 1927, l'Accord provisoire du 8 octobre. Le Sénat justifiait cette dénonciation par la raison suivante : Tout d'abord, disait-il, le motif le plus important pour lequel la Ville de Dantzig avait consenti à signer l'accord provisoire, se trouvait dans le fait qu'à ce moment la Pologne ne possédait réellement aucun port où ses navires de pierre . puissent s'abriter en cas de mauvais temps et surtout pendant l'hiver. A l'heure actuelle - disait la note dantzikoise - les travaux du port de Gdynia sont suffisamment avancés pour que les navires phissent y trouver l'abri ; dks lors, les privilèges qui Ieur ont été reconnus en 1921 n'ont plus de raison d'être. Enfin, Ie droit pour les navires polonais d'un séjour à durée indéterminée et sans préavis, aboutirait - dit encore le Sénat - à faire de Ilantzig une base navale. En conclusion, le Sénat demandait que la question fût remise à l'étude par le ConreiI et tranchée par lui d'une façon définitive. Cette note du Sénat de Dantzig, ainsi que les discussions dont elle a été l'objet, dans une réunion du Conseil du 8 septembre 1927, donne lieu à une observation importante. Tl semble qu'à ce moment deux questions bien distinctes ont été entre- mêlées, confondues d'une manière assez fâcheuse. La première question est celle-ci : Y a-t-il eu des raisons contingentes, des raisons de circonstances qui ont pu déterminer la Ville libre, en rgzr, à signer l'Accord provisoire du 8 octobre de cette année ? En d'autres termes, Ie Sénat a-t-il signé cet arrangement provisoire parce qu'il avait fini par reconnaître la réalité du besoin de la Pologne de donner abri à ses navires? C'est fort possible, mais la réponse. à cettc question importe très peu, parce qu'il s'agit ici d'un arrangement yure- ment prpvisoire, d'un modzts vziiendi, dans lequel les Parties avaient expressément réservé Ieur point de vue juridique. Il est tout à fait naturel que, pendant cette période de 1921, le Gouvernement polonais lui-même ait fait état de certaines raisons contingentes, de certaines circonstances pour montrer non seulement la réalit6 du besoin, mais en particulier l'urgence du besoin d'installer un port d'attache, - et c'est d'ailleurs ce que le Gouvernement: polonais a fait. C'est ainsi que, dans une dbclaration annexée au rapport du Haut-Com- missaire du IO septembre 1921, on trouve ceci :

(( Si l'on considère les conditions géographiques du littoral polonais, il faut remarquer que treize navires de guerre polonais ne peuvent e11 cas de mauvais temps, ni surtout en hiver, trouver un abri convenable sur tout Ie littoral polonais ; par conséqiieitt, il ne reste que Dantzig comme abri pour les navires de guerre polonais. i) Il s'agit donc là d'une raison contingente que le Gouver- nement polonais lui-mème, à un moment donné, n invoquée à l'appui de sa revendicatiori d'un port d'attache. Ce serait évidenlment une erreur de coilclure de ce fait que la demande d'un port d'attache se réduit à cet intérêt momentané, à cette revendication basée sur ces raisons simplement coiitin- gentes. De ces considérations contingentes des circonstances qui ont pu amener l'Accord provisoire du S octobre Igzr, il faut certainement séparer complètemerit la question qui a étS décidée par le Conseil dans sa rCso1ution dri zz juin Igzr. Le Conseil a statué en termes généraux et saris référence aucune à un besoin momentan6 quelconque. Il n'a pas du tout chargé le Haut-Commissaire d'examiner comment on pourrait, pendant une période plus ou moins limitée, donner abri à Dantzig aux treize iiavires de guerre polonais qui avaient été cédés par les Alliés à la Pologne. Ce n'est pas du tout de cela que le Haut-Comniissaire a été chargé. Le Co~iseil s'est pronoricé d'une façon absolue. II a manifestement envi- sagé la question de la cr6ation d'un port d'attache comme un réglement permanent à établir et non pas comme un règlement de circonsta~ice.Le texte même des résolutions le prouve. Les termes employés par le Conseil, dans sa résoIu- tion du 22 juin, visent manifestement à étabIir un état de choses permanent. Ida place qu'occupe Ie texte confirme éga- lement ceci, piiisquc le texte nous arrive dans une résolution qui a pour objet la défense de la Ville libre. Enfin, j'ajoute que Dantzig, même en 1921, faisait très bien la différence entre iin arrangement de circonstance, un arrangement provisoire à intervenir à ce moment, et la question de principe envisagée par le Conseil. C'est ce que prouve nettement le mémoire de la Ville libre du zo septembre dont j'ai parlé il y a un instant. La négociatioii que j'ai analysée, j'insiste sur ce point, forme un tout. Il faut suivre pas à pas les actes qui Ia constituent. C'est sur cet ensemble que l'affaire doit être envisagée et jugée. On ne peut pas isoler les uns des autres les documents qui constituent cette négociation, car ils sont très . . étroitement unis entre eux. 11 faut les étudier dans leur ordre chronologique et dans leur totalité. C'est ainsi seulement que I'on aperçoit nettement le lien qui les unit et la pensée directrice qui s'en dégage. Si importante que soit Ia résolu- tion du 22 juin rgzr, elle ne peut être séparée - j'espère vous l'avoir montré - ni des actes, des documents qui I'ont précédée et qui l'expliquent, ni des actes ou faits postérieurs qui I'éclairent, en montrant comment I'ont comprise ceux qui avaient mission, qualité officielle soit pour l'interpréter, soit pour l'appliquer. Je vous ai décrit avec quelques détails - mais il le fallait bien - la négociation qui a conduit jusqu'au mois de janvier 1922 la question de notre port d'attache. Il a été dit du côté de la Ville libre de Dantzig qu'en s'attachant à cette négociation, en donnant un tel prix aux résolutions prises par le Conseil, le Gouvernement polonais semblait abandonner complètement le terrain du Traité de Versailles. On a même cru pouvoir avancer dans le Contre- Mémoire de la Ville libre que, des quatre sources de droit mentionnées dans la question posée à Ia Cour, trois peuvent dès à présent être considérées comme éliminées, comme hors de cause. J'espère vous avoir convaincus qu'il n'en est rien. La thèse du Gouvernement polonais fait état du Traité de Versailles à deux points de vue différents. Tout d'abord, les principes qui sont à la base du Traité de Versailles constituent la source première de la thèse polonaise et sa base fondamentale. Je ne crois pas que l'on puisse rejeter l'emploi fait de certains principes lorsqu'il s'agit de principes qui sont unanimement reconnus. Quant aux résoIutions du Conseil, elles ne sont. pour la Pologne, qu'une source directe et une source immédiate de droit, et c'est pour cette raison que le Gouvernement polonais y a insisté avant tout. Ces résolutions du Conseil elles-mêmes procèdent du traité, ,car elles n'ont été prises par le Conseil qu'en exécution des principes qui se trouvent consignés dans le traité, pour donner notamment plein effet à ces trois idées qui do~riinent tous les rapports entre Dantzig et la Société des Nations, et entre Dantzig et le Gouvernement polonais : tout d'abord l'idée du libre et sûr accès de la PoIogne à la mer, ensuite la création de liens particulièrement intimes entre la Pologne et la Ville libre, enfin la protection de la Ville libre par la Société des Nations. Il résiilte clairement des documents que j'ai cites, de la lettre de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs et du rapport du vicomte Ishii, que ces trois idées fondamentales procèdelit directement et de façon indiscutable du. Traité de paix ou des Remarques faites par ks Puissances alliées et associées à la délégation allemande sur les conditions de paix. Il en résulte aussi que ce sont ces niêmes idées qui ont constamment guid6 dans leurs résolutions la Conférence des Ambassadeurs et le Conseil de la Société. Si la Société des Nations a été amenée considérer le problème de la défense de Ia Ville libre, c'est manifestement parce que la protectio~i de Dantzig lui a été confiée par l'article roz du Traité de Versaiiles. Sans doute, sur ce principe s'est greffé tout un processus ultérieur. Ce n'est pas une raison pour contester Ia base d'un raisonnement qui s'appuie sur un principe si clairement établi. Si la Société des Nations a reconnu d'autre part à la Pologne un titre spécial pour assurer eventuellement cette défense, c'est encore une fois parce pue, en vertu du Traité de Versailies, la Pologne possède à Dantzig des intérkts vitaux qui se résilment dans le principe du librc accks à la mer. Tout cela, je le réphte, est expressément rappelé dans le rapport du vicomte Ishii adopté le 17 novembre rgzo par le Conseil de la Société. En coricliision, il serait profondément inexact de vouloir en quelque sorte détacher, isoler les résolutions di1 Conseil de la Société des Nations des principes qui sont à la hase du Traité de Versailles, alors que ces résoIutions, qui procèdent directement du traité, sont la mise en œuvre des principes essentiels. Le Gouvernement polonais a encore fait état du Traité de Versailles en se reférant plus sp&cialeinent à l'article 104. Non honorable contradicteur a insisté sur ce point. Mais cette référence au traité a ici une portée tolite diffésente. Un véritable nialentendu semble s'être 6levé à ce sujet. Le Gouvernement polonais ne soutient pas du tout que les stipulations de l'article 104 forment la base, le fondement de sa revendication d'un port d'attache. Il ne s'y est reféré que pour montrer que Ies activités d'ordre écono- mique auxquelles peuverit doiiner lieu la présence et le &jour des navires de guerre à 'Dantzig ne sont pas incompatibles avec l'article 104 du Traité de Versailles. Nous ne cherchons donc pas dans l'article 104 la base de notre revendication ; nous disons seulemeiit que certaines activités économiques, qui s'exercent à l'occasion du séjour des navires de guerre lorsqu'ils s'y trouvent, sont conciliables avec cet . article. I.'article 104, dans son deuxième paragraphe, nssiire ii à la Pologne, sans aucune restriction, le libre usage et le service des voies d'eaii. des docks, bassins, quais et autres ouvrages sur le territoire de la Ville libre nécessaircs aux importations et exportations de la Pologne ». Le Gouvernement polonais estime que les fonctions econo- miques et techniques que comportent l'accès et le stationnement de navires de guerre rentrent dans Ie cadre de ces prescriptions, ne sont pas en opposition avec elles. Le teste est absolu. Il dit «sans aucune restriction r. Il ne semble pas qu'on puisse refuser A la Pologne le bénéfice de cette disposition parce que l'activité économique dont il s'agit s'exerce au profit de navires de guerre. On dira peut-être - il y a été fait alliisiori - que le teste ne parle que des seuls ouvrages «: nécessaires aux importations et exportations de la Pologne il, qu'il ne peut être question que d'ouvrages utilisés à l'une 011 à l'autre de ces deus fins. II est cependant certain qu'une interprétation aussi restrictive conduirait à des conséquences absurdes que personne ne défendrait. On pourrait cn tirer la conséqiicncc que la Pologne ne peut user des ouvrages et installations pour son commerce de transit, chose que personne ne soutiendrait ; ou encore que l'utilisation du port sera interdite pour la construction ou la réparation des navires marchands, chose qu'on ne soutiendrait' pas davantage, je pense. La m&me remarque s'applique - nzutatis nzzttandis - à l'article 26 de la Convention de Paris. Cet article impose au Conseil du Port de Dantzig l'obligation d'assurer à la Pologne

(< le libre usage et le. service du port et des moyens dc communication, sans aucune restriction et dans la mesure néces- saire pour assurer le trafic d'importation ou d'exportation à destination oii en provenance cle la Pologne i). Ce texte appelle une simple observation. 'C'est au Conseil du Port que l'article 26 prescrit une obligation. Ce texte ne concerne aucunement ni les droits ni les obligations de la \'ille libre, et par consequent la Ville libre ne pourrait certainement pas se prévaloir de ce texte pour 'limiter l'utilisation du port par la Pologne. En conclusion, et pour terminer sur ce point, le Gouverne- t ne nt polonais estime que l'installation d'un port d'attache à Dantzig, dans l'acception économique qui a été décrite par M. l'agent di1 Gouvernement polonais, n'est pas cn contradiction avec les prescriptions du Traité de Versailles ou de la Conveii- tion de Paris. Je pense que c'est certainement ainsi que le Conseil de Ia Société des Nations a dû raisonner en adoptant la résolution dii 22 juin 192.1. Le Conseil n'a pu adopter cette r6solution, dont nous avons tant parlé, que parce qu'il a considéré que les activités qui en résulteraient resteraient dans le cadre du Traité de Ver- sailles. Aii surplus, -- cette question a peut-être moins d'importance, mais elle merite d'étre relevée, - il ne faut pas poiisser trop loin l'id& que le lihre accès de la Pologne A la mer ne peut comporter que la satisfaction de besoins purement écononliqiies. il y a dans la Convention de Paris irn article 28 qiii n iine portce toute différente. Cet article ne vise certainement ps la satisfactiori de besoins purement économiqi~es. En voici 1s teneur :

<( En tout temps et en toutes circoi-istances, la Pologne aura le droit d'importer et d'esporter par Dantzig des inarchandises de quelqiie nature qu'elles soient, ilon prohibées par les lois polonaises. )i On nous a dit hier - il est vrai qrre c'était en passant - que cet article ne répondait qii'à des fins économiques. Je crois que c'est une erreur. On peut nfirmcr que l'article 28 de 1ü Convention a une portée militaire très accentuée et incliscutable. Tl est certain, en effet, que le texte en qtiestion - ceci est clu r.este admis a la fin dii Contre-Mémoire polonais - autorise le transport par Tlantzig de munitions et de matériel de guerre. R l'appui de ceci, je rappellerai simplement un texte qiie j'ai déjà cité ce matin. Dans un passage du rapport qu'il a soumis au Conseil le 17 novembre 1920, le vicomte Ishii a dit I propos de l'article 28 :

(( Cette stipulation comprend certainement aussi le transport de miinitions et autre matériel de guerre. Il ressort de ce qtie j'ai dit ci-dessus que je ne considère pas cette stipula t' ion comme contraire au Traité de \'crsailieç et que, partant, In. protection de la Société des Kations doit s'étendre aiissi A l'importation en Pologne des nCcessités de guerre pendant les hostilités. i Ida sititntion, par rapport à cet article 28, est donc celle-ci. 1-e texte, remarquez-le, ne fait même pas mention expresse des inuriitions de guerre, et cependant le vicomte Ishii n'hésite p'u ?iàléclrirer - et cette interpretation a été toujours admise - qiie l'article doit 2trc interprété comme comportant la faculte de transport de tels articles. Et le vicomte Tshii ri constaté, j'y insiste, que cet article 28, avec l'acception militaire qui lui est donnbe, n'cst ~iiillement contraire au Traité cle Versailles.- - Voici clonc une forme cl'activitd, une forme de transport qui a pour objet une marclisndise, des articles qui sont essen- tiellernent et uniquement d'ordre militaire, qui n'oiit aucune destiiiation économique quelconque. Et cependant le Conseil n'a pas liésité un instant A se rallier à ce point de vue que l'article zS comporte le transport de tels objets. On ne peut donc pas dire de façon absolue que l'accès à la mer ne peut comporter que la satisfaction de besoins purement éconoinjques au profit de la Pologne. ' S'il en était ainsi, s'il fallait entendre les choses d'une façon aussi restrictive, comme l'a développé mon honorable contradicteur hier, on se troyerait en présence d'un dilemme singu- lier. Il faudrait dire ou bien que l'article 28 de la Convention de Paris est contraire au Traité de Versailles si sa rédaction comporte le transport de munitions; ou bien que IJinter- prétation du Conseil est contraire au traité, - et je pense , que personne n'oserait soutenir ni l'une ni l'autre thèses. Il ne me reste plus, et je terminerai ainsi mon exposé, qu'à faire quelques brèves remarques au sujet de la Convention de Paris envisagée comme source de droit applicable dans cette affaire. A ce sujet, mon cher confrère et contradicteur a fait hier deux remarques sur lesquelles je regrette de me trouver en désaccord avec lui. La première observation concerne la liaison à établir entre le Traité de Versailles et la Convention de Paris. Il a exprimé l'idée que lorsqu'une question visée dans le Traité de Versailles a été réglementée par la Convention de Paris, c'est cette convention qui, en principe, et sauf le cas de difficultés d'inter- prktation, doit être considérée désormais comme la seule source de droit en vigueur. Cette assertion me parait inexacte. Il est très vrai que !a Conven- tion de Paris avait pour objet de donner exécution aux prescriptions contenues dans l'article 104 du Traité de Versailles, mais on ne peut aucunement en tirer la conclusion que, dans la mesure où cet article a requ exécution, le Traité de Versailles cesse d'être le droit en vigueur. 11 est juridiquement inexact à mon sens de considérer la Convention de Paris comme ayant absorbé, en quelque sorte, le Traité de Versailles, et comme contenant l'expression désormais complète et définitive des relations entre les deux mrties. Il est encore inexact à mon avis de consi- dérer l'article 104 comme ne contenant qu'un $actum de condrakelzdo dont l'unique objet serait le fait de la conclusion de la Convent ion polono-dantzikoice. Toute cet te question de liaison du Traité de Versailles et de la Convention de Paris est, comme l'a dit hier mon cher confrère, d'uce grande portée juridique, mais je ne vais pas m'y attarder longtemps, parce qu'il s'agit Ià d'une question qui a déjà retenu l'attention de la Cour. En effet, dans son Avis consultatif no 18, la Cour a déclaré ceci : « Les dispositions de la Convention de Paris répètent et développent à certains égards Ies stipulations de l'article 104 du Traité de VerssiIles, mais Four ce qui est des clauses qui figurent dans les deux traités, leur répdtition dans la Convention de Paris ne modifie pas le fait que le Traité de Versailles est la source des droits conférks à la Pologne en vertu de l'article 104. II Je crois inutile d'insister davantage sur ce point. Toujours au sujet de la Convcntiori de Paris, mon honorabIe contradicteur a également fait l'observation suivante qui, à ses yeux, a évidemment rine grande importance : Comment expliqiier, a-t-il dit, que la Convention de Paris soit absolument muette . au sujet de cette question de l'accès et du stationnement des navires de guerre polonais à Dantzig? Comment! Voilà une convention qui ü pour objet de régler jusque dans les moindres détails les rapports entre la Pologne et Dantzig, dans le domaine de l'article 104 ; on y étudie, on y règle des questions d'un interet presque microscopique, et voilà une qiiestion d'une importance fondamen tale qui intéresse la Ville libre à un tel point pour laquelle on observe un silence coniplet ! Au surplus, ~iousa-t-ori dit, ce silence de la Convention de Paris est caractéristique, car il est certainement intentionnel : en effet - je ne conteste pas le fait - le Gouvernement polonais, à deux reprises au cours des négociations, a demandé l'insertion dans la Convention de Paris de stipulations tendant à obtenir des droits analogues à ceux qu'il revendique maintenant, et qu'est-il arrivé de ces demandes? ElIes ont été écartées. Voilà l'argumentation. - Il est certain pue mon honorable contradicteur y attache un très grand poids. Il considére I'argument comme décisif, et il a attiré tout spécialement l'attention de la Cour sur ce point. Je dois dire que je me troirve pourtant bien à l'aise pour lui répondre et protiver qu'il n'y a aiicune conclusion juridique quelconque à tirer de là. Quelles étaient, dans Ie système du Traité de Versailles, les attributions respectives des Principales Puissances allie6 et amciées d'une part et de la Société des Nations d'autre part ? Les Principales Piiissances avaient assumé la charge de consti- tuer Dantzig en Ville libre, la charge également de négocier les termes de la Conventioii poIono-dantzikoise deveiiue Convention de Paris. Quant à la protection de la Ville libre, et par consequent quant à sa dbfense, les Principales Puissances allites et associées n'avaient aucune compétence qiielconque. C'est dcvant la Société des Nations, protectrice de Dantzig aux termes de l'article 102, que cette question de la défense de la Ville libre devait être débattue. Les documents prouvent d'ailleurs de la façon la plus nette que c'est bien ainsi que les choses se sont réglées. Dans une lettre de la Conférence des Ambassadeurs du 20 octobre 1920, - date même d'une autre lettre dont nous avons parlé dejà, - M. Cambon, au nom de cette Confbrence, écrit au président de la délégation polonaise : « En soumettant à la Conférence ses observations sur le projet qui lui avait été communiqué - projet de convention polono-dantzikoise -, la délégation polonaise a insisté sur la nécessité de faire régler par la Convention la question de la défense militaire de Dantzig, Sans méconnaître l'intérêt que présente la solution de ce problème pour le Gouvernement ' polonais, la Conference n'a pas estimé qu'une disposition quelconque à cet égard pût être inserée dans la Convention élaborée en vertu de l'article 104 di1 Traité de Versailles, mais elle a décid6 d'attirer sur ce point l'attention du Conseil de la Société. i> Et c'est ainsi que le m&me jour, 20 octobre 1920, M. Cambon, donnant suite à cette promesse faite à la Pologne d'attirer sur ce point l'attention de la Société des Xations, écrit Ia lettre que je vous ai citée ce matin, dans laquelle il exprime, au nom de la Confdrence des Ambassadeurs, l'opinion que la Pologne parait désignée pour recevoir de la Société des Nations mandat d'assurer éventuellement la défense de la Ville libre. Ç'est ainsi que Ia Société des Nations s'est trouvée saisie de l'examen de la questio~i,et nous savons le développement qu'elle y a reçu. Il n'y a donc, du point de vue juridique, aucun argument quelconque à tirer di1 silence de la Convention de Paris sur la question qui rious occupe. Je pourrais dire : La Convention de Paris ne pouvait pas parler, et voilà pourquoi elle est muette ! Tout ce. que je puis concéder à mon honorable contradicteur, et je le fais bien volontiers, c'est qu'il semble bien qu'A un moment donne le Gouvernement polonais, en s'adressant, au cours des négociations, à la Conférence des Ambassadeurs, s'est trompé d'adresse ; ce qui, au surplus, peut arriver à tout le monde. Messieurs, me voici arrivé au terme de l'exposé. Une premiére question est soumise au jugement de la Cour, question de principe, question fondamentale. Le Gouvernement polonais vous prie de répondre dans le sens suivant : Il résulte des principes qui sont à la base du statut international de Dantzig, ainsi que cle la décision du Conseil du 22 juin rgzr, que la Pologne a acquis, pour ses navires de guerre, et sous le nom de port d'attache, des droits d'accès et de stationnement à Dantzig. Quant à I'autre question, question d'organisation, question de modalités, question d'ajustement des compétences, nous avons vu que le Conseil n'a pas pu la régler. Le désaccord a persiste, non pas - je le répète une dernière fois - sur le principe, mais . sur les modalités d'organisation. 25 332 REPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) II convient donc de dire à ce sujet que l'organisation des droits d'accès et de stationnerrierit des navires de guerre polonais, ainsi que les privilèges qui en découlent, n'ont pas été l'objet d'une réglementation définitive. En tout cas, le Gouvernement polonais estime que les attributions qui ont &té exercées jusqu'à ce jour au profit des navires de guerre polonais à Dantzig, rentrent dans la notion de port d'attache et n'ont pas pour résultat de créer une base navale.. . -

REPLY l3Y SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (representing the Government of Danzig) AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF NOVEMBER 12th AND 13th, 1931. Mr. President and Members of the Court, Before coming to what 1 have to say by way of reply on the whole case, perhaps I may deal with the request which was put both to my friend and myself by the Court with reference to the question of "rights or attributions", especially on the point as to whether nre attach any specific meaning to "attnbutions" as distinct from *'rights". 1 fear that 1 can only Say that the word was none of our discovery, and we have nothing to add, as at present' advised, to what we have already said in paragraph 34 of Our First Statement. If my friend, who hitherto has not dealt with the subject, adds anything in the course of his rejoinder, no doubt the court will give me an opportunity of dealing with any fresh matter that he may produce. 1 shouId like first this afternoon to Say just one word on the subject of what \vas stated by M. 'Moderbw as Agent of the Polish Governrnent. I should Iike in that connection first to remind the Court of what the exact question is which is submitted to it for an advisory opinion. It is simply whether the Peace Treaty of Versailles, the Convention of Paris, the relevant decisions of the Council of the League and of the High Commissioner confer upon Poland rights or attributions as regards access to or anchorage in the port and waterurays of Danzig of Polish vessels ; and, if so, what are those rights and attributions. Alrnost the ivliole of the rcmarks of M. Moderotv were really directed to quite a different class of considerations. He interested himçelf largely in giving us statistics of the trade of Danzig especially in connection with the work which was done for, or in connection with, the Polish fleet. All that seems to me to have no bearing whatever upon the question which is submitted for the judgment of the Court. The Court is not asked whether it might or might not be advantageous for Danzig to make arrangements for .the continuance of the Polish fleet in Danzig harbour, whether it might or might not have economic advantages. Al1 that is, 1 venture to submit, entirely beside the point which the Court has to consider. If, by any possibility, the Court did not take that view, 1 should venture to remind the Court that, except for a very general reference to the economic conditions and a special reference to the International Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Ltd., this class of point ha not been discussed at all in e written proceedings; and that if it was a question of attaca" ing importance to statistics or anything of that kind, it would only be fair that my clients should have an opportunity of considering how far they could accept these statistics which were given to the Court the other day-which was the first we had heard of them. There was, however, one point in what M. Moderbw said which has a certain importance to the question before the Court, and that was what he told us about the constitution of the Polish fleet. According to him, the Pokh fleet at the present day contains a good many more than twenty-two units. (There is one clas of unit of which he does not give the nurnbers.) And there is the river fleet which consists of rather more than twelve units. In all, therefore, you have something like thirty-four units-rather more. That ha a very considerable bearing upon the development of thk question. 1 shall have occasion to corne back to this, but it will be remembered that the original request which was put forward was one for a small number of units which had been given to the Poliçh Government by the AlIies and which were, at that time at any rate, employed as Polish Maritime Police. Tt is just an dlustration of the way in which the rights of Poland, if any had been conferred, would have grown and developed, apparently indefinitely, with the size and development of what may end by becoming a very powerful fleet. There was also one other side of the remarks of the Polish Agent to which 1 think it is only proper that 1 should make a brief allusion. He rather criticized the fact that 1 had brouglit to the attention of the Court a report of GeneraI Haking of January 25tl1, rgzr. 1 did not read it ali, 1 think if he \vil1 look again at the whole of that report he will see that there was one passage al any rate which might have offended particularly his susceptibilities and which 1 deliberately avoided reading. 7'he passages which I did read hacl relation to the defence of the Free City, and 1 conceived it Ras necessary for me to put the Court in possession of an 334 REPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) official document-of the relevant portions of an oficial document-which was before the Council on June 22nd, 1921, when it took that decision. Nothing could be further from my wish to say one single word here which would in any way embitter the relations between Poland and Danzig. That is entirely remote from my tlioughts. and if anything I have said Ziere has erred on the side of vehemence, 1 pray that my frierid and the Court wili put it aside as unintentional. Of that report 1 conceived it was my duty to lay before the Court the points which were directed to the question which the Council had to consider on June zznd, 1921. My friend also brought to our attention for the very first time (we had had no inkling of it before) a letter of General Haking to the Secretary-General of the League which, as he said, withdrew or rnodified the conclusions of General Haking in his report. If it had had that effect and 1 had known of it, it would have been a gross breach of my duty not to have brought that letter to the attention of the Court at the same time as 1 brought before it the report. The letter is now before the Court. My friend has put it in. 1 have had it in my hands since this morniiig. I Iiave read it carefully, and 1 leave it to the appreciation of the Court. My impression of the btter is this, that what General Haking says is: "1 may have exprcçsed myself in a way which was not diplo- matic. 1 am a soldier. 1 had to speak the truth as it seemed to me, and to express what seeined to me to bc the relevant and important considerations. I have done that. If 1 have sinned against diplornatic usages I am sorry." But 1 do not find that he modifies the substance of his report in any way. However, that is a matter which 1 leave entirely to the appreciation of the Court. My friends have put in the le.tter, and the Court is more capable than 1 am to judge whether the impression of mine on reading the letter is or is not accurate. 1 do not wish to detain the Court now with what is, after all, in a certain sense a secondary aiid possibly only a per- sons1 matter. The Court has been occupied now for three dayç in the consideration of this case. It seems to me that my friend and 1 are perhaps at any rate agreed on one point, that iç, that the real and essential question-in rny view the only essential question-is the interpretation of the Resolution (because there was only one resolution) of June nznd, 1921. The case, in other words, has a very small though a very important centre, and it has what we are sometimes accustomed to cali in English a very large, rather indefinite, "fringe" . 1 should like first, if 1 might, to clear away some of the points-1 am riot sure 1 have got them all, at any rate all which 1 have got a note of-of what 1 might call the "fringe" of the case. Firstly, 1 would mention the question of the reliance or non-reliance of rny friend upon the Treaty of Versaiiles. .I confess that 1 had understood an argument of his-it is in his Contre-Mémoire on page 205-as rneaning that the Treaty of Versailles taken by itself gave him the authority which he was in want of for the assertion of the rights he claims. The passage is on page 205 of the Contre-Mémoire, and perhaps 1 ought to begin to read at the words about eight lines down the beginning of the third paragraph of that page : « C'est qu'en effet l'accès et le stationnement que réclame la Pologne comportent toute une série d'activités qui n'ont aucun but militaire, qui sont d'ordre purement technique ou économique et qui, à ce titre, rentrent incontestablement dans les droits que confère à la Pologne l'article 104, zO, du Traité de Versailles. Cette disposition assure à la Pologne c( sans aucune restriction » le libre usage et le service des voies d'eau, des docks, bassins, quais et autres ouvrages sur le territoire de la ViUe libre nécessaires aux importations et exportations de la Pologne. >i Now cornes the important passage : "Le Gouvernement polonais estime que cette stipulation, combinde avec celles des deux alinéas suivants (article 104, 3" et 4'). l'autorise à faire usage, à des fins économiques et techniques pour ses navires de guerre, du port et des voies d'eau, ainsi que de leurs installations." I confess 1 read that as meaning this (let me put the case rather baldly) : supposing a Danzig authority found a Polish ship of war in the Danzig harbour and said to it i "By what authority are you here ? By what authority do you do these things? ", that in my friend's conception it would have been suffi;:ient to Say : "Le Traité de Versailles m'autorise." I now understand that that was a misunderstanding, that he no longer main- tains that point. The passage in the oral proceedings which deals with that argument is to be found on pages 139 and 140 of the shorthand notes of his speech yesterday l. Per- haps 1 may read the passage in French : « Le Gouvernement polonais a encore fait état du Traité de Versailles en se référant plus spécialement à l'article 104. Mon honorable contradicteur a insisté sur ce point. Mais cette réfërence au traité a ici une portée toute différente. Un véri- table malentendu semble s'&tre élevé à ce sujet. Le Gouver- nement polonais ne soutient pas du tout que les stipulations de l'article 104, les clauses de cet article forment la base, le fondement de sa revendication d'un port d'attache. II ne s'y -- ' P. 326 of this volume. est référé que pour montrer que les activités d'ordre écono- mique auxquelles peuvent donner lieu la présence et le séjour des navires de guerre à Dantzig ne sont fias incompatibles avec l'article 104 du Trait6 de Versailies. n Observe the obviously comple te change. cc Nous ne cherchons donc pas dans l'article 104 la base de notre revendication; nous disons seulement que certaines activités économiques, qui s'exercent 2 l'occasion du séjour . des navires de guerre lorsqu'ils s'y troiivent, sont conciliables avec cet article. 1) I had caUed that argument, as it appeared in the Mémoire, 1 hope not disrespectfuily, an eleven th-hour argument, because it appeared very late in the order of proceedings, and 1 hope that we may be agreed that that argument at any rate, as the matter stands at the present time, may be cleared away .and left out of account. As far as 1 can recoliect, that was the only argument which deduced the rights in question directly from the Treaty of Versailles (or, indeed, the Con- vention of Paris, because over the page there is a sirnilar aUu- sion to Article 26 of the Convention of Pans). 1 think that was the only argument which deduced the rights from the Treaty of Versailles or the Convention of Paris. Therefore, 1 think 1 am justified in saying that the question upon which my friend çpcnt some time is a question which is rather of academic juridical interest, rather than of practicd importance, that is to Say, the exact reIations of the Treaty of Versailles and the Convention of Paris to the rights now in question. 1, of course, accept without any qualification -and I must have rnislead my friend tvhen he suggested the contrary-that the Treaty of Versailles is the source of the whole system. It is the source of the authority of the League in the matter; it is the source of the Convention of Paris unquestionably, Least of all should 1 dispute it when we have got the Advisory Opinion of this Court on the question of the Danzig position with regard to the International Labour Office, a passage from which rny friend read, the passage which says that the Treaty of Versaiiles is the source. 1 hope that the respect for "authority" is too much in my pro fessional blood-as in that of every English lawyer-to prevent me from doing anything of the kind. Now 1 corne to the second point of what I will .cd the fringe. My friend in his argument yesterday, at the end of the morning sitting, suggested that 1 had said that the Coun- cil of the League deliberately took a resolution giving to one Party an idea that it had given it satisfaction when it redly had not done so. My friend said-1 am reading now from pages 35 and 36 of the Verbatim Report on Wednesday morning l : "J'ai été très frappé de constater combien mon honorable contradicteur a été bref, concis, discret au sujet de ce point 7 de Ia résolution du Conseil, qui cependant présente dans l'argument ation polonaise une importance essen tie&. Tout ce qui nous a été dit à ce sujet se ramène à ceci: la revendication polonaise du port d'attache était devenue si importune que le Conseil, pour en finir, pour s'en débarrasser, a voté une formule qui au fond ne signifie rien. On s'est borné à faire entrevoir à la Pologne la perspective de la réalisation d'un port d'attache .... C'est tout ce que 1'0x1 trouve à opposer à la thèse polonaise sur ce point essentiel. "Je n'ai pas besoin de souligner la faiblesse d'un te1 argument, si vraiment on peut qualifier d'argument une telle façon de présenter les choses. "Mais je voudrais aussi attirer très amicalement l'attention de mon honorable contradicteur sur le point suivant. "Il nous a dit hier fort justement que, dans nos inter- prétations des résolutions du Conseil, il nous faut tenir compte du respect dû à ces hautes autorités. Il me paraît 'difficile dimaginer une suggestion moins respectueuse de l'autorité du Conseil que celle qui consiste à lui prêter, dans de telles circonstances, iine attitude pareille, Rien ne pourrait discréditer davantage les organes de la Société que cette idée qu'ils peuvent .se prêter à des rédactions ambiguës, équivoques, qui donnent à une Partie l'impression qu'elle a reçu satisfaction alors qu'il n'en est rien." 1 respectfully agree that if I had been guilty of that conduct 1 should have deserved very severe censure, but that was not my recollection of what I said. 1 have fortified rny recollection by looking at the shorthanri notes of what 1 said. What 1 said was-1 am reading now from page 260 of the report of wrhat took pIace on Tuesday morning : "That is exactly the attitude which the Council takes there. It refuses to take a decision at the present moment for the defence of Danzig by sea, but in view, no doubt, of the importunity"-that word struck rny friend no doubt- "with which this question of the presence of Polish warships in the harbour was pressed, the Council was ready to have something in the nature of a technical report and to see what could be done about it." That, I think, is the interpretation which we give, and it is a perfectly respectful interpretation of the attitude of the Council. The Council decided to have an inquiry ; they were -- 1 Pp. 310-311 of this volume. being pressed very hard to do something for Polish warships,

' and they were prepared to have an inquiry and, to put it colloquially, to see what could be done about it bn the result of the inquiry. Really that remark did not lend itself to any disrespectful interpretation of what the Council had done, still les5 to imputing to the Council the incredible attitude that it was in this matter seeking to deliide one side with false hopes. The third point of what 1 have called the fringe of the case is the question of the attitude which was taken up by the Conference of Ambassadors. The Court will remember that in what 1 said in my opening speech 1 Iaid some stress upon the fact that precisely this demand, ahost verbatim this demand, in the fonn in ~vhichit is now taken, was laid before the Conference of -4mbassadors and was refused. My friend agrees that that was so. Of course it is a historical fact uphich cannot be denied, but he says : Oh, but of course all that had happened was that the Polish Government had mistaken the quarter to which they ought to have addressed this particular clairn ; they ought to have gone to .the League, as they subsequently did, whereas in fact they went to the Conference of Ambassadors, which was negotiating the Convention of Paris undcr Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, the Convention of Paris being the instrument specially concerned with giving them free access to the sea. Well, what 1 have to remark upon that is, that this at any rate is clear : the Conference of Ambassadors was perfectly definite that in so far as the protection of the right of free access to the sea was concerned, nothing in the nature of this "port d'attache" could bc grantcd. The Con- ference of Ambassadors was perfectly definite on that point. True, they passed on, not that question but the question of the defence of Danzig generally, to the League, whose proper business it was. Al1 through my friend's speech hc was constantIy saying that the question of the free access to the sea was n-iixed up with the defence, and so on, and he suggested you could derive this right of the anchorage of warships from the right of free access to the sea. On that point it is perfectly clear that the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors, right or wrong, is absolutely definite. It had these proposais as to the station of Polish warships in the harbour of Danzig submitted to it on two occasions by the Polish Government, and it definitely refiised to insert a provision of that kind in the Convention of Paris. My friend has prodticed a letter which 1 should have been perhaps glad to have seen a Iittle earlier if it had been possibIe, of Octo- ber zoth, 1920, that is to Say, a letter written on the sarne day as the other letter of that date which has already heen put into the Appendix to our second Mémoire ; that is, a letter in which the Conference, writing to the Polish Government, writing, that is, to the President of the Polish delegation, said that they had carefully considered the observations which the Polish delegation presented, that they had taken account of these observations as far as it was possible to do so, and they çend them the text ; that it was considered that the present draft convention conciliates the interests of the two Parties and ensures to Poland as well as to the Free City the exer- ciçe of the rights which are recognized to them by the Treaty of Versailles. That is a perfectly definite statement that the Convention of Paris, in the view of the Conference of Ambas- sadors, gives the Polish Government the rights which the Treaty gives them. "The Conference therefore could not agree to make any nen. modifications in this document. When the Polish delegation submitted to the Conference observations on the draft, it insisted on the necessity of having the question of the ,military defence of Danzig regulated by the Convention. Without failing to recognize the interest which the solution of this problem presents to the Polish Government, the Conference did not think any disposition in this conr-iection could be inserted in the Convention which has been elaborated in pursuance of Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, but it has decided to draw the attention of the Council of -the League of Nations ta this point." So that that gives you the point of view of the Ambassa- dors' Conference : perfectly definite that no rights of this kind could be deduced from the Treaty of Versailles in respect of free access to the sea, and that if you wanted to get rights for military defence you had to turn to the League of Nations and ask in effect for somethiiig in thc nnturc of a delegation of some authority from the Leagae to act in the defence of Danzig. llfiere is a fourth point whicli is, 1 think, not cssential, about which a certain amount has been said. My friend \vas very anxious to establish that the Polish riglits of imports and exports through Danzig extended to every kind of articles; it kvas not limited to articles of civilian commerce, but exiend- ed to every kind of goods, including munitions of war. which were admitted under Polish law. Of course that is so. \Ve never for a moment denied it ; but for the solution of the question which the Court has got to decidc in the present case no point is raised as to tvhether any particular class of goods is prevented from coming through the port of Danzig. Speaking for myself 1 sliould not for ont: moment challenge the rights which are given in the clearest possible terms by Article 28 of the Convention of Paris. The point here is : .4re the perçons whom you want to authorize to enter the territory of Danzig traders, or are they soldiers ?-by "soldiers" 1 indude members of the naval forces. That is the essential point which is in issue here, not tvhether certain goods may be irnported, but whethei- individuals, men having a certain quality and bringing with them, or brought by, certain things, have the right to use the port of Danzig. That is the question upon which I Say there is a clear principle under the Treaty of Versailles and the Convention of Paris, that a user of the port of Danzig of that kind is certainly not permitted to the Polish Government. The last of the more or less preliminary points, points on the fringe of the case, to which I should like to draw attention, is a point on which fortunately my friend and 1 seem to be in agreement ; that is the point as to what, in relation to the defence of Danzig, the limitations of the powers of the League exactly are. The passage to wliich I rcfer in my friend's remarks is on page g of the shorthand note of what he çaid yesterday (Wednesday) mtirningl. T am reading from about the bottom of the page. He is speaking abolit the decision of November 17th, 1920. The Court will remember the general import of that decision. He says : "Le Gouvernement .polonais ne prétend aiicunemen t qu'un mandat de- défense lui a été, dans ces conditions, conféré de façon permanente et exclusive." This is the important point : "Il admet parfaitement que le mandat de défense ne $ourrait lui étre conféré que par une décision spéciale de la Société des Nations en vue d'un cas spécial, et qu'un concours à cette défense par d'autres Puissances puisse être envisagé." 1 am very gIad to know that on that part of the case my friend and I are at one. Ohviously that cornes very near accepting a position which 1 think is a true position, that is to say, that it ~r~ouldhave beeii of the nature of something really inconsistent mith the duty of the Council of the League if the League had handed over a permanent duty of defence of Danzig, without regard to the particular circumstances, to any particular Power. That is really part of the case which I venture to submit to the Court. In that connection, connected with the generâl qiicstion oi what mny be said to be the legal result or the legal aspects of the action of the Council, there is just another passage in my friend's speech to wlvliich 1 wiii cal1 attention. There 1 am afraid we are not quite so completeIy in agreement. ' P. 298 of this volume. That is on page 29 of the same report l. He is here speal~ing of the critical Resolution of June zznd, 1921, and he says : "Tout d'abord, il est. Uicontestable qu'en prenant cette déci- sioxi, le Conseil a dû considérer la création d'un port d'attache comme entièrement compatible avec le droit en vigueur." 1 very much doubt whether, in the sense in which he has been explaining what in bis view was the droit en vigueur in the passage which I have just read, the interpretation which he gives of the Resolution of the Council of June zznd is really compatible with that vielv. 1 go further and Say 1 do not think the Council.in taking this decision of June zzrid, 1921, )vas preoccupying itself with questions of law at all. What it was doing, in Our view, waç sirnply directing that a particular , question, a difficult practical question, should be looked into by the appropriate authority, and anything like kgal considerations ' nrere wholly outside its ken. We dl know the care with which the Council approaches legal questio~is, and there is not a trace in the minutes of the Councii of any discussion of the Iegal point. If it is proper to Say that the Council-or any other body of several individuals-can be said to have a corporate mind, 1 am quite certai~i that neither i~r the corporate mind of the Council, . nor cerlainly in the min& of individual members, as far as they expressed themselves, wre they at d looking at the legal aspect, but they were occupied with a wholly different class of consideration. Having cleared away these questions of minor importance, I now approach the main task in this case. What was the sense and what was the effect of the Resolution of the Council of June zznd, 1921 ? hly friend has more than once cornplainecl that 1 have not devoted enough space or enough time to it, either in the written arguments, or in the remarks which 1 have addressed to the Court. 1 admit that that is partly because, to my mind at any rate, it is a perfectIy simple and plain resolutr'on. 1 do not think there will be any great advantage in my spending a long time in the sort of effort which possibly could be deçcribed as putting coats of ,varnish upon the truth, or even as painting the lily. .It is a perfectly simple resolution, and I think it is perfectly simple to understand what it means. If my friend complains that 1 have not said enough about Article 6, and more particularly Article 7, of that Resolution, 1 am not sure that 1 cannot make a counter-camplaint, namely, that he has said so extraordinarily little about the first part of the Ilesolution. This is not a nurnber of separate reso1utions. It is one resolution with seven paragraphs. It is headed "Resolution" in the singular, and

1 P. 307 of this volume. 342 REPLI' I3Y SIR JOHK FISCHER WII,LIA3IS (DAXZIG) it is the resolution which was taken by the Council of the League on the defence of the Free City, and not on the defence of Poland's right of access to the sea through Danzig. It is on the defence of the Free City; Le., in pursuance of its duties under Article 102-nof under Article 104-f the Treaty of VersailIes, and in pursuance of the task of which the Council was reminded or, if you like, which had been referred to it (although no reference uras necessary), hy the Conference of Ambassadors. That Resolution oilght to be read as a whole. It must be read as a whole, as every document must be when you are going to get the sense of it. Rut whether you read it as a whole, or whether you concentrate your attention solely upon the 1st t~,~opoints of it, its general çense and its particular sense is surely perfectly clear. It deals exhaustively with the question of the defence of Danzig by land. Xt goes even a little further, and it deals with the possible difficultieç as to maintenance of order in Danzig. It deals with it (and here 1 am afraid 1 am repeating myself) by keepirig the initiative in the hands of the High Commissioner, and telling the High Cornmissioner that if need arises he may apply to the League for authorization to use Polish forces, but in cases of emergency he may have authority to use them direct, but always on his own -initiative; but in that latter case he must report to the League ; and that the Polish troops should retire as soon as the object has been achieved to the satisfaction of the High Commissioiier. It decides further that in any case where Poland ha$ to ensure the defence of the Free City, the Council may provide for the collaboration of one or more other States, and it provides for a general report by the High Commissioner. Having done al1 that, the Council by the Resolution passes to the question of defence by sea, and it says espressly that it does not consider it necessary to decide at the present moment under what conditions the defence of Danzig by sea is to be secured. That is a very intelligible action, and it is worth noticing that the adjournment is an adjournment sine die, without fixing any particular day upon which that problem is going to be resumed. 1 cannot heIp being reminded a little of the parliamentary form in my own country, tvhere a period of adjournment is the accepted form for a rejection. 1 do not think the Council went as far as that. It did not; but it is certainly interesting to notice that they used the form of adjournment, and used it siîae die without saying den it would be prepared to take up the matter again. Then the Resolution concludes : ',The High Cornmissioner should, however, be asked to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establishing there a naval base, foi a port d'attache for Polish warships." That phrase "porl d'attache" was a new phrase so far as we REPLY BY SIR jOHN FISCHER WILLIA31S (DAKZIC) 343 kriow. The Poles had not asked for a '<$ovt d'attache". The Poles had asked in the letter of Mar& jth for a ''point d'attache", and they did not ask for a ,'point d'attache" for the Poliçh warships generally, but for the naval police vessels "which Poland is authorized by the Allies to possess". So that When the Council used the phrase "$art d'attache", it was using a phrase which was new and to which no precise significance, as we now know, wns ordinarily or commonly attached. We know that partly frorn the report of the High Conimissioner, and we know it slso from the observations avhich were made a little later by the Swiss French-speaking President of the Harbour Board. The Council had before it, aiid it was well aware of, its own decision as to a naval base-a decision which it had caused to be inserted in the Constitution of PoIand. Obviously, the establishment of this unknou7n, ill-defined thing which wns called a "port d'attache" would come very close to the question of the establishment of a naval base. It is common sense. Of course it u70uld. f'et my friends say that in spite of the decision not to consider at the present time the defence of Danzig by sea, a mere instruction to their oavn oficer-the High Commissioner-to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establishing there a naval base, a "$oî.f d'attache" is to be read as a definite decision for the creation of this "port dlattaclae"-for the creation of sornething which was to extend to the Polish Aeet, however big the Poliçh fleet might grow, and which was to extend without limit of tirne, indefinitely. It is incrediblc to think for one single instant that the language admits of ariy such interpretation. Suppose this was a legislative ennctment. Suppose a legislative body had to do with a similar prohlem. Suppose a legislative body is asked to do something which comes near trespassing iipon the ground of existing rights, which comes near to a violation of the rights of an existing institution, which it does not want to touch-sornething which may run counter to çome other general line of policy, jiist as the right of nlloaving PoIish warships to come iridefinitely and for al1 time into the harbour of Danzig would run uncommonly close to, if it did not violate, the prohibition of establishing a naval base. Sup- pose you have a legislative body confronted with a problem of that kind. Suppose you have people pressing it, let 11s Say by way of illustration, to drain a large area of country, but it must not by this proposed operation deprive certain places of water rights which are involved in the existing distribution of water. Or, suppose on the other hand you have a suggestion for great irrigation works, the sort of qiiestion which arises very often in Egypt as between Egypt and the countries higher up-the construction of irrigation nrorks without trespassing on established rights of the country lower down stream to receive a full supply of wnter. What does any legislative body do in a case of that kind 7 They do exactly what the Council did. They get a technical and scientific report on the problem in al1 its aspects. No rational body for one moment would plunge into direct and immediate action. It would not be possible. A legislative body would do exactly what the Council did. My friend said : "Oh, they would have expressed themselves differently." . 1 fail to see how they could. They expressed themselves with absolute clearness. You would get a Iegislative body ssking to have, just as you get the Council deciding to have, something in the nature of a ,technical report-a preliminary enquiry, and the legislative body ïvould pass a statute to that end. That would be al1 the more appropriate in a case where the thing you want to do is itself wholly vague. There has been no explan- ation of what is. meant by "flort d'aftnche". My friend said that they decided first and thought aftenvards-because that is what it cornes to ; that they decided to do something which is wholly uncertain, wholly irnmeasurable, and which might involve enormous consequences, and then they are going to have a report about what it all means, having already done it. 1 hope 1 shall not be accused of disrespect, but really the attribution to the Council of a decision of that kind is, 1 venture to think, hardly complimentary to its common sense. 13efore passing on, 1 might give the reference to' that expression of opinion by Colonel de Loes. It will be found on page 139 of the shorthand notes of Monday's proceedings ' : b "Colonel de Loes protested againçt the expression 'port d'Attache3. He cxplained this as rneaning 'Home Port', in which sliips are registered, in which they normally take in their supplies, and so on. Moreover, if you seek to apply this conception to warships, you 1vou1d have clearly a 'naval base'. He proposecl that the expression 'port d'attache' should not be uçed any longer." That iç the expression which rny friends say that the Council adopted without any discussion and by which it imposed upon the harbour of Danzig rights in favour of the Polish G'overn- ment as a permanent, irrevocable provision. I hope the Court will now bear with me for a moment or two while I deal with ïvhat is really a point of minor importance. My friend gave it very great importance, and put it in big type in his original Mémoire. It is the point of tvhat exactly is the English text of the Iiesoliition. My frierid said it was that the High Commissioner should he asked to consider "whnt steps should be taken" to establish a mooring

1 P. 256 of this volume. REPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DAXZIG) 345 station. Even if the thing had been put in that way, 1 do ' not think it would have meant a very great deal of difference. It does, of course, have a slight tendency to suggest that there had been, or might have been, something in the nature of a previous decision. I am perhaps putting it too high when 1 Say it s~iggeststhat. It is a plirase ~vhichmight have been used equally welI iri that case as in the other. The short answer is that it is not the English text of the decision at all. The English text of the decision (which has exactly the same right to be considered as the French text-the French text about which there has never been any question at all) is that which is given at the top of page 120 of our Mémoire : "The High Comrnissioner should, however, be asked to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establishing there a naval base, for a 'port d'attache' for Polish warships. " That iç a perfectly clear, proper, trué and faithful rendering of the French. My friend made a great point of the fact that in a coiitem- porary report by Viscount Ishii, not adopted (that is important), Viscount Ishii made a sort of commentary upon his own text of the Resolution. Thcre is nothing in the nature of a . commentary ai all. He did make a.n allusion to the Resolution, and in the English version of that allusion he said that the decision stated that it would be advisable to request the High Comrnissioner to consider "what steps shoiild be taken" to establish a mooring station. Really, it seems to me to be wholly fanciful to impute under such conditions to Viscount Ishii any intention ikthatever to interpret or to give ü different sense to the Resolotion for the drafiing of which he had himself been responsible. 1 am fortified in that concliision because 1 find that when Viscount Ishii himself, in a later report, has io refer to that decision, he makes the perfectly correct reference and gives the language which is the language of the English version of the decision. 1 do not know whether that escaped my friends' notice. If they look at the top of page 140 of oiir Case, they will find a report by Viscourit lshii to the Council dated Janiiary ~zth,1922. There hc says : "On June nznd, 1921, the Council adopted a liesoiution, by the terms of mhich (paragraph 7) the High Comrnissioner was asked to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig a 'port d'attache' for Polish warships, withaut establishing there a naval base." 1- really do not think anything could be clearer. This is the proper text of the liesolution. There has been perhaps a slight J slip in the English version of Viscoun t Ishii's contemporary report in reference to this; the version is not quite accurate. When Viscount Ishii cornes at a little later date to the Resolution, he refers to it perfectly correctly ; and if anÿ possible doubt remains abolit the matter, when General Haking refers to it (p. ,1291,he says : "to examine the means of providing in the port of Danzig, without establishing there a naval base,' for a 'port d'attache' " ; and exnctly the saine language is used in the report by the Naval Sub-Commission on September qth, 1921, which is also to be found in our Case. Anything less authoritative and less supported by the documents than the atternpt to Say that the truc version of this Resolution of June zznd (para. 7) should be something which in termsi it is'not, I cannot imagine. There is one thing further 1 ought to say. My friend, when lie was discussing this question yesterday afternoon, on page 105 of the shorthand notes', seeks to put upon ils something in the nature of an assertion that this was the proper text. He says : "Je dois dire que je n'aperçois aucune raison de consid6rer comme non a.iitorisé un texte qui figure en annexe du Mémoire de ln Ville libre de Dantzig, un texte que la Ville libre a soumis à l'appréciation de la Cour pour son édification dans * cette affaire, lin texte qui fait partie de sa documentation officielle. " .a ' 1 am really staggered by that suggestion. All that we do ~vheii ?t7e print a test of this kind is to sa! : "This is the report which Viscount Ishii made on such-and-such a day." Ive cannot engage ourselves in any uray to say that alt the staternents in that report exactly correspond to the statement of somc other report. We are simply laying before the Court in al1 frsnkncss and saying : "these are such-and-such documents of the Lcaguc of Nations". Ive do not conirnit ourselves to the :issertions~ If there hatl lieen 110 English officia1 version of this matter at all, il thc Council had done itç business in Iirench only, I should not have hesitated-1 believc that no one );ivith?!any competcnt knowleclge of French have hesitatcd-to say that, in translating the French, to use the words "consider what steps should be taken" was an iiiaccurate paraphrase. "Le moyen" is a noun and not a verb. There is no implication in it of the necessity of taking action. It was simply a direc-. tion to the Higlz Commissioner to look into the ways iri which a particular thing might be done. "Le moyenJ' is "the means" -not "what steps shoulcl be taken" for doing it, as if some- th in^" in the nature of a decision for action had been taken. It was a perfectly neutral expression in so far as any execution

P. 312 of this volume of the word was concerned. The noun "le moyen" is more iieutral than the use of thc verb which appears in rny frie~ids' paraphrase. That is al1 there is about it. 1 submit it is a point of no force whatever and that it ought not to be taken into scrious consideration by the Court. Having said something about the Reçolution itself-and 1 hope 1 have said enough to satisfy the Court at any rate, if not my friend-1 should like to Say two or three words first about the aritecedents of the Resolution, and secondly about what followed afterwards, but I do so under this reserve- that 1 should be perfectly prepared to base rny ivhole case on the Resolution as it stands. It is a perfecily clear document. If it does not mean what it says, if it did not express the intention of the Council, if there had been a unanimous undérstanding that it meant something else, the Council ivould have had to alter the Resolution and express itself in. different terms if it wanted to reach the conclusion ~vhichmy friends have reached. But u-e, both of us, both my friend and myself, have examined, and examined with some care, both the antecedents of the Resolution and also ivhat happened immediately after, and therefore 1 think 1 am obliged to bring these two classes of considerations, the antecedents and the "consequents" of the Resolution-the things that happened immediately after it-to the attention of the Court. In doing so, 1 am not going to wander any long distance. Particularly 1 am not going to consider arguments which were used in 1927 and in 1931. These do not seem to me to have any possible relevance. The only object of going into ~vhat happened before, is that the Court may be in a position to put itself into the chairs of the Council when they were making this Resolution. Then 1 want to say something to show that nobody whose business it was to understand or to execute the Resolution was in any possible doubt as to what it meant. As to the antecedents of the Resolution, there are one or two facts which must be borne in mind. Firstly, the Confer- ence of Ambassadors had refused these very facilities which the Council is said to have given in June when it \vas asked for them under the heading of the free access to the sea in the discussions on the Convention of Danzig. Next, you have had that Resolution of Xovember 17th, 1920-the Resolution \\+hich has been often quoted-which says that the Polish Government appears particularly fitted to be, if the circumstances require it, entrusted by the League of Nations with the duty of ensuring the defence of the Free City. It is interesting to see what has happened in the minds of my friends as to thiç Resolution. They started by giving it very great importance. They said, in effect (1 am looking 26 3@ REPLY BY SIR JOHX FISCHER iYILLIAAfS (DAXZIG) at their Mémoire, p. 167), that it was that liesolution which had admitted the principle of the defence, even at sea, of Danzig by Poland. These were principles which, it is said, remained absoliitely intact. l'hen in their Contre-Mémoire, on page 202, they again give great prominence to this Resolution. They Say that &en the Council adopted the conclusions of its Rapporteur, "le Coiiseil a doric évidemment confirini: sa résolution de principe du 17 novembre 1920. On ne peut, par 'conséquent, donner aux points G et 7 de Ia résolution du 22 juin 1921 une interprétation qui tendrait à les mettre en opposition avec ce principe an térieuremen t admis. Celui-ci restant défi- nitivement acquis, le Conseil n'avait plus desormais qu'à examiner l'opportunité des mesures cl 'organisation propres à lui donner .effet." That is to treat this Resolution of November 17th as the khd of forerunner in the establishment of an agreed principle to which you only have to give effect. (It iç remarkable that if that was the right view, the deciçion of June zznd, so far as land !vas concerned, fell very far short of giving over the defence of Danzig to Poland. It did sornething very different from giving over the defeiice of Danzig to Poland.) Let us see how my friend treats it when he comes to his oral exposé. First of all, you have got this passage on page g of the report of the proceedings on Wednesday morning l. He sayç there that the mandate of defence could not be conferred except by a special decision of the League in view of a special case. If that is so, how can you give the sense n-hich he has been giving in his Mémoire, to this Resolution of November 17th ? Obviously it is irreconcilable. You cannot have an effective resolution conferring for d tirne and establishiiig a principle of that kind, and at the same tirne Say tliat action of that kind is çornething which is impossible. That is not the only passage to which I have to cal1 attention. Tlie other passage which is of importance is that in which my friend exposed his conclusions. Clihen he comes to his conclusions yesterday afternoon, this Resolution of November 17th, 1920, has vanished altogether in the answer which he puts in the mouth of the Court; but in the coii- clusions wliich he suggested in hiç original Mémoire, that decision must, I think, have been one of the decisions on which he tvas relying-because he \ras relying on a number of decisions. The word "decisions" is given iii the plural in the Mémoire. But now when he cornes to formulate his conclusions definitely at the end of his oral exposé, that particu- hr Resolutiori has vanished altogether.

1 1'. 298 of this voliitne. ~herefore, I think 1 am entitled to say that my friend can no longer be attaching the same importance to that Resolutiondan no longer be regarding it as a thing which fixed once for ail the right of Poland to receive rights of this kind, and as to which we had only to fill in the details aftenvards. That cannot be the view he is taking at the present time. After that Resolution of November 17th, you have that striking report of the Permanent Advisory Cornmittee, and you have Mr. Balfour's root and branch condemnation of it at the meeting of December ~zth,1920. My friend said he waç quite sure that if only the report of the Advisory Com- rnittee had confined itself to that innocent little paragraph at the end, Mr. Balfour would not have used the terms he did use. That is a sort of speculation into which I am afraid I cannot follo~v my friend. hhat ure have got is a root and branch condemnation of the whole thing by Mr, Balfour. He said the whoIe report was a violation of rights, was a suggestion wholiy contrary to international law, and I do not think my friend hm any authority to pick and choose between parts of the report. The whole thing was condemned. Possibly if instead of having a whole tree before him he had only little branches, the language rnight have been different. Possibly, if 1 might be allowed to indulge in speculation, I should Say something of this sort-that it is at any rate possible that if a suggestion of this kind had been made to Mr. Balfour wheq he had in hiç mind the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the resolution of the Ambassadors! Conference, having such a healthy and strong dislike to what we may cal1 the thick end of the wedge, he would have expressed himself with vigour about a proposa1 to introduce the thin end. Now the other matters which were present in the minds of the Council at that date. were General Haking's report of January 25th, 1921, which waç of course strongly hostiIe to the whole idea of conferring a mandate for the defence of Danzig upon Poland, and next they had the Polish request of March th, 1921. The Polish request of March 5th, 1921, is of interest because it shows exactly what Poland was açking at this moment, and their attitude at this moment was singu- larly modest and moderate. We have now got the whole of the Poliçh Note; something like three-quartcrs of it were already given ; they appear on pages 118-119 of OUT Mémoire; they are reproduced by the Note of the French Delegation of June aand, and there really is not very much more in the full letter. We have the whole now, and 1 think it is just worth while calling attention to the opening paragraph. The letter says-it is from the Polish Delegation to the President of the Council- : "Je me permets d'attirer l'attention bienveillante 350 KEPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DAKZIG) clu Conseil de la Société des Nations sur le fait que, selon l'article 28 de la Convention polono-dan tzikoiçe du g novembre 1920, la Pologne a le droit d'importer et d'exporter par Dantzig des marchandises de quelque nature que ce soit, y compris tout matériel de guerre. "Afin d'kviter des accidents possibles, il est indispensable que tout matériel de guerre traversant le territoire de Dantzig à destination de la Pologne, soit plac6 sous un contrôle eficace dés son arrivée dans le port." Then he sets out the four requests whicli the Court is already familiar with, the third being : "Qu'iin point d'attache dans le port de Dantzig soit inis à la tiisposition du Goiivernement polonais pour assurer le stationnement, le ravitaillement et l'entretien des bâtiments de la police inaritime polonaise, à laquelie, suivant la décision des Alliés, certaines imités navales ont déjà été affectkes." 1 am not sure that 1 am not repeating myself here, but I think the main interest of that letter is that it is not an application uiider the head of the defence of the Free City ; it is an application which is intended to strengthen or fortify the right of Yoland to the free importation and exportation of goods ; conseqiiently, its actual scope falls within, rather, the Convention of Paris. It is not a question which has its origin in the question of the defence of the Free City ; what is interesting is that the Poles at this moment are asking for nothing eucept a point d'attache, and a point d'attache which is lirnited to -certain maritime police vessels. So that the behaviour of the Council, if my friend is right, is çomething still more extraordinary than one might imagine in the first instance. They apparently rushed in ; they opened their hands and flung at the Poles a great deal more than the Yoles were asking. The Poles were asking for a fioint d'attache for maritime police vessels, and the Council, without a word, without an explan- ation-nothing in the minutes-proceeds to give thern for al1 time a right for the whole Yolish navy, however big it may become, to anchor in the harbour of Danzig, as and when it pleases. Really, when one considers the liesolution, it is difficult to maintain a proper attitude of respect for the propositions which my friend put forward and imputed to the Council. So much for the antecedents. Now 1 have just got to say something about rvhat happened after the Resolution. Of course this class of argument is not convincing in either direction. You might have a complete misunderstanding of a resolution. and if the ResoIution itself is plain the way various ~eo~lelook at it would not have the effect of changing 'thé sense of the liesolution, but in opposition to the positivc assertions of my friend 1. have not been able to find anything 'whatever in what happened after the Resolti- tion, anything done or said hy General Haking or by the Naval Sub-Commission or by the Polish representative on the Council or by the Senate of Danzig or anybody else-1 am speaking, of course, abolit this particular time in 1921 and the first month or two of 1922-at this date you find nothing whatever which shows that anybody !vas so lacking in common sense as to misinterpret what the Council had done. General Haking, of course. makes this report on September ~oth,1921. It is the report of a soldier who is asked a difficult question about the organization of a port. 1 do not want to wenry the Court by going through it with a microscope. It wouId be unfair to the author of the report. 1 repcat that there is not one phrase in it which is not the phrase of ü man who is asked to consider the means by whicIi a certain thing might be done and is giving his opinion as to how pssibly it could be done. He was not asked whether it ougitt to be done at al]. That would be a question for the Council. He is the person tvho is looking into the thing and making something in the nature of a technical report. It wouId be grossiy unfair to look at it from any other point of view or to twist any of his lanpuage. The report iç not ambiguous. If you take the Iangiage itself, it is the report of a technician who is asked to give an opinion about the meanç of doing a certain thilig. li'hat the report really al1 cornes to is that this really is not a matter you ought to have askcd n soldier about: "1 do not understand these things, T do noi know what a Port d'attache is ; the whole question is extremely coiifused, and 1 think yoii had better ask the milors." That is rediy what he says, putting the 2angiiagc in as homely a way as possible. This is his conclusion at thc end ; this is how he ends in paragraph 8 at the top of page 131 of Our Mémoire: "In my opinion it is a matter for the naval experts on the League of Nations." In other words, he says : "Please ask the sailors; it is not a question upon which 1 can really give you any final opinion." Then the matter was handed on to the sailors. You have a report of Viscount Ishii to the Council of September 16th. Viscount Ishii simply adopted the suggestion of General Haking: "That the report of the High Commissioner in Danzig, of September ~oth, 1921, with its Annex concerning the establishment of a fort d'attache for PoIish warships in .Danzig, together ivitll any observations of the rcpresentatives of Polsnd and Danzig, be referrcd to the Permanent Advisory Commission for MiIitary, Naval and Air Questions, for such observations as they may care to çubmit to the Council." My friend has taken hold of a document dated September aoth, 3.9 REPLX7 BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAJIS (I)AXZIG) 1921, which the Senate of Danzig submitted 'to the Naval Sub-Commission, 1 am not going to weary the Court by going through , it. That is a document prepared by the Senate of Danzig on the basis that there was a possibility that the Council might decide, what they had not yet decided, to give ccrtaiii privileges, and it discusscs the matter from a practical point of view. The Senate was considering what rnight happen ; it was not giving an interpretation at all. Then my friend has a quarrel with the sailors. My friend ssys the sailors have misunderstood. It is on page 319, on Wednesday afternoon : "A Ia suite de la résolution du Conseil, la question de l'organisation d'un port d'attache a fait l'objet des délibérations d'une Sous-Commission navale. Cette Sous- Commission aurait dû en principe examiner, sur la proposition du Haut-Commissaire, la distinction entre ({base navale » et cc port d'attache n." 1 do not find that at all. 1 do not know where my friend gets that. The Naval Sub-Commission had referred to it for its observations the report of the High Comrnissioner together with observations of Ilanzig and Poland; the report was referred to them for any observations that they may care to submit to the Coiincil. They were given exactly the same sort of mission as General Haking himself had been given originalIy. They really took hiç place and they were to report direct to the Council. Then he says: "Les conclusions des études de cette Sous-Cornmissio,n sont consignées dans un rapport daté du 24 septembre 1921. Le caractère de ce document a déjà été précisé dans Ie Mémoire du Gouvernement polonais, et je pense d'ailleiirs qti'aiicune contestation n'existe à cet égard." What my friend says in the Memoire is cle?rly in error. It is not very important but it is worth looking into tc~show the kind of way in which that argument is developed. In their AlilPrnoire tliey Say that the report was neither esamined nor approved by the Couiicil nor accepted by the Parties. 1 do not see ~vhyit should be accepted by the Parties. As a matter of fact it was communicated to the CounciI, as \vil1 be seen at the bottom of page 134 of our Mémoire, and 1 think it n7ill be found that the Council did consider it, as tlie report of Viscount Ishii dated January ~zth, 1922, says that the Permanent Advisory Commission on Military, Naval and Air Questions "subscquently submitted their views ~vhich had been laid before the Rlembers of the Council". Consequently, this opinion of the sailors was submitted to the Council in the ordinary way, and this remark of my friends is erroneous. Then my friend goes on : "C'est dire que, du point de vue jiiridique, il est dénué de toute autorité, de tout caractère obligatoire." Of course ; it is a technical report, it had ~iot any obligatory force. It was the view of the naval advisers to the Council, and possesses sucIl authority as the. advisers REPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) . 353 ~t~ouldhave. "Ce rapport ne peut être considérk que comme l'expression de l'opinion d'experts. En outre, il faut constater que le rapport en question n'a jamais été soumis même au Conseil 'de la Société, ni accepté par les Parties." Every mord of this criticism of the report is true about General Haking's report. These are technical reports which are made by technical people.. In one case General Haking does not think he was particularly quaIifred to do it because he was a soldier. In the other case, the naval men were, 1 suppose, particularly qualified to do it. 1 was wondering why my friend has this quarrel with the sailors. One discovers very soon why, because the sailors, unfortunately for him, have done what it waç not strictly necessary for them to do; it so happens that a phrase slips out, and in a phrase they clearly show that they understood the decision of June zznd in the sense in which we understand it. Of course it is not any particular authority in the sense in which my friend suggests it is not. It shows that a certain nurnber of sensible people at that time understood the decision of June zznd in that particular way. If you are going to Say General Haking did not so understand it, it is equally relevant to Say that the sailors did so understand it. They Say : "If the privilege of using Danzig as a port d'attache is to be coricedecl"-that is on page 136 of the Statement of the Free City, following immediately under the big heading "Opinion of the Naval Sub-Commission". That is not quite the full liçt of the crimes of the sailors, in my friend's view. The saiiors actually went further ; they not only rightly interpreted the legal effect of the decision of June zznd, but they went further : they made a practical suggestion that it might be a good thing that the Polish fleet, which was then a very smaii affair, might winter in the harbour of Danzig but have that privilege only until the port of Gdynia was constructed. My friends do not like this suggestion at the present time, because. according to their view, it is a violation of the permanent rights which had dready been given by the Resolution of June zznd, 1921. Perhaps 1 have said enough about that. It certainly does seem to me that my friend was a little inconsiderate in his treatment of the sailors.

Mr. President, Judges of the Permanent Court : When I finished last evening I was in the course of discussing the events siibsequent to the decision of June zznd, and I had finished the consideration of the report of the Naval Sub- Conlmission of September 24th, r921. There is one short remark which perhaps 1 ought to add on that subject ; that is, that it would appear from the statement of the report tvhich is on page 135 of our Mémoire that there \vas a Polish delegate sitting teniporarily as a inem- ber of the Commission, but there is no suggestion in the report that the Polish delegnte had any objection to the result which was finally reached; the result which, as 1 have shown, is inconsistent with the idca that there was any decision for giving permanent rights in the harbour of Danzig. Now 1 pass on to the riext of the subseqoent events, and that is the report of General Haking of December 7ih, ~gzx. That, of course, was a final report in execution of the duty lvhich had been confided to General Haking by the Council on June 22nd. My friend says that that is a report of importance capilale for the solution of the problem. 1 ani not sure 1 should put it quite as high as that. 1 shoiild certainly say, whether General Haking did or did not express any view, either incidentaIly or directly, as to the purport ailcl effect of the decision of June 22nd, that would be very far from being vital in the case ; it would onIy show what he thoiight. Of course it is interesti~ig to see what he did thiiik, and 1 think that wheii wc look at that report-it rnust iiever be forgotten in this case that the onus of proof is on my frien? -so far from it helping my friend, I think it most clearly shows that to the mind of General Haking nothing of the nature of a defiriite clecision had been taken. This cornes out, I think, with considerable clearness, not onIy from the report as it \vas printed in our First Statement (the onIy text which 1 had at the tirne thiç memorandum was prepared and which ornitted the first two paragraphs), but even more clearly when one looks at those first two paragraphs. The first paragraph of the report is devoted to a question of procedure-procediire, that is, of the League Council. General Haking says he has had some discussion with the Secretary-General of the League, and 'he suggests that it would have been better if, instead of having to make n report, he had been asked, in accordance with the usual procedure, to do something in the nature of taking a decision. It is not for me to express eitlier agreement or disagreement with that suggestion, but it is quite obvioiisly a suggestion which was made on the basis that no dccision, not merely in the opinion of himself, but also of the Council, was in operation. Let us look at the last words of the first paragraph : "In order to ovcrcorne this deviation from the usual procedure, the Secretary-General has suggested to me that my report should be treated in the same manner as one of rny decisions are treated, that it should be' forwarded to each Government with the object of arriving at an agreement on the subject, and that if one or both are unable to do so, that the matter should be laid before the Council of the League of Nations." Clearly that treats the whole matter as being a subject upon rvhich it might be possible or desirable that agreement should be reached, not a matter which had been settled already by decision. In passing, may I observe that my friends in their oral observations made no reference to the argument which in their written Case they deduced from the reference to the Secre- tary-General. Perhaps 1 am justified in assuming that that particular argument has been dropped. Now that suggestion that no decision is in force is clearly repeated in the Iater paragraphs. Take, for example, para-. graph 2. (1 am much obliged to my friends for having supplied the missing first and second paragraphs ; they are very material in helping to arrive at the true interpretation of this document.) There General Haking says : "The two questions, owing to their sirnilarity, have now been merged into one"- 1 think he there means the question of the landing of munitions as well as the question of the "port d'attache", but 1 am not quite certain-"and to a certain extent can be treated as one. The difficulty in solving the problem is chiefly political." He says : "the difficulty in solving the problem", treating it as a problem which was not solved, not treating it as something which in al1 but small details had been settled by a decision. That general idea rurs through the whole of this secocd paragraph. He goes on to Say a little lower down : "When the controversy on the subject was first started between the two Governrnents, there were many questions relating to the railways and other important matters still unsettled, the Government of Danzig was extrernely insistent upon maintaining the sovereign rights of the Free City, extremely unwiiiing to gant any political or even economic rights to Poland, and honestly believed that the Governrnent of Poland was aiming at the plitical and rnjlitary domination of the Free City of Danzig. Poland on the other side was claiming such political and economic rights as she considered she was entitled to, according to her o\m interpretation uf the Treaty .of Versailles and of the Polish-Danzig Convention, and consequently was perhaps demanding more than was actually accorded in these Treaties. This attitude engendered a feeling of some suspicion and hostility between the two Governments and created an atmosphere for negotiation which was highly uncongenial to thg settlement of aiiy important question. Since then the situation has changed greatly for the better ; this is due eiitirely to the spirit of concili?tion urhich has been displayed by both sides, and to the realization that each side was sufferiiig severe economic bss from prolonging the disputes. It is possible, therefore, that iE the questions dealt with in tliis report are once more carefully reviewed by each Government, an agreement may be reached wi thoù t calling for the decision of the Council of the League." Do my friends really suggest that the author of those lines supposed that therc was in force an actual decision of the League which settled the main question to which this report was directed, in favour of one Party against the other ? It is surely inconceivable that he had any such idea. 1 do not know that 1 need weary the Court by going tlirough the whole of the report; 1 might just perhaps remind the Court of the opening phrase at the beginning of paragaph 4: "From a political point of view, there is a great opposition on the part of the Government of Danzig to the establishment of any 'port d'attache' or depot for war material in the harbour of the Free City, such an establishment being looked upon with some suspicion." 1 was speaking of the two questions ; I s~iggestedjust now that it was munitions. It was munitions in a sense ; it was not transit or landing of munitions, it was the question of a depot for munitions. "If, as is to be hoped, and as 1 personally anticipate, the feeling of suspicion between the two Governments will shortly disappear, there secms to be no reason why Danzig should not say to Poland : 'Certainly keep your warships here if you like, we can trust you iiot to take any action which can be interpreted as a threat against our political integrity or our sovereign rights.' This, of course, would mean that Poland has asked Danzig to permit her to keep her warships at Danzig." What is the object of making that remark if the question had already been settled ? According to my friends, you have got a decision, and General Haking knew that there was a decision in force. FIow could he possibly use this language if he accepted the view of my friend ? Then there is the same idea in the middle of page 138 : "This . of course would mean that PoIand has asked Danzig to permit her to keep her warçhips ai Danzig, whereas Poland has, so far, demandcd it as a right"-"demanded it". If my friends are right, she had got it. He could not have said "demanded it" if she had got it. "If it is going to remain a question of 'right', it cari only be solved by the most carefully worded parantees, such as those put forward REPLI' BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAI~IÇ(DANZIG) 357 by the Permanent Advisory Cornmittee on Naval and Military Affairs of the League of NationsH-yes, exactly, guarantees which were in the nature of a practical arrangement, guarantees which did not recognize anything in 'the nature of a permanent rigkt, because the suggestion in that report, which my friend has depreciated so much, was that the rights should only continue if'and so long as the port of Gdynia was not finished-"and Poland's power of using the harbour for her warships wiIl conseqnently be limited both as regards space and period of time." Again, that is wholly inconsistent with the idea that she had got an unlimited right. Then just a little further down : "If Poland has really no political designs on the integrity of the Free City, and by hw recent agreement with Danzig it is apparent that she has not, there seems to be no reason why an amicable arrangement. with Danzig cannot be concluded which would be much more satistsctory to Poland than the limited and carefully safeguarded permission which would be given by a decision of the Council of the Leaguen-"would be given", not "which has been given". General Haking could not possibly have written in that way unless he were treating the decision as a hypothetical possibility, not as something u7hich has actually happened. I pass now from that report of General Hakiyg, and I cal1 the attention of the Court to another document almost contemporary in date, namely, the decision of the Wigh Commissioner of December 6th; 1921-that is the day before he wrote this report which we have been discussing. Dly friends have said nothing about that at al]. Shey have passed it over in silence ; but 1 think it supplies proof, if any further proof could possiMy be wanted, that General EIaking at this time had no conception whatever that extensive permanent rights had been granted to Poland in the harbour of Danzig for her warships. If he had, he could not possibly have employed in this decision the terms which in fact he has employed. One of the points upon tvhich he had to give a decision \vas the question of the .lepl position of Polish merchant ships (it says Polish "shipsJJ, but 1 do not suggest for a moment that Polish "ships" there means Polish "warships") in the harbour of Danzig ; and he aIso discusses the argument by Poland to the effect that the legal position of the harbour of Danzig should be similar to that which it would hold if it were situated within the territory of the Polish Government. Then in paragraph 8 lie discusses what he calls the guarantees now possessed by Poland to ensure the free passage of her imports and exports through the port of Danzig. 1s it credible that any person of any cornpetence discussing in December rgzr the claim by Poland that the legal position in the harbour of Danzig should be the same as if it were 35s REPLY BY SIR JOHS FISCHER M~II,LIAJIS(DAXZIG) situated in Polish territory, and giving a list of the guarantees then posçessed by Poland to eiisure the free passage of her exports and imyorts through the port of Danzig, should have omittcd the very faintest allusion to the enormously important rights which rny friend says he got by the decision of June %and aiid on which, or in connection with which, the author of this decision \vas aetuaiiy making a contemporary report ? Obviously, if Poland had posçessed the enormously important right to keep her warships to the estent to which she chose, and for any period \\.hich rhe chose, in the harbour of Danzig, that would have been a mattcr of ovenvheiming importance ~vhichcould not possibly have been omitted. There is only one more ciocument in the liistory of the affair-in the history subsequent to June zznd-to which Z have very briefly to cal1 attention, and that is the resolution, taken with the minutes of the discussion, and with the report of Viscount Ishii, of the Council which u7as held on January ~zth,1922. That was the rcsolution by which the CounciI decided to postpone consideration of the question of the ;ho4 d'attache, and also decided that until the question had been conçidered by the Council the prelimiiiary agreement was to remain in force. 1s it conceivable that a body passing that resolutioii should in fact have already, onIy a few moiiths before, taken a decision which settled the ivhole principle ? l'erhaps I may remind the Court that on this occasion the Council had before it both the reports of the High Commis- sioner dated September 10th and December 7th, 1921, and also the report of the Permanent Aclvisory Commission. Surely if any member of the Council, or the Council as a whole, hnd thought that the view which was obviously taken by the Permanent Advisory Commission had been wrong, somebody would have said so ; surely something ~vouldhave been said in the report of Viscount Ishii or in the debate of the Council. Yet not one word \vas said about it. The Council accepts the position which the Permanent Advisory Commission take 3s to the general situation, and it says it will postpoile tl-ie consideration : "until \ve have considered it, the teniporary arrangement is to go on". That, surely, is totally irrecoiicil- able with the idea that the matter had already been settled by the decision of June ~2nd. 1 have finished calling the attention of the Court to the events siibsequent to the decision of June ~2ndwhich seemed to me to be relevant. 1 deliberately leave out of accoutlt, as they nppe:ir to me to be of no value, the fiirther disciissioiis which took place in 193; and 1931. Al1 these negotiations ai?d discussions, in the first place, on any fair reading of the situation between the two Parties, must be taken to be without KEPLY BY SIR JOHN FISCHER WILLIAJIS (DASZIG) 359 prejirdice to the legal position ; and, secondly, in any event what people thought or said in 1927 has really no bearing upon the actual answer to the question which is put to the Court. Perhaps 1 may add one or tivo words on the general problem which the Court has to solvc. 1 do not know whether my friend has fallen into the sarne way of dealing with the matter, but perhaps 1 have not kept sufficiently and clearly before my own mind aiid the mind of the Court the distinction of the tu70 possible. sources of the rights which are claimed--the rights to the so-called Port d'attache. The two sources are the defence of the Free City, and the protection of Poland's right of free and secure access to the sea. Shose are the two possible sources. hly friend has from time to time used the expression : intkewtewt Eiés. 1 do not think as a matter of law they are so closeIy connected. 1 think as a matter of la~vthose are two quite distinct possible origins of the rights which he claims. You might get it under Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles as a dcvelopment of your rights of free access-and 1 think if you did that you would have to pass through the gates, if 1 may use the expression, of the Con- vention of Paris. That iç .one way. The other way is that 'ou might have approached it as a question of the defencc of the Free City. In that case you had to go to the League and ask for something in the nature of a delegation of the League's right and cliity to defencl the City-a right and duty which arises not under Article 104 at 311 but under Article 102. If 1 *am right in that general presentation of the legal situation, 1 hope my friend !vil1 be able to devote hirnself in his reply to the consideration of this sort of question. Does he rely on something in thc nature of a delegation of the right and duty of the League to provide for the defence of the Free City ? If so, how does he reconcile his claim for a permanent port d'atlache for a!l the Polish fleet for al1 time, when his own argument, which is my argument too (and which he developed on Weclnesday morning ; see page g of the shorthand notes '1, is that you could not properly get the League to gve, and the League could not properly give, anything in the nature of a permanent general delegation of its right and duty ? If you have a permanent situation secured for the Polish ffeet in the hürbour of Danzig, obviously you have in fact alrcady established something in the nature of a permanent factor which is an elernent of just that kind of permanent delegation of the right which rny friend says is impossible. Let me remind rny friend that this view of the necessity of making any delegation which the League could grant of its duties, 3 non-permanent delegation-a delegation under which

1 P. 298 of this volurne. action had to be taken, decisions taken, yoiir mincl made up, with regard to particular circiinlstances when particular circumstances happened-is just the attitude which the Council of the League has taken up with regard to the land defence of Danzig. That is esactly its action. Lihy should it reverse its attitude completely ? Wliy should it assume tlie power to give a permanent delegation with regard to the sea wlien it has refused to do so with regard to the land ? I have got at the back of my mind in this tirgument certain analogies which obtain in the law with which 1 am best acquainted-that is to Say, the case of people wlio have soniething in the nature of a general right given to them to act on behalf of other people. We refer to it uiider the riame of a "trust". It is the duty of a person to tvhorn that right is confided to apply his mind when points ariçe. He is not entitled beforehand to shift over his own responsibility on to the shoiilders of somebody else. When you have had confided to you personally an important general dilty, you cannot get rid of it by a genernl handing over of it to somebody else. That is one general question which I should llike my friend to answer, on the basis that he relies on the right and duty of the League to provide for the defence of the Free City. There is the other alternative. He may be relying on his right to free access for imports and exports. If so, how does he explain the fact thnt the deciçion an which he is relying- the decision of June zznd-is not a decision which is taken 'under Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles, but is definitely taken according to its officia1 heading in the official documents of the League under the heading of "Defence of the Free City" ? 1 submit if is clear that the League, in taking thai decision of June zznd, conceived perfectly properly that it was acting in discharge of its duty to provide for defence.. In fact it says so explicitly. And that it should do that was entirely in harmony with the action which had been taken by the Conference of Ambassadors. It {vas the business of the Con- ference of Ambassadors to give Poland rights to which she was entitled under Article 104. Article 104 is perfectly explicit on that point. That is to Say, the rightç givcn under Article 104 mere to figure in the conventioii urhich the Principal Allied and Associated Powers undertook to negotiate, and the Coiiference of Ambassadors had dcfinitely refused the suggestion tha t they should introduce rights of that kind in the Convention of Paris. The contention that the decision of the Council was taken, not in piirsuance of Article 104 but' in pursunnce of the duty of the Leag-ue to ùefend the Free City, is fully confirmed by the title to the othcr report of '17iscount Ishii-the other report which \vas never accepted, because the' discussion went off on REPLY BY SIR J ows FISCHER WILLIAMS (DANZIG) 36 1 to otlier lines-the other temporary report of June zznd, Apnex 213, printed on pages 120 to 122 of OUT Case, and dcfinitely headed, in contradistinctioii to the "Defence of the Free City" (which is the heading to the adopted report of June ~2nd): "The protection of Poland's right of frce access to the sea from Danzig". That report contained the suggestion which was being put fonvarcl under Article 104. 1 am not sure that, if the League had stood strictly upon iechiiicalities, it would not have bcen entitled to make an ansxver simiIar to that which, as my friend suggests, was made to Poland by the Conference of Ambassadors in this matter :

' "Vozcs vous êtes Ironfid d'adresse; you ought to have applied to the Conference of Ambassadors when they were negotiating the Coiivention of Paris under Article 104 and not to the Leagie." The Leagiie did not make that answer, but in fact inclicated what its opinion was of the proper way in which to treat the four requeçts which Poland made on llarch 5th by tlie manner in which it dealt with, and the title which it gave to, its own proceedings under this matter. If, theii, the right was given not as a matter of defence of the Free City but iii piirsuance of Article 104, how comes it that it is iiot foiind in its proper place, which was in the Convention of Paris as negotiated by the Conference of Ambassadors ? Refore leaving that argument, yerhaps 1 ought to Say that no doubt it is true that in the disciission which took place, particularly the preliminary discussion which took place on June zznd, 1921, it was pointed out (as appears from the report of Viscouiit Ishii whicli was not adopted) that Polaiid \iras already getting under the head of the defeiice of the Free City substantially the rights which she had been claiming, or whicli she was attempting to claim, under Article 104. That is ' true, but that does not invalidate the point that the action which was in fact taken by the Coiincil was an action under the head of defence of the Free City and not an action under the head of Article 104 of the Treaty of Versailles. Before I finish, 1 musl cal1 the attention of the Court to what is one of the most important points which is before them, and that is, what exactly is it that my friend asks the Court to Say? He has varied at the end of his oral exposé the answer which he proposed to the Court in his first hférnoire. If the Court wiii compare closely those two ansmers, they will see that they are not exactly the same. 1 do not want to make verbal points about the difference. 1 do not want to go into tlie question of inconsistency. I do not think that has any real importance for the Court to-day. But 1 do want just to refer to the form in lvhich my friend finally puts that answer. He asks the Court to Say: "II résulte des principes qui sont à la base du statut internationai de Dantzig ...."- not quite the same thing as in his Mémoire-". .. . ainsi que de la décision"-it is reduced to one decision-"du Conseil du 22 juin 1921, que la Pologne a acquis, pour ses navires de guerre, et sous le nom de port d'attache, des droits d'accès et de stationnement à Dantzig." What 1 am not quite sure about-because my mother-tongue is not French-is exactly what my friend means by that. This is the point that troubles me : is he still suggesting two separate justifications, each complete in itself, of the right which he claims-thaf is to say the principles which are at the base of the international statute of Danzig on the one hand and the decision of the Council of June zznd, 1921, on the other ? 1s he suggesting two separate bases, or is he suggesting one base only ? 1 should have thought, from the way in which it is put in French, that he is suggesting two separate bases-ainsi que- but 1 am not quite sure. It is a point which I wiU leave to him to discuss. 1s it possible that he should really rely upon these two things as each of them giving a separate justi- fication ? Especially, could such a right be derived frorn what he calls the principes ? Obviously it cannot, 1 s~iggest-if by principe he means the principle of defence. You have got a principe of defence, namely that the League should look after defence ; but from that principle you cannot deduce a right of Poland, You have to have a decision of the League doing something or other-that is, transmitting something to Poland. You cannot deduce from the principle the rights that you claim; al1 you can deduce is the possibility that the League, if it thought fit, might give you such a right. Secondly-and on this point 1 should pray in aid some remarks which fell from my friend yesterday morning-the way in kvhich he treats the decision of June zznd is very clear. On page 25 of the shorthand notes l we find him saying : "Nous arrivons maintenant à une phase capitale et décisive pour la solution de la question qui nous occupe : c'est la session de juin 1921 du Conseil de la Société des Nations." Again on page 29 qesays: "Cette résolution,"-that is the Resolution of June zznd- dont l'importance - on l'a déjà souligné hier - est fondamentale dans la thèse polonaise, appdle diverses observations." Now 1 am only trying to get at what my friend's attitude really is, but 1 should have inferred frorn those two passages that the decision is of fundamental importance and that he cannot get on without it. In other words, 1 should have supposed from his argument-but 1 am puzzled by the way in ~vhich he has put his concliisions-that he must rely upon the decision in order to get his rights. It is not enough for him to rely on principles alone-the principles of "the

P. 305 of this vofume. ' ,I 307 w II . international statute". He cannot reiy on the principle of defence alone, because that principle entirely depends upon the action lvhich the League takes under it. Nor, 1 think, can he rely upon the principle of free access to the sea, because in that case he surely needs a decision of the Conference of Ambassadors, or something or other of that kind, which buttresses that access with the right for warships which he is now asserting. We know that the Ambassadors' Conference refused that right. Surely it is obvious that a definite precise right for doing something in a harbour with ships is something which you cannot deduce from a generaI principle that you have free access for your imports and exports through the harbour. You want something more than that. You must have something in the nature of an executive action, or an administrative action, which is taken by somebody or other who has the right to clothe that general principle with aomething definite in the way of the right of access. Therefore 1 should have supposed that this ambiguity in the ansu7er which he puts to the Court is to be resolved by saying that he is relying upon the decision of the Council (no longer iipon the decisions of the Coiincil as he formerly said) and that the essential point in his case is the decision of the Coiincil of June ,zznd, and nothing else whatever. That is siipported very strongly by the last few words of the answer which he wants the Court to give, because he says: "La Pologne a acquis pour ses navires de guerre et sous le nont de port d'altache ...." "Le nom de port d'attache" occurs for the first time in the . decision of the Council. You cannot possibly deduce from the principle, "sous le nom de Port d'attache" a right of any kind whatever, because the principles have nothing whatever to Say about "port d'attache". "Le nom, de $art d'attache" was something which was introduced by the decisioii. Therefore 1 think 1 am right in saying that the answer which he asks the Court to give must be an ,answer which is based upon the decision, and upon the decision alone ; and there 1 respectfully aeainU rernind the Court of the decision. That I-agiieness and uncertainty which surrounds the whole question of the "port d'attache" cornes out very strongiy when we arrive at the answer which my friend proposes to the second question. The Court will remember it is : "In the case of an affirmative answer to the hrçt question, what are the rights of Poland ?" There he says that "the organization of the rights of access and anchorage have not been the object of a definitive regulation. At any event, the Polish Government considers that the attributions whi'ch have been exercised up to now to the advantage of Polish warships in Danzig are included in the notion of 'port d'attache' and have not as a result the crestion of a naval base." Obviously an answer of that kind-and 1 quite agree with my friend that that is the only kind of answer wliich the Court coiild possibly give-leaves the whole question from a practical point of view completely at large, or very nearly at large. "These privileges have never been definitely regulated." Are these to be privileges which are to be extended to the whole Polish fleet ? What has been done up to the present tirne are said to be attributions which enter into the notion of "pmt d'attache". Possibly. And the Polish Government adds what it iç bound to add, that these attributions have not as a result the creation of a naval base. That is very much a question of words. One cannot help asking oneself in that connection : if, under existing conditions, the port of Danzig is not a naval base for the I'olish fleet, where is that naval base ? My friend the day before yesterday-1 was rather surpriseci to hear it-\iras expiaining how unsuitable Gdynia was. \iThere, then, is the base for the Polish fleet ? 1 do not know. It is for my friend to answer. Well, 1 have taken up the time of the Court too much. Thcre are only two or three remarks 1 woulcl like to add. 1 do not propose to give any formal summing up of the argument 1 have addressed to the Court; the Coiirt can judge of itç value without such artificial assistance. My friends have spoken much of principles. 'I'here is one principle which ought not to be forgotten ; that is the titIe of Danzig to be a Free. City, to have her independence limited only by the legal regulations and provisions which she has accepted and bvhich are part of her Constitution, but it is inconçistent with freedom that in the absence of the rnost clear and specific pronounccments by those who have authority to make them, any further restrictions should be imposed upon her. It may possibly so~netimes cross the mind of those who have had to consider this class of clairn that a little too much importance kas been attached to what seemed at first sight to be comparatively details of organization ; siich details, for example, as figured in paragraph g of that famous report of the Permanent Advisory Commission in December 1920. Propossls of that kind havc to be judged and scrutinized very carefiilly by those who Iiave in charge to defend the rights of an international body. In that connection, I hope it will not be thought out of place if I mention the old story : that a man took a lion's cub to his house ; it was a quiet, gentle, faivning, inoffensive animal, but it developcd into something which, to say the least of it, .disturbed the peace of his house. Something of the same kind influences my clients' considerations when they have proposals of this nature put before them. It is perhaps irrelevant to the consideration of purely legal questions which this Court has to answer-it would be as irrelevant to introduce political considerations as it would be to introduce economic considerstions-but the Court will find a suggestion of the background to these questions, if it will just glance at the provisional regulation, particularly at paragraph 2 of that provisional regulation, which was made only a month or two ago by the High Commissioner, Count Gravina, for the temporary settlement or temporary carrying on of the present situation as to Polish warships at Danzig. The second paragraph of that regulation gives a sort of hint of the kind of considerations which inevitably arise when you pass away from .the sober and scientific, legal atmosphere ; 1 hope that nothing I have said has troubled that atmosphere by a reference to the concrete facts of the actual situation.

. REPLIQUE DE Mc LE PROFESSEUR DE VISSCHER (représentanf- le Gouvernement polonais) A LA S~ANCE PUBLIQUE DU 14 NOVEMBRE 1931 (MATIN).

Monsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cour, J'ai le devoir, avant de commencer ma duplique, de répondre à une question qui m'a été posée par Ia Cour relativement au sens et à la portée qu'il convient d'attribuer aux deux termes c( droits » et c( attributions II, qui ont été employés dans la question posée par le Conseil à la Cour. La Ville libre de Dantzig est, aux termes de l'article 102 du Traité de Versailles, placée sous 1s protection de la Société des Nations. Cette protection comporte, en tout premier Iieu, la défense de la Ville libre et, en outre, un ensemble de pouvoirs que l'on désigne assez gknéralemerit - et je crois exactement d'ailleurs - sous le nom de pouvoirs d'administration internationale. D'autre par.t, le Conseil de la Société, par ça résoliition du 17 novembre 1920, a reconnu i la Pologne un titre spécial à se voir confier évent~zellementIa défense de la Ville libre. Ces deux points étant admis, je réponds à la question posée par la Cour. Deux termes sont employés dans la question qui lui est soumise: le terme (( droits )) et le ternie c( attributions )). I,e Gouvernement polonais ne croit pas qu'en formulant ainsi la .question, le Conseil ait entendu suggérer une opposition quant à la teneur des prérogatives que le Gouvernement polonais revendique pour ses navires. de guerre à Dantzig. Il lÙi semble qu'il s'agit plutôt ici de deiix aspects juridiques concevables d'un même régime. Dans la conception du Gouvernement polonais, le mot u attributions 1) signifie pouvoirs délégués, c'est-à-dire pouvoirs conférés par une autorité supérieure. En vertu de sa mission de protection, la Société a, par sa r6solution du 22 juin 1921, conckdé à la' Pologne l'étab!issement d'un port d'attache. Cette concession, en tant qu'on la considère comme procédant d'une décision d'une autorité supérieure, - dans l'espèce la Société des Notions, - peut être envisagée comme comportant des attributions. Si, au contraire, on considère l'effet de cette décision dans , les rapports entre la Pologne et la Ville libre de Dantzig, on est conduit CL reconnaître qu'elle confère à la Pologne des . droits vis-à-vis de la Ville libre. Ces droits, d'après le Gouver- nement polonais, se ramènent en substance à l'accès et ari stationnement des navires de guerre polonais à Dantzig. Et maintenant, j'aborde ma duplique. Il n'entre pas dans mes intentions, au point où nous sommes arrivés maintenant, de retenir bien longuement l'attention de la Cour. Je n'ai surtout pas le dessein de faire repasser sous ses yeux, pour la quatrième fois, la rna~chede la négociation, qui a été decrite antérieurement dans tous ses détails. J'ai une autre raison d'être bref. Déjà dans mon premier exposé, j'ai répondu à une série de questions que soulevait la première argurncntation orale de mon honorable confrère et contradicteur. Je crois donc pouvoir me borner ce matin à présenter certaines observations concernant la réplique qui n été faite hier et avant-hier. Voici tout d'abord une première observation concernant la Convention de Paris. La Cour se rappelle tout le poids que mon honorable contradicteur attachait, dans sa première argumentation orale, au silence observé par la Convention de Paris relativement aux droits que la Pologne revendique à Dantzig. II était manifeste que, dans I'expression de mon honorable contradicteur, il y avait à ce point de son exposé un argument en quelque sorte décisif contre la thèse polonaise. On peut dire que l'objection tenait une place de tout premier plan, une place d'hon- neur dans son argumentation. Or, j'ai été heureux de constater que, dans ça réplique, cette objection, qui paraissait d'abord fondamentale, a été reléguée tout à fait au second plan. Mon cher confrère consi- dère actuellement - voyez notamment la page 82 du procès- verbal de la séance de jeudi l - qu'il s'agit là d'une question

' y P. 337 du présent volume. . * qui n'est plus désormais que d'importance secondaire, qui n'apparaît plus que comme en marge di1 débat. 11 est peut-être regrettable qu'il ait cru devoir maintenir cependant quelque chose - je dirai presque un débris - de cette argumentation un peu caduque. On reconnaît maintenant que c'est à la Société des Nations, et à elle seule, qu'il appartenait de régler les questions qui faisaient l'objet cles demandes polonaises adressées à la Confé- rence des Ambassadeurs. C'est un point acquis. Mais, dit-on, - ce passage figure à la page 338, - en rejetant les demandes de la Pologne, la Conférence des Ambassa- deurs a clairement indiqué que l'on ne pouvait pas déduire le droit à un port d'attache du principe di1 libre accés i la mer, sans quoi la question aurait dû faire l'objet de la Convent tion de Paris. Eh bien, je crois qiie . cette conclusion est inexacte. La Conférence des Ambassacleurs a expressément reconnu qu'en raison des intérêts particuliers que Ia Pologne possède à Dantzig, intérêts que résiime le principe du libre accès à la mer, la Pologne était particulièrement désignée polir recevoir éventuel- lement le mandat de defense. J'ai cité dans mon premier exposé Ia lettre de M. Cambon du zo octobre 1920, lettre adressée au SecrEtaire général de la Société des Nations. Je relis le passage qiii nous concerne. , M. Cambon s'exprimait dans les termes suivants :

(( Aussi bien en raison de l'étroite liaison ainsi établie entre la Ville libre et la Pologne qu'en considération de la volonté clairement exprimée des Puissances signataires di1 Traité de ersai ailles de donner à la Pologne un libre acciis à la mer, 1 e Gouvernement polonais paraît donc désigné pour recevoir de la Société des Nations le mandat d'assurer éventuellement la défense de la Ville libre. » Donc, contrairement A ce qui a été soutenu, c'est très clairement sur le priricipe de l'accès à la mer et de l'intcret vital que cet accès représente pour la Pologne que se base, je ne dirai pas la décision, mais la suggestion faite par la Conférence des Ambassadeurs à la Société des Nations de conférer éventuellement à la Pologne un mandat de défense de Dantzig. , C'est exactement au même point de vue que s'est plad le rapporteur du Conseil, le vicomte Ishii, dans le rapport pré- senté au Conseil le 17 novembre 1920. Je ne relirai pas les textes que j'ai déjà précédemment invoqués. Je me borne à me référer aux pages 299 à 301 de mon premier exposé. Il est une autre question, question toute différente, qu'a soulevée mon honorable contradicteur: c'est la question de savoir si le droit à un port d'attache peut se déduire de ce 368 REPLIQUE DE M. DE VISSCBER (POLOGNE) seul principe de l'accès à la mer, ou s'il faut autre chose. C'est une question sur laquelle je reviendrai plus tard. Mais, incontestablement, la considération de l'accès à la mer a pesé dans la décision prise pour conférer éventuellement A la Pologne le mandat de défense. Mon honorable contradicteur a encore cru devoir présenter quelques observations au sujet de l'article 28 de la Conven- tion de Paris. Je rappelle qu'il s'agit de l'article qui dit qu'en tout temps et en toute circonstance la PoIogne a le droit d'importer et d'exporter des marchandises de quelque nature qu'elles soient par Dantzig. Maiheureuskment, les remarques qu'il a faites 3 ce sujet dans sa réplique ne correspondent d'aucune manière à ce que j'avais dit à ce sujet, et il m'est difficile de rencontrer son argumentation. Mon honorable contradicteur avait dit que le principe de I'accés à la mer ne pouvait en aucun cas @tre invoqué par la Pologne pour des fins autres que des fins 6conomiques. Je lui ai démontré, en m'appuyant sur le texte de L'article 28 et sur une interprétation indiscutée de ce texte, que cette disposition est contraire à un système aussi absolu, A une conception aussi restrictive du principe de l'accès à la mer, et je dois dire que cette argumentation n'a pas 6tk rencontrée. Un autre point a été traité en deux endroits, notamment aux pages 87 et 99 de la réplique l. J'avais dit que la PoIogne ne prétend aucunement que la Societé des Nations lui a conféré un mandat permanent ou exclusif relativement à la défense de la Ville libre. J'avais dit que le mandat ne peut étre confer6 qu'en vertu d'une décision de la Société des Nations et dans un cas donné. Mon cher confrère a cru pouvoir déduire de ce que j'ai dit 'non seulement que nous sommes tout près de nous entendre, ce que je souhaiterais de tout cœur, mais encore que j'abandonne ainsi une position qui est capitale dans la thèse polonaise. En s'exprimant ainsi, il a oubli6 de citer les paroles que j 'ai prononcées immédiatement après le passage auquel il s'est référé. J'ai dit, page 9 du procès-verbal de mercredi 2: ce que le Gouvernement polonais soutient, c'est que le Conseil, par sa résolution du 17 novembre 1920, a reconnu un titre spécial à la Pologne pour la défense de Dantzig a, et j'ai dit encore que cette résolution n'avait jamais ét6 modifiée ni retirée. La situation en droit est donc la suivante. La Pologne s'est vu reconnaître, en termes tout à fait généraux, et sans aucune limitation de durée, un titre spécial pour assurer éventuel- lement la clefense de Dantzig. Mais ce titre, à lui seul, ne suffit pas pour que, dans un. cas donné, la Pologne puisse, de -- ' Yp. 340 et 348 du prbsent volume. P. zgg du prCsent voiurne. sa propre autorité, prendre en mains la défense de Ia Ville libre. Il faut pour cela qu'une décision prise par la Société constate qu'il y a lieu, dans un cas donné, de faire appel à la Pologne pour défendre Dantzig contre une agression. Il y a donc ici deux notions qui juridiquement sont trés faciles à distinguer : d'abord le titre spécial de la Pologne, titre qui lui a été reconnu une fois pour toutes, je le répète, et sans aucune limitation de durée ; puis le mandat que, dans un cas déterminé, la Société des Nations. peut conférer à la Pologne, mandat par lequel le titre vient en quelque sorte à s'actualiser dans un cas donné. C'est en vertu du titre spécial que lui avait reconnu la décision du Conseil de la Société des Nations du 17 novembre 1920 que la Pologne a reçu, le 22 juin 1921, le droit à un port d'attache. Ici il faut voir comment les choses se passent dans la dalit&, devraient se passer au cas où la Société des Nations ferait appel à la Pologne pour défendre Dantzig. L'éventualité d'un tel recours de la Sociétd des Nations A la Pologne pour défendre Dantzig exige que, dès le temps de paix, les navires de guerre polonais troiivent à Dantzig des facilités d'accès et de stationnement. La rdsolution du 22 juin est donc très étroitement unie à la résolution du 17 novembre 1920. Elle en forme le corollaire et le développement absolument logique. Les deux décisions du 17 novembre 1920 et du 22 juin 1921 sont donc intimement unies et ne peuvent être séparées. Je répète qu'elles restent toutes deux - on a exprimé un doute à ce sujet - à la base de la thèse polonaise, aussi bien l'une que l'autre ; il ne faut pas chercher à les isoler, à les séparer l'une de I'autre. Je réponds ainsi aux observations qui ont été faites par mon cher confrère, notamment aux pages gg et IOO du procès- verbal de jeudi, ainsi qu'aux pages II et suivantes du procès- verbal d'hier '. Nous arrivons ainsi à l'examen du sens et de la portée de la fameuse résolution du 22 juin 1921 dont il a été si sou- vent parlé ici. Voici ce que mon honorable contradicteur a dit arr sujet du point 6 de cette résolution. Je rappelle que fa résolution portait : <[ Le Conseil n'estime pas nécessaire de déterminer, dès à présent, dans quelles conditions serait assu- rée la défense maritime de Dantzig. n Au sujet de ce principe, mon contradicteur nous dit : « Sans doute c'est un ajournement, mais c'est un ajournement sine die, et je ne puis m'empêcher de penser ici à une forme parlementaire des débats de mon pays, où l'adoption d'une motion d'ajour-

. Pp. 348-349 et 359 et suiv. du prdsent volume. nemen t est considérbe comme I'épuivalen t d'un rejet. Sans doiite, le Conseil n'est pas aUé si loiii, mais il a ajourné la question - sans dire qu'elle serait reprise. u Je ne crois pas défigurer Ie moins du monde la pensée de mon honorable contradicteur en disant qu'un ajournement ainsi compris est bien un renvoi ad calendas gracas. Mais qu'on prenne la peine de relire les deux résolutions 6 et 7 dans leur ensemble: on se rendra compte qu'en réalité les deux textes présentés dans leur ensemble représentent une transaction, et c'est 'cela pr6cisément qui éclaire toute la portée de la délibération du Conseil du 22 juin. La Pologne voit écarter sir~edie - c'est exact -- lJorgani- sation de la dkfense maritime de Dantzig à laquelle elle attachait beaucoup de prix,. Il est incontestable que cette décision était pour eUe une déception. Cependant, I'on n'a pas voulu laisser la Pologne avec les mains vides, on a voulu liii donner quelque chose, quelque chose qui fût compatible à la fois avec le Traité de Versailles et avec l'interdiction d'une base navale. C'est ainsi que le point no 7 commence par les termes : (( Toute- fois, il y a lieu de demander au Haut-Commissaire d'étudier le . moyen de créer .... » C'était une satisfaction donnée i1 la Pologne, satisfaction partielle. sans doute, mais satisfaction tout de méme si T'on admet, comme le soutient le Gouvernement polonais, que quelque chose a 6té d&cidé à ce moment, qu'une décision de principe a tout au moins été prise quant à la création d'lin port d'attache. A cette condition-là, la Pologne a obtenu quelque chose. Mais mon cher confrkre nous dit : (< Rien n'est décidé, il n'y a eu qu'une simple demande de faire un port d'attache. » Si l'on entend les clioses ainsi, je dois bien constater qu'une seconde fois les espoirs de la Pologne ont &té entièrement déçus, et j'ai peine à prêter une telle attitude, dans les circonstances que j'ai suffisamment développées, au C.onsei1. Au sujet toujours de la résolution di1 22 juin 1921, on dit ceci : tr Comment concevoir que le Conseil ait ainsi, d'emblée, reconnu à la Pologne le droit A un port d'attache ? » C'est inconcevable, dit-on ; une autorite telle que le Conseil ne peut pas prendre de décision de cette portée sans s'être éclairée au préalable. 11 fallait Lin rapport, c'était indispensable. Le Conseil ne pouvait prendre aucune décision avant ce rapport. Le Conseil a demandé ce rapport; c'est l'unique objet, dit-on, du point 7, et quant à la thèse polonaise, mon cher ami la résiirne en disant que coiis suge;érons que le Conseil a commencé par prendre sa déciçion et qu'ensuite il a voulu avoir un rapport après ,avoir décidé. C'est vraiment confondre ce que le Gouver- nement a constamment et soigneusement: distingué dans son argumentation. Oui, un rapport Etait nécessaire, j'en suis d'accord, mais pourquoi et à quelles fins 7 Pour faire ce que le Conseil par lui-même ne pouvait pas faire, pour proposer, à Ia suite d'études faites sur place, les modalités d'installation d'un port d'attache, pour élaborer notamment un projet de règlement adniinistratif. réglant, par exemple, un certain par- tage de compétences. Je reconnais qu'à ce point de vue un rapport était indispensable ; et remarquez que c'est cela que le Haut-Commissaire a fait, cela seuI. 11 ne s'est pas occupé d'autre chose. Seules ces questions que je viens d'énumérer ont fait l'objet de ce rapport ; quant à une décision de principe, quant au point de savoir si l'on pouvait oui ou non établir à Dantzig un port d'attache pour les navires de pierre polonais, c'était une décision que !e Conseil était parfaitement A même, le 22 juin 1921, de prendre par Iui-même. Ici il faut tout de même un instant sortir des déductions purement spé- ciilatives, purement ahstraites, dans lesquelles nous avons été entraînés si longtemps. Il faut voir tout de même ce qu'est la sitiiation 1c 22 juin 1921. A ce moment, le port de Dantzig était en fait utilisé par les navires de guerre polonais; quelques mois plus tard, le 8 octobre, un arrangement était conclu, sans aucune enquête, entre la Ville libre et ln Pologne pour l'installation d'un port d'attache. Il s'agissait 15, je le répète, uniquement d'un point d'attache, d'une question qui etait absolument notoire, publique ; la possibilité de l'installation d'un tel port nJéiait pas débattue un seul instant. Aucune enquête préalable, aucun rapport n'était nécessaire. Le Gouvernement polonais a relevé que la décision du 22 juin 1921 avait été commentée par une personnalité qui parait' éminemment désignée poui- faire ce commentaire : le vicomte Ishii. Il a fait observer que l'interprétation, le commentaire, date du même jour que la résolution. Mon cher confrère sera certainement d'accord avec moi pour admettre que lorsqu'un texte.est discuté, il est tout naturel de recourir à l'interpréta- tion qui en a été doniiée par celui qui en est le rédacteur. A ce sujet, mon honorable contradicteur éprouve une répu- gnance invincible à I'égard de la veision anglaise qui figure dans sa documentation. Il est de fait que le texte anglais - il s'agit de la phrase fameuse dont on a tant parlé : whad steps slzould be takelz - embarrasse beaucoup mon contradicteur. En effet, si l'on se reporte à la page 95 du procès-verbal1, on constate que mon - honorabIe contradicteur s'est exprimé au sujet du sens des termes: what steps shoUEd be iaken, de la rnaniére suivante ; il a dit : Que cette phrase puîsse suggérer que la question de principe a déjà été tranchée. c'est possible, mais elle aurait pu aussi bien être employée dans le cas où cette question de principe n'aurait pas été tranchée. » ,

1 P. 344 du prësent volume. J'avoue que cette déclaration m'avait surpris, mais si l'on se reporte deux pages plus loin, à la page 97 ', on constate que mon honorable contradicteur a dit au contraire que l'emploi de ces termes implique une décision : (( Je tiens à déclarer i> - dit-il en effet - a que même s'il n'y avait pas un texte officiel anglais, aucun traducteur ne se serait jamais mépris sur le sens de cette expression, car what steps should be taken indique bien qu'il s'agit d'une décision prise. 11 Je crois que .c'est ici que nous trouvons, dans ce dernier passage, la véritable pensée de mon honorable contradicteur, et, s'il en était ainsi, nous voilà complètement d'accord. Mais on a énervé la portée de cet argument, on a fait valoir que dans lin rapport ultérieur, celui du 12 janvier 1922, le vicomte Ishii avait déclaré : u The High Commissioner was asked to examine the rneans of providing .... n et qu'il ne s'était pas servi des termes what steps shoztld be taken. Vous me permettrez de dire que cela ne fait rien du tout. Car dans ce document du 12 janvier 1922 il est absolument manifeste que le vicomte Ishii ne fait pas du tout de I'inter- prétation. Ce n'est pas d'un commentaire qu'il s'agit ; il cite tout simplemerit les termes de la résolution, et par coiiséquent n'a rien il iiiduire de ces termes. Dans l'examen des antécédents de la résolution du 22 juin, mon confrère est revenu, aux pages IOO et xox du procès- verbal " sur la délibération du Conseil di1 12 décembre 1920 -- la Cour se rappellera qu'il s'agit de cette délibération où M. Balfour avait élevé -des objections très graves contre un projet 'd'organisation de défense de Dantzig élaboré par Ies experts. Malheureusement, ce que j'ai pu dire à ce sujet n'a pas du tout convaincu mon honorable contradicteur. 11 persiste à croire que la proposition qui avait été faite - c'est le dernier point du rapport des experts - de mettre les navires de guerre polonais à l'abri dans le port de Dantzig, tombe sous Ie coup dc cette espèce de condamnation capitale prononcée par M. Balfour. Selon lui, M. Ualfoiir a déclaré r( contraire à l'indépendance de Dantzig et au Trait6 de Versailles un arrangement que la Ville libre a cependant accepté le 8 octobre. 11 reste entendu que M. I3alfour aurait déclaré absolument injustifiable une proposition qui tendait à établir un régime que la Ville libre elle-même, dans une note du 2 août 1927, a déclaré tout à fait justifié eu égard aux circonstances qui esistaient en 1921; mais la 'Ville libre reconnaît que si elle a conclu cet arrangement. du 8 octobre 1921, c'est parce qu'à ce moment la Pologne n'avait aucun port où l'on pût donner abri aux navires-- polonais. ii P. 346 du présent volume. D 349 " P. C'est une thèse, mais elle me parait bien imprévue, et je la laisse à l'appréciation de la Cour. Je ne dirai qu'un mot de l'observation de mon confrère au sujet de la lettre polonaise du 5 mars 1921, qui demandait l'établissement d'un point d'attache pour assurer la sécurité des transports de munitions et du matériel de guerre. Mon cher confrère me dit : (i Par cette lettre, le Gouvernement polonais se borne à demander l'établissement d'un simple point d'attache, ce qui a une signification plus restreinte qu'un port d'attache, et il présente cetté demande uniquement pour une catégorie de bâtiments, pour les bâtiments de police maritime, et voiI& que tout à coiip le Conseil, d'emblée, se jetant en quelque sorte i la tête des Polonais, leur accorde infiniment plus qu'ils n'ont jamais songé à demander ; il leur donne un port d'attache où l'ensemble de la flotte polonaise pourrait trouver abri. 1) J'avais cependant répondu d'avance à cette objection en faisant remarquer, dans nion premier exposé déjà, quel était l'objet de la lettre polonaise du 5 mars 1921. Le Gouvernement polonais, se plagant à un point de vue tout particulier, invoquait la satisfaction d'un besoin tout à fait spccial ; il signalait le danger que pouvait présenter .le transport de murlitions et de matériel de guerre, et, (( polir éviter des accidents - disait-il - il faudrait établir un point d'attache 1). C'est bien là évidemment le point de vue auquel il se plaçait A ce moment ; ce n'était pas du tout le point de vue de la défense de la Ville libre telle que la question a été envisagée par Ia suite par le Conseil de la Société. C'est précisément, comme je l'ai déjà souligné antérieure- ment, ce qui explique que, le 22 juin, le Conseil sc trouve en présence de deux rapports, l'un intitulé (( Défense de la Ville libre i), l'autre intitulé ii Sauvegarde et protection de l'accès de la Pologne à la mer 11. Nous passons maintenant à l'examen du rapport du général Hakinrr.- - " Je n'ai pas du tout l'intention de reprendre ici en détail les arguments qui ont déjà été soumis à la Cour sur ce sujet. Je rappelle simplement que le point de vue du Gouverne- ment polonais à l'égard de la lettre du général Haking du mois de septembre 1921, celui qui a suivi immédiatement la résolution du zs juin, est le suivant : si vraiment rien n'avait été décidé le 22 juin 1921, si, comme le soutient mon hano- rable contradicteur, toute la question était restée en suspens et avait été - notons bien ce point - confiée en son entier à l'examen du Haut-Commissaire, le rapport du Haut-Corn- missaire du IO novembre 1921 devient totalement inintelligible. Comment ! Voici un haut fonctionnaire à qui l'on confie l'ensemble du problème ci11 port d'attache, et par conséquent certainement aussi l'examen du point de savoir s'il y a lieu d'établir un port d'attache, et spécialement s'il est possible de le créer sans établir une base navale. Or, il ne dit pas iin mot à ce sujet, il n'aborde pas cette question, qui est fondamentale et absolument prkjudicielle. Que fait-il ? Une prop- sit ion d'organisation, pas autre chose. Si encore, comme je l'ai déjà dit, le général Haking s'était exprimé d'une façon hypothétique, s'il s'était exprimé au conditionnel, s'i1 avait dit : (( je fais cette proposition pour le cas où l'on déciderait de créer un port d'attache il, on comprendrait. Mais, je le répète, sa proposition ,est faite d'une façon ferme et sans aucune réserve. Dire que, dans ces conditions, la question tout entière était restée en suspens, me parait vraiment une thése difficile à soutenir. A la page g du procès-verbal de l'audience d'hier l, mon honorable contradicteur a très fortement insisté et attiré l'attention de la Cour sur la résoIution du Conseil du 12 janvier 1922. Je rappelle que cette résolution porte que le Conseil décide de renvoyer à une session ultérieure la question de l'examen du port de Dantzig. D'autre part, la même résolu- tion décide que, pour aussi longtemps' que cette question n'aura pas fait l'objet de cet examen, « l'accord préliminaire déjA conclu entre la Ville libre et la Pologne .... restera en ' )). vigueurV Il est inconcevable, a-t-on dit, que Ie Conseil se soit borné à prendre une résolution pareille, qui est une résolution d'ajournement, alors que, d'après la thèse adverse, il avait pris quelques mois auparavant une décision de principe sur la question de la création du port d'attache. Une telle attitude, dit-on, est impossible à conciIier avec la thèse polonaise relative à la r6solution du 22 juin. Voici ma réponse : elle est simple. L'accord qui etait intervenu entre les Parties le 8 octobre 1921 relativement à l'utilisation du port de Dantzig par la Pologne avait établi un nrodus vivendi par lequel, en propres termes, la Pologne declarait (( vouloir continuer A utiliser le port de Dantzig JI. Remarquez que la formule ne préjuge pas la question. Le Conseil sait que cet arrangement du 8 octobre rgzr donne en substance à la Pologne ce qu'elle demande. Il estime inopportun - et c'est très sage de sa part - d'insister davantage, alors que d'un commun accord les Parties ,sont arrivées-à un arrangement qui, après tout, peut leur donner satisfaction, qui a des chances de durer. En fait, nous savons qu'il s'est prolong6 pendant dix ans. Mais - et c'est ici qu'à mon tour je voudrais attirer l'attention de la .Cour sur cette

l P. 358 du présent volume. KÉPLIQUE DE M. DE VISSCHER (POLOGNE) 375 décision du 12 janvier 1922 - il n'y a pas dans ce texte qu'une décision d'ajournement . La résolut ion déclare express~ment que l'arrangement du 8 octobre 1921 doit rester en vigueur entre les Parties jusqu'au moment où le Conseil reprendra l'examen de la question. Ceci a une signification juridique trks nette, tr&s précise, sur laquelle j'attire toute votre attention. L'ajournement de l'affaire n'est donc admis par le Conseil . la condition expresse que l'accord iiitervenu entre les Par'ties reste en vigueur. En d'autres termes, le Conseil ne considère pas les Parties. comme libres. II les considère, au contraire, comme ohligees de maintenir entre elles un régime qui permet à la Pologne d'avoir un port d'attache A Dantzig. Comment expliqtier cette attitude ? Cette explication est impossible A donner dans la thèse défendue par le Gouvernement de la Ville libre. Au contraire, cette décision, qui oblige les Parties à maintenir leur accord, se comprend admirablement bien dans la thèse défendue par le Gouvernement polonais, thèse d'aprés laquelle .une décision de principe était prise obligeant Dantzig à laisser établir sur son territoire un port d'attache. Je crois que la décision du 12 janvier 1922, qui a été invoquée, loin de corroborer la thèse adverse, apporte un argument très net à l'appui de la thèse polonaise. Mon honorable contradicteur a passé ensuite à l'examen des sources de droit applicables. Il a déclaré à ce sujet qu'il apercevait deux termes distincts sur lesquels je pouvais essayer de construire la thèse polonaise : soit le terrain du libre accès à la mer, soit le terrain de la défense de la Ville libre, et il m'a invité à faire un choix entre ces deux modes de présentation de notre thèse. Eh bien, je regrette de ne pas pouvoir donner suite à cette invitation, car cette façon de voir les choses m'a toujours paru fonciérement inexacte, contraire la réalité, contraire aux documents absolument essentiels dans cette question. Ainsi que je l'ai développé amplement dans mon premier exposé, les deux notions d'accès à la mer et de défense de la Ville libre ont toujours été intimement unies au cours des négociations relatives à notre question. Tous les documents officiels sont 18 pour Ie prouver. J'ai cité les deux documents essentiels : la Iettre de la Confé- rence des Ambassadeurs dii 20 octobre 1920 au Secrétaire géné- ral de la Socidté des Nations, le rapport du vicomte Ishii du 17 novembre de la mêrne année, dans le passage qui concerne la défense de la Ville libre. Partout, nous avons vu que c'est parce que la Pologne a iin droit à la mer par Dantzig qu'elle a été considérée comme particulièrement qualifiée, comme ayant un titre spécial pour assurer éventuellement la défense de la Ville libre. Ce serait s'engager dans une entreprise de théorie juridique purement spéculative que de vouloir ainsi scinder, isoler l'une de l'autre dwx idées qui historiquement, dans la réalité des choses, clans la réalité des négociations, ont été constamment et ' intimement unies l'une à l'aritre. Ce qui compte ici, ce qui importe pour la soluiion de cette question, ce n'est pas la conitruction juridique que I'interprAte pciit imaginer. Les textes seuls doivent nous guider. Mon cher confrère m'a demaridi: - pages Ij et 16 du pro- cès-verbal d'hier -- quelle est l'exacte portée de la conclusion qu'aux termes de mon premier exposé j'ai présentée L la Cour. J'avais dit : il résulte des principes qui sont à la base du statut international de Dantzig, ainsi que de la décision du Conseil du 22 juin 1921, que la. Pologne a acquis pour ses navires de guerre, et sous le nom de port d'attache, des droits d'accès et de stationnement à Dantzig. On m'a demandé s'il était question ici de deux bases distinctes et indépendantes d'argumentation, d'une part de principe, et d'autre part de la décision du 22 juin 1921. Je dois faire remarquer que j'ai déjà répondu très explicitement à l'avance à cette cltiestion quand j'ai dit dans mon premier exposé, page 139 du procès-verbal de l'audience de mercredi ', qu'on ne peut pas détacher les résolutions du Con- seil des principes qui sont à la base du statut international de Dantzig. J'avais ajouté expressément que les résoliltions du Conseil ne sont à considérer que comme le développement, la mise en œuvre des principes essentiels. Je ne pilis que me référer A ce passage, qui me paraît convaincant. Un dernier point a été soulevé concernant la deuxième concliision du Mémoire du Goiivernement polonais. 11 est évident - c'est un fait - que l'orgailiçation pratique du port d'attache n'a pas Cté réalisée. L'œuvre du Conseil est restée inachevée. Mais nous savons pourquoi: c'est parce que, depuis le 8 octobre 1921, un arrangement provisoire, un modzis vivettdi était intervenu, accordant en substance à la Pologne ce qu'elle demandait. Qiioi qu'il en soit, et relativement à cette deuxième conclusion, je répète que le Gouvernement polonais maintient que les attributioris qui ont été exercées jusqii'ici dans le port de Dantzig en faveur des navires de guerre polonais rentrent à ses yeux dans la notion de port d'attache et ne créent pas une base navale. Le PRESIDENT.- LC Conseil du Gouvernement polonais n-t-il-- terminé ? l I'p. 3361-362 cIu pr6sent voluiiie. P. 326 du présent volume. M. DE VISSCHER.- Oui, Monsieur le Président. Le PRESTDENT.- J'ai l'impression bien nette que la Cour peut clore l'audience. Il est entendu que, suivant la pratique, elle se réserve de demander ultérieurement des informations et des renseignements, si elle le juge utile, aux agents et conseil des deux Gouvernements. M. VAN EYSINGA.- Je désirerais poser une question A M. le conseil de la Pologne pour être renseigné perçonnelle- ment sur ce clti'il a dit aujourd'hui. Si j'ai bien compris, au début de ses explications, ce matin, il a diiclaré qu'il revien- drait ~Itérieurementsur la question de savoir si Ie principe du libre accès à la. mer çuffit à lui seul ou ne suffit pas pour donner à la Pologne le droit qu'elle prétend avoir cri ce qiii concerne le stationnement ou le port d'attache, et en effet, a la fin de son exposé, RI. de Visscher est revenu sur cette question ; mais, si j'ai bien compris, il a dit ne pouvoir y répondre parce que le principe du libre accès est si intimement lié au principe du mandat de la défense que le principe du libre accès à la mer, à lui seul, ne se pose pas. M. de Visscher n'a pas dit si oui ou non le principe du libre accès suffit, il a dit : cc Dans ce cas-ci, la question ne se pose pas de cette façon, parce que le libre accès à la mer est toujours lié 311 mandat de la défense. i> C'est bien ainsi ? M. DE VISSCHER.- C'est bien ainsi. M. VAN EYSINGA.- Je vous remercie. Sir JOHN FISCHERW~~~r~bfs.-Wouid the President allow me to rnake one very brief remark by way of a point of procedure, and one other remark also ? The only remark 1 wish to make by wa.y of procedure is tliis: that my friend, perfectly pi-operIy if 1 may say so, in the course of his argument, has referred to certain things which 1 said in the course of my argument. Some of those things depend, a. little, if 1 may express it, upon a rather nice use of language. If the Court has any occasion to examine with any care, with regard to particular questions of language, what I said, may 1 emphasize that the Engliçh version of what 1 said is the version which 1 haire had the opportiinity of looking throiigh and which correctIy representç exactly what I said ? 1 do not for one moment suggest that the French text is not perfectly accurate, but, of course, there are little points of langiiage upon which there may be differences between the two languages. 1 do not presume, with such knowledge as I have of the French language, to introduce any cor- rections into the French text. That is one point. ' The other small point is this. My friend, in the course of his remarks to-day, introduced very slightly and very lightly one topic which, 1 think, has not been included in his Mémoires and which was new to me. That was, he said it was notorious in June 1921 that the Polish fleet was actually in Danzig. 1 do not know at al1 hew that is. It may be so, it may not be so. It was no part, as 1 understood it, of his original case, and I imagine that what is material on that head, if the Court thinks it mnterinl at alI, is not so much whether the Polish fieet was there or not, as whether that point was clearly brought to the knowledge of the Council, and consequently was one of the matters lvhich it had in consideration when it took its decision. On that point we have no evidence whatever of any kind at all, and 1 understand my frieiid has not either.