jsrss.] ° * cM N ° ' ; c. 308.1 9 3 I-1.

Geneva, May 16th, 1931.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES IN POLAND

POSITION OF THE GERMAN MINORITIES IN THE V01V0DIES OF SILESIA, POZNAN AND POMORZE'

Note by the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate herewith to the Council for consideration a letter, with annexes, from the Polish delegate accredited to the League of Nations, dated May 14th, 1931, and containing the information referred to in the report on this question submitted by the representative of Japan and adopted by the Council at its meeting on January 24th, 1931.

1 Documents C.665, C.681, 0.699.1930.! and C.22, C.58, C.66 and C. 138.1931.1.

S'd.N. 470 (F.) 5/31. 280 (A.) 6/31. Imp. Kundig. [T ranslation.]

LETTER FROM THE POLISH DELEGATE ACCREDITED TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL.

Geneva, May 14th, 1931.

With reference to the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations dated January 24th, 1931 (document C.138.1931.1), I have the honour to forward to you herewith, for communi­ cation to the Council of the League of Nations, a statement of the measures which the Polish Government has taken as a result of the electoral incidents which occurred in the Upper Silesian part of the Voivodie of Silesia in November 1930. Annex 1 contains detailed information on the results of the investigations ordered in connection with the different cases mentioned in the petition of the “ Deutscher Volksbund ” and on the penalties inflicted and measures of compensation taken as a result of these investigations. Annex 2 outlines the present position in Polish Upper Silesia and mentions the general measures which the Polish Government has decided to adopt to promote the peaceful co-operation of all the elements of the Silesian population, making clear once more the attitude of the administrative authorities towards the German minority in Silesia and towards certain majority organisations.

(Signed) F. S o k a l , Minister Plenipotentiary.

Annex 1.

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS INSTITUTED BY THE POLISH GOVERNMENT INTO THE VARIOUS CASES MENTIONED IN THE PETITION FROM THE “ DEUTSCHER VOLKSBUND ”, AND PENALTIES IMPOSED AND COMPENSATION GRANTED AS A RESULT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS.

As the Polish Government has already informed the Council of the League in its memorandum dated January 9th, 1931 (document C.66.1931.1), exhaustive investigations have been instituted in all the cases enumerated in the petition from the “ Volksbund ” with a view to the discovery of the guilty parties, and irrespective of whether official action was taken in respect of these offences or whether private charges were laid, and whether the injured parties informed the police of these incidents or not. The result of these investigations carried out by the police was brought to the knowledge of the public prosecutors. No account was taken of the desire of a certain number of the injured parties, who stated that they did not wish to take proceedings against the offenders. The district prosecutor, being of opinion that a full enquiry was desirable in the public interest, instituted a judicial investigation into all the cases raised, although some of the alleged offences hardly appeared to be of a nature to bring into play the action of the public authorities. The district prosecutor, as the representative of the Attorney-General, is required, under Article 53 of the Polish Penal Code, to lay and prosecute the charge in cases where proceedings are instituted by official action. In the case of proceedings instituted on account of private complaints, the injured party must lay and prosecute the complaint in the form of a private charge (Article 60 P.P.C.); in such cases, the Public Prosecutor may take up the private charge on behalf of the Attorney-General, if he considers this necessary in the public interest (Article 69 P.P.C.). Thus, irrespective of the public or private nature of the complaint, the Public Prosecu­ tor, in the course of the enquiries instituted by him, summoned the injured parties and had them questioned by the magistrate. In the case of offences giving rise to private action, the interested parties were informed by the Public Prosecutor that he was prepared to prosecute the charge on behalf of the Attorney-General ; moreover, private indictments were drawn up by the Public Prosecutor and signed in his presence by the injured parties. When such private charges were laid, the Public Prosecutor brought the case before the court and at the same time stated that he would prosecute on behalf of the State. Private charges in regard to which the injured parties refused to lay a complaint or re q u e s te d that proceedings should be abandoned were not proceeded with for lack of formal grounds on which to bring an official charge. In the cases on which particular stress was laid in the petition from the “ Volksbund ”, investigations were carried out on the spot in order to obtain more accurate information regarding the injured parties and the offenders. Special account was taken of the necessity for confronting — 3 — the injured parties with police officers in order to ascertain their attitude and conduct. Special enquiries, and enquiries with reference to searches were carried out in order to establish the true aspect of the facts. As a result of these enquiries, the prosecutor of the Katowice district court laid complaints in 121 cases; in 104 cases the injured parties, although they were informed by the prosecutor of the necessity for laying a complaint that could be proved, in regard to which he was prepared to take action, failed to bring such charges. In most cases, they stated that they did not desire the punishment of the offenders ; many of them (twenty-seven) expressed astonishment that their cases had been included in the petition from the “ Volksbund ”, since they had not asked the latter to take action and had not authorised it to do so. Consequently, they were] not consulted in the matter. In fourteen cases the injured parties brought to the court charges drawn up and handed to them by the “ Volksbund These charges were subsequently withdrawn by the parties concerned either before the opening or in the course of the proceedings, so that they were non-suited (Articles 67 and 68 P.P.C.). In ten cases, as the offenders were not discovered, proceedings were suspended until they should be found. Proceedings were abandoned in twenty-two cases owing to lack of evidence that a punishable act had been committed, failure to identify the persons injured, or a false charge having been brought. Finally, it should be noted that, among the cases included in the petition from the “ Volksbund ”, four are cases of a definitely criminal nature for which no political grounds existed. Up to April 25th, 1931, 104 cases had been heard, with the following results : in fifty-two cases the accused were convicted and sentenced to fines of a few zlotys and up to six months’ imprisonment ; in fifty-one cases they were acquitted owing to lack of sufficient evidence; in one case the injured party withdrew the charge during the proceedings. In eleven cases, for reasons over which the court had no control—such as, for instance, the serious illness of the accused or of the witnesses, the non-appearance of witnesses before the Court, or the necessity for summoning new witnesses—the hearing has not yet taken place or has been postponed by decision of the court, in some cases several times over. The judicial authorities mean to do their utmost to complete the hearing of such cases as soon as possible. In some cases, in which the accused were acquitted, and in others, in which they were convicted, the Public the Prosecutor has appealed. Apart from the formal reprimands administered to nine officials, which has already been brought to the knowledge of the Council of the League, disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the officials accused by the “ Volksbund ”. As a result of these proceedings, six officials were convicted, one of them being dismissed; five were acquitted for lack of evidence or because the charge was found to be false. Finally, in six cases the officials against whom a false charge had been made laid a complaint against their accusers, and the disciplinary proceedings have accordingly been suspended until the result of the action brought before the court is known. Compensation to injured parties was first granted at the beginning of March 1931, when the judicial proceedings were nearing their end. Official payment was ordered to be made to all persons who had sustained material damage to their property or on account of the loss of salary or wages during their illness, irrespective of whether the charges were brought by the injured parties or not, whether the offenders were discovered or not, and whether the judgment delivered took the form of a conviction or an acquittal. In principle, the declaration made by the injured party was taken as a basis for estimating the damage sustained. However, in the case of flagrantly unreasonable claims, the amount of the compensation was fixed by means of an enquiry on the spot by an ad hoc commission or a representative of the German minority in the commune. In a few exceptional cases in which it was not possible to arrive at an agreement with regard to the amount of the compensation even by this means, the compensation will be fixed by the court as the outcome of a civil action. As a result of the measures enumerated above, compensation has been paid in 114 cases; payments on account, pending the fixing of the damage by the civil court, have been made to seven persons only; and in nine cases, in which the applications for compensation were not justified and were not supported by evidence, payment was postponed until the damage had been assessed by the civil court. In eighteen cases the injured parties refused compensation, chiefly on account of the insignificance of their losses. In a few cases the offenders themselves made good the damage. In certain other cases payment was made by the insurance companies. In only three cases was there a refusal to pay for the damage, owing to the purely criminal nature of the incidents, although the injured party was not prevented from substantiating his claims before the court. In one case the injured party stated that he did not wish to come to an arrangement with the authorities. The other cases did not involve material damage. Additional applications for payment submitted in certain cases on account of injury were rejected for lack of evidence. This does not impair the right of the injured party to bring an action against the offender in accordance with the provisions of the law. The persons concerned have been informed of this. Details of the result of the enquiries instituted into the incidents, and of the convictions pronounced, will be found below.1

1 Note by the Secretariat : See pages 5 and following. — 4 —

Annex 2.

As the Polish Government has already had an opportunity of stating in its memorandum of January 6th last, the regrettable incidents which occurred in Upper Silesia in November 1930 were largely due to the tension caused by the electoral campaign. After the elections, this excitement subsided and the relations between the various racial and political groups of the Silesian population gradually resumed their normal aspect. The Polish authorities, for their part, used all the means at their disposal to promote this fortunate development and to contribute to the general reconciliation. In these endeavours the Polish authorities were particularly anxious :

(1) To give practical evidence of the goodwill with which the Polish Government regards the legitimate aspirations of the minorities ; (2) To lay down clearly that no social or political organisation, whatever its tendencies or character, can enjoy a privileged position in its relations with the authorities of the country; (3) To impress on all public servants and organisations accessible to their influence the necessity of constant and pacific co-operation between all elements of the population, both members of the majority and of the minorities.

Acting on these principles, the Silesian voivode, when opening the third session of the Silesian Diet, made the following declaration on December 9th, 1930, on behalf of the Polish Government :

“ In conformity with the statements I have already made on various occasions in this House, I desire once again to affirm, as representative of the Polish Government, that the latter will accord to the rights of the national minorities, as these rights are recognised in the Polish Constitution, the laws of the country and international agreements, a constant protection conceived on very liberal lines and going beyond the strict obligations arising out of the various instruments. ”

On March 17th, 1931, the Silesian voivode summoned all the starosts of the voivodeship to an official conference at Katowice, at which he drew their attention to the decrees previously issued on the strict observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention, and instructed them to treat any applications made to them by members of the minority with the greatest goodwill. The official communiqué relating to this conference is annexed (Sub-Annex 2B x). On March 20th, 1931, the voivode sent a circular to the starosts and superintendents of police in the voivodeship, containing explicit recommendations as to the attitude which these authorities were to adopt to the various social organisations, among others the Union of Ex-Service Men (Association of Insurgents). This circular, a copy of which is annexed (Sub-Annex 2C2), specially emphasises that organisations which, in accordance with a widely recognised practice, have conferred the title of honorary member or president on high Government officials, cannot thereby lay claim in any way to privileged treatment. On March 20th, 1931, the Silesian voivode issued a rescript to the chief superintendent of police in the voivodeship, reminding him of the regulations in force which forbid police officials to become members of the political parties or certain social organisations, among others the Union of Ex-Service Men (Association of Insurgents) (see Sub-Annex 2D3). Apart from these administrative measures, the Government policy in Upper Silesia was clearly expressed in an official declaration by the voivode published on February nth, 1931, stating that the daily newspaper, Polska Zachodnia, was neither an official nor semi-official organ (Sub-Annex 2A1). Moreover, the Silesian voivode made an appeal at Easter to the Union of Ex-Service Men (Association of Insurgents) insisting on the necessity of friendly co-operation with the minority (see Sub-Annex 2E4). This consistent attitude of the authorities and the measures adopted by them have produced excellent results in Upper Silesia, which are entirely in conformity with the desires expressed by the Council of the League of Nations at its last meeting. Since then, there has, on several occasions, been evidence of the good relations between the authorities of the country and the minority. It will be sufficient to mention that the German Club in the Silesian Diet voted for the voivodeship budget, and also granted the voivode the special funds which he requested. Similarly, a number of questions which previously formed the subject of keen controversy in the Silesian Diet have recently been settled as a result of an agreement between the majority and minority political parties. In view of the results already obtained, the Polish Government is firmly convinced that the policy it has adopted will ensure a constant and steady improvement in the frank and friendly relations between the various groups of the Silesian population.

Notes by the Secretariat : 1 See page 33. 2 See page 34. 3 See page 35. 4 See page 35. Sub-Annex 1 A.

K a t o w ic e D is t r ic t .

x. By sentence of the magistrates court of Ruda, dated March 6th, 1931, Sebastian Potyka and Emanuel Chwalczyk were found, under paragraphs 223 and 47 of the Penal Code, to be guilty of the following offences : On November 23rd, 1930 they together did injury to the body and health of one Wincenty Kwapis. The accused Potyka kicked him in the back and Chwalczyk boxed his ears. For this they were sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment. Kwapis, who had taken civil proceedings, obtained compensation of 15 zlotys from each of the accused (a total of 30 zlotys). The application in civil procedure for compensation in respect of the wages lost for three days’ work was dismissed by the court on the ground that the bodily injury was slight; Kwapis did not submit a medical certificate, and any nervous trouble suffered as a result of the blows could not have prevented him from carrying on his regular occupation. It was found that the complaint concerning the police officers who, although present in the polling-booth, did not inter­ vene when called upon to do so, was not founded. The place where Kwapis was attacked was some hundred metres from the polling-booth. 2. The case was not notified to the police, who opened an investigation ex officio. During the judicial investigations Kurpanek’s evidence could not be taken, as he had gone to relatives in Germany, and the date of his return is not known. His wife, on being questioned by the judge, stated that both she and her husband were Poles and that a Polish spirit prevailed in their home. As regards the German voting papers, Kurpanek had only distributed them to earn money. Kurpanek’s wife stated that her husband was not going to bring a charge against anyone, and the case was therefore dismissed. 3. On November 26th, 1930, in polling-booth No. 15 at Bielszowice, the suspects, Jan Potyka, Sebastjan Potyka, and Ludwik Nowak, addressed Soltysek, the agent of the German list, with the words : “ You pieron [untranslatable local term of abuse], what are you doing here ? ” On these words Soltysek rose to leave the polling-booth. He was then seized, hustled out of the premises and, once in the corridor, received several blows with sticks in the back and a kick in the back. Soltysek sent in a complaint drafted by the “ Volksbund ” against Copik and Potyka for a serious breach of the public peace and corporal injury, and against the chairman of the Election Committee and the police officers “ for complicity ”. On being questioned by the judge, Soltysek stated that the police had immediately opened an investigation, had interrogated him and had discovered the guilty parties, although, as he himself admits, there was no police officer in the corridor where he was assaulted, the constable on duty—Gruszka—being at the moment in the courtyard, and the injured person himself did not ask the police to intervene. As regards the chairman of the Committee, Soltysek stated that, when after being attacked, he wished to leave the booth, not by the corridor, but by the main room, the chairman of the Committee forbade him to do so saying, “ You cannot pass this way ”. Soltysek does not know, however, and cannot say whether the chairman knew that in the corridor there were suspicious characters who might attack him. Further, Soltysek said that he wished to leave the electoral premises of his own accord. After hearing the judge read out the charge, Soltysek stated that he desired to withdraw it, and that he did not want any action to be taken on it, since he had not wished to put it forward. The “ Volksbund ” had not asked for his consent in lodging the complaint, but when Soltysek had received the relevant paper, and had been asked to sign it and send it on, he had done so. Soltysek also stated that he was German, that he had been working since 1926 in German Upper Silesia and that he had been a member of the " Volksbund ” for three years, having joined it so as not to be out of work. Nevertheless, as a disabled ex-service man, he had been dismissed in April of last year, and it was not until February 5th, 1931, after the assault, that he was again given work in the Hohenzollem mine, although the other disabled ex-service men who were dismissed are still unemployed. In view of the foregoing, no action was taken on Soltysek’s complaint. 4. By sentence of the magistrates court of Ruda, dated March 6th, 1931, Sebastjan Potyka, Jan Potyka, Ryszard Pokorny and Blazej Smaga were found guilty of offences under paragraphs 223 and 47 of the Penal Code on the charge that, on November 23rd, 1930, at Bielszowice they, with intent, did injury to one Ferdynand Machnik, causing him bodily harm, and by assaulting him injuring his health. In particular, the accused Sebastian Potyka brutally seized Machnik by the front of his jacket and pulled him forward, while the accused Ryszard Pokorny pulled him by the right hand, and a third agressor, not recognised by Machnik, struck him in the neck with his fist. When later on Machnik, escorted by the police-officer Spratek, left the polling-booth, someone struck him on the head with his fist and another aggressor kicked him in the left leg. Afterwards, in the courtyard, the same gang of aggressors which had surrounded him in the booth continued to beat him with sticks. Sebastjan Potyka and Ryszard Pokorny were sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment and Jan Potyka and Blazej Smaga to ten days’ imprisonment. Police-sergeant — 6 —

Wilhelm Kluba and Police-constable Jôzef Spratek were subjected to a disciplinary examination, which established that the accusations against the said police-officers were untrue, since the police intervened immediately, and constable Spratek received several blows with sticks when doing so. Ferdynand Machnik was given compensation of 162 zlotys for injuries received and his medical expenses.

5. The injured party, Anna Szczyrbowska, on being questioned by the judge, stated that she would not bring a charge. At the same time she declared that she was Polish, and expressed surprise that the “ Volksbund ” should have taken up her case, as she had not applied to it personally and had never asked nor desired its intervention. According to the statements of the woman and of witnesses, the allegation that there were about 160 persons present does not appear to be true. For these reasons no further action was taken, but 142 zlotys were granted to Szczyrbowska as compensation for damage.

6. See No. 7 below.

7. The magistrates court of Myslowice, at its sitting of February 25th, 1931, passed sentence on Jan Swierczynski and Jôzef Gajda, both inhabitants of Mala Dabrôwska, charged with the following offences : On November 13th, 1930, the accused Swierczynski at Mala Dabrôwska: (a) acting without authorisation and passing himself off as a police-officer, demanded admittance to the premises of Wiktorja and Teodor Rajwa in order to confiscate electoral proclamations; (b) a t the same time and place he introduced himself illegally into their dwelling and disturbed the peace thereof ; (c) at the same time and place he maliciously and intentionally damaged a bolt by kicking the door of the Rajwa’s house, the damage being estimated at 15 zlotys ; (d) at the same time and place he said to Wiktorja Rajwa: “ I shall beat your husband like a dog ”, and threatened to kill him. On January 27th, 1931, at Mala Dabrôwska, the accused Gajda: (a) said to the woman Wiktorja Rajwa, “ If an order comes once more from the voivodie, you and your husband and children will be the first to be killed, even if you ask for mercy on your knees ”, and threatened to kill her and her family; (b) on November 13th, 1930, at Mala Dabrôwska, he was guilty of a serious offence by attacking, without reason, during the night the woman Anna Labusowa, whom he struck on the arm with his stick, and made a noise, creating a disturbance in the night. The decision of the court was as follows : the accused Jan Swierczynski was sentenced for offences under paragraphs 241, 123, 132 of the Penal Code to a total penalty of three months' imprisonment : nevertheless he was acquitted of the charges under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law and paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2, of the Law of January 23rd, 1925, concerning the carrying of arms. The accused Jôzef Gajda was sentenced for an offence under paragraph 241 of the Penal Law to one month’s imprisonment and for a misdemeanour under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law to fifteen days’ imprisonment. It is open to the parties to bring an action for damages before the civil courts. As regards compensation, the injured party, Teodor Rajwa, stated on oath before the court that he claimed no compensation from the public authorities, as he had himself laid a complaint against the offenders before the court. As regards the windows broken in Rajwa’s dwelling in the night of November 12th, 1930, Rajwa brought no private charge and consequently, in the absence of evidence of an offence against public law, the case lapsed.

8. The magistrates’ court of Myslowice, at its session of March 12th, 1931, took the following decision in the case against Konstanty Gowda and Walenty Hoffman, both of Mala Dabrôwska, accused of having broken windows and destroyed a bed on November 15th, 1930, at Mala Dqbrôwska, ul. Siemianowicka, thus committing a grave offence: the accused were acquitted, the costs to be borne by the Treasury. The sum of 90 zlotys was paid to the injured party, Zofja Beldzik, as compensation for the three broken window-panes, the destruction of the bed and costs of treatment.

9. The injured party, Florjan Stein, of Dabrôwska Wielka, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had no desire whatever that the guilty persons should be punished. Accordingly, no action was taken in his case. The damages were paid by the offenders.

10. The magistrates court at Myslowice, in its judgment of March 4th, 1931, decided that the accused, Hubert Czabonczyk and Alois Ociepka, both of Janow, were guilty of an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Code, which they committed on November 22nd, 1930, at 11.20 p.m. at Janow, ul. Zamkowa No. 27, by breaking six window-panes in the dwelling of one Emil Jesz. Accordingly, Czabonczyk was sentenced to three weeks’ imprisonment and Ociepka to two weeks’ imprisonment, with conditional suspension of the penalty for two years. Compensation was paid for the damage, which was estimated at 75 zlotys.

11. Maksymiljan Sassin, of Katowice, on being questioned by the judge, stated that the police had made an investigation ex officio and without any statement on his part; personally, he did not regard himself as injured, as nobody had struck him and he therefore did not wish to lodge a complaint or ask for penal proceedings. Gotfryd Griitzmann stated in his evidence that no one had attacked or insulted him, and that he had not jumped on to a tram or fled from any assailants. Accordingly the case was dismissed. — 7 —

12. The magistrates court of Katowice, at its session of February 18th, 1931, passed judgment finding the accused Roman Niewolik, Wtadyslaw Goniar, Pawel Menzel and Teodor Szajda, guilty of offences under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph n , and paragraph 47 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as, on November 12th, 1930, they jointly created a riot and disturbed the public peace, and sentenced them to four days’ detention with conditional suspension for one year. Aloizy Niemczyk, accused of the same offence, was acquitted by the court. The accusation against the Police Commissioner Guzior was dismissed. As regards compensation, it is open to the injured party to take civil proceedings against the persons sentenced, in view of the fact that the quarrel arose as a result of inveterate personal animosity between neighbours. It should be noted that the Rumpel and Skrzypa families had a very bad reputation and have several entries in the police dossiers.

13. The injured party, Wincenty Dudek, of Zalçze, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he suspected no one, that the reasons for the act were unknown to him and that he made no complaint. The case was accordingly dismissed. Compensation amounting to 5 zlotys was paid.

14. The injured party, Ludwik Lippa, of Katowice, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not know the individuals who had beaten him, nor could he give the number or name of the police-officer who was alleged to have intervened. He further stated that he was a Pole, that he had taken an active part in the insurrection on the Polish side, that he sent his children to the Polish school and that he was bringing them up in a Polish spirit. He withdrew his first statement made before the office of the Upper Silesian Mixed Commission, in which he had stated that he belonged to the German minority ; he had only made this statement in a state of great excitement and anger against the miscreants without realising what he was doing. The guilty parties not having been discovered, no further action has been taken. Compensation was paid for the damages, estimated at 20 zlotys.

15. The injured party, Augustyn Galuszka, of Katowice, on being questioned by the judge, stated that his sympathies were Polish, that he had never belonged to the German minority, and that it was poverty which led him to distribute German voting cards. He said that the guilty parties were unknown to him and that, if he were compensated for the damage suffered, he would make no complaint or accusation. The case was accordingly dismissed, and compensation of 100 zlotys was paid to the injured party.

16. The public procession organised at Katowice on November 22nd, 1930, constituted a spontaneous protest of the Polish minority against the revisionist aims which had been proclaimed by German statesmen and which seriously disturbed the atmosphere of peaceful co-existence between the majority and the minority. The procession in question was therefore not an act of hostility against the German minority but a defensive act provoked by the demands for revision proclaimed by the Minister Treviranus (in the territory of German Silesia, the song Siegreich wollen wir Polen schlagen can be sung in public and cries hostile to Poland may be uttered without any objection on the part of the German authorities).

17. The injured party, Michal Jelita, of Zalçze, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not know who had broken his windows or why, and, although he suspected a certain individual, he made no complaint nor asked for penal proceedings. Accordingly, the case was dismissed and compensation of 40 zlotys was paid.

18. Fryderyk Hoinkis, of Zalçze, on being questioned by the judge, stated that the individuals who had assaulted him were unknown to him, and that he did not know the causes or reasons of their action. He had neither asked for penal proceeding nor made a complaint. He added, however, that, without any statement on his part, the police had opened an enquiry. The case was therefore dismissed, compensation of 18 zlotys being paid to him.

19. Herman Klaszka, of Zalçze, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not notify the police of the attack of which he was the victim, but that the police opened an enquiry ex officio. According to his statement, the case came to the knowledge of the “Volksbund” as follows: certain individual came to see his wife and asked her to communicate the case to the secretariat of the “ Volksbund ”. He himself does not know the cause of the attack, for he is absolutely neutral from the political point of view. He lodged no complaint nor asked for penal proceedings to be taken. The case was accordingly dismissed and compensation of 20 zlotys was paid.

20. The case relating to the blows struck at Wojciech Hoheisel is pending before the Katowice regional court. The Public Prosecutor will conduct the case and the hearing has been fixed for April 28th, 1931.

21. The injured party, Jan Kciuk, lodged a complaint on April 3rd, 1931, under paragraphs 74 and 223 of the Penal Code against Jan Skrzypiec, Jôzef Piechota and Edmund Ledwon for an offence consisting in having jointly entered his dwelling on November 22nd, 1930; furthermore, Piechota kicked him in the stomach, causing him bodily injury. The injured party, Adolf Kciuk, brought a charge on April 3rd, 1931, under paragraphs 223, 223 («) and 47 of the Penal Code against Jan Skrzypiec, Jôzef Piechota and Edmund Ledwon for the following offence : On November 22nd, 1930, at Kochlowice, these three persons jointly inflicted bodily injuries on him with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a revolver; the said Kciuk spent two weeks in bed in the Spolka Bracka Hospital at Krôlewska Huta, as a consequence of the shots fired at him. On April 2nd, 1931, Ludwig Dolibog filed an act of accusation against Jôzef Piechota for an offence under paragraph 223 of the Penal Code. On November 22nd, 1930, the accused inflicted on him a bodily injury at Katowice by striking him with his fist on the nose, causing a wound which lasted two weeks. In all the above-mentioned cases, which are pending before the Katowice divisional court, the Public Prosecutor is conducting the proceedings. Judgment has not yet been pronounced. Teodor Kowolik, on being questioned by the judge and informed of the necessity of bringing a private charge, stated that neither he nor his wife considered themselves as injured, and that they would refrain from any further proceedings. Alojzy Smuda was summoned by the judge to be interrogated but did not appear, and has brought no private charge. The judicial proceedings have accordingly been abandoned. The injured party, Adolf Kciuk, was given compensation amounting to 182 zlotys for damage to clothes, medical attention and loss of wages for fourteen days. In respect of the windows broken in the lodgings of Smuda and Kciuk, 20 zlotys damages were paid to Jan Kciuk, owner of the building.

22. The divisional court at Katowice, at its session of March 12th, 1931, took proceedings against Jan Skrzypiec, Jôzef Piechota and Edmund Ledwon, accused of having, jointly, inten­ tionally and unlawfully deprived of his liberty on November 22nd, 1930, at Kochlowice, one Henry Majnusz, whom they obliged to leave his dwelling. They forcibly took him into the courtyard and then, despite his protests, conducted him to Rajwa’s restaurant, where he was detained until the arrival of the police, who released him from his aggressors. The court passed judgment acquitting all the accused. The police-officers in the “ Volksbund’s ” petition— viz., Grzegorz Mieszczanin, Ludwik Ostrowski and Emil Strzodka, complained against Henryk Majnusz before the magistrates’ court at Katowice for false accusation and slander, and consequently the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the said officers was suspended until the end of the trial.

23. The magistrates court at Ruda, at its session of March 6th, 1931, found the accused, Pawel Bujara, guilty of an offence under paragraph 223 of the Penal Code. On November 23rd, 1930, at Konczyce, he struck one, Edward Stein, with a stick, causing him bodily damage and injury to his health. The offender was sentenced to 10 zlotys fine or two days’ imprisonment in case of insolvency.

24. The injured party, Teodor Plaza, of Konczyce, stated that he had been urged to lodge a complaint, but th at he would not do so. He further declared th at he did not desire the offender to be punished. He stated at the same time t h'at a certain A. Kaszel, of Katowice, ulica Mlysnka 23 (an employee of the " Volksbund ”), informed him that it was not for him, Plaza, to forgive the offence; that the matter must in any case be brought before the court, and that consequently Plaza must sign the complaint and return it to Kaszel, which he did. If what he signed was to be regarded as a complaint, he asked that no action should be taken on it, since he never wished to sign a complaint and only did so in ignorance, as he cannot read Polish well. He has no relationship with the " Volksbund ” and never authorised the latter to intervene in his case. The case was accordingly dismissed. Plaza still works at the Delbrück mine in German Silesia.

25. The injured party, Rudolf Maznrek, of Konczyce—20 years of age, but described as a “ child ” in the " Volksbund’s ” petition—on being examined by the judge, stated that he did not inform the “ Volksbund ” of the a ttack made upon him and did not desire it to intervene. On being told that he must make a complaint, he said that he would not do so, so that no action has been taken. In the course of his interrogation, Mazurek stated that he worked at the Delbrück mine in German Silesia, where workers from Polish Silesia are only admitted if they belong to some German association. He alleges that, in this case, a workman is sure to obtain work, although the German workmen are indignant at this. His father, Jan, who is an agent of the German party, did election work, chiefly in the German part of Silesia, and for this purpose got into touch with the management of the Delbrück mine. This management even recommended the workers from the Polish part, by means of a written notice, to place themselves at Jan Mazurek’s disposal on the day of the elections. The injured party, Jerzy Stolot, of Konczyce—described as a " child ” in the “ Volksbund’s ” petition, but 20 years of age—on being interrogated by the judge, stated that he was a Pole, and that the attack against him had no political cause, as he took no part in politics. He was only speaking Polish in the street with Mazurek. On being told that he must lodge a complaint, he said that he would not do so, his health not having suffered. The " Volksbund ” took up his case without his knowledge and against his will. He refused to sign the complaint, which was sent to him by the “ Volksbund ’’ and returned it without signature. The case was accordingly dismissed. During the examination, Stolot stated that he worked in German Silesia at the Delbrück Mine, where workmen coming from Poland are required to join the German " Verband ", Recalcitrants were given to understand that they would be dimissed at the next reduction of staff. Just before the elections, a certain Miczke, employed at the mine, ordered — 9 —

him and six other workmen to report to Mazurek, the German agent in Polish Silesia, and to stand in front of the polling booth with German voting cards. Stolot asked that his evidence, as well as the fact that he was a Pole, should be kept secret, as otherwise he would immediately lose his job. The injured party, Grzegorz Musiol of Konczyce—described as a “ child ” in the “ Volksbund’s petition but aged about 17—on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not know why he had been struck, but in any case it could not be for a political reason. He was speaking Polish in the street. He had not applied to the police himself, but had been summoned by it only on January 4th, 1931. He stated at the same time that he had not wanted, and still did not want, the offender to be punished. The father of the injured party, Franciszek Musiol, was also examined by the judge, and stated that he did not want the “ Volksbund ” to deal with the case. One day he had received a complaint drawn up by the " Volksbund ", and he had only signed it and sent it on because he thought that, if he did not do so, it would be thought that his son had not been assaulted. He does not, however, wish the case to be pursued, and asks that no action should be taken on his complaint. 26. In the night of November 23rd, 1930, two explosions took place at Konczyce, one at the house of Piotr Gizder, who is a Pole, and the other at the house of Jan Mazurek, who states that he is a German. At the time of the explosion, three stones and a bottle were thrown, which broke four window-panes in Mazurek’s lodging. The explosion did not leave the slightest trace either on the ground or on the walls of the house. On being questioned by the judge, Mazurek stated, after being informed of the necessity of bringing a complaint, that he would not do so, as he thought the accident was caused by the foolishness of irresponsible people. He asked that the complaint signed by him and sent to the court should be disregarded. He explained that a man, whose name he would not give, had encouraged him to sign this complaint, asserting that it was not for him to forgive the offenders, and that his forgiveness was of no consequence, since the case must be submitted to the court. The results of the enquiry did not provide sufficient ground for bringing legal proceedings under the law on explosions, and the case was therefore dismissed. Compensation to the amount of 11 zlotys was paid to Mazurek. 27. The injured party, Karol Klinke, of Konczyce, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had not reported the breaking of his windows to the police, as he had no confidence in the police. He had, however, related the fact to an agent of the “ Verband ” named Mazurek. On being told that he must bring a charge, he said that he would not do so, as he did not think the offender should be punished. The case was accordingly dismissed, 10 zlotys compensation being paid. The injured party, Marja Bienia, of Konczyce, on being questioned by the judge, said that she was Polish, that the windows had been broken without political reason, and that she did not know what right the " Volksbund ” had to deal with the case, since she had neither wished nor asked the " Volksbund ” to take her part, she being a Pole. At the same time, she mentioned that the “ Volksbund ’’ had sent her a complaint to sign, but that she had sent it back to the Public Prosecutor without signing it; she also complained that the “ Volksbund ” had exposed her, a poor widow, to unnecessary expense. The case was accordingly dismissed, and 5 zlotys compensa­ tion was paid to the woman Bienia. The injured party, Oskar Drost, of Konczyce, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had been informed of the necessity of bringing a charge, but that he did not intend to do so. When, however, the “ Volksbund ’’ had sent him a written complaint, he had signed it and sent it on, since he had thought that otherwise he would receive no compensation. This complaint being regarded as a request for penal proceedings, he withdraws it and asks that no action should be taken. At the same time, Drost stated that he was a German national, that he belonged neither to the " Volksbund ” nor to any other German association, and that he was a member of the Polish Sporting Club. The case was accordingly dismissed, and compensation of 330 zlotys was paid to Drost. 28. The injured party, Karol Hold, of Konczyce, on being questioned by the judge, said he had made no statement to the “ Volksbund " concerning his case and had not asked it to intervene, since if he had wished to take any action, he would have applied to the police himself. On being told that he must lodge a complaint, he said that he did not wish to do so, and the case was accordingly dismissed. 29. By judgment of the magistrates court of Ruda, dated March 6th, 1931, the men, Jan Kleczka, Augustyn Rajca and Franciszek Mis were found guilty of an offence under paragraphs 223 and 47 of the Penal Code. On November 23rd, 1930, at Makoszowy, they jointly and with intent, assaulted one Jan Pietrzynski, thus causing him bodily damage and injury to his health. The offenders were each sentenced to a fine of 35 zlotys or one week’s imprisonment if the fine was not paid. The accusation made against the police officer was found to be untrue. Constable Szelong, who was on duty at the critical moment, was in the polling-booth at the time, according to his own statement, confirmed by witnesses, and could neither hear nor see what was going on in front of the house. 30. By judgment of the competent section of the court at Krôlewska Huta, dated February 27th, 1931, the men Jan Kleczko, Franciszek Pawlas, Wilhelm Garbulewski and Alfred W idera were found guilty of an offence under paragraphs 47, 43, 240 and 223 of the Penal Law. On November 23th, 1930, at Makoszowy, they jointly accosted a man, Jan Pyka, at a time when he was holding a number of voting cards and asked him to give them the cards. Seeing that the man Pyka was unwilling to give them the cards of his own accord, they attacked him and snatched — 10 ------the cards from his pocket, and Widera at the same time struck him on the left leg with a stick. For this offence the accused, Jan Kleczko, Franciszek Pawlas and Wilhem Garbulewski, were sentenced to a fine of 20 zlotys or two days’ imprisonment in case of non-payment. Alfred Widera was sentenced to a fine of 40 zlotys or four days’ imprisonment. 31. The injured party, Jôzef Szindler, of Michalowice, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had not reported the case to the police, that the police had undertaken the enquiry ex officio and that he himself did not know who had broken his windows or for what reason. He did not wish to lodge a complaint. The case was accordingly dismissed. Compensation amounting to 38 zlotys was paid to Szindler. 32. The court at Katowice, by its judgment of March 12th, 1931, concerning the men Pawel Wozniczka and Mikolaj Rzychon, both of Michalowice, accused of having jointly placed an unspecified explosive on November 15th, 1930, in front of the house at ul. Bytomska, No. 3, at Michalowice, occupied by the Schreiber family, and of then having set fire to this explosive, which caused an explosion and a partial destruction of the wall and windows, acquitted the above-mentioned men and placed the costs to the account of the Treasury. Compensation of 50 zlotys was paid. 33. The allegations to the effect that, on November 16th, 1930, some ten to fifteen Silesian insurgents in uniform remained inside the polling-booth No. 72 at Michalowice are entirely devoid of foundation. On his rounds of inspection, the chief of the police detachment three times entered this polling-booth, but only saw the chairman of the Electoral Commission Zdechlikiewicz, who was in insurgent’s uniform. He also met the insurgent Hasz, of Michalowice, who was in uniform too. In front of the house were two insurgents, who were taking it in turn to distribute voting cards to the electors, which was also being done by the hawkers of the other political parties. If any other insurgents were seen at the polling-booth, they can only have been electors coming to vote. 34. At its session of February 28th, 1931, the magistrates’ court at Katowice opened the case against Maksymiljan Kustorz, Franciszek Pazdzierniok, Jôzef Nawrat, Jôzef Szafraniec, all accused of having, on November 21st, 1930, at Michalowice, jointly snatched away from the woman Jadwiga Laska, and to the injury of the woman Lucja Hadasiowa, 150 copies of the German newspaper Der Oberschlesische Kurier and five calendars for 1931, and of having illegally appropriated the said newspapers. The court decided that the accused Michal Kustorz was guilty of the act of which he was accused, that by this act he had committed an offence, and he was sentenced under paragraph 242 of the Penal Law to one week’s imprisonment with conditional suspension of the penalty for a year. The accused Pazdzierniok, Nawrat and Szafraniec were acquitted and the costs charged to the Treasury. Compensation amounting to 10 zlotys was paid. 35. On November 23rd, 1930, at about 8 a.m. a dummy representing a German soldier was attached to a tree in the ul. Koscielna, at Michalowice. To the foot of this dummy was tied a card with the inscription, " You will be hanged like this if you vote for No. 12 ”. The local police took down the dummy as soon as they saw it. The offenders were not discovered and the enquiry came to nothing. 36. The injured party, Edward Bury, of Myslowice, was summoned twice to come before the court as a witness to give evidence regarding the act of accusation. He did not appear before the court, and the case was therefore dismissed. Compensation amounting to 60 zlotys was paid to Bury. 37. (See No. 36.) 38. (See No. 36.) The police officer, Antoni Zgol, was sentenced to three days’ arrest for neglect of his duties as a disciplinary measure. 39. (See No. 36.) 40. The local court of Myslowice, at its session of March 4th, 1931, with regard to the proceedings taken against Hubert Czabanczyk and Alojzy Ociepos, both domiciled at Janow, and accused, in addition, of having broken windows in the lodging of Andrej Sklora, acquitted the men named above. Sklora received compensation amounting to 4.50 zlotys. 41. The injured party, Otto Scheer, of Nowa Wies, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had not reported the breaking of his window to the police, but that the police had undertaken an ex officio enquiry into the matter. In his opinion, the breaking of the windows was an act of revenge on the part of one of the workmen dismissed. The injured party not having put forward any accusation or application for penal proceedings, the case was dismissed. The injured party stated that he had not applied for compensation to any Government office or local adm inistrative office, and th at he did not dem and any compensation. 42. The injured party, Augustyn Kosman, of Nowa Wies, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not know who had broken his windows. The enquiry did not lead to the discovery of the offenders, and consequently the case was dismissed. Compensation am ounting to 48.50 zlotys was paid to Augustyn Kosman. 43. The injured party, Théodor Dyrbusz, of Pawlôw, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he had been informed of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law but that he would not do so. The case was therefore dismissed. Compensation amounting to 24 zlotys was paid. — II —

44- The injured party, Karol Pyszkala, of Pawlôw, when questioned by the judge, stated that he was a Pole and that the window-breaking was not due to any political reason as, being a refugee from German Silesia, he did not belong to any association, either Polish or German. He said he had not reported the case to the “ Volksbund ”, and that, if the “ Volksbund ” had communicated his case to Geneva, it had done so against his wishes. No further action was therefore taken in the case. Pyszkala stated that he did not apply for any compensation.

45. The injured party, Anna Oblonczek, of Pawlôw, had not reported her case to the police and only presented herself on January 3rd, 1931, after she had been ordered to appear. She stated that she did not demand the punishment of the guilty persons. When questioned by the judge, she stated that she only spoke Polish and knew very little German ; she spoke Polish at home and said her prayers in Polish. Nevertheless, like her children, she felt herself to be German. Her only means of livelihood was the selling of the newspaper Kurjer. She had been questioned by the Mixed Commission, which had paid her 5 zlotys and refunded her travelling expenses. She had been told that she must bring a private action, but had not done so as she was not anxious for the guilty persons to be punished. When the judge showed Oblonczek the “ Volksbund ” complaint signed “ Anna Oblonczek ”, she stated indignantly that her signature had been forged, as she did not use the “ German letters ”, and she only asked for the punishment of the person who had forged her signature. No further action was therefore taken in the case. Compensation amounting to 11 zlotys was paid her.

46. The enquiry instituted by the police, during which several inhabitants of Pawlôw were questioned, and the investigations made in this matter proved that no shots were fired at Pawlôw. At the same time, it was ascertained that the information relating to the shots came from a certain Franciszek Gniozdziorz, a German agent. When questioned by the judge, Gniozdziorz stated that, in the night of November 23rd, 1930, from 12.15 a.m. until 12.45 a.m. he heard sustained firing and more than ten explosions, which appeared to him to come from hand-grenades. He did not, however, notice any traces of these shots or of the grenades in Pawlôw. He also had not heard of any windows being broken, and no one had made any complaint on this subject either to Gniozdziorz or to the police ; he could not be certain that the shots were fired in order to terrorise the Germans. During the enquiry, the judge questioned other inhabitants of Pawlôw and the surrounding district regarding the alleged shooting, but no one confirmed the facts mentioned by Gniozdziorz. He therefore dismissed the case.

47. The injured party, Jôzef Pyszkala (not Alfred), domiciled at Pawlôw, had been attacked and insulted on November 23rd, 1930, by Alojzy Glowa, who had at the same time snatched the German voting papers from him. Pyszkala, when questioned by the judge, stated that, in looking for work at the “ Delbrück ” mine (in Germany), he had gone to Gniozdziorz, agent of the “ Ver- band ”, and asked if he could obtain work there. Gniozdziorz stated that a favourable reply would depend on his joining the “ Verband ”. Pyszkala joined the “ Verband Deutscher Katholiken ” and obtained work at the “ Delbrück ” mine. On the day of the elections, Gniozdziorz gave Pyszkala German voting papers for distribution, and pointed out that, if he distributed them, he would not lose his place. Pyszkala requested the judge to regard this statement as confidential as he would otherwise lose his employment. In spite of the advice given to him, he did not bring a private charge; therefore, no further proceedings were taken. With regard to the incidents in the polling-booth at Pawlôw, the Ruda Local court, on March 6th, 1931, heard the case against Wilhelm Krasek, Augustyn Kusz, Jôzef Hojnisz, Konrad Kloza, Ryszard Duda and Stefan Rajca, who are charged with having jointly and unlawfully, on November 23rd, 1930, at Pawlôw, compelled the agents of the “ Deutsche Wahlgemeinschaft ”, Karol Owczarek, Juljusz Landecki and Wiktor Gniza, together with Teodor Dyrbusz, member of the Election Committee, to leave the polling-booth before the elections began, forcibly seizing them, and, in spite of their resistance, ejecting them from the polling-booth. The court acquitted all the accused persons. The legal proceedings, in particular the statements of the accused persons and the evidence of the witnesses, elicited the following facts: The “ Delbrück ” mine, situated in the territory of the German Reich, near the Polish frontier, employs a large number of workmen of Polish nationality, domiciled at Pawlôw and the neigh­ bouring places. The Polish nationals are enrolled in the mine in question in the following manner : the official of the mine, whose duty it is to engage workmen, sends the candidates to the election agent. The latter examines the candidate, advises him to join the “ Verband Deutscher Katholiken ” and sends him with a recommendation card to the official, who then engages the workman. Before the elections the workmen were separately called up by the mine official responsible for engaging and discharging men ; he recommended them to take an active part in the elections and to present themselves to the election agents, who distributed various duties among them. The injured witnesses, Owczarek, Landecki, Gniza and Dyrbusz, all employed at the “Delbriickschachte”, were chosen as election agents, Dyrbusz being a member of the Election Committee for the elections to the Senate of the Republic on behalf of the “ Deutsche Wahlgemeinschaft ” party. The elections to the Senate began at 9 o’clock and those to the Silesian Diet at 8 o’clock in the same premises. Owczarek, Landecki and Dyrbusz arrived at polling-booth No. 82 at Pawlôw shortly after 8 o’clock. They remained near the entrance and conversed with each other in Polish, while, according to the evidence of the witness Godzierz and the statements of the accused persons, they observed the persons voting for the Silesian Diet. The witness Godzierz, who acted as — 12 — chairman of the Election Committee, also stated that he had noticed that the above-mentioned witnesses made various signs to the voters and had consequently drawn their attention to the inadmissibility of such behaviour. As these remarks had no effect, he requested the above- mentioned persons to leave the polling-booth, and he recorded this fact in the sworn statement, especially as various voters working at the " Delbriickschachte ” had complained to him that these election agents observed them during the polling, and they felt embarrassed, as they might lose their employment if they voted for the Polish candidates. The witness Gozdzierz stated that the names of some of these persons were known to him, but he asked not to be required to divulge them unless absolutely necessary, as the plaintiffs had requested him to keep them secret since, if their identity were disclosed, they would be deprived of their employment. The witness had not noticed that anyone, and especially the insurgents, had ejected the election agents from the polling-booth by force, and none of the above-mentioned persons had requested him to intervene in this matter. This fact was confirmed by the evidence of the injured parties themselves ; moreover, one of the injured parties, Owczarek, stated that the Chairman, Gozdzierz, had not seen how they were made to leave the room, as they stood one or two yards from the entrance. The accused persons exculpated themselves by explaining that, on a remark being made that they were Poles, the election agents themselves slipped out of the booth. The election agents denied this assertion while admitting that they had suffered no bodily injury, and that they left the premises at ten minutes to nine—i.e., before the elections for the Senate began. Moreover, the court was not in a position to prove that the offence of compulsion under paragraph 240 of the Penal Code had been committed as the witness Gozdzierz stated under oath that he, as chairman of the Election Committee, forbade the injured parties, Owczarek, Dyrbusz and Landecki, to remain in the room, so that the voters should not feel embarrassed by the presence of the above-mentioned election agents. In view of the fact that the injured parties had no right to remain in this room, their expulsion from it cannot constitute compulsion within the meaning of paragraph 240 of the Penal Code. In view of this circumstance and of the lack of sufficient proof of guilt, the accused persons were obliged to be acquitted of the accusation regarding the offence of compulsion under paragraph 240 of the Penal Code (ad 1-5). The accused person, Rajca, referred to in No. 6, explained that, when he found Gniza at the polling-booth as election agent for the “ Deutsche Wahlgemeinschaft ” party, he reproached him, as he knew him to be a Pole, and Gniza was ashamed and voluntarily left the polling-booth. On the other hand, Gniza stated that, after this talk with Rajca, the latter took him by the arm and made him leave the room. He did not ask for any steps to be taken as he ought to have done if he had been conscious of suffering any compulsion. Later, Gniza returned to the booth and asked the Chairman Slomka to record in the sworn statement that Rajca had previously made him leave the polling-booth. Slomka did not comply with this request, as, according to his statement, he had not noticed that anyone had compelled Gniza to leave the polling-booth. At the same time, the witness Slomka stated that Gniza watched the voters during the elections and made signs to them ; he only stopped doing so after having been twice called to order. The elections passed off quietly, and no one disturbed the peace in the polling-booth. This was also confirmed by the injured party Gniza. In view of the above evidence, the court was unable to establish that Rajca had compelled Gniza to leave the polling-booth, or that he had been compelled under the threat of a crime or offence to leave this room and it acquitted the accused for lack of sufficient proof.

48. One, Franciszek Gattner, of Rozdzien, when questioned by the judge, stated that he had not reported to the police that his shop sign had been damaged and that the police had made the enquiry ex officio. He supposed the damage to the sign was caused as an act of revenge on the part of one of his debtors. The guilty parties were, however, unknown to him, and, even if they were discovered, Gattner would not bring an action against them, nor would he demand that they be punished. Gattner further stated that he was of Polish nationality. The case was therefore dismissed. Compensation to the amount of 40 zlotys was paid.

49, 50, 51 and 52. The Katowice local court, at its sitting on January 9th, 1931, heard the case against Ferdynand Wrôbel and Dominik Brande, Jerzy Krawczyk, Antoni Jankowski, Brunon Kubosz, all of Siemianowice, accused of having committed a serious excess on September 13th, 1930 (not on October 12th, 1930, as the “ Volksbund ” petition incorrectly states), and on October 16th and 18th, 1930, by creating disturbances and provoking a scandal and by throwing stones at the houses ; moreover, Wrôbel was accused of having broken a vzindow of a certain Marcin Kokot on September 1st, 1930. The court discharged all the accused persons, the costs to be paid by the Treasury. The injured parties were paid by way of compensation: Marcin Kokot, 300 zlotys; Eryk Cohn, 320 zlotys; the “ Kattowitzer Buchdruckerei und Verlags-Sp.A." 209 zlotys. The injured party, Karol Knapik, stated that he did not asked for any compensation.

53. The Katowice regional court sat as a court of appeal on the appeal brought by the public Prosecutor against the sentence of the Katowice district court passed upon one, Stanislaw Bogdol, of Siemianowice, who was charged with deliberately and illegally inflicting bodily injury on October 30th, 1930, on Franciszek Surôwka, by striking him with his fist on the head and face, and afterwards snatching a packet of newspapers from the hands of the woman Olga Surôwka and striking her on the hand, of having thrown these newspapers on the ground and trampled on them. The court passed the following sentence : the accused Stanislaw Bogdol was found — 13 — guilty of an offence under paragraph 225 of the Penal Code, in having, on October 20th, 1930, struck the woman Olga Surôwka on the hand so that the fourth finger of her left hand became swollen. He was sentenced to a fine of 20 zlotys or, in default, two days’ imprisonment. Compensation of 30 zlotys was granted to Olga Surôwka at the expense of the guilty party. The accused was acquitted on the remainder of the charge, compensation was given for the damage caused to the newspapers, estimated at 20 zlotys. 54. The Katowice local court, at its session of January 9th, 1931, heard the case of Jan Klemens, of Siemianowice, who was accused of having, on October 27th, 1930, at Siemianowice, caused a disturbance to the peace, and of being guilty of a serious excess by disturbing public order in the street, molesting and insulting passers-by in such a way as to constitute an offence against decency. The court acquitted the accused, the costs to be borne by the Treasury. The injured party, Florentyna Scigalôwna, received compensation of 10 zlotys in respect of the cost of treatment. 55. The injured parties, Maksymiljan Matyssek and Berta Groll, of Siemianowice, when questioned by the judge with regard to the attack and insult to which they weresubjected on October 30th, 1930, at Siemianowice, by the accused persons, Ferdynand Wrôbel and Dominik Brandy, stated that they did not wish to bring the case before the court, so that no further action was taken in the m atter. 56 and 61. The Katowice local court, on March n th , 1931, heard the case against Ferdynand Wrôbel, Karol Thiele and Jôzef Tyralla, of Siemianowice, accused of having broken window- panes in the German private school at Siemianowice. The court found the accused persons not guilty, and acquitted them, the costs to be paid by the Treasury. Compensation amounting to 180 zlotys was paid. 57. The police instituted and prosecuted the enquiry ex officio, in spite of the statement of the injured party, Wilhelm Kurek, of Siemianowice. Kurek, when questioned by the judge, stated that the dispute took place between comrades, that he himself was drunk ; he therefore did not bring any charge or apply for any compensation for the attack made on him on November 2nd, 1930. No action was therefore taken in the m atter. 58. The injured party, Ryszard Beldzik, of Siemianowice, withdrew his charge at the sitting of the Katowice local court. The court therefore, in its judgment of March nth, 1931, took no further action and ordered the costs to be paid by the Treasury. 59. (See below, No. 64.) 60. The Katowice regional court sat as a court of appeal on the appeal lodged by the private plaintiff and the Public Prosecutor against the sentence of the Katowice district court, which had annulled the criminal proceedings against Ferdynand Wrôbel, Karôl Thiel and Jôsef Tyralla, accused of having broken a window in the shop of Jôzef Weissenberg, on November 7th, 1930, at Siemianowice. The court passed the following judgment: the previous sentence was quashed and the accused persons, Wrôbel, Thiel and Tyralla, were acquitted, the costs to be paid by the Treasury. Compensation amounting to 300 zlotys was paid to the injured party. 61. (See No. 56.) 62. The Katowice divisional court, on March 14th, 1931, sat as a court of appeal on the appeal lodged by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence of the Katowice district court. It passed the following judgment: the accused persons, Ryszard Kincel, Franciszek Gasinca and Franciszek Burczyk, were found guilty of an offence under paragraphs 123, 223 and 223 (a) of the Penal Code. On November 10th, 1930, they illegally entered the dwelling of one Pawel Jager, thus disturbing his domestic peace, and at the same time and place jointly struck the plaintiff, Pawel Jager, a number of blows. The above-mentioned persons were therefore sentenced individually for a breach of domestic peace to twenty days’ imprisonment each, in accordance with paragraph 123 of the Penal Code, and for the offence under paragraphs 223 and 223 (a) of the Penal Code to two months’ imprisonment; conjointly to imprisonment of two and a-half months and payment of the legal costs, amounting to 10 zlotys. The accused persons were ordered to pay 150 zlotys to the private plaintiff in compensation for damage to his clothing, hat and linen. Three-quarters of the costs of the judicial procedure were to be paid by the accused persons and one-quarter by the private plaintiff. 63. At its session of March 10th, 1931, in the case against Ferdynand Bednarczyk and Walenty Zadçcki, both of Siemianowice, charged with having, in November 1930, at Siemianowice, confiscated 600 copies of the newspaper Kattowitzer Zeitung belonging to the publishers, and having appropriated them illegally, the Katowice magistrates court found the accused persons not guilty and free of all responsibility, and ordered the costs to be paid by the State Treasury. Compensation amounting to 88.20 zlotys was paid. 64. The Katowice magistrates’ court, at its session of February 28th, 1931, heard the case against Franciszek Burczyk, of Siemianowice, charged with having, on November 3rd, 1930, and November 10th, 1930, at Siemianowice, unlawfully and with intent broken two window-panes on the door of the shop belonging to Jan Niechoj. The court found the accused not guilty and free from all responsibility, and ordered the private plaintiff to pay the legal costs, amounting to 10 zlotys. Compensation amounting to 13 zlotys was paid. — 14 —

65. The injured party, Herman Grochal, of Siemianowice, when questioned by the judge, stated that the damage caused by the windows being broken was insignificant (about 6 zlotys) and that the offenders were unknown to him. He declined to bring a charge or to ask for proceedings to be taken even if the offenders were discovered. The case was therefore dismissed and Grochal did not claim any compensation.

66. The Katowice magistrates court, at its sitting of February 28th, 1931, heard the case against Mieczyslaw Kopiec, Dominik Brandys, Jerzy Krawczyk, Antoni Jankowski, all of Siemianowice, charged with having forcibly entered the dwelling of Kandzia at Siemianowice during the night of November n th , 1930, and with having demolished the dwelling by destroying the door, the stove and the mirror, causing damage estimated at 300 zlotys ; with having ill-treated Augustyn Kandzia and Edvige Kandziôrôwna, whom the accused Kopiec threatened to shoot with a revolver. The court declared the criminal proceedings to be quashed and ordered the costs to be paid by the private plaintiffs, as the request for proceedings had been submitted to the court after the expiry of three months (Article 61 of the Penal Law). Compensation amounting to 300 zlotys was paid.

67. The Katowice magistrates court, in its sentence of February 28th, 1931, declared the accused Jerzy Grabka of Siemianowice guilty of the charge and especially of having unlawfully and with intent broken the window of the shop and entrance of Jan Borszcz’s dwelling on November 20th, 1930, at Siemianowice. By so doing he was guilty of an offence and was sentenced, under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law, to two weeks’ imprisonment and payment of the legal costs amounting to 5 zlotys. The above-mentioned penalty was suspended for one year. The injured party was paid 650 zlotys in compensation.

68. This case was settled at the same time as that mentioned in No. 63.

69. The Katowice magistrates court, at its sitting of February 10th, 1931, heard the case against Jerzy Krawczyk, of Siemianowice, accused of having started a brawl on November 18th, 1930, at Siemanowice, of having broken domestic peace and of having been guilty of a serious excess by disturbing public order in the Café “ Polonia ", by molesting and insulting persons and thus causing a scandal. The court found the accused not guilty and free from all responsibility and ordered the costs to be paid by the State Treasury. With regard to the attack on Franciszek Gorywoda, of Siemianowice, the latter was informed that he must bring a private action. As, however, he did not bring such an action, the case was dismissed.

70. The Katowice local court, at its sitting of January 9th, 1931, heard the penal case against the accused persons, Ryszard Kincel and Jan Bartoszek. It found them both guilty of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law. It was found that (a) Kincel, in November 1930, entered the premises of Pruski and said he was an agent of the secret police or chief of the insurgents; (b) the accused Bartoszek, after entering Reisch’s dwelling on November 21st, 1930, started a brawl and was guilty of serious excesses. The magistrate’s court sentenced the two guilty persons to a fine of 30 zlotys each or, in default, to six days’ imprisonment.

71. With regard to the alleged brawl in front of polling-booth No. 48 at Siemianowice, it was not established, either in the petition or during the enquiry, that any person belonging to the German minority had been injured, not excluding the man Grzyb, who stated that he was of Polish nationality, that he had taken part in the third insurrection and that he took no part in German politics. 72. The Katowice magistrates court, at its sitting of March n th , 1931, heard the case against Jôzef Janik, of Siemianowice, accused of having on November 23rd, 1930, at Siemianowice unlaw­ fully and with intent caused bodily injury to Jôzef Strôzyna by kicking him in the back. The court found the accused guilty of an offence and sentenced him, under paragraph 223 of the Penal Law, to one week’s imprisonment. The above-mentioned penalty was suspended for one year. Strôzyna was detained by the police independently of the above case, as he had been drunk and acted in a scandalous fashion ; he was taken to the police-station and detained until he had regained consciousness. 73. The Katowice magistrates court, in giving judgment on March n th , 1931, found the man Teodor Szewczyk, of Siemianowice, guilty of having, on November 23rd, 1930, at Siemianowice, wilfully struck Jôzef Polok a number of blows with a thick stick and of having thereby committed an offence for which he was sentenced, under paragraph 223 of the Penal Law, to one week’s imprisonment. The above-mentioned penalty was conditionally suspended for a year. Compensation amounting to 15 zlotys was paid. 74. One Wilhelm Swieca brought a charge against Ferdynand Wrôbel and against the policeman Bobiec for an offence under paragraphs 223, 223 (a) and 303 of the Penal Law. It was found that, on November 23rd, 1930, at Siemianowice, they unlawfully and with intent struck the plaintiff on the head with a stick and a rubber truncheon and spoilt his clothes. The charge was brought by the Public Prosecutor. The hearing, the date of which had been twice fixed, on the last occasion for April 24th, 1931, was adjourned by order of the court, as the accused Bobiec was seriously ill in bed at the Cracow clinic and could not appear. With regard to the ill-treatment of Hubert Kandzior, the Katowice local court, at its hearing of March n th , 1931, acquitted the accused, Ferdynand Wrôbel. — 15 —

The policeman, Karol Bobiec, was dismissed from the service as a disciplinary measure. The injured party, Swieca, stated that he had brought an action against the guilty persons. He did not submit any other claim.

75- The injured party, Matylda Ziaja, of Siemianowice, when questioned by the judge, stated that the dispute was not connected with any political action whatever. The damage caused to her belongings was insignificant and therefore she had not brought any legal action. Consequently, no further action was taken in this case. Compensation of 20 zlotys was paid.

76. Walenty Rach, of Szopieniec, father of the minor, Elzbieta Rach, when questioned by the judge at the same time as the injured party, stated that the offender was not known to him. He regarded the attack on his daughter as insignificant and did not wish to bring a charge or ask for proceedings to be taken. The case was therefore dismissed.

Sub-Annex 1 B.

P szczy n a D is t r ic t .

1. Jan Bigalke, Jan Watzlavik, Karol Mlynek, and Erna Fuchs brought private charges on February 20th against Jan Gwôzdz and his twenty-five companions for offences under paragraphs 123, 240 and 241 of the Penal Code. As the divisional prosecutor at Katowice instituted an official enquiry into the matter with a view to establishing the offence or crime covered by paragraph 125 of the Penal Code, and as this enquiry is not yet concluded, the plaintiffs submitted an additional request to the effect that the hearing of their charge should not be fixed until the end of the enquiry ordered by the prosecutor; the hearing has therefore not yet taken place. The payment of the compensation will depend on the facts ascertained.

2. The injured parties, when questioned by the judge, stated unanimously that they had not reported to the " Volksbund ” that any windows had been broken, and had not authorised the latter to intervene. The offenders were unknown to them, nor did they know why the windows were broken on November 5th (not 8th), 1930. The case was therefore dismissed. Frydczyk Berger did not submit a claim for compensation, and, when asked to make a statement on this subject, said that he did not apply for any compensation.

3. The Pszczyna local court, on March 5th, 1931, heard the case against Karol Bogacki, accused of having, on November 5th, 1930, deliberately broken twenty-two window-panes valued at 80 zlotys, the property of Ernest Biczyski, at Ledziny ; the court acquitted Bogacki. The administration of the property of the Prince of Pless received compensation as an injured party.

4 and 5. The magistrates court at Myslowice, on February 25th, 1931, heard the case against Aleksander Gnilka and Teodor Zientek, charged with having, on October 19th, October 26th and November 15th, 1930, broken windows of a value of 61 zlotys, the property of Jôsef Kowalski, of Imielin; the court acquitted the accused. With regard to the charge against the police, the commandant of the police station categorically denied having used the words imputed to him in his conversation with Kovalski. The material damage, amounting to 85 zlotys, was refunded to Kovalski. The claim for the payment of 100 zlotys as compensation for the fright was dismissed, as Kovalski could not prove that he had suffered any material damage as a result of the fright.

6. The Myslowice local court, on February 25th, 1931, after hearing the case against Franciszek Tuszynski, accused of having broken eight windows belonging to Marja Szeja on October 14th, 1930, at Kosztowy, gave judgment suspending the penal procedure against the accused. Compensation of 40 zlotys was paid.

7- The magistrates court of Myslowice, having on February 25th, 1931, heard the case against Franciszek Tuszynski, Jôzef Wisniewski, Piotr Kucowicz and Jan Seweryn, accused of having on October 14th, 1930, with intent broken windows, torn down curtains, broken a lamp, etc., belonging to Jôzef Hornik of Kosztowy, gave judgment acquitting the accused. Compensation was paid for the damage caused.

8. On October 18th, 1930, no meeting of the Z.O.K.Z. (Union for the Defence of the Western Marches) took place. The case regarding the attack on Piotr Palka is before the Katowice divisional court. The hearing has been fixed for April 30th, 1931.

9. The local court, on February 25th, 1931, heard the case against Franciszek Tuszynski and Piotr Kucowicz, charged with having broken seventeen window-panes and the frame of the — i6 — window in the dwelling of Jan Zieloska on November 18th, 1930, at Kosztowy. The court acquitted the two accused. Compensation of n o zlotys was paid.

10. In view of a statement that Pawel Uglorz, of Laziska Srednie, had fired shots round his house, the police made a search in his dwelling. The search gave positive results, and Pawel Ugorz was found guilty by the Katowice divisional court of an offence under paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Decree of January 13th, 1919, since he was in unlawful possession of arms. He was therefore sentenced to a fine of 10 zlotys or, in default, to one day’s imprisonment. At the same time, the arms found in Uglorz’s dwelling were confiscated. Disciplinary action was taken against the police officers Harchula and Braune in connection with the charge against Uglorz, who stated that these officers had maltreated and insulted him. The two police officers categorically denied the alleged acts and at the same time brought a charge against Uglorz for defamation. The disciplinary procedure against them has therefore been suspended until the conclusion of the case before the court.

11 and 16. The injured party Karol Sodoman and his son Herbert Sodoman, when questioned by the judge, stated that they had not reported their case to the " Volksbund ”, but that the secretary of the “ Volksbund ”, Walden had presented himself to them. They had, however, refused to give him any explanations, as they considered that the police and the Public Prosecutor were alone competent in the matter. At the same time, they brought a charge against Stefan Lukaszczyk, Franciszek Piechaczek and Stefan Pacharzyna of having unlawfully and with intent broken four window-panes in their dwelling and a window in their shop. The hearing, which had already been fixed three times, had to be adjourned, as one of the witnesses—namely, the police officer Marcol, was detained as a person of unsound mind in the Rybnik asylum. Compensation of 100 zlotys was paid to Sodoman.

12. The injured party Maksymiljan Koch stated in his evidence that he was a Pole. He did not bring a private charge. For this reason and in view of the lack of sufficient evidence for instituting public proceedings, the case was dismissed. Compensation of 350 zlotys was paid to Koch.

13. Herman Drechsler and his wife Marta declared on oath that it was not true that windows had been broken in their dwelling during the night of October 21st, 1931.

14. The injured party, Pawel Kurpas, stated that he was a Pole. He had not reported the case either to the police or to anyone else. The police had made the inquiry ex officio. Eight days after the accident, an unknown person presented himself to him, stating that he was an official of the “ Volksbund ”, and questioned him on the details of the accident. Kurpas had not brought a private charge ; for this reason, and in view of the lack of proof of an offence sufficient to institute public proceedings, the case was dismissed. Compensation of 30 zlotys was paid to Kurpas.

15. The injured parties, Wiktor Adamek and Jakob Witta, stated on oath that they were Poles. They had not brought a private charge ; for this reason, and in view of the lack of evidence sufficient to institute public proceedings, the case was dismissed. Damages were paid. Adamek received under this head 50 zlotys and Jakôb W itta 76 zlotys.

16. The remarks regarding point 16 have been taken into consideration under point n.

17. The injured party, Jan Wylezol, when questioned by the judge, stated that, on October 25th, 1930, the breach of his domestic peace had been of an accidental character, and that neither he, as president of the local group of the “ Gewehrschaft der Angestellten ” nor the president of the central management of the same association, had brought any charge, so that no action was taken. Compensation of 232 zlotys was paid to the management of the G.d.A. The charge against the police-officers proved to be unfounded. At the critical moment only one police officer (not three) was in the neighbouring restaurant ; he was not on duty, and he immediately intervened at the time of the panic.

18. The injured party, Herman Drechsler, did not bring a private charge ; for this reason, and in view of the absence of sufficient proof for a public prosecution, the case was dismissed. Compensation amounting to 23.80 zlotys was paid to Drechsler.

19. The injured party, Jerzy Brudny, did not bring a private charge ; for this reason, and in view of the absence of sufficient proof for a public prosecution, the case was dismissed. The broken windows caused Jerzy Brudny damage estimated at 15 zlotys, which Brudny refused to accept, demanding 350 zlotys compensation ; he was therefore asked to institute civil proceedings.

20. Roman Kuznik, when questioned by the judge, stated that, on November 13th, 1930, when going by train with voting papers from Katowice to Rybnik, he was stopped at Mokre by two police-officers and two private persons. As the parcels carried by him were examined, he was obliged to discontinue his journey and return to Katowice. He said he did not feel injured by the action of the uniformed police. He did not know whether the above-mentioned private persons — 17 —

were agents of the secret police. The enquiries showed that, the Mikolôw police-station had been informed on the same day that an individual carrying packets of communist proclamations had taken the train for Mikolôw. In view of this information, Mrôz, sergeant of the Secret Police (one of the persons in plain clothes), entered the train in question to look for the above-mentioned packages. As he felt sure that the parcels carried by Kuznik contained Communist propaganda, and as there was no place in the train, he ordered these packages to be examined at Mokre station, especially as the injured party had not at first admitted that the parcels belonged to him. When it had been ascertained that the packages contained German election proclamations and not Communist propaganda, an order had immediately been given to return them to their owner. In view of these facts and the lack of proof of any offence, the enquiry was suspended.

21. Explanations are given below, under No. 26.

22. This case is based on a dispute between neighbours—namely, Brudny, owner of the house and Jan Franke, his tenant. Brudny did not bring a private charge. The enquiry was opened ex officio. As a result, the Mikolôw local court, by an order issued on January 22nd, 1931, fined Jan Franke and Robert Franke, Franciszek Piechaczek and Agata Habryk 30 zlotys each, and Jerzy Brudny 150 zlotys, for committing serious excesses on November 14th, 1930, when they disturbed public order in the street, in the passage and in the courtyard, pushing and molesting persons, thereby causing a public scandal. An appeal was lodged by all the guilty parties and the Mikolôw local court, at its hearing on February 18th, 1931, acquitted them of all charges. A commission of citizens of the town, jointly with the representative of the German minority, Joseph Besuch, member of the local municipal council, fixed the amount of damages at 300 zlotys, which, however, Brudny did not wish to accept. He was therefore advised to institute civil proceedings.

23. The Mikolôw local court, on March 3rd, 1931, at the hearing of the case against Pawel Cwiek, Stefan Pacharzyna, Pawel Domagala, Wincenty Reimak, Jan Franke, Adam Ziarka, Roman Drahajma, Andrzej Mieszczok, Stefan Lukaszczyk, all of Mikolôw, accused of having jointly and brutally ill-treated Jan Banczyk on November 15th, 1930, at Mikolôw, acquitted all the above-mentioned persons. The alleged refusal of the police mentioned in the “Volksbund" petition is not correct.

24. The Mikolôw magistrates court, at its hearing on March 6th, 1931, found the accused Mikolaj Brozek guilty of an offence under paragraph 123 of the Penal Code. It was found that, on November 18th, 1930, he entered the dwelling of the woman Franciszka Milaczewska and did not leave it in spite of being ordered by her to do so. He was sentenced to a fine of 30 zlotys or, in default, to ten days’ imprisonment. The accused Jan Franke was found guilty of the offence covered by paragraphs 123 and 303 of the Penal Code. On November 18th, 1930, he broke three window-panes of a value of about 2 zlotys belonging to the above-mentioned woman. He was sentenced to a fine of 50 zlotys or, in default, to fifteen days’ imprisonment. The accused Robert Franke was acquitted by the court. The enquiry did not establish that a police-officer was among the aggressors. Milaczewska was paid 2.40 zlotys in compensation.

25. This case is being tried by the Mikolôw local court. The hearing has not yet taken place. The woman Kolodziej has received 8 zlotys in compensation.

26. The Mikolôw local court, on March 3rd, 1931, heard the case against Wawrzyniec Rzegorski, Antoni Kapala and Jan Franke, charged with having, on November 14th and 23rd, 1930, jointly disturbed domestic peace by entering the dwelling of Jan Dziewiora and of having broken window- panes in his house valued at 23 zlotys. The court gave judgment, under which, as regards the events of November 14th, 1930, it annulled the legal proceedings on account of prescription of the charge in accordance with paragraphs 61, 66 and 67 of the Penal Code. With regard to the events of November 23rd, 1930, the court found the accused not guilty and free of all responsibility, in the absence of sufficient proof. Damages have been paid.

27. The injured party, Emil Dorda, when questioned by the judge, stated that the offenders were unknown to him and that he suspected no one. The enquiry did not lead to the discovery of the offenders, so that no further action has been taken. Compensation has been paid to the administration of the Prince of Pless’s property.

28. The injured party, Adolf Konieczny, when questioned by the judge, stated that he did not suspect anyone and could not ascertain who had broken his windows or from what motive. The police enquiry did not lead to the discovery of the offenders, so that no further action was taken in the matter. Konieczny received compensation of 25 zlotys for the damaged curtains. Compensation amounting to 57.40 zlotys was paid to the administration of the Prince of Pless’s property for the broken windows.

29. The Mikolôw local court, on March 6th, 1931, heard the case against Jan Franke, of Mikolôw, accused of having inflicted bodily injury on Pawel Szuster at Mokre on November n th , I930, by striking him in the face, and of having disturbed domestic peace by entering the dwelling °f Szuster, whom he had threatened to kill and from whom he had taken his newspaper and 20 zlotys in cash, together with receipts. The court, in giving judgment, annulled the legal proceedings relating to the offence under paragraphs 242 and 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Code. With — i 8 — regard to the offences under paragraphs 123, 223 and 241, Franke was acquitted. Compensation amounting to 20 zlotys was paid to Szuster.

30. The Katowice magistrates court, on January 9th, 1931, after hearing the case against Pawel Kasperek and Franciszek Stefanek, both of Murcki, charged with having in the night from November 15th to 16th, 1930, started a brawl by disturbing order in the street at Murcki, and by molesting and insulting the passers-by, thus causing a public scandal, acquitted the two accused persons. The police-officer, Cycon, mentioned in the “ Volksbund " petition, ran up to intervene when he heard the noise. Damages amounting to 20 zlotys were paid to Pilon Wojciech.

31. The Mikolôw local court, on March 13th, 1931, on hearing the case against Wojciech Januszkiewicz of Piotrovice, accused of having illegally detained the minor Pawel Brozek on November 19th, 1930, at Piotrovice by stopping him in the street and taking him to the Piotrovice police-station, acquitted the said Januszkiewicz. The Mikolôw local court, on February 24th, 1931, at the hearing of the appeal brought by Aloizy Biczysko, Chief of the Piotrovice police-station, found the accused Jakob Brozek guilty of an offence under paragraph 187 of the Penal Code in having falsely accused Police-Officer Biczysko in November 1930. He had made a complaint to the “Volksbund ” against this police-officer, stating that the said Aloizy Biczysko had advised him to stop making propaganda, as otherwise the insurgents might come from Mikolôw and then he (the police-officer) could not protect him. The court sentenced the said Brozek to a fine of 300 zlotys or, in default, to two months’ imprisonment. With regard to the breaking of windows, Jakôb Brozek, when questioned by the judge, stated that he was of Polish nationality, and that the offenders were unknown to him, although he suspected the insurgents, without having, however, any proof. He was, moreover, prepared to bring a private action if the offenders were discovered. As they were not discovered, no further action was taken. Compensation of 10 zlotys was paid to Brozek.

32. The Pszczyna local court, at its hearing of April gth, 1931, found the accused, Augustyn Sojka, of Pszczyna, guilty of an offence under paragraph 366, sub-paragraph 7, of the Penal Code, which he committed by throwing stones at the house and window of the bookshop “ Plesser Anzeiger ” on November 21st, 1930. He was sentenced to a fine of 30 zlotys or, in default, to fifteen days’ imprisonment. The compensation was paid by the insurance company. The offenders who had pasted a placard on the wall with the inscription " The Deutsche Volksbund's Rubbish Heap ” were not discovered.

33. The Katowice divisional court, on March 12th, 1931, heard the case brought against Augustyn Grajcarek and Augustyn Brzçczek, accused of an offence under paragraph 223 of the Penal Code, which they committed in the night of November 18th, 1930, by attacking Ludwik Liberka near the inn of Pawel Szema at Rydultowice. He was returning from a party, and had been struck with a stick and kicked on the head and body, thus receiving bodily injuries. The two accused persons were acquitted. Compensation to the amount of 15 zlotys (in respect of medical treatment) was paid. Liberka claimed compensation to the amount of 50 zlotys, stating that he had paid this amount to the doctor. It was, however, ascertained from the doctor that this statement was untrue. As he then declared that he did not want any compensation, the amount of 15 zlotys was paid to Dr. Busse.

34. The Pszczyna local court, at the hearing on February 24th, 1931, found the accused Augustyn Sojka guilty of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph n , of the Penal Code, and of an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Code, which he had committeed in the night from November 29th, to 30th, 1930, at Stara Wies by destroying the window and breaking panes belonging to Franciszek Olesza. The court sentenced him to a fine of 100 zlotys or, in default, to two months’ imprisonment. Damages amounting to 40 zlotys were paid. The police-officer Glyk, accused of having said to Olesza: “ It’s all the German’s fault. Things like that will happen and we have to find the guilty parties ”, brought an action against Franciszek Olesza before the Pszczyna local court for false accusation and defamation ; the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Glyk were therefore suspended until the conclusion of the case before the court. The search in Olesza’s dwelling was carried out by the police under an order from the Pszczyna magistrates’ court, dated November 4th, 1930. The correspondence seized during the search ' was, after inspection, immediately returned to Olesza.

35. The Mikolôw local court, on March 6th, 1931, after hearing the case against Maksymiljan Walica, Jan Klaus and Franciszek Kopanski, accused of having together broken a window-pane valued at 5.50 zlotys in the dwelling of Edmund Gabrysz on November 4th at Wyry, suspended — 19 — the penal proceedings against the above persons on the ground of prescription. Damages were paid to Gabrysz,

Sub-Annex 1C.

R y b n ik D istr ic t .

1. The search carried out by the fiscal authorities at the house of Karol Siedlaczek was undertaken with the object of discovering smuggled goods (Siedlaczek had already been convicted of smuggling). As regards the seizure of voting tickets by unknown persons, Siedlaczek told the judge that he wanted the guilty parties to be punished ; but, although warned, he did not lodge a complaint, and even refused to do so. Consequently, no further action has been taken in this matter. 2. Franz Goraus, on being questioned by the court, stated that, on November 14th, 1930, a certain Jôzef Uzar said to him: " You are a marked man, you have a cross on your back, this evening we are coming for you, and then you will see what comes of breaking up meetings.” That same evening, six persons did, in fact, come to the injured party’s house and—according to his statement—entered his apartment. Hearing that he was absent, they left quietly. The other witnesses did not confirm the injured party’s statements; especially the witness Antoine Kozielski, who testified under oath that Uzar, in view of the provocative attitude of Goraus, merely said that if Goraus attended Polish meetings he must not break them up as he had done at Biertultowice. It appears from the statements of other witnesses, living in the same house as Goraus, that it would have been impossible for six persons to enter Goraus' apartment without being heard by the latter. Goraus did not lodge a complaint. No further action has been taken in this matter. 3. On March 16th, 1931, the Rybnik magistrates court, after hearing evidence against Jôzef Jambor, charged with having being guilty, at Brzezie on November 16th, 1930, of the offence covered by paragraphs 223, 303 and 74 of the Penal Code: (a) by striking Jan Fiolka on the head with a cutting instrument, thereby inflicting bodily injury; (6) by tearing his clothes, gave judgment to the effect that, on the first point of the charge, Jambor was guilty of the offence contemplated in Article 223 of the Penal Code and condemned to four days’ imprisonment. Jambor was acquitted on the second point of the charge under paragraph 303 of the Penal Code. Fiolka was paid 300 zlotys by way of compensation for his torn clothes and linen as well as for cost of treatm ent. 4 to 13. As regards the cases enumerated in points 4 to 13, the competent section of the Rybnik divisional court gave judgment as follows: In the criminal proceedings against: (1) Franciszek Popela, born on September 30th, 1887, at Brzezie, district of Rybnik, domiciled at Brzezie, son of Mateusz Popela and Franciszka Popela, née Psota, Roman Catholic, farmer, married, previously convicted; (2) Josef Jambor, born on December 13th, 1895, at Brzezie, domiciled at Brzezie, son of Jan Jambor and Franziszka Jambor, née Richter, artisan, Roman Catholic, married, two children, previously convicted; (3) Alfred Konca, born on January 2nd, 1896, at Zaborz, district of Zabrze, son of Jan Konca and Albina Konca, née Kurek, policeman, married, three children, Roman Catholic, not previously convicted, domiciled at Brzezie, district of Rybnik ; (4) Franciszek Ekert, born on September 7th, 1891, at Barcin, district of Szubin, son of Jan Ekert and Marja Ekert, née Hanelt, domiciled at Brzezie, turner, married, one child, Roman Catholic, not previously convicted ; (5) Henryk Kampka, born on December 23rd, 1900, at Brzezie, domiciled at Brzezie, son of Wiktor Kampka and Agnieszka Kampka, née Pila, one child, Roman Catholic,engine- driver, not previously convicted, Who are charged with having come together at Brzezie on November 19th, 1930, and having jointly engaged in acts of violence on the persons and property of Pawel Solich, Pawel Szoltys, Karol Jambor, Augustyn Neugebauer, Wilhelm Kuska, Franciszek Mandrycz and Jôzef Beracz; And further against: (6) Kazimierz Szymanski, born on August 3rd, 1900, at Krôsno, domiciled at Brzezie head master of a school, son of Jan Szymanski and Marja Szymanski, née Pieczkiewicz, married, not previously convicted ; Who is charged with having, at the same time and in the same place, incited the various classes of the population to acts subversive of public order and, in particular, with having, in his speeches, urged the inhabitants of Polish nationality to demonstrate against the German minority, in consequence whereof the accused persons Nos. 1 to 5 were guilty of an offence under paragraph 125 of the Penal Code, whilst Szymanski himself was guilty of an offence under paragraph 130 of the Penal Code. The competent section of the Rybnik divisional court, at the proceedings held on March 12th, I93i. and attended by M. Eugenjusz Stodolak, judge of the divisional court, M. Mieczyslaw Nodzynski, judge of the divisional court, Dr. Badura, judge of the magistrates court, Dr. Tadeusz — 20 —

Poczatek, Public Prosecutor and judge of the divisional court and M. Leon Dolata, registrar and notary of the Court found :

That Franciszek Popela and Jôsef Jambor had been guilty of creating a public disturbance, an offence under paragraph 125 of the Penal Code, which they committed on November 19th, 1930, at Brzezie. That they did, in fact, meet and engage together in acts of violence on the persons and property of Pawel Solich, Pawel Szoltys, Karol Jambor, Augustyn Neugebauer, Wilhelm Kuska, Franziszek Mandrycz and Jozef Beracz. They were each sentenced to four months’ imprisonment and to pay the judicial fee of 20 zlotys, plus costs. The time spent in prison was directed to be deducted from the above term of imprisonment. Franciszek Popela and Jozef Jambor were sentenced to pay jointly to Pawel Solich 150 zlotys, to Pawel Szoltys 150 zlotys, to Karol Jambor 250 zlotys, to Augustyn Neugebauer 1,000 zlotys, to Wilhem Kuska 150 zlotys, to Franciszek Mandrycz 500 zlotys, to Jôzef Beracz 150 zlotys, by way of compensation for injury suffered. No action was taken in regard to the plaintiffs’ other claims. Alfred Konca, Franciszek Ekert, Henryk Kempka and Kazimierz Szymanski were acquitted ; no action was taken on the suit filed against them.

The civil court has been proceeding with the action for compensation. Up to date, the injured parties have been paid 3,500 zlotys as follows : Augustyn Neugebauer, 1,000 zlotys; Franciszek Mandrycz, 700 zlotys ; Karol Jambor, 700 zlotys; Pawel Solich, 600 zlotys; Wilhelm Kuska, 300 zlotys ; Pawel Szoltys, 100 zlotys ; Jôzef Beracz, 100 zlotys. 14. The case is being proceeded with before the Mikolôw magistrates court. It has not yet been brought up for trial. 15. In the night of November I5th-i6th, 1930, in th e neighbourhood of Czerwionki, Dçbiensk Stary and Wielki, the usual training exercises of the organisation for physical and military training took place under military direction. The inhabitants of these villages were warned of these exercises several days in advance. Neither explosives nor cartridges were used. 16. On November 15th, 1930, Wiktor Schroeter received a parcel of election placards to be posted up, including three copies of the electoral lists headed “ Wàhler der Deutschen Wahlgemeinschaft, Gemeinde Czuchôw Schroeter gave instructions for these placards to be posted up in the commune. No offence being involved, the case was not proceeded with. 17. The injured party, Paul Langer, of Gassolice, informed the court that he was Polish by origin and conviction and had served as a volunteer in the Polish army. In the window which was broken he had put up a poster published on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the victory over the Bolshevik armies. He had told no one that his window had been broken and was unaware how, or through whom, the “ Volksbund ” was informed. The witness Marta Langer testified on oath that, on the day of the incident, an unknown person came into the shop and demanded that the poster should be removed, threatening to break the window if it were not. Langer did not lodge any complaint ; the case was therefore not proceeded with. Compensation amounting to 200 zlotys was paid in respect of the damage. 18. Aloizy Klocek, of Godôw, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he did not know who the guilty parties were. At the same time he asked that they should be punished. Warned that he must bring a charge, he failed to do so. The case was therefore not proceeded with. The question of compensation could not be settled by administrative means, Klocek’s claims being unjustified. Klocek refused to accept the undisputed portion of the compensation and the matter was referred to the court. It should be added that Klocek, when presenting, by way of proof of the injury sustained, a statement of the cost of treatment for an amount of 12 zlotys, stated his claim at the unwarrantable figure of 5,581.80 zlotys, declaring at the same time that he would not accept less. Two months later he put forward a fresh proposal in which his claim was reduced to 1,931 zlotys, of which 1,500 zlotys represented compensation for the suffering undergone. 19. Ludwig Lesnikowski did not report the incident to the police. After being heard by the court and warned that he should bring a charge, he failed to do so, in consequence whereof, failing any charge or grounds for prosecution, the case was dropped. 20. The injured party, Victor Oles, on being questioned by the Public Prosecutor and advised of the necessity of bringing a charge, refused to do so, adding that he regarded himself as a German and must support the party which gave him his livelihood. He also added ipsissimis verbis: “ If I am given work I will be Polish ”. The case was therefore not proceeded with. The policeman Robert Stronczek was officially censured by his superior officers for having uncivilly asked Oles what handbills he was distributing, as well as for having said to Oles, “ You had better not stay there with those handbills, Oles, or you may catch it. Personally, I am not interfering ”• Owing to the lack of evidence, the charge against Stronczek could not be upheld, although he was present when Inspector Swiertnia, of the communal police, pushed Oles and used threatening language. 21 and 22. Francisek Jordan, of Golkowice, when urged bythe police and subsequently by the Public Prosecutor to bring a charge, declared that at the time when the matter was communicated to the “ Volksbund ’’ he regarded it as settled. Though warned that he must bring a charge, he failed to do so, and the matter has consequently not been proceeded with. — 21 —

As regards compensation, he stated that window-panes and the frames of seven windows had been broken, that two doors had been partly damaged and that several curtains, a tablecloth, some boiled meat and cakes had been spoiled; he estimated his losses at 1,808.70 zlotys. In support of this claim he submitted an account for the sum of 312.70 zlotys. Jordan’s claims being obviously unfounded and exaggerated, a commission including minority representatives was convened. The commission fixed the amount of the losses suffered by Jordan at 500 zlotys. Jordan refused to accept this sum. The authorities made a search in Jordan’s apartments at 10.40 on November 14th, 1930, with the object of discovering smuggled goods. 23. Jozef Widenka, Jozef Pawlowski, Antoni Piprek and Jôzef Placzek, on being questioned by the judge, stated that they were Polish. They had not recognised the guilty parties. Jozef Placzek alone indicated Konrad Jasiulek and Emile Plewnia as guilty parties. All, with the exception of Antoni Piprek, asked that the guilty parties should be punished; but, when informed that they must bring a charge against the persons who had created the disturbance in their homes, they refused to do so. The matter was accordingly not proceeded with. 24. The injured party, Francizek Fitzke, on being heard by the Public Prosecutor, stated that he did not ask for the culprits to be punished and that he refused to bring a charge ; accordingly, in the absence of any evidence of an offence or of any grounds for instituting proceedings, the matter was dropped. By way of compensation, Fitzke received 38.50 zlotys. Fitzke having spread false rumours to the effect that his house had been bombed with hand grenades, the Rybnik local court, in a judgment dated January 3rd, 1931, convicted Fitzke of an offence under paragraph 360, p. 11, and fined him 100 zlotys. 25. The injured parties, Max and Anna Maniek, did not report the incident to the police, did not ask that the guilty parties should be punished and did not lodge a complaint. When informed that they must bring a charge they refused to do so ; this matter was therefore not proceeded with. 26. The injured party, Louis Szczepanek, of Ksi^zenice, when informed that he must bring a charge, refused to do so ; the m atter was accordingly not proceeded with. Compensation amounting to 40 zlotys was paid in respect of the damage. 27. The Rybnik magistrates court, after proceeding, on March 6th, 1931, to hear the evidence against Alexander Snopek, Henryk Kucharczyk and Ludwik Buchcik, who were charged with the offence covered by pararaph 360, p. 11, and paragraph 303 of the Penal Code and of committing the said offence on November 27th, 1930, at Rzçdôwka, commune of Leszczyny, by breaking three window-panes, value 14 zlotys, the property of Anna Palarzowa, acquitted the accused. Compensation for an amount of 50 zlotys was paid in respect of the damage. 28 and 29. On March 3rd, 1931, the Rybnik magistrates court heard the cases brought under criminal law against (1) Adolf Jureczek; (2) Henryk Grzenia ; (3) Wilhelm Mandrysz ; (4) Herman Masarczyk, ; (5) Emil Ciupka; (6) Tomasz Ciupka; (7) Franciszek Glombica ; and (8) Jan Sznura, the particulars of the charge being as follows:

(i) That, on November 22nd, 1930, at Lyski and Zwonowice, the accused parties enumer­ ated under Nos. (1) to (5) formed, with other persons unknown, into a gang in order to engage jointly in acts of violence on persons and property, and that they effected an entrance by force into the fenced houses of Franciszek Lojcha and Jôzef Nowak at Lyski; Emanuel Bochenek and Malgorzata Szwede at Zwonowice. (ü) That, on November 22nd, 1930, at Zwonowice, the accused parties enumerated under Nos. 6 to 8 did by advice and support knowingly aid and abet the accused persons enumerated under Nos. 1 to 5 in the commission of the offence specified under (i) ; that they harboured them in the communal hall, specified what persons should be the victims of the said offence, and helped the culprits to disguise themselves. The court decided that : Adolf Jureczek, Henryk Grzenia, Wilhelm Mandrysz, Emil Ciupek and Herman Masarczyk had been guilty, on November 22nd, 1930, at Zwonowice and Lyski, of jointly creating a grave “ breach of domestic peace ” (an offence under paragraphs 47 and 124 of the Penal Law) as set forth in Part (i) of the charge ; that Tomasz Ciupek and Franciszek Glombica had been jointly concerned as accomplices, on November 22nd, 1930, at Zwonowice, in the offence of a grave “ breach of domestic peace ” under paragraphs 47, 49 and 124 of the Penal Law, and as set forth in Part (ii) of the charge, and sentenced : Adolf Jureczek to four months’ imprisonment ; Henryk Grzenia, Wilhelm Mandrysz and Herman Masarczyk to three months’ imprisonment each; Emil Ciupek to one month’s imprisonment ; Tomas Ciupek and Franciszek Glombica to two months’ imprisonment each. Jan Sznura was exempted from the penalty of a fine. Emil Ciupek’s sentence was suspended for three years.

From the testimony of witnesses, it was found that the complaints made against Wihlelm Moskwa, policeman, and Teodor Skupin, mayor of the commune of Lyski, were unfounded. Compensation for damages was paid as follows : to Jôzef Lojek, 335 zlotys ; to Jôzef Nowak, 54 zlotys; to Malgorzata Szweda, 20 zlotys; to Emanuel Bochenek, 25 zlotys. The injured parties stated, both in court and during the judicial investigation, that they were Polish. 30- Jôzef Kuballa, after being heard by the court and informed that he must bring a charge, failed to do so. Failing any evidence of an offence or any grounds for prosecution, the matter was dropped. — 22 —

Kuballa claimed compensation for an amount of 2,292.10 zlotys; but a commission of local inhabitants found that the loss amounted to 145.60 zlotys. Kuballa refused to accept this sum. Some days later, Kuballa put in a fresh demand for compensation, in which he reduced his claim to 399.60 zlotys. In view of the fact that Kuballa, as appears from the above, attempted, by underhand and fraudulent means, to mislead the authorities into the payment of some 2,000 zlotys, and refused to accept the undisputed sum of 145.60 zlotys, he was informed that he could only enforce his claim through the courts of law. 31. Theodor Pirla, on being questioned by the judge, said that he was of Polish nationality, that he did not ask for the guilty party to be punished and claimed no compensation. He refused to bring a charge ; the matter was therefore not proceeded with. 32. Edward Porwol and his wife Anna, after being heard by the court and informed that they must themselves bring an action on the grounds of an offence under paragraphs 123 and 124 of the Penal Law, failed to do so. Failing any evidence of an offence and any grounds for prosecution, the matter was dropped. The enquiry into the theft of a watch has been suspended until the thieves have been discovered. 33 and 34. Jan Mitko and his wife Marja, after being heard by the judge and informed that they must bring an action on the grounds of an offence under paragraph 123 of the Penal Law, have not yet done so. In the absence of any evidence of an offence and of any grounds for prosecu­ tion, the matter has been dropped. Compensation for an amount of 50 zlotys has been paid in respect of damage sustained. 35. Bernard Lippik, on being heard by the judge, stated that he believed himself to be Polish ; he did not ask that the guilty parties should be punished. He did not bring a charge. In the absence of any evidence of an offence and of any grounds for prosecution, the matter has been dropped. Compensation for damages amounting to 4 zlotys has been paid. 36. Konrad Krzysteczko, on being heard by the court, stated that he had not reported the incident to the police. Not feeling that he had suffered any injury, he did not wish to lodge a complaint or demand the punishment of the culprits. Jan Pyka and Sylwester Mazurek also failed to bring a charge. Failing any evidence of an offence and any ground for prosecution, the matter was dropped. 37. Georges Nowak was the only witness who saw the poster on which a death’s head had been drawn; he confirmed this fact before the judge. So far as the authorities are aware, no demand for punishment and no complaints have been made. 38. The inhabitants of the commune of Przyszowice, seven in number, informed the police that they had received threatening anonymous letters. Enquiries failed to reveal the identity of the authors. Failing any evidence, the enquiry led to a nolle -prosequi. 39 and 40. In the case brought by Teodor Kubica, of Przyszowice, against Jan Mason, of Przyszowice, on the grounds of an offence under paragraph 241 of the Penal Code, the magistrates court at Rybnik, sitting in camera on March 16th, 1931, decided to quash the criminal proceedings against Jan Mason, in pursuance of paragraph 61 of the Penal Code; on the ground that the person bringing the action knew the culprit as far back as November 22nd, 1930, and that it was therefore incumbent upon him to lodge his complaint before February 22nd, 1931. As he had not done so, the right to take criminal proceedings had been forfeited by prescription. The damage sustained by Kubica through the breaking of a window-pane amounted to 2.50 zlotys. When called upon to state his case for compensation, he declared that he made no claim. 41. Théodor Mrowiec did not report the incident to the police. On being summoned to appear, he refused to give evidence, regarding the matter as his own private business, which he did not wish to discuss with anyone ; he expressed surprise at the matter having been raised by the " Volksbund ”. Examined under oath by the judge on February 17th, 1931, he stated that he had been hit for having distributed voting tickets of the “ Catholic Popular Bloc ” (Polish group). Re-examined by the judge on February 21st, 1931, Mrowiec changed his statement for the third time, asserting that he was distributing voting tickets for the “ Deutsche Wahlgemeinschaft ” and only then did he demand the punishment of the culprits. Although warned that he should do so, he refused to bring a charge ; the matter was accordingly not proceeded with. 42. Wilhelm Kluger did not report the incident to the police and, when summoned by the police, refused to give evidence. He told the judge that he had been assaulted and struck by several persons. He only recognised one of these and demanded his punishment. When advised that he must bring a charge, he refused to do so. The matter has accordingly not been proceeded with. 43. Ignace Pluta, of Glozyny, informed the court that some persons unknown had broken nineteen of his window-panes, damaged his curtains and broken his jam-jars. He estimated the damage at 148 zlotys. At the same time he filed an action under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law. The court investigated the charge ex officio. The guilty parties could not be found. Compensation for damage was awarded. The policeman Adolphe Larysz was officially censured by his superior' officers. 44. Joseph Wadula and his wife Pauline, being questioned in court, stated that they did not know the guilty party ; and, although warned to do so, brought no charge. The matter was therefore not proceeded with. Compensation to the amount of 27 zlotys was paid in respect of damage. — 23 —

45- On November 23rd, 1930, training exercises were held at Raszczyce and the surrounding district by a section of the organisation for military preparation and training. The petition filed contains no specific accusation against any participants. The actual march past of the group is not in itself a reprehensible act, organisations of this kind being entitled to bear arms; neither the police nor the Court received any complaint in connection with the exercises; thé matter has therefore not been proceeded with. 46. Victor Szebesta asked the judge that the guilty parties should be punished; but, although warned to do so, he did not bring a charge. The matter has accordingly not been proceeded with. Compensation for damage to an amount of 7.50 zlotys has been paid. 47. Emanuel Konsek did not report the incident to the police. On being questioned by the judge he refused to lodge a complaint ; the matter has accordingly not been proceeded with. 48. Wojciech Kaczmarczyk brought a charge, under paragraph 223 (a) of the Penal Code, against Jan Benisz and Robert Sojka, accusing them of premeditated assault at Rôwnie on November 22nd, 1930, of having struck him with heavy instruments and of having treated him in a manner calculated to endanger his life. Sojka having thrown Krawczyk to the ground, Benisz struck him on the head with a piece of wood torn from a paling, with such violence that the wood broke ; thereupon both of them brutally kicked Kaczmarczyk, who was bruised all over his body, in addition to sustaining injuries to his head. Furthermore, Franciszek Benisz was accused of an offence under paragraphs 49 and 223 of the Penal Law. This offence was committed with premeditation, at the same time and place, assisting the accused parties in their unlawful acts, by calling Robert Sojka, at the request of Jan Benisz, to come and assist the latter in his assault on Kaczmarek. The matter has been investigated by the competent section of the Rybnik divisional court. The trial has been fixed for May 5th, 1931. 49 and 50. As regards the case of the injured party, Jan Maciejczyk, the enquiry has not yet brought the requisite evidence to light. The guilty parties have not been found. By way of compensation, Maciejczyk has received 75 zlotys. 51. By judgment of the Rybnik magistrates court, dated March 3rd, 1931, Adolphe Jureczek, of Rydultowy, being found guilty, under paragraph 185, of assault and battery committed on November 16th, 1930, before the polling-booth at Rydultowy on the person of Conrad Szkatula, whom he struck in the face, was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment. The allegation made against the policeman Piasecki, who is stated to have offered to pay 35 zlotys if the distribution of the voting tickets were stopped and the tickets handed over, is unfounded, a fact which Szkatula himself has not disputed. Szkatula stated that he was Polish and was distributing the German tickets in order to earn money. 52. Ignace Potysz told the judge that one night he heard his dog bark. Being afraid of an attack by persons unknown, he took up an axe and waited for some time. Nobody appeared ; he sustained no injury. The matter was not proceeded with. 53. In the night of November 23rd to 24th, 1930, Potysz’s mill, which stands right on the Czechoslovak frontier, was burned. Potysz, on being questioned by the court, did not even attempt to prove that this fire, which is alleged to have been intentionally started, was attributable to political reasons. There is some presumptive evidence that there may have been a fraudulent attempt to draw insurance money, and an enquiry has been instituted into this point. 54. Franciszek Smolorz, of Skrzyszôw, informed the court that he did not demand the punishment of the culprits and did not desire to bring an action. The matter was not proceeded with. 55. Franciszek Smolorz, of Skryszôw, although warned that he must bring an action, did not do so. The matter was therefore not proceeded with. Compensation to an amount of 250 zlotys has been paid in respect of the damage sustained. 56. The Rybnik local court, after the trial conducted on January 10th, 1931, convicted Jan Dzierzawa, Roman Las, Antoni Wincha and Pawel Kosteczka of attempted violence within the meaning of paragraphs 240, 43 and 47 of the Penal Law. On November 15th, 1930, at Wilcza Gôma, they unlawfully attempted, by threats and violence, to compel Jôzef Greitzke to hand over arms, ammunition and money in his possession and to cast his vote for List No. 1 in the Diet elections. They threatened to kill him, and finally, after removing his boots, struck him on his bare heels. If they did not commit the proposed offence it was owing to circumstances beyond their control—in particular, because Greitzke refused to comply with their demands. The magistrates court sentenced Jan Dzierzawa to six months’ imprisonment, Roman Las and Antoni Wincha to three months’ imprisonment and Pawel Kosteczka to two months’ imprisonment 57- The injured parties, on being warned that they must bring an action, failed to do so, and the matter has therefore not been proceeded with. Franciszek Drzymala and Teofil Szendzielorz, both of them Polish, were assaulted at the same time. Szendzielorz is, moreover a State official. Compensation for damage has been paid as follows: Jan Piskol received 20 zlotys in respect of the cost of treatment ; Otto Henkel 500 zlotys, repayment in respect of the cost of a course of treatment, as well as for his lost hat and stick and for the cleaning of his clothes. 58. Pawel Hunold brought a private charge under paragraph 223 (a) of the Penal Law. The Public Prosecutor took action upon the charge. The other injured parties were informed — 24 — that they could become parties to Hunold’s suit. The case is being proceeded with before the competent penal sectioa.of the Rybnik court. The hearing has been fixed for April 29th, 1931. The question of compensation could not be settled by administrative procedure owing to Hunold’s unwarrantable claims, which amount to 10,000 zlotys. Hunold has been informed that he can bring an action before the civil court.

59. The witnesses belonging to the German minority who were heard by the judge stated that they had sometimes seen insurgents pass, but the latter were unarmed. No one has been injured.

60. Hubert Tyrtania, who was questioned by- the court, stated that three men entered his house and asked him to send his children to a Polish school. He promised to do so at the beginning of the next school year, and at their urgent request he signed a declaration to this effect ; however, his children are still attending a German school because, although he and his wife are Poles, he wishes his children to learn German. The men who came to his house behaved quite correctly and did not threaten him or use bad language. Maksymiljan Gimlik informed the judge that a man named Pawel Tlolka came to his house and asked him, without using threats or compulsion, to send his children to a Polish school. Gimlik signed a declaration to the effect that he would do so and transferred his children to the Polish school, as he is a Pole. The reason he sent his children to a German school was because he wished them to learn German. Walenty Hensel informed the court that three men came to see him, including Wiktor Zogala, who is known to him personally, and who, although he behaved quietly and did not threaten him in any way, urged him to send his children to a Polish school. Hensel also declared that he was a Pole and that he sent his children to a German school to please his wife, who spoke Polish very badly. Jozef Gamon informed the court that Zogala, Cimala and a third man came to see him and presented a declaration for him to sign to the effect that he would transfer his children to a Polish school. Gamon did not sign this declaration. The unknown man then said that if he would not sign it willingly he would be “ made to do so by means of truncheons ” ; the men then went away quietly. Gamon also stated that he had not informed the " Volksbund ” of the incident, as he did not wish the latter to intervene. He refused to ask for the punishment of the offenders or to lodge a private complaint; the matter has therefore been dropped.

61. Artur Tyrtania, who was heard by the prosecutor, stated that he considered it unnecessary to bring a private charge, as his brother-in-law, Zygmunt Tyrtania, had informed the police of the incident. He now asked that the offenders should be punished, but did not bring a charge; the matter has therefore been dropped.

62. The magistrates court at Zory, after hearing the case on February 27th, 1931, found that Joachim Wçgierko had been guilty of grave excesses. On November 21st, 1930, at Zory, he fired shots in the night on a public road, thereby disturbing public peace, and he also fired shots in inhabited or frequented places. He was sentenced by the court to a fine of 3 zlotys, or, failing payment of the fine, to one day’s imprisonment. The court also ordered the “ straszak ” (untranslatable) to be confiscated. The same magistrates court at Zory, by a judgment rendered on February 27th, 1931, in the criminal action against Klemens Pomykol, who was accused of having fired shots with a “ straszak ” on November 21st, 1930, at Zory before the window of Artur Tyrtania, found Pomykol guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 3 zlotys, or, failing payment of the fine, to one day’s imprisonment.

63. By a judgm ent rendered on February 27th, 1931, Maksymiljan Kawa, H erm an Manka and Jan Cimala were found guilty by the magistrates court at Zory of having assaulted and struck at Zory on November 22nd, 1930, at about 7.15 a.m. a man named Karol Silber, who was going to work. Under Article 223 of the Penal Code, they were each sentenced to a fine of 30 zlotys, or, failing payment of the fine, to six days’ imprisonment. The doctor’s expenses were paid by the General Sickness Fund of Zory.

64. By a judgm ent of the Zory magistrates court rendered on February 20th, 1931, Jan Gwôzdz, Aloizy Cimala, Maksymiljan Kawa, Herman Manka and Pawel Kolodziej were found guilty of having, on November 22nd, 1930, jointly and illegally entered the dwelling of Franciszka Ludwig and asked her to give them the German voting papers, threatening to strike her and to arrest her husband Ignacy Ludwig. They had no right to do this and naturally alarmed the Ludwigs unnecessarily. The offenders were acquitted on their own depositions.

65. On February 27th, 1931, the magistrates court of Zory heard the criminal action against Jan Cimala, Teofil Bartosz, Herman Manka and Szczepan Wach, who were accused of having committed grave excesses at Zory on November 22nd, 1930, by standing before Artur Tyrtanias window and pretending to fire shots at the window, at the same time ordering him to close it. Two of the accused, Cimala and Bartosz, were found guilty by the court and sentenced, under Article 360, page 11, of the Penal Code, to a fine of 15 zlotys each, or, failing payment of the fine, to three days’ imprisonment. The accused Manka and Wach were acquitted by the court. — 25 —

66 and 67. The observations on points 66 and 67 are to be found under paragraphs 28 and 29

68. The injured party, Franciszek Wilczek, a butcher residing at Zwonowice, stated in his deposition that he was of Polish nationality and only spoke Polish ; that he sent his child to the Polish school and was a member of the group of the Union of Silesian Insurgents. He was heard by the judge and brought a private charge in respect of an offence under paragraphs 223 (a) and 303 of the Penal Code, explaining that he had not brought the case before the “ Volksbund " and was surprised at the interest taken by the President of the " Volksbund ” in the matter. The offender, Adolf Jureczek, a meat inspector residing at Rydultowy, was found guilty by the competent Section of the Rybnik divisional court on April 14th, 1931, of disturbing public peace, an offence under paragraph 125, section 2. On November 22nd, 1930, at Zwonowice, this man, together with a number of persons, who have not been discovered formed a gang and they jointly assaulted Franciszek Wilczek and his wife Bronislawa and destroyed some of the fittings in the butcher’s shop. They attacked the inn of Franciszek Wilczek and his wife and ill-treated the proprietors ; they also destroyed and broke articles belonging to the butcher’s shop. Jureczek, the chief of the gang, gave orders and signals with a whistle. Jureczek was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Franciszek Poloczek wras acquitted by the court of the offence under paragraph 125 of the Penal Law and the offence under paragraphs 223 (a) and 303 of the Penal Code, while Adolf Jureczek was acquitted of the offence covered by paragraphs 223 (a) and 303 of the Penal Code. Compensation amounting to 700 zlotys was paid to Wilczek. The charge brought against the police-officer, to the effect that he had advised Wilczek not to go to the doctor because he might be attacked again or something worse might happen to him, is unfounded. Wilczek declared in his deposition that, on the day following the attack, the commandant of the police- station came to see him and, while questioning him in regard to the case, advised him to go to the doctor and get a certificate, as he would have to submit this to the court. On November 25th, 1930, the police-officer Sosna, who was questioning the offenders, went back to Wilczek and, on being informed that the latter was going to the doctor, said to him: " You are quite right to go to the doctor. The roughs who have ill-treated you must be punished”.

Sub-Annex ID.

Swiçtochlowice D istrict.

1. The injured party, Matylda Gruszka, deposed before the court that she had not informed the police of the incident, having no confidence in the police, though she had no definite charge to make against them ; on the other hand, she informed the “ Volksbund ” of the occurrence. Being informed that she must bring a private charge before the court and that the Public Prosecutor intended to take action on the charge, she stated that she would reflect whether she ought to bring such a charge. She has never brought any charge, and on that account, in the absence of any grounds for a private charge, the case has been dismissed. Gruszka was paid 50 zlotys to cover the cost of treatment.

2. Helena Staroscik, examined by the magistrate, stated that she had not been beaten or threatened, but that, on being ordered to do so by an unknown person, she had simply cried “ Hurrah ! ” for fear of being beaten. She added that she would not bring any charge. She was paid 30 zlotys in refund of travelling expenses to the office and to pay for the care of her child during her absence from home occasioned through being summoned to the office. The injured party, Bernard Kolodziej, does not belong to the German minority. Examined by the magistrate he stated that he was a Pole and did not know who informed the “ Volksbund ” of the case. On returning from hospital, he was questioned by an unknown gentleman, who was not a police-officer and did not tell him on whose behalf he was making enquiries. The gentleman put questions to him in German until Kolodziej told him that he could not speak German very well. Kolodziej supposes that this gentleman was the representative of the “ Volksbund ”. He is very surprised that the “ Volksbund ” should have taken up the matter and cannot understand by what right it submitted it to the League of Nations without his knowledge and against his will.

3- The observations on No. 3 are given under those on No. 1.

4- The injured parties Maélonka Wawrzyniec and Jan Liszka, giving evidence before the magistrate, refused to bring a private charge, and for that reason the case was dismissed. 26 —

Maélonka asked that he should be paid a sum of 500 zlotys as compensation. This claim was not met, however, as he did not furnish evidence that he had suffered material damage. The complaints against the police are entirely unfounded, as Police-Officer Paszek, who was on duty on the spot, took action on his own initiative and told the assailants to go away, which they did. Subsequently, on the basis of Paszek’s report, the police instituted an enquiry and referred the case to the Public Prosecutor, who took no further action in the absence of any private charge. 5. Jôzef Byczek, manager of the German library, who was authorised in accordance with the Statutes to represent the company, stated in court that the police had, ex officio, instituted an enquiry, had discovered the guilty parties, and had taken charge of the books that were lying in the street and also of the library itself before he, Jozef Byczek, arrived on the spot, and as a result of their action a considerable number of books was saved. A report was drawn up on the verbal charge made by Byczek, who, some time afterwards, returned and asked that no action should be taken on his charge, as he did not wish the guilty parties to be punished. The enquiry in regard to the theft was dropped, as there was no evidence that the parties responsible had acted with a view to the unlawful appropriation of anything; on the contrary, all the circumstances showed that their intention was to destroy the library. The searches made at their homes proved fruitless. The missing articles were thrown into the street and were probably taken away by other persons. Damages were paid—namely, 2,600 zlotys to the management of the Chropaczow library and 120 zlotys to Jôzef Byczek in respect of personal damages. 6. On March 16th, 1931, the m agistrate at Krôlewska H uta opened proceedings against François Kopec, Jôzef Przybinda, Antoni Mazur, Ludwik Smolarczyk, Jozef Bielica and Antoni Rebanda, who were accused of offences under paragraphs 303 and 47 of the Penal Law. On November 22nd, 1930, at Chropaczow, they were alleged to have been jointly responsible for the wilful and unlawful breakage of nine window-panes, the property of Juljusz Schielke of Chropaczow destroying his furniture and thereby causing him a loss of some 500 zlotys. The court found the accused Kopec, Przybinda, Mazur, Smolarczyk and Bielica guilty of the charges made against them and sentenced them to five days’ detention, the execution of the penalty being, however, conditionally suspended for a year. The accused Rebanda was acquitted. Schielke did not make any claim for compensation. On being questioned on the subject, he stated that he would enforce his claims against the guilty parties by judicial means. As regards the assertion that a police-officer, learning that windows had been broken, said, “ If you are a Hun it serves you right ”, Schielke, questioned by the magistrate, stated that he could not say whether the man was a policeman or someone else, as he was wearing a cloak. In any case he was not one of the local police. Schielke would not give the name of the man who was alleged to have been present when this conversation took place and who could have given more definite information on the subject. It was therefore impossible to determine whether the expression used by a certain official was actually used, more particularly since Schielke’s evidence was so vague and uncertain as really to seem false. 7. Tomasz Morawski, giving evidence before the magistrate, stated that he had been informed that it was necessary to bring a private charge, but that he would not bring such a charge. He did not inform the “ Volksbund ” of the incident and the “ Volksbund’s ” action was taken without his knowledge. He does not claim any compensation. Theodor Halemba, giving evidence before the court, stated that he would not bring any charge, even though the guilty parties had been discovered and the Public Prosecutor was ready to take action upon the charge. He has no connection with the “ Volksbund ”. The “ Volksbund ” communicated the incident to Geneva without his knowledge and against his will. He claims no compensation. Wilhelm Mârz, giving evidence before the court, stated that he would not bring any charge, although he knew who the guilty parties were and the Public Prosecutor was prepared to act upon the charge. He had nothing to do with the “ Volksbund ”. The “ Volksbund ” communicated the incident to Geneva without his knowledge and against his will. He does not claim any compensation. Fryderyk Ehrrenreich, giving evidence before the court, stated that he would not bring any charge, although he knew who the guilty parties were and that the Public Prosecutor was prepared to act upon the charge. The “ Volksbund ” communicated the incident to Geneva without his knowledge and against his will. He does not claim any compensation. In view of these statements the case was dismissed. 8. In the shop of Gertruda Opal, the shop-window was broken during the night of September 24th-25th, 1930, and not October 26th, 1930. The window was broken by malefactors who at the same time stole a number of fancy articles from the window. The guilty parties were arrested and transported to Krôlewska Huta, the Public Prosecutor in that town being informed, The date of the offence was deliberately changed from September 24th to October 26th (immediately prior to the elections) and the incident was purposely given a political character which it did not possess—facts which are characteristic of “ Volksbund ” methods. Gertruda Opal, giving evidence before the magistrate, stated that the windows were broken in connection with the robbery atid that she did not know why the “ Volksbund ” had given the affair a political character and communicated it to Geneva. 9. On November 15th, 1930, Gertruda Opalowa, of Wielkie Hajduki, informed the local police authorities that at 7.30 p.m. insurgents had broken her shop-window. While a report of her evidence was being taken there was brought to the police-office a certain Fransizek Kus, s u s p e c t e d — 27 — of having broken the window and generally regarded as German. On learning this, Opalowa refused to sign the report of her evidence and did not ask for Kus to be punished. Giving evidence subsequently before the magistrate, she stated that, although she had been warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law against the offender, she would not bring any such charge. After her evidence had been taken down, a translation of the report was read to her by the magistrate, and she refused to sign it, asking that she should first be given a copy and promising that she would return to the court in a few days and sign the report. Asked by the magistrate whether she had any definite objections, she replied that she had not. As the magistrate, of course, took no action upon Opalowa’s request, she did not sign the report. She was not paid any compensation owing to her refusal to sign the report at all, whether drawn up in Polish or in German. Lastly, she stated that she would not consult the Polish authorities at all,the “ Deutscher Volksbund ” being the sole body which she considered competent in the matter.

io, n , 12, 13, 14 and 15. The injured party, Adolf Schmiedt, giving evidence before the magistrate, stated that he could not exactly say what was the cause of the attack, that the assailants might quite possibly have been actuated by a desire for personal revenge, as being a foundry overseer he had under him about 600 workers, with whom misunderstandings often arose, particularly when he dismissed them; that probably some of them had taken advantage of the disturbances preceding the elections to wreak their spite on him. He added that, although warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law, he refused to bring such a charge, as he could see no point in doing so. The case was therefore dismissed. The losses sustained by Schmiedt —100 zlotys—were refunded to him.

16. Jozef Richter, giving evidence before the magistrate, said that he was a Pole and did not belong to any German association or to the “ Volksbund He had agreed to distribute German voting papers as he had been promised good pay for doing so. He had of his own free will given his friend, Pawel Maciol, the German proclamations and voting papers which he had received for distribution as, being a Pole, he did not wish to help to increase the German votes. On the other hand, he had told Feliks Bartosza, of Lipiny, the German representative, and had also stated at the office of the “ Deutsche Wahlgemeinschaft ”, that the Insurgents had seized his voting papers by force, although that was not true. Richter added he would not bring any charge, and for that reason the case was dismissed.

17. Stefan Politaj, giving evidence before the magistrate, made a statement, the principal passages of which, as given in the report, are as follows : “ I am Polish by origin and by conviction, and took part in the second and third insurrections against the Germans. In one of the numbers of the paper Der Oberschlesische Kurier, at the time of the elections (I do not remember the exact date), it was stated th at I was distributing German voting papers and that, in connection with that fact, I was attacked and beaten unconscious and the voting papers taken from me by force, and that the authors of the alleged attack broke into my home in search of German printed matter. As all these allegations were untrue—since I did not distribute any voting papers, nor was I attacked, nor did any person break into my home—I felt, on reading this information in the Kurier, that, as a Pole, I had been insulted. I therefore went to the Polish police commissariat at Lipiny and asked that proceedings should be taken against the responsible editor of the Kurier for disseminating false news. “ Some time afterwards I was called to Katowice to see President Galonder, and was subjected to a cross-examination, during which I was asked if I were Polish. I reaffirmed that I was a Pole and that all this story of an assault upon me was simply a lie. Two or three weeks later I received from the ‘ Volksbund ’ a letter containing a complaint against a certain Maciol, the alleged author of the assault upon me, which assault never took place at all. I had only to sign this complaint and send it to the Court. I had no idea what the ‘ Volksbund ’ meant by sending me unnecessary letters. I took the letter to the Lipiny police commissariat. I did not inform the ‘ Volksbund ’ of any incident, and I am distressed that, without my knowledge and against my will, it should have informed the League of Nations of this purely fictitious incident. I suppose it has been done to bring ridicule upon Poland, and as a Pole I find this most offensive. I therefore repeat my request that proceedings be taken against the editor. ” Politaj was paid 20 zlotys as compensation for loss of wages through having been called before the President of the Mixed Commission to give evidence.

18. 19 and 20. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrate at Tarnoswkie Gôry tried the case against Wilhelm Schwarz and Robert Miodek, accused of an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law. In November 1930, at Szarlej and also possibly at Piekary Wielkie, they are alleged to have broken, among others, the windows of Franciszek Kittel (one pane), Henryk Derballa (four panes) and Teodor Kornke (three panes). The court passed judgment, acquitting the two accused. Compensation was paid as follows : to Henryk Derballa, 14 zlotys; to Franciszek Kittel, 80 zlotys; to Teodor Kornke, 160 zlotys.

21. It was ascertained in the course of the enquiry that Jozef Schwarz systematically committed frauds, extorting sums from citizens belonging to the German minority and communi­ cating to them in return false information regarding fictitious offences alleged to have been committed by [his father, Wilhelm Schwarz, and Robert Miodek against the German minority. In view of this fact, the local court at Tamowskie Gôry, after hearing the case on March 12th, -- 28 ---

1931, found the accused, Jozef Schwarz, guilty of an offence under paragraph 63 of the Penal Law. In November 1930, at Piekary Wielkie, with a view to unlawful gain, he caused material damage to Elzbieta Kornka and Karol Pluta, obtaining from each a sum of 5 zlotys, giving them false information and communicating and maintaining false views. He was sentenced to be reprimanded.

22. The magistrate at Krôlewska Huta, on March 5th, 1931, found Franciszek Krupa of Zgoda guilty of offences under paragraphs 241 and 123 of the Penal Code, committed on November nth, 1930, at Zgoda. He is alleged to have entered the residence of Augustyn Miklica and, not finding him at home, to have uttered threats by saying : “ Tell your husband that if he continues to despise us so he will soon be a dead man ”. Despite the protest of Miklica’s wife, he refused to leave, and in consequence was sentenced to ten days’ imprisonment.

23 and 31. The injured party, Franciszek Szoppa, did not inform the police of the accident, and, though repeatedly asked by the police, refused to give an explanation, stating that he had no time. In consequence, the police carried out the inquiry ex officio, and as a result discovered the offenders. Questioned by the magistrate, Szoppa stated that he had been warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law, and said that he would bring the charge himself, despite the fact that the magistrate had declared himself prepared to enter a verbal charge in the report of the case. Szoppa did not bring any private charge, and the case was therefore dismissed. As regards damages, Szoppa stated that he would not make any claim for compensation.

24. The injured party, Franciszek Bialas, questioned by the magistrate, stated that he was a Pole, and deposed to having been a member of the Union of Silesian Insurgents. He does not know why he was beaten. Sub-officer Buchcik, head of the police-station, who came up at once and was the first to help, defended him against the blows with which he was still threatened. Bialas did not go to the “ Volksbund ” or authorise it to complain to the League of Nations, as he and his family are Poles. If the “ Volksbund ” had done so, it had been without his knowledge and against his will. Bialas, warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law, did not do so, and the case was therefore dismissed.

25. The injured party, Pawel Weiss, questioned by the magistrate, said that he was a Pole. He does not know why he was beaten ; he is not a member either of the “ Volksbund ” or of any other German association. He was informed of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law, but did not do so.

26. Jôzef Kolodziej did not inform the police that his home had been entered. Questioned as a result of the “ Volksbund ” petition, he stated that he was of Polish nationality and had no connection with the “ Volksbund ”, He had not asked the “ Volksbund ” to intervene in his case. Questioned by the magistrate, he refused to bring a charge at private law or to ask for the punish­ ment of the guilty parties, and the case was accordingly dismissed.

27. The competent section of the divisional court at Krôlewska Huta, at its session of March 28th, 1931, heard the criminal charge brought against Mikolaj Heito and Florjan Fiegler, workmen living at Zgoda, who were accused of illegally entering, on the night of November 23rd, 1930, the residence of Augustyn Miklitz, and jointly attacking and striking him. The court acquitted both accused, as both the injured party and the witnesses stated on oath that neither Heito nor Fiegler, whom they knew personally, had taken any part in the assault upon Miklitz and Widera. As the account given in the “ Volksbund’s ” petition might be taken to imply that the police took part in the assault upon Miklitz, an enquiry on the subject was opened. It was found that, when the guilty parties first tried to enter Miklitz’s house, a police patrol, consisting of Police- Officer Buchczyk, Assistant Police-Officer Dabek, and Police-Officer Szymik, hearing the noise, ran to the scene. The assailants, however succeeded in making their escape, and the police found Miklitz’s door shut and a panel beaten in. Police-Officer Buchczyk knocked at the door in order to ascertain what had happened, but the door was not opened. He then passed his head through the aperture in the door and saw Miklitz on the other side with an axe in his hand, with which he threatened the police-officer. Buchczyk had time to withdraw, and Miklitz, seeing that he was a policeman, opened the door and asked for help. As all was then calm, Buchczyk told Miklitz that he need not feel any alarm. The police set off in pursuit of the assailants, after asking the police-office of Swiçtochlowice for reinforcements, which soon arrived. In view of the unjustifiable claims made by Miklitz, the matter of compensation could not be settled through the administrative channel, and, Miklitz having refused compensation for the parts of his claims which were not disputed, judicial proceedings were institued.

28. The magistrate at Krôlewska Huta, sitting on March 9th, 1931 heard the case against Jan Liscioch, Tomasz Ksiezyk, Florian Fiegler, Mikolaj Heite and Stanislaw Jurkowski, accused of offences under paragraphs 223 and 123 of the Penal Code. On November 23rd, 1930, at Zgoda, they were alleged to have jointly and wilfully caused bodily harm to Jôzef Woisch and injured him by striking him, and also illegally entered his residence. The magistrate acquitted all the accused, as the witnesses, Jôzef Woisch, Alfred Weiss and Hildegarda Woisch, did not confirm that the accused had committed the acts imputed to them in the charge-sheet. Jôzef Woisch was paid 240 zlotys as compensation. — 2 9 —

29. The injured party, Andrzej Kasperidus, questioned by the magistrate, stated tha the had been warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law and would bring such a charge. As he did not bring it he was cited before the court, but refused to bring acharge and accordingly the case was dismissed. In view of the injured party’s statement that he did not know who carried off the hatchet and the toys and could not say that the guilty party had taken them away to appropriate them, the enquiry in respect of an offence under paragraphs 123 and 242 of the Penal Code was dropped. Kasperidus was paid 92 zlotys as compensation for damage. 30. The injured party Robert Krôtki, questioned by the magistrate, stated that, being warned of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law, he refused to bring such a charge, and the case was accordingly dismissed. 31. The remarks on 31 are given under 23. 32. The remarks on 32 are given under 27. 33. The injured party, Tomasz Gawron, brought a charge against Florjan Miodek under Article 185 of the Penal Law. The Public Prosecutor took judicial proceedings, and the case is pending before the magistrate’s court at Tamowskie Gory. The court has ordered an enquiry to be made into Miodek’s mental condition, as he has been treated at a hospital for mental patients. 34. The elections were held on November 16th, 1930, at Szarlej in strict accordance with the election rules. There were no unauthorised persons in the polling-booths. Apart from the members of the election Committees, there were no persons present at the voting except the agents of the various political groups, including those of the pro-Government parties, some of whom might have been wearing the uniforms of Silesian insurgents. 35. Pawel Sobczyk, questioned by the court, stated that he was a Pole, that he would not bring any private charge, and that he withdrew the charge brought by the “ Volksbund ”. He added that he would never have brought the charge if the “ Volksbund ” had not sent it to him. Jozef Mierowski did not bring any charge, and accordingly the case was dismissed as unfounded. Pawel Sobczyk was paid 50 zlotys in respect of damage to his overcoat. Mierowski did not sustain any damage. 36. The injured party, Augustyn Dudek questioned by the magistrate, said that he was a Pole, that he did not know why his windows had been broken, but that he ruled out any political motive. Warned of the necessity of bringing a charge, he refused to bring it or to take any measures under criminal law. He added that the “ Volksbund ” had communicated with Geneva without his knowledge or consent. For that reason the case was dismissed. He was paid 122 zlotys as compensation for damage. 37. The injured party, Wilhelm Marek, questioned by the court, stated that he was a Pole. He did not think there was any political reason for the breaking of his windows. He was not a member of the “ Volksbund ”, and was surprised that the “ Volksbund ” should have taken up his case; it had done so without his knowledge or consent. He added that he would not bring any charge, and the case was therefore dismissed. He was paid 35 zlotys as compensation for damage. 38. The magistrates court at Krôlewska Huta, on March 9th, 1931, heard the case against Wilhelm Krawczyk, Piotr Suchowski, Roman Chrobok and Wincenty Chrobok, accused of offences under paragraph 303 of the Penal Code, committed jointly, wilfully and unlawfully, against Jôzef Chwalek, by breaking his windows and causing him damage amounting to 10 zlotys. The court acquitted all the accused. Chwalek received compensation for damage.

Sub-Annex 1 E.

T a r n o w sk ie G ôry D istrict.

1. The magistrate of Tamowskie Gôry, after hearing the case on February 16th, 1931, passed judgment, finding the accused, Jozef Zurowski, guilty of an offence under paragraph 185 of the Penal Law. On November 23rd, 1930, at Bobrowniki, he seized Franciszek Wrôbel by the neck and forcibly ejected him from the polling-booth, at the same time striking him in the back. The magistrate sentenced the accused to a fine of 30 zlotys or, in default of payment, imprisonment for six days. Wilhelm Hoika stated in evidence that, on November 23rd, 1930, he was in the Bobrowniki polling-booth at the same time as Franciszek Wrôbel, but he was neither struck nor ejected from the booth by Jôzef Zurowski. 2. The magistrate of Tarnowskie Gôry, after hearing the case on March 12th, 1931, passed judgment, finding the accused Bernard Flak guilty of an offence under paragraph 360, sub- paragraph 11, of the Penal Law. On November 15th, 1930 at Kozlowa-Gôra, the accused — 30 — threatened a number of people in front of the house of Augustin Dzialach, saying to them: “ Here lives a German who is acting for the Germans and betraying us The judge sentenced him to a fine of 20 zlotys, or, in default of payment, to detention for four days. 3. The magistrate of Tarnowskie Gôry, by an order dated December 22nd, 1930, found Robert Wystçp, of Lasowice, guilty of an offence under paragraph 350, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law, committed on November 8th, 1931, by forcibly seizing voting papers from Ignacy Kocot on a public road, and sentenced the accused to a fine of 15 zlotys. 4. The injured party, Jerzy Kot, was informed of the necessity of bringing a charge at private law and that, if the charge were brought, the Public Prosecutor would ex officio institute proceedings. Kot did not bring any charge and the case was dismissed. A disciplinary enquiry was ordered in regard to Jan Mitrçga, police-officer, which showed that the complaints brought against him were groundless, more particularly since he was not on duty at the time in question. He was acquitted. Kot did not ask for compensation, and, on being questioned on the subject, stated that he would not bring a claim for damages. 5. A disciplinary enquiry was ordered in regard to Adolf Rufert, police-officer. As a result, he was found guilty of making an uncivil reply to Schwarz when the latter asked him for a receipt for the newspapers seized. He told him that he could obtain such a receipt from Zylka, who is the proprietor of a neighbouring restaurant. Rufert was officially reprimanded. All the other charges brought against Rufert were dismissed, as he was acting in accordance with the provisions in force prohibiting the distribution of printed matter by minors. At that time Kasper Schwarz was not yet 10 years old. 6. By order of the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry, dated, January 5th, 1931, Izydor, Nowak was found guilty of seriously exceeding his powers under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph n , of the Penal Law and was fined 20 zlotys. The accused, Piotr Dolibog, was found not guilty of the offence and the penalty was remitted by a decision of the court of Tarnowskie Gôry, dated March 12th, 1931. Kasper Schwarz fled to Germany to escape a penalty of 100 days’ imprisonment for smuggling. 7. At the enquiry ordered regarding the notice put up on the fence of the house of Pawel Blochel, telling him that he could order a coffin if he voted for the German list, it was not possible to obtain any definite evidence. It is true that, in his deposition, Blochel alleged that such a notice had been placed on the fence of his house, but he could not give the name of any witness nor could he produce the notice. The case was accordingly dismissed. 8. The magistrate of Tarnowskie Gôry, after hearing the case on February 16th, 1931, passed sentence, finding the accused, Hugon Langosz and Tomasz Jakotochce, guilty of an offence under paragraph 185 of the Penal Law—namely, the accused Langosz insulted Jozef Paton by uttering the words : “ So you are assembling already, you damned Germans " : and the accused Jakotochce also insulted Paton by crying out, “ Orgesch, where are you going ? ” The magistrate sentenced them to a fine of 30 zlotys, or, in default of payment, imprisonment for six days. Aloisy Orzechowski, accused of the same offence, was acquitted. 9. On March 12th, 1931, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Jan Matejczyk, of Radzionkôw, accused of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph n, of the Penal Law, committed on November 16th, 1930. The charge was that, together with individuals unknown, he accosted Karol Paton during the distribution of voting cards, and obliged him to leave his place. The court acquitted Matejczyk. 10. On April gth, 1931, the local court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Stanislaw Molik and Pawel Paton I, accused of having broken windows in the dwelling of Jozef Musiol at Orzech in November. The court acquitted the two accused. Musiol was paid 100 zlotys compensation for damages. 11. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrates court at Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Jan Musielski and Leon Gabryszek, accused of offences under Article 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law, committed on November 14th, 1930. The charge was that, accompanied by individuals unknown, they forcibly entered the dwelling of Franciszek Lipina at Piaseczna. The court acquitted the persons named above. On being asked whether he desired any compensation, Franciszek Lipina stated that he did not. 12. On November 16th, 1930, the subordinate employee, Ulrich Halemba, of Piaseczna, came in a drunken condition into the polling-booth and created a disturbance. He was requested by the engineer Lenartowicz, chairman of the Electoral Committee, to leave the premises, and, having refused to do so, was ejected. 13. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry found the accused, Emil Lipa, guilty of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law, committed on November 23rd, 1930, for forcibly and illegally entering the courtyard of Jadwiga Mos and insulting the latter and her son Jan. He was sentenced to a fine of 30 zlotys or six days’ imprison­ ment. Jan Matejczyk, accused of the same offence, was acquitted. Mos was paid 55 zlotys compensation for damage. 14. No representative of the authorities was present at the meeting of November 8th, 1930, at Pniow. The witnesses examined in the course of the enquiry did not confirm the fact that the — 3 i — apothecary Gajdas, of Radzionkôw, had spoken in such a manner as to make his speech punishable, and the case was therefore dismissed.

15. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Antoni Kalinowski, of Radzionkôw, accused of an offence under paragraph 132 of the Penal Law which he committed on November 15th, 1930, by entering Alojzy Zientek’s dwelling and calling upon him to hand over the so-called secret papers of the “ Volksbund ” and by taking away different papers and books. The court acquitted Kalinowski on this charge. The police-officer, Teofil Gwôzdz, was punished by an official reprimand.

16, 17, 18 and 19. On April 9th, 1931, the local court at Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against the men Szymon Wotel, Alojzy Sobala, Jozef Lotko, Maksymiljan Loch, Jôzef Szrôter and Franciszek Sosna, charged with: (a) in the night of November i6th-i7th, 1930, having broken sixteen window-panes in the dwelling of Franciszek and Anna Skrzypulece at Nowe Repty; (b) with having broken two window-panes in the night of November nth-i2th, 1930, and one window-pane in the night of November I4th-i5th, 1930, the property of Tomasz Morawiec; (c) with having broken twenty-seven window-panes, the property of Jozef Stefanik, in the night of November I5th-i6th, 1930, thus damaging the property of others, which constitutes an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law. The court acquitted all the accused. Morawiec refused to accept compensations. The others received the following amounts in respect of damages : Jôzef Stefanik, 164.70 zlotys; Olga Majewska, owner of the house in which Skrzypulec lived, 90 zlotys ; Franciszek Skrzypulec, 50 zlotys.

20. It is alleged that, on November 12th, 1930, an election meeting was held at Repty Stare, at which the Starost Bochenski is stated to have threatened that, unless the inhabitants of Repty Stare gave up the stupid idea of voting for the German lists, the insurgents would deal with them, and the mayor, Ziçtek, is said to have threatened to drive all the Germans out of the country. It has, however, been ascertained that, on November 12th, 1930, a ceremonial (academic) meeting was held at Repty Stare to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the battle of the Vistula, known as the “ Miracle of the Vistula ”, but not an electoral meeting. Among those who spoke at this meeting were the Starost Bochenski, the mayor Ziçtek and the apothecary Gajdas. All three energetically protested against the accusation of having used in their speeches the expressions complained of, and hence, in the absence of witnesses to the contrary, the enquiry was abandoned

21. On November 15th, 1930, a small meeting of the local group of the Association of Silesian Insurgents was held at Repty Stare. After the meeting, the members, of the association went home in small groups, some of them singing. Wojtacha, Derlich and Michalski having stated before the judge that they had heard no threats, the proceedings were abandoned.

22. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case of Jan Matejczyk, of Radzionkôw, who was accused of an offence under paragraph 223 of the Penal Law, committed on November 16th, 1930, at Repty Stare, jointly with persons unknown, by attacking Augustin Kapusciak and punching him on the head and body. The court acquitted Matejczyk. Kapusciak received 30 zlotys as compensation for wages lost. As regards the aggression against Pawel Krôl, the same court on February 16th, 1931, heard the case against Jan Matejczyk, who was accused of having inflicted bodily injury on Pawel Krôl of Repty Stare on November 23rd, 1930, by striking him twice in the face. The court found Matejczyk guilty of an offence under. paragraph 185 of the Penal Law, committed in the manner described above, and sentenced him to a fine of 40 zlotys or eight days’ imprisonment.

23. On March 12th, 1930, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Jerzy Galçziok, Jan Taul, Stanislaw Aniol, Reinhold Seher and Bruno Klat, who were accused of an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law, committed on November 22nd, 1930, at Radzionkôw, and consisting of breaking eleven window-panes, the property of Jozef Leks. The court acquitted all the accused. Jôzef Czora and Kurt Thiel having put forward no complaint, the case was dismissed. The following compensation was paid for damages : to Jôzef Leks, 107.50 zlotys, to Franciszek Czora, 9 zlotys ; and to Kurt Thiel, 45.80 zlotys.

24. On March 26th, 1931, the competent section of the divisional court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Emil Lipa, of Radzionkôw, who was accused of an offence under paragraphs 223 and 223 (a) of the Penal Law, committed on November 16th, 1930, at Rybna, by intentionally inflicting bodily injury on Jôzef Maliglôwka and striking him brutally, with other individuals, with sticks and whips on the whole body. The court acquitted the said Lipa. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the police-officer Ignacy Knop as a result of which he was acquitted, for it was established that, at the time when he was passing on his bicycle, the incident was at an end. Knop did not witness the incident nor was he informed of it and was therefore unable to intervene. Maliglôwka, on being questioned by the judge, said that he was a Pole.

25. It is not true that, on November 16th, 1930, the election agent, Feliks Kojda, was struck in the polling-booth at Blechôwka by Kompala in the presence of a policeman, since there was no polling-booth at Blechôwka. But, on the same date, the said Feliks Kojda, accompanied by two other men, came into the polling-booth at Bobrowniki. All three presented themselves to the chairman of the committee as election agents of the “ Deutsche Wahlgesellschaft ” and handed their — 32 — credentials to the mayor, Porwik. Aloizy Kompala protested against this in virtue of Article 63 of the electoral regulations of the Polish Diet, and pointed out that each list could only be represented by a single election agent and not by three at the same time. Following upon this protest, Kojda and the two other individuals, whose names have not yet been ascertained, left the polling-booth without awaiting the decision of the chairman of the Election Committee, and did not return. The police-officer, Bulik, who was present at this incident, and the other members of the Election Committee know nothing of the agression against Kojda. It proved impossible to take Kojda’s evidence, as he had left his dwelling for an unknown destination. He brought no private charge and no complaint on this subject has been received from the “ Volksbund”, and hence no further action has been taken.

26. On November 14th, 1930, the local physical and m ilitary training group of Sucha Gôra organised exercises in the neighbouring fields, during which blank cartridges were fired. After the exercises, the group marched through the locality but without organising any procession.

27. The injured party, Adalbert Fassman, of Swierklaniec, on being questioned by the judge, said that he had informed no one that he had been struck, and, in any case, had not told the “ Volksbund ” or the police. He had, it is true, sent to the court the complaint communicated to him by the “ Volksbund ”, but he did not wish to maintain it, as he saw that it did not correspond to the truth, for he had not been able to recognise any assailant. In view of the foregoing, the case was dismissed. Fassman was paid 6.60 zlotys as compensation for one day’s wages lost as a result of the attack.

28. The magistrates court, after hearing the case on March 12th, 1931, passed judgment, finding the accused, Antoni Haida, guilty of an offence under paragraph 185 of the Penal Law, committed by shaking Emanuel Sroka violently by the collar of his coat. It also found the accused, Jozef Szatner, guilty of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law, committed by snatching from Emanuel Sroka the voting papers which he held in his hand. The two accused were sentenced to a fine of 20 zlotys each or, failing payment, to a sentence of imprisonment in the case of Haida, and to detention for one day for each 5 zlotys in the case of Szatner. Jan Matejczyk, of Radzionkôw, accused of an offence under paragraph 360, sub-paragraph 11, of the Penal Law, committed on November 23rd, 1930, by snatching voting cards from Emanuel Sroka, was acquitted by judgment of the court of Tarnowskie Gôry, dated February 16th, 1931. The injured party Sroka was paid 24 zlotys compensation for wages lost as a result of the attack. 29. The mother of the minor Gerhard Krawczyk, on being questioned by the judge, stated that she was Polish, that she did not maintain the complaint which had been sent to her by the “ Volksbund ”, and that she did not ask for the offenders’ punishments. She further stated that, without the complaint sent by the " Volksbund ”, she would not have taken proceedings. The case was accordingly dismissed. She did not ask for compensation and, on being questioned on this subject, stated that she did not desire any.

30. Klara Krawzcyk, on being questioned by the judge, stated that she was of Polish nationality ; she had informed the office of the “ Volksbund ” of the incident at Tarnowskie Gory, but she had not asked the " Volksbund ” to take up the case. At the same time she stated that she did not wish to make any complaint, and that she relinquished that put forward by the " Volksbund ”. If she had not received the complaint drawn up by the “ Volksbund ”, she would have taken no steps in the matter. The case was accordingly dismissed. On being asked whether she claimed any compensation, she replied that she did not.

31. Marta Jçdrzejowska, on being questioned by the judge in her mother’s presence, said that she was Polish. Amelja Jçdrzejowska, mother of the minor, said that on the same day she had informed Lubos, secretary of the “ Volksbund” at Tarnowskie Gôry of the incident which had occurred, but that she had not asked for a charge to be brought or an enquiry to be undertaken. She had, however, received from the “ Volksbund ” the complaint in an envelope addressed to the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry, with a 75 gr. stamp and instructions to sign it and send it to the court. She withdrew this complaint in the presence of the judge, saying that, if she had not received it, she would not have taken any steps. In view of this statement, the case was dismissed. On being asked whether she desired any compensation, she replied that she did not. 32. The father of the minor Wilhelm Krzykawski, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he was of Polish nationality, that he had brought no charge, and that he withdrew the complaint which had been sent to him from Katowice with instructions to send it in. The case was therefore dismissed. The submitted no claim and, on being asked whether he desired compensation, he replied that he did not.

33. Gertruda Nowak, of Tarnowice Stare, on being questioned by the judge, stated that’ on November 15th, 1930, she had been accosted by one of the two accused at Stare Tarnowice1 next to the church. He had asked whether she had any German newspapers and she had replied that she had none, but she asked that if any of them had seen one he should give it to her to read. On one of the accused replying, “ Be careful that I don’t give you a ‘ kryka ’ (untranslatable word), she had twice gone to the " Volksbund ” and had received 10 zlotys. Nevertheless, she had — 33 — not sent on to the court the complaint sent to her by the " Volksbund ”, although the latter had told her to do so. She had no complaint to make and the case was accordingly dismissed. 34. Jôzef Tyczka, of Tarnowskie Gôry, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he would bring no private complaint, and the case was accordingly dismissed. Compensation of 20 zlotys was paid for damages.

35. The enquiry did not lead to the discovery of the offender. Maksymiljan Angress, of Tarnowskie Gory, on being questioned by the court, stated that, if the offender was discovered, he would ask for his punishment. Angress suffered no damage, as the broken window-pane was replaced by the insurance company. Angress was repaid the sum of 4 zlotys, given to the workmen as tips. The offenders not having been discovered, the case was dismissed.

36. The enquiry did not lead to the discovery of the offenders. Franciszek Schlensok, on being questioned by the judge, said that he was of Polish nationality. In January 1931, he received a complaint from the “ Volksbund ” and sent it to the court. The offenders not having been discovered, the case was dismissed.

37. On February 16th, 1931, the magistrates court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Jozef Zydek and Emanuel Gôra, both of Zyglin, accused of an offence under paragraph 303 of the Penal Law, committed on November 14th, 1930. The charge was that they deliberately broke six window-panes, the property of Aleksander Hertlik (son-in-law of Jan Pospiech). The court acquitted the two accused. On being asked whether he desired any compensation, the injured party replied that he did not.

38. On March 26th, 1931, the competent section of the divisional court of Tarnowskie Gôry heard the case against Stefan Horzela, Franciszek Gulba, Emanuel Gôra and Pawel Dziewior, accused of having jointly beaten and kicked Jôzef Skopp on November 23rd, 1930. The court found the accused, Stefan Horzela and Franciszek Gulba, guilty of an offence under paragraphs 223 and 223(a), committed by both men, by striking Jozef Skopp and causing him serious bodily injury; the accused Horzela, who had also kicked him, was sentenced to three weeks’ and Gulba to ten days’ imprisonment. The penalty was suspended for four years. The accused Dziewiora and Gôra were acquitted. The injured party, Jôzef Skopp, was paid 128.91 zlotys as compensation for wages lost during ten days. Skopp, on being questioned by the judge, stated that he was a Pole, and that he had brought the charge because the offenders refused to pay compensation. August Faschinka did not inform the police of the incident. In the course of the enquiry conducted by the police, he stated that he did not ask for the offenders to be punished. It was not until February 25th, 1931, that the court of Tarnowskie Gôry received, through the " Volksbund ”, a private complaint against Franciszek Gulba, Emanuel Gôra, Pawel Dziewior and Stefan Horzela for assault. Faschinka, on being examined by the court in consequence of this charge, stated that he was of Polish nationality ; he had accused Gôra and Dziewior before the “ Volksbund ” and had asked that a charge should be brought against them. He had not accused Gulba and Horzela, as they had done nothing to him, and he was surprised that the complaint referred to them also. Faschinka’s charge was brought too late, and the case was therefore dismissed under Article 61 of the Penal Code.

Sub-Annex 2 A. Office of the Silesian Voivode. O f fic ia l C o m m u n iq u é.

In view of the assertions that have appeared in the press to the effect that the Polska Zachodnia is the official or semi-official organ of the Silesian voivode, we officially declare that the periodical Polska Zachodnia has never been and is not his official or semi-official organ. Katowice, February 7th, 1931.

Sub-Annex 2 B.

Statem ent by M. G ra zy n sk i, V oiv ode of S il e s ia , to t h e D istrict Starosts o f U p p e r Sil e s ia .

A conference took place recently with the starosts at the voivodie Office, in the course of which the voivode. Dr. Grazynski, made a statement on social questions and the various problems — 34 — connected with economic, cultural and educational questions. A special part of this statement was devoted to the problem of minorities. As regards the latter problem, while recalling the instructions previously published with regard to the strict observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention and the treatment of minority questions in connection with the petitions submitted by the persons concerned, the voivode referred to his speech in the Silesian Diet on the day of the opening of the third Diet, December gth, 1930, and emphasised that it was the duty of the authorities and of the subordinate organs to observe strictly the provisions governing the rights of minorities, these rights being based both on the stipulations of the Constitution and on those of international treaties. The voivode expressly emphasised that the rights of minorities must be given the special protection of the authorities, conceived in a most liberal spirit, exceeding the strict obligations laid down in the text. As regards the resolution of the League of Nations dated January 24th, 1931, the voivode recommended to the members of the conference, each in his own sphere, to see that proper action was taken in questions subject to the procedure of the administrative authorities and connected with the incidents which had occurred during the elections in November of last year. The voivode said:

“ It is particularly necessary that the action of the subordinate authorities should be such as to exclude any possibility of its being regarded as directed against the minorities. On the contrary, it is the duty of the authorities to support anything that tends to facilitate the co-existence of the two nationalities living in the voivodie. An influence in this direction must be exercised on all social organisations, and they must be stimulated to co-operate for the welfare of the State. Should any contrary tendencies exist, they must be resisted without consideration of the character of the organisation or union in question."

Subsequently, speaking of security, the voivode recalled once more the measures published previously with a view to preventing any occurrences of a nature to disturb public peace.

Katowice, March 17th, 1931.

Sub-Annex 2C.

Office of the Silesian Voivode, Katowice. T3 -P •4°4/3I-

Attitude of the Administrative authorities to social organisations and especially to the Union of Silesian ex-Service Men. Katowice, March 20th, 1931.

Circular I.

To the Starosts and Superintendents of Police.

With reference to the conference held under my chairmanship on March 17th, 1931, I would remind starosts and superintendents of police once more of the rules to be observed by them and their subordinates in their relations with social organisations. The administrative authorities must display complete impartiality in regard to applications of all kinds, petitions, etc., on the part of those concerned, without distinction of nationality and political convictions. The administrative authorities must not grant special privileges to social organisations, whatever their character, size or merits. The fact that I am the honorary president of any particular social organisation, such as the Union of Silesian ex-Service Men, must in no case be a pretext for the authorities to favour the association in question in any way. The starosts will notify the competent officials of the above instructions and will see to their strict observance. At the same time, I attach a copy of the instructions addressed to the chief police-inspector of the Silesian voivodie with regard to the attitude of the police to the social organisations.

(Signed) G ra zy n sk i, Voivode. Sub-Annex 2 D.

Office of the Voivodie of Silesia at Katowice. L.BP.810/3.

Membership of police-officers in associations and unions. Katowice, March 20th, 1931.

To the Chief of Police of the Province of Silesia, Katowice.

This office has been informed that certain social and intellectual organisations and associations are endeavouring to recruit members among the police-officers of the province of Silesia. I would therefore refer to the provisions of paragraph 7 of the service instruction, whereby police-officers are forbidden to be members of any political associations or parties whatsoever, and may not be members of cultural, intellectual or social associations without the permission of their superiors in the service; and I desire you, in accordance with Order No. 360 of the State Chief of Police, dated April 29th, 1927, to forbid the officers under your orders to join any of the following unions and associations:

1. Zwi^zek Hallerczykôw. 2. “ Sokôl 3. Zwi^zek obrony Kresôw Zachodnich. 4. Zwiqzek bylych Legjonistow. 5. Zwiqzek Strzelecki. 6. Sekcje sport owe Zwi^zku Strozeleckiego. 7. Zwi^zek inwalidôw wojennych. 8. Zwi^zek Podoficerôw rezerwy. 9. Narodowy Zwiazek Powstancôw i b. zolnierzy. 10. Zwiazek Obroncôw âl^ska. 11. Legja Demokratyczna. 12. Zwiqzek Powstancôw Slqskich. 13. Stowarzyszenie Rezerwistôw i b. wojskowych. 14. Stowarzyszenie Weteranow Polskiej Armji we Francji. 15. Zwiazek Uchodzcôw Élqskich. 16. Zwiazek uczestnikôw Powstania Wielkopolskiego. 17. Zwiazek Obrony Gôrnoslazakéw.

The above list is not final. Should any police-officer apply for permission to join an association not included in the list, I reserve the right to take a general decision regarding any organisation not so included. Should any of the subordinate officers already be members of the above- mentioned organisations, they must be ordered to resign their membership immediately, on pain of disciplinary action. At the same time, you will please remind those whom it may concern that, under paragraph 6 of the service instruction, police-officers are forbidden to take part in any public demonstrations whatsoever, processions, assemblies, meetings, etc., without the consent of their superiors in the service. The object of this order is to ensure that police-officers are completely independent of all political groups, and consequently that the activities of the police are not subject to any party or sectional influence. It is absolutely forbidden for police-officers to take part in party strife. In particular, police-officers in the discharge of their duty may not, under any pretext, express their sympathy for any party or organisations whatsoever.

(Signed) Gr a y sk i. Voivode.

Sub-Annex 2E.

R e p ly to the Good W ishes offered to the Voivode of Silesia at E aster b y the Bureau of the U nion of Silesian ex-Service Men .

In thanking the bureau of the union for its Easter good wishes, the Governor said in his speech that he was most touched at receiving these wishes from old comrades in the struggle for independence, who were now loyally co-operating for the welfare of the State. “ If we consider the results of the efforts made by independent Poland ”, said the voivode, we may be proud to recognise their extent, especially having regard to the difficulty of the — 36 — conditions. None the less, there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, calling for a great effort of peaceful and harmonious co-operation from all the constructive elements in the nation. This is particularly important in the case of Silesia, and that is why I dwelt upon it in my recent speeches in the Diet. My appeal was made to all without exception. The Union of Silesian ex-Service Men, which you represent, is a powerful body, rich in sublime traditions of the struggle for independence, and has written a splendid page in the history of our national efforts. As the leading organisation in local public life, it is your duty to fight for the idea of unifying the whole structure of Silesian society in the cause of the national welfare. No one who has the Polish national ideal at heart can fail to join in this work. We are living to-day in an independent Poland; we are conscious of its strength, rooted in historic justice and in the nobility of our nation. It is our desire that everybody in our country should be happy, including the national minorities, whose duty it is to co-operate with the majority for the good of the State. Where we meet with obstacles in this direction we shall strive to overcome them, that mutual confidence among all sections of our people may be increased, and that a spiritual communion among all our citizens may grow from a foundation of concord. These are the ideas that I, as your honorary president, would suggest to you to-day in return for your good wishes. At the same time, I should like to offer my own to you, and through you to all ex-service men. ” In reply to the voivode’s speech, M. Lore, president of the Union, spoke as follows:

“ We have listened to you, Sir, with very great pleasure. The most earnest desire of our association is to build up here, on the Western Marches, a structure of co-operation among all elements of service to the State, to form a bulwark for the Republic of Poland. We shall be guided by your inspiration, and shall devote ourselves to your ideals. As an organisation of men who served in the struggle for Poland’s independence, we desire to work in peace for future generations of our countrymen. Our programme includes nothing that is beyond our scope, but day by day we hear prominent representatives of the German Reich say that they wish to take back from us this land of Silesia that has been Polish for centuries and still is Polish, this land watered with our blood and sweat, for whose freedom we prayed to God in the day of oppression, and for which we went to our deaths in the struggles of the past. We represent here a predominant national majority, as nobody can deny. We base our right to this land on ancient and modern history, and on the treaties of peace. This I would stress, Sir: we wish to work for the future in peace, in harmony with all our fellow-citizens; but every day our hearts are torn, our souls revolted, by talk of a revision of the present position—talk which raises up before us the spectre of a return to slavery. That must cease, in the interests of peace and security, for it prevents the German minority also from living peaceably within the Polish State. “ We have a watchful eye on all anti-national intrigues, which we shall always oppose by every means in our power ; and we would say to you, Sir, that we shall support you in every way, so far as we are able, and shall always work together to strengthen the atmosphere of peace and concord among all sections of the population. ”