ABROGATION of the CREMIEUX DECREE June 1943

ABROGATION OF THE CREMIEUX DECREE

June 1943. ABROGATION OF THE CREMIEUX DECREE

June 1943. J&GmA AND THE ABROGATION OF THE CREMIEUX LAW

When in 1830 French troops occupied Algeria, they were violently opposed by the whole Moslem population, tut welcomed by about 30,000 Jews who had been oppressed by Turkish rule.

The Jaws regarded the French occupation as liberation from oppression, and long before they were granted anything by the French, they declared August 6th, the day of French occupation, their national holiday. It was not until 184.7 that the French had completed pacification of the Moslem population.

France' s li beral policy; _for colonial nations

French colonial policy, since the days of Jean Baptiste Colbert and contrary to the colonial policy of other European nations, had favored assimilation of the inhabitants of all French possessions. The natives were to be "called to a community of life with the French."

The colonies overseas were to become French provinces, their inhabitants French citizens.

In spite of all revolutionary changes that have taken place in France during the last two centuries, there was hardly a French Government that departed from the general line of these principles, laid down by Colbert and strongly supported by the Declaration of the Rights of Men. Algeria was the first French colony which was close enough to be really incorporated into the political body of France. The country never was regarded as a mere colonial possession but rather as an in- tegral part of France. Thus, it was divided into departments, Prefectures and Sous-Prefectures and, in 1871, put under the supreme authority of the Minister of Interior in Paris.

In 18^3, the French had given to their subjects in the American possessions the right to vote for the French Parliament. In 1916 the same right was extended to the colony of Senegal.

Colored deputies and senators came from the assimilated colonies to France and were received in a friendly manner.

Problems special to Algeria

In Algeria the French were confronted with a more serious problem. Islam, with its old and rich tradition, had to be considered. Arabs were not Merely backward tribes and it was not easy to hope for their assimilation and not easy to be generous. Therefore, French statesmen always have asked in Algeria for renunciation of the so-called personal status as a sin©4ua non for French citizenship. On the other side, the French had promised in 1830 that all Algerians would enjoy absolute freedom of worship, since Islam had not yet become a mere religious "confession." This religious freedom included for the Moslems the right to be judged by their oym judges in accordance with Moslem law.

In 1865, the French Government laid down the principles for the treatment of the native population in Algeria regarding their citisenship and their relation to the mother country, principles that as far as the Moslems were concerned, went unchanged until 1919, when they were only slightly modified. Special legislation;

The first article of the Senatus-Consul/,e of 1365 which has become especially important since the abolition of the Cremieux Decree, reads as follows:

"The Native Moslem is a Frenchman, nevertheless he will continue to be ruled by Moslem Law. He can be admitted to the Army and the Navy. He can be appointed to civil posts in Algeria. Ke can, upon request, be admitted to French citizenship; bat in this event he must be governed by the civil and political laws of France."

The French Imperial government of Algeria planned as far back as 1868 to naturalize the Jews "en bloc" and the French provisional Government, the "Govern- ment de la Defense Publique" in 1870, with Adolphe Cremieux as Minister of Justice, did nothing but execute these plans of the Second Empire, when it decreed:

"The native Jews of the departments of Algeria are declared French citizens. Therefore, dating from the promulgation of the present decree, their real status and personal status will be governed by French lawj all rights acquired up to this day remain inviolable." . .

The devotion to France manifested by the Algerian Jews had prompted this measure.

Loyalty of Algerian Jews _for j?rance

At its annual session of 1869, the General Council of the Department of Algiers adopted the following resolution: -'Taking into consideration th.,' numerous proofs of patriotism and the great services rendered by the native Jews5 it Is an urgent necessity to grant them French citizenship without delay."

On March 7, 1370, Count Is Hon, speaking before the 'bar of the Imperial Parlia- ment, demanded the application of French Common Law to a group whose services were universally recognized. After the collapse of the Empire, Mr. de Fourtou, report- ing before the National Assembly on the questions of the Jews of Algeria, declared: "These Algerian Jews, in every way worthy of their co-religionists in France, have often rendered considerable services to our country and have acquired among our co-citizens in Algeria a position that ought to be duly recognized and honored."

Until 194-0, when the Vichy abrogation occurred, the revocation of the Cremieux Decree was never considered, either by the Parliament or by the French Government. As a matter of fact, the moral and intellectual incorporation of the Algerian Jews into the French nation has been accomplished so completely, that nobody would have dared to contest their civil and political equality with other citizens. In 1870, a body of Jewish sharp-shooters brilliantly distinguished themselves; in 1914, the Jews constituted a quarter of the effective forces of the Zouaves, and during the battle of the Marne they participated in the heroic fights around Meaux, where General Gallieni had launched his decisive offensive.

In 1939-4-0, the Algerian Jews contributed a large contingent to the "French corps" which became famous for its vanguard fights.

In peace time they played a most important role as the bearers of French in- fluence in Algeria and some of them, like the noted Professor Fernand Vidal, paid by their contribationa to science and art the debts of their ancestors and brothers to France. CRMIEUX AND ALGERIA

The confusion that existed in most peu.plas' mindsabout the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree promulgated by General Giraut in his speech of March H, 194.3 in Algiers is mostly the result of general ignorance of the historical facts under- lying the Cremieux Decree.

Therefore, before presenting a brief on the legal and moral aspects brought about by the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree, we deem it absolutely necessary to present first a historical survey which will cover the following questions:

Who was Cremieux himself? What was his mission in Algeria? What were the 30 Cremieux Decrees? For what reason were the Jews naturalized and not the Moslems?

We shall then be able to proceed with full knowledge of historical facts to the examination of the situation now created in Algeria by General Giraud's de- cision.

WHO WAS CRMIEUX HIMSELF?

All encyclopedias recall that Adolphe Cremieux was born at Lille on April 30, 1796 - from one of those Jewish families of the County of Venaissin who had established themselves for centuries in the South of France and who furnished so many distinguished men to France.

In 1817 he established himself as a lawyer in his native village and at once showed his brilliant qualities.

Cggmlgux. under Royalist Regime; During the time of the Restoration, a lawyer made his choice in politics, and Cremieux was immedi- ately devoted to the liberal party. He pleaded in a great number of political pro- cesses. During the July Revolution Odilon Barrot, who had been called to the Prefecture of the Seine, took him as his successor as a lawyer at the Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court for the whole of France).

Within a very short time he became the lawyer whose voice was listened to most in Paris, not only as a result of his talent, but especially on account of his high moral sense. For instance in 1830 and 1831, he defended one of the former ministers of Charles X, Guernon-Ranville, but he refused indignantly to plead for Deutz who had just treacherously handed over the Duchess de Berry. He made the funeral speech at the burial ceremony of the archbishop Gregoire.

He then belonged to the "Opposition dyn&stique" (Dynastic opposition). Dur- ing the entire reign of Louis-Philippe he was one of the liberals with the largest following.

In 1832 he published a manifest for the independence of Poland, memoirs for the rehabilitation of Marshal Ney of Lesurque (of the "Courrier de Lyon"), pleaded in numerous press cases, was the lawyer for the insurgentsj for instance in 1835 for the "accuses d'avril" (those accused in April). -- ' In 1340 he went to Syria to defend a rabbi accused of .having murdered a Christian monk in order to mix his blood with unleavened bread, and saved him. During this time he continued his advanced studies of Law. In 1335 he published the "Code des Codes" (the code of the codes).

His renown was considerable. He was elected in 1342 at Chinon and re-elected in 1646. He advised Louis-Philippe to take liberal measures and especially urged him to call Qdilan Barrot to the Ministry.

m^ At the moment of the 1843 revolution he tried to have the Duchess of Orleans named as regent, ran into the opposition of his friends and pronounced himself for the Republic.

He was member of the provisional Government with the portfolio of Justice. He immediately proposed abolition of -the death penalty for political offenses. He re- signed on June 7tiu

Representative of Indre~et~Loire at the Constituante, he took part in the elaboration of the act of November 5, I848. Re-elected to the Legislative Chamber in 1849, he resided, at "La lontagne."

£ESSiS*L2^J£j8«ES^ Although he was a friend of Bonaparte's family, ' he separated from the President when he dis- covered his conspiracy,, and on December 2, he was incarcerated. After 23 days he was set free and exercised his profession during the whole time of the Empire with great success. At this moment he took as his secretory an unknown young man, Gambetta, His renown as a jurist and as a liberal had made of him on© of the most conspicuous men in Paris to whom the officials of the Empire themselves paid con- siderable attention,

£££Si9^J^^ Alj*eriars_Jews: Precisely at that moment he was consulted by the Government" on the"situation~oF~Aigeriar. Jews and a project elaborated by the Minister of Justice on the naturalization of Algerian Jews was submitted to him. This consultation was the more remarkable as ne had just shown himself to be "irreconciliable" (not to be reconciled) in the department of the Drome, and had then been elected in Paris in November 1869 as enemy of the Empire., Only the war of 1870 prevented the Cremieux Decree from being a decree of Napolean"III. j^Pj^ When the Empire fell, he was called upon to take part in the Government of National Defense and on September 5 was appointed Minister of Justice. His^two first acts were to decree a general amnesty for all crimes and delicts of a political nature, and to abolish the oath prescribed for all civil servants since 1852. When Paris was about to be invested, he was charged, together with Glaie-Bizoin and Admired Fourichon, to go and represent the Government in the provinces. On September 12 he set up the delegation at Tours e.nd he tried, assisted by his colleagues, to constitute an Army of the West. On October 8 Gambetta, who left for Paris in a balloon, took over the direction of the Government. Added to all the troubles inflicted upon France in this tragic situation and upon the governing men, was the situation in Algeria.

Algeria was then in the midst of a crisis. For 40 years Algeria had been subject exclusively to a military Government, The. Army had conquered Algeria, had organized it, and considered it as belonging to the Army, It was cut of Algeria, that all military chiefs of the Empire had grown. As Foch remarked, the background was excellent from the point of view of valor, but deplorable for knowledge of strategy and European tactics. Therefore the moral, situation of the army was extremely dangerous. Whereas a certain number of chiefs had rallied around the Provisional Government, others hesitated to do this, and one of them handed over Metz. It was extremely important to assure the authority of the Government in North Africa. Everybody knew then that the regime in North Africa was due for a far reaching reform. Numerous debates had shown that a large number of delegates had arisen against, the * detestable military regime, the shame of our rich colony, desperately pleading and vainly requesting that a civil . Government be substituted for the reign of the award."

Cr^lieu^s..,ffli61sJ.oj^in^_41^eriji; From the first day of its institution on, the Paris Government had entrusted the examination of the Algerian question to Jules Favr® and Cremieux. The delegation charged Cremieux to go and study the Algerian question on the spot "to listen, to examine, to study and to propose solutions." On October 24. the delegation published the result of its work. On the same date eight decrees were published in tie "Monitor." The first of them contained all essentials of a new organization. It did away with all previous organization. Article 3 stipulated: "Algeria, including three departments: Department of Algiers Department of Oran, Department of Constantine," which gave the French Republic ' 92 departments.

Article 5 centralized the administration in the hands of a civil General • Governor of the three departments. The general organization of Algeria divided the country into military territory and departments. However, now each prefect has under his orders the head of the various civil arid financial services whose authority extends over the various populations of Algeria. 5lS5i§!^LRgE2I*«: The report of Cremieux in front of the National Assembly in- sists on the predominance of the civil General Governor who is looked upon as "chief of the prefects and military commander." He must also correspond with each minister whom he represents according to th* nature of the matter.

Another decree organises the consulting Committees and the Superior Council. The following decrees remove the military chiefs from their functions,'giving them other positions, and name a Governor General.

Two decrees connect the Justice of the thre® departments with the justice of the "metropole,'< i.e., with that of the Republic and apply to the lawyers the decrees and ordinances governing their profession in all courts of franc©. A sixth decree institutes the jury in the criminal courts of Algeria. Regarding the administration of Justice, a serious question arose, defined as follows:

THE^EfflSHJigKTICiLDLAI^mA (object of the 7th Decree) "A question of major importance arose and was vividly discussed in the Chamber. Israelites and Moslems who wanted to be French citizens had been sub- ject to personal declarations and rigorous formalities, in virtue of the decree of April 21, 1868. However, there existed between the Israelites and the Moslems . thi3 dxfference - that the latter, having remained without French nationality, were judged by their tribunals and according to their laws, whereas the ISEftSyjtwj^MnLWJ^^ and to J^enchJLaws_Xor. those matters It is unnecessary here to recall the trouble caused in jurisprudence by the doctrine of the Criminal Court on the one hand, and the doctrine of the Court of Algiers on the other, as upon my pleading and against that of Jules Favre, the most controversial subject was -gain broached pertaining to the extent of the personal statutes reserved for the Jews.

"All sane minds in Algeria called for abolition of this reserve and for submission of the Algerian Jews to the laws governing France in Algeria. The great majority of Jews agree, headed by the Consistory of Algeria. It was, therefore, only a question of proclaiming the complete naturalization of native Jews, constituting more than 30,000. I had asked from the last Minister of Justice of the Empire and obtained from him the formal promise of this important measure. Nevertheless the Minister had told me a few days later: "We think that we need the opinion of the State Council." I considered this unnecessary. I requested a rectifying decree of the decree of April 21, 1866, or a law.

"In a session of the Chamber, upon my query to the Garde des Sceaux (Lord Chancellor) on the definite intentions of the Government I received this answer: 'After the Government authority was consul,ted on the mass naturalization of Jews in Algeria, it did not have any objection. I take pleasure in informing you that the question has been submitted to the State Council. If a legal authority, such as you are, thinks we should present a law, we shall do so." Evidently the naturalization of Jews was a question favorably solved by the Imperial Government.

"One of our decrees of October 2U expressed this question, and I do not conceal that the honor of giving the title of French citizens to 30,000 of my fellow believers was one of the greatest joys of my life." IHOIi. jy^GJERlAN j;JEWS.MWt ...MA P! .XM1CH _ "I wish to answer to M. Lucet, who, from the height of his tribune, accuses me of having brutally naturalized 30,000 Jews: Now what, you have in Algeria 33,000 inhabitants, all natives, _to_whom jf_gu have_jgiven and from whom_jrou have taken rights and institutions according to your own wilT. They used to have""™ their tribunals as before the conquest. They don't have them any more. They had their own laws; now they must ^bjii^J^jfojirs^^as^well as_tq_y_our.J^dgejs. Yet, you have let them keep their jae^sraml^statois. This personal status means the right for the family father to leave a small portion to his daughter in his inheritance, leaving nine tenths to the son. It means "leviration" or complete destitution, according to whether he does or does not want to marry the widow of his brother. It means divorce, it means bigamy. One sees all processes, all troubles in the family. And please note that with the Jews civil law is the same as religious law. God has ordered everything and infringing on God's laws means committing the worst of anathemas.

"By an admirable foresight (which the believers call divine foresight), the law of God can, with the Israelites, be linked with the law of the land. An Israelite ruling says: 'Follow the law of the kingdom in which you reside if you are forced to do so.' Therefore, the Israelite will follow the law of the land in which he lives, without renouncing to the law of God which is his creed.

"Only today, the Jews no longer want to be slaves subjected to the yoke, but Frenchmen subjected to the law. "Also all enlightened Jews of France and Algeria, headed by the Consistories, said to the Government; 'Make 33,000 Frenchmen out of 33,000 Native Israelites. Don't tell them: Be French if you wish, because they will not voluntarily renounce ,the law of God. Say that they are French by law; they will obey; they will be Frenchmen; they will follow the French law.' Thus the decisions of the Grand Sanhedrin declared them in 1806 subject to the French Law, as they were re- cognized as French citizens.

"Thus, during these last days, the Empire, driven on by so many decisive opinions, was about to proclaim the mass naturalization of Native Israelites. I have in my hands the decree submitted in the first deliberation to the State Council. Here is the title:

THE DECREE PREPARED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE _____ CITIZENSHIP TO ALGERIAN JEWS

"Project of Decree - relative to the collective naturalization of all Israelites on Algerian Territory. First Draft.

"Article One: All native Israelites on Algerian Territory are permitted to enjoy the rights of French citizens, by enactment of the Senatus Consulte of July U, 1865.

"Article 22: Every native Israelite can, within a year, starting from the promulgation of the present decree, make to the competent authorities a declaration that he does not accept the benefits of the naturalization.

"Article 3: To all Israelites is granted the right expressed by article 20 of the decree of April 21, 1866."

Thus the decree assured to all native Israelites the mass naturalisation, the abolition of fiscal right, so that tiie benefits of the naturalization might be complete.

"However, the decree left an option to the Israelities: to accept or refuse. This meant placing them between the law of God and the law of man. Religiously they could not desert the laws of God. Therefore, Consistories and enlightened Jews requested naturalization by order, an imposed naturalisation."

Different attitude of Moslems and J_ewsj_ And Cremieux, explaining why the Moslems refused French Citizenship, added: "All Moslems consider themselves as superior to you. They regard their naturalization as an attack on their religion which is far superior to yours ..."

Cremieux then protests against the prejudices continuing to guide those who arise against the decree and who are the same which existed against the Jews of France in 1790, 1807 and 1818. He shows that since 1790 not one Jew has been prosecuted for a crime against persons: "Not one, do you hear?"

He recalls the admirable conduct of the Alsatian Jews and read a moving pro- test of Alsatians established in Pernambuco against the annexation of Alsace.

THE 30 CREMIHIX DECREES FOR ALGERIA (October_jj£3L_j_JPl

The eighth decree makes it easier for the Moslems to obtain the quality of French citizens.

The ninth decree provisionally organizes the departments. To these nine con- stitutional decrees is added quite a list of others regulating the right of emission of the Bank of Algeria, the direction of the National Guard, the obtaining of seed iri advance, the delegation to the extraordinaiy Commissioner for advances in money, a diminution of taxes, organization of departments, organization of the Arab bureaus, organisation of the Tell territory, organization of General Councils, the general inspection of military territories, the organization of military sub- divisions, gratuitous concessions of land to colonists, the organization of the financial regime,, the liquidation of expenses, the establishing of accounts for 1869 and 1870, abolition of the common funds, the transfer to the state of build- ings belonging to the War Ministry, the creation of the community of Algiers as a separate unit from that of Mustafa, the authorization to create a municipal tax in Algiers, etc.

"Thus was accomplished the mission which my colleagues confidently entrusted to me. I have presented to the delegation 21 decrees] I have presented to the Government of National Defense three decrees? tWurigr^eciaXdecrees to Algeria. These decrees have established toe regime of the civil "government by replacing the military government. First by decisive measure•which did not at once move the center of authority, then by subsequent modifications substituting, instead of the general government of Algerian authority, three departments to enter without up- heavals or disturbances into the national unity, thus effecting to the best of our abxlity and day for day the assimilation so strongly called for. Today our decrees have assimilated Algeria to France to the point that the whole territory of Algeria forme three departments within our departments, and our decrees have placed them alphabetically into their rank."

When the National Assembly was constituted, Cremieux delegated his powers to it. On October 20, 1871, he was elected deputy for Algiers. In this office he intervened at the time of the discussion of the Constitutional Government in 1875, before he was named senator for life on December 15, 187$. He died in Paris on February 10, 1880.

CONCLUSION

' Cremieux is not only, as is often insinuated, an "enlightened Jew," as he de- fended the rights of his fellow believers; he is also one of those liberals of the 19th century who throughout their entire lives have defended the ideal which today, is the same for the "democratic nations."

His achievements in Algeria are not only accomplishments of circumstances with^special reference to the situation of the Jews; it is the fulfillment of a mission destined to give to Algeria an organisation analogous to that of the French territory. And the decree relative to the Jews is nothing but the result of measures taken by the Revolution and the Empire to give to the Jews of France the title of French citizens* HIST0RIgAL WTLINK OF LEGISLATION PRIOR TO_ V_ICHJ_LAWS_-_IT3 RESULTS

Swnatug Consulte of 1865; Before the Cremieux Decree of October 24, 1870, the natives of Algeria, both Arabs and Jews, could accede to French citizenship under the Senatua Consults (a decree taken by the French Empire with approbation of the Senate) dated 1865 (Annex 1), It took a lot of time and trouble for these natives to perform all formalities prescribed by this Senstus Consulte. What is more, Moslems and Jews alike had to renounce, of their oivn free will, their personal religious status, As e. matter of fact, both the Moslem and the Mosaic law were in several points in discord vdth the French civil lawo

Cromieux Decree; Then came the Cremieux Decree (Annex 2) and the decree of 1871 (Annex 3) which made French citizens out of approximately 33,000 native Jews of Algeria, Here is the Gremieux Decreej

"The Israelite Natives of the departments of Algeria are declared French citizens. Therefore, dating frora t he enforcement of the present decree, their real status and their personal status will be ruled by the French law. All rights acquired up to this day remain immune. All legal dispositions, all senatus consultes, decrees, re- gulations, or ordinances to the contrary are abolished."

Law of February 4, 1919t The situation remained unchanged until the moment when the French Republic promulgated a new law on February 4, 1919 (Annex 4) which made it much easier for any natives of Algeria, Jews and Moslems alike to acquire French citizenship„

The Moslems' reluctanceto_acoept_ After this law of February 4, 1919, it could be French citizenship; assumed that the Moslems would take full oppor- tunity of the new facilities given to them to become^French citizens. As a matter of fact 400,000 native Moslems plus their wives and children, a total amounting to over a million, were in a position to ask for and receive French citizenship with very few formalities without any discussions and in a maximum delay of three months.

The facts are that from 1919 until the end of 1936 only 2435 Algerians altogether took advantage of this new and generous naturalization law. This meant an average of 130 per year out of which only about 65 were Moslems. The reason was still the same that had prevented natives of Algeria to ask for French citizenship in the past, namely that any native of Algeria, whatever his race or religion, who wants to become a French citizen, instead of a French subject, must accept the French law in its entirety (civil and criminal alike).

For a Moslem that means renouncing polygamy, and the special law of inheritance. It meant renouncing their special Moslem courts of justice, and accepting the juris- diction, including juries, of the white man. It also meant submitting to obligatory military service, which for a Frenchman in peace times lasted from one to three years, as compared to the much smaller obligation of furnishing a contingent of their own native regiments.

It meant:also forsaking their religious schools, the right to elect their special representatives at all councils and to keep the leadership of their own religious and civil chiefs, the Bashas and Bashagas.

French citizenship would not have given them many more liberties than they had before, as they were already enjoying freedom of religion, of speech, and of press. The only advantage they would have derived was the right to be called a French citizen and to participate in elections of members of the French parliament.

However.it seems that they were very proud of being Moslems and did not really care to achieve the citizenship of the Republic of France0

That is why, for very human reasons, the Moslems preferred to remain in their convenient status of French pampered subjects<> Some of them even considered the act of becoming a French citizen to be real treason.

Mr. Ferhat Abbes, elected member of the Moslem general council and financial delegate of the Setif region wrote i,n 1930, in his capacity as native delegates

"People tell us s get naturalized., "What have you got to do for it? A formality, a declaration. But how does one want us to do it? All our dead are looking at us from their cemeteries„ Can we betray them? Can you count on a man who has come to you as a renegade? Understand, Islam is already so old and so much invaded from all parts by occidental ideas. Don't ask us to repudiate it I Don*t ask us to be apostates! JM

"When General Giraud's legal and political advisers, whose names are prudently kept anonymous, tell us that the decree should be abrogated to prevent injustice and discrimination against the Moslems s they are deliberately withholding the truth from the people of the democracies. i Tfrien one remembers that the chief of these advisers is Marcel Peyrouton, instigator of the first racial and discriminatory laws ever promulgated in France by the Vichy Government and under German pressure, one understands at once the real reason and meaning of the whole maneuver. We are told that this is done for military reasons on account of Mr. Goebbels' propaganda, but we think thai; Nazi propaganda should be repudiated and not obeyed in countries liberated by American armieso

Though many projects'and proposals of laws were presented to the French parliament between 1919 and 1938 to make it still easier for Algerian natives to acquire French citizenship, none was accepted and voted on by the French parliament. So, when the Vichy Government took over in June 1940, the legislation of 1919 was still in effect.

. This is just a 'brief historical outline and, in the course of this brief, we shall have opportunity to revert to the study of some of these laws. We just wanted to show what the situation was when the first discriminating and racial laws were promulgated by Vichy.

Vichy laws on Algerian Jews; The law of October 7s 1940, (Annex 5) was promulgated by ~ ~ ~ Marcel Peyrouton, Minister of Interior (As Algeria was not a colony, it was tinder the jurisdiction of the French Minister of Interior), under the first Government of Pierre Laval, President of the Council, with Marshal Petain Chief of State. The second law abrogating the Cremieux Decree in line with the law of October 7, 1940, but going more into detail, was promulgated on February 17, 1942 (Annex 6), when Admiral Darlan was in power, under Marshal Petain.

These two laws, bad as they were, were not taken seriously either by liberal Frenchmen, Republicans, or even Jews, because they were issued by the Vichy Government. Everybody knew that this Government was not free, but that it was acting under the advice, strongly backed by force, or the orders of the Nazi Government; also that the Petain Government was unconstitutional and that, as soon as France would be liberated, the two laws against Algerian Jews would disappear completely, together with the Government that had promul- . gated them and all of its Nazi-inspired legislation,,

Situation at the time of So, when the landing occurred in North Africa on November 7, th~e~American landing! 1942, it was considered a certainty by both free Frenchmen and "~ ~— Americans that all Vichy legislation would be abolished in toto by a stroke of the pen* . . As long as Admiral Darlan stayed in power and.an view of the fact that his regime^was, as the President of the United States had stated, an "expedient due to military causes," nobody expected any change of legislation, as long as the military aspect of the situation was the first and even the only one. to be consideredo

However, when on December 25, 1942, General Giraud took over after Admiral Darlan's assassination, Alperia was already quite pacified and the military operation confined to Tunisia, expectations and hopes of a really French and Republican attitude towards the racial problem were justly raised.

What General Giraud said: On March 14, 1943 only did General Giraud speak. He announced ——~ "— that all acts and legislation of the Vichy Government were null and void since June 22, 1940, that they had been enacted without the consent of the French people and against their constitutional rights, as stated in the Republican Constitution of 1875, But then he-said that, to put an end to all discriminatory measures between Jews and Moslems, the Cremieux Decree of October 24, 1870, would be abrogated.

What General Giraud did; An ordinance of the same day, March 14, 1943, promulgated by —— Giraud, is thus wordedj

"The French Army General, Civil and Military Commander in Chief, orders Article Is The decree of October 24, 1871, concerning the status ~~~ "" of native Israelites of Algeria, is abrogated. Article 2» Decision equivalent to regulations will determine, in "" a delay of three months, the conditions under which the present ordinance will be applied.

signed: Giraud."

This very short and very vague text has never, to our knowledge, been published in the United States, and the Giraud Mission has never made it known officially or un- officially.. Contradictions t On the same day General Giraud published another ordinance declaring ~ null and void the legislative and military dispositions taken later than June 22, 1940, including explicitly any discrimination based on the quality of Jew,,

It is needless to underline the contradiction between the two ordinances which we have itist quoted. It seems that General Giraud tried to avoid making this contradiction too apparent by calling the sa^ people Jews in the one ordinance and Israelites in the other one. -•—The seriousness and danger However harti General Giraud and his legal advisers of General Giraud's move; try to camouflage their work, we must emphasize the fact that their action is much more dangerous and far reaching from every point of view than the whole of Vichy's racial and dis- criminatory legislation.

This is so, because Vichy was not free and could always pretend that these laws were imposed on them by the victorious Nazis, while on the contrary General Giraud is entirely free of all Axis influence and dares to take discriminatory decisions against the Jews in the name of the Republic of France, under the protection of American and British troops, while at the same time invoking in his speech of March 14, 1943, the philosophy and principles proclaimed by President Lincoln for the American Democracy.

Situation created for Frenchmen of Jewish Religion in Algeria

We shall now see what a situation was created for those Jaws, French citizens sinoe 1870, by the ordinance of General Giraud.

These beneficiaries of the Cremieux Decree and their descendants were enjoying since 1870, under the third French Republic, absolutely full citizenship, just as any other French citizen born in Normandy, in Paris or Provence„

Algeria had been divided, by other Cremieux Decrees of the same date (October 24, 1870) into three departments of the French territory; those of Algiers, Oran, and Constantino, and they elected several senators and ten deputies to the French parliament of Paris exactly as the other French departments «.

The descendants of Jews made into French citizens by the Cremieux Decree were exactly on the same level as French citizens, as General Giraud himself or his advisers. An American newspaper which recently declared that'they had as much right to denationalize General Giraud as General Giraud had to denationalize them was entirely rights and there was no paradox.

Who is_ affected by Giraud's abrogation of the Cremieux Decrees

..This being well understood, we must first of all make a distinction between Frenchmen of Jewish Religion coming from Metropolitan France and happening to be in Algeria and those, on the contrary, who were born in Algeria like their parents, or are the descendants of Jews naturalized by virtue of the Cremieux Decree.

We used the expression "Jewish Religion" on purpose, because as General Giraud apparently abolished the Vichy laws pertaining to the Jewish Bace (by one of his ordinances of March 14, 1943s as we have stated above), the difference betwaen French Jews and non-Jewish Frenchmen is now only a difference of religion, and not of race.

To simplify the discussion, we shall only visualize tho case of those Algerian Jews who themselves, or whose parents or grandparents, or great-grandparents took advantage of the general naturalization, granted by the Cremieux Decree in 1870 to the Jews born in Algeria., Which of these men were affected by the revocation of the Cremieux Decree, as announced by General Giraud? Status of Original Beneficiaries? The revocation of the said decree would only reduce ™_ , : . _. ^ ^e status of before 1870 those, *o had benefited

by the decree of 1870,, and who v/ere still a live 0 This decree concerned only the situation of persons already born on Algerian Territory on October 24, 1870, and had nothing to do with those who were to be born later or would subsequently come to Algeria,, There can only be a few scores of people living now to whom this applies arid these must be, 73 years old or nore.

If the author of the 14th of March 1943 abrogation of the Cremieux Decree had any knowledge of or respect for the principles of French law, this abrogation ..would only concern the status of the beneficiaries of the decree. Those few survivors would now, after they .had been French citizens for 73 years, lose their citizenship for the rest of their lives, through, no personal fault. This would be bad enough, morally and legally, but the intentions of the Giraud regime are still worse.

Commentators of General Giraud13 speech and his anonymous counselors have indeed indicated to American newspaper reporters that the measure applies to at least 40,000 male citizens,, Therefore, wo are compelled to think that General Giraud has decided to take the French nationality from all Jews who themselves or through any one of their fore- fathers had had the advantage of the Cremieux Decree of 1870o .

It must be pointed out that for all those who did not by themselves benefit by the Cromieux Decree, but are the descendants of those beneficiaries, the measure taken by General Giraud amounts to a £enffltiorBUzatiari_and not a denaturalization. This applies to all of them, with the exception" oT the few doz'en old men to whom we have referred above.

What is the meaning of denationalization?! Now, denationalization is the most serious measure ._r_ .—i_ — — • that can ^fl taken againgt a citizen, even if he is a crimimlo Before the Vichy laws, inspired by Nazi Germany, it was impossible in France, as it is still impossible in America today, to denationalize a Frenchman born in France by virtue of Law, and not naturalized, unless h« had acquired a different nationality by his own free will and repudiated hi a original nationality through his acts and his declarations (law of February 17, 1927).

Thus at least 100,000 French Jews of Algeria have been struck by a measure which the Hepublican'Law could not apply to a Frenchman by birth, as they themselves actually are, even if he were a criminal, a traitor, a father's murderer, or a spy against ms own country.

Nothing is reproached to Algerian Jaws, It is well to bear in mind that neither General — ~—•• — —"-**- ~-~ ™ Giraud, nor his officious mouthpieces, have «ver expressed the slightest criticism of the Jews in Algeria, neither on their conduct in time of war and of peace, nor on the honesty of their French sentiments. Those innocent victims must thus suffer a forfeiture - the worst of all - which cannot even afflict the most horrible criminal - What then will their situation be, after the abrogation of the Cramieux Decree through General Giraud?

Their present status is not yet deoidsdjm, It is very difficult to kno* this as we have • ^ •—• ———-———-—~— not raceiTod any information on how exactly General Giraud plans to proceed with this abrogation.

We know from paragraph 2 of the abrogating ordinance of March 14, 1943 th.t _ must be issued for the application of paragraph 1, in the course of three months ue June 14, 1W3. Howler, nothing has as yet been nad. known by the Governor of Algeria

Will Giraud revert to the dispositions of the Vichy Law of to which the Israelites of Algeria again fall under the regulations ^^..r^fj^^^^. of July 14, 1865? Or will he wish to apply to them the tew of 1919,. facilitating the ratur alization for all native .Algerians? No matter what solution he chooses, and even if the Algerian Israelites humble themselves to ask for French naturalizations after having actually been French citizens for 70 years and more, their situation would nevertheless become worse economically, in addition to the moral implication* . • • . •

We are thinking in the first place of the intermediary period between the ' "'''• present and the time they are naturalized. During such period their status will be vague and vastly inferior to that of the Moslems, These fetter are French subjects who have not and whose ancestors have not asked for French naturalization.

As a matter of fact, since 1870, French Algerian Jaws have renounced their personal and real status in order to accept all the stipulations of the French law. Their cultural, scholastic,, legal, religious, and other organizations have dis- appeared or have been profoundly modified to conform to the new state of affairs.

Thus these French citizens will become subjects without any organized status, inferior in position to the natives ttio have not wanted to or have not been able to become French citizens themselves, as they were not willing to fulfill the conditions required. .,-.'.

:i-- ' " •• However, even if the denationalized Jews of Algeria ask for French naturaliza- tion, they will be subject to arbitrary decisions, entailing the risk of refusal.

'•• :- On the other hand, as many of them have been born in Metropolitan France, or as their parents or one of their parents have been born there or in any other place, they will be unable, as a result of present circumstances, to procure and submit the documents required for naturalization, such as certificates of origin, birth certificates and otherso ;.v :-.v',*;."-? •';;:-

Restrictions in rights of Finally, even if they can get them, they still will be denationalized Jews; subject to the restrictions expressed by the law of ~" " August 10, 1927,, and amended by that of June 25, 1937, and the decree of November 12, 1938, referring to the rights of people recently naturalized* :••

Thus, they cannot beeome voters again until after the expiration of five years, as from the date of naturalization. They can only receive an official function or an elective mandate 10 years after the decree of naturalization. Also they will have to await the expiration of the same delay of 10 years, before they can be named to any remunerative public function, accepted at the bar, or invested with ministerial offices0 Thev will be likewise subject to the law of July 26, 1935, amended by Uiat of May 26, 1941, regarding the practice of medicine and dentistry in France which bars the exercise of these professions to persons recently naturalized (Art o 7).

If General Giraud wanted to obviate all these multiple difficulties as appears to be the case according to the declaration of his mouthpieces, he would have to under- take the abrogation, the transformation, or reform of quite a variety of Republican Laws, including those of Yichy0 It is impossible for us to conceive how and supported by what legal authority, and in the name of what principle, he could claim such exorbitant right.

The abroration is unjust and .absurd; To finish this part of our expos®, let us put on 2 : ~~ —~— record one more fact which will show still better the injustice of the measure announced by General Giraud« Since 1870 several hundreds of thousands of Spaniards, Italians, Maltese, Syrians etc»s Catholics, Protestants, Israelites, Moslems, etco have come to Algeria to establish themselves, and have requested their naturalization according to the laws in existence, some of them referring particularly to Algeria and others noto - 13 -

According to statistics, these newcomers and their descendants represent at least half of the population of Algeria.

All these, in many cases only recently naturalized people and their descendants will keep their French nationality, while the reliable, homogenous and loyal elements, descendants of Frenchmen having benefited from the Cremieux Deerea, will lose theirs.

It is sufficient to point out this result of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree to show its evident absurdity, in addition to its injustice. - 14 - • •

JURIDICAL SITUATIONCREATED BY ABROGATION OF CREMIEUX DECREE

It will be much more difficult to clarify this par?- of the discussion than other aspects of the quest io-ru The res.son for this is that, if the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is an Injustice and an absurdity from the moral end intellectual point of view, as explained above, it constitutes such a monstrosity from the juridical angle, that it is hardly possible to explain it with the usual legal and objective wording,

We feel sure that an American lawyer would feel embarrassed if he had to p;ivo his opinion on some legislation which would* at the Game time, disregard the Amerioan Bill of Bights, the American Constitution,, the Federal Laws, the State Lows, and the whole jurisprudence. Exactly the same situation exists when contemplating the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree in relation to the French legislation and the judicial decisions based thereon*

The effect of the Cr*?nii«ux Decree First of all it is necessary to recall and to Iind ^^^^^^^^^^Z^^ZJt^l^"' emPhasiz* that the Iteore® of October 24, 1870, 4"*™~ "™ ™~™~~ -—-—— • ^ ^ ^^ Cronieux Decree has not had any effect on situations arising after its enactment and has only modified the status of native Israelites bom in Algeria before October 24, 1870o

Incidentally, as explained a hove, the Government of Notional Defense., presided over by Gambe'ttn decided on the same day, by thirty decrees, to divide Algeria into three French departments, thus giving it tho present status,

Yet, under the Republican Law, an-Israelite born in Algeria after October 24, 1870,, could not base his claim for French naturalization on the Cremieux Decree „ He would have to refer to the Senatus Consults of 1865 and later to the law of February 4, 191.9,

This statement connot be denied. Aa a mutter of fact, a decree of October 7, 18 71, has ads it obligatory for all Israelites of native origin, who want their names to be maintained" on the fleet oral list of citizens s to prove their status of native within 20 days, before ih<; .justices of Peace

Anybody who failed to accomplish this formality before October 27, 1871, had definitely lost the rights bestowed upon him by the Cromieux Decree, thus being once ajr/ain in the came category an all other natives and inhabitants.

Through application of this rule all Israelite Natives of the territories called M'Zabj attached to French Algeria on December 21, 1882S could not enjoy the benefits of the Cremieux Decree, even if they were born in M'Zab prior to October 24, 1870,, because at that tine they did not have the qualification of Algerian Israelites, aa M'Zab did not yet belong to Algeriao

This solution, adopted by the French Administration, has been confirmed through the decisions of the jurisprudence, especially of the Court of Algeria on February 25, 1391 (RJU 1891 - 2 -"22Oj" S. 1891 - 1 - 201). - 15 -

Commentators, therefore, conclude that the Cremieux Descrse only actually .applies to those Algerian Israelites living at the moment of its enactment, and that its practical effect ceased, as soon as the Algerian natives of that tim® became French citizens,

Under French law no authority This makes it absolutely certain that undor can abrogate the Cremieux Dflcrees French law no authority, whatever its legal ~~ """" '"*"" ~~ powers may be, can abrogate the Cremieux Decree.

Indeed, as this decree has no more effect after its promulgation, neither in the past, the present, or the future, it can only "be attacked by a legislative, retro-active decision.

Retro-active laws are prohibited by There exists in French law since the thePcivil~c"od«Y ' ~~ establishment of .the Civil Code under „ „ , Napoleon I an organic law of such vital importance that it has been inserted in Chapter I, art. 2O of this code. Article 2 of the Civil Code reads: "The law can only apply to the futureo It has no retro-active effect «n We can call this the crucial point of French Law, This conception dates from Roman Law, more than 2000 years old. It has found its way into the legislature of all civilized countries of Europe and America... In France it has been respected since 1800 by royalty, by the Empire, as well as by Republics «

Commentators on Retro-Active Laws: "The reasons conducive to the acceptance of this , _ principie are quite simple. It represents the necessary safeguard of individual interests o There would be no security for people, if their rights, their fortunes, their personal conditions, the affects of their acts and their contracts could at any moment be put into doubt, modified, and suppressed through a chaage at the will of the legislator* General interest, bsing in this instance the result of individual interests, demands that anything set down in the correct manner under th« auspices of a law must be considered valid and remain stable, even after a change in legislation. (Planiol: Elementary Treaty of Civil Laws edition 1940, page 100, Chapter VII, 2*240,)- And Planiol adds that a law is retro-active if it modifies acquired rights. Thus any law attacking the Cremieux-Gambetta Decree is retro-active, because this decree has rna de it possible for all Algerian Natives to acquire certain rights on October 24, 1870„ According to French Law, such rights can in absolutely no way be modified by a law of later date. This applies also to the effectiveness of a law after a conquest, if that law emanates from the conquering country and would refer to the conquered territories So Juris prudemce on retro-aotive laws; Thus it has been decided that j "Treaties of ~~- : "~ Annexation make those amexed lose their nationality formerly held and submit them to the political and administrative laws 18 existing ia the country to -which they have been annexe^ whereby the right of option is often granted to the inhabitants of annexed territories (V. Nationality)." "But they do mot have ^WJ^£2ll2^1ZlJi££l2^.'' Therefore, the reunion of a —_ , ___. _ . *. - —- territory with France cannot cause individuals born in the annexed territory before the annexation to be con- sidered as fictitiously borm is France. (Cr<> 7 Dec. 1885, D. Po 84.1»209j Civ- Fobro 25, 1890, D. F. 90.1. 322| April 22, 1890, P. P. 92.1.56; Febr, 17, 1903, and the conclusions of the Procurator Ceiio Baudouia 1903. 10 241), "208. On the other hand, change of nationality resulting from a treaty does not ia any way concarm private rights previously acquired* (Civ,, July 7, 1862, 1"), P. 62. 1. 355; Chanibory, June Es 1887, D.Po 68S 2,155, asd upos appeal Req. 17 Novo 1868g D. P. 68olo473; Chamb«ry, August 27, 1869, D.P. 71,2.160j Req. January 22, 18839 and the report of Councillor Babi.net, B.Po 83, 1.147; Civ. February 25, 1890, DoP» 90ol»322s Lyoa Dee* 10, 1891, D»P0 93.2.197; Civ0 July 26, 1899, D,Po 1905,1. . 189; Paris D«Co 10, 190LsDcPo 1905 2.128; Civ0 February 17, 1903.1.241, and the eo solus ions of the Procurator General Baudouia.)

No regular legislative power, Yljg^JE^ror^Jtog^io^, In summation, according •5aT^nacFTli?r^a^i^Tlftwr~° " " " """ to French law no law — ! :—' ~ ~ emanating from a regular legislative power (this means a double qualification which General Giraud "doeTimFlposaesBTTan modify rights acquired by French Israelite Natives on October 24, 1870o This is so evident and constitutes such an essential part of French law that neither General Giraud nor even Marshal Petain have ever dared to mention In their decrees that these decrees could have retro-active effoct. It seems, however, that if anybody had wanted to impose In France such an erbraordinary juridical innovation, it would have deserved to be underlined, unless the authors wanted hypocritically to mask their real intentions.

As far as we know, no civil law in America has ever had a retro-active effect, especially on such vital questions as American citizenship. What is not admissible in the United States as being contrary tojhe fundamental principle of any people's legislation, when this people had obtained a normal degree of civilization, is like- wise unacceptable in France, for exactly the same reasons.

Retro-aotive laws were prohibited in France, as we have already stated, by the article 2 of the Civil Code promulgated in 1803 under Napoleon I. It remained in full effect since that time under the Kings of France, the Second Republic, the Third Empire, and the Third Hepublio. However, even before the Civil Code this fundamental rule of the old Roman Law was respected by the absolute monarchy which had governed France for over 1000 years. If one of• the kings had forgotten to respect such a strong principle, the king's parliaments (highest Court of Justice under absolute monarchy) would have refused to endorse a retro-active measure as contrary to the fundamental laws of the kingdom. —17

The fact that no regular legislative power can take away from the French Israelite Natives living on October 24, 1870, their rightful citizenship would be true,, even if the benefi.cia.rie0 of the '.•reraieux Decree were still alive; but, as the decree is 72-| years old, it is not exaggerated to assume, according to statistics that 99 out of these 100 beneficiaries are today deed.

We have sef'n ^iat the decision of General Giraud means to denutionaliss© the descendants, children, grandchildren? etc., of the dead beneficiaries of the Cremieux Decree. This can only be done by taking eway the benefit of naturalisation definitely given by the Cremieux Decree to the Israelite Natives, of Algeria living on October 24, 1870, and deceased since then, including those who died for fiance during the war of 1914-18, or colonial, wars prior and posterior to that date, and their descendants who died under the same conditions.

General Giraud Is denationalising the dead, *

It will not be necessary any mure to emphasise the illegality, the absurdity ana the odious character of the measure announced. - ,

X!l!Jfj'J!nJSiU^^ It must furthermore be pointed out that the descendants of the bene- ficiaries of the Cremieux Decree are born French citizens,, not through the effect of the said decree, but as a result of articles 8 and the'following up to 21 of the Civil Code, and since their abrogation by the law of August .10, .1927, on nationality which takes the place of miscellaneous previous rulings. The last law, in its first article, decl&ree the following persons to be French;

(.1) Every legitimate child torn from a Frenchman in France or in a foreign country.

(2) Every legitimate child born in France of a father who himself wae born th«re.

(3) Every legitimate chiJd born in France from a French mother. : "> And article .15 says; "The lew in question .applies to Algeria."

Therefore, ail descendants of a fattier or a mother naturalised through the Gremieux Decree, and born in Algeria, or in Metropolitan France, are French through the effect of the above mentioned articles of the Civil Code or as from its promulgation through the effect of the law of August 10, 1927.

As a matter of fact, neither the articles of the code in questionnor the law of August 10, 1927), make any difference between the manner in which the parents of individuals born in France in the conditions outlined in these teats are or have become French.

The abrogation of the Cremieux Decree, as it seeuus to be achieved by General Giraud, i.e., applyxng not only to the still living few beneficiaries of the Crtanifcux Decree, but also to all their descendants, destroys or fails to take into account not only the essential elements of French law, summed up in article 2 of the Civil Code, but also the contents of articles 9 to 21 of the Civil Code and the organic law of August 10, 1927, on nationality and naturalization. . - —1.8f-

Note also that these statements apply just as well to the descendants of the beneficiaries of the Cremieux Decree, whether they are born in Algeria, Metropolitan France, or even abroad. (Law of August 10, 1927, article one.) If the abrogation of the Creraieux Decree applies to descendants of the beneficiaries of October 24, 1870, it does not change the status of Israelite Natives of Algeria. It denationalizes full French citizens. Furthermore, the law of August 10, 1927, has considered the rights of the beneficiaries of the Cremieux Decree as acquired to such a point that in article 15 it decides: "The Senatus Consulte of July 14, 1865, and the law of February U, 1919, will stay in force anyhow with regard to Algerian Natives, even on Metropolitan Territory." This law did not mention the Cremieux Decree, because its effect was acquired and terminated for over 56 years at the moment of its promulgation. In summation, to abrogate the Cremieux Decree in such a way that this abrogation applies not only to the original beneficiaries of the Cremieux Decree, but also to all their descendants, General Giraud must in fact abrogate the essential principle of the Civil Code,, including article 2 and the kw regulating nationality and naturalization. Under these new conditions no Frenchman, whoever he is, including General Giraud himself, can state, with the support of the law, that he is a Frenchman. The abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is a racial One of the most disastrous and discriminatory law; effects of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree pro- claimed is to reinstitute in public French law the discriminatory notion of Jew and non-Jew. It is hard to understand how General Giraud can re-introduce, through the effects of a decision which applies only to Algerian Jews, Vichy laws in the only territory where he can exercise the functions of a Government of fact, i.e., in the African Territory submitted to his authority, at a moment when he abolishes such laws, and more particularly, those havingaracial or religious basis. We have in this instance a painful contradiction between assurances given in grand speeches and facts. In addition, there is the practical difficulty of making religious and racial distinctions and doing away with them at the same time!It Impossibility of realization and contradictions; Summing up, the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree encounters difficulties of a practical nature, is in opposition to the general declarations of General Giraud, is made prohibitive by the organic laws of the Republic and the most essential rulings and the most stable factors of French law. It con- stitutes a legal monstrosity as well as an attack on the respected principles of all civilized nations. From the point of view of justice it is untenable. From a practical point of view it is inapplicable. Through its retroactive actions against acquired rights it can be compared only to Hitlerian law, as it has been practiced in Nazi Germany and in regions occupied or subdued by Germany; as for instance in those parts ruled by the Government of Vichy. Re-enactment of the Vichy laws; This is so true that the decision of General Giraud, far from constituting an innovation on his part, as would appear from his speech, is in all points in conformity with the Vichy law of February IS, 1942., whose first article readss "The decree of the Government of National Defense of October 24, 1870, declare ing the native Israelites to be French citizens, referring to those residing in the departments of Algeria, is abrogated." oft.the Vichy Jaws: Let us point out, however, that this law even let those native Jews of Algeria keep their French nationality if they were veterans of a war, had been decorated, were orphans, widows or parents of men killed in the war. General Giraud, on the contrary, has so far not intimated that he had any in- tention of making exceptions. Until the contrary has been proven, it must be assumed that General Giraud thinks to go further in his anti-semitic legislation than the Government of Vichy did, under Nazi pressure. REASONS GIVEH FOR THE ABROGATION QF In a speech of March 14, 1943, and in subsequent declarations of General Giraud himself and some of his representatives, several reasons were given for the abroga- tion of the Cremieux Decree. The first which was put forward in the speech itself was that the Cremieux Decree was abrogated to end a legal disposition which had discriminated between the Jews and the Arabs.

The Cremieux Decree has never been a discriminatory measure: In the course of our foregoing explana- tions we have repeatedly shown that the Cremieux Decree was in no way a discrimina- tory measure against the Moslems. The Provisional French Government of National Defense gave to the native Jews of Algeria French citizenship with all the assets and liabilities that it implied, not only because they deserved it in every res- pect through their loyal attitude, but also because they were ready and willing to accept it for themselves, even if they had to renounce many of their old laws and customs. The same thing could not be done for the Moslems who refused it as a body, with only a few individuals accepting it for themselves, even when the law of 1918 made it easy and convenient. This is so true that the more enlightened Arabs held that point of view in the days when the Cremieux Decree was granted and then discussed in front of the French National Assembly.

We cannot better illustrate the previous affirmation than by giving the text of the following document which is self-explanatory: — 20—

"God. be praisedl He is unique! ; Constantine, June 20, 1871. . . • ' ,^ " ' • ' " ' The Israelite Assembly of Conctantine having asked the dignitaries of the Moslem population to be good enough to make icnown their frank opinion on the decree which has as effect the naturalisation of the Israelites of Algeria, what they think of it and also whether tkLs decree has created anger and animosity in the hearts of the Moslems, or not, we, the undersigned, have declared that this measure has hurt nobody's feelings and has arouBed nobody's anger, because it is rational.

On the contrary, all sensible people appreciate and approve it, especially as the door ie opened to all Arabs who .themselves wish to be naturalized.

In agreement of which we have affixed our signature hereunder.

Follow. The signatures . . . ."

However, the falsity of the above mentioned argument must be exposed, because it became apparent immediately after General Giraud's speech that both the American and the British Government had been led to believe that the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree was a super-republican, super-democratic and super-anti- racial law, and would be welcomed by the Jews, as well as by the other Frenchmen.

We shall show that, on the contrary, now that all the circumstances are known, the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is viewed by all Frenchmen, whether Christians or Jews, with a mixed feeling of horror and disgust, because it is in opposition to all the laws and ideals of France itself.

At the same time we do not believe that the soldier, General Giraud, who always voluntarily proclaimed hie ignorance of politics and of laws, has taken the initiative of such a measure. It is bad enough that he accepted and pro- claimed it, but we cannot forget that the actual Governor General of Algeria is Marcel Peyrouton, a lawyer, with North African experience in Tunisia and Morocco, if not in Algeria. Peyrouton, it must be recalled, when Minister of Interior in Pierre Laval's Vichy Government, proclaimed the first racial laws and the first abrogation of the Cremieux Decree (October 7, 194.0).

T_he abrogation of the Cremieux Decree will not help pacify Algeria: The second reason given for the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is that, since the conquest of Algeria, Arabs and Jews have always been feuding among themselves, and that it would pacify the Arabs to see the Jews of Algeria put back to the same level as their own. The last Arab revolt had occurred in Algeria in 1871 and was mentioned in this explanation as being due to ill feelings between Arabs and Jews.

Jews and Moslems live together in peace; Historical documents do not substantiate the fact that the revolt of 1871 was due to ill feelings between Moslems and Jews. As a matter of fact the Arab revolt of 1871 was directed against the authority of France in Algeria, since France was defeated by Germany in the war of 1871. Since 1871 (for 72 years) there has been no dangerous or general anti-semitism on the part of the Algerian Arabs, with the exception of some local outbursts of absolutely no importance, comparable to little incidents which happen from time to time in the Bronx. Only during the Dreyfus case in France (1894-1906) did some agitators who had come from Metropolitan France succeed in raising anti-semitic feeling in Algeria, much more among the French colonists than among the Arabs. The result of their efforts disappeared alto- gether when Dreyfus was vindicated and when the Frenchmen who had fought for the justice of his cause came into power, (George Clemenceau, etc.)

This was proven, as far as the French population was concerned, by the elections held in Algeria for seats at;the Chamber of Deputies in 1936, when out of AO serious candidates for 10 seats, only one went to the poll on the anti- semi tic ticket, in the first district of Algiers, where he arrived fifth out of five candidates. Before, during and after these elections, there was absolutely no trouble between Arabs and Jews and this state of affairs continued until the war of 1939} and even up to the time of the American landing in November 1942.

Our answer to Dr. Goebbels l. propaganda: The supporters of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree could only answer the above true statements by pointing to anti-semitic feeling created among the Arabs by Dr. Goebbels' propaganda which had told them repeatedly that, if the Allies take over North Africa, theywill give the Jews the power to rule over them.

To our mind the best response to such statements would have been to re- establish conditions existing before June 22, 194-0, when under the French Republic it was France and not the French Jews (the French Jews represent about one-hundredth of the population) who ruled Algeria.

It does not change the Arab situation to take away from loyal French citizens their nationality. However, it must make the Moslems think that Dr. Goebbels has a great deal of power, even in territories liberated from the Germans and Vichy by the United Nations' Army, if he is able to obtain the enactment of anti-semitic laws through threats on the radio.

The last answer we can give to this aspect of the problem is to recall that in all colonies liberated by the British and Fighting French Armies,1 the Jews, whether French citizens or not, were at once reinstated in the status they had h#ld prior to the fall of France.. This did not create any difficulties whatso- ever, even in the French Mandates of Syria and Lebanon, where the feelings between Moslems and Jews are more acute than the^ever were in North Africa, on account of the vicinity of Palestine.

Giraud's Decree will not help Arabs; on the Contrary: An argument brought forward in support of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree was that the equality thus established between Jews and Moslems would make it easier for the latter to obtain French citizenship.

This argument has been beautifully answered in a recent communication made by the National Committee of General Charles de Gaulle to an inquiry cabled to him by the editors of the New York Post.

General Charles de Gaulle cabled back on that point that "the equality be- tween the natives of Algeria, Moslems, and Jews cannot be conceived as a demotive leveling. Only a great amelioration of the legal status of all the natives of Algeria, and a revision, in a liberal sense, of the attribution of political rights can allow its realization."

It is quite true that those Arabs, if any, who would have liked to acquire French citizenship, must have lost most of their hopes when they saw that the Jews who had already received it had lost their citizenship and were back on their former status. . - --22—

What was done and prepared^by; the French Republic; Since 1919 the French Republic had been contemplating giving the Moslems still greater facilities to become French citizens, even to the point of allowing them at the same time to keep their personal status partially.

Several projects of law had been placed before the Chamber of Deputies to that effect, but they had all been .rejected through the efforts of the coalition of the representatives of Algerian colonists and elements of the right wing.

The last and most generous of these projects of law was offered to the Chamber in 1936 by Premier Leon Blum himself, a French Jew of Alsatian and Parisian parentage, together with Senator Violette.

If it had passed, this law would have let about 30,000 Moslems acquire out- right French nationality (ex-servi.ee men, etc.). For the other Moslems acquisi- tion of French nationality would have been greatly encouraged and facilitated. But this project of law was also repealed, through the same coalition, as stated above.

Standing of Moslems should be raised instead of lowering Anyhow, this per- standing of Jews; mits us to state that, if General Giraud really wanted to apply the laws oa the Republic in their text and in their spirit to Algeria, he should have? as General de Gaulle1s Committee points out, tried to improve the status of the Algerian Moslems, instead of lowering the status of the Jews.

In his address of March L4? 194-3? General Giraud said that Jews and Moslems should cooperate as gpod natives, the ones in their shops, the others in their fields. "V This would be all right if it still applied to the natives of 73 years ago. But the Jews against whom the Cremieux Decree has been abrogated are no longer native Jews. They are French citizens of the French Republic, working as public servants, magistrates, lawyers, doctors, professors, as well as in some shops or commercial enterprises. So, the picture itself given by General Giraud in his speech is wrong and intends to create confusion by showing French citizens with full rights of citizenship for several generations, as if they were some kind of savages or uncouth natives that can be disposed of arbitrarily by some all-powerful conqueror.

This leads us to this last legal questions From where does General Giraud derive the power that he claims for himself of modifying at his will the per- manent laws of France?

Origin of General Giraud's authority in North Africa; After the deal which brought about the armistice in North Africa had been made with Admiral Darian, Admiral Darlan proclaimed himself Chief of State, explaining that he derived his authority from Marshal Petain. He then created in North Africa an imperial Council, composed mainly of the Governor Generals and Resident Generals of the different territories in North Africa, as they had existed under Vichy administration. After Admiral Darlan's assassination this Imperial Council met on December 26, 194-2, and named General Giraud Commander-in-Chief in North Africa. i This is what General Giraud himself refers to in his ordinance and de- claration of March 14th, 1943, as per the first two paragraphs given below: "Declaration of March-14th by the civil and military French Commander-in- Chief, General Giraud, concerning the validity of the legislation enforced ih the territories where his authority is exercised. "That on December 24, 194-2, the representatives of France in Algeria, in French Occidental Africa, and in non-occupied Tunisia have appelaed to Army General Henri Giraud to insure a better handling of common interests in their territories, and obtain a greater efficacy in the battle taken up against the enemy on the side of the allies; that these representatives have acted with the approval of the population and under the legal rules of their status as de- positors of the status of the Republic ..." It is very difficult to follow the reasons and even the wording of the ex- planation that General Giraud gives to prove "the validity of the legislation enforced in the territories where his authority is exercised." The representatives of France in French North and Occidental Africa, to whom he alludes, were the representatives of the Vichy Government. General Giraud himself, says that this Government had to submit its legislation to the previous agreement to an enemy effectively occupying two-thirds of its territory. The enemy controlled high official nominations in the same manner as legislation. Therefore it is difficult to imagine by what stretch of imagination General Giraud can call the Vichy nominees in North Africa "legitimate depositories of the powers of the Republic." On the other hand, it would be cruel to ask from General Giraud any proof of his statements that these members of the Imperial Council have acted "with the approval of the population." When and where did the population approve of any decision of the Imperial Council? When and where did anybody ask them for their approval?

The only approval we heard of about General Giraud1s nomination was the one given officially by Mr. Robert D. Murphy for the United States, and Mr. McMillan for the British Empire. These two high officials can hardly be men- tioned undertitle heading of "populations." General Giraud did not get his powers from any decision based on the will of the people of France or even North Africa. The General Councils of the depart- ments of Algiers, Oran and Constantino which might have been consulted for the maintenance of order and administration by application of the Treveneuc Law of 1872 had nothing to do with the rise to power of General Giraud. If, on the contrary, General Giraud derives his powers from Marshal Petain, his Government of Vichy, and the officials he appointed in North Africa, we can only state that we agree with General Giraud that Marshal Petain's Governments were unconstitutional, and subject to the enemy's will. This deprived them of all legitimate power, as far as legislation and nomination of any representative were concerned. General Giraud's powers can only be considered as a .result of the necessity to establish some sort of acceptable central authority, since the moment of the American landing. This was conditioned by the military situation and the ne- cessity of maintaining law and order.

General Giraud cannot; wdM^_^e.j)erman^t_1^.3lation ofUrein^e; It is.. hardly necessary to underline that nothing in this strange situation can give General Giraud any power to modify or revoke any part of the Republican legislation and, even more so, of the organic and essential laws of France, based on principles upheld and respected in all civilized countries.

Before all he cannot do what even the legislative assembly of France, acting under the French Constitution with laws voted by the parliaments and promulgated by the President of the Republic could not do, namely enact a decree having retro- active effects on rights acquired legally and for generations by French citizens.

The real reasons for abrogating the •Gremieux .Decree; What could then be the real reasons of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree by General Gid?

TBe have seen that the reasons put forward could not be the real ones and that, anyhow, General Giraud1s decision exceeded immensely whatever powers he may hold.

General Giraud1s advisers must then h&vs had very strong reasons to insist on the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree, fe shall endeavor to bring them to light.

.An^i^^emitism: The first one is evidently anti-semitisra. Mr1. Marcel Peyrouton, Governor General of Algeria, Mr. Pierre BoisgJorij, Governor General of Occidental French Africa, General August© Nogues, Resident General in Morocco, have given so many proofs that between June 1940 and November 1942 they willingly accepted the Nazi concept of Jew-baiting, that this reason does not need any further proof or commentary.

Mki-jiemqcratism; Another reason is that the North Africa JewSj, as indeed the immense majority of Jews all over the world, were profoundly democratic. They were absolutely loyal and grateful to the Republic of France to which they owed their citizenship, their equality with other men,, and their freedom.

The result of this is not only that in any vote they would have supported democracy, but also that in a great majority they were confirmed Gaullistes mainly due to the declarations of General de Gaulle that he would maintain the laws of the Republic everywhere and that he had chosen the side of democracy and equality.

Messrs. Peyrouton, Nogues and Boisson, acting on Vichy's instructions, and following their personal inclinations had deprived the French Jews of Algeria of their citizenship, of their property, of their jobss and very often of their liberty, between June 194-0 and November 194.2.

They had persecuted them in many ways, had sent them to forced labor and had filled with them their jails and their concentration camps. , - • —25—

It is, therefore, easy to understand what reactions these leaders could expect from these French citizens as soon as their citizenship and their freedom of speech and from fear would be given back to them. They certainly considered it as essential that they shoux^* be brought back to the status of simple French subjects, uncertain of their fate and of their rights, if any were left of them, and unable to vote. Desire to eliminate the pro-allies; Another reason was that as democrats and Gaullists, the French Jews of Algeria had always been and still are with one will and one heart on the side of the United Nations. They especially pinned all their hopes on America. Therefore, when the American landing occurred, they helped with all their means, very often risking and sometimes losing their lives in their attempt. It was then feared by the leaders of Vichy that the American troops, at least, after their victorious occupation, would be tempted to prefer those who had loyally worked with them to those who, under the Nazi inspired orders of Vichy, had fired on them and fought them in an odious and futile struggle. Therefore, it was considered by the ex-Vichy leaders as a clever move: first to jail or take away into forced labor under any pretext (assassination of Darlan, so-called attempt at murdering General Giraud and Mr. Robert Murphy) those who had helped in the American landing. But they could not very well jail or put away over 100,000 French citizens of Jewish confession. The way out was to take their citizenship away from them so as to make them lose all authority and prestige, when dealing with the American and British troops or officials. In short, the abrogation of the Gremieux decree can be described thus: The way by which those who had opposed by force the American landing took re- venge on those who had collaborated with it. . It has succeeded1. And it is an extraordinary paradox that it could have been enacted and maintained in territories freed from Nazi-Vichy tyranny by the armies of the American democracy.

Anti-semitic measures in the North African Army: The correctness of the above stated reasons for abro- gating the Cremieux Decree cannot be seriously denied in the light of what was done by General Giraud1s Army regarding the participation of French Jews in the armed forces of North Africa. The first posters that appeared on the walls of the cities in Algeria called all Frenchmen to arms as volunteers in the new North African Army headed by General Giraud. From this voluntary enlistment were excepted: (1) Those who had been convicted of any crime. (2) Those who were Jews. These posters were put up under Admiral Darlan1s administration, but as late as January 30, 194-3, under the heading "the use of Jews in the Army" and under the code number 4.0 C-MGJ-CAB a memorandum was issued by General Giraud1 s High Command at Algiers stating that - —26--

"1. Jewish commissioned and non-commissioned officers and men in the re- serve will generally be assigned to special non-combatant work units.

"2. Thig. measure appears necessary in order to avoid having the entire Jewish population gain the title of war veteran, which might prejudice the status given these people after the war."

This memorandum was signed by Major General Brioux of General Giraud's command and General Louchet, Director of Personnel, and issued for the Generals commanding French troops in North Africa. •

This memorandum was carefully hidden from allied eyes, but was finally smuggled into the United States at the end of April 1943.

Another order by General Giraud was also revealed at the same time stating that French officers of Jewish faith, including those born in France, would be reinstated into the French Army only if they had been wounded or cited for bravery and if their reinstatement had been agreed to by the higher authorities.

This order promulgated on December 30, 194-2, was number 5 A 2-MGP-CAB. These two orders, both issued after the assassination of Admiral Darlan, and when General Giraud was alone in power in NorthAfrica, are a proof of his will to discriminate against all French citizens of Jewish faith, not only dur- ing the war, but even in the future.

When these two orders were published in the United States, General Giraud's mission in America was asked for its comments and issued a very lame answer say- ing that they belonged to the past, but weren't in force any more.

This statement, however, was not supported at that time or later by any mention of a memorandum or order cancelling the orders we have just mentioned.

,-••• In the following we give an illustration of this attitude. If Sergeant Meyer Levin, one of the American heroes of this war, had been a Frenchman, he would not have been admitted in General Giraud's Fighting Forces, in order to prevent him from obtaining the title of "war veteran."

Did General Giraud really abrogate racial laws and We might be answered that anti-semitic regulations?: our affirmations are con- tradicted by General Giraud's declaration that '

(1) He abrogated all racial and discriminatory Vichy laws, and

(2) He reinstated the Jews in North Africa by permitting them to return to public employment, private jobs and regain possession of their properties of which they had been deprived as Jews.

It is true that General Giraud made these two declarations in his speech of March 14, 1943, but we now have in our possession the full text of General Giraud's ordinances on these two points. • - —27--

The first one of March 18, 19-43, refers to the Vichy legislation in to to.

"Art. 1. - The rules prescribed by laws, decrees, and all other decisions subsequent to June 22, 194-0, are provisiona. ly validated.

"Art. 2. - A commission, nominated by the Comaander in Chief and placed under his direct authority will examine whether it is indicated to maintain the acts provisionally validated by evaluating their conformity with the political principles in force on June 22, 1940, and which have never ceased to be legitimate.

"Art. 3. - In the case of acts where the abrogation has not been pronounced within a delay of two months dating from the publication of the present ordinance, these acts will be considered definitely ratified.

"Art. 4« - The prescriptions set out above will be applied to protectorates and colonial territories according to their proper regime."

The consequence of this ordinance is that all Vichy laws, decrees, and de- cisions, which have not been abrogated formally, on May 18, 1943, by a commission dependent directly on General Giraud are definitely maintained.

As a result of the censorship and secrecy maintained on anything that happens in North Africa, we have no way of ascertaining which of the Vichy laws have been abrogated and which have been definitely kept in force. We only know that General Giraud gave himself arbitrary and full power to decide on this issue.

We also know that the Vichy laws abrogating, the Cremieux Decree are not only maintained by General Giraud, but as we explained before, aggravated, as no ex- ceptions are made for ex-service men, nor the families of those killed in wars.

The second ordinance issued by General Giraud on March 14, 1943, concerns the measures taken against the Jews.

It declares:

"Are null all legislative and regimentary dispositions subsequent to June 22, 1940, which contain a discrimination based on the quality of Jew."

And it orders:

"Art. 1. - Every distinction based on the quality of Jew in the civil status, the admission to and exercise of professions, the attending of scholastic estab- lishments of any kind is abolished.

"Art. 2. - The general governors and the general residents will determine, within the framework of the legislative status proper to each territory:

"1. The conditions and delays under and within which those excluded from public office and public functions because of their quality as Jews will be reinstated. —28—

"2. The conditions and delays in which all those will be recalled into private economy who had been excluded because of their quality as Jew.

"3. The conditions and delays in which the possessions placed under provisional administration will be returned to the Jews...

"Art. 3- - The acts accomplished by the provisional administrators are de- clared valid, with the exception of acts referring to disposition of buildings and funds. This does not apply to causes of non-validity other than the nullity hereabove pronounced."

Therefore, General Giraud makes it possible for the Governors and Residents to give the Jews back their rights in the manner and at the time that these General Governors and Residents will see fit-

The men to whom such arbitrary powers are given are:

Mr. Marcel Peyrouton (author of the first racial laws o£ Vichy) for Algeria. Mr. Pierre Boisson for Occidental Africa. Mr. Auguste Nogues for Morocco.

The three men are confirmed Vichyites and anti-semites. Giraud has given them the power to delay the application of he principles stated by him until the year 2000, or much later, if they so prefer.

Arbitrary Powers of Gtm_eral_.Giraud, arid_ His_Govgrjnor The discrepancy between the MSSSlii£J ' strong affirmations of General Giraud in his speech and his actual actions is illustrated by the way in which he keeps for himself and his General Governors the power to nullify, at their own discretion, ell his so-called decisions.

If the French Jews in Africa want to regain their means of living and their property, they are entirely in the hands of ex-Vichy officials. The same situation would exist for them if, after being denaturalized, they ask for naturalization.

It is easy to see what strong pressure can be exerted on them in every field. Not only are they deprived of everything, but Governors and Resident Generals can say to them:

"Don't complain, don't say a thing - keep quiet or else I"

Reaction in allied countries on abrogation_-confusipn: When the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree was made known in the United States, the first reactions were proof of absolute con- fusion in everybody's minds.

General Giraud had presented his decision as a reaction against discrimifaa- tory laws. Believing that this was the case, the American and British Public and officials accepted it as a bona fide improvement of the situation and as a turn towards democratic ideals. —29—

It was difficult to believe that a liberal measure could come from General Giraud, a French reactionary, friend and follower of the royalist (now collabo- rationist) leader Charles Maurras, and from Marcel Peyrouton, Pierre Laval's rival for collaboration with Germany. Nevertheless the good impression was general, but very quickly the facts and the laws were brought to the knowledge of the American public and of the higher officials by French citizens in the United States and by American news- papers .

Baron Edouard de Rothschild's letters to Mr. Sumner Welles; Baron Edouard de Rothschild was one of the first to voice hie indignation. His letter to Mr. Sumner Welles was made public on March 18, 1943- Mr. Sumner Welles1 counter-statement issued in March 194-3, and Mr. de Rothschild's answer of March 31, 1943, are annexed to this brief. (Annex 7). The complete study we have made on the consequences of the Cremieux Decree shows clearly that Baron Edouard de Rothschild was entirely right and that the unbiased specialist mentioned by Mr. Sumner Welles was entirely wrong. Baron Edouard de Rothschild is, in fact, one of the best specialists in the world on the questions relating to French Jewry. Not only was he the President of the Central Committee of the Israelites of France and Algeria, but his grand- father had participated in 1871 largely in the drafting of the Cremieux Decree. On the other hand, we have been unable to ascertain who Mr. Sumner Welles1 unbiased specialist can be. We do not even know whether he is French or American, or anything else, and from where he derives his special knowledge and his unbiased quality. It looks to us as if this specialist either doesn't know the facts and laws about the Cremieux Decree or did not understand Baron de Rothschild's letter. Anyhow, his answer could only mislead the American State Department, But the cry was raised, and from the United States, England and those parts of France and its colonies that are freed, came the protests of many outstanding American and French citizens. * /'<- c - 30 -

Opinions of French Intellectual^

Mr. Emile Bure, a great newspaperman of France, before the fall of Prance editor of the Parisian newspaper "L'Ordre" wrote in an article published by the Times on March 25thj

"As a Frenchman, a Republican, a Roman Catholic, and a political newspaper man of over 30 years' experience, I have been greatly surprised and distressed by the announcement made by General Giraud of Ms intended revocation of the Cremieux-Garabetta decree, signed by the Government of National Defense on October 24, 1870„ "

I cannot believe that the General, whose career and personality have always won my respect, can understand fully the meaning of this unprecedented move,"

Mr» Jacques Maritain, well known philosopher and professor of the Catholic University in France, now President for ihe Executive Committee of the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes in New York wrote in a letter published by the New York Times on April 25, 1943j

"The Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes is an institution of higher learning and of dis- interested research which, by its very aims, remains outside of political vicissitudes. Yet, precisely because it endeavours to perpetuate the traditions of French culture, of the French spirit and particularly of French Law, the Eoole Libre has felt it its duty to give an impartial and objective opinion on a question which is currently dividing public opinion, that of the abrogation of the Cremieux Law in Algeria, We believe that the following statements are of a nature to clarify the issue j

1, It is a profoundly regrettable contradiction that a law of the French Republic should have been "abrogated" at the very same moment when Algeria solemnly proclaimed its return to the laws of the Republic

20 This abrogation is unjust in itself and is contrary to all the traditions of French law, because .• , = . ,

(a) It penalizes retroactively persons who are in no wise guilty of any offense, and thus infringes upon the principle on non-retroaction of laws, which in all civilized countries is the very safeguard of acquired rights,

(b) It deprives of their citizenship men who are French by birth. For the Cremieux Decree was applied at a specific moment - in 1870. At that moment native- born Jews, who, within a short spaoe of time, fulfilled the necessary formalities, , , .. • became French citizens by virtue of the Cremieux Decree. Since then their children have been French, not through the application of this law, but because they were born of French parents, just as the children of American citizens are citizens by birth. The 100,000 men who were deprived by Vichy and who are now again deprived of French citizenship did not themselves benefit by the Cremieux Decree - their fathers--a-nd.,,4jrnndfathers so benefited. They themselves are French, because they are sons of FrenSfamenoo»..••••..

4o The exceptional circumstances created by the state of war and by the troubled situation in North Africa forbid the turning of any protest, even legitimate, into an occasion for agitation in Algeria. If the Jews of Algeria, therefore, abstain from such agitation, this does not mean that they recognize the invalidation of their rights 0

As for Frenchmen who are the guests of the free nations, it behooves them to assert the principles of justice involved in a question which concerns part of the national territory, all the -while endeavouring to promote the union of all in the struggle against the enemy and evincing every confidence in the United NationsOooooo <> •».

A precedent of this kind would involve the greatest dangers for the future re- construction of Europe and cannot be accepted by the human conscience. Anti-semitism is the vehicle of all Nazi poisons, and in no event must any concession be made to it...... '\ - " - 31 -

Mr. John A. F. IJaynard, French Protestant Minister in Worth Africa for a decade, now living in-this countryt fully studied the question in the "New Leader" of April 3rd, 1943. In his article he; mentioned especially}

"It is a well known fact that, whenever the enemies of democracy want to strike a blow, they pick on the Jews first,, When these enemies of democracy retreat, they strike at the Jew last.. That is what happened in Forth Africa, when the citizen- ship of Algerian Jews, abrogated by the Vichy Government in one of its first decrees, we s abrogated again by General Giraud just before he officially renounced Vichy in full. . . •"• '-

Today the question of the citizenship of Algerian Jews has become the realistic test of. the survival of French democratic ideals expressed by the French Revolution in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, and the logical consequences of the principles of equality of political rights granted to French Jews by the "Assemblee Const ituante in 1791

Keeping the Algerian Jews' disfranchised is the last hope of the fascists die-hards, There are not many Frenchmen of French ancestry in some parts of Algeria. I lived in a little community where out of 40 voters, only one was of pure French heritage. The others were of Spanish, Maltese, Italian or Algerian Jewish ancestry. Now the majority of voters there will probably be fascist.

Wealthy landowners and industrialists in Algeria are anti-democratic. The people of recent Italian and Spanish ancestry have naturally been siibjected to fascist propaganda from the old country0 In many cases the Jewish vote would save democratic institutions. This is the real reason why the Algerian Jew, often more French than his enemies, is now deprived of the vote.

There is a bare chance that the republican majority of 1936 will become a minority, as some inspired propaganda has already claimed in dispatches from North Africa. The anti-democrats want that chance. It is now or never0

The anti -Jewish statements made to the press have been too often insincere* The Moslems do not care to become French, because they do not want to come under the French civil law. Accepting that law is to than a sacrilege, and it is also a foolish act. "Why should they give up their privileges as males? Why accept to serve in th* French Army as Frenchmen and eat pork and impure meat slaughtered without the name of Allah?"

Professor Francis Henri Perrin, Professor of Physics at the Sorbonne in Paris and visiting Professor at Columbia University, a son of the late Jean Perrin, Noble Prize winner and one time President of the French Academy of Science, expressed on April 6 his indignation at General Giraud's action in nullifying the Cremieux tew.

He said in a statement of that date:

"It is not possible to state in a few words all the reasons for my indignation when I read in the speech of General Giraud that he had decided to abrogate the Cremieux Decree.

"Firstly, General Giraud has no right, when he pretends to return to Republican legality, to repeal ono of the oldest laws of the French 'Republic, maintained during 70 years by all the Republican Governments, -whatever their political slant -- especially a law of great importance in the only part of France now liberatedo o o 0 o

Thirdly, the word "Natives" applied to Algerian Jews is purposely deceitful. The Algerian Jews have enjoyed French citizenship for three generations, they have been taught in Frenoh schools, they have fought as French soldiers during the First and Second - 32 -

World Wars, they have fully acquired French civilization, they speak French, they think and feel as other Frenchmen,, they are French. The Arabs who desired to keep, mostly for religious reasons, their old customs, laws and language, may be called natives; they are the nmjority in North Africa and the situation of the French minority will be difficult if more political rights are too quickly extended to the Arabs."

In such a situation, to try to reduce the French Group to a still smaller minority is tantamount to displacing the equilibrium dangerously ..."

"Perhaps the following comparison may help some Americans to understand the meaning of the decision taken by General Girauds

If the fear of the electoral influence of a Cntholic Group in Texas led to a law depriving of their citizenship all the American citizens of Spanish origin whose ancestors had become citizens when Texas was integrated into the United States, and if this law was presented as suppressing some racial discrimination between the Spanish Americans and the Indians, such a law would be similar to the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree." • = '

TOiile many other French or American writers followed suit (Henry Torres in "Free World", Varion Fry in "New Republic" etc.,)no voice of any legal, political or intellectual Frenoh leader was raised in opposition. General de Gaulle s National Committee pronounced itself in London on May 5, 1943, against the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree. France For Ever and the Committee of French Intellectual Republicans in the United States took the side of the maintenance of French Republican Law against all such encroachments as General Giraud's decision.

Position of the American Press; After some hesitation it seems that the American _——— press, in New York anyhow, and most of the radio commentators, followed the same lead. •

It would be impossible to recall in this brief all the articles published in the American Press, in such papers as "Times," "New York Herald" etc. Most of their arguments were summarized in an editorial of the New York Post published as early as March 26, 1943, which statedj

"Ihat kind of "liberation" did our Army bring to North Africa, when it enabled General Giraud with a stroke of the pen to denaturalize 100,000 native born citizens?

Giraud did the trick by revoking one of the oldest laws of the French Republic while winning our applause for restoring them.

The one he revoked was the Cremieux Decree of 1870. It conferred French citizenship upon the native born Jews of Algeria. It was never an obstacle to the obtaining of French citizenship by the Moslems.

The effect of Giraud's action is to leave Hitler's anti-semitic laws on the books. The Jews of Algeria have none of the rights of citizenship. They may not vote. They nay not be officers in the Army.

Giraud's excuse for reducing the Jews to stateless status is that he wants to keep down anti-Semitism among the Moslems in Algeria«

So to keep down anti-semitism he lets anti-semit ism have its way. - 33 -

The Moslems, he makes it appear, resent the Jews' citizenship. If that is true, why not confer citizenship on the Moslems, by any liberalization of the law that might be necessary? If they -value citizenship highly, as do the Jews, why not let them have it on equal term§?

Fact is, the Crenioux Decree has nothing to do with whether a Moslem becomes a citizen or not. The Jews were perfectly willing to live under the laws of the French Republic: the Moslems never were.

Is Giraud, under the pretense of "liberalization" making sure that French reaction in North Africa keeps the votes and the power? And using a Hitler method to do it?"

No responsible voice was raised in favor of- We have not been aware of any important General Giraud's decision; American newspaper men, lawyers, or • intellectuals, supporting the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree. It seens that the principles involved, racial or religious discrimination, denationalizing of innocent citizens and retro-active lav/a, are just as repulsive to the American mind, as they are to the French mind.

The abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is opposed The above is easy to understand. To all the sacred principles of democracy; ^ The American Bill of Rights and the French declaration of the Rights of Man aro based on the same faith that men are born equal and that no discrimination should be made between them for religious or racial reasons.

In both American and French legislation retroactive laws, depriving citizens of their legally acquired rights, and especially of their nationality, are banned with the same emphasis. . . _ »

At.a time, when the hopes of civilized nations for a durable peace after this war have been pronounced in the Atlantic Charter and its Four Points, General Giraud's unfortunate move has come as a blow to the whole democratic world, the more so, as it involves the first territory liberated by the troops of those who proclaimed the principles of human rights constituting the Altantic Charter.

This was the more striking, as General Giraud, in his speech of March 14, 1943, insisted on the fact that the laws of the French Republic were the only ones with legal value in France and its Empire, quoting from President Lincoln's world'famous words of a Government by the people for the people.

No democratic mind will admit that the inspiring address of President Lincoln could be used to shield such an illegal attack on the rights of ran, as the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree. .

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree, as we have demonstrated, is a violation of the sacred rights of the human personality and the legal principles respected by all civilized nations, ns well as the organic laws of the French Republic.

It is a formal contradiction of all the declarations made by the distinguished ". leaders of the United Nations, and particularly of the Atlantic Charter. From a purely national point of view the precedent created by it, contrary to the liberating mission of France, is likely to have disastrous effects on the unity of overseas French territories after the Victory. - 34 -

The abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is an affront both to history and law and constitutes purely and simply an anti-semitic measure, despite the strongly worded assurances by General Giraud in his speech of torch 14. Only by outrageous sophistry is it possible to proclaim the intention of eliminating all racial discrimination between Jews and Arabs by depriving the former of their Freftoh citizenship, thus setting up a pretense of equality between Jews and the Arabs, who never wished to avail themselves of the facilities for beooming French oitizeno, which became a real right under the 1919 law.

On the other hand the Frenchmen who are now keing deprived of their citizenship by the repeal of a Law of the Republic, have never ceased honorably to perform their tasks and obligations as citizens in all walks of life and on the battlefielfe. During the landing of American troops in North Africa, the Allied Military Chiefs oould easily observe which part of the population offered them their whole- hearted and unlimited collaboration.

The Jews of Algeria, as Frenchmen and Jews equally hostile to all racial prejudice, have never raised their voice against the admission of the Arabs to French citizenship. It was not upon them that the obligation rested to find a solution for this national groblem. This is rather the task of the legislators eledted by the nation as well as of the Arabs themselves.

French traditions and Republican law forbid the withdrawal of French citizen- ship from French oitizens whose only fault is their loyalty to ttie republican and demooratio spirit of their country. Only the contagious effects of Fascist and Nazi propaganda - the weapons of the Axis, which it is the duty of all the democrats in all democracies to combat and destroy - can account for a procedure so unjust, so rrievous and so unworthy. ° ' 6 '

The ordinances of General Giraud of which we have given a translation above as well as the military measures and memorandum against thejews, are proof that the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree is only part of a deliberate scheme to keep all French Jews in a state of fear and uncertainty and to place them as second-ckss citizens under thj arbitrary rule of civil and military chiefs, who for the largest part are confirmed Q nti—Semites •

The intention of lowering their present status not only now, but also after the war, is evident and avowed. -

4.x. v W!,sinoerelv h°P» to contribute through this brief to the cancellation of the abrogation of the Cremieux Decree, which should be done after an impartial examina- !J°J ,, ,