[Communicated to the Members C. 273. 1925. I of the Council.] 41/41456/17190 41/44164/17190 Geneva, May 20tli, 1925. LEAGUE OF NATIONS JEWISH MINORITIES IN HUNGARY COMMUNICATION WITH ANNEXES BY Mr LUCIEN WOLF CONCERNING THE HUNGARIAN LAW No XXV, 1920, ON THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” Note by the Secretary-General : On September 30th, 1922, the Council adopted a report submitted by the representatives of Spain, Belgium and China regarding a petition signed by Mr. Lucien W o l f on behalf of the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Je wish Association on the Hungarian Law No. XXV, 1920, which introduced the “ Numerus Clausus ” into higher educational institutions in Hungary. In this report, these three representatives, after expressing the opinion that it was first of all necessary to ascertain how' the Law was applied and whether in practice the legitimate rights of the minorities were prejudiced, proposed to the Council that it should request the Hungarian Government to supply the necessary information in order that it might be possible to study the applica­ tion of the Law in question over a certain period. Count Banffy, at that time Minister of Foreign Affairs in Hungary, who was present at the meeting of the Council, stated that the Hungarian Government would supply the Council with all the necessary information on the application of this Law and, in accordance with this statement, the Hungarian Government has on two occasions furnished the Members of the Council with statistical information on the matter. The Secretary-General now has the honour to circulate, for the information of the Members of the Council, a further communication on the same subject, together with annexes, also signed b y Mr.W o l f on behalf of the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Je wish Association. This communication was forwarded to the Hungarian Government for its observations on January 28th, 1925. The Hungarian Government’s observations, which have just reached the Secretariat, are also circulated for the information of the Members of the Council. S. d. N. 175 (F) S6U (A) + ttUU ( I ) 22 > <A) 1012& Im p. tie Tribune <le tienèvtv I COMMUNICATION BY Mr. LUCIEN WOLF 2, Verulam Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London. Jan u ary 1st, 1925. 1. This Committee has lately had under its earnest consideration the deplorable situation created in Hungary and in other countries by the Hungarian Law No. XXV of the year 1920, known as the “Numerus Clausus” (Annex I). It has formed the opinion that the time has arrived when some definite step should be taken to decide whether the Law in question is or is not an infraction of the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon. 2. I am accordingly directed to ask you to be good enough to communicate this view to the Council of the League of Nations, and to express the hope that the Council may see fit to submit the question of the validity of the Law to the Permanent Court of International Justice for an Advisory Opinion, in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 14 of the Covenant. 3. I am to remind you that this question has been pending before the Council for more than three years, and that, it was the subject of a resolution adopted by the Council on September 30th, 1922. The Joint Foreign Committee, with whom is associated the kjAlliance Israélite universelle” of Paris, had contended that the Hungarian Law constituted an infringement of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon, and the “Alliance toraélite” had furthermore protested against the application of the Law to Jews, on the ground that they did not come within its provisions (Annex II). The Committee of the Council which considered the question in the first instance postponed the legal issues raised by the Joint Foreign Committee and the “Alliance Israelite”, and recommended the Council to enquire into the application of the Law and as to “whether in practice the legi­ timate rights of minorities are disregarded” (Annex III). This recommendation was adopted by the resolution referred to above, and the Hungarian Government was requested to supply the necessary information (Annex IV). On January 24th, 1923, the Hungarian Government forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League a statistical return which appeared to show that the Jews did not suffer by the application of the Law. Since then nothing has been done. 1 11 4. The grounds on which the Joint Foreign Committee now asks that the validity 6f the Hungarian Law shall be decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice &re as follows : ii (a) The Committee has been advised by Counsel, whose opinion is annexed that the Hungarian Law is in direct conflict with the Minorities Provisions of the Treaty of Trianon (Annex V). (b) Even if the application of the Law in Hungary caused no actual suffering to Hungarian Jews, a decision of the legal question would be necessary because the immunity enjoyed by Hungary in this respect has encouraged other countries in Central and Eastern Europe to contemplate similar legislation avowedly aimed at Jews, and has actually given rise to popular agitations which have caused much suffering among them (Annex VI). (<?) The statistical tables filed by the Hungarian Government on January 24th, 1923, are misleading. The legitimate rights of the Jewish Minority are disregarded in practice as well as in theory, and this to the hurt, not only of the Hungarian Jews themselves, but of the Jewish communities of other countries who art- called upon to make heavy sacrifices for the support of thousands of Jewish stu­ dents expatriated through the anti-Semitic “application” of the Hungarian “Numerus Clausus” Law (Annex VII). 5. The Joint Foreign Committee ventures to suggest that the questions to be sub­ mitted to the Permanent Court should be in the following form : (a) Is the Hungarian Law No. XXV of the year 1920 an infraction of the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon, and more particularly of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of th at T reaty ? ( b) If the answer is in the negative, that is, if the Court hold that the Law is not in itself an infraction of the Treaty, is the Law so applied in practice as to constitute such an infraction (see Annex VIII) f 6. The Joint Foreign Committee thinks it desirable to state that, in making this application to the Council of the League, it has no definite mandate from the Hungarian Jewish community as an organised body, although many appeals have reached it from Jewish Societies and individual Jews in Hungary, as also from the Jewish students expatriated through the operation of the “Numerus Clausus” Law. The grounds on which the leaders of the Hungarian Jews decline to appeal to the League of Nations have been recently set forth in speeches of the President and Vice-President of the Budapest Community (see Annex VII b). But in view of the virulence of the anti-Semitic agitation in Hungary, it will be readily understood that the Jewish community are scarcely free agents in this matter. However that may be, the international reactions of the Hungarian “Numerus Clausus” Law are so serious as to render it impossible for the Joint Foreign Committee to avoid seeking a judgment of the Permanent Court. 7. In elucidation of the case set forth above, various documents and memoranda are annexed. These documents have, however, been mainly selected with a view to assisting the Council of the League in arriving at a conclusion on the question whether the case should be submitted to the Permanent Court. If this question is decided in the affirmative, the Joint Foreign Committee trusts that it may be afforded an opportunity of submitting further arguments on the main question for the consideration of the Court. (Signed) Lucien W o lf. Secretary. LIST OF ANNEXES T. Text of the “Num erus Clausus” L aw .................................................. 4 II. The Jewish Appeals to the League of Nations.................................... 5 III. Report on the “Numerus Clausus”, submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Representatives of Belgium, China and Spain, Septem ber 27th, 1922................................................................. 6 IV. Extract from the Minutes of the Twenty-first Session of the Council of the League of Nations.......................................................................... 7 V. Opinion of Dr. Hugh B e l l o t on the Validity of the “Numerus Clausus” Law ............................................................................................................................... 7 VI. Note on the ‘‘Numerus Clausus” in Austria, Poland, Boumania, etc.... 9 VII. How the Minorities suffer under the “Numerus Clausus” Law : (a) Statement of the Budapest Jewish Community............. 10 (b) Speeches at a Conference of Hungarian Jewish Communities on October 23rd, 1924................................................................. 14 V III. The Method of Applying the Law to Jew s........................................... 15 — 4 — Annex I. TEXT OF THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” LAW. [ Translation. ] L a w X X V o f 1920, r e l a t iv e to M atriculation at t h e U niversities , t h e P o l y t e c h n ic S c h o o l , t h e B u d a p e s t U n i v e r s it y of E c o n o m ic S c ie n c e s , a n d t h e A c a d e m ie s (F a c u l t ie s ) o f L a w . (Promulgated in the Hungarian Law Gazette on September 26th, 1920.) To all whom it may concern, I hereby declare that the National Hungarian Assembly has enacted the following Law : I.