[Communicated to the Members Official N o.: O. 5. 1935. I. of the Council.] Geneva, January 5th, 1935. LEAGUE OF NATIONS PROTECTION OF MINORITIES SIXTH ANNUAL COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONS BY MINORITIES COMMITTEES 1934 NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. In accordance with the terms of paragraph 4 (ii) of the Council resolution of June 13th, 1929, the Secretary-General has the honour to circulate, for the information of the Members of the Council, copies of the letters communicated to them during the year 1934 under paragraph 4 (i) of this resolution. The following are the letters in question : Page 1. Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Australia and Italy concerning a Petition from Baron S. Perenyi, President of the “ National Hungarian Federation ” (document C .615.1933.I)............................................................................................................ 3 2. Letter from the Representatives of Mexico, China and Czechoslovakia concerning a Petition from M. B. S. Nicolas, dated August 18th, 1933 (document C.483.1933.1) 4 3. Letter from the Representatives of France and Poland concerning a Petition from Mme. Véhibé Hayati Hulussi, of Janina (document C.404.1932.1) ........................... 5 4. Letter from the Representatives of Italy, Australia and Spain concerning (1) a Petition presented by M. Motzkin, President of the “ Committee of Jewish Dele­ gations ", and M. Margulies, President of the Jewish Party in Czechoslovakia, on behalf of the said Committee, of the " American Jewish Congress ” and a certain number of Jewish Institutions in various countries, and (2) a Petition from the Jewish Club of the Diet of the Polish Republic (documents C.315 and C.438.1933.1) 12 5' Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Denmark and France concerning a Petition from M. Ernst Pleschke (document C.624.1933.1) ......................................... 13 6. Letter from the Representatives of Portugal, Poland and Denmark concerning Petitions of the Bulgarian Monastery “ Zograf ” and of the Russian Monastery St. Panteleimon, on Mount Athos (document C.591.1932.1) .................................... 14 7- Letter from the Representatives of France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Mexico and Spain concerning Petitions from M. Graebe, M. Utta and M. Pant, M. Franz and M. Jankowski (documents C.306, C.498, C.500 and C.647.1932.1; C.193, C.260, C.688 and C.689.1933.I ; C. 153,0.174 and C.532.1932.I ; C.621.1933.1 ; C.404.1933.I) 15 8- Letter from the Representatives of France, Denmark and Mexico concerning a Petition from M. Emeric Prokopy, dated June 1931 (document C.44.1932.I) . 22 9- Letter from the Representatives of Mexico, Denmark and Spain concerning a Petition from M. Pelensky, Deputy (document C.612.1932.1) .................................................. 26 I0- Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Australia and Italy concerning a Petition from the Committee of the Jewish Community of Praszka (document C.692.1933.1) 26 Iz- Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Argentine and China concerning a Petition from M. Alfred Wertheimer, of Bratislava (document C.31.1934.1) . 27 I2, Letter from the Representatives of Panama, the United Kingdom and Portugal concerning a Petition from M. Arvay Arpad and M. Daroczy Kiss Lajos (document C.612.1933.I)........................................ 28 *N"' 25° (ï\)_i5o (A.) 12/34. Imp. Kundig. Page 13. Letter from the Representatives of Mexico, Denmark and Poland concerning a Petition from Dr. Leon de Deak and nine other persons (document C.493.1933.I) 29 14. Letter from the Representatives of Panama, the United Kingdom and Denmark concerning a Petition relating to M. Emeric Dôczi (document C.639.1933.1) . « 15. Letter from the Representatives of Denmark, China and Italy concerning a Petition from M. Z. Pelensky (document C.540.1933.1) ............................................................... 33 16. Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Czechoslovakia and Portugal concerning a Petition, dated September 20th, 1933, from the Bulgarian Monastery “ Zograf ”, on Mount Athos (document C.17.1934.1) ........................................................................ 34 17. Letter from the Representatives of Panama, Denmark and France concerning Petitions from M. Anghel Stoyanoff (documents C.646, C.659.1933 and C.153.1934.1) . 36 18. Letter from the Representatives of Australia, Czechoslovakia and Portugal concerning a Petition from M. 0 . Essayan (document C.23.1933.1) ............................................. 3 7 19. Letter from the Representatives of France, Denmark and Poland concerning a Petition of Mgr. Neophyte and certain other Prelates (documents C.431.1932.1 and C .432.1932.I)......................................................................................................................... 38 20. Letter from the Representatives of Mexico, the United Kingdom and Denmark concerning a Petition from Dr. André Gaal (document C.433.1933.I).................. 40 21. Letter from the Representatives of Mexico, Australia and Spain concerning a Petition from Dr. Pal Gabor and Dr. Lazlô Deszô (document C.601.1930.1) 41 — 3 — r L e t t e r from the Representatives of Panama, Australia and Italy concerning a Petition from Baron S. Perenyi, President of the “National Hungarian Federation”. U nder the Council resolution of October 25th, 1920, a Minorities Committee, of which w e have had the honour to be members, was called upon to examine a petition from Baron S. Perenyi, President of the “ National Hungarian Federation ”, Budapest, concerning the situation of the H u ngarian minority in Transylvania, and the observations of the Roumanian Government thereon (document C.615.1933.I). 1. Subject of the Petition. The petitioner alleges that, during the first half of 1933, in consequence of anti-revisionist demonstrations in Roumania, minority citizens of Hungarian origin were victims of organised attacks by a section of the Roumanian population in various Transylvanian villages, and suffered physical injury and damage to property. The authorities, he asserts, did not take sufficiently drastic action during these incidents, and, indeed, left their promoters unpunished in the majority of cases, which, in the petitioner's view, means that there is reason to fear a repetition. Place names and specific facts are mentioned in support of these allegations. The most serious incident occurred, he says, on May 28th last, at Turda, a town with a predominantly Hungarian population, to which, on the occasion of an anti-revisionist demonstra­ tion, a large number of Roumanian mountaineers from the surrounding country were conveyed free of charge by special train. When the mountaineers were returning to their villages, they compelled the engine-driver to stop at the Hungarian village of Cornesti (Sinfalva), and, led by the son of the Roumanian priest, they looted the houses of well-to-do Hungarians. The Unitarian minister, Thomas Arkossy, had to be taken to hospital at Cluj in consequence of the rough handling he suffered. Furthermore, Alexander Hadju, a farmer aged 65, died of his injuries, after seeing his house attacked and his family maltreated. The petitioner gives the names of several other victims of violence. Two hours later, he states, the attackers stopped at the Hungarian village of Borrév, where less serious incidents took place. According to the petitioner, the Roumanian authorities prosecuted only two young men, and the captain of the gendarmerie took the view that, apart from a few broken windows and damaged articles of furniture, the incidents were not at all serious. The petitioner adds that the Hungarians affected had done nothing during the anti-revisionist demonstrations that could justify violent reprisals. 2. Summary of the Roumanian Government’s Observations. The Roumanian Government formally denies all the petitioner’s allegations as to the vexatious or violent character of the anti-revisionist demonstrations organised all over Roumania in May last; these, it asserts, proceeded in the most complete order and calm. In support of this statem ent, it quotes extracts from articles published in Hungarian minority newspapers at the time. As for the incidents at the village of Cornesti, the Government asserts that they did not in any way arise out of the demonstrations in question. It states that a dispute arose in connection with a dance in which both young Roumanians and young Hungarians took part. Hearing of this, the Magyar members of the parish council hastened to chastise the young Roumanians, who then decided to organise a demonstration against their assailants, with the support of Roumanians from the surrounding villages. Returning from the Turda demonstration on May 28th, they went down at 4.35 p.m. to Cornesti, where brawls developed and windows were broken. The demon­ strators then resumed their train journey at 5.30 p.m. In connection with this incident, the Roumanian Government desires to specify that, with regard more particularly to the death of Alexander Hadju, his widow stated, at the enquiry held on the spot by the authorities, that it was true that her husband had died on the evening of May 28th, but that he had died of a disease from which he had been suffering for twelve years. She further stated that the demonstrators had not even approached the deceased’s house. Moreover, the minister Arkossy himself said that his removal to hospital was not due to any attack upon him that day. The Government also wishes to deny that the authorities did not take the immediately necessary steps to restore order. On the contrary, a detachment of gendarmerie was quickly sent to the spot, and, in the Government’s view, the speed with wrhich this was done must be regarded as a guarantee of adequate safety for the future. It adds that, in consequence of the enquiry conducted locally, the notary and the m ayor of Cornesti were suspended from their offices, and the furda public prosecution office promptly arrested twenty-four persons who were suspected of being the ringleaders of the attack. The damage done was estimated at the enquiry at about 1,000 Swiss francs. 3.