LEAGUE OF NATIONS FREE CITY OF DANZIG TREATMENT OF POLISH NATIONALS AND OTHER PERSONS OF POLISH ORIGIN OR SPEECH AT DANZIG

Transcription

1 [Distributed to the Members of the Council.] Official No. : C I. Geneva, April 15th, LEAGUE OF NATIONS FREE CITY OF DANZIG TREATMENT OF POLISH NATIONALS AND OTHER PERSONS OF POLISH ORIGIN OR SPEECH AT DANZIG r e q u e s t f o r a n a d v is o r y o p i n i o n f r o m t h e p e r m a n e n t COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE. Note by the Secretary- General : The Secretary-General has the honour to circulate for the consideration of the Members of the Council a copy of a letter from the High Commissioner at Danzig, dated March 31st, 1931 (with two appendices), in which the High Commissioner requests the Council to ask the Perm anent Court of International Justice to give an advisory opinion on the legal points upon which the Danzig and Polish Governments differ, regarding the question a t present before the High Commissioner for decision, as to the treatm ent of Polish nationals and other persons of Polish origin or speech a t Danzig. The respective contentions of the two Governments are set out in the two m em oranda attached to the High Commissioner s letter : (1) M emorandum from the Polish Governm ent (with annex), and covering letter from the Polish diplomatic representative a t Danzig, dated March 26th, 1931; (2) M emorandum from the Danzig Government, with a covering letter from the President of the Danzig Senate, dated March 26th, L e t t e r fr o m t h e H ig h C o m m is s io n e r t o t h e S e c r e t a r y -G e n e r a l. ['Translation.] Danzig, March 31st, On September 30th, 1930, the Polish Government communicated to me, under the term s of Article 39 of the T reaty of Paris of November 9th, 1920, a request for a decision concerning the treatm ent of Polish nationals and other persons of Polish origin or speech at Danzig. The Polish Government bases this request, in particular, on Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles and Article 33 of the Paris T reaty concluded in virtue of Article 104. The exchange of documents in conformity w ith the procedure in force has shown th a t the views of the two Governments are still sharply divided, particularly with regard to the interpretation of Article 33 of the Paris Treaty, as had already been noted in Article 229 of the Warsaw Agreement of October 24th, 1921, and Chapter II I of the Danzig-Polish Agreement of September 1st, It would serve no useful purpose to examine the numerous concrete points subm itted to me for decision in the above-mentioned request of the Polish Government before the legal problems involved have been settled beyond dispute. As I have had occasion to note, the procedure established by the Council on June n t h, 1925, to the effect th a t the High Commissioner m ay consult experts before giving his decision is of little help in this instance. Owing to the weighty consequences of an interpretation one way or the other of the article in question, the party whose argum ents are rejected will certainly appeal from my decision to the Council unless my decision is based upon a legal opinion of indisputable authority. In view, therefore, of the decision I am called upon to take, I venture, in agreement with the parties, to draw the Council s attention to the em inent desirability of asking the Perm anent Court of International Justice to give forth- 1 Note by the Secretary- General : See Official Journal, November 1923, pages 1419 and S. d.n ( F. ) (A.) 4 /3 1. I m p. K u n d ig.

2 with an advisory opinion on the legal points on which the two Governments differ. In view of the possible submission of the question to the Court, each Government has attached a memorandum setting out its argum ents (Appendices I and II). (Signed) M. G r a v in a. Appendix I. C o v e r in g L e t t e r fr o m t h e P o l ish D ipl o m a t ic R e p r e s e n t a t iv e a t D a n z ig t o t h e H ig h Co m m is s io n e r. [Translation.'] Danzig, March 26th, W ith reference to your letter of the n t h inst., No. 9/B/116, I have the honour to forward to you herewith a mem orandum dealing fully with the arguments in regard to Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles and Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris. (Signed) H enryk St r a s b u r g e r. [Translation.] MEMORANDUM FROM T H E PO LISH GOVERNMENT. I. Article 102 of the T reaty of Versailles provided for the establishm ent of the Free City of Danzig in the following term s : The Principal Allied and Associated Powers undertake to establish the town of Danzig, together with the rest of the territory described in Article 100, as a Free City. It will be placed under the protection of the League of N ations. Article 103 of the same T reaty provides th a t the powers of the organs of the League shall be as follows: A Constitution for' the Free City of Danzig shall be drawn up by the duly appointed representatives of the Free City in agreement with a High Commissioner to be appointed by the League of Nations. This Constitution shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. The High Commissioner will also be entrusted w ith the duty of dealing in the first instance with all differences arising between Poland and the Free City of Danzig in regard to this T reaty or any arrangements or agreements made thereunder. The High Commissioner shall reside at Danzig. Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles defines the rights of Poland in Danzig and in regard to Danzig : The Principal Allied and Associated Powers undertake to negotiate a T reaty between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig, which shall come into force at the same tim e as the establishm ent of the said Free City, w ith the following objects : (1) To effect the inclusion of the Free City of Danzig within the Polish Customs frontiers, and to establish a free area in the port; (2) To ensure to Poland w ithout any restriction the free use and service of all waterways, docks, basins, wharves and other works within the territory of the Free City necessary for Polish im ports and exports ; (3) To ensure to Poland the control and adm inistration of the Vistula and of the whole railway system within the Free City, except such street and other railways as serve prim arily the needs of the Free City, and of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication between Poland and the port of Danzig; (4) To ensure to Poland the right to develop and improve the waterways, docks, basins, wharves, railways and other works and means of communication m entioned in this article, as well as to lease or purchase through appropriate processes such land and other property as m ay be necessary for these purposes ; (5) To provide against any discrimination within the Free City of Danzig to the detrim ent of citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech ; (6) To provide th a t the Polish Government shall undertake the conduct of the foreign relations of the Free City of Danzig as well as the diplom atic protection citizens of th at city when abroad. Articles 102, 103 and 104 of the T reaty of Versailles are the realisation of the free and secure access to the sea promised to Poland in Point 13 of the historical speech of President Wilson to Congress in W ashington on Jan u ary 8th, Danzig was withdrawn from the German Reich because there was no other means of providing this free and secure access to the sea which the Germans had promised to grant (letter from the Peace Conference to the President of the German delegation, June 16th, 1919).

3 3 In their reply to the observations of the Germ an delegation, the Allied and Associated Powers indicated more fully the reasons for the separation of Danzig from the Reich and for the rights conferred on Poland in Danzig : The proposed settlem ent for Danzig has been draw n up w ith the m ost scrupulous care, and will preserve the character which Danzig held during m any centuries, and, indeed, until forcibly and contrary to the will of the inhabitants it was annexed to the Prussian State. The population of Danzig is and has for long been predom inantly German ; ju st for this reason, it is not proposed to incorporate it in Poland. B ut Danzig, when a H ansa city, like m any other H ansa cities, lay outside the political frontiers of Germ any and, in union with Poland, enjoyed a large m easure of local independence and great commercial prosperity. It will now be replaced in a position sim ilar to th a t which it held for so m any centuries. The economic interests of Danzig and Poland are identical. For Danzig, as the great port of the valley of the Vistula, the m ost intim ate connection w ith Poland is essential. The annexation of W est Prussia, including Danzig, to Germany deprived Poland of th a t direct access to the sea which was hers by right. The Allied and Associated Powers propose th at this direct access shall be restored. It is not enough th a t Poland should be allowed the use of German ports ; the coast, short as it is, which is Polish m ust be restored to her. Poland claims, and justly claims, th at the control and development of the port which is her sole opening to the sea shall be in her hands and th a t the com m unications between it and Poland shall not be subjected to any foreign control, so th a t in this, one of the m ost im portant aspects of national life, Poland should be p u t on an equality w ith the other States of E urope. The above-m entioned provisions of the T reaty of Versailles, together with the statem ent of the grounds for their adoption given b y the Allied and Associated Powers, allow the following conclusions to be drawn : (1) The creation of the Free City is the result of a compromise between two aim s: the principal aim to ensure for Poland free and secure access to the sea; and the secondary aim to guarantee to the people of Danzig and of the neighbouring territory a national development of their own. If the Allies had not intended to guarantee to Poland free access to the sea, Danzig would not have been detached from the Reich. On the other hand, if there had been no intention to guarantee to the population a free national development, Danzig would not have been formed into a Free City, non-incorporated in the Polish State. The special provisions of the T reaty of Versailles laying down the rights of Poland in Danzig and towards Danzig have therefore at least the same value and scope as the provisions for the independent national existence of the Free City. The former cannot be regarded as exceptions or juridical departures from the general rules introduced by the latter. (2) The rights in favour of Poland provided for in Article 104 of the T reaty are an organic and essential p art of the legal international and constitutional structure of the Free City of Danzig; these rights are the legal condition for the existence of the Free City as a territorial unit and they are indissolubly connected with its foundation. They are not in any way norm al international undertakings voluntarily accepted within the sphere of norm al international relations b y two parties in international law. (3) All the particular rights arising for Poland out of Article 104 of the T reaty form an organic whole ; they are closely connected one to another and remain interdependent as a logical and juridical consequence of the supreme right of " free and secure access to the sea recognised to Poland. The interpretation of the special provisions m ust therefore take account of the organic connection of these latter w ith their supreme principle, and also with all the other provisions resulting therefrom. (4) The rights recognised to Poland in Article 104 of the T reaty are of a direct nature. Poland has become the direct subject of these rights, by being a signatory of the T reaty of Versailles. The fact th a t the subsequent Treaty, in accordance w ith the first sentence of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, had to define more exactly the term s of these rights does not change their direct nature, resulting from the fact th a t they are elements in the organic political structure of the Free City established on behalf and in the interest of Poland. (5) In virtue of Article 103 of the T reaty of Versailles, the rights of the Polish State in Danzig are placed under a twofold protection. They are implied in the co-operation of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations in the drawing up of the Constitution of Danzig and in the League of N ations guarantee of th at Constitution. On the other hand, they are guaranteed by the compulsory arbitration of the High Commissioner in all differences arising between Poland and the Free City of Danzig in regard to the T reaty of Versailles and arrangem ents or agreements m ade thereunder. The m ention of the T reaty of Versailles in this connection is, moreover, another proof of the direct nature of Poland s rights as recognised in Article 104. The foregoing conclusions are confirmed in the report of Viscount Ishii, approved by the Council of the League of Nations on November 17th, 1920, in regard to the protection to be given to the Free City by the League of Nations and the guarantee of the Danzig Constitution.

4 4 In laying down the principles th at should guide the League of Nations in taking Danzig under its protection and in guaranteeing the Danzig Constitution, Viscount Ishii expressed the following views : It is obvious th a t the guarantee of the Constitution and the protection given by the League are intim ately connected. The fundam ental idea is th at the Free City should form in the international organisation of Europe a com m unity which m ust be protected against all undue interference on the p art of any country, and which m ust have its own regular existence. It is, of course, understood th at it would accept in their entirety the terms of the T reaty of Versailles and the rights which this T reaty confers on Poland. I t would seem to follow from these considerations th at the League of Nations should examine w hether this Constitution provides the necessary guarantees for a stable and peaceable political situation, and will ensure a Government which will carry out its duties in accordance with the principles on which the Free City has been constituted, and likewise the obligations which have been imposed upon it by the Peace T reaty of Versailles. It is particularly necessary to see w hether the Constitution of the Free City contains germs of disorder, inadequate government, anarchy or disregard for international obligations. In accordance w ith these principles, Viscount Ishii considered the draft Constitution drawn up by the representatives of the population of Danzig and proposed a series of amendments and changes, nearly all of which had in view a closer adaptation of the Constitution to the provisions of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles. II. Paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles contains the following provision : A Treaty... shall come into force... w ith the following objects:... to provide against any discrimination within the Free City of Danzig to the detrim ent of nationals of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech. This provision is perfectly clear and leaves no room for doubt as to the following points: 1. The above provision relates, in the first place, to Polish citizens, b u t it also relates to all other persons of Polish origin or speech whatever be their citizenship i.e., Danzig citizens and persons who are not citizens of Danzig or of Poland. 2. All these categories of persons are regarded as a uniform group of inhabitants of the Free City united by the common bond of Polish national character. 3. In favour of this group a principle has been laid down, the effect of which is expressed in the words th at no discrimination shall be made to its detrim ent in the Free City of Danzig In examining more closely the meaning of these three points, it is essential to note the following : The formula to provide against any discrimination... to the detrim ent of the said group of persons undoubtedly refers to the treatm ent of this group of persons in the laws, in the conduct of adm inistration and in the adm inistration of justice i.e., its treatm ent by all th e elements of the territorial power of the Free City of Danzig. Although in the tex t of the provision the group of the population of the Free City w ith which comparison is made is not m entioned, it is none the less clear th at the national m ajority of Danzig citizens of German origin is referred to. This is also to be seen from the fact th at, in the group of persons in favour of which the said undertaking was imposed on the Free City of Danzig, there are included both Polish citizens and other foreign citizens of Polish origin, and also Danzig citizens of Polish origin. The legal situation of this whole group m ust, in accordance with the above provision, be entirely uniform ; and, since Danzig citizens are there involved, the comparison can only take account of the juridical treatm ent of Danzig citizens of German origin. The legal situation of persons included in paragraph 5 of Article 104 is defined in a negative m anner by the prohibition of any discrimination to their detrim ent. By the word any it was evidently intended to emphasise the absolute character of this prohibition. Regarded positively, this principle signifies the most complete and the most general equality of the rights of this group, in the whole sphere of activity of the organs of the territorial power, with Danzig citizens belonging to the German m ajority. This concerns the whole field of legal relations and all property to which the protection of the territorial power extends in particular, cultural, linguistic, national and religious property. It goes w ithout saying that, in so far as persons not of Danzig citizenship are concerned, such rights as are of a strictly political character and are, in law, essentially and indissolubly connected with citizenship, are not included in the expression treatm ent on a footing of equality for instance, the right to take p art in elections for legislative bodies, etc. The inadmissibility of the lim itative interpretation of the above provision is also to be seen from the points above stated in regard to all the rights recognised to Poland in her relations with Danzig.

5 5 Having regard to the essential purpose for which the Free City of Danzig was created nam ely, the guaranteeing to Poland of a free and secure access to the sea paragraph 5 of Article 104 m ust be regarded, not as a legal exception to the general principle which would be obligatory in Danzig, b u t as at least equal in value and equal in scope to all the other principles concerning legal relations in the territory of the Free City of Danzig. The principle of paragraph 5 of Article 104 is thus an organic part of the political structure of the Free City, one of the conditions of its existence, and is indissolubly connected with its juridical nature. The provision in which it is contained is not a norm al undertaking in international law depending on the goodwill of the contracting parties. For th a t reason, no comparison or analogy with the practice of international agreem ents or treaties of commerce, nor yet with international custom, could here apply. These sources of law are of no im portance for the interpretation of the provision in question. The full and entire equality of the rights of Polish citizens, of Danzig citizens of Polish origin and of other persons of Polish origin w ith those of the German m ajority, is, in fact and in law, the consequence of the sum total of rights belonging to Poland in Danzig and in regard to Danzig, and is attached to these rights and also to the supreme right of Poland to free and secure access to the sea. The true beneficiaries of the right of access to the sea are, above all, Polish citizens. The first and most im portant guarantee for the use by the latter of all the equipment of the port, technical, commercial and economic, is naturally the assurance to them of the most com plete equality of rights in the territory of th e port-town. The close com m unity of economic interests between Poland and the Free City of Danzig as regards Customs and communications, the solidarity and co-ordination of Poland and Danzig in foreign relations, provided for by the conduct of the foreign affairs of the Free City by Poland, and, lastly, the naturalisation of Polish citizens, provided for in Danzig such are the reasons which rendered necessary a guarantee, in Poland s favour, of the legal position of Danzig citizens of Polish origin. Paragraph 5 of Article 104 was consequently a legal necessity arising out of the complex of legal relations created by Article 104 of th e T reaty of Versailles. I t is not less im portant to observe th at, in accordance with the principles form ulated in the first chapter of the present m em orandum, paragraph 5 of Article 104 established for Poland the direct right to dem and th a t the Free City of Danzig should treat Polish citizens, Danzig citizens belonging to the Polish m inority and other persons of Polish origin in the m anner defined in th at provision ; and it m ay at the tim e be observed th a t this right has been given a twofold method of enforcement, in the guarantee of the League of N ations for the future Danzig Constitution, brought into harm ony w ith Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, and in the introduction of the compulsory arbitration of the High Commissioner as regards all differences based on Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles. The question of the treatm ent of Polish citizens and of other citizens of Polish origin, as well as th at of Danzig citizens belonging to the Polish m inority, in the whole field of legislation and adm inistration and in the adm inistration of justice, is not a domestic question for the Free City, but is subject, on the one hand, to the supervision of the organs of the League of Nations, and, on the other hand, to compulsory arbitration by these organs on the request of the Polish Government. III. The Constitution of the Free City of Danzig,1 adopted on August n t h, 1920, by the Constituent Assembly of Danzig, and confirmed on May n t h, 1922,2 by the High Commissioner of the League of Nations, subject to certain modifications, which, w ith one exception, are not of direct im portance in the present case, was strictly adapted to the term s of paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles. The provisions of the Constitution relating to the Popular Assembly, the Senate, legislation, administration, the adm inistration of justice, the autonom ous communes, education, schools and economic life do not contain any principle laying down a different treatm ent for the Polish minority as regards legislation, the conduct of the adm inistration or the adm inistration of justice. The chapters relating to fundam ental rights and duties ( " G rundrechte and Grundpflichten ) contain numerous provisions definitely establishing equality of rights for all citizens of the Free City. In Article 73 we find th e following principles : All nationals of th e Free City shall be equal before the law. Exceptional laws shall be inadmissible... There shall be no legal privileges or disqualifications due to birth, position or creed. Article 91 contains the following paragraph: All nationals of either sex shall be eligible for public appointm ents, w ith due regard to their qualifications and previous service. jvotes by the Secretary-General : 1 For the text of the Constitution, see Official Journal of July 1922; for the revised text, Official Journal, December See Official Journal, June 1922 (Second Part), page 669.

6 6 Article 96 provides for freedom of religious worship, which, in view of the close connection between religion and origin, is of the greatest im portance for the legal situation of the Polish population : There shall be complete freedom of creed and conscience. The undisturbed practice of religion shall be assured, and shall be placed under the protection of the State. Enjoyment of civil and political rights and admission to public offices shall be independent of religious creed. The cultural rights of the Polish m inority are guaranteed in a special clause to the following effect : The Polish-speaking portion of th e population shall have guaranteed its free racial development by the law and the adm inistration in particular, as regards the use of its m other-tongue in th e schools and in the internal adm inistration, as well as in the administration of justice. Details will be determ ined by law. This provision, which formed Article 5 in the original tex t of th e Constitution, was, at the request of the Council of the League of Nations, placed in Article 4, which formerly contained only the following provision : The official language shall be G erm an. In his report, referred to above, of November 17th, 1920, which was adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, Viscount Ishii very characteristically gave the reasons for this amendment by referring to the necessity for emphasising th a t the two provisions are of equal importance. The entire equality before the law of Danzig citizens of Polish origin with Danzig citizens of German origin, as provided in the Constitution, in the whole sphere of legal relations, and, above all, the rights granted to the Polish m inority in Article 4 of the Constitution, constitute the realisation of the organic restrictions of political autonom y imposed on th e Free City of Danzig by paragraph 5 of Article 104. In virtue of paragraph 5 of Article 104, in correlation with Article 103, paragraph 2, which provides for the com pulsory arbitration of all differences between Poland and Danzig arising out of the T reaty of Versailles, the Polish Government has the right to dem and th a t the Free City shall observe the said provisions of the Danzig Constitution in regard to the legal relations of the Polish m inority, and to subm it differences relating thereto to the High Commissioner of the League of Nations. IV. On November 9th, 1920, Poland and the Free City of Danzig concluded the T reaty provided for in Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, which Treaty, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the above article, was to determ ine exactly the rights granted therein to Poland. Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the above T reaty is as follows : The Free City of Danzig undertakes to apply to racial, religious and linguistic minorities provisions similar to those which are applied by Poland on Polish territory in execution of Chapter I of the T reaty concluded at Versailles on June 28th, 1919, between Poland and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to provide, in particular, against any discrimination, in legislation or in the conduct of the adm inistration, to the detrim ent of nationals of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech, in accordance w ith Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles. This provision contains two principles: (1) T hat found in the first clause and laying down rules for the treatm ent of all racial, religious and linguistic minorities in the Free City of Danzig, w ithout m entioning particular groups ; and (2) The principle contained in the second clause beginning with the words in particular (in the French tex t " notamment ) and covering the treatm ent of Polish nationals and other persons of Polish origin or speech. Leaving aside for the m om ent the logical and gram m atical relation between the two clauses which contain the two above principles, we will deal first of all with the second principle, which concerns the subject of the present dispute. The second clause of Article 33 relates to the same category of persons as th a t referred to in paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles Polish citizens, Danzig citizens of Polish origin and persons th a t are neither Polish nor Danzig citizens but are of Polish speech. The exact nature of the rights granted to this group of persons is defined by the same words as are used in paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles in particular, th at no discrimination shall be made to the detrim ent of this group ; the words in legislation or in the conduct of the adm inistration were, however, added. At the end of the clause it is explicitly stated th a t this principle is in accordance w ith Article 104. It is clear from the foregoing th at both the authors of the Treaty and the two parties, Poland and Danzig, which signed it intended to confirm integrally in the second clause of Article 33 of the Treaty the principle contained in paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, and to emphasise its compulsory nature. The words of the expression used in the T reaty of

7 7 V ersailles were textually adopted because the authors evidently considered th at th a t wording was clear and precise and gave rise to no doubt as regards interpretation. The addition of the words in legislation or in the conduct of the adm inistration added no new element to the expression in th e T reaty of Versailles, seeing th a t a principle to be observed by the organs of the te rrito ria l power evidently could not relate to other spheres than those of legislation and the conduct of the adm inistration. The second clause of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Treaty, both as regards th e persons to which it relates and the rights granted to these persons, is therefore a repetition of the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, and is also the solemn and formal declaration ly the parties concerned of the binding nature of that principle. The first clause of Article 33 is not form ally based on the T reaty of Versailles. It is nevertheless clear th a t it corresponds to the character which it was intended to give to the new territorial entity, th e Free City, including a large port and destined to play th e p art of an im portant centre of international trade. Poland s undoubtedly concerned in the highest degree in seeing that the legislation and adm inistration of the Free City should treat all m inorities in accordance with modern notions of law, and should thus facilitate the economic development of the town and port through which access to the sea has been granted to Poland. This explains th e provision contained in th e first clause of paragraph 1 of Article 33 of th e Treaty. This provision involves an undertaking by th e Free City to trea t all racial, religious and linguistic m inorities in a m anner similar to the principles in force in Poland in execution of the Treaty concluded at Versailles between Poland and the Allies on June 28th, The principles which m ust directly bind the Free City of Danzig are the essential principles of the Minorities Treaty. The corresponding provisions applied in Poland are only of value as concrete examples ; this was emphasised by th e use of the word " sim ilar. The intentions of the authors of this provision evidently could not be the mechanical transfer to the Free City of th e provisions in force in Poland, especially as the Polish m inorities are situated in very various cultural circumstances, to which conditions of life in th e Free City in no way correspond. The intention undoubtedly was to apply to Danzig the spirit and fundam ental principles on which are based the provisions obligatory in Poland. These fundam ental principles are the essential principles of th e Minorities Treaty. There is no need to analyse further, here, th e individual principles of the Minorities Treaty. It is sufficient to point out th a t this T reaty in Articles 7, 8 and 9 governs the legal situation of minorities domiciled in Poland in a m anner in every w ay identical w ith the term s of the rights granted in paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles to the group defined by the words " citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech These provisions provide for absolute equality of rights for the m inority w ith those of the Polish m ajority. In this connection the following paragraph of Article 8 of th e Minorities T reaty is characteristic : Polish nationals who belong to racial, religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatm ent and security in law and in fact as the other Polish nationals. This formula expresses positively the same idea as is contained in a negative form in the expression " to provide against any discrim ination. Besides the principles defining the legal relations of national m inorities in Poland, the Minorities T reaty contains a series of other principles p artly relating to questions of a more general nature. Thus, Article 2 provides for protection of life and liberty and th e exercise of religious worship for all inhabitants of th e Polish State w ithout distinction of birth, nationality language, race or religion. The question w hether Article 2 should also apply to Danzig is w ithout practical im portance in this case. The subject of the present dispute is not all th e questions arising out of Article 33, but only the legal situation of Polish citizens in Danzig and of Danzig citizens belonging to the Polish m inority and other persons of Polish origin or speech. Those principles which directly concern the dispute before us are decisive in particular, paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles and paragraph 1, second clause, of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris. These two provisions entirely exhaust the subject, by giving a clear and precise definition of the legal situation of Polish citizens, of Danzig citizens of Polish origin, and other persons of Polish speech and origin. As regards Danzig citizens of Polish origin, the above-mentioned principles of the Danzig Constitution also apply. However, in Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris, the provisions concerning the treatm ent in Danzig of all m inorities in general is gram m atically connected w ith the provision concerning the treatm en t of the group of persons of Polish origin namely, by the words in particular " ( notamment ). The first principle in the interpretation of international instrum ents is th at each provision contained in them m ust be interpreted so as to be capable of execution. Any m ethod of explaining the connection between the first and second clauses of paragraph 1 of Article 33 th at is capable of nullifying either of the provisions contained therein m ay be at once excluded.

8 In interpreting the connection between the provisions of the first and second clauses of paragraph i of Article 33, there is only a choice of the two following possibilities: In the first alternative the words " in particular are to be understood as strictly defining the relations between the first and second clauses; in this case the principle of full and entire equality of rights for the group of persons of Polish origin, to which also belong Polish citizens and other non-danzig citizens, is implied in the principle contained in the first clause, and logically forms one of the cases of the execution of this principle. But in th at case the word " minorities in the first clause also includes Polish citizens and other non-danzig citizens of Polish origin, to which group the so-called m inority rights, enjoyed by all minorities in conformity with thé general principle expressed in the first clause, would be fully extended. W ith this interpretation of the word minorities, the provisions of paragraph 5 of Article 104 and of the second clause of paragraph 1 of Article 33 are strictly executed. In the second possibility, the words " in particular are incorrectly used and were not intended to establish th a t logical relation between the provisions of the first and second clauses of paragraph 1 of Article 33 which results from the normal meaning of the words ; in this case, the first clause lays down a general principle for the treatm ent of all minorities in Danzig, and the second clause contains a specific principle governing the legal relations of the group of inhabitants of Polish origin in the Free City of Danzig and covering all Poles, w hatever their citizenship. Any interpretation of Article 33 of the T reaty th at conforms to the generally accepted rules for the interpretation of international instrum ents, leads to the conclusion which is in conformity with the T reaty of Versailles and the Danzig Constitution th at Polish citizens and other non- Danzig citizens of Polish origin in the territory of the Free City enjoy entire equality of rights as regards all interests th at remain under the protection of the law and of the territorial power, except strictly political rights, in the case of persons not possessing Danzig citizenship. V. The attitu d e of the Senate of the Free City departs in two respects from the views expressed above by the Polish Government. In all the particular cases of treatm ent of Polish citizens, in the legislation and the conduct of the adm inistration of Danzig, in which the Polish Government was obliged to intervene, the Senate of the Free City always denied th at Polish citizens should enjoy equality of rights in the territory of the Free City of Danzig. The Senate, in defining for its part the legal position of Polish citizens, on several occasions expressed the view th at the Free City of Danzig was solely obliged to treat them on a footing of equality with all other foreign citizens domiciled in its territory. B ut, latterly, the Senate has gone even further in denying the rights accorded to Polish citizens in the T reaty of Versailles and in the T reaty of Paris ; during the present dispute it even m aintained th at the Free City was solely obliged to apply to Polish citizens the principle contained in Article 2 of the Minorities Treaty, which merely guarantees to foreigners life and liberty and the free exercise of their religion. In support of this latter argument, the Senate refers to the relation between the first clause of paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the T reaty and the second clause to the same paragraph, and asserts th at Article 33 m ust be interpreted to the effect that, by the analogous application in Danzig of all the relevant legal provisions of the Minorities T reaty as regards all the categories of persons which they concern, the undertakings of the Free City arising out of the Treaty of Versailles have been fulfilled. The interpretation of the Senate in the present case is apparently based, it is true, on the first of the possible interpretations of Article 33 mentioned above in particular, on the supposition th a t the word " minorities includes Polish citizens. However, in endeavouring to apply to Polish citizens Article 2 of the Minorities T reaty and not the general m inority law to be found in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of th at Treaty, the Senate is evidently in conflict w ith the second clause of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris and paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, which in no case adm it of an interpretation to the effect th at Polish citizens should only enjoy protection of life, liberty and the free exercise of their religion. The Senate does not even attem pt to explain this conflict and does not seem to realise th at its interpretation involves the cancellation of these provisions. The Senate s views are, moreover, at variance with the attitude of the Danzig delegation which, in 1920, signed the T reaty of Paris. This delegation, after taking note of the final draft of the Treaty which, in contradistinction to the first draft, contained an additional second clause, in paragraph 1 of Article 33, beginning with the words in particular, asked the Conference of Ambassadors whether it would follow from th at clause th at Polish citizens would have political rights in Danzig (Annex: letter from the Danzig delegation). The Conference of Ambassadors replied th at it went w ithout saying th at political rights were not included in the second clause. It follows beyond doubt from the letter of the Danzig delegation th at the latter interpreted this clause very widely, since it had doubts on the question whether the political rights of Polish citizens were not included therein, although this, from their very nature, was impossible.

9 If the Danzig delegation had held the view th a t Polish citizens were to be treated in the «ame way as foreigners, or were solely to be granted protection of life and liberty and the free exercise of their religion, it would certainly have expressed its question quite differently, and would not merely have asked for inform ation as to political rights. The fact th at only this question was raised in the letter of the Danzig delegation proves th at the latter had no doubt as to the equality of the rights of Polish citizens in all other fields of legal relations. The difference of opinion between the Polish Governm ent and the Senate of the Free City 0f Danzig in regard to the legal position of Polish citizens in Danzig territory is certainly of decisive im portance for all the special questions relating to the treatm ent of Polish citizens in the Free City of Danzig. A second question in regard to which a difference of opinion has arisen between the parties relates to the extent to which the treatm ent of Danzig citizens of Polish origin is a purely domestic question for the Free City and does not fall w ithin the province of the organs of the Council of the League of Nations. The Polish Government, as has been said above, considers th a t the question of the treatm ent of Danzig citizens of Polish origin is entirely and on tw o grounds w ithin the province of the League of Nations, since it m ay form th e subject of the intervention of the organs of the League which supervise th e constitutional life of the Free City and may, on the other hand, form the subject of arbitration at the request of the Polish Government. The Senate of the Free City considers th a t the Polish Governm ent m ay subm it to the High Commissioner of the League of N ations m atters concerning the Polish m inority only if th at Government observes th a t the treatm ent in Danzig of Poles th at are Danzig citizens is not " similar to the measures taken in Poland in execution of the Minorities Treaty. In this connection the Senate refers to the first clause of paragraph i of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris; it states th a t this is the only rule which binds Danzig as regards Poland, and th a t the provisions both of the Danzig Constitution and of the laws and orders in force in Danzig, in so far as they go beyond the limits of the above contractual provision, cannot form the subject of dispute between Poland and Danzig. The Senate s argum ent is unsound. As we have already pointed out, it follows from the T reaty of Versailles, and from the fact that the Constitution took account of all the organic elements of the political structure of the Free City contained in th a t Treaty, th a t the treatm ent of the Polish m inority in Danzig m ay in all cases and to the fullest extent form a subject of dispute between Poland and Danzig, under Article 103 of the T reaty of Versailles. Moreover, there is another argum ent against the Senate s attitu d e to be found in the actual content of the restriction imposed on Danzig in regard tp the treatm ent of the Polish m inority. Both in paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles and in paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris and also in Article 8 of th e Minorities Treaty, the Free City is forbidden to make any discrimination in legislation and the conduct of the adm inistration between the German m ajority and the Polish m inority. It follows th a t all the provisions of the Constitution and all the Danzig laws and decrees m ust be applied in an entirely identical m anner to the German m ajority and the Polish m inority. The undertaking, so to apply its laws and decrees, binds Danzig in regard to Poland. Poland has therefore the indisputable right to claim th a t the Danzig laws shall be applied in the same m anner to the Polish m inority and to the German majority, and th a t the same equality of treatm ent shall be observed in the conduct of the Administration. Thus, if Poland fails to find this equality of treatm ent either in the application of the Constitution and the laws or in the conduct of the adm inistration, it is for her to appeal to the decision of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations. It follows from the content of the provisions in force th a t the Danzig laws, w hether they grant to the Polish m inority more than is provided in the Minorities T reaty or not, may, if only owing to the principle of equality of rights, form the subject of a dispute between Poland and Danzig. VI. The fundam ental principles on which the Polish Government based its motion subm itted to the High Commissioner on Septem ber 30th, 1930, m ay be form ulated as follows : 1. The Free City of Danzig is prohibited by paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, by the second clause of paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris, and by the Constitution of the Free City, from m aking any discrimination in adm inistration and legislation between the German m ajority, on the one hand, and Danzig citizens of Polish origin, or Polish citizens or other persons of Polish origin and speech, on the other hand. This means in particular that: (a) Polish citizens in Danzig, in accordance with the Danzig Constitution, enjoy full and entire equality of rights in every domain of public life and of private law relations,

10 10 and, in particular, by Article 4 of the said Constitution, their national development and above all, the use of the m other tongue in education, in internal adm inistration and in thé adm inistration of justice are guaranteed to them ; (b) Polish citizens enjoy full and entire equality of rights except political rights. In particular, the Free City of Danzig is bound to guarantee to them their free national development and especially the use of the m other tongue in education, internal administration and the adm inistration of justice, on the same footing as Danzig citizens. (c) citizens. All other persons of Polish origin and speech enjoy the same rights as Polish 2. It is for Poland to subm it to the organs of the League of Nations, by the metho provided for in Article 103 of the T reaty of Versailles and Article 39 of the T reaty of Paris, any dispute arising out of the execution of paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles and Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris; in particular, Poland has the right to subm it to the organs of the League of Nations disputes concerning the observance of the Danzig Constitution and the application of the laws of Danzig in regard to Poles who are Danzig citizens. Annex. L e t t e r fr o m t h e D a n z ig D e l e g a t io n to t h e P r e s id e n t o f t h e C o n f e r e n c e o f A m b a ssa d o r s. [Translation from the German.] Paris, November 5th, The Conference of Ambassadors, in its note of October 28th, 1920, has pointed out that, now as in the past, it regards the essential solutions contained in the draft T reaty communicated on October 20th as in conformity with the Treaty of Peace and unchangeable, b u t th a t it would consider as desirable an agreement between the two parties as to such additions and modifications as m ay b etter define the exact scope of certain provisions. The. Conference of Ambassadors has further emphasised th at, even w ithin these limits, no modification in the tex t of October 20th can be made, save with the approval of both parties. The Conference of Ambassadors has thus again confirmed (consacré) the principle expressed in its note of October 20th. In order to arrive at the above-mentioned agreement, M. Fromageot, on the instructions of the Conference of Ambassadors, discussed w ith M. Sahm the provisions in question of the Treaty. These negotiations were not of an official character, and M. Sahm repeatedly and clearly explained th at his proposals were subject to the approval of the Danzig delegation. As the result of these negotiations and of simultaneous conversations with members of the Polish delegation, M. From ageot has drafted modifications and additions to the original text, in order to subm it these to the Conference of Ambassadors. W ith the desire to render possible a friendly settlem ent in the way suggested by the Conference of Ambassadors, the Danzig delegation has taken note of these proposals. On consideration of the proposed amendments, the delegation concluded th a t it was necessary to obtain the views of the Conference of Ambassadors on the following questions: I. In the previous Article 30 a provision was introduced at the last mom ent on a Polish proposal to this effect: "... and to provide, in particular, against any discrimination, in legislation or in the conduct of the adm inistration, to the detrim ent of nationals of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech. This wording causes us certain misgivings since, during the discussions in Danzig as to the scope of paragraph 5 of Article 104 of the T reaty of Peace, members of the Polish group in the Constituent Assembly gave to this provision an interpretation to the effect th at nationals of the Polish Republic in the Free City of Danzig would, ipso facto, also have political rights which, such as the right to vote for and to be elected to public bodies, m ust be reserved for citizens of the Free City. Such an interpretation as has been given on the Polish side would render it impossible for us to accept the proposed modifications. We therefore beg the Conference of Ambassadors to confirm to us th a t the new drafting of Article 30 does perm it of the interpretation placed on it by the Polish group in Danzig. II. In the view of the Danzig delegation, the modifications it is proposed to grant to Poland constitute the maximum th at Danzig could agree to give Poland, and, on the other hand, the provisions proposed in our favour constitute the minimum necessary to ensure the continued existence of Danzig. We would therefore ask the Conference of Ambassadors to state th at the

11 II modifications proposed by M. From ageot constitute the last word, and th a t the Danzig delegation «ill not be expected to agree to any changes w hatever in the text. The Danzig delegation would be placed in an impossible position. The delegation therefore earnestly (instamment) begs th at, as the above-m entioned proposals constitute the furthest lim it to which it is prepared to go, it m ay now be perm itted to sign the Treaty either in its original form or w ith the proposed modifications. The delegation ventures to draw the attention of the Conference of Ambassadors to the trying situation of the Free City of Danzig. E very delay in constituting the Free City m ust seriously aggravate the situation and enormously increase the difficulty of establishing normal conditions. The delegation therefore earnestly requests the Conference of Ambassadors in any case to establish the Free City under the conditions set forth in the letter of the Conference dated October 20th, On behalf of the Danzig delegation : (Signed) S a h m. Appendix II. Co v e r in g L e t t e r fr o m t h e P r e s id e n t o f t h e S e n a t e o f t h e F r e e Cit y to t h e H ig h C o m m is s io n e r. ftranslation from the German.] Danzig, March 26th, In reply to your note, 9/B/116, of March n t h, 1931, I have the honour to forward herewith the mem orandum requested from the Governm ent of Dantzig. In this m em orandum the whole legal basis for th e m inority question at present in dispute is examined. The first question discussed is what are th e legal principles applicable in this case; next, the correct interpretation of those principles is considered. Lastly, the Polish conception of the law, as set forth in the exchange of notes th a t has so far taken place, is exam ined critically, and the legal and practical consequences of that view analysed. In our opinion, special im portance m ust be attached to the legal and practical consequences, since by determ ining and setting down the consequences of a legal interpretation we are enabled to discern the significance of a legal question in its true light, and to obtain as well a test th at cannot be disregarded as to the accuracy of the interpretation itself. W hen we come to consider the consequences of the Polish case it becomes quite clear, however, th a t the question in dispute is markedly political in character and cannot be regarded as a simple controversy due to a difference of opinion on a m atter of law. The political significance of this dispute concerning minorities is of the utm ost im portance, since th e provision in Article 33 of the Paris Treaty, which was originally fram ed solely for the protection of minorities, is interpreted by Poland in a sense which converts it into a provision for the destruction of the German m ajority in Danzig. T h at is totally incom patible w ith the spirit and the objective legal content of Article 33 of the T reaty of Paris and of the provisions and Treaties by which the Free City of Danzig was established. (Signed) Dr. Z i e h m. MEMORANDUM BY T H E GOVERNM ENT OF T H E F R E E CITY OF DANZIG Co n c e r n in g t h e L eg a l Q u e s t io n s c o n n e c t e d w it h t h e M in o r it ie s P r o b l e m in p a r t ic u l a r, th e I n t e r p r e t a t io n o f A r t ic l e 33 o f t h e T r e a t y o f P a r is o f N o v e m b e r 9TH, [Translation from the German.] I. Article 33 of the Paris T reaty of November 9th, 1920, forms the sole legal foundation for the settlement of the minorities problem between the Free City of Danzig and the Republic of Poland. In saying this we are expressing our definite opinion th a t the clause in Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles, which also deals w ith minorities, cannot be regarded as a direct source of law actually in force. In Article 104, paragraph 5, the T reaty of Versailles does not set up a definite and direct legal rule or injunction to be observed by Danzig and Poland. It does not say th at the minorities are to be treated in a particular m anner, though it very well could have done so, and, indeed, has done so in other m atters. On the other hand, the T reaty of Versailles, as is stated unm istakably in the term s of Article 104, only imposes upon the Principal Allied and Associated Powers an obligation (a pactum de contrahendo) to m ake provision, and by their co-operation to ensure, that the newly founded States of Danzig and Poland conclude a treaty for the purpose of settling, among other things, the minorities question along certain definite lines and in accordance with certain general principles. As, therefore, the T reaty of Versailles provides no settlem ent of the

12 minorities question th a t is absolutely binding in law, it cannot be adduced by either Danzig or Poland to support a claim th a t the minorities m ust be treated in a particular manner. TlJ conclusion is equally true even if the provision in th e T reaty of Versailles be interpreted as a contract in favour of a third party, since, even if this were so, the only dem and th a t the third p arty {i.e., in the present case, Poland) could make on the Principal Allied and Associated Powers would be th a t they should negotiate a minorities trea ty ; b u t th a t party would in no case acquire the right to insist on a particular treatm ent for the minorities. This view is further supported by the fact th a t a settlem ent of the minorities question signifies likewise the imposition of definite duties (in th e present case, upon Danzig) and in no trea ty can burdens and duties be imposed upon a country not a p arty to the treaty {i.e., Danzig). A treaty imposing obligations on third parties in this sense is unknpwn to either public or private law. As, however, we repeat this point the principal Powers are obliged, under Article 104 of th e T reaty of Versailles, to negotiate the conclusion of a treaty between Danzig and Poland for the settlem ent of m inority questions it follows th at, once such a trea ty between Danzig and Poland has been negotiated by them and has come into force, the provision contained in Article 104, paragraph 5, has been complied with, and has therefore been completely and finally fulfilled. Its fulfilments is represented by the conclusion of the Paris Treaty. Article 33 of th at Treaty, in accordance w ith the spirit and the letter of the T reaty of Versailles, fulfils and takes the place of Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles. There can be no question th a t the provision in Article 33 of the Paris T reaty completely fulfils in actual fact the stipulations of Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles. This is proved by the fact th at the Principal Allied and Associated Powers themselves took part in framing th e Paris Treaty, and they m ust therefore have known best w hether their intentions were complied w ith in th a t Treaty. By concluding the Paris Treaty, they themselves showed th at the provisions and requirem ents of Article 104, paragraph 5, were fully m et by the provision in Article 33. Furtherm ore, Article 33, by the addition of the words in accordance with Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles at the end of the first paragraph, states formally th a t Article 33, as drafted, definitely represents the complete fulfilment of the prescriptions embodied in Article 104, paragraph 5. It m ust further be remembered th at this source of law is a treaty which is therefore contractually binding on Poland as well. Poland, accordingly, has intim ated her agreement th a t Article 33 in the Paris T reaty has from now on the force of law in the settlem ent of m inorities questions, and she consequently m ust recognise th a t the T reaty of Versailles has been completely applied and fulfilled by the T reaty of Paris, and th a t the latter has become the sole source of law. This interpretation in no way conflicts with the aw ard given by the Hague Perm anent Court of International Justice in its Advisory Opinion concerning Danzig s relations with the International Labour Office {Collection of Advisory Opinions, Series B, Num ber 18), which, on page 11, describes Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles as the source of the rights conferred on P oland i.e., as the legal foundation of the rights conferred on her. It is, of course, correct th a t Article 104 is, in the last analysis, the source of the rights possessed by Poland in th at the conclusion of the Paris T reaty was enjoined and imposed by th at article. It can, however, only be regarded as an indirect source. Article 33 of the Paris T reaty is, and remains, the only direct source from which rights and duties can be derived. II. Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Paris Treaty m ust be interpreted in the light of the fundamental rule contained in its first and principal clause. This first clause lays down the general basic rule, as m ay be seen from the text. The second clause, and, in particular, its relation to the first clause, m ust be examined afterwards. 1. According to the first clause, Danzig m ust apply to racial, religious and linguistic minorities provisions similar to those which are applied by Poland on Polish territory in execution of Chapter I of the so-called Minorities T reaty of June 28th, If under this clause Danzig is required to apply to minorities the provisions of the Minorities T reaty of June 28th, 1919, she m ust likewise unquestionably employ the ideas which, in the matter of minorities, are set out and recognised in th a t Treaty. She must therefore interpret the term minorities in the same way as the Minorities T reaty interprets it. As a reference to the T reaty will show, is distinguishes between minorities in the narrower sense of th e word used in Articles 7, 8 and 9 i.e., nationals who belong to a racial, religious or linguistic m inority; and minorities in the wider sense of the word used in Article 2 i.e., all inhabitants living in the country who belong to a racial, religious or linguistic m inority, regardless of whether or not they are nationals of the State concerned. The protection accorded to minorities in the narrower sense is, naturally, more comprehensive than th at accorded to minorities in the broader sense. The Minorities T reaty makes this entirely proper conception perfectly clear. In Article 2, which deals with minorities in the broader sense, the Polish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Poland w ithout distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion. The minorities in the narrower sense of the term, on the other hand, are

13 13 ven by Articles 7, 8 and 9, more extensive guarantees, which there is no need to consider in detail ere. As the Minorities T reaty m akes this distinction between the minorities, it follows th at Danzig, in applying the Treaty, is obliged to m ake the same distinction in order to comply with the rule in Article 33 of the Paris T reaty ; otherwise, the Minorities T reaty would not be applied in the manner prescribed in Article 33. Poland, when concluding the Paris Treaty, was, of course, aware that the application by Danzig of the Minorities T reaty would lead to this result, seeing that she was certainly conversant w ith the contents of the Minorities T reaty, which she had herself concluded w ith the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on June 28th, 1919, and in particular with the distinction made in regard to the term m inority. There is no need to say th a t Danzig cannot apply all the provisions of C hapter I in the Minorities T reaty, among them the rules in Articles 3 to 6 concerning the right of option, which is regulated otherwise. Further, Article 33 of the Paris T reaty is so worded th a t Danzig is not required to apply such provisions, because Article 33 lays down th a t Danzig is obliged to apply only " similar provisions. The article reads : Danzig undertakes to apply to... minorities provisions similar to those which are applied by Poland and Polish territory ; and it does not therefore oblige Danzig absolutely and unconditionally to apply to the minorities all the provisions in the Minorities T reaty which are applicable in principle, as has hitherto been suggested for the sake of simplicity, but merely says th a t Danzig m ust apply only provisions which are similar to those th a t are actually applied in Poland on her territory in execution of the Minorities Treaty. This condition is in accordance w ith the rules of equity in international law. Danzig should not be obliged by virtue of the wording of the T reaty to follow in regard to Poland a particular h ard and fast line of conduct if Poland herself perhaps treats her own minorities otherwise. Thus, Danzig should only be bound to apply the provisions of the Minorities T reaty in the same w ay as Poland applies these provisions in accordance with her own constitutional law. It is, moreover, a point of special im portance th a t, as Danzig has only to apply similar treatm ent, she is not compelled to act in exactly the same m anner as Poland. She is allowed, on the other hand, in the treatm ent she accords, a certain latitude which m ust depend on the circumstances of each particular case. In order to prevent any m isunderstanding, it should be observed th a t the provisions to be applied by Danzig can only be those modelled on such Polish measures as are applied b y Poland in virtue of the Minorities Treaty. Any measures which Poland spontaneously applies over and above the obligations resulting from the Minorities T reaty cannot involve any obligation for Danzig. The conclusion derived from this interpretation of the first clause in Article 33 m ay therefore be summarised as follows : Under th e provisions of this clause Danzig is obliged : (а) To apply to the Polish m inority in the narrow er sense provisions similar to those which are applied b y Poland on Polish territory in execution of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Minorities T reaty; (б) To apply, on th e other hand, to th e Polish minorities in the broader sense only provisions similar to those which are applied by Poland on Polish territory in execution of Article 2 of the Minorities Treaty. 2. The second clause is introduced w ith the words to provide in particular (French text: notamment à pourvoir ). There is, therefore, a definite and quite unam biguous logical connection between the first and second clauses. If we disregard the actual facts of the present case and consider purely in the abstract th e logical relation resulting from the use of the w^ords in particular, we shall come to th e following conclusion: W hen a clause beginning w ith the words in particular is appended to a previous explanation or statem ent we express two things : (1) th at th e second clause beginning w ith the words in particular is included in or forms p art of the first clause; and (2) th a t for one reason or another it is desired to give special prominence to the second clause. It follows th a t nothing th a t has not been said or expressed in general term s in th e first clause can be said or expressed in the clause beginning w ith the words in particular. The following rem arks m ay be m ade with reference to the question under discussion. The fact th at th e general principles applicable to all minorities are laid down in the m anner described above, and th a t the Polish minorities are m entioned afterw ards in the subordinate clause beginning with the words in particular, means th a t the principles of the general provisions governing minorities apply to the Polish m inorities as well; and, likewise, that, for one reason or another, it was desired to lay special stress on this fact in the case of the Polish minorities. This plainly implies th a t the clause introduced w ith in particular is not intended to, and cannot, lay down any new rules for the Polish minorities. Accordingly, the reference to them in a clause beginning with in particular would, in actual fact, be superfluous. The explanation of the reference, however, is to be found in the second effect of a clause beginning with the words in particular namely, th a t of special emphasis. The reason for this special emphasis will be easily appreciated when it is remem bered th a t the Paris T reaty and the m inority provisions contained in it were drawn up at a tim e when political feeling ran very high in Danzig owing

14 14 to the separation from the parent State of a territory with a population consisting of 97 per Cent of Germans, in the interests of Poland, and th at on this account Poland was apprehensive lest the PolishTminority living in the Free City m ight in the prevailing circum stances receive worse treatm ent than th at accorded to the other minorities. The object was to prevent this possibility and the additional clauses was included in the article for this reason. This point is so im portant th a t we wish once again to emphasise th a t the clause beginning w ith in particular was not intended to, and cannot, add anything new in favour of the Polish minority. It is therefore plain th at the Polish m inority is to be treated in accordance with the principles laid down in the Minorities T reaty for the minorities in the narrow er and in the broader sense of the word, and th a t no discrimination m ay be made between them and other national minorities. This is the natural and unforced explanation of the words to provide... against any discrimination in the clause beginning w ith " in particular It is perfectly logical th at, as the second clause is included in the first, and as both clauses consequently deal with minorities, the discrimination can be made only in regard to the minorities dealt with in both clauses, and, therefore, only as applying to the relative treatm ent of the different minorities ; it is not to be taken as relating in any way to the idea of Danzig nationals, which does not arise in this connection. Our conclusion then is as follows: Under Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Paris Treaty, Danzig is forbidden to make any discrimination in the treatm ent of the Polish m inority as compared with the other minorities, and hence the Polish minorities possessing Danzig nationality are to be treated in accordance with Articles 7, 8 and 9 ; and the Polish minorities not in possession of Danzig nationality in accordance with Article 2 of the Minorities Treaty. 3. This conclusion is in accord with M. Cambon s note of November 6th, Danz having, in a communication of November 5th, 1920, asked the Conference of Ambassadors whether as deputies belonging to the Polish p arty in the Popular Assembly had decided and asserted on the basis of the wording of Article 33 the Polish m inorities in the broader sense were entitled to political rights in Danzig, M. Cambon answered explicity on November 6th, 1920, th a t there was no question of this. M. Cambon s reply could only be based on the fundam ental conception which follows from the argum ents we have adduced above. The Polish contention th a t all Poles are entitled to the rights of Danzig citizens leads logically to the opposite conclusion th a t they m ust necessarily enjoy political rights as well. M. Cam bon s opinion therefore confirms the argum ents given above. There is no w arrant for deducing from his opinion the opposite conclusion, by employing the argum ent a contrario, since M. Cambon merely gave a precise reply to the precise question put to him by Danzig. III. In explanation of the legal position, we shall now briefly examine the Polish Government s legal contention as it appears from the notes hitherto received from the Polish Republic. Poland claims th at, in addition to Article 33 of the Paris Treaty, Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles still has the force of law for the treatm ent of minorities, and, indeed, bases her interpretation on the latter article. She comes to the conclusion th a t all Polish minorities m ust be treated on the same footing as Danzig citizens, irrespective of their citizenship. Article 104, paragraph 5, however, merely says to provide against any discrim ination.. to the detrim ent of citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech... It does not specify in comparison with whom no discrimination is to be made to th e detriment of Poles. Poland interprets this provision to m ean th a t no discrim ination is to be made in comparison with Danzig nationals, and we might therefore have expected a particularly well-grounded argum ent in support of this construction, which constitutes an addition to the article, and on which the Polish contention is based. No such argum ent, however, is adduced. In article 33, paragraph 1, of the Paris Treaty, the use of the words in particular establishes a definite logical connection between the wording of Article 104, paragraph 5, of the Treaty of Versailles, which is m entioned in the second clause, and the minorities referred to in the first clause. Poland, therefore, might, in view of this wording, have argued th a t no discrimination m ay be made to the detrim ent of Poles in comparison with other minorities ; b u t she completely disregards the connection and interprets the second clause in the same way as Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles as meaning th a t no distinction m ay be made as compared with Danzig nationals. In view of the foregoing interpretation, and since the clause beginning w ith in particular is included, as m entioned above, in the preceding clause and merely places special stress on one particular point Poland is forced to accept the conclusion th a t the inference as to the treatment of Polish m inorities drawn from the Polish interpretation of the second clause applies equally to all other minorities mentioned in the first clause, and therefore th a t no discrim ination may be made against any minorities of whatever nationality as compared with Danzig nationals, th a t is, all minorities m ust be treated on exactly the same footing as Danzig nationals. The

15 i5 situation resulting from this interpretation, a situation th a t is inevitable if the Polish view be accepted, is a m onstrous one. If a State is obliged to treat every and any alien who crosses its frontiers as one o f its own nationals, this means the destruction of the whole idea of nationality. A State that was forced to accept a legal position of th a t kind would be at the mercy of any large body 0f alien im m igrants and would be unable t o preserve its national way of life. In th e case of Danzig in particular, it is obvious from her geographical position on the borders of Poland th a t there would be a large Polish influx into the Free City. Owing to Polish immigration, the essentially German character of Danzig would be so thoroughly perm eated w ith Polish elements th a t the Free City would in a short tim e lose this special character and its independence which is based thereon. I t is therefore plain th a t a provision for the protection of m inorities would be converted into a weapon for the destruction of the existing m ajority, and th a t is the object of the Polish request. P oland s purpose in m aking th a t request is not to protect the rights of the Polish minorities in Danzig which in tru th are not affected and are not endangered, as is shown by the observations on points of detail b u t im properly to extend her own rights and her actual influence, and to destroy the German m ajority in Danzig and the Free City s independence, which is based on th a t m ajority. Such a result, which would be certain to follow, would contravene both the spirit and the intentions of the T reaty of Versailles, by wtiich the Free City of Danzig was established. M. Clemenceau, in th e covering note of Ju n e 16th, 1919, says th a t the inhabitants of the Free City of Danzig shall not pass under Polish rule and shall not form p art of the Polish State. The report, too, b y Viscount Ishii, which was approved by the League Council on November 17th, 1920, says th e same thing : The fundam ental idea for the founding of the Free City is th at the Free City should form, in the international organisation of Europe, a com m unity which must be protected against all undue interference on the p art of any country and which m ust have its own legal existence The report goes on to say th a t the League of N ations undertakes to guarantee the territorial integrity and political independence of the Free City of Danzig. The Polish interpretation, which conflicts so flagrantly w ith th e spirit of the T reaty of Versailles, cannot therefore be accepted as correct. It is clear from the last Polish note th at, even in the Polish view, the deduction th at, in consequence of the logical connection resulting from the use of the words in particular, all aliens in Danzig are entitled to equal treatm en t is regarded as open to objection and undesirable. In their last note the Polish Governm ent is accordingly prepared to regard the words in particular, which make this deduction inevitable, as not w ritten, and so obviate any such conclusion. B ut where should we find ourselves if an interpretation of law, instead of leading from a perfectly clear text to a deduction entirely in agreem ent w ith th a t text, were, on the contrary, based on a preconceived opinion and simply regarded any term s th a t were inconsistent with or not agreeable to that interpretation as non-existent? In conclusion, since, in the Polish view, both the provisions of Article 104, paragraph 5, of the T reaty of Versailles and those of Article 33 of the Paris T reaty are valid conjointly, the Polish interpretation ought to be in conform ity w ith both texts. This, however, is not the case. On the one hand, as has been shown above, it is incompatible w ith the term s of Article 33 of the Paris T reaty, in th a t it disregards the words in particular and the logical connection established by them. On the other hand, it conflicts with Article 104 of the T reaty of Versailles, which is introduced by the statem ent th a t the trea ty to be negotiated between Danzig and Poland is to take the place of the general principles outlined in paragraph 5. Instead of conforming to both sources of law, the Polish interpretation is in actual fact a t variance w ith both. The Polish Governm ent s argum ent cannot, therefore, be accepted.