Government to the appeal of the P o lish Government a vains t the

Transcription

1 I M & Ü I O C ' I U 5 I 0 N 3 ' C I. IPRI& 01 '2Y 0"1 D. IL _lg Legal S tatus oi P o lish Government Troverty, O ffic ie ls, and Ships in D&nsiç* (See doc M ) Reply, dated March OQth 1922, oi 'the Danzig Government to the P o lish Ap-eal. M te by the 3ecretar:--G eneral. The Secretary-G eneral has the honour to fo r va re, for the consid eratio n oi the Council a co _>y c l the reply o.l the Dan2-ig Government to the appeal of the P o lish Government a vains t the decision o^ th e "Ti h Coaniissioner, dated December 6 th 1921, with regard to the le g a l s ta tu s ox P o lish Government pro*->erty o f f ic ia ls, -21 d sh i s in Dansig.

2 T ranslation from the Genian. Danzig, March 30th 1922 Your Txcolleney, I have the honour, on b eh alf of the "ree City of Dan3 i g, to make the follow ing rep ly to the statem ents set out in ihe P olish appeal, which was tra n sm itte d to ne under cover of your l e t t e r H. C.D.9/38 of the 14th i n s t., a g a in s t the Decision of December 6 th, 1921, regarding bhc le val s ta tu s of P o lish Government property, P olish a u th o ritie s, o f f ic ia ls and ships in Danzig. T. The d ifferen ce of opinion between the Pree City of Danzig and Poland on the question of the le g a l s ta tu s of P o lish public property, P o lish a u th o r itie s, o - f ic ia ls and sh iv s in Drnzi.g is due to a fundamental d ifferen ce in th e ir in te rp re ta tio n of the re la tio n s e sta b lish e d between Danzig and Poland tjy the Treaty of V e rsa ille s. It affo rd s me g re a t s a tis f a c tio n to note, as I believe I an j u s t i f i e d in doing, th a t the Decision of the High Co:ariissicner of the league of Nations, dated December 6 th 1921, a g ain st which Poland has ap ealed, even i f i t does not take the Hishes of the people of Danzig in to consideration in regard to c e rta in e s s e n tia l p o in ts, is n e v erth eless, on the main question a t issu e, in agreement w ith the a ttitu d e of Danzig in th is m atter. Por th is reason the ".'ree City, for i t s p a rt, bcs thought i t r ig h t to make no appeal ag ain st th is D ecision. In considering the qu estio n under d iscu ssio n we must, in opp o sitio n to the P o lish in te rp re ta tio n, s t a r t from the

3 p rin c ip le tb a t a n s i 5 and Poland are e s s e n tia lly tvro independent sovereign 3 ta to s. I on of opinion th at i t is unnecessary at th is.oint to show th a t it was the undoubted in te n tio n of the tre a ty o f V e rsa ille s to mpe Danzig e s s e n tia lly a f r e e. i. e. an independent and sovereign City, and th a t th e re is no need on th is ocoasi-on to re fu te the contrary opinion which is held hy the "'oles. done so rep eated ly and in d e ta il elsewhere. I have already I rosy perhaps be perm itted to re fe r more p a rtic u la rly to my Hote of March 16th 1922 (S.P.1557), with regard to the conduct of 'a n z ig Ts foreign a f f a ir s by Poland, which is now before the Council of the league of Nations and in which I gave an exhaustive proof of the sovereignty of Danzig. Without prejudice to th is p rin c ip le of the sovereignty of the two o ta te s, sp ecial le g a l re la tio n s undoubtedly ex is t between Danzig and Poland, since " oland possesses c e rta in economic r i hts in the t e r r i t o r y of the Pree City. The sole basis of these sp ecial le g a l re la tio n s, in so f a r as they are to be discussed h e re, is to be found in A rt. 104 of the Treaty of V e rsa ille s and the Treaty of IIov ember 9th, 1920, concluded between Panzig and Poland to riv e e ffe c t to th a t A rtic le. In view of t i e unequivocal wording of r t. 104 of "the Treat3?" of V e rsa ille s there can be no reason to question the fa c t which is also recognised in the High Commissioner?s decision of December 6 th, 1921, th at th is Treaty must be regarded as an in te rn a tio n a l tr e a ty in th e f u l l sense of the term. In tv.s resp ect the leg al ch aracter of t h i s ','reaty should req u ire no f u lle r sta te iæ n t here. All th a t remains to be shown is th a t the jre a ty is designed to give e ffe c t to A rt.104 of the Treaty Mote by the Secretary-G eneral : See document C.I I.

4 of V e rsa ille s. _'he sole purpose of the ^anzig-p olish Treaty is to define more p re c ise ly the leg a l re la tio n s between anzig' and. Poland, the broad o u tlin es of which were la id down in the Treaty of V e rsa ille s, md to s e ttle in d e ta il the rig h ts conceded to Poland under th a t Treaty. Hence i t follows th a t a l l the provisions of the ~anzig- P o lish Treaty have th e ir source in the a r t i c l e of the Treaty of V e rs a ille s, and th a t i t is not the in te n tio n of the Danzig- P o lish Treaty to concede any rig h ts to Poland other than those alread y secured to her under the Treaty o f V e rsa ille s. The T reaty oi V e rsa ille s, in conjunction w ith the sn z ig - P o lish Treaty, is th e re fo re the sole basis on which to judge the ra tu re of the le g a l r e la tio n s between Danzig and Poland which are under d iscussion h e re, and which are fu lly determined by those tr e a ti e s. Should an3t doubts a ris e as to the in te rp re ta tio n of the provisions of the Panzig- P o lish Treaty which are under discussion, recourse must be had, in order to a rriv e a t a c o rre c t decision, to the fundamental provisions of Art» 104 of the Treaty of V e rs a ille s. From what has been _ ta.ted above i t follow s - and on th is m atter no d ifferen ce of opinion should be p o ssib le - th a t Poland is not e n title d to demand any r ig h ts in Danzig over and above those conceded to her under the Treaty of V e rsa ille s ard th e Panzig-P olish Treaty. The only question th a t can a t any time now a ris e is whether i t is expedient, w ith in the lim its of th e above-mentioned T reaties, to draw up any fu rth er executive re u la t ions or to give any fu rth e r ex p lan atio n s.

5 -4- II A close scru tin y of the claim s put forward by Poland in the m atter under co n sid eratio n rev eals the fa c t th at these claims amount to a demand fo r t o ta l ly new rig h ts of the most far-re ac h in g p o l it i c a l im portance«, S e ith e r in the Treaty of V e rsa ille s nor in the D anzig-polish T reaty is there the s lig h te s t support fo r these claim s; they a re on the contrary obviously in co n siste n t with the s p i r i t of these T re a tie s, I f Poland here claims complete e x t r a - t e r r i t o r i a l i t y fo r the whole of her extensive public p ro p erty and possessions in Danzig, fo r her numerous o f f ic ia ls and employees in the Free City, to g eth er w ith th e ir dependents, and even fo r privately-ow ned P o lish v e sse ls, and i f she demands th at the $or?.est: and reg u la tio n s issued from her o ffice s or by her a u th o ritie s and o f f ic ia ls in the Free City should be regarded in the t e r r ito r y of the Free City as a u th o r ita tiv e, i. e. as emanating from a sovereign power, th is would mean nothing le s s than the c re a tio n of a State w ithin the S tate» The acceptance of these claim s would most se rio u sly c u r t a il the sovereignty of the Free City and thereby lead to an in to le ra b le lim ita tio n of th e p o l i t i c a l independence of Danzig, a lim ita tio n which is c le a rly in c o n siste n t with the terms of the Treaty of V e rsa ille s, Poland b eliev es th a t she can ju s tif y her claim s, which can only be described as monstrous, merely by the general argument th at they were obviously the lo g ic a l con_sequences of the T reaty of V e rsa ille s and the D anzig-polish Treaty, end th a t they appeared to her to-be e s s e n tia l as an a d d itio n a l safeguard fo r her free access to the sea. She has advanced no reasons of any le g a l or p r a c tic a l sig n ific a n ce in support of h er demand» No such reasons can indeed be produced, fo r le g a lly the p rovisions of the T reaties are decisive ag ain st her claim s and p r a c tic a lly there

6 5 is no n e ce ssity fo r th e ir reco g n ition, since, without the a d d itio n a l I rig h ts which she demands, P o lan d 's free access to the sea i s fu lly and com pletely guaranteed. The High Commissioner of the League of Uations in his D ecision of December 6 th has a lread y enumerated the guarantees which have been given to Poland in th is connection and which he also deems to be f u lly adequate. The P o lish appeal contains nothing to refu te or weaken th is statem ent by the High Commissioner. I f, o ste n sib ly, in support of her u n ju s tifia b le claims, Poland on th is occasion also repeats or vague reproaches and accusations a g ain st the a u th o ritie s of the Free City, I must again most em phatically p ro te s t ag ainst these charges. The Free City is not aware of having in any way hindered Poland s free access to th e sea or f a ile d to carryc out any of i ts tre a ty obligatio n s. On the co n trary, the Free C ity has always given proof of its w illin g n ess to f u l f i l i t s d u tie s in a f a i r and accommodating s p ir it and to c u ltiv a te good and amicable re la tio n s w ith Poland. But I am of opinion th a t i t can servo no u sefu l purpose to encourage these frie n d ly re la tio n s i f Poland c o n stan tly p re fe rs such vague and b aseless charges ag ain st Danzig. Frôm the foregoing le g a l and p r a c tic a l account of the situ a tio n i t appears c e rta in th a t the P o lish claim s are being urged on p u rely p o l i t i c a l grounds. They can only be described as an attempt to se t aside the le g a l s itu a tio n created by the T reaty of V ersailles and in t h is way to secure as a f i r s t step at le a s t, a part of what Poland, a f te r c a re fu l co n sid era tio n, was refused in the T reaty of V e rsa ille s. I t i s th erefo re c le a r, - and the decision of the High Commissioner r ig h tly recognises th is fa c t, which the objections ra is e d by Poland are not c a lc u la te d to in v a lid a te - th a t the r e a lis a tio n of the P o lish claims would in no way tend to promote good re la tio n s between the two S ta te s. On the contralry, a s itu a tio n would merely be created which would most se rio u sly endangair the frie n d ly re la tio n s and f r u i t f u l co -o p eraticn of the two in te r dependent S ta te s and th e ir population. The in ev itab le and enduring resu lt would be the d is p u te s, disturbances and m isunderstandings

7 - 6- to which the High Commis s i oner re fe rs in his D ecision. Only by c le a rly upholding the sovereignty and independence of Danzig le g is la tio n and the unimpaired a u th o rity of her jvirisdiction and ad m in istratio n, and thereby m aintaining an unequivocal le g a l s itu a tio n, is i t possible to escape such in to le ra b le conditions. III. I do not consider i t my duty again to examine, one by the August?Oth, o n e,/p o lish demands which were set out in the Note of 1921 and upheld in the appeal. I have already done th is in d e ta il in my Note of November 25th, 1921 ( J. 3270/12) and I venture to draw a tte n tio n to the views I sta te d th ere. Every point in th e P olish case might be refu ted by the arguments in my Note. I a tta c h two copies of th is Note and beg Your Excellency to be good enough to communicate them to the P resid en t of the Council of the League of Nations, I have, etc. (Sgd) 3ÀHLÏ.