MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION 
17 
position assumed by the Polish Government was not in accordance with its 
international obligations. Decision No. 7 concerning German interests in 
the Polish Upper Silesia involves, among other legal questions, a case of 
responsibility for acts of the legislative body. The issue to be decided was 
whether the Polish law of July 14, 1920, which was made applicable to 
Upper Silesia by the law of June 6, 1922, contained provisions contrary 
to the Geneva Treaty. 
(c) Treaty authorities have usually cited in cases of legislative respon- 
sibility the claim of Canevero against the Peruvian Government. In this 
case the parties discussed the legal status of alien subjects in relation to 
that of native citizens. The question was raised by a Peruvian law order- 
ing the payment of a debt to alien subjects with bonds of a domestic issue, 
while the claimants demanded payment in cash. The Court did not pass 
upon the validity of the municipal law. Among the cases involving legisla- 
tive responsibility, there is also usually cited the decision of The Hague 
Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Dreyfus matter. The question 
arose out of the decrees of a de facto Government, which had controlled 
all the proceedings in the litigation between Dreyfus Hermanos y Compafiia 
and the Peruvian Government. A Peruvian law had declared null and void 
all the acts of the de facto Government. The Court ruled that that law 
could not apply to bona fide transactions of alien nationals. This decision 
deals with the question of supremacy of the international over the municipal 
law, and the international consequences of the acts of de facto Governments.2 
“Another sort of case is the one which arose out of Article 61, Section 2, 
of the Constitution of the German Republic of August 11, 1919, which pro- 
vided for the representation of Austria in the Reichstag on account of her 
‘having been allied with the German Empire’, and at the same time, gave the 
representatives of Austria voice in an advisory capacity. The Allied and 
Associated Powers protested against this provision and demanded its repeal, 
maintaining that it was contrary to Article 8 of the Treaty of Versailles, 
which stipulates: ‘Germany recognizes and will faithfully respect the inde- 
pedence of Austria within the boundaries to be fixed by freaty between this 
State and the principal Allied and Associated Powers; she further recognizes 
that such independence will be inalienable, unless otherwise determined by 
the Council of the League of Nations’. Without disputing in the least the 
principle in question, the German Government contended at first that the law 
was not inconsistent with the Treaty; however, afterwards it consented to 
sign a statement which renders the admission of Austrian representatives to 
the Reichstag subject to a change in the international juridical status of 
Austria. to be approved by the Council of the League of Nations.” ? 
% B rnard de Fr ancqueville, L’ceuvre de { X 1 i . 
€ a Cou Pe manente de Justice International 
Foye 11, . R = yn 1 . : 1 7 
eC ler 1CO Elguer a. €sena Hist6r ca de 0s Arbitrajes de I eru.