91 
* 
that of France, Italy, Belgium, and not a relief debt with a well determined 
objet of assistance. In fact not a single official schedule puts Roumania down 
as a debitor of reliefs. 
This explanation once given in 1925 when the debt represented by. 1920 
Belief Bonds came to maturity, the international Commitee created in virtue of 
the Conference of Paris in April 1919 invited the states who had received this 
assistance to meet in ordre to discuss the consolidation of this debt which had 
nothing in common with the war debt. Before the conference began, Roumania 
thought that the question of settling these Relief Bonds, though they have no spe- 
ciel character might be for some States a means of demanding an anticipatedset- 
Icment of war debts. In our communication to our Minister in London we again 
expressed our wish that it would be well for this matter to be settled in connection 
with the war debts, as otherwise a difficult situation would be created for us in 
front of the United States an 1 the other creditor states if they demanded from us 
an anticipated payment. 
Consequently on December 19 th 1924 in London where the International 
Relief Bonds Committee met, on the observation of the President of this Com 
mittee that all the states having Relief Bonds are represented in the Committee 
and that these debts must be treated otherwise than war debts, M‘ N. Titu- 
lesco the Roumania Delegate answered with the following declaration which 
shows that Roumania never had the intention of favouring some of her 
creditors to the detriment of others. "Roumania desires to pay her debts to all 
"her creditors. In fortunately the consequences of the war have been nearly as 
^severe as the war itself. While the manifold obligations for restoring Rouma- 
„nia as well as the depreciation of her currency do not allow of our paying our 
"debts in the way we would wish, Roumania considers that all the charges in 
«respect of the war must form the object of a general settlement so that Rou- 
"mania may not be placed in the position of granting to one creditor a regime 
"which it could not grant to another so that her loyalty as a debitor should 
»not be discussed. But I was told that my arguments, though well founded, 
»cannot be applied to the special relief bonds which form the object of the 
"work of the honourable committee before which I am speeking. 
I was told that the Relief Bonds issued in virtue of the decision of this ho 
nourable committee have an international character which distinguishes them 
"from the debts of Roumania towards the different States with individual 
"title and that the pavement of these bonds before the l sl of January, 
"1925 is beyond discussion. In front of this point of view firmly uttered and 
"the maturity of the bonds which is imminent, in front of the text of these 
"bonds, which says that the claims they represent are a first lien on the pay- 
"mens of reparations Roumania, cannot do anything else than submit--. In 
the discussions which took place in the commithee if was denied that this debt 
had the character of a war debt, arguing amongst other things that it cannot 
be a question of a war debt for Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden. After the 
discussions the reserves made by our delegate were accepted, that when the