58 gation taxes are levied by the Commission at Bratislava, and when these loans have not a territorial character for the loans to be shared by the borderers, but an international character by the fact that all the interested States make use of navigation on the Danube. It is unlawful and unjust that the annuities of the loans should be suppor ted exclusively by the Roumanian State, while the revenues of the Iron Cates are levied by the Danubian Commission. And this injustice was aknowledged later on by the organs which are charged with the carrying out of treaties hut the Commission of reparations did not come back on a mistake which had been committed. In the same way, loans like those concerning the Lemberg-Cernauli-Iassi railway which do not constitute a state debt, and which are not amongst the property transferred to Roumania wee also allotted to the charge of the Roumanian State, as charges arissing out of the Austrian debt, instead of maintaining the first decision of the Commission of reparations, which decided that the settlement of these questions was to be effected by the interested States (Poland and Roumania) and the contracting Company. Besides this those interested in a speedy recovery of the Austro-Hungarian debt by the grantor States, endeavoured to get the debitor States to carry out the obligation even before the formalities enacted by the treaties had been fulfilled. Thus the Innsbruck protocol (Annex 71) lays on the grantor States, the obli gation of beginning the payments and the annuites ol the loans expressed in gold and foreign currency, even before the quota of each State in these loans is deter mined. At the same time, an institution called » Fire Common Cash« is created, which is nothing else but a syndicate of the interested creditors, and which is accorded the right of administering the former Austro-Hungarian debt, which has now become the public national debt of the succeeding States. I hat means that the succeeding States are deprived of a right inherent to the State and an attribute of the State; sovereignty, the right of settling its own debts. When it is demanded that the Austro-Hungarian public debt expressed in gold and foreign currency should be paid in effective gold or in a currency whose parity is nearest to gold (pounds sterling) the former Austro-Hungarian debt gets a more favorable treatment than that ruling the national debt of each State. And what is far more serious is that it is demanded that the Austro- Hungarian debts hould be paid to our exenemies which is quite contrary to ai- ticle 247 of the Treaty of Versailles, aid the corresponding articles of the other Treaties. We must likewise remark that the Innsbruck protocol, only settles a certain part of the Austro-Hungarian public debt, namely that part which re gards the syndicated creditors under the name of the »Common cash-, where the succeeding States have only a single delegate. Practically the Innsbruck Protocol, only gives a provional solution "The Common Cash" having the right