which  these  obligations  have  with  the  rights  these  same  treaties  acknowledge
formally,  for  Roumania.  It  is  necessary  to  point  out  on  this  occasion,  that  at
the  moment  the  treaties  were  concluded,  the  reparations  owed  should  lia>e
covered,  and  even  exceeded  the  obligations  imposed  on  the  Koumanian  State,
The  treaties  with  Austria  and  Hungary  are  the  ones  which  lay  obligations
on  Roumania,  the  same  as  on  the  older  suceeding  States,  without  taking  into
consideration  that  their  situation  was  different.
For  Roumania  the  question  of  these  obligations  must  only  be  looked  upon
as  being  closely  bound  with  the  reparations.
"By  cutting  down  the  reparations  as  has  been  done,  it  is  imposible  not  to
cut  down  in  a  similar  manner  the  obligations  also,  as  this  would  mean  creating ­
  a  new  negative  balance,  wdiich  would  he  in  contradiction  with  the  vei\
spirit  of  the  Treaties  of  Peace.
This  is  the  spirit  of  equity  with  which  the  reparation  and  obligation
problem  must  be  examined.
We  will  therefore  examine  each  obligation  separately,  when  the  same  is
special  to  Austria  or  to  Hungary,  and  jointly  when  they  are  common  to  both
Treaties  of  Saint  Germain  and  of  Trianon.
SECTION  I
SPECIAL  OBLIGATIONS  DERIVING  FROM  THE  TREATY  OF  TRIANON
The  dubious  text  and  the  erronous  interpretation  which  some  have  attempted ­
  to  give  to  article  181  of  the  Treaty  of  Trianon,  determined  Hungary
to  consider  that  she  had  a  right  to  compensations  from  Roumania  arising  Irom
the  operations  of  the  Roumanian  army  in  1919,  to  quell  Hungarian  anarchy,
operations  which  culminated  in  the  occupation  of  Budapest.
Such  a  claim,  having  no  juridical  foundation,  and  in  (act  quite  unjustified,
as  will  be  seen  from  the  documents  we  publish  (Annex  .  .  -  )  had  to  give
way  before  the  reality,  and  by  the  agreement  entered  upon  between  the  Hungarian ­
  and  Roumanian  Governments,  the  matter  was  finally  settled  by  both
parties  reciprocally  renouncing  article  181.  The  arrangement  betwen  M"  Titulescu
  and  Count  Bethlen  on  January  25 th  1924,  completed  by  the  arrangement
between  M'  Korany  and  M r  Titulescu  on  March  14 th  1924,  was  communicated
to,  and  approved  by  the  Commission  ol  reparations  (Annex  35).
Although  this  matter  is  finally  settled  we  insist  on  pointing  out  that  the
requisitions  and  carrying  away  ot  material  which  are  imputed  to  Roumania,
could  in  no  case  have  given  rise  to  claims  tor  reparations  on  the  pai  I  of  Hungary, ­
  nor  could  they  constitute  diminutions  in  the.  common  patrimonium
of  the  allies,  or  enrichment  in  Roumania  s  advantage.
The  truth  is  that  these  requisitions  and  transports  were  simply:
1)  Identical  recoveries  of  materials  carried  away  from  Roumania  during ­
  the  war.
2)  The  recovery  of  carriages  and  other  railway  material  accrue!ng  to  oui
lines  including  the  annexed  territories.