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  supported ­
  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  obligation ­
  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  determined. ­
  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  aiticle
  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  regards ­
  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