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  speciel
  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  Committee ­
  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.  Titulesco
  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  honourable ­
  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