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 crea 
ting 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 at 
tempted 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 Hun 
garian and Roumanian Governments, the matter was finally settled by both 
parties reciprocally renouncing article 181. The arrangement betwen M" Titu- 
lescu 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 Hun 
gary, 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 dur 
ing the war. 
2) The recovery of carriages and other railway material accrue!ng to oui 
lines including the annexed territories.