Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

the territory of the Free City of Dantzig must be undertaken by the Harbour Board.'

Does a foreign fleet visit Dantzig? It might seem that there is a connection with foreign relations. The High Commissioner decides (August 23, 1922):

The Polish Government has not the right, either through its Diplomatic Representative at Dantzig, or in any other way, to welcome officially, in Dantzig waters or on Dantzig soil, a foreign fleet which visits the Free City. . . . If the Polish Government wish to welcome a foreign fleet in Dantzig waters and on Dantzig soil the Dantzig Government should be approached on the subject, not as a Polish right, but as a Polish request. . . .

(This ruling was subsequently set aside, like some others, by arrangement between Poland and Dantzig.)

Does Poland desire to import war material, which, considering her neighbours, is as yet a necessity? Dantzig finds a way of making difficulties, supposedly on the grounds of public safety. Yet as early as 1921 the Conference of Ambassadors had to draw the attention of the Council of the League of Nations to the grave dangers which could result from the uncontrolled manufacture of arms and war material in the territory of the Free City of Dantzig.' Neither was it a matter of manufacturing solely for countries who had a right to import such material, e.g., Poland. The Conference of Ambassadors spoke of 'great quantities of war material and munitions'; it mentioned the export of this material to troubled regions, in which the Allied Powers take efforts to conduct an action of pacification; . . . the absence of real control over this manufacture tends to render vain the measures and precautions taken by the principal Allied Powers for the purpose of disarming Germany.

[ocr errors]

Does an international conference of States take place? Dantzig raises the question of separate representation. At one time (January 24, 1921) the Conference of Ambassadors had asked the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to draw the attention of the president of the senate of the Free City to the fact that in the opinion of the Conference of Ambassadors he ' has no right, under the terms of Art. 104 of the Treaty of Versailles and of Art. 6 of the Convention of November 9, 1920, to address directly the Conference of Ambassadors.' Yet Dantzig does obtain, at least to a certain extent, the right of separate representation at international conferences.

It might appear that the Treaty of Versailles had in view a final settlement, the granting to Poland of a 'free and secure access to the sea.' In practice, however, there is no point, however fundamental, which may not at any time come up before the High Commissioner. In his report to the Council of the League of

Nations (November 17, 1920) concerning the Paris Convention and the establishment of the Free City, Viscount Ishii had quoted from the Allied statement to the German delegation in Paris concerning the final draft of the Peace Treaty (June 16, 1919) the following words:

.. the city itself has been cut off from Germany because there was no other possible means of giving that 'free and secure access to the sea which Germany had promised to cede.

Yet on August 23, 1922, the High Commissioner said in his decision:

Neither can I find any Article in the Convention which substantiates the Polish claim that Dantzig was created a Free City solely to give Poland a port which will give her free access to the sea. If this had been the intention of the Allied and Associated Powers when framing the Treaty of Versailles, and still more when negotiating the Convention . . . Article 102 of the Treaty of Versailles would have been expressed differently . . .”

And so the High Commissioner could decide, in November 1924 (The Times, November 18, 1924, p. 13), that Dantzig is a State in the international meaning of the word and is justified in the use of formula which bring this fact into cognizance; that the relations between the two Governments are to be regarded in the same way as the relations between independent Powers, but are nevertheless of such a special character that the normal international procedure is not necessary.

It would seem impossible to say what may not be decided by the High Commissioner. In fact, at a meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on July 4, 1923, a High Commissioner declared himself in favour of rejecting the Polish claim that questions of domestic Polish administration (d'administration intérieure polonaise) are not within the competence of the High Commissioner of the League of Nations at Dantzig.

True, there is always the possibility of appealing to the Council of the League of Nations. But the Council is a political, not a judicial body. It seems remarkable that when Dantzig affairs come before the Council not only does the representative of Poland sit as a member of the Council by virtue of Art. 4 (5) of the Covenant, but so does a representative of Dantzig, although Dantzig is not and cannot be a member of the League of Nations, since Dantzig's foreign affairs are conducted by Poland. This may again appear a small point. But Dantzig does not lose anything by bringing up dispute after dispute; on the contrary, every time her position is emphasised and enhanced by the participation of her representative. In the worse case, Dantzig will be regarded as the under-dog; her defeat will be attributed to Polish intrigues and influence. On the other hand, anti-Polish

propaganda is insistently using every new Dantzig-Poland dispute. It is most unpleasant to those who have regard for the interests of Poland to see Dantzig-Poland disputes on the agenda of the Council at frequent intervals. Poland, appearing as a litigant, is in a position politically inferior to the States members of the Council of the League. And yet that 'free and secure access to the sea' is indispensable to Poland.

VI

Poland is interested in a prosperous Dantzig. The greater the development of Dantzig trade, the more will have developed Polish imports and exports by way of Dantzig. Since Poland has a population of over twenty-seven millions, a strong agricultural and mineral production, and a growing industry, Dantzig, as the port of Poland, will not only have trade enough for her present inhabitants, but could attain an immense development.

Is Poland interested in a Dantzig politically friendly? Undoubtedly. Dantzig was a town most loyal to Poland until the very end of the eighteenth century, and the memory of that fact lived in Poland throughout the period of the partitions. A loyal Dantzig would naturally have nothing to fear from Poland; on the contrary, it might be impolitic to alienate Dantzig's friendship.

But it is felt in Poland that the situation is not appreciated by those who speak for Dantzig. Those who represent Dantzig— if not, perhaps, the bulk of the population-seem bent on establishing for Dantzig a position which would make Poland's situation precarious. It is felt in Poland that Dantzig must not be in a position to help any enemy to throttle Poland by taking hold of the mouth of Poland's greatest national river. Neither can Poland's free and secure access to the sea' depend on one official. The spirit as well as the letter must be observed of those compromises which were arrived at in order to give Poland a fair

chance.

LUDWIK EHRLICH.

THE DANISH SOLUTION OF THE POOR
RELIEF PROBLEM

SOME thirty-seven years ago the Danes woke up to the fact that there was something wrong with their poor relief system; for, whereas year by year they were spending more and more money on the poor, year by year the misery of the poor was increasing. Thus evidently they were not obtaining even a fair return for the money they spent; and that, for they are a thrifty race, was a trouble to them as well as a source of indignation. Moreover, what was even a greater trouble, for they are kindly as well as thrifty, the poor, as they knew, were being treated without any regard to humanity, or even to common-sense. For the deserving among them were neglected, left to drift into pauperism or die of starvation; while the worthless were flourishing, clamouring for help and obtaining it. Such a state of things was intolerable and must be changed, the Government were told roundly; and, before many weeks had passed, a Commission was appointed to do the changing.

On that Commission there were experts in pauperism, experts in finance, poor law officials, social reformers and business men; and the instructions given to them were to mend or end, with all possible speed, the poor relief system in force.

Now the poor relief system in force in Denmark, at that time, was in many respects identical with the system still in force in England; for, in framing it many years before, the Danes had taken our system as their model. Up to 1891 their poor law was the same as ours still is; and it was administered as ours is, i.e., by honorary officials. Moreover, in Denmark, as in England and nowhere else, the right to relief is recognised. For us as a nation, therefore, special interest is attached to the work the Danish Commission was called upon to do.

The Commissioners tackled their task at once and vigorously. After weighing in the balance, with infinite care, the system with which they had to deal, they decided that it was fundamentally wrong, stupid and inhuman, as well as very costly. Under it not only was money wasted, but men and women were demoralised, turned into paupers, to their own great detriment,

the great detriment, too, of the ratepayers. They condemned the whole system root and branch; and they had definite reasons to give for condemning it.

According to them, the law on which the system was foundedthat law, we must not forget, was practically the same as our law is now-had two fatal defects, one of which entailed inevitably great waste; the other, also inevitably, rank injustice, and with it bitter suffering. For it enacted that the poor must be destitute before they could obtain relief, and thus actually fostered pauperism by forcing those stricken by temporary misfortune to become paupers. It enacted also that those who obtained relief should be all on a par, and might have the same treatment meted out to them; it enacted, in fact, that decent old folk who had worked hard all their days might be housed together, on terms of equality, with lazy ne'er-do-wells, ex-criminals, perhaps, who made their lives a burden to them.

A law under which such doings were possible was a bad law, flagrantly unjust, the Commissioners argued; and the administration of the law was every whit as bad as the law itself, they declared. For in towns and villages alike the administrators were amateurs, who, although they had had no training for the work, were given a free hand to spend as much or as little on the poor as they chose, and even to treat the poor as they chose. The result was that there was neither uniformity nor continuity in the administration: it varied from district to district, and from year to year. In one village the poor were relieved quite lavishly; while in the very next, perhaps, they were left half starved; and that made, of course, for envy, hatred and discontent, as well as waste. The only thing to be done, the Commissioners decided, was to make a clean sweep of the administration of the law as well as of the law itself, and to frame an entirely new system. And that they forthwith set to work to do.

They made up their minds from the first that what they must aim at was to devise a system under which fair treatment would be secured for the poor, at the least possible cost to the ratepayers, under which also war could be waged tooth and nail against pauperism. There must be no more waste of money through the blundering of amateur officials, no more clubbing together of the poor, good, bad, and middling; above all, there must be no waiting until the poor were destitute before giving them a helping hand. On the contrary, a good return must be obtained for every penny spent, and each one of the poor must be dealt with at once, when need came, dealt with strictly, according to his or her merits. They decided, therefore, that the spending of money must be under the control of expert officials,

« AnteriorContinua »