¹ Records of the Work of the Nineteenth Session of the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit, League of Nations Document C.458.M.240.1935. VIII, pp. 81, 96; League of Nations Official Journal, 1935, pp. 934–937.

² Records of the Nineteenth Session, op. cit., p. 26. The German Government did not accept the invitation of the Secretary General of the League of Nations to nominate a representative on the Advisory and Technical Committee for the purposes of the dispute.

³ Assembly resolution of Dec. 9, 1920, League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement (Jan., 1921), pp. 14–15.

Two disputes relating to river commissions under the Treaty of Versailles have been referred to the Court: Jurisdiction of the European Danube Commission, Advisory Opinion No. 14 (1927), Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 14, 2 Hudson, World Court Reports, p. 138; Territorial Jurisdiction of the Oder Commission, Judgment No. 16 (1929), Series A, No. 23, 2 Hudson, op. cit., p. 609.

⁴ 11 Martens, Nouveau recueil genirad (3e. set), p. 323. Art. 302 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, Art. 286 of the Treaty of Trianon, and Art. 230 of the Treaty of Neuilly are identical with Art. 347 of the Treaty of Versailles, except for the number of the article cited.

⁵ Art. 349 of the Treaty of Versailles.

⁶ 26 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 173; 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 681. The Convention was ratified by all the signatories, including Germany, and entered into force on Oct. 1, 1922.

⁷ Reichsge.setzblatt, 1919, p. 1383.

⁸ Id., 1921, p. 962.

⁹ Apparently this was because the section of the. Danube in Wurttemberg was not considered as navigable under German law.

¹⁰ Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, I, p. 75. Art. 2 (1) provides: “Die Hoheitsrechte der Lander gehen auf das Reich caber.” See also the ordinance of Feb. 2, 1934, id., p. 81.

¹¹ Note of Oct. 4, 1934, from the German Ambassador in Paris to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. Translation from Records of the Nineteenth Session, op. cit., p. 99.

¹² See, in particular, the British note of May 30, 1935, Records of the Nineteenth Session, op. cit., p. 95. The correspondence is also published in League of Nations Official Journal, 1935, pp. 1662–1680.

¹³ The most detailed exposition of the German view is contained in an aide-memoire of Apr. 24, 1935, Records of the Nineteenth Session, op. cit., p. 90.

¹⁴ This Commission consisted of two representatives each from the United States of America, British Empire, France, Italy and Japan; and one representative each from Belgium, China, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Serbia (Serb-Croat-Slovene State), Czechoslovak Republic, and Uruguay.

In the case of the International Commission of the Oder, the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled that “the Minutes of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways of the Conference which prepared the Treaty of Versailles shall be excluded as evidence from the proceedings in the present case.” The reason for the ruling was that certain of the parties concerned in the case did not take part in the work of the Conference and that no account could be taken of evidence which was not admissible in respect of certain of the parties to a case. Order of Aug. 20, 1929, Publications of the Court, Series A, No.23, p. 41; 2 Hudson, World Court Reports, p. 636. The same objection would have applied in the present instance.

¹⁵ Reichsgesetzblatt, 1919, p. 1383. The facts for this outline were taken principally from Otis H. Fisk, Germany’s Constitutions of 1871 and 1919 (1924).

¹⁶ Minutes of the Commission on the International Regime of Ports, Waterways and Railways, Feb.–Aug., 1919, published in Miller, My Diary at the Conference of Paris (1924), Vol. 11, p. *40. Reference apparently was to Switzerland, France, Germany and The Netherlands.

¹⁷ Id., pp. *46–47. Under the Mannheim Convention, the Central Commission had consisted of one commissioner from each of the riparian States, that is, Baden, Bavaria, France, Hesse, The Netherlands, and Prussia. For the text, see 59 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 470.

¹⁸ Minutes of the Waterways Commission, Miller, op. cit., p. *41.

¹⁹ Minutes of the Waterways Commission, Miller, op. cit., p. *48.

²⁰ Id., p. *51.

²¹ Id., p. *54. See also, to the same effect, id., p. *51.

²² Id., p. *54.

²³ Id., p. *68.

²⁴ Minutes of the Waterways Commission, Miller, op. cit., Vol. 12, p. *148. See also id., p. *59; and the report presented by the Waterways Commission to the Preliminary Peace Conference on Apr. 7, 1919, id., p. *xiv.

²⁵ Id.,Vol. 11, p. *93. As an alternative, the Secretariat-General suggested that the commission, thus composed, should administer the entire course of the river, thus eliminating the distinction between the maritime and fluvial sections which had originated with the Treaty of 1856.

²⁶ Id., p. *103. In a later version, the article read “two representatives from German countries” (id., p. *134), but this ambiguous phrase was not retained.

²⁷ Id., p. *145. The International Commission thus came to include: two representatives of German riparian states; one representative each of Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and Czechoslovakia, as riparian States; and one representative each of France, Great Britain, and Italy, as members of the European Commission of the Danube. Rumania also was represented on the European Commission (Art. 346 of the Treaty of Versailles).

²⁸ As first proposed, the Elbe Commission was to include “one representative from Germany” (Minutes of the Waterways Commission, Miller, op. cit., p. *92); then “4 representatives from Germany” (p. *97); then “4 representatives of the German States bordering on the river; should the number of these States not equal four, such States shall agree among themselves as to the election of the four representatives” (p. *133). In finaliforrn, the commission included “4 representatives of the German States bordering on the river,” 2 representatives of the Czechoslovak State, and 1 representative each of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Belgium (Art. 340 of the Treaty of Versailles).

²⁹ The Oder Commission was first to have comprised “one representative from Germany”(Minutes of the Waterways Commission, Miller, op. cit., p. *93); then “one representative from each of the following countries: Prussia, Poland, … “ (p. *98); then “one representative from Prussia” (p. *133). In final form the commission consisted of “3 representatives of Prussia,” and one representative each of Poland, the Czecho-Slovak State, Great Britain, France, Denmark, and Sweden (Art. 341 of the Treaty of Versailles).

³⁰ Present at the Conference were delegates of Belgium, France, Great Britain, Greece,Italy, Rumania, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and Czechoslovakia; and of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

³¹ Protocoles des seances de la Conference internationale pour l’ etablissement du 81(1M definittf du Danube (Paris, 1921), Vol. 1, p. 147.

³² This fear was expressed by the Rumanian delegate. The question was regarded as outside the scope of the Conference, and there was no general discussion. The Austrian delegate, however, expressed the opinion that if this contingency should arise, the question would be settled by merely determining whether or not Austria had preserved its character as a riparian State. Id., Vol. 2, p. 554.

³³ Translated from work cited, p. 554.

³⁴ Id., p. 555. According to the German delegate, “toute distinction entre l’ Allemagne et les Etats allenzands au point de vue des relations exterieures repose sur une miconnaissance absolue du droit interne allemand.”

³⁵ Art. 8, Convention of 1921. 26 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 173; 1 Hudson,International Legislation, p. 681.

³⁶ Protocoles des seances, Vol. 2, p. 969.

³⁷ The weakness of this position in view of the provisions of the German Constitution was pointed out by the Czechoslovak delegate. Id., p. 971.

³⁸ Id., pp. 969–972.

³⁹ “ Final adoption of the article was delayed, but the German representative declared on June 25, 1921, that he was still without instructions on the point. He expressed a preference, however, for the word delegue rather than delegation, because it was the term used in the Peace Treaties, and because “le mot Delegation semble vouloir dire que les deux Delegues allemande el la Commission internationale ne forment qu’une Delegation.” Id., p. 1204.

⁴⁰ Art. 35, par. 2, Convention of 1921.

⁴¹ 1 Danube international, Journal officiel de la Commission internationale du Danube(1920), Nos. 7–8, p. 1.

⁴² Id., Nos. 13–14, p. 2.

⁴³ 3id.(1922), No. 3, p. 1; No. 4, p. 1.

⁴⁴ 3 id.(1922), No. 7, p. 1.

⁴⁵ [Translation.] Quoted in the British Memorandum, Records of the Nineteenth Session of the Advisory and Technical Committee, op. cit., p. 82.

⁴⁶ [Translation.] Records of the Nineteenth Session of the Advisory and Technical Committee, op. cit., p. 83.

⁴⁷ The new full powers of the German delegates were accepted by the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine and by the International Commission of the Elbe, in both cases with the reserve that such acceptance would not affect such decisions as the governments might take in the general matter of representation on all the commissions. German aide-memoire, id., p. 91. The German Government stated that even before 1934 the German delegates in the International Commission voted in accordance with instructions from the central government. Id., p. 84. A similar situation seems to have prevailed for the German delegates on the Rhine Commission. See van Eysinga, La Commission centrals pour la navigation du Rhin(1935), p. 127.

⁴⁸ Records of the Nineteenth Session, op. cit., p. 89.

⁴⁹ Note to the German Ambassador in London from the British Foreign Office, Feb. 11, 1935, id., p. 90.

⁵⁰ There are two precedents of special interest to the case. In 1866 Prussia annexed Nassau. Each state previously had had one vote in the Central Commission for the Rhine. After the annexation, Prussia continued to have but one vote. Again, after the war of 1870–71, France ceased to be a riparian as a consequence of the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. After the transfer, the French commissioner was replaced by a German commissioner acting for the Reichsland. Van Eysinga, op. cit., p. 58.

⁵¹ Under Art. 17 of the Treaty of March 30, 1856, the riparian commission “se composers des dgeguis de l’ Autriche, de la Bavare, de la Sublime Porte, et du Wilrtemberg (un pour chacune de ces Puissance’s), auxquels se reuniront les commissaires des trois Principautes Danubiennes, dont is nomination aura ite approuvie par is Porte.” 46 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 8.

⁵² German aide-memoire of Apr. 24, 1935, Records of the Nineteenth Session of the Advisory and Technical Committee, op. cit., p. 90.

⁵³ H. A., Wilkinson, The American Doctrine of State Succession (Baltimore, 1934),p.17.On the principles of state succession see Max Huber, Die Staatensuccession (Leipzig, 1898), and A. B. Keith, The Theory of State Succession (London, 1907).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See,e.g., Prussia–Austria, Staatsvertrag über die gegenseitige Durchführung der Schulpjlicht, 18 Sept., 1925, 18 Martens, Nouveau recueil général (3e gér.), p. 189.

⁵⁵ A convenient collection of the changes in the Weimar Constitution effected to 1935 is contained in Heinrich Herrfahrdt, Die Verfassungsgesetze des Nationalsozio,listischen Staates(Marburg, 1935). The complete cycle presented in Germany from separate independent States through confederation and federation to a unitary State has been rare but not unprecedented in history. Thus, in 1858 eight states joined to form the Grenadine Confederacy; in 1863, the Federal Constitution of the United States of Colombia was adopted; and in 1886, a constitution was adopted, Art. 1 of which declared that the Colombian nation formed a unitary republic. See 4 Dareste, Les constitutions moderns (1932), p. 107.

⁵⁶ Quoted above, p. 416.

⁵⁷ Quoted above, p. 422.

⁵⁸ Art. 346 of the Treaty of Versailles. Under Art. 16 of the Treaty of 1856, the European Commission had consisted of one delegate each from Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. 46 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 8. Art. 4 of the Convention of 1921 continued the composition as provided in Art. 346 of the Treaty of Versailles and added: “Nevertheless, any European State which, in future, is able to prove its possession of sufficient maritime commercial and European interests at the mouths of the Danube may, at its request, be accorded representation on the Commission by a unanimous decision of the Governments already represented.” 26 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 173; 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 681.

⁵⁹ Reichagesetzbiatt, 1936, II, p. 361.